NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I'll show you three peer-reviewed papers very easily that claim exactly what I've stated. Hopefully that will substitute for me responding to the rest of your circular nonsense. Keep in mind, as these are peer-reviewed papers, I may only be able to post the abstract for you on some (can't link to a subscription database). You'll have to find them on your own subscription. I'm sure you have one, since you're abreast in this field.

SN Khalaf, "Settlement of Violence in Bedouin Society" Ethnology 1990, Vol 29.

Abstract


Dena Hassouneh-Phillips, "Polygamy and wife abuse: a qualitative study of Muslim women in America." Health Care for Women International 2001, Vol 22

Abstract


Ruksana Ayyub, "Domestic Violence in the South Asian Muslim Immigrant Population in the United States." Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 2002, Vol 9

Abstract


Hopefully that satisfies. When (if) you go read the papers, you'll note the first one demonstrates the influence of violent Bedouin society on the Koran, subsequently Islam, and Muslims today. The latter two relate Islam as a cause of violence toward women, the former as a result of the Islamic institution of polygamy and the latter as a result of general Islamic discrimination, such as Sharia, towards women.
Sorry, TS, but from the abstracts you presented, none of these sources proves your claims that Islam is a cause of terrorism. Since you chose to post these abstracts, I assume you think they prove your point. However:

1) Violence and blood-feuding in Bedouin society, and Arab cultures in general, pre-date Islam by many generations. Blood-feuding dates from their pagan past. I would point out that even non-Islamic -- pagan or Christian -- communities in the Mid-East and North Africa -- such as some Bedouin tribes, the Berbers, and the Tuaregs [sp] -- have this same violent tradition. In addition, blood-feuds and vendettas, and the related sheltering of murderers from the law, are not exclusive to Arab (let alone Muslim) cultures. It occurs in Mediterranean Europe ("vendetta" is an Italian word) and in several of the pagan cultures of Oceania. This violent tradtion is NOT caused by Islam. In fact, I have heard many Muslims and many non-Muslim scholars suggest that the reason Islam emphasizes that Muslims must not attack Muslims is a direct response against the ancient traditions of blood-feud, revenge killings, and violent tribalism. Hasn't worked yet, unfortunately.

By the way, your characterization of violent Bedouin cultures as a controlling influence on Islam ignores the fact that Bedouins are not part of mainstream Arab or Muslim culture. In fact, Bedouins have never been better than second-class citizens in Arab nations. Yes, the sheiks like to ape the whole "Lion of Arabia" look with the camels and the tents and the flowing caftans, but in reality, Bedouins themselves are barely considered Arabs. They are treated similarly to the way the Roma are treated in Europe.

2) Violence against women -- "honor killings," genital mutilation, punitive rape, marital rape, forced marriage, gender segregation, all terrible crimes -- also predate Islam by many generations and are legacies of the ancient cultures. To this day, these crimes against women are endemic in pagan and Christian communities, as well as Muslim communities, throughout Africa and the Mid-east. In fact, I have heard many Muslims, Muslim leaders, and non-Muslim scholars state unequivocally that violence against women is anti-Islamic and is forbidden by the Quran. The Quran was one of the few religious texts to acknowledge that women have any rights at all, and it is suggested that this, too, was a direct response against ancient non-Islamic traditions.

It is one of the great tragedies and failings of civilization that, when fundamentalism raises its ugly head, women are usually the first victims of the new order that is imposed. There is no doubt that fundamentalist Muslims use their religion to justify abuse of women, but this miserable state of affairs is by no means unique to Islam, NOR is it caused by Islam, but rather by fundamentalists appropriating ancient customs that they think are "traditional." There are even Muslims scholars who argue that the entire institution of Sharia is anti-Islamic because of this.

To summarize, the facts that (A) non-Muslim cultures commit the same crimes, (B) these crimes predate Islam (as you acknowledge), (C) some Islamic teachings preach specifically against these crimes, (D) modern scholars, leaders, imams, and critics speak out against these crimes, and (E) there currently are Muslim organizations seeking to end these crimes, all debunk your claim that Islam is a cause of these crimes and that they are integral to the religion.

Very true. There are violent extremists within almost every cause or ideology (with the exception of ones like the Society of Friends or Buddhism that are against violence). There have been Marxist terrorists, there have been fascist terrorists, there have been plenty of terrorists interested in independence, just plain old nationalistic terrorists, and all sorts of others. If Islam causes terrorism, then so does being Japanese. They had suicide bombers by the thousands. Or what about Germans? You can't expect me to believe that things like Kristallnacht weren't terrorism?

