Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

[Immortalis]

I agree to some extent, although I don't believe they even represent the majority. I do feel they should be integrating with the current culture and not treating those here before them poorly. I don't allow myself to assume that all Mexicans are like that simply because the ones I notice the most are assholes, though. That isn't right and it isn't fair to those who are Mexican and nice, caring, thoughtful, respectful, etc. The same applies to Muslims.

Yeah I know, but I've yet to meet the first nice muslim so I'll stick with what I said before. It's just really hard for me to believe what you said, 'cause I've never experienced anything like that.

And I realize it must be frustrating to do everything an "immigrant should do" when others don't show you the same courtesy. Unfortunately, this is the nature of things--everyone is different and not everyone will have the same amount of courtesy as you. Again, this doesn't justify stereotyping.

Nah, it's not that bad after all, I've just realized that by doing something most immigrants don't, I kept my self respect and I can say I'm not just another standard immigrant, so that's okay now.

Immortalis, ive been picked on by Mexican kids for a long time, but do i hate the Mexican people? no. If you ACTUALLY studied Islam, you would know its about peace. Sorry if Obama thinks a mosque on Ground Zero is bad, but its time to move on, its been 10 years almost, and we gotta move on. I mean WE bomb Iraq all the time, and as far as ive seen, THEY dont freak out for ten years. Remember there are 2 kinds of Islamic powers in the Middle East. Sunni and Shi'ite. Sunni is the peaceful ones, and Shi'ites are the more violent ones. not all Muslims are "evil" and "terrorists" and you show pure ignorance if you sterotype them that way

Exactly, it's about peace. That's right.
Then explain to me why terrorists think it's not, while it clearly says so in that old book.
Ground Zero is almost like a, you know, sacred place for some. I can very well understand if people who have lost a friend or family member on 9/11 got very mad when whoever it was who came up with the idea wanted to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and you would probably agree with those people if you lost a family member or friend. Can you imagine it? You're just having a usual day, (let's just say it was a normal day of the week) you get up early for school and brush your teeth, eat breakfast, everything you would normally do. Your mom wishes you good luck because you're having a math test that day and then she goes to her job (which, for argument's sake, is a cleaner (I couldn't come up with anything better, sorry) in the Towers.) and when you get back from school, you just find out your mom is dead. How would that feel, do you think? And who would you blame for the death of your mother? The guys who gave her a job, or the ones that blew the buildings up where she worked? And yes, you can move on, but does that take away your hate, sorrow and/or fear?

Yeah, you guys bomb Iraq but I'm not going to answer that bit because that's not something I know much about, so it would be pointless for me to argue about that.

 

[GhostAnime]

Yeah I know, but I've yet to meet the first nice muslim so I'll stick with what I said before. It's just really hard for me to believe what you said, 'cause I've never experienced anything like that.

That's no excuse to be prejudice. This mindset is what keeps racism, sexism, and any type of discrimination alive in our society. "I've never seen one" my ***. You COULD have saw one but didn't know it.

Nah, it's not that bad after all, I've just realized that by doing something most immigrants don't, I kept my self respect and I can say I'm not just another standard immigrant, so that's okay now.

Until you get stereotyped and discriminated against yourself..

 

[jesusfreak94]

Exactly, it's about peace. That's right.
Then explain to me why terrorists think it's not, while it clearly says so in that old book.

Yes, there are passages in the Qur'an that imply violence, but the vast majority of Muslims do not take this to mean that they should kill someone. The radicals are the ones that take to terrorism and murder. Most Muslims prefer to live in peace with other people. So you're making some pretty unfair generalizations with your comments. And you know, it's the darnest thing, but I haven't seen much in your posts as far as evidence goes...

 

[Immortalis]

That's no excuse to be prejudice. This mindset is what keeps racism, sexism, and any type of discrimination alive in our society. "I've never seen one" my ***. You COULD have saw one but didn't know it.


Until you get stereotyped and discriminated against yourself..

For me it is.
And so what if that mindset will keep any kind of discrimination alive in "our society"? Discrimination has existed forever, and it will never change. Sexism, Racism, Nazism, Fascism are all just parts of life. Discrimination my ***, it's the foreign visitors that discriminate the most by not obeying our laws and our norms and values. Discrimination comes from both sides. White people tend to dislike black people more often then they tend to dislike other, and black people tend to dislike white people more often then they dislike black people. And that's just fair. We all should've stayed in our own countries, and everyone should've left the others alone, but unfortunately it didn't go that way.

