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

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50311903]Humility--------------------Pride----------------------Vanity The word is more important than you think. Going in to the etymology wasn't really necessary, but I'll give some modern day examples. A person from humble backgrounds comes from a low social class. If you're humbled by an opponent, you're admitting your defeat and lowering your status. Humility involves lowliness - the word has just become so exalted and valued as a virtue that its relation to humiliation and humbleness is muddled. The Greek concept of Pride and the Christian concept of Humility overlap, but they are not identical. Aristotle's characterization of the proud man demonstrates a number of traits that would apply to a humble person. You're exactly right in saying that he was saying "do not practice pride in excess." He calls that vanity - and that word means the same thing today. It's excessive self-centeredness and excessive self-worth. We seem to both be on the same page at this point. The quote I used about the "unduly humble" is referring to what Aristotle describes below: "The man who thinks himself worthy of worthy of less than he is really worthy of is [B]unduly humble[/B]" Wordy worthy shit, but basically, if you believe that you are worth less than you are actually worth, you're unduly humble. Nowadays this would be called self-deprecation or excessive self-criticism. It's obviously not virtuous, because it's an extreme. But Aristotle doesn't stop there - he characterizes another type: "For he who is worthy of little and thinks himself worthy of little is [B]temperate, but not proud[/B]; for pride implies greatness." This is where it diverges. Christian humility has [I]absolutely nothing to do with greatness[/I]. It is all about temperance, sometimes boiling over into self-deprecation. It is extreme humility. It is pure submissiveness and no assertiveness - if you're hit on the cheek, you don't even hit back, you just prepare for another strike - that is Christian humility. Turn the other cheek humility. It is creating a virtue out of what the Greeks would have considered a vice. There is no assertiveness here at all - and that is what makes pride differ from humility and why the Greeks did not view humility by itself as a virtue. If someone who is too vain and excessively prideful is humbled, as seen in the Iliad and numerous other Greek legends, that can be virtuous - because they've recognized their vanity and have come closer to being a proud and virtuous man rather than a vain one. If it goes too far, though, they're temperate. That's not [I]bad[/I], in fact they're usually good people, but they lack the magnanimity and greatness to be a proud, virtuous man. Those are requirements to be a virtuous person. The likes of Odysseus are already magnanimous and great, but vain. Odysseus boasts his name after besting the Cyclops with his trick, demonstrating vanity that later causes Poseidon to fuck his shit right up the ass. It's metaphorical - Odysseus demonstrating vanity results in bad shit, and by the end of the story he is finally humbled. He does not lose his pride - in fact, he demonstrates his pride by being assertive and slaughtering all the suitors at Ithaca. That's the difference. Yes, humility is valued in Greek culture, but not as a [i]virtue in and of itself[/i]. It is valued in relation to pride and vanity - because genuinely humbling a vain person [i]lowers them[/i] to a point where pride through greatness is possible. Pride requires greatness and self-confidence and assertiveness and humility does not. [B]tl;dr both the Greeks and Christians had the same overall conception of humility, but the Christians viewed humility (lowliness) as virtuous in and of itself while the Greeks saw humility as a balancing factor in the actual virtue of pride[/B] (and yes this is an oversimplification and only looks at Aristotelian philosophy but I really really should be writing an essay instead of going into all the other schools of philosophy)[/QUOTE] if you want to go full Nietzsche on this, Christians view humility as a virtue as a result of their own weakness - because they are weak, they view weakness as a virtue, and that this was actually a distortion of traditional ethics (strength = good) this, in turn, becomes an excellent way of pacifying the weak because they have a language system that tells them they're in fact, "strong" in their own way, while at the same time (through original sin etc) teaching them that their weakness and suffering is their own fault, causing them to internalise their hatred upon themselves, rather than the noble class but rarely do people want to go full Nietzsche [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] oh also that christian ethics deceives itself into thinking that the "virtues" of meekness, turning the other cheek etc are voluntary choices, rather than actually being weakness that was forced upon them by the strong/masters

It's sad to see so many people in this thread just outright be wrong about stuff regarding Islam or religion in general. It's really not that hard to get educated and form an actual smart opinion about a subject like this. I mean fuck, just read the Koran for Dummies. It exists in like every language ever and while it makes a point that it does not cover the mainstream usage of the religion (only the scripture), it does help a lot in getting rid of the some of the dumber, more widespread stereotypes about the religion. [img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vDkbbQh6L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/img] Maybe it's just me who likes to read about culture and learn shit but this really isn't all that hard. And for crying out loud learn to see the difference between radicals and moderates, it's getting aggravating.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50308030]Should be 100%. But same goes with any other religion.[/QUOTE] You're no expert on all religions, so why generalize? I'm sick of this shit. Western and Eastern religions are almost completely different yet everyone seems to forget that Eastern religions exist or think that they are clones of Western ones.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50308811]Which is largely caused by islam[/QUOTE] Not really, reinforced maybe but still. Religion is molded to suit culture not vice versa. That's why the Middle east used to be a Hub of modernity and enlightenment until the Mongols came.

