Ok, wading deeper into the general's statements:
But saying that an entire religion doesn't belong in this century conveys such incredible misunderstanding and fear that it can only be met with disbelief and condemnation.
Actually your position is the one that doesn't make any sense. You're defending a culture where preaching intolerance and hate is the mainstream by calling the person who called them out intolerant. Does that make any sense? Of course not. I'm not preaching they should be wiped out, I'm not preaching that they are inferior, I'm not saying "OMG Teh brown people are coming lulz!!", I'm not saying any of that. What I said was the values that most of them choose to hold onto doesn't belong in this century, and there's a fair number of reasons why. But it's just easier to call it "hate speech" and label me a troll for bringing up what is politically inconvenient and respond with a flood of illogical kneejerk arguments. And frankly this isn't the only religion that doesn't belong in this century, but that I didn't bring that up because it is 100% irrelevant to this discussion.
Talking about 'postmodernism' is nonsensical - what does that even mean?
Post modernist thinking is basically "almost everything is equal".
The psychology of Kosh's behavior is simple, but unfortunately the solutions aren't, since we've got an entire neoconservative movement here in the US which basically thinks the same way.
Simple only to those who don't understand it. You think my views are based on fear and ignorance, but that not the case. I'm not a neo-con.
You are guilty of using anecdotes in the place of population statistics. I wish you had a better background in science.
If you actually looked at what I said, I said I use available evidence AND annecdotes (my own as well as others). It's funny how you latch onto the last half of that statement and completely ignored the first half, then accuse me of trolling for disagreeing with you. That is massive intellectual dishonesty.
None of them, according to your claim, believe in a religion which belongs in this century.
There is no religion that belongs in this century, but that is a seperate issue.
If we wrote an alternate history novel (as Iain Banks once did) in which Islam was the religion of the modern world and Rastafarianism the religion of the Third World, we would see alternate-Kosh posting a thread on alternate-HLP about how Rastafarianism has no place in this century, given the virulent outbreaks of homicidal reefer madness currently devouring the globe.
Straw man, because in such a hypothetical situation while I might go after the Rastafarianism on an occation like this I would also have no qualms about going after Islam (or whatever the dominant religion is), either because of its backwardness or just because it is simply superstitious nonsense.
Kosh has made this claim: he endorsed the simple equation "Islam = intolerance." He has been so far unable to substantiate this claim.
Yes I
did, and that was just a quick 1 minute search, if I looked more I would without a doubt turn up even more.
Second, he asserted that the kerfuffle over political cartoons was evidence against this. Yet that outrage occurred primarily amongst recent immigrants and in Muslim countries in poor circumstances.
That was only one piece of evidence, and the outrage was a lot more widespread than muslim immigrants to western europe. There were large scale protests (in Pakistan these protests had tens of thousands of people) in many islamic countries, the danish embasies in syria, iran, and lebanon were firebombed, and about 100 people DIED. That video I posted earlier was just a small taste of what actually happened in the world.
Source 1 source 2All of this over cartoons.
Why does every second thread end up being about bashing religion or pro religion?
Because there's so much to bash about it and so many brainwashed followers combined with apologists to defend it.