Yes, there are passages in the Qur'an that imply violence, but the vast majority of Muslims do not take this to mean that they should kill someone. The radicals are the ones that take to terrorism and murder. Most Muslims prefer to live in peace with other people. So you're making some pretty unfair generalizations with your comments. And you know, it's the darnest thing, but I haven't seen much in your posts as far as evidence goes...

Wait... Evidence? Where's your evidence? Where's everyone's evidence? And not only that, I'm just saying what I think. There isn't really a site that confirms what I say or what you say. Or maybe there is, but I don't give a flying f... about evidence I just say what I think and I just argue with you people about it xD

 

[jesusfreak94]

Wait... Evidence? Where's your evidence? Where's everyone's evidence? And not only that, I'm just saying what I think. There isn't really a site that confirms what I say or what you say. Or maybe there is, but I don't give a flying f... about evidence I just say what I think and I just argue with you people about it xD

Oh, you wouldn't need evidence if you simply made it a point that all of your comments were opinions only. But when you present things as fact like this…

Gee, I wonder why.. Maybe because it actually is a religion for terrorists?

No, indeed they don't, but they do represent the majority.

I know they aren't, but the majority of the muslim immigrants don't want to learn the language…

Then explain to me why terrorists think it's not, while it clearly says so in that old book.

…then you need some source to back those claims up. Find some surveys, research, studies, anything. There's probably evidence out there, you just need to find it.

Now, as far as my evidence? What would you like me to source? I mentioned three things in my last post:

1)Some passages in the Qur'an imply violence: I'll post some examples later if you want. (I don't see why, as this is the one claim I made that somewhat coincided with your claims, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make)

2)Muslim extremists don't represent the peaceful majority: You made the first assertion to this, only claiming the opposite, so the burden of proof is on you.

3)You have made some pretty unfair generalizations: I have all the proof I need right here.

I like arguing as much as the next guy, but you need some evidence for people to take you seriously. Just saying.

 

[CSolarstorm]

So what, Immortalis, you're going to claim that because bigotry is a part of life, that it's good and okay to add to it? Bull. You're going to say that because you don't know any good Muslims that there's no reason you should care that factor and count them in you perspective? That's nice of you.

And you say that neither you or I have any evidence for our viewpoints? Bull. I provided evidence that gave my opinion plenty of credence. http://www.cordobainitiative.org/

And you finish by saying you don't give a "flying f..." about evidence and you just say what you think? Then you're just spouting hot air. XD I won't say you have to play the debate game, cause I sometimes decide not to play, but I will say you're in the wrong crowd if you want to just say your opinion without providing any sort of educated backup.

 

[deoxysdude94]

I really don't like the idea of religion. I'm labeled as a catholic, but I'm not. I don't believe much of what they say. Mainly, I believe in ghosts, and THAT GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!! I'm not gay, but I know that people who are gay can't help it. It's in their genetic make-up. It just in their DNA. They can't help it.

I don't believe any one religion is right, I believe all religions have something to contribute. But then again, what would life be like with no religion? I don't think anybody will ever know.

 

[GaZsTiC]

GAYS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!!!! It's in their genetic make-up. It just in their DNA. They can't help it.

There's actually no proof towards homosexuality being a gene, but, from an equal rights supporter and homosexual myself, it really shouldn't matter. Gay people are people. Since they're people, they should be allowed to get married.

 

[GhostAnime]

For me it is.
And so what if that mindset will keep any kind of discrimination alive in "our society"? Discrimination has existed forever, and it will never change. Sexism, Racism, Nazism, Fascism are all just parts of life. Discrimination my ***, it's the foreign visitors that discriminate the most by not obeying our laws and our norms and values. Discrimination comes from both sides. White people tend to dislike black people more often then they tend to dislike other, and black people tend to dislike white people more often then they dislike black people. And that's just fair. We all should've stayed in our own countries, and everyone should've left the others alone, but unfortunately it didn't go that way.

It will never be that way. You will never have a perfect 100% race country. Some ancestors unfortunately get forced over (Did you take history? Jesus Christ..).

And now, your final excuse to throw out is "meh, stereotypes happens on the other side too!"

