Islam doesn’t belong here, say two-thirds of Germans - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309555]The "Islamic Golden Age" is largely a PC myth. It is true to say that the Arab/Persian world was more advanced in the areas of science, mathematics, and astronomy than Europe was at the time. But if you're setting your bar as low as the early middle ages in Europe then anything is going to look better. For example, the treatment of Jews under the Umayyads in Spain was better than the treatment of Jews under European kings [I]only by comparison[/I]. But my second and more important disagreement with this is that [I]the golden age had nothing to do with Islam[/I]. Islam was not the reason for the success of the Arab/Persian world. Nobody credits Christianity for the Enlightenment, rightfully so. Why do regressives insist on crediting Islam for the "Golden Age"? [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] The difference here is about scale. Of course Christians spread their doctrine by the sword (look up the Baltic Crusade for example). But these cases were the exception, not the rule. Contrast this with Islam, where Jihad is a core doctrine.[/QUOTE] This is utter garbage. Not only does Christianity figure largely in the developments that led up to the Enlightenment (“Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.”) and lasted throughout it, it's an even more spurious comparison than the one you criticize for exactly the same thing. The entire thing is equivocating by whatever means necessary against achievments in the Arab world. You can pretend that Islam exists in isolation from them, but it's even more arbitrary than the reverse assumption that Islam was solely responsible for it. The truth lies somewhere in between and isn't a "PC myth."

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50308237]For a very long time, Christianity was the same way. The idea that you could personally "interpret" the scripture was ridiculed by the church. It changed with the times. There are several prominent Muslim scholars that criticize the violent aspects of Islam. Saying that a religion [i]cannot[/i] be changed ever is absurd. Islam has changed enormously over the generations - the rise of ISIS and wahhabism and fundamentalist Islam came after an era of largely secular and progressive post-Ottoman-Empire states in the Middle East. Filled to the brim with Islam with little violence. The modern fundamentalism is a very recent development in Muslim history.[/QUOTE] This is flat false. There have been a variety of times where the early church cut out parts of the bible. Entire books were removed. Theoretically, there is nothing stopping one from doing this again today (the Catholic Church says only they have the authority to do this, but Protestants could make their own arguments for only following parts of the Bible). The "Bible" itself has had different versions since the very beginning. Where did you get this from? I'm sorry I know you would like to pretend there is nothing stopping Islam from being like every other religion, but there are some pretty major differences that explain why Islam is vastly different from Christianity and Judaism. Until a major reform comes that allows for the editing of the Islamic texts, I fear the Muslim world will continue to lag behind. Unfortunately due to the nature of the texts themselves, it is very hard for reformers to convince Muslims that the texts can be edited. [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Kommodore;50309652]This is utter garbage. Not only does Christianity figure largely in the developments that led up to the Enlightenment (“Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.”) and lasted throughout it, it's an even more spurious comparison than the one you criticize for exactly the same thing. The entire thing is equivocating by whatever means necessary against achievments in the Arab world. You can pretend that Islam exists in isolation from them, but it's even more arbitrary than the reverse assumption that Islam was solely responsible for it. The truth lies somewhere in between and isn't a "PC myth."[/QUOTE] The Enlightenment was tremendously hindered by Christianity. I forget the exact story, but Newton stopped his research at one point and declared that everything beyond that point was Gods magic. It wasn't until a century later that somebody continued his work.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309703]This is flat false. There have been a variety of times where the early church cut out parts of the bible. Entire books were removed.[/QUOTE] Specifically, what books are you talking about?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50309752]Specifically, what books are you talking about?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha[/url]

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309761][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha[/URL][/QUOTE] Those were not accepted as canonical very early. St. Athanasius (~300AD), for example, didn't think they were canon. To say they were "thrown out" is just misleading. Mileto's canon didn't include them either from the 2nd century (the earliest written canon).

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309703] The Enlightenment was tremendously hindered by Christianity. I forget the exact story, but Newton stopped his research at one point and declared that everything beyond that point was Gods magic. It wasn't until a century later that somebody continued his work.[/QUOTE] In "forgetting the story" you must have forgotten that Newton was both an independently religious man and also suffered a grievous mental collapse in his later years, neither of which lends any support to your point.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50309781]Those were not accepted as canonical very early. St. Athanasius (~300AD), for example, didn't think they were canon. To say they were "thrown out" is just misleading.[/QUOTE] I think this is a pretty small distinction and my point still stands. Another thing to point out: even the fact that the bible can be translated and have the words changed over the years is something taboo in Islam.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309792]I think this is a pretty small distinction and my point still stands. Another thing to point out: even the fact that the bible can be translated and have the words changed over the years is something taboo in Islam.[/QUOTE] How is it a small distinction to say that the books were not considered canon by many of the earliest church leaders? Clearly that's a pretty good reason to not consider them canon.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50309789]In "forgetting the story" you must have forgotten that Newton was both an independently religious man and also suffered a grievous mental collapse in his later years, neither of which lends any support to your point.[/QUOTE] Yeah... many Enlightenment thinkers were religious. Did their adherence to Christianity really help them make advances?