Practice whatever you want, but please leave a separation between church and state.

Overall Europe does not need religion at all at this point. Culture and religion are not the same, we can have one without the other.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50308117]An unquestionable religious text wow that sure is unique to Islam... Maybe we should stop treating Islam as this homogeneous blob[/QUOTE] The majority of Christianity is far more open to interpretation actually. It's generally just protestants that see their religious text as completely infallible. Catholicism and Orthodoxy on the other hand are much more open to changes.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50313870]Overall Europe does not need religion at all at this point. Culture and religion are not the same, we can have one without the other.[/QUOTE] And religion is critical to culture. Do you say "oh my god?" Stop it now - Europe doesn't need religion. Have you ever said "bless you?" - stop! You're using religion! Christianity has had such a huge effect on western thought and western culture that it's inseparable from it. You can have a society without religion - that's why we have separation of church and state. But saying that European culture isn't reliant on religion at all is wrong. Christmas? Never again. Easter? Can't celebrate that. Millions of idioms and language quirks that reference religion? Don't do that. Doesn't work. The culture was birthed from religion, and trying to separate it entirely would get rid of the majority of cultural traditions that Europeans follow.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50313981]And religion is critical to culture. Do you say "oh my god?" Stop it now - Europe doesn't need religion. Have you ever said "bless you?" - stop! You're using religion! Christianity has had such a huge effect on western thought and western culture that it's inseparable from it. You can have a society without religion - that's why we have separation of church and state. But saying that European culture isn't reliant on religion at all is wrong. Christmas? Never again. Easter? Can't celebrate that. Millions of idioms and language quirks that reference religion? Don't do that. Doesn't work. The culture was birthed from religion, and trying to separate it entirely would get rid of the majority of cultural traditions that Europeans follow.[/QUOTE] Was. Religion is not critical to culture. The weak argument of phrases formed due to religious influences. Over here we actually don't say bless you, we say "good health". We don't need religion in the future. It played its role and now its running thin. Your ideas are based on old and outdated concepts. I was birthed from my parents but I am not them. Same with culture, it doesn't have to stay bound to religion. Instead being freed from it allows more and interesting new developments. It is stupid to bind yourself to such a concept like religion in such a time as this. Traditions, while birthed from religion, do not need religion to remain. Christmas hasn't been about religion for a long time now. I don't know a single person who celebrates Jesus during xmas. The only part where Christ stays is in name, and even then in english name. Over here again we call it "winter holiday/celebration", totally unrelated to Christianity in name and now in celebration too. Same for easter, it is more about bunnies and eggs and Christ barely gets mentioned. The holidays have evolved past religion as evident by the large amount of people who celebrate them, yet most of them not religious or not caring about religion much. You're looking too much in the past and thinking too little about the future. Religion hasn't done anything for culture during these past years. We are above it by this point. And in the future it will play even lesser role as more and more people stop caring about it. Religion is strong mainly in poor and less educated places. But in modern liberal places it is weakening and brings nothing useful to the table.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50314022]Was. Religion is not critical to culture. The weak argument of phrases formed due to religious influences. Over here we actually don't say bless you, we say "good health". We don't need religion in the future. It played its role and now its running thin. Your ideas are based on old and outdated concepts. I was birthed from my parents but I am not them. Same with culture, it doesn't have to stay bound to religion. Instead being freed from it allows more and interesting new developments. It is stupid to bind yourself to such a concept like religion in such a time as this. Traditions, while birthed from religion, do not need religion to remain. Christmas hasn't been about religion for a long time now. I don't know a single person who celebrates Jesus during xmas. The only part where Christ stays is in name, and even then in english name. Over here again we call it "winter holiday/celebration", totally unrelated to Christianity in name and now in celebration too. Same for easter, it is more about bunnies and eggs and Christ barely gets mentioned. The holidays have evolved past religion as evident by the large amount of people who celebrate them, yet most of them not religious or not caring about religion much. You're looking too much in the past and thinking too little about the future. Religion hasn't done anything for culture during these past years. We are above it by this point. And in the future it will play even lesser role as more and more people stop caring about it. Religion is strong mainly in poor and less educated places. But in modern liberal places it is weakening and brings nothing useful to the table.[/QUOTE] Religion helps connect people's to there past in the same way that language and culture do. Even if the rituals no longer carry the same meaning there still a way to connect the past to the present. Just because something is less valid doesn't mean we need to disregard it