That's so childish I can't even begin to refute it. Not everyone discriminates. Not everyone buys into the stereotype or schema in their head. Why do you? Because a lot of people do anyway?

How weak. No, really. You are the weakest link. You are basically saying that you want to have a bad opinion because 1) It existed for a long time and 2) They show instances of doing it too and you mean to tell me you're non-religious? What a joke.

Wait... Evidence? Where's your evidence? Where's everyone's evidence? And not only that, I'm just saying what I think. There isn't really a site that confirms what I say or what you say. Or maybe there is, but I don't give a flying f... about evidence I just say what I think and I just argue with you people about it xD

As Sunny said, you really aren't interested in an honest debate. Evidence wouldn't sway bigotry. It never does. Bigotry is too strong to sway with evidence. Bigotry comes from something deeper than evidence will ever truly show.

So, you will never change your bigoted opinion regardless of what any evidence shows. Fine. At the very least, do not spread your ******** around endlessly. Yes, this is a debate forum, but even it has its rules. There is simply no debate when it comes to bigotry. Keep it to yourself.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Okay, so if we're going to talk about the topic at hand, little research has been done on embryos. Again, what's your point? They CAN still produce cures.

No, not can, might. As we discussed previously, there aren't any cures available that were made from embryonic stem cells. Please listen to your own sources.

I just found the fact humorous. I mean, is it the quote that bothers you or the hehe?

In my previous post, I quoted what I thought was a problem and told you my reasons. Does anyone else get the feeling that GhostAnime isn't reading my posts very carefully? It seems that way to me.

If I threw twenty arrows at you, and only two of them hit, does that really mean that I missed?

SunnyC, the only references to Christianity in the "Further Reading" section are in the title of one book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell. It was not source material for the article, and it could hardly be considerer to be closely related to the topic of anti-gay bullying in American schools or any of the instances related in that article. Furthermore, if you are going to make the connection between Christianity's opposition to homosexuality and gay bashing, that will hardly work, considering the fact that gay bashing doesn't have to be against a gay person.

Except, my goal was not to conclude that Christians are the people who primarily commit these acts. It was to conclude that there is violent opposition on the part of those religious to political matters they oppose, like homosexuality and abortion, and I provided evidence of that. There is also an athiest opposition to homosexuality and abortion, but the original point was to compare religious violence against athiesm to athiestic violence against religion so that is sort of a non sequitor on my point.

SunnyC what you originally responded to with the statements about gay bashing and anti-abortion violence was this statement of mine:

Do you have data on how many people from each side are violent?

I know that there are people on both sides that are violent. I asked about percent. And as I mentioned in my most recent response to you, I said that the word that I should have used was proportion, not percent. You did not show the percent or proportion of Christians or atheists that are violent.

You would really dramatically declare (with ellipsis) "...you missed." just because I didn't satisfy you on the points I made, and then accuse someone else of being arrogant and rude for laughing? Were you really offended, or just eager to demonstrate that I wasn't the only one who could act offended? You shouldn't imitate or reciprocate what you didn't approve of in the first place or things just get more complicated

SunnyC, it looks you didn't pay close attention to my post either. I said in my post what I thought was wrong with what he said (and whether or not I was offended) in my post. Please go back and read it again. Now, let me ask you this: were you offended by what I said or thought that it could be construed as offensive? If so, then I'll apologize.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I find it quite funny that most of the people that post here almost only talk about christianity, while this thread is actually about all religions (buddhism, islam, christianity etc etc..).

Well, this reminds me of some things that I need to respond to from a few pages ago.

Exceptions, not the rule. Hinduism accepts Christianity as a path to moksha. Note also that your second link (I won't ride your *** about it being wikipedia this time) says "Hindu extremism in India." Emphasis on extremism

As a species, we've come too far to commit such retreads.

To some degree the actions of these Hindus is due to Gandhi: "Gandhi opposed the Christian missionaries calling them as the remnants of colonial Western culture. He claimed that by converting into Christianity, Hindus have changed their nationality." (Same source as before) Thus Gandhi's feelings would be akin to saying that Americans who convert to a religion besides Christianity is like treason.

So God willingly allows us to be born in a condition that dictates that we will be punished for eternity for being born in that condition? I'm sorry, even if God was real, I could not worship it, if that is the case.

