You even addressed in that long statement that there are supposedly more people apprehended in this country for possible (keyword possible) terror acts (not actually carrying them out). This proves my point right there. And this assumes your article is right in the first place. Heres the article i'm going to put forward.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

"The statistic shows the number of deaths due to terrorism worldwide between 2006 and 2017.
18,753 people were killed by terrorists in 2017. The number of terrorist attacks worldwide declined between 2006 and 2017. In 2006, about 14,371 terrorist attacks were counted, while in 2017, 18,753 terrorist attacks were counted. "

http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

Study Says White Extremists Have Killed More Americans in the U.S. Than Jihadists Since 9/11

"They found that 48 people were killed by white terrorists, while 26 were killed by radical Islamists, since (keyword since) Sept. 11."

Please Please Please analyze the two quotes above carefully. White terrorists are cowards 99 out of a 100 times that being said over 10,000 deaths is a much larger number than 100. Please don't try to twist these two articles against me. Jihadists and white nationalists are a huge problem. Nationalism is a good thing to some extent or atleast can be at times.

So i provide evidence but because it is from America (more specifically the FBI that looks at global data) it is no good. — Anaxagoras

That appears to be a complete lie unless I missed a link/quote you gave that didn’t refer to domestic issues in the US in this thread.

The source isn’t the main concern it is the US lens - something you don’t drop in any thread and assume everyone else sees with your eyes too; I remember well you doing this before after I had to explicitly state to you in another thread I was talking about issues on a global scale, yet you blind to this so I repeated and you remained blind.

I think the assessment of the post above referring to you as “seriously delusional” is pretty accurate. I can only hope that others find, or have found, this out too to stop feeding your skewed perspective because you don’t seem to be able to listen to criticism and see hostile intent where there is nothing more than an attempt to communicate ideas and share opinions in an open format.

For balance it is worth questioning the label of “terrorist” as we saw in Syria that on multiple fronts various groups were calling other groups “terrorists”. In war zones I’d be very careful about distinguishing between so called “freedom fighters” and “terrorists”. If they’re on your side we call them the former, if they’re against the later.

It would be more useful for these kinds of statistical sites if they made the terms being used more explicit and forthright.

Regardless you could just as easily have pointed out to Anaxagoras that from 1% of the US population x% of terrorist acts were committed compared to 99% of the population committing x% of terrorist acts as his view is usually one skewed more towards demographics that only suit his myopic view of the “world” (the US). To be clear, if some minority of the 1% calling themselves “muslim” are committing 26 murders and the other 99% are committing 100 murders it’s hardly comparable. Of course I’ve purposely presented a highly biased perspective by selecting stats to suit the intent there - to make a point. The question then becomes, in regards to terror threats, whether or not these extreme acts are indicative of an overarching ideology, what these ideologies are, and how prevalent such ideas are in the public domain? How do we then compare “muslim” to “muslim radicals” and “white nationalists” to “white supremacist terrorists”? How fair are these comparisons? We can skew the stats to suit some hidden agenda by presenting a ratio of all white people in the US to the number of “white terrorists” but it hardly seems sensible to refer to a ideology skin tone anymore than it would by eye colour. I find it telling that the term “white terrorist” is used at all and I wish I could say I was shocked.

He has insinuated he’s visited muslim countries though and spoken to religious figures in these countries, as well as visited households in these countries, so maybe he’s got an important point to make (I’m feeling generous to assume he has.)

Note: NONE of this does much to address the point if the OP which was basically asking, underneath the hyperbole, whether the muslim world is currently at the same moral level as the western world. It is a misguided question. If we’re judging liberty as a sign of morality then it’s clear enough to me that MUCH more freedom is apparent in the western world than anywhere else - be it Africa, Asia and/or South America. Are they “perfect”? Far from it, yet certainly there is greater equality in the western countries generally speaking.

The trite comparison of “west” to “muslims” is nonsensical. That is why I remarked earlier about my experience of muslims in the west as being incomparable to elsewhere (they live in predominantly free societies). For instance the bias in countries like Malaysia in favour of muslims - meaning you’ll be passed over for position at work due to being non-muslim, your children won’t be allowed into certain schools unless they’re muslim, and the police will allow you to bypass checks simply because you’re muslim. Just to be clear, if you are NOT muslim in Malaysia then your legal rights are NOT equal to a muslims.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_(Malaysia)

We can then perhaps address the liberal attitudes of countries in the west, and other regions compared to each other and the west too.

