Muslims and Irreligion (Atheism, Agnosticism, etc)

black1blade said:

Good points.

j0x said:


where are your sources for this claims?

black1blade said:

9/11 is a bit iffy but I really don't buy into the west vs east mentality.

MitchD said:


West Bank (Israel)
Gaza (Israel)
Hiroshima (US)
Afghanistan (US/UK)
Cuba (US/UK)
Iraq (US/UK)


Yeah, ok bro.

j0x said:


UK, Israel and US just fight back against the muslim terrorists

JustALEX said:
So in this thread the OP was asking if they know people that have left Islam....well...

Check out the Muslim world and how they deal with those that change their minds:



*NOTE....the punishment for Apostasy under Sharia Law is....DEATH

^Fucking savages, FUCK ISLAM and FUCK ALLAH!

Mikasa said:

Bullshit misinformation for multiple countries.

j0x said:
i just happen to come accross about this word - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion its another term for nonreligious beliefs, and im wondering how many muslims become irreligious

with recent islamophobia going on because most terrorism for the past decade is done my muslim extremism http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report i wonder how many muslims have doubts about their religion (i mean not just the current extremism going on but as well finding faults or disbelief on quran or islamic ways)
and now converted to irreligion like atheism or agnosticism for example

do you know any muslims that drop their religion? do you think in the future more muslims will drop their religion?

from what i observe here in our country there are more christians dropping their religion and becoming irreligious like atheist or agnostic and ye i do not know any muslim in our area that became irreligious

ye i made this thread on current events because muslims or islam is the majority of world news right now

j0x said:


UK, Israel and US just fight back against the muslim terrorists

MitchD said:


Oh please!

If you want sources do some independent research. You might learn something other than what your corporate owned News channels are spoon feeding you every night.

Little kids playing football in the street, and women hanging out their laundry, are NOT terrorists.

Consider this though. Who are we to act all holier than thou? We have little girls looking up to people like Nikki Minaj, out in the streets twerking at age 11, and we all laugh and clap, thinking it's normal. We have guys prowling night clubs trying to sleep with every body they see, and we think its normal. We have people in our own countries who are homeless and starving, and we shun them or walk over them like rabid dogs in the street. Our society is just as sick, if not MORE sick than any other. Some people need to take a dose of wake the fuck up and pay attention to whats going on in their back yard before they attempt to tackle terrorism.

MercifulPriest said:
If a Christian killed a dude, they'd be seen as crazy, but if a Muslim killed a dude, they'd be seen as an extremist

Religious extremism has become the main driver of terrorism in recent years, according to this year’s Global Terrorism Index.

The report recorded 18,000 deaths in 2013, a rise of 60% on the previous year. The majority (66%) of these were attributable to just four groups: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida.

Overall there has been a fivefold increase in deaths from terrorism since the 9/11 suicide attacks.

MercifulPriest said:
Of course, I live under a democracy and not Sharia Law sooo...yeah, I'm aware people in general in most other Islamic countries tend to have it a lot tougher than I do. I will admit that a load of other countries need to learn more about tolerance and acceptance, Middle East in particular but I don't believe that's a matter of religion so much as it is a matter of politics and national mentality, influenced by history itself.

MitchD said:


West Bank (Israel)
Gaza (Israel)
Hiroshima (US)
Afghanistan (US/UK)
Cuba (US/UK)
Iraq (US/UK)
9/11 (come on now, if you believe the official story you must have the critical thinking ability of a gold fish)


Yeah, ok bro.

j0x said:


all i see from sources that you can claim are conspiracy theories and we all know that conspiracy theories are paranoia and delusions at best

give me your sources so that i and others here can know what you have in mind

and like i said previously i got no idea why you included hiroshima (japan vs america) when in fact that was long long ago, most of the users here are not even born yet

i will link this again - http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report this is the recent study im talking about it shows there that from 2001 up to this day religious extremism is the cause of most terrorism this day

MitchD said:

Here is a source to discredit your original statement about paranoia and delusion:

[url]http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html#[/url]

Pirating_Ninja said:


Wait wait wait . . . What now? Can you explain these? I am genuinely curious about what you are saying as a whole, it honestly makes no sense to me, it just seems extremely out of context.