Besides, the real causes of terrorism are quite obvious-- perfectly normal xenophobia, foreign intrusions, and repression.
<snip>
I would also add good, old-fashioned ego-tripping. In fact, to my mind, this is the deciding factor for many terrorists, especially their so-called leaders. Take a good look at famous terrorist leaders, listen to their speeches, read their writings, and one thing seems clear -- it's all about them. Declare war on the West for the glory of Islam? No, in al Qaeda, they do it for the glory of Osama. In the PLO, they did it for the glory of Arafat. In other places it was done for the glory of Hitler, or Franco, or any famous leader, past or present, of ETA, the IRA, the Red Brigade, the Shining Path, November 17, etc, etc, etc, etc. And what's the one thing all those suicide bombers are promised? They'll be famous.

And its strange you would claim Barbara Tuchman, a Jewish author who generally wasn't sympathetic to Islam. Rather, Tuchman wrote in The Proud Tower that terror was a result of Muslims wanting to make the entire world Islamic - "The terrorists want a world war between all of Islam and everybody else, because they believe that in such a war Allah will give them the victory and the entire world will become Muslim (or at least be ruled by Muslims)." Tuchman implctly (and explictly, more than once, such as here) blamed Islam for terror all throughout that book. Perhaps you havn't read that one though.
I did read it, and you are twisting her words, just like all the other sources you've used.

SHE said: "The terrorists want world war..."

YOU interpret that as: "The Muslims want world war..."

This is still all coming from you, not from your sources. It's as if everything you read on this subject is like a mirror -- all you see in it is your own thoughts.

No, it didn't explictly say "Islam is at fault for terrorism." Nor does it have to. Reading comprehension includes things such as implict messages. The implict message here is that Islam is a factor.
Guess what else includes implicit messages: bigotry. All you are saying here is, "Facts be damned, she's saying what I say she's saying and that's what I want her to be saying."

If Tuchman did not mean that as an implict message, she wouldn't have written that the goal of Islamic terror is to establish and Islamic state.
Nonsense. If she didn't mean to accuse all of Islam, she wouldn't have only accused one specific subgroup of people? Please. You're embarrassing yourself.

Tuchman stated that the motive for this terror was to establish an Islamic state and make everyone a Muslim. Now, a "motive" is a synonym with a "cause" as well. Are you claiming she wrote that they were motivated, by Islam, but that Islam wasn't a cause?
Yes, because Tuchman does not make the same prejudiced assumptions you do. You assume, because it suits you to, that anything a Muslim does, he does because of his religion. You deny that a Muslim could possibly be using his religion to justify things he would choose to do anyway, even though you acknowledge that non-Muslims do that very thing. Tuchman does not apply that double standard.

It wont be long before people start claiming that Sharia in Saudi Arabia wasn't caused by Islam either.
Guess what? I JUST DID!!! Bring this up next time we tangle about this, and I'll find sources for you.

I just thought I'd point something else on that. When studying a religion or culture, you have to try and remove subjectivity and predjudice. Your claim that "Christianity is oppossed to that" and "Jesus' teachings were actually of nonviolence" are subjective, religious ones based on your personal interpretation. Your personal interpretation of Christianity is no more the "reality" of Christianity than the personal interpretation of abortion bombing Christians.

The idea that certain groups are not "real Muslims" or "real Christians" or that they don't follow what something "really" teaches is the no true scottsman fallacy. Islamic extremists are just as much "real Muslims" as moderates, and extremist interpretations of Islam are just as much Islam as moderate interpretations.

Religions are no monolithic entities that are defined by themselves. They are defined within the context of adherent's interpretations of them. If you're really interested in studying the religions you'll have to move out of such an ethnocentric, etic approach.
I wish you would learn your own lesson. You've been implying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy throughout by insisting on equating Islam with terrorism while ignoring or dismissing anti-terrorist forces in Islam, as if the non-terrorists don't count.

I wish you would learn your own lesson. You've been implying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy throughout by insisting on equating Islam with terrorism while ignoring or dismissing anti-terrorist forces in Islam, as if the non-terrorists don't count.

I am impressed. Very good arguments, I'm glad there is someone here who is capable of countering TS and NM.

<snip>
There is no distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism. That is a false dichotomy. <snip>
And this is a false equation (if that's the word I want). It goes back to your earlier claim that it is okay to label all Americans neocons just because some Americans are neocons. Shall we say that all Americans are anti-Semites because some Americans are? That would make you an anti-Semite, then, wouldn't it? Perhaps you're gay, too, since some Americans are gay. And a gay-hater. Maybe you're a Presbyterian, since some Americans are Presbyterians. So, by your argument, you would be a self-hating, gay, anti-Semitic, Jewish Presbyterian. Oh, and a neocon, too.

