Religious Extremists Vs Religious Moderates: Part Of The Same Problem?

[birdie1971]

We all know the threat posed by extremists – murder, terrorism etc. Many religious moderates routinely label the criticism of religious beliefs and practices as intolerant. In doing so, do the these moderates (inadvertently?) stymie legitimate debate and therefore create a medium in which extremists can thrive and develop?

[solvitquick]

No understanding or support from anyone here - what a waste of time I have spent!
Talk to each other - no disputes or "insults" thereafter!
SIQ.

[birdie1971]

Solvitquick - “... You [beso] and your colleague, Naomi, are dangerous extremist atheists... I do not think it is OTT to liken your sort to those who attempted to annihilate the jews in the Nazi reign of terror... I had hoped that birdie would protest against your gross abuse of the original question. But, again, having read and subsribed to the "feeling humble" thread it appears you are three of a kind... In the company of you lot, I am proud to be a voice crying in the wilderness!...”


Wow.

I've been otherwise engaged these last few days and so haven't been in a position to read or make posts of any kind.

Have you lost your marbles? I have done nothing but politely disagree with you on this thread and all of a sudden I'm apparently the equivalent of Adolf Hitler himself! Your above post (edited) is absolutely disgusting and unwarranted. You've hit-rock bottom with that one.

It's been suggested before that Naomi, I and others are all cut from the same cloth and are in some kind of 'gang'. Do you know who said that? Keyplus. And the thing about Keyplus is that when people disagree with him, he regularly insults them and accuses them of being on drugs, etc. He's the very embodiment of the conspiracy theorist. Please don't become like him – hurling groundless accusations around like confetti. I don't know if you're aware but with regards to Beso et al., we have in the past (and I suspect will again in the future) disagree quite vociferously on certain topics and are hardly in cahoots with one another.

Unfortunately, I think you've really done yourself a disservice. I was under the impression that with you, I was debating with someone of some calibre. It would appear not unless you can be bothered to try and regain some sense of proportionality and dignity by withdrawing your outrageous comments.

[birdie1971]

SIQ -

I've read and re-read this thread and I can't help but notice that you've failed almost entirely to address any of the points made in LazyGun's post of 28th Dec 2013 @ 23:03. One such argument is this:

“... The majority of those holding to the teachings of religion may indeed be harmless, but by defensively joining in with claims of persecution, or an infringement of their religious freedom in the face of such observations and critical analysis - or indeed by labelling such criticism as being borne out of bigotry by asserting, for example, Islamophobia - they offer the minority who do hold and disseminate extremist views a kind of protective camouflage in which to operate...”

If you're willing to re-engage with me and others without evoking Godwin's law then perhaps we may understand one another better.

[beso]

Everything I post is aimed at educating the reader about the actual contents of the Holy Books.

The vast majority of believers and non-believers have not read the Bible at all. The church hides behind this fact. My proposition is that any person who objectively read the Bible or Koran could only conclude that it is indeed a death cult.

I implore you to actually read the Bible and Koran to see what is actually there. The Koran is boring and repetitive so I recommend the Old Testament. Skip Genesis because it is relatively boring with all its begats. After that I guarantee you won't put it down for a chapter or two at least.

There you will see the worst of human failings portrayed as the nature of a god. It turned me from a casual atheist into a serious one. These religions are the largest single factor on the planet standing between us and lasting peace.

