Bells
Staff member
An openly homosexual Imam visits Norway
- Thread starter Sock puppet path
- Start date
From http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2643141#post2643141
There are some differences between Muslim bashing here at Sciforums and Gay bashing here at Sciforums. Here at Sciforums homophobia is recognized as homophobia and disapproved of by a clear majority of us. Muslim bashing on the other hand gets excuses made for it and people claim that Muslims deserve it.
Homophobia is however accepted by the majority of the world beyond Sciforums and they make pathetic excuses for why it is OK.
There are higher quality excuses for why Islamophobia is OK than there are for why homophobia is OK but neither set of excuses passes an objective inspection for justifying treating Islam and Homosexuality enemies that need to be suppressed.
It seems that homophobia is stronger among people who are also uncomfortable with heterosexuality. Uncomfortableness with sexuality seems to correlate with general fear of chaos and fear of all things different. Everything new or unusual seems to provoke hostility from traditionalists. Homosexuality seems to run counter to their desire for order. This same sentiment that made homosexuality taboo probably uses religion to attack their fear of the unknown and fear of being overpowered and fear of being wrong by created a powerful God to protect them and give them order and a religious cosmology story that it is taboo to question that can be used to suppress their troubling doubts and fears.
Yes Islamic societies are more old fashioned and homophobic and chaos fearing than the West is. What Yosef was saying in the thread you linked to about not accepting homosexuals as religious leaders is also the official policy of the Catholic Church.
That thread was not made to attack homosexuals. I don't remember any threads at Sciforums made to attack homosexuality. There probably have been some but they are not common. Threads made to attack Islam are common. The Islam bashing threads may pretend to be something other than simple Islam bashing but usually you can see through disguised Islam bashing.
Fear of eating pork= a very old health issue that became part of religion.
Fear of homosexuals as best I can tell is a primitive irrational offshoot of fear of chaos which happens to be the same fear that created the authoritarian form of religion.
Fear of Muslims is primarily just a product of an instinctive desire to identify the external enemy as far as I can tell. Yes 9-11 happened and that made it easier to focus this instinct on Muslims. This instinct has room for more than one enemy so if homosexuals or Mexicans or blacks or Jews or liberals or conservatives or communists or whatever get that instinct focussed on them they become the enemy and attacking them becomes acceptable. This is the same instinct that Lions, wolves, and chimpanzees have towards their identified external enemy of their own species but humans need to make up stories to fit the instinct with our greater narrative.
Back to the thread you linked to:
Ejderha did not say if Ejderha was Muslim or Turkish but Ejderha was defending your position.
Yosef's position might be quite close to the position of 40% of Americans. This does not make his position rational and it does not mean that his position is not cruel but I don't think that the fact that many or most Muslims agree with him excuses a general hostility towards Islam particularly If the real hostility is just an irrational hatred of Muslims based on a a growing consensus that Muslims can fit in the designated external enemy slot that was waiting to be filled and pulling us to fill it.
Is scifes Muslim?
I have forgotten what I learned about scifes personality from past threads. I don't know how to interpret scifes in this thread. Is he being silly? Is he being excessively logical to be provocative?
Taking scifes seriously for a moment:
Incest and pedophilia have been shown to be harmful. It might theoretically be possible to have harmless incest and pedophilia but we should not let people attempt this because the probability of damage being caused is too high.
It is non-monogamy that spreads sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage only matters in terms of STDs because marriage correlates with monogamy. Monogamous Homosexuals are as STD safe as heterosexuals. Anal sex makes male homosexuals more vulnerable to STDs than male heterosexuals are. I believe that vaginal sex with men makes female heterosexuals more vulnerable to STDs than female homosexual sex makes lesbians. I might be wrong about that.
You would think that bestiality would be the safest sex since many diseases are not interspecies. Bestial sex would still be safer if it was monogamous Bestial sex. Bestial sex would be cruel to the animals but humans societies have barely begun to care about cruelty to animals. The fact the bestiality is in this discussion sort of indicates that the objection to homosexuality is part of an instinctive desire to oppress the abnormal. Bestiality certainly is the weirdest sex but it is probably second only to monogamy in terms of safeness.
I forgot about masturbation. Catholics had a problem with that too.
I don't think the thread you linked to is as problematic as many of the anti-Muslim threads mostly because prejudice against Gays is not as common on sciforums and because a larger proportion of the West (my home) recognizes homophobia as being homophobia than recognize Islamophobia as being Islamophobia. My guess is that about 30% of Americans recognize mild homophobia for what it is when they see it while only about 8% of Americans recognize mild Islamophobia for what it is when they see it.