As I said when you first brought it up, it is nothing but an attempt to justify bigotry. It's like saying that all Italians are criminals because some Italians are in the Mafia, or saying all Jews are cheap because some bigot met a cheap Jew once. Crap like this is why there's such a thing as the ADL.

Seriously, TS, you're one of the smartest posters I've seen on this forum, but this is one of the stupidest arguments I've read or heard, anywhere.

I thought I'd go ahead and respond to the fact that Christians caused anti-Semitism, as well. I'll give you some more peer-reviewed works, but it might also be important for you to know that the one of the central points of Hyam Maccoby's works was that Christianity was not only the a cause of European anti-Semitism, but the very root of it. The same is echoed in the works of Michael White, Jaroslav Pelikan, and other modern scholars.

Charles Glock and Rodney Stark were some of the earliest modern scholars (aside from Maccoby) to demonstrate that Christianity causes anti-Semitism. They published these as peer-reviewed findings and covered them in the book, "Christian Beliefs and anti-Semitism." Here is a little excerpt from Glock's biography at the Hartford Institute for Religious Research:



Aside from Glock's peer-reviewed works (mentioned above in the excerpt), a large portion of scholarly studies on Christianity being a cause of anti-Semitism are based off of his work. We'll see that when we list the peer-reviewed studies that confirm this as well:

Rob Eisinga and Ruben Konig, "Orthodox Religious Beliefs and Anti-Semitism: A Replication of Glock and Stark in the Netherlands." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 1995, Vol 34.

Abstract


Pat O'Reilly, "The Implications of Christian Anti-Semitism for Educators." Canadian Social Studies 1995, Vol 29.

Abstract
It is truly a shame that I have to give up this thread, because I would only just love to play dueling experts with you on this one.* And I'd bet my bibliography would be longer than yours.

* I wouldn't really love it, but I'd do it anyway, just because there is so much fucking wrong with the post above. I only hope some other history buff will take up the cause, because this is just bullshit. I'm sorry, but really.

How perceptive of you to figure that out. Yep, I'm a proud American. Not only that, I'm a proud supporter of President Bush, at least when it comes to crushing Islamofascist terrorism.

And Ny's obviously one of that breed, unfortunately rare today: a European who has the wit to defend his own civilization and the testicular fortitude to try. Unlike the effete, decadent Euro-wimps exemplified by that Norwegian academic (mistakenly identified as an "official"--my bad) previously referred to (see this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489521 )
Well, if you aren't a white supremacist, then this is yet another topic on which you argue from total ignorance.

your just mad because you dont like hearing your views get bashed. thats the problem with democrats...they can dish it out but god forbid anybody does anything to put down their views.
I'm not a Democrat.

Thank you. Next!

I am impressed. Very good arguments, I'm glad there is someone here who is capable of countering TS and NM.
Thank you. :)

TS is a challenge, but NM -- he's like one of those inflatable punching clowns, you know? Bop-bounce-bop-bounce-bop-bounce. ;)

In parting, I'd like to offer the following:

SITUATION: A Muslim terrorist group, claiming "jihad" and "yay for the caliphate," attacks a non-Muslim nation. The attack is immediately followed by two sets of responses from the Muslim public. Some Muslims -- radical fundamentalists and/or nationalists -- celebrate the attack and support the terrorists. Some Muslims -- liberal and moderate leaders, individuals and social activists -- condemn the attack and express support for the victims of the attack.

RESPONSE #1: Declare all of Islam "the enemy," announce that war has been declared, and join the fight that the terrorists started, on their terms, by their rules. Label all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers, thus alienating many Muslims who will feel threatened by you. In this way you lend credence to -- indeed, you fulfill -- the terrorists claims that "the infidels want to destroy Islam," you boost their recruitment, and give them the war they want, AND put them in charge of its terms.

RESPONSE #2: Reach out to the the liberal and moderate forces in Muslim nations, work with them to support their causes and encourage peace, win the hearts and minds of average Muslims, and with them, create a pro-infidel message to compete with the terrorists' message. At the same time, marginalize the terrorists by treating them as common criminals, not political figures. Thus, you can crush them with disdain, discrediting them without hurting your own rep among average Muslims.

RESPONSE #1 accepts the terrorists' invitation to war, and it forces all Muslims into it whether they want it or not. But it has the benefit of giving people who need someone to hate, someone to hate.