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50314107]Religion helps connect people's to there past in the same way that language and culture do. Even if the rituals no longer carry the same meaning there still a way to connect the past to the present. Just because something is less valid doesn't mean we need to disregard it[/QUOTE] We can do all that just fine if we discard religion. Why would you consciously use an idea that is blatantly wrong to "connect people to their past"? If anything it is easier to do without religion. Rituals do not carry the meaning and yet connect past to present just fine. So where does religion come into play? Religion these days is unable to bring anything positive any more, the times have outlived it. Religion misdirects people, we don't need that to advance for a better future. It's almost like saying germany needs nazism to connect to their past. No they don't.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50314146]We can do all that just fine if we discard religion. Why would you consciously use an idea that is blatantly wrong to "connect people to their past"? If anything it is easier to do without religion. Rituals do not carry the meaning and yet connect past to present just fine. So where does religion come into play? Religion these days is unable to bring anything positive any more, the times have outlived it. Religion misdirects people, we don't need that to advance for a better future. It's almost like saying germany needs nazism to connect to their past. No they don't.[/QUOTE] Is history necessary to understand why people act the way they do? Yes. History directs culture. Religious rituals and traditions that are secularized and carried through a culture are still religious in origin - if you "got rid of" religion in a culture you'd have next to nothing. Most traditions come from religion. Yes, nazism is very important in understanding German culture. Would you prefer we delete it from the history books and just remove it from the culture entirely? Because that's not okay. Religion isn't necessary in a modern society. It is one of the backbones of modern culture. If you wanted a culture where nothing was ever influenced at all by religion, you'd have to go burn thousands of pieces of art, burn down the Sistine chapel, get rid of all secular philopshy born out of a reaction to religiosity - you can't. Culture includes the history of the people. Religion is inherently part of the histories of the people and their traditions. You can't have a culture without religion - but you can have a society without active religion. That's fine.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50314181]Is history necessary to understand why people act the way they do? Yes. History directs culture. Religious rituals and traditions that are secularized and carried through a culture are still religious in origin - if you "got rid of" religion in a culture you'd have next to nothing. Most traditions come from religion. Yes, nazism is very important in understanding German culture. Would you prefer we delete it from the history books and just remove it from the culture entirely? Because that's not okay. Religion isn't necessary in a modern society. It is one of the backbones of modern culture. If you wanted a culture where nothing was ever influenced at all by religion, you'd have to go burn thousands of pieces of art, burn down the Sistine chapel, get rid of all secular philopshy born out of a reaction to religiosity - you can't. Culture includes the history of the people. Religion is inherently part of the histories of the people and their traditions. You can't have a culture without religion - but you can have a society without active religion. That's fine.[/QUOTE] Nonsensical hyperbole. Abandoning religion does not mean destroying everything. Why do you even say that? Do you legit think that's how it would work or are you trying to twist my words? Why can't you have a culture without religion? You don't need religion to believe in something. A book of lore is not required to form cultures. But we're not talking about forming, we're talking about advancing. Religion in modern world is losing popularity for a good reason. It is no longer needed to advance the culture. All your arguments are based on history, but we're talking about future. Advancement of existing things, not creation of new ones from nothing. What you say about nazism is a good example that you either did not understand the meaning or purposefully changed it. Germany no longer has nazism and yet they can connect with their history just fine. You don't need history in present to connect with history, hence the