• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Separating fact from myths: islamic tolerance & contribution to civilization.

In this video an Iman admits Spencer knows more about the Koran.[at around 5:20] In another thread I heard it is not possible for a non-Muslim to do that.

 
This subject has no choice but to spiral out of control.

It is easy to be critical of Islam, it is far more challenging to separate those of Islam willing to be harmful from those who are tolerant of others. I doubt many really want to talk about that.
 
This subject has no choice but to spiral out of control.

It is easy to be critical of Islam, it is far more challenging to separate those of Islam willing to be harmful from those who are tolerant of others. I doubt many really want to talk about that.

To discuss that you would have to consider that it is permitted for Muslims to lie. Thanks to the religions own tactics we do not know who can be believed.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 
ok religions suck and can be dangerous and controlling

iv got it lets let people have whatever religion they want but not allow any religion to rule or to be the sole justification of are laws

and we should judge people as individuals and not by what religion they are a part of
 
This subject has no choice but to spiral out of control.

It is easy to be critical of Islam, it is far more challenging to separate those of Islam willing to be harmful from those who are tolerant of others. I doubt many really want to talk about that.

There are millions upon millions of people who want to do nothing but differentiate between "good" and "bad" Muslkms whenever the topic of Idlam's unsavory aspects comes up. The liberal tendency to interpret a few dissidents from PC as "many people", is silly and absurd.

Though for the record, the reason those few that you bizarrely refer to as "many" don't want to talk about that is because it's an obfuscation and a change of subject. When someone says skmething along the lines of "Islam teaches X", pointing out Muslims who don't believe X is a distraction from the topic.
 
That was so good that a simple "like" wouldn't do it justice. People such as CrabCake need to hear this.
And this is what constitutes your study and research and thus "expertise"?

Applauding (thus obviously accepting as proof) a you tube video of a Christian apologist ?
 
And this is what constitutes your study and research and thus "expertise"?

Applauding (thus obviously accepting as proof) a you tube video of a Christian apologist ?

I'm not accepting what he said as proof. I'm agreeing with his opinion. What did he get wrong? If anything, he didn't define enough lines. A would-be terrorist also needs opportunity, weaponry, and (except for the lone wolf) structured authority.

Again I challenge you to tell us what he got wrong. If you can't answer that, then your response is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against me. Boring. Useless. Unimaginative.
 
I'm not accepting what he said as proof. I'm agreeing with his opinion. What did he get wrong? If anything, he didn't define enough lines. A would-be terrorist also needs opportunity, weaponry, and (except for the lone wolf) structured authority.

Again I challenge you to tell us what he got wrong.
He's offering his interpretation and nothing more. No substantiation of any pertinence in any of his theories. The "triangle" is something he pulls out of his hat with equal lack of substantiation.

It all culminates in the implication that any true Muslim can be nothing other than a terrorist jihadist. Hogwash no true scotsman fallacy.
If you can't answer that, then your response is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against me. Boring. Useless. Unimaginative.
You're simply creating a false dichotomy here.
 
This is a study of the Muslim Christ figure. It might help to explain the goals of Islam to those who have no idea what is going on.
 
This is a study of the Muslim Christ figure. It might help to explain the goals of Islam to those who have no idea what is going on.



both flavors of apocalyptic judgment and death seem bad
 
It will be very bad for all blarg



both of these religions seem bad threats and bribes and faith where your most fearsome enemy are the people that are the most like you but believe something different
 
both of these religions seem bad threats and bribes and faith where your most fearsome enemy are the people that are the most like you but believe something different

I'm sure you meant to convey something very important with that group of words blarg. I'll pretend I understood them and say thanks.
 
And this is what constitutes your study and research and thus "expertise"?

Applauding (thus obviously accepting as proof) a you tube video of a Christian apologist ?

Christian apologist is going straight to H E Double hockey sticks.

"The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:34
 
Christian apologist is going straight to H E Double hockey sticks.

"The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:34
Oh, H E double hockey sticks. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom