Weird editing.

"some of 'em will be Wild Wild West"


awww... bless your heart Will Smith.

And unfortunately, some of them will also be Suicide Squad.

Hey, there were no giant mechanical spiders in it at least.

Isn't that cute? He thinks that the fact that the citizens and city of Dubai pander to millionaires and celebrity and are willing to let him spend his millions there is indicative of the muslim world's views of the west!! I hope he doesn't go walking around
Mosul with that swagger.

I'd be more interested in hearing Will Smith slam a cult that steals from it's members, enslaves it's members, isolates members from their families, and falsely imprisons it's members. Sorry, as long as Smith supports Scientology and David Miscavige who gives a fuck what he thinks about political figures like Trump or dangerous religious beliefs.

The muslim world? Is that like a less wacky Disneyland? Do you have any idea how many different types of muslim there are in the world?

The notion that they collectively have one agreed view on the west is a pretty big indicator that someone hasn't a fecking clue about the subject. For example, do you think every Catholic has the same views as the pope? Why should muslims be any different?

Do you expect the 'head' muslim to call a press conference?

"Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for attending. As you know I have been appointed spokesperson for all 1.6 billion muslims. I had a chat with all of them this morning and here's what we all think."

And for Peter's sake, if you're going to criticise the example for being unrepresentative of the average muslim meeting a rich celebrity, don't choose fucking Mosul as your counter balance. Occupied as it is by the most fringe religious extremists in the world who think nothing of killing people who agree with them. The overwhelming majority of people in Saudi on the other hand are normal, every day folk going about their lives in pretty much the same way you or i do. Like the overwhelming majority of Americans do.

It's like contrasting someone who believes in social justice with an ultra left wing terrorist. One is an average person with an average person's reactions to, say, meeting celebrities. The other is a lunatic who might do anything to make some obscure point that only makes sense to them. Bullshit argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world

He is the one who categorized all muslims by Dubai's reaction to his presence. I am the one who suggested he would get different reactions from different muslims. Of course not all muslims are Islamists. That's my point. Some aren't ...some are. go figure. Save your SJW for some idiot who cares to listen to your drivel.

The majority of the muslim world believes in a bunch of stuff I hope you and I do not. THe majority of the muslim world thinks suicide bombing may not be a bad thing. THe majority of muslims believe the penalty for apostasy should be death. The majority of the muslim world thinks the entire world will/should be muslim. Let's not kid ourselves.

I don't care for Christian lies any more than Muslim lies. In the world we live in, in the time we live in, fundamentalists of one of these religions is responsible for quite a bit more suffering. This is primarily due to the neutering of the Christians political power by secular society. When christianity had real power it was just as wicked.

I can't speak to the majority of Muslims beliefs(as ive know only a handful in my life), but my experience with your average christian (someone who says they believe in a christian god) is that they are NOT okay with the things you have listed. This of course is just what i think based on limited real world interactions.

Then I claim that they aren't actually Christians. The bible is clear on most of that, like stoning to death infidels. If they don't believe in that, what they believe is the word of god, then they are just selective fans of Christianity and not actual Christians.

That is exactly the argument given to paint all Muslims as death dealing fanatics, that their holy book demands it so they must be...turn about is fair play.

You MUST be joking.
Christians don't have overwhelming political power?!
What color is the sky in your universe?

How many publicly atheist elected officials in the federal government can you name? How many "Christians"? Now think about what you've said and feel ashamed.

But they say they are and they are counted as being Christians. imo anyone who says they accept christ is a christian. I've known many Christians in my youth. None of them had the fanatical thinking of what you are talking about. I guess it comes to how you define them. I would say in general very few Christians(and im guessing Muslims also) are fanatical people who live/believe strictly by the book. Not that any of it matters really.

Anyway disusing religion...blah,blah,blah.

I think perhaps you are more forgiving and willing to give them more of a benefit of a doubt and a pass for not being devout than I. I think, if one claims a book contains the incontrovertible word of god, then ignores many of the clear instructions in that book, they are not really believers but must be just 'fans' of the religion, because if they were true believers, they would follow all the instructions without fail and without excuse, knowing if they don't they'll end up in hell for eternity.

I grew up in Texas....I knew literally thousands who thought (and probably still think) the way I described...and they told me so often as I was the only known atheist in my school, and one of the few in my family. More than once they (the kids, not my family) actually threw the stones, but never hard enough to take me out, to their chagrin.

Agreed, looking for any consensus about religion is a fools errand. ;-)

No joke. First, Christan politicians of various denominations from various churches holding office in a secular country with a godless constitution is vastly different than when the church controlled king and country all over the western world. Our founding fathers saw to that. The church's power has been in decline for centuries thanks to luminaries like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson. The church has never regained anything like the power it held for the centuries before "the Age of Enlightenment". Source: any world history book. Second, we don't have any idea how many of today's politicians are atheist/agnostic or simple deists because in most places saying so is a sure fire way not to get elected. They wouldn't dare say if they were, but seeing as how most politicians receive a higher education and how higher education leads to a higher rate of atheism, I'd wager the rate of atheist politicians is higher than in the general population. Third, I never said there wasn't a Christian majority in the US. To begin with, I was speaking about the decline of the church's power globally. I shouldn't have to tell you the world has more countries than the United States. With the global economy this distinction (you are too inept to make) is more important now than ever.