A long time ago a friend of mine was a victim of an attempted homosexual rape while he was traveling in Turkey. Should I blame all Turks for that, all Muslims for that or all homosexuals for that and does that justify any general hatred against any of these groups?
I am going to post this in both threads.
There are some differences between Muslim bashing here at Sciforums and Gay bashing here at Sciforums. Here at Sciforums homophobia is recognized as homophobia and disapproved of by a clear majority of us. Muslim bashing on the other hand gets excuses made for it and people claim that Muslims deserve it.
Homophobia is however accepted by the majority of the world beyond Sciforums and they make pathetic excuses for why it is OK.
There are higher quality excuses for why Islamophobia is OK than there are for why homophobia is OK but neither set of excuses passes an objective inspection for justifying treating Islam and Homosexuality enemies that need to be suppressed.
It seems that homophobia is stronger among people who are also uncomfortable with heterosexuality. Uncomfortableness with sexuality seems to correlate with general fear of chaos and fear of all things different. Everything new or unusual seems to provoke hostility from traditionalists. Homosexuality seems to run counter to their desire for order. This same sentiment that made homosexuality taboo probably uses religion to attack their fear of the unknown and fear of being overpowered and fear of being wrong by created a powerful God to protect them and give them order and a religious cosmology story that it is taboo to question that can be used to suppress their troubling doubts and fears.
Yes Islamic societies are more old fashioned and homophobic and chaos fearing than the West is. What Yosef was saying in the thread you linked to about not accepting homosexuals as religious leaders is also the official policy of the Catholic Church.
That thread was not made to attack homosexuals. I don't remember any threads at Sciforums made to attack homosexuality. There probably have been some but they are not common. Threads made to attack Islam are common. The Islam bashing threads may pretend to be something other than simple Islam bashing but usually you can see through disguised Islam bashing.
Fear of eating pork= a very old health issue that became part of religion.
Fear of homosexuals as best I can tell is a primitive irrational offshoot of fear of chaos which happens to be the same fear that created the authoritarian form of religion.
Fear of Muslims is primarily just a product of an instinctive desire to identify the external enemy as far as I can tell. Yes 9-11 happened and that made it easier to focus this instinct on Muslims. This instinct has room for more than one enemy so if homosexuals or Mexicans or blacks or Jews or liberals or conservatives or communists or whatever get that instinct focussed on them they become the enemy and attacking them becomes acceptable. This is the same instinct that Lions, wolves, and chimpanzees have towards their identified external enemy of their own species but humans need to make up stories to fit the instinct with our greater narrative.
Back to the thread you linked to:
Ejderha did not say if Ejderha was Muslim or Turkish but Ejderha was defending your position.
Yosef's position might be quite close to the position of 40% of Americans. This does not make his position rational and it does not mean that his position is not cruel but I don't think that the fact that many or most Muslims agree with him excuses a general hostility towards Islam particularly If the real hostility is just an irrational hatred of Muslims based on a a growing consensus that Muslims can fit in the designated external enemy slot that was waiting to be filled and pulling us to fill it.
Is scifes Muslim?
I have forgotten what I learned about scifes personality from past threads. I don't know how to interpret scifes in this thread. Is he being silly? Is he being excessively logical to be provocative?
Taking scifes seriously for a moment:
Incest and pedophilia have been shown to be harmful. It might theoretically be possible to have harmless incest and pedophilia but we should not let people attempt this because the probability of damage being caused is too high.
It is non-monogamy that spreads sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage only matters in terms of STDs because marriage correlates with monogamy. Monogamous Homosexuals are as STD safe as heterosexuals. Anal sex makes male homosexuals more vulnerable to STDs than male heterosexuals are. I believe that vaginal sex with men makes female heterosexuals more vulnerable to STDs than female homosexual sex makes lesbians. I might be wrong about that.
You would think that bestiality would be the safest sex since many diseases are not interspecies. Bestial sex would still be safer if it was monogamous Bestial sex. Bestial sex would be cruel to the animals but humans societies have barely begun to care about cruelty to animals. The fact the bestiality is in this discussion sort of indicates that the objection to homosexuality is part of an instinctive desire to oppress the abnormal. Bestiality certainly is the weirdest sex but it is probably second only to monogamy in terms of safeness.
I forgot about masturbation. Catholics had a problem with that too.
