Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[Sphincterboy]

Although this sounds rather sensible, views such as this can only be held by those who have not spent any significant time at an Islamic forum such as http://www.islamicboard.com/

I know a number of Muslims who do not go around murdering people, threatening people who insult Islam or condoning violence, so I don't need to visit any forum to understand your observation is a triumph of ignorance over reality.

Well, you claim that I am ignorant, which is undeniably true, on a number of topics, not least this one. But I challenge anyone to spend a day reading through posts on ANY islamic forum and not come away with a deep suspicion that Islam does something terrible to the human brain.

 

[laughing dog]

I know a number of Muslims who do not go around murdering people, threatening people who insult Islam or condoning violence, so I don't need to visit any forum to understand your observation is a triumph of ignorance over reality.

Well, you claim that I am ignorant, which is undeniably true, on a number of topics, not least this one. But I challenge anyone to spend a day reading through posts on ANY islamic forum and not come away with a deep suspicion that Islam does something terrible to the human brain.

How do you know that those brains were not basically terrible before they were introduced into Islam?

 

[rednoise]

Does Internet forums "IslamicBoard" represent the views of all Muslims, or even all Islamists?

Why don't you go there, or the many others like it, and report back about how many of the thousands of contributors who label themselves as 'Islamic' are expressing condemnatory comments regarding the Paris shootings?

What good would that do? You seem to have some sort of line into this community, so I'm asking you. How do you know that this represents the views of all Muslims, or even all Islamists? My pure gut guess is that most of either of these groups do not have membership on that forum or other forums.

You're making some kind of blanket claim, so you need to back it up. Otherwise, you're pretty much admitting that you're being a bigoted idiot.

 

[Sphincterboy]

Why don't you go there, or the many others like it, and report back about how many of the thousands of contributors who label themselves as 'Islamic' are expressing condemnatory comments regarding the Paris shootings?

What good would that do? You seem to have some sort of line into this community, so I'm asking you. How do you know that this represents the views of all Muslims, or even all Islamists? My pure gut guess is that most of either of these groups do not have membership on that forum or other forums.

You're making some kind of blanket claim, so you need to back it up. Otherwise, you're pretty much admitting that you're being a bigoted idiot.

Look, I'm sure you are right, and that these forums have a membership that is a tiny fraction of the worldwide population of Muslims. I am also quite accurately a bigoted idiot. But I became that way only after reading post after post written by 'Islamists' or 'Muslims' or whatever. I get a similar impression from reading FreeRepublic, but with a key difference. Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

 

[repoman]

this is not wholly accurate, but not totally inaccurate:

 

[Sphincterboy]

Would you say that this forum contains a reasonably representative cross-section of the global atheist mindset? I would. Why would this not be true for an Islamic forum?

 

[rednoise]

Would you say that this forum contains a reasonably representative cross-section of the global atheist mindset? I would. Why would this not be true for an Islamic forum?

No. Edited

eta. If this forum is a representative cross-section of the "global atheist mindset," then thank fuck I'm not an atheist.

 

[repoman]

Does anyone know the level of violence that happened to assist the spread of Christianity before Martin Luther came around?

Basically the Roman Catholic, the Coptic Christians and the Eastern and Greek Orthodox churches.

How does this compare to the violence level for the initial spread of Islam? What does it mean for each faith? What about the fact that the Council of Nicea happened during a peaceful time. If the CoN chose more aggressive books would Christianity be more warlike even after a mellowing period?

ETA: I was wrong, a quick look on wiki says that the Canon was not finished for another ~century.

I am not looking for a black and white comparison of the two faiths to score cheap debate points.

Am I wrong that for the most part Christendom was fairly peaceful (christians declaring religious was on other sects) until Martin Luther caused the Schism? Of course there was oppression of heretics. And there were movements that influenced ML.

But Islam started with a massive Schism right away. What does that mean?

 

[bilby]

Would you say that this forum contains a reasonably representative cross-section of the global atheist mindset? I would. Why would this not be true for an Islamic forum?

There are fewer than 400 active members on this forum. It seems very unlikely that they are a reasonably representative cross-section of the global Atheist mindset, given that there are perhaps 7 orders of magnitude more Atheists in the world than active members here - particularly as a non-trivial proportion of TFT members are Theists of one kind or another.