The only one of us who should be ashamed is the one with absolutely no sense of perspective. The one who will dismiss the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism because "Christians do bad stuff too!!! WAAAA!" To be clear, the one who should be ashamed will be you, NewtBOY.

Not as different as you think, when at least 1/3 and probably up to 1/2 of the people (100% wrongly) believe the constitution is not only based in Christianity, but was handed to Washington and Jefferson by Christ himself. The secular nature of the government the founders attempted to codify is eroding...we now have god on money, in our pledge of allegiance, in our courtrooms, etc. Religious rights/laws are on the rise, not decline.....at least Christian religious rights and laws.

The church is in decline, yes. Out of power, not by 1/2.

Yes, my point, it's not secular if being atheist disqualifies one from holding office. There is a religious test, not by law but in reality. That alone precludes true secularism, and it's not alone.

Well, of course there are other countries, but I only know how religion interacts with the government in my own country, and even then I freely admit there's much I don't know, both by their design of the system and from my own lack of interest. I can't speak with any first hand knowledge about how Europe is evolving (or devolving), how it's governments respond to religious pressures, or how their populations react. That's why I stuck to the US in my response, which is a place that the religious right describes as you did, totally secular and fast removing all power from Christianity, when the reality is you can't be elected here if you don't pray to Christ publicly and removing special privileges only granted to religion is considered a war against religion and an attempt to stamp it out...at least by 1/3 of us if not more.

As for perspective, you limited it to "the time we live in", but you want to counter my answer with "historically....", and YOU said "secular constitution", so I'm not sure how you translate that to "globally". To me, "secular constitution" strongly implies the US.
Clearly things are different in ANY democracy than under a theocratic dictatorship. That goes without saying....but I guess not to you, so now I said it, so now you can see the perspective that went right over your head.

His is a disingenuous way to argue, Eric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Fortunately, Eric knows better.
Yours is an infantile way to argue, talking crap behind one's back to others rather than having a discussion.
Suck it.

And what Pograms are the church conducting? What inquisitions are the church conducting? What political leaders are the churches jailing? What scientists are the church burning? What bible translators are the church burning? What wars are the church waging? What crusades? What adultresses? What witches?

"Let me just tell you something -- for hundreds and thousands of years, this kind of discussion would have been impossible to have, or those like us would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face, ingratiating way-- because it had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you've no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side."

--Christopher Hitchens

You can't possibly be serious.

Yeah, keep changing the topic and ignoring my statements.
Ours is not a pure secular democracy, even though it was intended to be one, so not as different from a theocracy as you suggest by far. (that does not mean there's no difference, it means you imply they are near opposites) Perhaps if the clear intent of the founders was the rule, we would be, but it's not.

Try having a religious discussion in the deep south as an atheist and see if you don't feel at risk for your life. In public, maybe surviveable, but get religious people together where they feel 'safe', you'll see the bile and vitriol for the 'other' come out in spades. Hitchens knew full well it was not gone, and that the 'other' was not safe, and that religion doesn't always wear the smiley face even today.
Bye.

Whoever said it was? Your the one who made the jump from, "The church has lost power" to "We live in a pure secular democracy".

Wow! Never heard of false equivalence?

How do you figure posting a post on a public forum (that you are in) is behind your back? You really aren't the brightest bulb in the pack. Are you?

So which is it?

Either you can be a Christian or a Muslim and apply your own morality to your religion ...

or

you're not a Christian or a Muslim unless you're a literal fundamentalist?

Given there isn't really some kind of central authority on who is or isn't Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, I think it's fair to say that if you believe in the general tenets of your religion, you are a christian/muslim/pastafarian.

IMO, most people are generally good despite their religion. While a few do good works because of their religion, almost everyone ignores the outdated bits (slaverly, etc)

I'd love to hear the answer but I doubt he understands your question.

Thanks for the question btw. I wish I had thought of it.

And fuck you, you little smarmy shit. What, are you 12? Grow up.

Did you mention my name so I would get notification....no...you talked shit about me to someone else while omitting anything that would notify me you were talking shit about me.
I'm not sitting here hitting refresh on this thread looking to see if you replied or commented.
You aren't so bright yourself, are you?

I'm not really sure what your point is either.

You're the one who seems to think that Mosul is representative of Islam as a whole.

You're the one that thinks Christian fundamentalism isn't a problem today.

And if you think Christians don't have political power or that the power they do have doesn't cause problems, then you're not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

IMO, to be devout in any religion, you must be a fundamentalist. If you believe you have access to the direct instructions from GOD, and you believe in that god, yet you ignore the parts you dislike, you aren't following the religion and are an infidel, not devout. EDIT: Unless your text specifically allows you to use your own morality and interpretations, but I have not heard of a religion that does that.
As I see it, if you apply your own morality you are creating your own religion. Codified religions come with a defined set of morals that are unmodifiable, indisputable and unquestionable. If you question them, you question god, so can't be devout or following the religion. (This would be a good reason for any true believer to read only the original texts in their original tongue, not a translated version that's someone else's interpretation of the meaning.)