[solvitquick]

Dear birdie1971,
Thank you for your latest posts. I too have been away briefly as well as tending to other vital matters. Welcome back.
I have to issue apologies to Naomi, beso and yourself regarding my inept and inintended apparently personal insults in my posting regarding the Nazi holocaust. I hope to refer to the other matters but first my apologies separately below.
Kind Regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear Naomi, beso and birdie1971,
Despite my introductory response to beso which I found unfair, I do not make this or any other excuse for my inept, and totally inexcusable use of the sentences:
"People like you two (later eually implicating birdie as well) are simply laying down the feedstuff of those who would pip-off religionists
one-by-one. I do not think it is OTT liken your sort to those who attempted to annihilate the Jews in the Nazi reign of terror."
Having re-read this, my own nonsense, I uneqivocally and without qualification offer my deepest apologies. In no way was I referring to yourselves personally or anyone else on ab.
I respect you all as I hope you should know by now and hope you will accept this apology.
It would be reassuring to hear from you that you accept my apology but will obviously understand if you do not deign to reply.
Any further responses birdies' missif will in no way attempt to justify my unintended insult to yourseves but may partly explain how I came to make such a serious blunder.
In Sorrow and Deep Respect to All,
SIQ.

[naomi24]

Thank you for the apology.

[solvitquick]

Dear birdie,
Let's start from the beginning eh?
(i) As I read your question, and have re-read it n-times, I did not understand and still do not understand, why it could not be answered "yes" or "no". Further you objected to "no" followed by and exclamation mark. You interpreted it "as if the question was anathema" - no-one said that at all. That is why I asked "if I said 'yes, they do' would it make you happy?". Apparently 'cos I expanded on my essentially "no" answer I was exempted from "insulting" your question. I never got-it and still don't - but it did get my back up quite a bit despite our agreement to differ.
(ii) I've never heard of anyone called keyplus and doubt if I could tolorate whoever that is.
But here I assume we are discussing MY linking of you, Naomi and beso re the question of what is being "humble" or rather the coincidental trio of yourselves, one after the other decrying the humbleness as a means whereby religions use it to manipulate believers. In that thread most answered the question. I regarded yours as an unfair and self-demeaning manipulation of the question and was disappointed that none of you accepted the humbleness was an admirable characteristic.
"Cut from the same cloth?" Nope, you are all free thinkers as I well know.
Obviously I have to stop there birdie although I have not adddressed all of your points yet.
With Sincere Regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear Naomi,
Thank you so much for you kind acceptance of my apology.
That means a great deal to me.
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear birdie1971 and LazyGun,
In my posts I do not believe I have ever accused anyone of religious persecution but rather defended the right of what I have termed innocent religionists to go about their worship in peace.
No religion is above criticism, indeed I have regularly criticised all. I even expressed my understanding of the current special criticism of Muslims but only insofar as the extremist murderers have provoked abhorrence in us all.
I objected to and object to being an called "apologist" if that refers to to the maniacal murdererers or their supporters whoever or wherever they are. I had hoped that I had made that clear but messed up my sentence which was misread as me advocating that religions should be above criticism - far from it! I was merely attempting to defend those who are peaceable and often doing good works.
I have no desire to debate "Godwin's Law" - never heard of it till I looked it up. I did not intend "playing the Hitler Card" as I hope is now clear. I was simply expressing my concern that, in general, writing-off a whole population of religionists was a dangerous game. I have apologised for this awful example on my part in the current thread.
If I have failed to address any of your birdie's or your LG's points then please get back to me.
In Great Respect to You Both,
SIQ.

[birdie1971]

solvitquick -

Been away... again.

All apologies accepted graciously. Heat of the moment stuff. No grudges, no regrets. You're a clearly intelligent individual with compassion and heaps of rationality.

[solvitquick]

Dear birdie1971,
Thank you ever so much for your acceptance of my apologies.
I greaty appreciate this very much.
As for your additional comments. Those compliments came as a great surprise - if only I could live up to them even though I try my inedequate best. Thank you again.
"Heat of the moment" or whatever, no excuses to anyone for my dreadful insulting blunder.
My apologies to Naomi, beso and yourself remain unqualied and no excuses claimed, irrespective of any later discussion.
With My Many Thanks for Your Gracious and Kind Post,
Very Best Wishes,
SIQ.

[mibn2cweus]

It might be helpful to remember at all times that it is the apologists, those who are attempting to usurp truth with belief, that are the ones who have proposed that for which an apology is due.