RESPONSE #2 refuses the invitation. It gives the lie to everything the terrorists say, makes friends out of people who otherwise would be turned into enemies, and avoids war -- or if war cannot be avoided, weakens the enemy before it starts. But it has the disadvantage of requiring people to avoid demonizing Islam as the scapegoat for terrorism.

I choose RESPONSE #2. TS, NM, and others choose RESPONSE #1. I believe their way will kill (has killed) tens of thousands of innocent people on both sides, and perpetuate hate and conflict for the foreseeable future. Whereas, my way would accelerate the reformation of Islam to a progressive and tolerant major religion by helping, rather than harming, the liberalizing forces that are already in it, and would also cripple radical Islamist terrorism by destroying its claims to credibility.



(See, when I'm considering how to respond to an enemy, I always ask myself, "What would Macchiavelli do?" Those who've read his "Discourses" (the fatter book) know that he would have picked Door #2. The idea here, geniuses, is to defeat the enemy, not to fight him -- and certainly not to become him.)

Macchiavelli is a good guy, but Shi Wang Di he ain't.

Shi Wang Di would take the entire group of moslems captive, and give 'em a choice of swearing allegiance to him and his State - or immediate obliteration.

This is neither response 1 nor response 2.

And this is a false equation (if that's the word I want). It goes back to your earlier claim that it is okay to label all Americans neocons just because some Americans are neocons. Shall we say that all Americans are anti-Semites because some Americans are? That would make you an anti-Semite, then, wouldn't it? Perhaps you're gay, too, since some Americans are gay. And a gay-hater. Maybe you're a Presbyterian, since some Americans are Presbyterians. So, by your argument, you would be a self-hating, gay, anti-Semitic, Jewish Presbyterian. Oh, and a neocon, too.

Actually what you've proposed is a fallacy called affirming the consequent. This isn't similar to anything I've stated. Not once have I claimed that all Muslims are anything.

The fact is, all neocons who are US citizens are Americans. Just like all Islamic terrorism is a part of Islam. It would be affirming the consequent (what you're attempting to do), to reverse it and state all Americans are neocons.

I wish you would learn your own lesson. You've been implying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy throughout by insisting on equating Islam with terrorism while ignoring or dismissing anti-terrorist forces in Islam, as if the non-terrorists don't count.

That isn't the no true scottsman. The no true scottsman can only affirm negatives. Saying something "is", a positive, can never affirm the "is not", a negative, that is required for the no true scottsman. I think you're just throwing out the terms you hear me use now.

Nor have I ever equated Islam with terror. This is a strawman that you've been harping on this entire time. Rather, I've stated that Islam is a force in violence (and by now, you really should have conceded, considering that I provided those three peer-reviewed papers you requested). I've also never dismissed the anti-terrorist forces in Islam. I've consistently made mention of the moderate Muslims who do not support terror.

Sorry, TS, but from the abstracts you presented, none of these sources proves your claims that Islam is a cause of terrorism. Since you chose to post these abstracts, I assume you think they prove your point.

Did you read just the abstracts, or the articles? I know you'll misinterpret the abstracts. However, when you read the articles I think you'll find they say exactly what I told you. Or are you just going to dismiss than and say "bullshit" and "I can't follow this thread anymore" like with the other peer-reviewed articles that prove anti-Semitism is caused by Christianity?

Alright, I just thought I'd respond, instead of selling you short.


1) Violence and blood-feuding in Bedouin society, and Arab cultures in general, pre-date Islam by many generations. Blood-feuding dates from their pagan past. I would point out that even non-Islamic -- pagan or Christian -- communities in the Mid-East and North Africa -- such as some Bedouin tribes, the Berbers, and the Tuaregs [sp] -- have this same violent tradition. In addition, blood-feuds and vendettas, and the related sheltering of murderers from the law, are not exclusive to Arab (let alone Muslim) cultures. It occurs in Mediterranean Europe ("vendetta" is an Italian word) and in several of the pagan cultures of Oceania. This violent tradtion is NOT caused by Islam. In fact, I have heard many Muslims and many non-Muslim scholars suggest that the reason Islam emphasizes that Muslims must not attack Muslims is a direct response against the ancient traditions of blood-feud, revenge killings, and violent tribalism. Hasn't worked yet, unfortunately.

These wern't the findings in the paper listed. In fact, the peer-reviewed work contradicts your claims here. It unequivocally stated that Islam reflects the violent tendencies of pre-Islamic Bedouin culture. "Other cultures do it too" doesn't change that fact.