has it really never occurred to you that Islam is first and foremost a religion that happens to be situated among the global poor and that the latter fact might be more important than any of these things you made up just now?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309803]Yeah... many Enlightenment thinkers were religious. Did their adherence to Christianity really help them make advances?[/QUOTE] Yes? In fact, the majority of them attributed their scientific endeavors as a way to learn more about God through his creation (like Newton).

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309803]Yeah... many Enlightenment thinkers were religious. Did their adherence to Christianity really help them make advances?[/QUOTE] Was the entire Enlightenment just Voltaire to you?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50309808]Yes? In fact, the majority of them attributed their scientific endeavors as a way to learn more about God through his creation (like Newton).[/QUOTE] All religions are inspiring to their adherents. Would they have been any less inspired to learn had they belonged to any other religion?

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50309652]This is utter garbage. Not only does Christianity figure largely in the developments that led up to the Enlightenment (“Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.”) and lasted throughout it, it's an even more spurious comparison than the one you criticize for exactly the same thing. The entire thing is equivocating by whatever means necessary against achievments in the Arab world. You can pretend that Islam exists in isolation from them, but it's even more arbitrary than the reverse assumption that Islam was solely responsible for it. The truth lies somewhere in between and isn't a "PC myth."[/QUOTE] Christianity did not figure into the developments that were made [i]during[/i] the Enlightenment, however; that is what Pantz Master is getting at. While it may have at the beginning, there's a reason why Deism superseded it by the middle and late periods. In fact, the highlight of the Enlightenment was actually the gradual rejection which people started to feel against the Christian doctrine and their growing favor for scientific materialism instead. Nor did Islam figure into the developments that were made in Persia/the Arabian world during the so-called "Islamic Golden Age"-- which is as he correctly pointed out a myth. It's a myth exactly like the so-called European "Dark Ages" is (which were actually a period during which several renaissances took place, the Carolingian Renaissance of which occurred under Charlemagne). What was actually happening beginning in the 8th century was that Islamic leaders were going to war and acquiring most of their progress from people they either conquered or raided. Europe was a favorite-- the Iberian Peninsula, the Italian Peninsula, Greece and the Balkans. They took all kinds of shit from them. They even took thousands of Europeans as slaves in the process, something which is rarely discussed today but was a huge problem at that time. About the only decent thing that came out of scholars from the Middle East during this time and the 10th century was an appreciation for Ancient Greek scientific and philosophical manuscripts and ensuring the preservation of ancient works by Aristotle and Plato after translating them from Syriac and Greek into Arabic. Otherwise, there were some genuinely original contributions to mathematics, star mapping, and geography came out of the Middle East during this time (Avicenna of Persia certainly was a genius, and his work was and still is remarkable), but the what was developed by them had very little to do with the Islamic religion somehow spurring them on to develop and discover these things, and the golden age as a whole is nothing more than a convenient myth for advocates of relativism. It was a military and economic golden age, but the Middle East was not during this time a beacon of intellectual and humanistic hope surrounded by nothing but ignorant people, and Europe wasn't sunk down in some sort of dark age either. That, and to let Neil DeGrasse Tyson summarize, it's also a matter of naming rights. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q[/media] He mentioned al-Ghazali, who is a perfect example of an actual Islamic scholar (also Persian, like Avicenna). While he didn't say that mathematics was "the work of the devil", al-Ghazali was against the advancements and the philosophical wisdom of the Greeks because of how it contradicted Islamic teachings. He was a proponent of exact sciences and philosophies where it was religiously convenient for him to be (in areas where he believed they confirmed the existence of God or that Islam was correct), but he was also quick to be critical of them both when they were religiously inconvenient and contradicted his beliefs. Or to put it another way, there's a reason why he's just remembered as a theologian, mystic, and philosopher-- not as an intelligent polymath the way Avicenna was/still is.