name, history. Religion was big, it shaped a lot due to its influence, but we don't need that in the future. We've progressed enough to understand that religious views do nothing but hinder the progression. By abandoning religion we do not destroy all religious material, that's ISIS level of nonsense. We simply stop believing in fantasy and face the realty, which allows us to improve it. Instead of believing in gods and praying we can actually do real good with none of the nonsense. If everyone stopped believing religion right now, culture would not go away, xmas would still be a thing, and so would easter. These holidays are not bound to religion any more. Chapels and churches would become historical sites like museums. No reason to destroy them. Come on man put some thought into it instead of going "remove religion? so we destroy everything!" that's such a primitive way to look at it.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50314225]Nonsensical hyperbole. Abandoning religion does not mean destroying everything. Why do you even say that? Do you legit think that's how it would work or are you trying to twist my words? Why can't you have a culture without religion? You don't need religion to believe in something. A book of lore is not required to form cultures. But we're not talking about forming, we're talking about advancing. Religion in modern world is losing popularity for a good reason. It is no longer needed to advance the culture. All your arguments are based on history, but we're talking about future. Advancement of existing things, not creation of new ones from nothing. What you say about nazism is a good example that you either did not understand the meaning or purposefully changed it. Germany no longer has nazism and yet they can connect with their history just fine. You don't need history in present to connect with history, hence the name, history. Religion was big, it shaped a lot due to its influence, but we don't need that in the future. We've progressed enough to understand that religious views do nothing but hinder the progression. By abandoning religion we do not destroy all religious material, that's ISIS level of nonsense. We simply stop believing in fantasy and face the realty, which allows us to improve it. Instead of believing in gods and praying we can actually do real good with none of the nonsense. If everyone stopped believing religion right now, culture would not go away, xmas would still be a thing, and so would easter. These holidays are not bound to religion any more. Chapels and churches would become historical sites like museums. No reason to destroy them. Come on man put some thought into it instead of going "remove religion? so we destroy everything!" that's such a primitive way to look at it.[/QUOTE] It's semantics. You can't remove religion from culture because [i]even after secularizing religious traditions[/i], they're from a religious background. Removing religion from [i]culture[/i] is impossible and can only be done by rewriting history. Removing from [i]modern society[/i] is totally possible and I agree. Society is the social interaction of a group - you can secularize society and make religion literally meaningless in the social interactions of a group. That's all I'm arguing. Culture includes the history of the people, and you can't excise religion from history. Society is different - if you get rid of state religions and everyone loses their religious beliefs so that religion has no [i]further influence on social interactions[/i], you have a secular society. I totally agree with you that it's a good thing - it's just that you're using "culture" to refer to society. You can't have a totally secular culture, because culture includes history, and all human history has relationships with religion. Secular society is good. Removing religion from culture isn't - because it requires revisionism.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50314146]We can do all that just fine if we discard religion. Why would you consciously use an idea that is blatantly wrong to "connect people to their past"? If anything it is easier to do without religion. Rituals do not carry the meaning and yet connect past to present just fine. So where does religion come into play? Religion these days is unable to bring anything positive any more, the times have outlived it. Religion misdirects people, we don't need that to advance for a better future. It's almost like saying germany needs nazism to connect to their past. No they don't.[/QUOTE] Think of it this way, if we were to remove all languages on earth and have one, it doesn't matter which but for this example lets say Swali, yes the world could all communicate efficiently now, but something is lost. In the cold and calculated logical decision you may understand the words spoken and understand what they mean but you would never be able to describe to your own satisfaction what you are trying to convey or how you truly convey it. You would be a person who would know everything but yourself.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50314562]Think of it this way, if we were to remove all languages on earth and have one, it doesn't matter which but for this example lets say Swali, yes the world could all communicate efficiently now, but something is lost. In the cold and calculated logical decision you may understand the words spoken and understand what they mean but you would never be able to describe to your own satisfaction what you are trying to convey or how you truly convey it. You would be a person who would know everything but yourself.