By the way, your characterization of violent Bedouin cultures as a controlling influence on Islam ignores the fact that Bedouins are not part of mainstream Arab or Muslim culture. In fact, Bedouins have never been better than second-class citizens in Arab nations. Yes, the sheiks like to ape the whole "Lion of Arabia" look with the camels and the tents and the flowing caftans, but in reality, Bedouins themselves are barely considered Arabs. They are treated similarly to the way the Roma are treated in Europe.


Again, the peer-reviewed work listed contradicts your claim here. Rather, it states that Islam arose out of Bedouin culture and thus reflects it.

(This is me, not the paper) The fact that Islam today isn't predominately Bedouin doesn't change its origins. In fact, the Koran is full of Bedouin myth and tradition. It would be absurd to pretend that it doesn't retain Bedouin culture as well. You seemed to have no problem admitting that Christianity retained the culture and mythos of other religions. Which goes to demonstrate that you are just being an apologist for Islam, a standard that you don't apply to other religions.

2) Violence against women -- "honor killings," genital mutilation, punitive rape, marital rape, forced marriage, gender segregation, all terrible crimes -- also predate Islam by many generations and are legacies of the ancient cultures. To this day, these crimes against women are endemic in pagan and Christian communities, as well as Muslim communities, throughout Africa and the Mid-east. In fact, I have heard many Muslims, Muslim leaders, and non-Muslim scholars state unequivocally that violence against women is anti-Islamic and is forbidden by the Quran. The Quran was one of the few religious texts to acknowledge that women have any rights at all, and it is suggested that this, too, was a direct response against ancient non-Islamic traditions.


Yes, the Koran acknowledges rights for women. Not equal rights, but rights none the less. However, you're confusing the Koran with Islam. Islam is not purely the Koran. And, again, the two peer-reviewed works cited have stated that Islamic tradition is a factor in spousal abuse and violence within (and outside of) the home.

To summarize, the facts that (A) non-Muslim cultures commit the same crimes, (B) these crimes predate Islam (as you acknowledge), (C) some Islamic teachings preach specifically against these crimes, (D) modern scholars, leaders, imams, and critics speak out against these crimes, and (E) there currently are Muslim organizations seeking to end these crimes, all debunk your claim that Islam is a cause of these crimes and that they are integral to the religion.

And yet, the peer-reviewed works listed dispute that. You havn't actually responded to a single finding within them, either. Rather, you said "the abstracts don't say that" and then continued with your same rhetoric. The fact is, the peer-reviewed works admitted Islam as a cause, and that was outlined in their findings. It would be worth going back and reading them, rather than just the abstracts.

A) The fact that non-Muslim cultures commit the same crimes doesn't prove that Islam is not a factor in Muslim cultures. It only proves that Islam is not 100% of the cause 100% of the time. Something no one claimed. Please, stop with the strawman.

B) Because they predate Islam does not prove that Islam is not a modern factor. It only proves, again, that Islam is not 100% of the cause 100% of the time. In addition, the fact that Islam is based on previous violent cultures (such as the Bedouins) adds to explain why Islamic cultures exhibits the same violent tendencies.

C) Some Islamic teachings explictly permit those crimes, as well.

D) Modern scholars, leaders, imams, and critics all endorse terror and those crimes too.

E) There are currently Muslim organizations that support those crimes.

The last three reasons you listed demonstrate that you adhere to a double standard. Why is it that when an Imam speaks out against terror, it becomes a 'proof' that Islam is not a factor in terror, yet when an Imam endorses terror, then it isn't a 'proof' that Islam is a factor?

You gossiping like 15 year old school girls?

Yup. Problem?

Did you read just the abstracts, or the articles? I know you'll misinterpret the abstracts. However, when you read the articles I think you'll find they say exactly what I told you. Or are you just going to dismiss than and say "bullshit" and "I can't follow this thread anymore" like with the other peer-reviewed articles that prove anti-Semitism is caused by Christianity?
Last comment before I leave to catch my train:

You deliberately posted abstracts from your articles that contradicted your own point? Tsk, tsk, dear, that's not the way to win arguments.*

If this thread is still alive when my project is finished (I'm building a site-specific art installation for an exhibition), you will find me posting whole articles of my own written in rebuttal to your sources and, more important, to your misleading use of your sources -- accompanied by sources of my own. And I'll post the whole arguments, not just selected bits that make me look like I'm disagreeing with myself.


*IOW, you tripped yourself up with your own quotes, but you're too smug and egotistical to admit it. That's weakness. Man, I hope this thread is still alive when I get out of that gallery.

That isn't the no true scottsman. The no true scottsman can only affirm negatives. Saying something "is", a positive, can never affirm the "is not", a negative, that is required for the no true scottsman. I think you're just throwing out the terms you hear me use now.