Also, one of the main things that continues this religious debate on homosexuality is recognizing whether or not homosexuality is simply behavioral or conditional. Either way, the way you make it sound, God does in fact want us to be a certain way to earn his eternal love and respect, which is a problem many atheists on here have already pointed out: God does not seem to be a fan of unconditional love.

That is, of course, going with the misguided assumption that homosexuals have any freaking choice in their orientation.

So, gays are evil. For what? I can see why homosexual would be unfavorable at the time (have to keep the race alive), but today?

Does anyone see what these comments have in common? They all talk about how the idea that gays are going to Hell because they are gay is wrong. But guess what? These were responses to a statement of mine....that did not say gays go to Hell simply for being gay. And you can read my statement for yourself:

Jesus forgives gays of their sin. Any and all. God let's everyone come to Him for salvation without having to change their behavior.

@Fused, Grei, Mariay Shidou, Sabonea Masukippa: Do not lump me in with those that say that homosexuals are going to Hell simply because they are homosexual. I do not believe that and I refuse to believe that because the Bible makes no such statements.

That is not the kind of religion I would like to follow, one that condemns me from the start. One reason why a number of atheists would hate religion.

The point of most religions is to better yourself in some way, shape, or form. Key word: better. There would be no reason to turn to Buddhism if you were enlightened. There would be no reason to convert to Hinduism if you had already achieved Nirvana. There would be no reason to accept Christianity if you already had your sins forgiven and had obtained eternal life. I can't say I know of a religion that does not make some sort of negative statement about the condition of mankind.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1) i.e. "Judging others is wrong."

Did you forget about this verse? "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24 NASV)

I suppose you can then explain how one can form an objective opinion without making some sort of judgment? And how can you accomodate that judgment is not wrong with the belief that only God should pass judgment? (Goes back to the lack of unconditional love.) At several points in the Bible, there are passages that warn people not to judge or that they are not worthy to judge: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matt. 7:1); "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged" (Luke 6:37); "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'" (John 8;7). So perhaps you can explain how you believe judgment is not wrong, but the Bible clearly deters us from doing it.

See my response to Mariya Shidou's use of Matthew 7:1. The answer boils down to this: the only "judgements" Christians are allowed to make is the judgements that God has already made. If God says something is sin (be it a big sin or a small one) call it sin. Don't dance around the issue by making excuses or trying to call sin something besides what God calls it. Furthermore, Christians, as a religious entity, are not supposed to carry out judgement (ie, carrying out an execution of a murderer).

 

[GhostAnime]

No, not can, might. As we discussed previously, there aren't any cures available that were made from embryonic stem cells. Please listen to your own sources.

And I am giving you the reasons for that. There hasn't been much research done.

Regardless, do you now understand what would happen to embryos if they aren't used in stem cell research?

Furthermore, if you are going to make the connection between Christianity's opposition to homosexuality and gay bashing, that will hardly work, considering the fact that gay bashing doesn't have to be against a gay person.

You did not show the percent or proportion of Christians or atheists that are violent.

Does anybody really need proof that most people opposed to homosexuality (or engage in hate crime associated with homosexuals) are religious? Only about 15-17% of the country are irreligious to start. Countries that have a higher concentration of non-religious people have higher acceptance rate of homosexuality (some even accepting it; gasp!).

The United States is the most religious western world country.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31432 - US Homosexuality Poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16456/public-opinion-favors-gay-rights-britain-canada.aspx - Comparison of acceptance rates

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm - Comprehensive Canadian poll

75.6% of Canadians feel that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals; 19.5% disagreed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9016/worlds-apart-religion-canada-britain-us.aspx

Not that this wasn't known by most people already, but religion clearly has a relation with opposition to homosexuality both socially and legally. Let's not pretend non-religious people have any significant influence, because like I said, they are only 15-17% of the country. Even if every single one was opposed, it would pale in comparison. With the abundance of LBGT hate groups being created by religious organizations and people alike, you'll be damned to find one that doesn't tie religion at all.

Did you forget about this verse? "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24 NASV)

Sounds more likely to me that you just found a contradiction.

 

[houndourm]

cons of basing our culture off of religion, where to begin.
1. people pervert religion to fit their own needs
2. they can pick and choose what rules they decide to applie
3. most religions are very old and things can be taken out of context
4. people are ignorant and not ready to control an entire culture through religion

 

[Emperor Empoleon]

The point of most religions is to better yourself in some way, shape, or form. Key word: better.