Equally, it seems doubtful that any Islamic or Christian discussion board with fewer than a million or so members would be a representative cross-section of the global Islamic or Global Christian mindset.

There is a strong bias on all English language Internet discussion boards towards members who live in nations with high levels of Internet access, and high levels of English speakers; so even a very popular board would likely reflect the views of American Atheists, Muslims or Christians, and perhaps Canadian, British and Australasian Atheists, Muslims or Christians to some degree; and tend not to reflect the views of (for example) French, Japanese or Korean Atheists, Muslims or Christians quite as strongly; and to reflect the views of (for further example) Afghani, Bangladeshi and Ugandan Atheists, Muslims or Christians very poorly indeed.

If you want to find out what a representative cross-section of the global Islamic mindset has as its opinions on any topic, Internet discussion boards might form a small part of that analysis; but any analysis that is based only on such discussion boards is likely to be woefully inaccurate.

 

[bilby]

Would you say that this forum contains a reasonably representative cross-section of the global atheist mindset? I would. Why would this not be true for an Islamic forum?

No. Edited

eta. If this forum is a representative cross-section of the "global atheist mindset," then thank fuck I'm not an atheist.

Fuck has nothing to do with it. There is no fuck, He is just a myth.

 

[Jayjay]

No. This forum is filled with a bunch of idiots. I actually know a bunch of non-idiot atheists.

eta. If this forum is a representative cross-section of the "global atheist mindset," then thank fuck I'm not an atheist.

Fuck has nothing to do with it. There is no fuck, He is just a myth.

There is a school of thought that a historical fuck did exist, but got greatly exaggerated as well as conflated with prior mythological intercourses as the story was passed on via oral tradition.

 

[bilby]

...William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” seems perfectly to render our present predicament: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. “The best” are no longer able fully to engage, while “the worst” engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.

However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

It is here that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short of the present predicament: the passionate intensity of the terrorists bears witness to a lack of true conviction. How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper? The fundamentalist Islamic terror is not grounded in the terrorists’ conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of global consumerist civilization. The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior.
...

Slavoj Žižek

 

[Warpoet]

Well, that is rather the point. When it comes to insults to the prophet, and acceptable responses, 'moderate' Muslims will respond, universally, with something that would not be out of place in a rabid fundamentalist site of any religious nature. About the most mild statement you will get is something along the lines of "if you play with fire, expect to get burned"

Yeah, too bad you have no real evidence to validate any of these claims. Quotemining a religious website is not evidence. By its nature, a religious website represents a self-selected population of people who identify strongly enough with their religion to seek it out and participate there. And forums being what they are, the loudest voices will generally drown out the more rational ones. This is not data from which to draw conclusions on all Muslims.

Look, I'm sure you are right, and that these forums have a membership that is a tiny fraction of the worldwide population of Muslims. I am also quite accurately a bigoted idiot. But I became that way only after reading post after post written by 'Islamists' or 'Muslims' or whatever. I get a similar impression from reading FreeRepublic, but with a key difference. Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

That's funny -- someone trolling on the Muslim website you keep trying to corral us into said the exact same thing, word for word:

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/134324788-paris-shooting.html#post2838950

An extraordinary coincidence, no doubt. Certainly, if you were in fact trolling Muslim religious websites and picking fights with people there, you'd have a very balanced, even-handed perspective on the entire religion, and the rest of us would be compelled to take your generalizations about ~1.5 billion people seriously.

 

[Jayjay]

It's not those 1.5 billion people I'm worried about, it's the noisy subset of self-selected defenders of the faith that's the problem. Because they're the ones who are steering the boat and the majority are just passengers.

 

[rednoise]

...William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” seems perfectly to render our present predicament: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. “The best” are no longer able fully to engage, while “the worst” engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.

However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

It is here that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short of the present predicament: the passionate intensity of the terrorists bears witness to a lack of true conviction. How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper? The fundamentalist Islamic terror is not grounded in the terrorists’ conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of global consumerist civilization. The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior.
...

Slavoj Žižek

Probably one of the few good articles from Zizek.

 

[Warpoet]

It's not those 1.5 billion people I'm worried about, it's the noisy subset of self-selected defenders of the faith that's the problem. Because they're the ones who are steering the boat and the majority are just passengers.