I don't want to make any false assumptions here, I just genuinely can't understand what your point is. Are you claiming that the events listed are the most dominant examples of Terrorism in the last decade? Well let's forget decade, and say in the last century, since obviously some of those events are more than just a couple decades old. Not going to say anything more since I really don't know what you are saying here, but if you could clarify it would be greatly appreciated.

j0x said:


that study was debunked by reddit long ago with rational thinking too here - https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/2mpkqo/scientific_study_reveals_conspiracy_theorists_the/

not all science research/study are facts especially with psychology, sociology, psychiatry that do not have laboratory tests and just rely on surveying the people at best

MitchD said:

Can't argue with Reddit.....

/article.
Massive, totally un-compensated selection bias, which makes all following conclusions the article draws from it utterly nonsensical.
Then you have the part where the article authors (who clearly sympathise with conspiracy theorists themselves, judging from the clear weighted and distorting language used in the article) try to conflate "a majority of people who bother to comment" with "sanity". One look at the average online comments page should be enough to demonstrate how thoroughly idiotic that assumption is.
Lastly you have the part where the source study doesn't mention "sanity" even once in the abstract (all that's available publicly)... and in fact the last sentence arguably claims that conspiracy theorists are not even rationally interested in specific factual claims so much as a reflexive, blanket need to dismiss any and all "official" explanations:
These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
The original study is a factual assessment of the preponderance, tone and motivations of various conspiracy-theorist and conspiracy-rejecting posters on internet comments boards.
This article is an intellectually dishonest attempt to twist their findings into a claim that conspiracy theorists are in general more sane, reasonable or rational than conspiracy-rejectors.
That is wholly unsupported by the study itself, and shows up the article for the baseless propaganda it is.

MitchD said:
9/11 (come on now, if you believe the official story you must have the critical thinking ability of a gold fish)

MitchD said:


After your comment about conspiracy theories I can see this is no longer a worthwhile discussion. No offense or anything, it's just clear that neither one of us will gain anything from continuing this further.

I'll leave you with one more quote though "CONSPIRACY THEORIST : Nothing more than a derogatory title used to dismiss a critical thinker."

Here is a source to discredit your original statement about paranoia and delusion:

[url]http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html#[/url]

j0x said:


just read the top comment here i will quote it

Nihilfist said:


Oh god, it's one of these idiots.

You forgot something.

MitchD said:
(I call it that because the official stories often have no tangible objective evidence themselves)

MitchD said:


This doesn't even begin to address the effects of cognitive dissonance found in those who believe the official conspiracy theory (I call it that because the official stories often have no tangible objective evidence themselves) mentioned in the article. Yes I will agree there is a bias in language used, as there is a slight condescending undertone when referring to those of the opposite viewpoint, but that's no where near as intellectually cowardly as discrediting someones view or attempting to dismiss them by using a label or questioning their mental stability.

You haven't even provided your own interpretation, just copy pasted something claiming to nullify what I posted. The fact that it happened within seconds of my post suggests to me you didnt even bother to read it either.

As I said, there is no point. This will be my last post because I don't see this going anywhere.

MitchD said:
9/11 (come on now, if you believe the official story you must have the critical thinking ability of a gold fish)

Michael said:
As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847577

Michael said:
Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication, “What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet – but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are “more sane” than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion. I’m often guilty of this too – reading the headline and moving on – because who has the time to read every original source of every news story? In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings. http://conspiracypsychology.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/

j0x said:
all i see from sources that you can claim are conspiracy theories and we all know that conspiracy theories are paranoia and delusions at best

archerzee said:


You actually mean that? I would advise you that when you look into a topic, rather than looking into it's criticism, gain more knowledge on the topic itself. By your definition, critical thinking is paranoia.

MitchD said:
9/11 (come on now, if you believe the official story you must have the critical thinking ability of a gold fish)

j0x said:


critical thinking is no way paranoia

paranoia itself is a delusion particularly persecutory delusion, so ye its common knowledge that conspiracy theories are delusions at most if not all because of twisted evidences

if you also agree with him that UK, Israel, USA are terrorists then i like to see some sources from you too

Pirating_Ninja said:
Wait, so the point being made is that the US were the one's behind 9/11? I honestly didn't believe there were people out there that believed this theory so sorry if it sounds like I am asking a dumb question . . .