I don't think the thread you linked to is as problematic as many of the anti-Muslim threads mostly because prejudice against Gays is not as common on sciforums and because a larger proportion of the West (my home) recognizes homophobia as being homophobia than recognize Islamophobia as being Islamophobia. My guess is that about 30% of Americans recognize mild homophobia for what it is when they see it while only about 8% of Americans recognize mild Islamophobia for what it is when they see it.
A long time ago a friend of mine was a victim of an attempted homosexual rape while he was traveling in Turkey. Should I blame all Turks for that, all Muslims for that or all homosexuals for that and does that justify any general hatred against any of these groups?
I am going to post this in both threads.
Bells
Staff member
I am not denying that the Catholic Church is not far behind that of the likes of Scifes in this thread. But at the very least, I have yet to hear an excuse or excuse homophobia on this level by attempting to demonise non-Muslims and primarily atheists for not wanting to murder all homosexuals because of their sexuality. Because to the likes of Scifes, if you are not homophobic, then you are apparently into wanting to have sex with your mother, sister, daughter, son, father, etc or into having sex with the family pets. He poses the question 'why can't I have sex with my sister?' or 'why can't I marry my sister' several times in this thread in defending his own homophobic tendencies. The terms he has used in this thread have been terribly offensive, to the point of asking what is the difference between homosexuals having sex and beastiality.Nirakar said:
It is offensive, divisive and it gives an indication of why homosexuals in Muslim communities have to sometimes go into hiding for fear of death. Scifes is a prime example of what can be horribly wrong with a religion, of how a religion can warp someone's brain to such an extent that they end up sounding like total maniacs because of how people have sex.
If you notice in this thread, people weren't attacking Muslims as a group. We were attacking the stance taken by Muslims like Scifes and Yosef. There is a difference. Because Scifes is a Muslim does not mean that he should be given free reign to spread his hate on this forum, nor should we remain silent on his hate out of fear of Islamaphobia. His religion should not be an excuse nor a passport.
In Scifes world and vision of secular countries and atheists, it is conceivable to him that a 5 year old girl would sue the State to be allowed to have sex with her father. Because to Scifes, we atheists are a pack of rapists and whores who don't just stop at fucking anything that moves, we also fuck our children and animals. Should his religious status excuse his behaviour on this forum? No. It does not and frankly, if people want to tear him a new one for the comments he has made on this forum, his crying 'Islamophobia' will fall on deaf ears. Do you know why? Because the level of hatred spouted by Scifes has only lived up to what the stereotype that some have of Muslims on this forum and elsewhere. He has done more in this thread to damage the very image of Muslims than most.
Last edited:
Eh, people bash Catholicism and Christianity too: or just paste all Abrahamic theism altogether. Get used to it; comes with the territory - and much of it, as criticisms about the Catholic Church, are justified.
For a better treatise, see Bells' post above.
For a better treatise, see Bells' post above.
So if something in Islam is deemed to do more harm to its adherents than good, secular societies should feel free to crack down at will? Or in the case of marriage, tell me what harm it does to others to have sexual relations without signing a lifelong contract? And as for harm to the individual, you know what harms individuals? Spending time on the internet instead of working 16 hours a day and then sleeping the remaining 8. Even the time you presumably spend praying, you could be producing something with that time and are thus causing yourself "harm".
You've never heard all the stories of European women who go to places like Egypt, get seduced by some young guy's Muslim goatee moustache and then marry them, only to find they've put themselves in a trap and can't even leave the country without their husband's permission (which of course would never come)? Almost happened to a close friend of mine on a visit to Egypt, on several occasions, and she was only there for a month. It's called discrimination against women, like the kind where it's as bad as black slavery (oh BTW on that topic, guess where America liked to go when it wanted to buy African slaves?)
Because that poses a demonstrable threat to the entire society they live in. Not a moral threat, not a bad example, but rather the threat of a giant physical explosion. So you equate the harms of unmarried relations with the harm caused by building and detonating a nuke?
No, unless it could be established that some sort of harm is being done to the dog by marrying it. But there's no law permitting that to happen in Canada or any secular society I've ever heard of. Oh, you know what's permitted and encouraged in many Muslim societies, that we atheists also look down on with contempt and disgust? Marrying your cousins, aunts and uncles- now that's just freakin' sick, almost as bad as marrying a mother or sister. That's how you destroy a society's gene pool and condemn it to permanent disabilities and retardation.
My understanding is HIV started in animals like monkeys, and some genius in some region of the planet where monkeys are common had the great idea to go have sex with one.
Entirely your personal dogma. What you see as beauty, love or joy is seen by others as filth, you have no objective basis for a foundation to your claims.