There are opinions held by people who don’t have firsthand experience of a country. For example in the Philippines the west acted with outrage towards Duterte, yet do they actually understand the problems and history of the Philippines to make such snap judgements? By western standards of freedom it looks dire. It doesn’t help to understand the situation though if the current - and very different social problems - are ignored.

Or we could look to Brasil where there has been scandal after scandal. If we’re talking about the attitudes of nations they are not necessarily complete reflections of the people who live there. I by no means assume all muslims are evil or good. People are people. It is frankly idiotic to assume that all countries and regions around the world have the same kind of freedoms and moral constitutions - it just isn’t true. Then it can become a question of moral relativism and the various degree to which you are willing to hold to that; ie. Honour Killings (note: well aware that such acts are not the sole property of muslim communities!) are moral for some and not for others, yet rationally and as a human being I cannot say such acts are “subjective” because I don’t believe murder is inherently “good” - but I can understand it’s necessity in some given circumstances.

For balance it is worth questioning the — I like sushi

for the post labeled the above there is alot i could say to that. There is a tremendous undertone of political correctness on forums such as this and across much of social media. I'll avoid a confrontation right now do to that. You responded to my statistics. There is alot more i could say about those statistics but i'll refrain from that right now. If you are interested in hearing my opinion on this touchy subject you can send me a private message. I don't want to be accused (keyword is accused) of being a troll or a bigot as people of my background very often are on sites such as this. I don't expect you to send me a private message but i did offer.

I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?

Of course some people will wish to frame you as X or Y rather than deal with your points though. I prefer points made and opinions expressed as succinctly as possible. My comment was neither an attack or defense of anything you’ve said. I merely pointed out how anyone, me, you or Anaxagoras can easily enough - purposefully or not - present stats that suit our views. I look for stats both for and against and assume they are only part of the full story. I’m more interested in the term used (hence my comment about the ‘white terrorist’ as opposed to ‘black terrorist’ or ‘asian terrorists’? Point being I find it typical of the kind of rhetoric flying around today and it lacks any clear definition because being from a country, speaking a certain language and/or having a particular skin tone don’t in any way convey a particular ideological position - although admittedly the country you grow up in does often represent some loose ideas upon which you venture out into the wider intellectual world if you so wish to.

Note: I was not disagreeing with anything you said merely offering the sort of counter argument I have seen from others in regards to the use of stats - when it suits them it’s fine, when it disputes some stance they hold too (consciously or otherwise) they are all too ready to question the source. I’m not omitting myself from this because I have erred before and will again; just hopefully less so than in the past :)

I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?

Of course some people will wish to frame you as X or Y rather than deal with your points though. I prefer points made and opinions expressed as succinctly as possible. My comment was neither an attack or defense of anything you’ve said. I merely pointed out how anyone, me, you or Anaxagoras can easily enough - purposefully or not - present stats that suit our views. I look for stats both for and against and assume they are only part of the full story. I’m more interested in the term used (hence my comment about the ‘white terrorist’ as opposed to ‘black terrorist’ or ‘asian terrorists’? Point being I find it typical of the kind of rhetoric flying around today and it lacks any clear definition because being from a country, speaking a certain language and/or having a particular skin tone don’t in any way convey a particular ideological position - although admittedly the country you grow up in does often represent some loose ideas upon which you venture out into the wider intellectual world if you so wish to.

Note: I was not disagreeing with anything you said merely offering the sort of counter argument I have seen from others in regards to the use of stats - when it suits them it’s fine, when it disputes some stance they hold too (consciously or otherwise) they are all too ready to question the source. I’m not omitting myself from this because I have erred before and will again; just hopefully less so than in the past :) — I like sushi

I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?

You probably are open minded. But the fate of western civilization doesn't depend on me making a great post on a forum. Are you willing to do a search on just how many countries on this earth that are already essentially Islamic theocracies? Are you familiar with the Ottoman empire? Are you familiar with Sharia law? I could go on and on but i like being on this forum. At this point in time i don't want to be accUsed of being a troll or a bigot.

theocracies are, and have always been, a threat to modern western attitudes. Don’t forget that the west rose out of the ashes of a theocracy that slowly creeped into a more secular frame.