I can understand that, but..there are a-lot of people who actually suffer more because of that sort of thing D: Thats my only real issue with religion...Folks get pressured into trying to change themselves and do the right thing because they're afraid of getting onto some eternal-suffering-naughty list or becoming shameful among their fellow man. Or they make themselves scum because they were apparently hell-bound from the begining of their lives and they're are less than whole for stuff thats..well..perfectly human for the most part D: (I mean you could back that with God loves and forgives, but then people may ask "why make us inheritedly troublesome to begin with?") Not to mention the misunderstandings that may come from reading biblical and historical texts since not everyone on earth is 100% perceptive, and some ideas may differ from others.

I'm all for believing in a loving infinite creator, but the "religious" aspect of things that is sadly often preached just dosent work for people in the long run..

People(I believe) need a good of combo love(for themselves first, and in turn others. cant give what you dont have), and the freedom to choose rather than be manipulated or pressured(having had love, odds are they wont choose the things that are considered "sin" or shameful). Simple as that. Religion just dosent seem to do that for most people..

 

[Immortalis]

I like arguing as much as the next guy, but you need some evidence for people to take you seriously. Just saying.

It's funny then, how come at least 5 people take me serious even though I'm not showing any evidence?

That's so childish I can't even begin to refute it. Not everyone discriminates. Not everyone buys into the stereotype or schema in their head. Why do you? Because a lot of people do anyway?

How weak. No, really. You are the weakest link. You are basically saying that you want to have a bad opinion because 1) It existed for a long time and 2) They show instances of doing it too and you mean to tell me you're non-religious? What a joke.

Whoa, wait a second man seriously where did you get all that from?
Like I said before, that's how I think about it all, and it's only a coincidence that the "media" says the same.

And, first of all, I'm not saying I WANT to have a bad opinion (bad is, btw, just how you look at it, I find it a good opinion) and second of all, I never even said I was non-religious, or did I? I'm a satanist.

So, you will never change your bigoted opinion regardless of what any evidence shows. Fine. At the very least, do not spread your ******** around endlessly. Yes, this is a debate forum, but even it has its rules. There is simply no debate when it comes to bigotry. Keep it to yourself.

Wha.. That depends on what evidence YOU'v got. I still haven't seen any evidence from your side either? An opinion is an opinion, just because evidence is the truth doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, even though it might be a stupid one in other people's eyes.

Well, this reminds me of some things that I need to respond to from a few pages ago.

You're welcome then.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31432 - US Homosexuality Poll

Alright, I'm not gonna argue with you about that post, but I'm just wondering if I read it correctly. Did it really say the survey of 4013 adults?
Because that it pretty messed up in that case, it says like 49% of those people said that homosexuality is morally wrong. But that's just like what, 2009 people that say so? That's like nothing, you know. Not if you compare it with all the people that live in the US for example.

Now just tell me if I missunderstood it all or not, I'm kinda confused.
Are those people religious or non-religious?
I wish not to argue about this, I only ask for an answer.

 

[CSolarstorm]

What motivation does an athiest have to restrict homosexuality, anyway? Most arguments I hear against homosexuality are cited from holy texts. Much of our own homosexuality debate was devoted to deconstructing the Bible. There are health concerns, but the scientific consensus is that homosexuality isn't a disorder, and given proper health precautions, it isn't unhealthy. And then there seems to be dissonance within the "Protect Marriage" movement when athiests defend the "traditional definition" of marriage while the religious insist that marriage is a solely religious institution.

A claim I've come across during my search is that athiests can become dogmatic about certain things without believing in God, and therefore campaign against homosexuality. And then consequentially participate in gay bashing.

But there's this fallacy that athiesm has some sort of cohesive structure, some institution they go to and discuss official policies. I mean, there are athiest clubs, but those are more clusters of interpretive scientific athiesm. They lack the churches and megachurches. Athiesm is really just the negative of theism, an ideology or rejection, much more than a religion. So it's hard to pin anything on athiem as a whole because there is no one "athiesm", if there is an athiesm at all, considering it's negative nature. (Yes I know that sentence is confusing.)

So, with what you're talking about, ShinySandshrew, you're perfectly right that we don't have the data to determine that the majority of gay bashers are Christian. However, with the majority voice in the U.S. being Christian, and the fact that the motivation is there, you should understand that people can still come to that conclusion.