I did not realize that Islam was a boat with a centralized navigation system leading all of the religion's adherents toward a single destination. What does a halal galley look like? How does this boat reach a landlocked city like Mecca?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I find it difficult to believe that the brothers' underlying motivation was their religion given that the police officer they murdered was also a Muslim.

Your difficulty in believing doesn't make it not true.

He was a Muslim working for the enemy, thus he was a traitor. Nothing wrong in killing him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the religion is simply the surface issue here. There are plenty of Muslims or Islamists who do not go around murdering people. I find it hard to believe that Islam alone motivated these assassins.

It's not Islam per se. It's the subset that are Islamists--they don't take a live-and-let-live attitude, they feel that fundamentalist Islam must be imposed on everyone.

 

[Sphincterboy]

Yeah, too bad you have no real evidence to validate any of these claims. Quotemining a religious website is not evidence. By its nature, a religious website represents a self-selected population of people who identify strongly enough with their religion to seek it out and participate there. And forums being what they are, the loudest voices will generally drown out the more rational ones. This is not data from which to draw conclusions on all Muslims.

Look, I'm sure you are right, and that these forums have a membership that is a tiny fraction of the worldwide population of Muslims. I am also quite accurately a bigoted idiot. But I became that way only after reading post after post written by 'Islamists' or 'Muslims' or whatever. I get a similar impression from reading FreeRepublic, but with a key difference. Anyone who thinks that killing is preferable to satire urgently needs to reassess their moral priorities.

That's funny -- someone trolling on the Muslim website you keep trying to corral us into said the exact same thing, word for word:

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/134324788-paris-shooting.html#post2838950

An extraordinary coincidence, no doubt. Certainly, if you were in fact trolling Muslim religious websites and picking fights with people there, you'd have a very balanced, even-handed perspective on the entire religion, and the rest of us would be compelled to take your generalizations about ~1.5 billion people seriously.

Maybe it is a slanted representation of Islamic thought processes. Nevertheless, one cannot help but be struck by the ferocity an unanimity of the sentiment expressed in that and other forums. It is not quote mining. Every 'islamic' poster expresses a remarkably simolar viewpoint. Some are more articulate, certainly. Some are more caged. All demonstrate a complete lack of sympathy for the victims and moan about how they are being misrepresented by a hysterical press. Another notable observation is the Complete absence of any outright condemnation of the killing.

It would be wonderful if we were simply concerned over a radical fringe. I fear that it is not so, however. I don't think that it makes much difference wether the majority of Muslims are sympathetic to the radical mindset or merely silent. A secular freedom is under attack. To deny that is foolish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with it all is that the monotheistic religions are altogether too vulnerable to fundamentalist interpretation. When the Hebrews swooped down on the Amalekites and killed them, it was under the guidance of Moses. The problem is that these religions are open to a literal interpretation and when a person has diminished capacity due to perhaps a lot of discrimination in his or her life; when that same person has severe educational limitations too; when that person is deeply in need and suffering: They seek relief from that suffering and there the Koran or the Bible is ready to give them succor and direction...also to explain their irrational and suicidal actions. These books paint a ruler of the universe that is not averse to accepting violent solutions and these fairy stories have heaps of evidence that God is vindictive and promotes punishment of sinners. These old stories make it clear...even in the story of Jesus...what an ugly story that is...that god glories in and requires these atrocious killings. The less educated you are, the more apt you are to accept these stories as true indications of what an invisible god wants. This becomes easier for one to accept if one is also treated as a reject in the society in which he lives.

Agreed, although we don't see that they are rejects. Rather, we see that they are people whose lives are failures for personal reasons. They fall under the spell of a recruiter who gets them to believe that their failures are due to <x>.

These days the Islamists are the big problem because there are people pouring vast sums into causing this problem. They aren't inherently any worse, it's just they are the pot being stirred.

- - - Updated - - -

I know a number of Muslims who do not go around murdering people, threatening people who insult Islam or condoning violence, so I don't need to visit any forum to understand your observation is a triumph of ignorance over reality.

Well, you claim that I am ignorant, which is undeniably true, on a number of topics, not least this one. But I challenge anyone to spend a day reading through posts on ANY islamic forum and not come away with a deep suspicion that Islam does something terrible to the human brain.

I disagree. The boards attract those whose brains have already rotted.