Christianity was a huge threat to reason and science and today the threat is Islam. The scales are by far more in favour of reason and science though because they’re fully established in secular societies. And don’t forget too that China is secular, yet it would be difficult to claim they don’t have some very serious issues in their nation. Russia is also a global threat as well as the US. I’m not massively concerned with some big nasty perverted version of “Islam” consuming the world.

thats fair.

Christianity was a huge threat to reason and science and today the threat is Islam. — I like sushi

That brush is too broad in both cases.

It was amended well enough with what followed y comments about a secular society that isn’t exactly in favour of free investigation (China).

I see what you mean though. I’m just not in the habit of adding footnotes to every sentence I write and must generalise here and there.

I would still argue that in terms of theocracies Christianity was quite obviously a threat to reason and science - witch hunts and the burning of “heretics” for questioning dogma are quite apparent pieces of evidence there. That said I find it hard to deny that theological discussions helped in part to the progress of science and reason, but I’d still be dubious of anyone suggesting they were the primary force for science and reason unless they meant as an opponent of science and reason that helped propel the human intellect above superstitions.

Also, if we equate science and reason with liberty (which you may not), then it is quite apparent that Islamic theocracies don’t stand as being in support of “reason and science”.

I think it's counterfactual to blame religions for being antithetical to science and reason when both Islam and Christianity have been patrons of the sciences at various times in history even when they formed theocracies. So it isn't a fundamental aspect of either.

Was Giordano Bruno burnt alive or not? I wouldn’t call that “counterfactual”. I certainly don’t dispute that religious people, and a number of prominent theologians, have built upon the reasoning of the Greeks and Romans and carried through their legacy through the ages. Often discoveries were held back for fear of persecution (and rightly so considering the above mentioned Bruno).

If you don't dispute it then it should be clear that religion isn't fundamentally opposed to science or reason. Giordano Bruno doesn't change a thing about that. The point is that this talk about "Christianity did this or Islam did that" is the wrong way to approach the entire subject.

I don’t want to be burnt alive, stoned to death or generally persecuted because my values don’t adhere to texts written centuries ago. Religious institutions have continually tried to block scientific investigation and still do so today. Of course in secular societies their ability to do so now is limited especially given that information can flow more freely than ever before.

I wish to be treated as a human not as someone of a particular religious ideology OR to be forced to live by views I oppose. By all means people can believe what they wish but that doesn’t give them the right (by law in theocracies) to tell me what I can and cannot do and say with the threat of punishment used to have me adhere.

Religious views most certainly conflict with scientific research. Evidence based study is not the forte of religious attitudes that base, in part, their world view on books (hence the term “dogma”). Just because it’s written doesn’t make it factual. Science cares not for claims of truth whilst religion does.

You don’t have a leg to stand on here. If you want to be upset be upset, but it doesn’t change the reality of history and how theocratic states have killed men of science over the centuries due to “blasphemy”. No thanks, not for me!

...it doesn’t change the reality of history and how theocratic states have killed men of science over the centuries due to “blasphemy”. — I like sushi

While men of science have never killed people over the centuries due to criminalization of opinion?

I think you’re confusing religion with science. Religious views are tolerated, except in China and religious states where people’s rights are inhibited if they don’t adhere to the religious laws.

What criminalized “opinion” are you talking of?

I was asking a question about history (since you were talking about Giordano Bruno). Do you believe that men of science never killed people because of "blasphemy laws"?

In opposition to people shouting “blasphemy!” I imagine some did kill out of fear of persecution and being burnt alive. What’s your point?

I assume you’re not suggesting a non-religious person would accuse someone of “blasphemy” yet I will grant that many adherents of both the scientific method and of religious inclinations have killed others due to a misguided belief that they were “blasphemers” - kind of ironic given that they too would likely have been killed themselves a few centuries before.

My point is this. If you are a Martian visiting Earth and observe that the Earthlings often engage in a pattern of behavior, according to which a group of them will harrass, persecute, and even kill other Earthlings, based solely on differences of opinion, you won't be able to ascertain, from that observation alone, that the persecuting group is "religious" and the persecuted group is "scientific". And you won't be able to ascertain the opposite, either. There are just too many contrary examples, whichever reductionism you elect.