[/QUOTE] What? Abandoning something does not mean it disappears from all existence. There are plenty of dead languages that have been abandoned for one reason or another, and yet here we are doing fine.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50310018]What the fuck are you talking about here? After the great schism, pretty much everything was set in stone right up until the reformation.[/QUOTE] Also to note, it is literally impossible it edit the Quran in anyway because you are obligated to memorize it word for word as an Hafiz. You can never edit it in anyway, and it's been set in stone since 656 AD when Uthman ibn Affan; who fought aside Mohammad, finally had it officially written down since the Arabic Alphabet wasn't complete before Mohammad's death. The only wiggle room you had was the Hadiths which were based on decisions purportedly made by Mohammad on contexts and decisions that weren't recorded in the Quran which lead to a lot of fuckery which is why we have Sunni and Shia islam; which follow the Sihah al-Sittah and Al-Kutub Al-Arb'ah sets of Hadiths respectively. Regardless both sets were canonized by the time of the first crusade and there's literally no way to change or edit them now; The closest thing you have are Fatwas which are non-binding and issued by individual clerics and imams; Except the Shia where they have Ayatollahs but even then their decisions only go as far as their jurisdiction.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50312420]It's sad to see so many people in this thread just outright be wrong about stuff regarding Islam or religion in general. It's really not that hard to get educated and form an actual smart opinion about a subject like this. I mean fuck, just read the Koran for Dummies. It exists in like every language ever and while it makes a point that it does not cover the mainstream usage of the religion (only the scripture), it does help a lot in getting rid of the some of the dumber, more widespread stereotypes about the religion. [img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vDkbbQh6L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/img] Maybe it's just me who likes to read about culture and learn shit but this really isn't all that hard. And for crying out loud learn to see the difference between radicals and moderates, it's getting aggravating.[/QUOTE] People will opine on shit they know nothing about until the end of time. [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TornadoAP;50310018]What the fuck are you talking about here? After the great schism, pretty much everything was set in stone right up until the reformation.[/QUOTE] Not the same, refer to my previous post. The Quran is believed to be the direct un-adultered in any way shape or form word of god from god himself and as such it can never (ever) be edited. The Bible isn't like that. Also, you're wronger-r because Christianity changed A LOT in its early years. Shit dude, the significance of Jesus's dying for our sins wasn't even a thing until after he had already died. This doesn't even count the Apocryphal texts or any of the other thousands of changes made before the reformation.

What about translations?

In my original country we fight Muslims and Islam. It is an especially crazy religion. It does not belong anywhere. I am sorry if I am racist but maybe race is right now here. They qualify to me like a death cult rather than religion because of the conquering values uniquely inside of the Quran. People do not defend Scientology. They do not defend the people behind the Jonestown Massacre even though that was a religion. The MRTC from Uganda is another good example even though they were Christianity inspired. Germans need to be more christian once again, maybe then they will have something to stand up against Islam, rather than being nihilists. Christianity is at least a good valued religion compared to Islam, which encourages you to kill non-believes, encourages polygamy, slavery, and stoning (different kind) for minor infractions. Also suicide bombings. All of the 10 commandments encourage good values.

If you come to Singapore and realise just how modern and tolerant Muslims are here, you will realise that Islam can be integrated with society. Singapore is a nation that welcome EVERY race and religion. Why can't the European nations be like Singapore way of teaching in Racial and Relgious Harmony? Racial Harmony is POSSIBLE! Your people need to integrate people of diffrerent race and religion. I give Germany 40 years for this racial harmony integration. I bet those muslim immigrants would one day become a vital part of German history. And no, those Muslim Immigrants are NOT interested in Islaminization of Germany as you people fear it to be.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309555][B]The "Islamic Golden Age" is largely a PC myth.[/B][/QUOTE] few pages late but this is seriously one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read in my life. what is it with you people trying to shoehorn an anti-PC agenda into everything? lmfao.