There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
- Pornosophical philotheology! Bloomingdedalus (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Are constantly problematic. Use the talk page to discuss your changes first and see what others have to say. Alternatively avoid editing in areas related to feminism since this issue seems to be your bugbear. Tielec01 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is factually untrue that sexism is defined as "institutional discrimination against a sex" and racism is defined as "institutional discrimination against a race." Hence, I removed the nonsense.— Unsigned, by: Bloomingdedalus / talk / contribs
- I'm not here to argue the facts, I know that would be futile and, quite frankly, arguing semantics makes for boring conversations. I'm giving you a piece of advice so that your edits aren't rolled back immediately. Take it or ignore it if you wish. Tielec01 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The "user" that blocked you is a bot set up to thwart spam accounts. Those accounts always include external links put on peoples' userpages, so that's why it blocked you. I think they're working on refining it, but for the time being, do try to avoid external links. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- I made you an autopatrolled user. I think that will fix the problem. If you still have trouble, say so on your talk page (you can usually still post here even when blocked). Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch!!! Bloomingdedalus (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again.
From the Pew report you referenced
“”In many of the countries surveyed, clear majorities of Muslims oppose violence in the name of Islam. Indeed, about three-quarters or more in Pakistan (89%), Indonesia (81%), Nigeria (78%) and Tunisia (77%), say suicide bombings or other acts of violence that target civilians are never justified. And although substantial percentages in some countries do think suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified – including a 62%-majority of Palestinian Muslims, overall support for violence in the name of Islam has declined among Muslim publics during the past decade.
- Yes, and in Egypt and Lebanon it's <40% that say suicide bombing is not justified. Clearly the specific figure presents an overall view of several categories of Islam. In the United States 22% of Muslims openly admit they think suicide bombing can sometimes be justified: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2009/12/1445-2.gif Only half of U.S. and British Muslims even care about "Islamic extremism" - whatever that means: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2009/12/1445-1.gif In 2003, 46% of Pakistanis claimed they had confidence in Bin Laden, 59% of Indonesians, and 56% of Jodinians: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2009/09/1338-2.gif These are not figures indicative of a particularly peaceful ideology and the presentations on this website look like they were written by some of the most extreme apologists imaginable. I'm somewhat baffled as to how otherwise rational people can defend Islam and mock Judaism and Christianity which, by comparison, are radical leftists. Liberals are in denial about the fact that there is an extreme undercurrent of violence in Islamic cultures. Of course not every Muslim adheres to these, but neither do many resist them particularly avidly, in the way, for example, liberal atheists resist Christian theocracy. When American Atheists can safely put up a douchey billboard in Saudi Arabia saying "You know Muhammad was just a violent, pillaging warlord using religion as an excuse to conquer a significant portion of the globe! Dump the myth. -American Atheists" - I'll believe that persistent leftist apologetics for Islam might not be a liberal Trojan horse. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Muslims who are nice people - I worked two years for a nice Pakistani Muslim man. However, on the whole, the Islamic world is not very friendly and neither does it seem dedicated to particularly overt campaigns to stamp out theocratic zeal. I'm no more likely to capitulate to the idea of a resurgent Ottoman Caliphate than I'm interested in a Dominionist theocracy. Islam is a religion which conquered fully by violence over half the Roman Empire under Muhammad and his successors - so there's no pretense in history that Jihad was ever taken to be metaphorical. I was thrilled to see Egypt declare the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. But to riddle this site with misinformation regarding the fact that Islam truly is very hostile in many respects to western ideology, and oftentimes violent, is just denialism. Even the U.S. backed Government in Iraq has in its constitution that "No law shall be passed contrary to the laws of Islam" and that "Islam is the official religion of Iraq." These are people who have lived under theocracy for centuries and show no signs of changing. Most atheists and rationalists are opposed to theocracy on the grounds that, well, there's no evidence that any deities exist. So I'm scratching my head as to why this wiki is filled with Islamic apologetics when Dominionism as espoused by Rushdoony, for example, is fully as horrifying of a pursuit.
- Islamic regimes are fascist - the people who support those regimes are also fascist. Recently, in Pakistan, a violent mob of Muslims burned 200 homes of the minority Christians because one of them was alleged to have blasphemed. To turn a blind eye to the incredibly violent habits of Islamic regimes is amoral at best. To welcome such ideology unchecked into the west, considering the Islamic world's history of extreme violence against the west, even up to the contemporary era, is foolish. Call it quote mining if you want, but if you get polls that say 43% of Muslims will not denounce Al Qaeda and that a not insignificant portion of the Islamic world supports Bin Laden - you're ignoring some very relevant facts about Islam. As much as people may dislike Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens for expressing serious concerns about Islam, there's a reason these people try to guide atheists and rationalists away from apologetics for it - because it represents a very lethal threat to them. I'd love to see what Pew would get by asking all Muslims what they think the penalty for atheism ought to be and what the penalty for homosexuality ought to be. I think you'd get a very representative sample of how incredibly unwise it is to live with the mentality that we're going to be sitting on the grass singing John Lennon songs any time soon with Islamists.
- It may be cool to be ok with Islam these days, but try making this webpage in Saudi Arabia where even making fun of Jesus can have you executed by the state. I don't know why any atheists, skeptics and/or rationalists would behave just all hunky-dory about disseminating pro-Islamic propaganda when, of all nations and religions in the world, that is the least likely to be in any way forgiving of atheism. But, in reality, any atheist stupid enough to form elaborate apologetics for Islam probably just ought to follow that politically correct pied piper wherever he may lead you. — Unsigned, by: Bloomingdedalus / talk / contribs
- "Jesus! Haven't you guys spent any time at all around people like Bloomingdedalus? Can't you recognize bullshit? Don't you think it would be a useful item to add to your intellectual toolkits to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet steaming bullshit lands on your head, 'My goodness, this appears to be bullshit'?"' - Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon. — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs
- That's quite a quote coming from a mildly entertaining sci-fi writer. I read all of Snow Crash having been raised Pentecostal and I'm not the least bit smarter for it. Regardless, he's pretty low-key, so I won't neglect to believe he is owed his due. Honestly, a pizza place is going to make a guarantee that if your pizza is late you get to meet the CEO? Not even an-caps are that silly. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"Parasitic terrorist apologists you scum - you should be hunted and thrown in Gitmo."
- Toxoplasmosis is really only a problem in people with HIV and the like. I stand by my words. You're traitors and a danger to western society. This site has so much apologetics for a violent, abusive, warring religion that makes Pat Robertson look like a leftist when Islam would kill most of the readership of this site, happily, for being atheist. The "Christian Stasi" AKA "Christian Mafia" has been putting some sort of stimulant drug into my cigarettes that is not supposed to be there, however - so I probably was a little overreaching when I wrote that: http://imageshack.com/a/img28/7162/sn850235n.jpg http://imageshack.com/a/img62/6971/0iw3.png http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/25/1233681/-Christofascist-leader-Cindy-Jacobs-tells-followers-how-to-lay-siege-to-their-cities Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not entirely clear about some of your views related to Islam. I am more sympathetic to some of the views you have expressed thus far however I would like to know whether or not you view Islam as being inherently violent and whether or not you think that can be changed if the answer is yes. For certain in the modern world some of the doctrines of Islam are a bit dated to put it politely. However the Christian world was like this in the past even if it isn't now. Since I believe it is absurd to say that a religion can't change I'm going to ask you that question to get a better view of how you view the world as a whole. Alsto003 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Alex