RedRoseFring said:


I thought that conspiracy theory was pretty popular, so I'm not surprised he mentioned it.

archerzee said:


What do you think a conspiracy theory is? Check the link below, it's an article of 5 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. Number 1 came up in my ethics lecture so I kind of know about it already, number 3 is somewhat popular.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/5_conspiracy_theories_which_turned_out_to_be_true/38865/0/38/38/Y/M.html


Regarding me agreeing with him, I do not possess sufficient proof to convince anyone about 9/11 being an inside job (if that's what you're talking about), although I remain open minded since the war on 'terror' was/is atrocious. Regarding Israel, it's done in the open, innocent civilians get killed by Israeli soldiers, there's no debate nor conspiracy about it.

archerzee said:
It doesn't matter whether or not they turn out to be true, there are theories regarding everything, the connotations that conspiracy theories carry related to politics, thus giving you a different viewpoint regarding an incident usually on the news. The reason why I even starting talking about this is because you implied that conspiracy theories are paranoia and delusions at best, therefore being wrong.

archerzee said:

What are you trying to show me by asking who attacked first? Whoever attacked first, are murderers who've killed children (I don't trust that article and I've not researched about who attacked first). This doesn't justify killing Palestinian children, which was what I originally said (regarding the whole occupation situation is Palestine).

j0x said:


and he claimed that conspiracy theorists are the most sane of them all, and its not just me its common knowledge that conspiracy theories are MOSTLY wrong and just came from paranoia and delusion, even wikipedia explains it, and wikipedia has references/sources on its footnotes about it if you like to look what conspiracy theories are



its war no one is safe from war even children, Israel did not intended to harm those children but Hamas use their civilians as human shields if i remember right watching news on TV so ye if Hamas did use human shields its for them to show the media that Israel is killing civilians intentionally which is just a tactic from Hamas

and do look up how this war started, you can see that Hamas killed 3 Israel kids

same is true for 9/11 who attack first? its Osama Bin Ladens group first of course

EDIT:

corrected my info i meant to type 3 kids not 10 kids

MitchD said:


Prime example of an intellectual coward.

Good luck with your discussion OP, with you I can at least agree to disagree, but as soon as an idiot like this shows up it's usually time to call it a day :)

archerzee said:

I know what conspiracy theories are, I wanted to point out how wrong you were when you labelled conspiracy theories as delusions. You simply cannot make such a statement, theories are theories, some lack evidence and rationality whilst others have both.
Even mathematically we cannot account for every single conspiracy theory, so using words like 'mostly' is only showing your viewpoints on CTs.

What links creativity, conspiracy theories, and delusions? A phenomenon called apophenia.

Apophenia is the experience of perceiving patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

archerzee said:

Where is your source for Hamas using civilians as human shields? How do you know that Israel never intended to harm children? Is it because they said 'We didn't want to harm children?..
Even asking for a source is ridiculous, obviously no one is safe in a war but bombing civilized areas are what terrorists do, slapping Israel on the bombers doesn't make it any less wrong.

archerzee said:
The link you provided doesn't even attempt to answer what I said about conspiracy theories, now you're just finding any article left, right and centre with no relation to what we were originally discussing. The link even mentions type 1 errors, which happen with some conspiracy theorists and scientific theories, that's it. However you go to extremes when calling conspiracy theories as delusions and paranoia, even though some are true.

archerzee said:

So killing civilians in justified? Even though the defense system can detect and destroy the rocket? There is no point in discussing the 'ifs and buts' in this situation, the bottom line is Israel killed innocent civilians. Posting articles like from DM aren't credible at all, even there comment system is full of nonsense. You can draw your conclusions out with blatant Israel terror on Palestinian civilians, there are many others you can look up too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cafUGDZlZx8

JetFury said:
So only the side that "starts" the conflict can commit terrorism? By that logic the ends justify the means. Israel went far and beyond what they should have last summer. Not as if thats past tense, they are still inflicting harm upon palestinians now. I find it puzzling how others bristle at the thought that state sanctined violence is inherently acceptable.

j0x said:


its war (unfair) and Israel have the superior military power so no wonder they can kill more, what if we turn it around and say that Hamas has killed more Israel people would you still consider Israel a terrorist?

what do you mean by terrorist anyway?