Nor have I ever equated Islam with terror. This is a strawman that you've been harping on this entire time. Rather, I've stated that Islam is a force in violence (and by now, you really should have conceded, considering that I provided those three peer-reviewed papers you requested). I've also never dismissed the anti-terrorist forces in Islam. I've consistently made mention of the moderate Muslims who do not support terror.

Islam is an excuse in violence... just like every other religious or political structure. The only 'force' in violence is the force of violence, and our willingness to indulge, excuse, or confront it.

I can find a Koran verse that justifies violence, if I want one... just as I can find words of Christ that preach the same, and just as the book of Joshua endorses anti-Semitic genocide as a good thing.

Which goes to demonstrate that you are just being an apologist for Islam, a standard that you don't apply to other religions.

TS, you've identified the problem. She's like a creationist desperately trying to explain away Archaeopteryx.

I thought I'd go ahead and respond to the fact that Christians caused anti-Semitism, as well.

This strikes me as a funny notion...

This implies that pre-Christian attempts to wipe out the Hebrews, were not anti-semitic...

Of course - it is commonly ignored that the FIRST (recorded) concerted attempt at an anti-semitic genocide, occurs in the Book of Joshua.

This strikes me as a funny notion...

This implies that pre-Christian attempts to wipe out the Hebrews, were not anti-semitic...

Of course - it is commonly ignored that the FIRST (recorded) concerted attempt at an anti-semitic genocide, occurs in the Book of Joshua.

I guess killing all the firstborn in Exodus isn't "concerted".

I guess killing all the firstborn in Exodus isn't "concerted".

Killing firstborn isn't genocide.

This strikes me as a funny notion...

This implies that pre-Christian attempts to wipe out the Hebrews, were not anti-semitic...

Of course - it is commonly ignored that the FIRST (recorded) concerted attempt at an anti-semitic genocide, occurs in the Book of Joshua.

Except that it never actually happened.

It's not nice. It's not good. There's nothing positive about those religions in their pure form. They're recipies for mass destruction & the indiscriminate butcher of billions of human beings.
What about Jesus and St Francis of Assisi? Two Catholics who never harmed anyone.

Except that it never actually happened.

What didn't?

What didn't?

The whole "Exodus" thing. Not a scrap of evidence for it.

Islam isn't the one that kills, it's people do. Hey Germans act like Hitlers and his Nazi's? No! And here's a big surprise, Muslims don't all act like Osma and his bombers (if you can call them Muslims).

Every religion has their extremists, right now the Islamic extremists are being publicized by the media because that's what people care about. There are still extremists in all the other religions as well.
While I may disagree with some religions, and many things in certain religions, I don't think ANY of them are "evil".

The whole "Exodus" thing. Not a scrap of evidence for it.

Even if that were the case (I'm not arguing FOR a literal interpretation of the Hebrew Conquest stories... the accounts don't really match up even within scripture)... it is still the first recorded attempt at an anti-semitic genocide... and, ironically, it is carried out BY the Hebrews.

This strikes me as a funny notion...

This implies that pre-Christian attempts to wipe out the Hebrews, were not anti-semitic...

Of course - it is commonly ignored that the FIRST (recorded) concerted attempt at an anti-semitic genocide, occurs in the Book of Joshua.

Everytime it is pointed out that Christianity is a cause of anti-Semitism or that Islam is a cause of terror, people always attempt to find a case when anti-Semitism or terror has occured outside of these contexts. Its a strawman argument, folks. No one has claimed that Christianity is monocausal in regards to anti-Semitism or that Islam is monocausal in regards to terror.

Rather, Christianity is one among many causes of anti-Semitism. In some cases it may be very little of the cause, and only works as a synergistic effect with other causes of anti-Semitism. In other cases, it may make up virtually all of the cause of anti-Semitism. The exact degree to which Christianity causes anti-Semitism varies from case to case, and may not be known exactly in many cases. And of course there are many cases of anti-Semitism that have nothing to do with Christianity. None of that changes the fact that Christianity is a cause of anti-Semitism.

Except that it never actually happened.The whole "Exodus" thing. Not a scrap of evidence for it.


This is called the 'negative proof' fallacy. Lack of evidence does not mean it didn't happen. Why do I always have to correct you, you more than anyone on NSG, with these fallacies? I mean, other people do it too, but it seems like it is every other post with you.

This is called the 'negative proof' fallacy. Lack of evidence does not mean it didn't happen. It hardly means it did happen though...
It's not hard to claim something for which there is neither evidence for nor against.. Take for example that invisible pink bunny next to me. No evidence of it at all.

