What's the difference between islam and christianity?
OK, asides from the fact that "We're right, they're wrong." what's the real differences between islam and christianity? Really, asides from some minor things, both seem to preach the exact same message of misogyny, oppression, tyranny, intolerance, fear, hate, war, conquest and ignorance.
What's the real, structural differences-IF ANY!- between islam and christianity?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gloria Stevens on -
You are the one that is making a statement that I can't find a reference to in the conversation. I was wondering if you are supporting Sam Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens or mocking them.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
What statement is that?
-
Permalink Reply by Gloria Stevens on
-
Oh! I was just wondering what you meant and what you are refering to. Nothing bad. Really :)
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
Ok, but you replied to arcus first, so I have no idea to which statement of mine you are refering.
-
Permalink Reply by Gloria Stevens on
-
LOL. I replied to someone that said, " recall hearing either Hitchens or Dawkins (doesn't matter, their message is the same)..." I guess I did it wrong. Sorry. I'm a little new at this. Sorry.
-
Permalink Reply by Gloria Stevens on
-
Okay. Now that I have the right person. What do you mean exactly?
-
Permalink Reply by Arcus on -
It feeds into a metadiscussion where it is being continually eluded to that those of use which don't mind going a bit further on attacks on religion (atheist militancy), and especially Islam, are doing so because we are 'biased' or 'racist', and whatever choice words de jour apologetics find necessary to end an uncomfortable debate. (apparently, I am both off my rocker paranoid and behave like a child.)
That's OK, I can live with people not agreeing with me, even when they resort to ad hom decriptions of my arguments to defend themselves. I'll make an attempt at answering only in kind, but that attempt stops when the arguments feeding into those I have used is being used by someone who doesn't agree with the argument's conclusion. Agree with premises but not the conclusion is what is commonly referred to as bullshit which is only useful to impress.
As for the exact source, I now tend to favor that it was Dawkins that borrowed Sam Harris' words in a longer argument to the defense the current War on (mostly Islamic) Terror. I believe it was either the BBC Hardtalk or in one of the Caltech debates he used the point. I don't have time right now to go through the exact quote, but he alludes to it in this post with the talk on Janism, which is being critiziced ie. here by an apologetic friendly atheist.
Dawkins and Hitchens generally say the same things about Islam and Muslims (as does Pat Condell in Sassan's post below), and are criticized heavily for their 'vicious attacks' on religion by mostly North Americans. Then North Americans agree with the same reasoning when spoken in an American accent, which implies they are biased against Europeans.
"Radio host Terrence McNally recently interviewed Richard Dawkins. The transcript can be found here. Most of it is a rehashing of words Dawkins has said many times before, but this particular response bugged me:
TM: In other words, if [a religion was] just a philosophical belief that had no impact on the world, fine.
RD: Exactly. I don’t think you’ll find many people criticizing any gentle religion, like Jainism.
Sam Harris echoed that thought in The End of Faith
."
-----------
As for the larger question. I do actually do the arduous task of ensuring every argument I use pan out to be the very source when forming opinion, but I don't find strict MLA to be applicable in debates.
-
Permalink Reply by Gloria Stevens on
-
Thanks for taking the time. I read "The End of Faith" and I have to say I was trying to sort out WHY moderates are as big a threat as extremists. I think of my luthern family. I had to explain to my uncle the what the rapture was. They just have their rituals and live their lives. What harm is that? And if moderate muslim think they have a great thing going as well, what is the harm?
-
Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on -
Excuse me for jumping in, but I think that as long as a person can choose to have his entire worldview based on belief in magical, mythical creatures and still be considered sane (in fact, more sane than people who choose reality), then our very existence both individually and as a species is in danger. If the magical, mythical beings viewpoint is acceptable in any form, then it is acceptable in all forms because, after all, they are "magic". They can do or be anything--even murderous, narcissistic, psychopaths.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Hughes on -
There is no "jumping in" here. All opinions and viewpoints are valid; however, you are spot on with your well-stated view of all supernatural and/or paranormal being accepted as valid being wrong-headed and collectively dooming humanity through any number of manners. It's especially true in the nuclear age and there's not a nickel's worth of difference between any of them at the fundamentalist level. American christofascists are just as dangerous to all of us as islamofascist idiocy is any day. The majority of people in the "developed" world have matured quite beyond such childish magical'mystical beliefs, while the US is as deep in the belief mire as the islamic world and that's sad and dangerous in either direction.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
I fully agree Mo, and I wish more people would recognize this. The only difference between Islam and Christianity is the cultures in which they are based. Of course the culture and religion exist in a social feedback loop - but it wouldn't take long for Christians to become the dangerous flavour of crazy given a little shift in momentum. I'm not sure if anyone here saw that U.S. Congressman justifying continued support for Israel so America wouldn't 'loose the hand of god'. I've lived segments of my life wondering if Regan would push the button to bring on the rapture, watching GOP primary candidates raise their hand to signify they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and fearing that one day a fundy president might get in and actually find a target for U.S. nuclear warheads. I am more apprehensive of that situation than I am of Amabananadinajad managing to make one or two low grade nukes.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Hughes on
-
Point well made and I, as you, feel threatened when I see such, supposedly well-educated men and women unembarrassed to raise their hands and accept such patently stupid positions and thereby give a feeling of superiority and validity to the Young Earther mob of idiots and scientifically illiterate dolts.
What's new today
Forum
Do Men have the right to a "financial abortion"
Started by Adam in Small Talk. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 33 minutes ago. 26 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
SO A CHRISTIAN DOESN’T TOLERATE MY VIEWS…WHY BE SO ANNOYED?
Posted by Eljay on May 19, 2013 at 12:36pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