 

[GhostAnime]

Whoa, wait a second man seriously where did you get all that from?
Like I said before, that's how I think about it all, and it's only a coincidence that the "media" says the same.

Being a media puppet isn't an excuse. The media is NOT a real image of how life actually is. You want to know what life looks like when we take the media 100% seriously?

• Black men are pimps, criminals, and violent.
• Asians are nothing but kung-fu fighters.
• Rich people are nice and caring.
• Poor people are lazy and stupid.
• "beautiful women" are definitely not underweight!
• And I haven't even entered the world of sports, music, or movies.

If you use the media and only the media to form any kind of opinion, you are a media puppet. These kinds of people are very damaged in their psyche; so damaged that they never even realize that they are a media puppet.

And, first of all, I'm not saying I WANT to have a bad opinion (bad is, btw, just how you look at it, I find it a good opinion)

Bad is a subjective term but ignorance and prejudice aren't. That is simply what your opinion is defined as. A pre-judgment based on inexperience with a group of people. The words in bold match up with the definitions.

Wha.. That depends on what evidence YOU'v got. I still haven't seen any evidence from your side either? An opinion is an opinion, just because evidence is the truth doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, even though it might be a stupid one in other people's eyes.

First of all, YOU have no evidence yourself. The media and 4/5 bad incidents isn't a large enough sample to judge over a quarter of the world. The burden of proof goes on the claimer. You claim that all Muslims are the same.

You're probably asking "Why can't the default stance be that they are?" Because stating something about a group of people is a stance in itself. A "true" default stance would be neutral and having NO opinion on Muslims. A lack of opinion on Muslims is the natural default stance to have.

With that said, there is plenty of evidence that Muslims can be peaceful (in fact, it was provided for you just posts ago but you ignored it). First of all, the reason this evidence probably won't convince you is because you have this set image on what a Muslim is. A Muslim could literally be anybody you see face-to-face (and I assume you've at the very least walked by or spoke to 10+ people today). Any of those people could have been Muslims. White people can be Muslims.

When your schema is that a Muslim can only be a brown guy with a large beard, you set yourself up for ignorance. If you want the easiest, realistic evidence to find, just look at the percentage of people in the states or wherever you live that are Muslim and look at the crime rate that is caused by them. Look at the crime rate of religious groups. Muslims, at the very least, are as violent or less violent ratio wise than Christians (in fact, there are plenty of Christian terrorists but the media doesn't show them much because it would ruin their image. It's as if the media is a business! Ring a bell?)

Now, if you want evidence on things like why prejudice happens and how the media actually distorts reality and reinforces stereotypes (I doubt you'll ask for this but this is the kind of evidence you'd require), you can pretty much research Sociology/Psychology. I can show you anything but it's so common knowledge that you'll have no problem finding media affects on body image, stereotypes, political figures, etc.

Alright, I'm not gonna argue with you about that post, but I'm just wondering if I read it correctly. Did it really say the survey of 4013 adults?
Because that it pretty messed up in that case, it says like 49% of those people said that homosexuality is morally wrong. But that's just like what, 2009 people that say so? That's like nothing, you know. Not if you compare it with all the people that live in the US for example.

Now just tell me if I missunderstood it all or not, I'm kinda confused.
Are those people religious or non-religious?
I wish not to argue about this, I only ask for an answer.

How many people do you expect to be surveyed about something? Millions? It is incredibly hard to survey millions of people. How surveys work in studies and polls is by gathering a large enough sample to make an estimate on the total population (hence the "room for error" percentage).

Edit: Does anyone find it ironic that a person who judges all Muslims as the same finds 4,000 people inadequate to make estimations on about a population of 300+ million people (which are actually consistent across the years)?

 

[dragoniteKnight]

there isnt anything wrong with religeon untill people start perverting it or using it to harm others (which i guess is one and the same).

 

[Immortalis]

Being a media puppet isn't an excuse. The media is NOT a real image of how life actually is. You want to know what life looks like when we take the media 100% seriously?

• Black men are pimps, criminals, and violent.
• Asians are nothing but kung-fu fighters.
• Rich people are nice and caring.
• Poor people are lazy and stupid.
• "beautiful women" are definitely not underweight!
• And I haven't even entered the world of sports, music, or movies.

If you use the media and only the media to form any kind of opinion, you are a media puppet. These kinds of people are very damaged in their psyche; so damaged that they never even realize that they are a media puppet.