No surprises there, your attempts to bamboozle actual scientists with numerology ended up in total tatters.
Well in my mind there is a doubt, a very big one.
So because it makes you cry, that means I should believe it too? Buddhism makes Buddhists cry, big deal. You don't even know what a "most authentic moment" is, since you've only ever tried it in one flavour.
Electric buttons don't reproduce or mutate. Humans and all other known organisms do reproduce and mutate, we don't need a designer to turn that crank. God is just an option you decided to stick in, because it makes you feel comfy like you actually know something about the world around you.
In other words, as far as we know, humans are fancy computers. Not only can we move around like a steam engine, but we can generate neuron pulses too.
@CptBork
In other words you believe that the respiratory system get developed over a period of nine months and only to be used after birth totally without design ?!
So we could basically send two human beings to the moon just like that, without any thought and design (as to how to design the astronautic suits). They die, surely, in the first trip and this means no human beings will be there in 5 million years.
It can be that a mutated big finger can help a human being reach a higher up apple on the tree, but what about a mutated little thing in the chest that might absorb o2, that needs a carrier, that might be needed by a mutated cell somewhere in the body, that has to not kill another mutated cell sensitive to o2.. All of this will prove to be evolutionary good only if the baby got born and only if it somehow managed to reproduce.
Ridiculous!
In other words you believe that the respiratory system get developed over a period of nine months and only to be used after birth totally without design ?!
So we could basically send two human beings to the moon just like that, without any thought and design (as to how to design the astronautic suits). They die, surely, in the first trip and this means no human beings will be there in 5 million years.
It can be that a mutated big finger can help a human being reach a higher up apple on the tree, but what about a mutated little thing in the chest that might absorb o2, that needs a carrier, that might be needed by a mutated cell somewhere in the body, that has to not kill another mutated cell sensitive to o2.. All of this will prove to be evolutionary good only if the baby got born and only if it somehow managed to reproduce.
Ridiculous!
Last edited:
I seriously hope that's not how you think evolution works. Humans don't need to mutate lungs, that's a gradual step-by-step process which (based on the best of current evidence) occurred over millions of years. There were mammals with lungs walking the Earth long before the first primates ever set foot on its surface, let alone humans. Beneficial mutations lead to small advantages in survival and reproduction, harmful mutations lead to disadvantages. When there's a limited food supply and the population can't breed in unlimited numbers, you start getting competition and a very slow and gradual process of natural selection, survival of the fittest to pass their traits on to the next generation while the weakest traits slowly vanish from the gene pool, and the evolution continues in the generations thereafter. Examples of this kind of evolution have already been seen on small scales directly in nature as well as in the lab, and the fossil record indicates that the same process has occurred on large scales over hundreds of millions of years (if not billions).
No serious evolutionary biologist has ever said lungs evolve on the fly in a human being over 9 months. Not even close.
Only ridiculous because the theory you're discussing here has nothing to do with the theory that Darwin proposed, and Darwin's theory is still the only one we use to this day. Evolution doesn't require everything to come together all at the same time. Step by step, you get tiny changes occurring as generation after generation passes, and over time the strong survive to pass their traits on for continued evolution, while the weak struggle to reproduce and keep their numbers up, and any DNA leading to weakness eventually disappears from the gene pool. Strength and weakness are relative concepts of course- mutations which are beneficial in one environment might prove to be harmful in another. Anyhow, main point is since you're not actually discussing the Theory of Evolution and what it actually says, I don't really need to counter anything you've just said.
I'm not out here to get you and humiliate you, but you guys wanted to start a discussion about how decrepit Western society is compared to Muslim society, so if we're going to talk about that then I'm gonna be putting some very painful facts down on the table for you.
Thanks for the shocking display of ignorance Yosef. Try watching this, it might help (but probably not). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo&feature=player_embedded
@CptBork @Repo Man
I think it's amazing that the GIGABYTES of knowledge needed to create the lungs come originally from microscopic cells (sperm and egg). They mix, proteins and hands of God work to build the structures for a period of nine months, baby is out, first breath, system completes and is ready to make that baby man / woman live for 80 years on. Wonderful. How can such a thing evolve from nothing by nothing ?! Amazing creation upon creation with no contact with outer circumstances. It cannot be due to "nothing". Very simple!
I love God and I feel His wonders at the bottom of my spirit.