[QUOTE=Govna;50309825]Christianity did not figure into the developments that were made [i]during[/i] the Enlightenment[/QUOTE] by simply saying this over and over again, it does not become truer. please for the love of god just go buy a book on the enlightenment.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50309854]by simply saying this over and over again, it does not become truer. please for the love of god just go buy a book on the enlightenment.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that the inspiration and comfort people got from their religion aided the development of the enlightenment? Because that doesn't really mean christianity was in any way a necessary element. Any religion that provided similar comfort would have sufficed. Some probably would have been much more conducive to moving towards skeptical inquiry and naturalism.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50309854]by simply saying this over and over again, it does not become truer. please for the love of god just go buy a book on the enlightenment.[/QUOTE] Saying this over and over again doesn't make it any truer either. You brought up, "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light." You are aware that there was more to the Enlightenment than just Newton, right? Kant, Hume, Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. I suggest you also read up more on Newton's beliefs about Christianity, because they were at best heretical, and the man himself had a fascination with occultism (especially about discovering the date when the world would end-- which he believed would be [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070813033620/http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070619/28049_Papers_Show_Isaac_Newton's_Religious_Side,_Predict_Date_of_Apocalypse.htm]"no earlier than 2060"[/url]) and mysticism. Shit, Kant himself said that the Enlightenment was "man's emergency from his self-imposed infancy". It was about the death of traditional religious beliefs and values in favor of more humanistic, scientific, and materialistic ideals. Again, there's a reason why Deism and atheism were becoming so popular; the Enlightenment religiously was about intellectuals turning away from Christianity because they were supposed to possess rationality, scientific curiosity, empiricism, etc.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309555]The "Islamic Golden Age" is largely a PC myth. It is true to say that the Arab/Persian world was more advanced in the areas of science, mathematics, and astronomy than Europe was at the time. But if you're setting your bar as low as the early middle ages in Europe then anything is going to look better. For example, the treatment of Jews under the Umayyads in Spain was better than the treatment of Jews under European kings [I]only by comparison[/I]. But my second and more important disagreement with this is that [I]the golden age had nothing to do with Islam[/I]. Islam was not the reason for the success of the Arab/Persian world. Nobody credits Christianity for the Enlightenment, rightfully so. Why do regressives insist on crediting Islam for the "Golden Age"?[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? The Golden Age of Islam is a very real and documented thing that fucking happened. Can you please give some evidence to back up your god damn claims, or are you just speaking out of your ass so you can justify you islamaphobic views?

[QUOTE=Govna;50309978]Saying this over and over again doesn't make it any truer either. You brought up, "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Newton be! and all was light." You are aware that there was more to the Enlightenment than just Newton, right? Kant, Hume, Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. I suggest you also read up more on Newton's beliefs about Christianity, because they were at best heretical, and the man himself had a fascination with occultism (especially about discovering the date when the world would end-- which he believed would be [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20070813033620/http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070619/28049_Papers_Show_Isaac_Newton's_Religious_Side,_Predict_Date_of_Apocalypse.htm"]"no earlier than 2060"[/URL]) and mysticism. Shit, Kant himself said that the Enlightenment was "man's emergency from his self-imposed infancy". It was about the death of traditional religious beliefs and values in favor of more humanistic, scientific, and materialistic ideals. Again, there's a reason why Deism and atheism were becoming so popular; the Enlightenment religiously was about intellectuals turning away from Christianity because they were supposed to possess rationality, scientific curiosity, empiricism, etc.[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that religion inspired and was part of the explanations in Enlightenment theories in chemistry, geology, philosophy, everything, in the forms of people like Joseph Priestly, Georges Cuvier, Robert Boyle (look them all up) and even beyond the enlightenment acted as a financial patron for Mendel, in some senses Darwin, and before that for Descartes and Bacon who laid out the beginnings of scientific ethics. Some of these are off the top of my head, some are from the first pages of a chapter of a book on the history of science I opened, there are countless more, as there are countless more books that say the same thing. It's part of a very uncontroversial and established historical canon. You can hop on your computer and pretend that everything is a blank slate but for my part I'm not saying anything that isn't a complete fucking banality to the rest of the world.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309703]This is flat false. There have been a variety of times where the early church cut out parts of the bible. Entire books were removed. Theoretically, there is nothing stopping one from doing this again today (the Catholic Church says only they have the authority to do this, but Protestants could make their own arguments for only following parts of the Bible). The "Bible" itself has had different versions since the very beginning. Where did you get this from? I'm sorry I know you would like to pretend there is nothing stopping Islam from being like every other religion, but there are some pretty major differences that explain why Islam is vastly different from Christianity and Judaism. Until a major reform comes that allows for the editing of the Islamic texts, I fear the Muslim world will continue to lag behind. Unfortunately due to the nature of the texts themselves, it is very hard for reformers to convince Muslims that the texts can be edited.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about here? After the great schism, pretty much everything was set in stone right up until the reformation.