JetFury said:
"War" implies it was an equal struggle. Again, Israel is still commiting violence against palestinians. Its happening right now, its not something that has ended.

j0x said:


its war (unfair) and Israel have the superior military power so no wonder they can kill more, what if we turn it around and say that Hamas has killed more Israel people would you still consider Israel a terrorist?

what do you mean by terrorist anyway?

j0x said:
the murder of the 3 Israel kids is when Israel said enough is enough its time for war

j0x said:

i know that but Hamas is the one who started this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers

The Electronic Intifada (EI) is a not-for-profit, independent online publication which covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Palestinian perspective, "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin" that it says exists in mainstream media accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electronic_Intifada

Hamas official admits group murdered 3 Israeli teens
http://rt.com/news/181940-hamas-israel-kidnapping-teenagers/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-admits-kidnapping-3-israeli-teens-in-west-bank/
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/22/342318367/hamas-finally-admits-to-kidnapping-and-killing-israeli-teens

JetFury said:

So I ask again: Why do you consider the other side immune to commiting acts of terrorism?

j0x said:
The Electronic Intifada (EI) is a not-for-profit, independent online publication which covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Palestinian perspective, "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin" that it says exists in mainstream media accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electronic_Intifada

j0x said:
why such a clear bias source of news? even Al Jazeera is more reliable than that one so im not reading that

JetFury said:
So I ask again: Why do you consider the other side immune to commiting acts of terrorism?

j0x said:

by your logic any war is terrorism of both sides to each other

j0x said:


thats hypocritical after you said this earlier


and i do not have to re-read every science study i have read, because im a lurker on reddit as well so im expose to scientific studies all the time and as well as the debunking of scientific studies that are wrong

and here more evidences straight from the authors of that scientific study you are holding





so ye even the authors themselves debunked that idea that says conspiracy theorists are more sane

JetFury said:
Not quite. Im making the point that superpowers arent incapable of commiting acts of terror. They do yet suffer no major consequences for it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-presses-attack-16-killed-at-un-school/2014/07/30/4a643588-17a5-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html

You see thats the problem with the philosophy of ends justifying the means. It leads to the bombing of schools and hospitals, thus violation of international law. And the defense of such action is justified as 'self defense' nonetheless.

Nor do I consider terrorism limited to use of force. It also includes, among other things, threats and acts of unlawful imprisonment. These type of actions arent just used by ISIS and similar organizations. Western governments(not just israel) are also guilty of it.

j0x said:


ye there are laws against war crimes but when war happens those are irrelevant, here in the philippines muslim terrorists tortured and done a lot of war crimes and killed 44 special police force here just recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Mamasapano_clash this muslim terrorists did not consider war crimes at all, one war crime i learn is that once an opponent is helpless or cannot fight already then their is no use to torture and kill that person but no this muslim terrorists tortured the special police force like removing their eyes out while they are still alive or cutting limbs their hands/feet while they are still alive before shooting them in the head, it was brutal so no war is fair and follow laws against war crimes

so your point is you see superpowers like Israel and America as the real terrorists? and you think that Palestine group like Hamas are just victims?

MitchD said:

What I have been trying to say, (and what I think he is trying to say as well) is that it goes both ways. Everyone is all up in arms about the "mooslims" but at the same time, what makes our governments any better?

by your logic any war is terrorism of both sides to each other

MitchD said:

This happens every time the west tries to force an eastern country to accept democracy, or when Israel forces Palestinians from their homes to expand their borders, AND it happens when HAMAS fire their rockets, or every time a group of extremists try to force us to accept Sharia Law (which by the way is NOT Islamic) or whatever way of life they believe is best.

MitchD said:

Saying that the majority of terrorist acts in the last decade were carried about by Muslims is just flat out wrong, and suggests to me a huge mainstream media bias.

j0x said:


ye there are laws against war crimes but when war happens those are irrelevant

j0x said:

so your point is you see superpowers like Israel and America as the real terrorists? and you think that Palestine group like Hamas are just victims?

Jet said:
Nor do I consider terrorism limited to use of force. It also includes, among other things, threats and acts of unlawful imprisonment. These type of actions arent just used by ISIS and similar organizations. Western governments(not just israel) are also guilty of it

JetFury said:
And thats the problem. How easily you dismiss the loss of palestinian life and accept the fact that there will be no repercussions for a major crime makes me question your judgment. I dont see how one can credibly criticize the actions of some at the omission of other similar atrocities. Moreover a state that claims to be an accepting beacon of democracy should be held to a higher standard.

JetFury said:

Did you not read this?