Of course, the very mention in the bible is evidence, even if some wouldn't qualify it as good evidence..

This is called the 'negative proof' fallacy. Lack of evidence does not mean it didn't happen. Why do I always have to correct you, you more than anyone on NSG, with these fallacies? I mean, other people do it too, but it seems like it is every other post with you.
Here's the wrinkle:

If (and that's an IF) you make an assertion about something, then it is for YOU to support that assertion with evidence/logic/etc. In other words, if you were to assert that something described in the Bible literally occured, it would be for YOU to provide evidence to support your claim.

It is true that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it's also not evidence of presence, either, so it kind of cancels out. In debates, the burden of proof rests with the person making the assertion.

What about Jesus and St Francis of Assisi? Two Catholics who never harmed anyone.Which Jesus?
If you mean Jesus Christ, he was hardly a catholic. The Catholic church didn't exist untill like 300 AD. And didn't he beat up some merchants and money exchangers in the temple that one time?

Here's the wrinkle:

If (and that's an IF) you make an assertion about something, then it is for YOU to support that assertion with evidence/logic/etc. In other words, if you were to assert that something described in the Bible literally occured, it would be for YOU to provide evidence to support your claim.

I never asserted such a thing, I'm not sure anyone did. I think Grave pointed out that it was simply recorded in Exodus.

The only assertion of a historical fact, i.e. that it didn't happen, was made by Nodinia. And this assertion was supported with the claim "no evidence" - a textbook example of the negative proof fallacy.

The only assertion of a historical fact, i.e. that it didn't happen, was made by Nodinia. And this assertion was supported with the claim "no evidence" - a textbook example of the negative proof fallacy.I think there should also be an addendum for when it is reasonable to expect there would eb evidence.
It probably doesn't apply here, as archeological evidence from so long ago is hardly a sure find. But in some case, you would expect there to be evidence left given some event occured. And in that case not finding evidence does reasonably falsify the claim.

I never asserted such a thing, I'm not sure anyone did. I think Grave pointed out that it was simply recorded in Exodus.

The only assertion of a historical fact, i.e. that it didn't happen, was made by Nodinia. And this assertion was supported with the claim "no evidence" - a textbook example of the negative proof fallacy.
Right. That's why I put the "if" bit in there. It's just that I've seen a lot of cases where people (not you) try to use the "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence" thing to get off the hook when they're asked to provide support for their assertion.

The funny thing is that the entire reason why burden of proof rests with the person making an assertion is that you cannot prove a negative. Which makes the case of Nodinia really confusing, since he was asserting a negative. The burden of proof must rest with him because he made the assertion, but it was a negative assertion and therefore cannot be proven...

*Bottle gets dizzy and falls down*

The funny thing is that the entire reason why burden of proof rests with the person making an assertion is that you cannot prove a negative. Which makes the case of Nodinia really confusing, since he was asserting a negative. The burden of proof must rest with him because he made the assertion, but it was a negative assertion and therefore cannot be proven...If you had a complete record of the goings on at the royal court of egypt (a big if), you would expect some mention of the exodus and related events. So one could proof it didn't occur (at least not at that time), if you find the right contradicting (circumstantial) evidence.

If you had a complete record of the goings on at the royal court of egypt (a big if), you would expect some mention of the exodus and related events. So one could proof it didn't occur (at least not at that time), if you find the right contradicting (circumstantial) evidence.

Proving negatives is tricky. Its commonly said that you can't prove a negative, which tends to be true in common usage. However, we can prove some negatives via tautology, etc. The statemment "there are no square circles" would be a good example of that.

It is also important to distinguish between deductive and inductive proofs. The former tends to be stronger than the latter. While a vast amount of historical evidence against something can amount to an inductive proof, it can never amount to a deductive proof. Usually when we talk about proof, we talk about deductive proofs, and this is where the statement "you can't prove a negative" comes from. It is virtually impossible to prove a deductive negative in that sense.

It is also important to distinguish between deductive and inductive proofs. The former tends to be stronger than the latter.What notion of deductive/inductive are we talking about here? Because in formal proof theory (as used in abstract logic and mathematics) either is equally valid. e.g. I can't really imagine number theory without inductive proofs.