merge

I don't get the people who see christians as morally superior to muslims, when really it's democracy, education and lack of/freedom of religion that leads our society in the right direction.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50308583]Christianity was founded by an ante-litteram hippie who may or may not have existed. Islam was found by a child-raping jew-genociding warmongerer who definitely did exist and who just wrote a holy book for his own personal gains, making up laws as he pleased for his own benefit. Oh, and he imposed his religion by the use of the sword, while Christians managed to do that simply through their message. In the end, as an atheist, I don't care what religion you prefer, but pretending that Islam and Christianity are the same is historical revisionism at worst simple ignorance at best.[/QUOTE] You have MUCH to learn about Christianity, young child. The domination of Christianity in Northern Europe was not through peaceful means. [sp]Heil Odin[/sp]

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50310002]No, I'm saying that religion inspired and was part of the explanations in Enlightenment theories in chemistry, geology, philosophy, everything, in the forms of people like Joseph Priestly, Georges Cuvier, Robert Boyle (look them all up) and even beyond the enlightenment acted as a financial patron for Mendel, in some senses Darwin, and before that for Descartes and Bacon who laid out the beginnings of scientific ethics. Some of these are off the top of my head, some are from the first pages of a chapter of a book on the history of science I opened, there are countless more, as there are countless more books that say the same thing. It's part of a very uncontroversial and established historical canon. You can hop on your computer and pretend that everything is a blank slate but for my part I'm not saying anything that isn't a complete fucking banality to the rest of the world.[/QUOTE] Georges Cuvier rejected Biblical literalism and believed it was only as good as it could be in regards to events which human beings were alive to witness. He also didn't believe Earth was a young thing, noting from his sedimentary studies that they were "thousands of centuries old", and he snarked at a student of his who pretended to be the devil saying that, "All creatures with horns and hooves are herbivores, so you can't eat me." Robert Boyle was not from the Age of Enlightenment; he was a Scientific Revolution figure (same as Newton; at least Newton lived 13 years into the Enlightenment before dying in 1727). You're trying to include him because of how his ideas preluded and influenced the Enlightenment, I understand; if we're going to go that route, that's fine, I can too. Having said that however, his work in chemistry and physics was not motivated by his radical Christianity. Only his work on races was (little known fact: he studied races; also albinism). The conclusions of his Christian monogenistic beliefs were bizarre, which even his contemporaries mocked as "disturbed" or "amusing"-- everything from Adam and Eve supposedly being white to Caucasians supposedly being a special race that could give birth to different-colored children. He also appropriated money in his will to be used to defend his Christian beliefs at lectures, against (and I shit you not) "notorious infidels, namely atheists, deists, pagans, Jews and Muslims". Joseph Priestley studied optics and electricity, and he discovered soda water. He considered natural philosophy to be a hobby of his, not his primary field in life, although I will give you credit for this one because he constantly tried to infuse his scientific beliefs and discoveries in with his dissenting Christian beliefs. Beyond that, you're ignoring all the figures that weren't Christian. Baruch Spinoza, David Hume, Denis Diderot, Thomas Hobbes, and John Toland were all atheists or pantheists; John Locke, Matthew Tindal, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau-- hell as far as Americans are concerned Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen-- were all either outspoken Deists or we have since learned today privately held Deistic views. And then you had people like the Marquis de Condorcet who showed strong aversions to Christianity but weren't outspoken about religion otherwise (usually emphasizing the importance of social and material affairs instead, like proper government) or Kant who rejected the old religious way of things and set out instead to devise moral codes based on reason. What about Lavoisier and his work in chemistry? He just loved chemistry; he didn't give a shit about religion. Again, the Enlightenment religiously was about intellectuals turning away from Christianity because they were supposed to possess rationality, scientific curiosity, empiricism, etc. This is exactly why there was a rise in atheists, pantheists, and Deists as the old order of things under the Christian doctrine was gradually eroded. People began rejecting Christian supernaturality, the idea that such a thing as miracles existed, started believing miracles could be explained scientifically/reasonably, and began adopting more reason-based humanistic beliefs, ideas concerning religious tolerance, materialistic values, scientific explanations about phenomena and the natural world surrounding us, etc. Basically, as far as this discussion is concerned, the Enlightenment was about the decline of religious belief in favor of new kind of faiths centered around the concepts that humans could act as independent, reasonable, intelligent animals in a natural material-oriented world without transcendental guidance or a need for the supernatural. Deism, for example as far as that bit about transcendental guidance is concerned, itself is nothing more than the idea that a creator made the universe and gave it its natural properties but doesn't interfere with it. And that decline in religious belief not only extended to the scientific; governmentally, this was the age when the concept of secularization blossomed too. The Church itself as an institution was being challenged. This isn't debatable lol. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] Now back on topic, please explain to me how the Islamic religion inspired the scientific, philosophical, etc. advances of the so-called "Islamic Golden Age".