I think it's amazing that the GIGABYTES of knowledge needed to create the lungs come originally from microscopic cells (sperm and egg). They mix, proteins and hands of God work to build the structures for a period of nine months, baby is out, first breath, system completes and is ready to make that baby man / woman live for 80 years on. Wonderful. How can such a thing evolve from nothing by nothing ?! Amazing creation upon creation with no contact with outer circumstances. It cannot be due to "nothing". Very simple!
I love God and I feel His wonders at the bottom of my spirit.
Argument from incredulity only displays your limited knowledge and imagination. Many believers have managed to reconcile the fact of life on Earth evolving, and a belief in deities. Your own inability to do so means your are in the category of the worst sort of believer; one who can only respond to inconvenient facts by attacking and denying them.
Eh?
Very simple. Evolutionary progression of forms.
It isn't due to "nothing". I'm not sure where you're getting this from...or what it's even doing on this thread.
I think it's actually a lot more than gigabytes, possibly even more than terabytes. And it's not necessarily knowledge, just information.
Sperm and egg mix, and the subsequent development is controlled by an enormous number of factors involving DNA, proteins and other chemicals in the womb. But as far as saying the "hands of God" have anything to do with it, you can't name a single part of the process that defies the known laws of chemistry and mechanics. If you're wondering how such systems can come to be in the first place, I already explained that we believe it comes from mutations in small increments, and the complexity gradually increases over the generations. Those species which failed to adapt to their environments and become increasingly complex, well, they died, that's why the remaining organisms all function so nicely.
Simple, it didn't evolve from nothing by nothing. Food and energy supplies are an outer circumstance. Random mutations are an outer circumstance. Natural selection is an outer circumstance. Time is an outer circumstance.
I don't see anyone here saying that it's due to "nothing". We have physical laws which on macroscopic scales lead to chemistry, mechanics, electrodynamics, etc. And just because you can't personally conceive of any alternative, doesn't mean the only possible explanation is the Quran and every little word and phrase within.
We're not trying to take that love or sense of wonder away from you. Our intention is merely to show that you have no rational basis for demanding it of anyone else or trying to impose it on them.
I always wondered why a lot of religious people (mainly those of the main monotheistic religions) seem to be literally obsessed with what others do with their genitals. It's like they have some psychological issue, or I don't know what otherwise they wouldn't give a damn. So what if a guy likes men? None of your business.
liar.
i suspect your brain cells play chinese whisper in your head[if you know the game], you seem to be unable to comprehend simple sentences. which isn't really something new.
you out-straight lying isn't something new either.
being a very emotional debater doesn't affect your logic positively as well.
Scifes, various people have tried to explain your bias to you - Bells, myself, Tiassa. The difference is that two adults are reckoned to be consenting, whereas it would be difficult to obtain consent from an animal, your cherished donkey example notwithstanding. In the case of incest, there is the issue of inbreeding. Aside from such issues, the state has little place in the bedroom.
bells has either short term memory loss or comprehension problems.
you've talked a lot in this thread without saying much. it seems your point from replying is just to increase the text in the thread that opposes.
tiassa didn't bother descending to this thread, where talking about bestiality and incest is turned into "rape" and "atheist morals not objecting to incest" turns into "atheists practice incest", and where a person who simplifies his question by setting himself as an example out of courtesy, instead of setting one of his debaters, is actually accused for incest for real, and when the losers find nothing else to do, they go look up fish names to make sick jokes about. how pathetic.
uke:
you don't know what they heck you're talking about.
it doesn't surprise me that cpt bork who wasn't as senseless as the rest of you didn't get to your list.
This is your inference, and it is not supported by her discourse with you.
This is patently false, and you know it. Or possibly not: Tiassa used to pose the old wife-beating selection ("Have you stopped beating your wife yet?") with me in our debates for a while, until I straightened him out. But he had a point in application, because this is probably true in cases where you don't illustrate a "third way": so either you don't understand what I wrote, or you do and you're posting this shit anyway. In actual point of fact, you really are being stupid or dishonest about "not saying much". I leave it to you to choose which, since either answer would be irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
He has certainly discussed this issue, lad.
False assertion.
Why not? Why shouldn't the atheists of the board have a nice solid go at you? You're telling them that their moral opposition to your opposition to homosexuality is based on their atheism, and then you equivocate homosexuality with incest and beastiality. And who would willfully practice any of the above save those hideously immoral atheists?
Glass houses.
Well, given that your arguments have been fishy from the go, I don't see a problem. Personally, I thought the jokes were very witty. But you go on and bitch about off-topic comments while you parade your bullshit. Go on. Feel offended.
My apologies: Cpt Bork's response was accurate and apt. Happy?
let me illustrate the "third way" to you;