I don't even read a newspaper or anything like that.
I just don't feel like sitting down and reading about other people's deaths and other people's problems while eating my breakfast (or lunch, or whatever).

Bad is a subjective term but ignorance and prejudice aren't. That is simply what your opinion is defined as. A pre-judgment based on inexperience with a group of people. The words in bold match up with the definitions.

I've had more then enough experience with a group of people.
And yeah I do judge people before I see them, doesn't everyone btw?
Let's just say, You are a black guy, and on a street you see a skinhead walking (which you've had bad experience with before) do you really think "he's human too I won't judge him just because he looks like a skinhead and may as well be against Racism" or do you think "hmm, I'll just step aside a little, I don't like skinheads?).

First of all, YOU have no evidence yourself. The media and 4/5 bad incidents isn't a large enough sample to judge over a quarter of the world. The burden of proof goes on the claimer. You claim that all Muslims are the same.

In my eyes they are, yeah.

You're probably asking "Why can't the default stance be that they are?" Because stating something about a group of people is a stance in itself. A "true" default stance would be neutral and having NO opinion on Muslims. A lack of opinion on Muslims is the natural default stance to have.

What the hell are you talking about

With that said, there is plenty of evidence that Muslims can be peaceful (in fact, it was provided for you just posts ago but you ignored it). First of all, the reason this evidence probably won't convince you is because you have this set image on what a Muslim is. A Muslim could literally be anybody you see face-to-face (and I assume you've at the very least walked by or spoke to 10+ people today). Any of those people could have been Muslims. White people can be Muslims.

You ignore half of what I say too, only the parts you think you've something useful to say about are the parts you reply to. Lemme ask you this again then, a question you ignored as well. This is about the Ground Zero mosque discussion, but it was still ignored.

Can you imagine it? You're just having a usual day, (let's just say it was a normal day of the week) you get up early for school and brush your teeth, eat breakfast, everything you would normally do. Your mom wishes you good luck because you're having a math test that day and then she goes to her job (which, for argument's sake, is a cleaner (I couldn't come up with anything better, sorry) in the Towers.) and when you get back from school, you just find out your mom is dead. How would that feel, do you think? And who would you blame for the death of your mother? The guys who gave her a job, or the ones that blew the buildings up where she worked? And yes, you can move on, but does that take away your hate, sorrow and/or fear?

When your schema is that a Muslim can only be a brown guy with a large beard, you set yourself up for ignorance. If you want the easiest, realistic evidence to find, just look at the percentage of people in the states or wherever you live that are Muslim and look at the crime rate that is caused by them. Look at the crime rate of religious groups. Muslims, at the very least, are as violent or less violent ratio wise than Christians (in fact, there are plenty of Christian terrorists but the media doesn't show them much because it would ruin their image. It's as if the media is a business! Ring a bell?)

It's good then that I don't think all muslims look like that.
I could do that, but you wouldn't understand as it's probably in Swedish then.
Anyways, I sometimes look those programs on TV called "K9" "police women" and stuff like that. It surprises me that 9/10 people they catch are, in fact, black or religious. If you don't believe me you can check it out for yourself, those programs are usually on Discovery Channel.
Yeah there are many Christian terrorists as well.
And I hate Christians just as much as muslims, both are ignorant and brain-washed with their stupid believes and their sights on the world.

Anyway, just take a look at the world now.
This is what the world looks like nowadays: war, death, murder, torture, ignorance, frustration, stress, hatred, just to name a few. If there was a god, don't you think he finally would do something about all these problems? Isn't it time for him to finally protect the people from any more harm, or at least the people that believe in him? Or why doesn't he kill all people that don't believe him? Why won't you accept that there is no god, and if there was, he would've done something a LOOONG time ago? Why doesn't he just kill us all with a nod of his big ugly head so all problems are gone and the world can finally be peaceful again? Why doesn't he kill all people that play pokemon because, obviously, they're evil? Click here for evidence. (Alright, the last one was obviously a sarcastic joke, just to keep things a cool in here.)

Anyways, GhostAnime, what about we agree to disagree? 'Cause we ain't coming nowhere, neither you or me.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I'm confused.

- GhostAnime doesn't believe in God either as far as I know
- While it is logical to blame the hijackers on 9/11, you didn't mention that it was logical to blame Islam
- And if you did then why would you hate Christians just as much? Wouldn't your position progress onto hating Islam a little more after blaming it for 9/11?