[QUOTE=Govna;50310271]Georges Cuvier rejected Biblical literalism and believed it was only as good as it could be in regards to events which human beings were alive to witness. He also didn't believe Earth was a young thing, noting from his sedimentary studies that they were "thousands of centuries old", and he snarked at a student of his who pretended to be the devil saying that, "All creatures with horns and hooves are herbivores, so you can't eat me."[/QUOTE] You say that as if it's an enlightenment idea. St. Augustine thought the creation story was totally allegorical in the 4th century. As a side note: deism of that time was nothing like deism of today. The "deists" of early america, for example, thought that God was active in the world and judged humanity for living a moral life. It was more like a Christianity-esque monotheism than what we now consider deism.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50310285]You say that as if it's an enlightenment idea. St. Augustine thought the creation story was totally allegorical in the 4th century. As a side note: deism of that time was nothing like deism of today. The "deists" of early america, for example, thought that God was active in the world and judged humanity for living a moral life. It was more like a Christianity-esque monotheism than what we now consider deism.[/QUOTE] Can you give me an example of how Christian Enlightenment thinkers furthered the enlightenment [I]using their Christian beliefs[/I]? [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] Nevermind, lets get back on topic.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50310338]Can you give me an example of how Christian Enlightenment thinkers furthered the enlightenment [I]using their Christian beliefs[/I]?[/QUOTE] The idea of human equality came out of Christian thought, for example. The entire concept of humility being a positive trait came from Christianity. Humanism is an extension of lots of Christian tenets. Etc. It's essentially impossible to separate modern western culture, including anything from the enlightenment, from its historical Christian roots.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50310349]The idea of human equality came out of Christian thought, for example. The entire concept of humility being a positive trait came from Christianity. Humanism is an extension of lots of Christian tenets. Etc. It's essentially impossible to separate modern western culture, including anything from the enlightenment, from its historical Christian roots.[/QUOTE] humility is a positive trait in religions and cultures all over the world like, yeah, in this specific instance it may have come from christianity, but it's hardly a specifically christian idea like I don't dispute that christianity had a huge influence over western culture, but to say that humanism is an extension of christian tenets and not that certain christian tenets logically follow from the axioms of humanism is a little disingenuous

[QUOTE=sgman91;50310349]The idea of human equality came out of Christian thought, for example. The entire concept of humility being a positive trait came from Christianity. Humanism is an extension of lots of Christian tenets. Etc. It's essentially impossible to separate modern western culture, including anything from the enlightenment, from its historical Christian roots.[/QUOTE] You're slowly changing the conversation away from what I originally said about the Enlightenment to European culture as a whole. Nice try.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50310378]like I don't dispute that christianity had a huge influence over western culture, but to say that humanism is an extension of christian tenets and not that certain christian tenets logically follow from the axioms of humanism is a little disingenuous[/QUOTE] I really don't think it is. It's not a coincidence that humanism developed in Christian Europe as opposed to Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. The majority, if not all, of those don't hold the tenets of total human equality and dignity before God. Christianity also popularized the entire philosophical tradition started by the Greeks by reanalyzing their ideas, improving them, and moving the entire movement forward. Another example would be the primacy of human free will being a good in itself as a gift of God. These ideas are not a given when looking at human history. Most societies didn't see people as having inherent equal value, they didn't see freedom as an inherent good, etc. [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;50310385]You're slowly changing the conversation away from what I originally said about the Enlightenment to European culture as a whole. Nice try.[/QUOTE] OK? Everything I've said equally applies to the enlightenment specifically. These tenets were core to the ideas and thoughts that proceeded. Like I said previously, the deists of the enlightenment rested the majority of their beliefs on basic Christian tenets. They almost universally continued to hold to the Christian ethic and moral code, for example. It's actually amazing how irrational it was when you think back. They took the conclusions of Christianity, but took away the presuppositions that they rested on. They kept the human equality, but took away being made in the image of God. They kept the idea of a moral judge, but took away the Biblical God who judges. Etc.