The "religious x scientific" divide is, itself, an ungrounded opinion, which often rises to fanaticism. (You choose whether fanaticism is "religious" or "scientific" :D).

Religious institutions have continually tried to block scientific investigation and still do so today. — I like sushi

This is demonstrably false. They've also been patrons of science and started many universities and schools. Your interpretation is reductive and results in a caricature of religion that isn't warranted.

Personally, I don't like institutionalised religions because such structures can be co-opted for political indoctrination. But so can any set of belief systems. Technology = civilized = good reason to colonise barbarians. Misguided nationalism = ubermensch = good reason to take what's rightfully ours. Etc. They're all equally shit.

This is demonstrably false. — Benkei

Okay, show me how then? In the mean time how about listening to a Nobel Prize winning physicist about the state of science in Islamic sphere:

https://physicsworld.com/a/science-in-the-muslim-world/

And people were burnt alive and tortured.

I’m not making a caricature just pointing out that it is nonsense to suggest that religious persecution has not inhibited scientific research. I am not lumping all religious individuals together but I am stating that science is only ever backed by religious institutes when they’re forced to or when it suits their dogma.

You can continue to pretend otherwise if you wish but you’re not likely to het much more of a response from me here. Sorry.

Okay, show me how then? — I like sushi

I certainly don’t dispute that religious people, and a number of prominent theologians, have built upon the reasoning of the Greeks and Romans and carried through their legacy through the ages. — I like sushi

You already did. It's glaringly inconsistent to me but if you don't see it, that's fine.

You’re confused. I never said this you did:

If you don't dispute it then it should be clear that religion isn't fundamentally opposed to science or reason. — Benkei

I actually said these:

Christianity was a huge threat to reason and science and today the threat is Islam. The scales are by far more in favour of reason and science though because they’re fully established in secular societies.

I would still argue that in terms of theocracies Christianity was quite obviously a threat to reason and science - witch hunts and the burning of “heretics” for questioning dogma are quite apparent pieces of evidence there. That said I find it hard to deny that theological discussions helped in part to the progress of science and reason, but I’d still be dubious of anyone suggesting they were the primary force for science and reason unless they meant as an opponent of science and reason that helped propel the human intellect above superstitions.

Saying that Plato and Aristotle played into the construction of Rome and western history is hardly the same as saying Christianity was for science. Neither the Romans nor the Greeks were “scientific” in anything like the way we talk of today.

It helps if you don’t muddle up what you say with what I say to understand my position is nuanced. Regardless it is crystal clear that the evidence shows how religions have inhibited science - that is not to say always given that when it suits a particular interpretation of scripture religious folk are all too ready to jump aboard (eg. Buddhists associating quantum phenomenon with their cosmological view).

I’ve already told you I don’t approach philosophical texts via someone else’s interpretation. I might give him a look once I’ve done reading Nietzsche myself (currently reading ‘On the Genealogy of Morals’)

Thanks

Do you believe that men of science never killed people because of "blasphemy laws"? — Mariner

Why don't you enlighten us about when "men of science" have killed people. Science is just a method, you know.

I would call Joseph Mengele more a nazi than 'man of science', if that is your argument.

with respect to your idea that religion and science are opposed to one another

I never actually said that was my view. The other person said that not me. It happens a lot on forums, no big deal.

I would say that scientific method and religion are opposed, quite obviously, in some areas which I outlined here somewhere or in the other thread? They are hardly comparable in many ways with people often mistakenly equating “faith” with scientific fact verified and intricated through repetition and refinement.

This is hardly on topic with the OP though and not something I’m massively interested in discussing tbh. I have a hard enough time getting non-religious people to grasp the idea of “prescientific man” and what Husserl framed (extended from Nietzsche it seems) as “pretheoretical” - problem is Husserl’s last work wasn’t completed before he died, but it’s clear enough to me he drew a lot from Nietzsche as did many of that era.

I’m not engaging in some science versus religion nonsense so I’ll it there and post NOTHING more in this thread.

As I said :it's fine if you don't see it. Carry on.

Don't you think this line of argument absolves religion too? Religion is also "just a method" -- the method of connecting man to the divine. That people who followed some of these methods once murdered people is not an indictment of "religion".