While a vast amount of historical evidence against something can amount to an inductive proof, it can never amount to a deductive proof.Probably true, but it can still make a strong case nevertheless, even if it can't give certainty. (Certainty isn't something you get a lot of in the real world anyway)
For some things, a lack of evidence warrants explanation. If someone claimed a large asteroid killed of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, I'd expect there's some crater somewhere, and a small layer of debri/dust with higher levels of iridium (I think). (Oh, and a lack of dinosaurs of course)

Usually when we talk about proof, we talk about deductive proofs, and this is where the statement "you can't prove a negative" comes from. It is virtually impossible to prove a deductive negative in that sense.That also depends on the nature of your domain. If it's a finite domain, you could (in principle) check every case. And soem infinite domains are quite well behaved as well, like natural numbers. (It's quite easy to show there cannot be a highest prime for example. Provable from contradiction.)
And some logical systems are decidable, meaning any claim can be proved or disproved deterministically. And even in undecidable systems, there may be decidable fragments.

What notion of deductive/inductive are we talking about here? Because in formal proof theory (as used in abstract logic and mathematics) either is equally valid. e.g. I can't really imagine number theory without inductive proofs.

Right, both are equally valid. But only one gives an absolute, while the other only gives probable certainty.

Right, both are equally valid. But only one gives an absolute, while the other only gives probable certainty.No, both give absolute certainty in a formal system.
If something holds for a base case, and each case N implies case N+1, then it's true, definitely and absolutely, for all countably infinite cases. (It can be extended to multiple base cases and more complicate inductive structures, of course.)

So unless the terms have a (slightly) different meaning in other fields of philosophy/science, and you're arguing from that point of view, it's not something I can agree with.

Maybe I should have checked Wiki sooner :p
Mathematical induction should not be misconstrued as a form of inductive reasoning, which is considered non-rigorous in mathematics. (See Problem of induction.) In fact, mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning and is fully rigorous.

Originally Posted by Francis Street
What about Jesus and St Francis of Assisi? Two Catholics who never harmed anyone.

Which Jesus?
If you mean Jesus Christ, he was hardly a catholic. The Catholic church didn't exist untill like 300 AD. And didn't he beat up some merchants and money exchangers in the temple that one time?

Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic, however after he died Judaism decided he was only a prophet and not the messiah

And yeah, he basically trashed an entire market because it was in a church

Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic, however after he died Judaism decided he was only a prophet and not the messiah

Actually Jesus isn't viewed as a prophet in Judaism. Some Jews (although from my experience they are in the minority) view Jesus in a positive light, as a good Rabbi and teacher, but not as a prophet. I'm not sure which Jew or group of Jews it was that began to claim this, or where the myth originally came from.

Actually Jesus isn't viewed as a prophet in Judaism. Some Jews (although from my experience they are in the minority) view Jesus in a positive light, as a good Rabbi and teacher, but not as a prophet. I'm not sure which Jew or group of Jews it was that began to claim this, or where the myth originally came from.
He was viewed as a prophet by the Jews who first became his followers during his lifetime and who were among the first followers of his disciples after the crucifixion (according to the stories). This small group of people would have been the foundation from which the new religion began as a spin-off from Judaism. Their beliefs about Jesus were rejected by the orthodox Jewish clergy and ignored by mainstream Hebrew society, but picked up by the gentiles, who then developed the new religion (and probably changed it significantly). This is the standard pattern of formation for new religions that are spin-offs from older religions. So while Jesus was never recorded as a Jewish prophet, there were some Jews who thought of him that way. Was Joseph of Arimethea Jewish? What about Nicodemus? That's a Greek name, isn't it? There were several prominent non-Jews among Jesus's followers, according to the stories, but I thought these two were Jewish scholars/priests. I'm not sure, though.

BTW, I haven't abandoned the thread, as you see. I just won't be able to give your earlier statements the kind of rebuttal they deserve (deep argument vs deep argument) for another -- looks like nearly 10 days, dammit.

Which Jesus?
If you mean Jesus Christ, he was hardly a catholic. The Catholic church didn't exist untill like 300 AD. And didn't he beat up some merchants and money exchangers in the temple that one time?
exactly,and francis of assisi hated the catholic church forbeing so wealthy and bigoted.

It is hard to see that side of islam when ever all you see on the new EVERYDAY is"another islamic suicide bomber has killed 5 marines and a dozen cilvillians." Now I know that islam in its purest form is wonderful, just as is christianity and every other faith. It bothers me though when the peaceful muslims don't speak up loud enough against the evil "muslims"


Im with this guy 100%

Im with this guy 100%

why should ordinary muslims have to defend themselves and speak up agains people who they feel has nothing to do with them or their religion?
If theyacknowledge and speak out some feell that is like admiting guilt on their part when it is really the extremists fault.
and moderate muslims do speak out,its just that'moderate muslims speak out against terrorism and advocate peace' doesnt make the headlines the sam,e way as 'all muslims want to blow us up'