We're probably all guilty of some sort of prejudice...I was a bit afraid of cruising in my wheelchair past an Imam who was fully dressed in cloak and prayer beads with a long beard, and furthermore was next to his car that was spray painted with "9/11 was an inside job" all over. In that instance I felt like I was flying too close to the sun. I felt rather scared as I passed him. That was obviously Islamophobia. You might have seen my 9/11 thread, but it was a lot different to actually see someone in real life, nonetheless someone that same religion as the terrorists from the official account, have the guts to take to the street and tell everyone that 9/11 was an inside job, and I was incredibly skittish in identifying with them at all.

But I called myself on it and got over it. There was a daycare across the street from the mosque where the Muslim mothers would take their children in the morning. I had to develop a rapport with them because sometimes I couldn't get through the sidewalk if they didn't move their car. They smiled, they were accomodating, the asked how I was, just like any other human beings I knew.

There's a difference between first impressions and judging a group in a forum in which you are isolated and free to reflect upon your reactions before. Just plain out refusing to do that is kind of...blunt, and inconsiderate.

But eh this is karma for me ignoring GhostAnime in the Problem of Incoherence thread. I know nobody's going to respond to this point, Immortalis hasn't responded to any of the points I've made.

 

[GhostAnime]

I've had more then enough experience with a group of people.
And yeah I do judge people before I see them, doesn't everyone btw?
Let's just say, You are a black guy, and on a street you see a skinhead walking (which you've had bad experience with before) do you really think "he's human too I won't judge him just because he looks like a skinhead and may as well be against Racism" or do you think "hmm, I'll just step aside a little, I don't like skinheads?).

First of all, how many Muslims have you met first hand?

Second, your example is bad. Skinheads are much, much more specific than Muslims. Skinheads have identifiable Nazi symbols and a CLEAR objective. Of COURSE I'd be scared of a guy with a Nazi tattoo and a bald head: there is no MISTAKE they'd be a skinhead and hate me. That's the point of the club. When you see Muslims, there is no clear objective from them.

In my eyes they are, yeah.



What the hell are you talking about

Okay, so you have no evidence. Then you don't even have the right to ask others for it (.. even though it's been provided for you time and time again).

You ignore half of what I say too, only the parts you think you've something useful to say about are the parts you reply to. Lemme ask you this again then, a question you ignored as well. This is about the Ground Zero mosque discussion, but it was still ignored.

Can you imagine it? You're just having a usual day, (let's just say it was a normal day of the week) you get up early for school and brush your teeth, eat breakfast, everything you would normally do. Your mom wishes you good luck because you're having a math test that day and then she goes to her job (which, for argument's sake, is a cleaner (I couldn't come up with anything better, sorry) in the Towers.) and when you get back from school, you just find out your mom is dead. How would that feel, do you think? And who would you blame for the death of your mother? The guys who gave her a job, or the ones that blew the buildings up where she worked? And yes, you can move on, but does that take away your hate, sorrow and/or fear?

I reply to parts that are most relevant to the topic. Sometimes, I summarize a paragraph by the opposing side with one line that makes it easier for other reasons to understand what the main idea is in the debates. If I ignore something that is important, feel free to bring it back up, but I am not a person that responds to every single line ever because that ends up in a long post nobody wants to read and it can get confusing with multiple people.

Experiences like this are sad. I understand. Some people have rape experiences with a certain race or even death experiences with a certain race, but it's still possible to remove prejudices. If my family gets murdered by a skinhead, am I going to be afraid of ALL White people? No. I won't progress in the states doing that.

You can still separate "Extreme Muslims" from Muslims just like I can separate "extreme Whites" from Whites.

What are you going to do when you meet a nice person and find out they're Muslim, by the way? Will you go silent? Will you run? Will you insult them endlessly?

Wait, did you have a family member die anyway? If you didn't, why would you compare that to this?

It's good then that I don't think all muslims look like that.

So as much as you hate Muslims, you wouldn't flinch near an Arabian dressed in a turban? Interesting. It's kinda hard for people to have prejudices without a mental image of the said prejudice (because after all, it'd be like hating something you never met, saw, or even identified in your life. Wait, you haven't anyway!)

I'm an Atheist. I can't respond to the bottom of your post.