The religious texts are the central authority, they all contain specific rules and requirements. If you ignore some of those, IMO, you aren't honestly religious, you're a fan of religion.

I grew up in the deep south. I can say for certain that you are wrong that almost everyone ignores the outdated bits, but it's correct that most do hide the fact that they believe them because they know it makes them look terrible....but get them at a church picnic and you'll find out they do think slavery is fine, and whores should be stoned to death, etc. They are just mostly too chicken shit to do it themselves, as their book directs them to, because they're afraid of repercussion (and because they don't really believe god will protect them for being righteous, or that heaven is enough reward for being a martyr).

Yeah, but even within religions people can't agree on the rules.

Within Christianity, you have catholics, protestants, baptists, pentecostals, eastern orthodox, evangelicals and god knows what else. All of whom disagree on various aspects of their religion (sometimes fairly major points).

Islam is the same (shia, sunni, etc).

There isn't one single religious text that is the definitive version.

And I grew up in catholic Ireland. Everyone went to church, everyone believed in god (hell, it was in the constitution) and even public schools actively participated in religious rituals.
You would find it incredibly difficult to argue these people weren't religious.

Yet, they ignored large parts of their religion from the minor (dietary restrictions, etc) to the major (sex outside marriage, contraception).

I never met a single person who thought the penalty for apostasy should be death. I still haven't.

Sorry, but @slickhead is right about this point. That's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I think your environment was the exception rather than the rule.

Absolutely....but you asked ME what I thought, not them. ;-)
I gave my opinion, which is often not the normal or accepted opinion.
There is a single, original text for each religion, the sects offer different interpretations and translations, but use the same originals. If you read the original bible in Latin (or whatever language the testaments etc. were first written in), you can interpret for yourself the exact 'words of god', not someone else's interpretation/translation.

As I see it, those you describe were/are religious, but if they stray from the text in any way, they are not (insert a specific sect of Christianity here). It's like the difference between a pick up basketball game and a professional one, they're both technically players of basketball, but only one is a "basketball player"
I have at least met many who SAID they thought that....but none that had the nerve to try it....but if your text says that's the prescribed treatment for an 'infidel' and you ignore it, you aren't following your religion, so aren't an (insert sect of any religion here).

I disagree that it's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, (EDIT: It's a "very few true Scotsman" argument) it's a strict reading of the rules of religions and allowing no personal interpretation or modification, as they all REQUIRE. Just because very few people (but not zero) actually practice religion as their texts prescribe doesn't change the rules for religion, it just makes them non devout...and I say, to me, that makes them not part of their chosen religion, but fans of it, since they don't actually practice it.
I do agree, that opinion is based on a far more strict interpretation of religious rules than most people's, but I can't understand how you can ignore a single letter of the "word of god" if you believe, so I can only believe that most people don't actually fully believe, so aren't devout, so (IMO) aren't "Christians" (or "Muslims", or "Jewish", etc).

EDIT: I certainly hope my environment as a child was the exception, I would hate to think that everyone went through that as a kid. It was a daily struggle living as a vocal atheist in Texas in the 70's.

But is it not true that all these sects mostly disagree on which parts of the doctrine(s) to ignore (or which parts to consider parables and morality tales rather than instructions, which amounts to the same thing)?
That is why I would say there are quite few "true Christians" (but probably not none), and likely the same goes for all other religions that contain differing sects/opinions. (EDIT:This made me realize that, while not a 'no true Scotsman' argument, it is a 'no pure Scotsman' argument, which is quite similar)

The fact that portions of the texts can be interpreted differently by different people is proof enough to me that none of them contain the "perfect word of god", because I think it could not be misinterpreted.

Christians haven't been killing for centuries.

Where did I say any of those things?

Where did I say Mosul is representative of Islam as a whole? I didn't. I said Dubai is not representative of Islam as a whole and offered Mosul as a contrast. Did you not watch the video?

Where did I say Christian fundamentalism isn't a problem today? I didn't. I said Christianity used to have more power and I am correct.

Where did I say Christians don't have political power or that the power they do have doesn't cause problems? I didn't. I said Christianity used to have more power. Ancient myths applied dogmatically nearly always cause problems.

You can't show where I said anything like your accusations . Learn to read. You seem to be splitting. Not everything is black or white. Not much of anything is black or white. Mostly there is grey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29

There are a few million who would disagree with you if they weren't killed by Christians over the last few centuries.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html

As usual you are confused, a secular country is not an atheist country. A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion NOR IRRELIGION. We have atheist politicians. https://www.google.com/#q=list+of+atheist+politicians. I'm sure many more are closeted or deists or not as well known. The mayor of the major city I live in is atheist. The United States is the model of a secular nation in that we invented the idea of a separation between church and state. Secular doesn't mean religious people can't hold office. Also, secularism doesn't mean that the wall between church and state doesn't require constant vigilance to uphold.