Why do people hate islam?

[Biomech]

Do you really think you need to make excuses for yourself to me?   

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t:

atheist
[ey-thee-ist]

noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Everything you said following this was based upon either deliberately or accidentally ignoring that which has been highlighted.

Here's one for you :

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[1714934835]

1714934835

[1714934835]

1714934835

[1714934835]

1714934835

[1714934835]

1714934835

[1714934835]

1714934835

[Spendulus]

Do you really think you need to make excuses for yourself to me?   

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t:

atheist
[ey-thee-ist]

noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Everything you said following this was based upon either deliberately or accidentally ignoring that which has been highlighted.

Here's one for you :

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

In discussion of religion, the use of logical fallacies to promote one's position lends credence to the opposing side.  An interesting question is whether any of the great religious figures produced arguments with logical errors embedded in them.

[Lenore]

Terrorism?

[BADecker]

Do you really think you need to make excuses for yourself to me?   

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t:

atheist
[ey-thee-ist]

noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Everything you said following this was based upon either deliberately or accidentally ignoring that which has been highlighted.

Here's one for you :

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

Not sure what you are getting at.

Disbelieving something is simply a stronger way to say it that to say believing it is not.

For example, in law, if there is a void judgement, one would not say, "the judgment is void." To say, "the judgment is void" is to at least suggest that there was a judgment. If it is said like, "the void judgment," there is denial that the judgment even existed.

Call it what you will, or attempt to believe or disbelieve what you will, the fact is that there is scientific proof that God exists. Someday, this proof may be overturned. There are reasonable theories that are almost doing it right now by becoming proof. Until they come out of the theory stage, God exists.

In the face of proof, disbelieving is a religion... especially if it is expressed with evermore firmly understood and repeated dogma.

[PrikiNo.1]

All religions are same, they are created by people. People hate people, so you can figure it out.
It's not special for Islam, you can see the same issue in all other religions.

You are right, ever religion is created so it can control the people, but let me ask something... Is there any difference between the word religion and spirituality?

Here, I will tell my definition: Religion is a group of people who is guided by one person who tells them what to think. Spirituality is group of people who is guided by one person who instead of telling them what to think he makes them think i.e. a way of life.

So if you take the Bible, the New Testament and the books of Apostle Paul you will see the difference in that two words. Paul teach his people how to think by parabolas and examples.

In other words, pure Bible religion tries to control people... for their own good.

Dude, if you think logically, what is written in the Bible and what the preachers telling us to do is so different...

For example, when you go to church you have pay for the candles or if you want some souvenir you have to pay for that. Do you think that is normal?

Let me remind you what happen when Christ enter in the temple of Jerusalem:

Matthew 9:9-13

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Thank you for informing me of things that I know. You are such a wonderful person for doing so.

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

I can not stop, because I see that you use the word religion instead of spiritual...

I am sure that if you read the whole Bible, you will see that there isn't such a word like ''religion''. This word is create by us (humans) to define something that we still don't understand it. What is written in the Bible and what is interpreted by the church is very different!

I can not remember now, but will you please give your definition about what is the meaning of the word ''religion'' and what is ''spiritual''? - In your point of view, please!

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach?
No, it is time for a revolution and the only way to start the revolution is to start talk against the preachers, because their the ones who bring this world in to chaos!

[BADecker]

Thank you for informing me of things that I know. You are such a wonderful person for doing so.

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

I can not stop, because I see that you use the word religion instead of spiritual...

I am sure that if you read the whole Bible, you will see that there isn't such a word like ''religion''. This word is create by us (humans) to define something that we still don't understand it. What is written in the Bible and what is interpreted by the church is very different!

I can not remember now, but will you please give your definition about what is the meaning of the word ''religion'' and what is ''spiritual''? - In your point of view, please!

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach?
No, it is time for a revolution and the only way to start the revolution is to start talk against the preachers, because their the ones who bring this world in to chaos!

Some people have a religion of spirituality. Some people have a religion of materialism. Most people incorporate some spirituality and some materialism into their personal religion. Since we are both spiritual and material beings, there is nothing wrong with incorporating both into our religion. There is danger, however. Wherein? Wrong spiritualism, and wrong materialism.

Sometimes revolution is good. Revolution is NOT good if it is rebellion against the God of the Bible. What is rebellion against God? It is not believing in Jesus salvation as explained in the Bible.

You are free. You are not forced to believe in Jesus salvation. But, it will be good for you if you do believe.

Get Jesus salvation however you can. The only clear way is through the Bible.

[Biomech]

Do you really think you need to make excuses for yourself to me?   

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t:

atheist
[ey-thee-ist]

noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Everything you said following this was based upon either deliberately or accidentally ignoring that which has been highlighted.

Here's one for you :

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

Not sure what you are getting at.

Disbelieving something is simply a stronger way to say it that to say believing it is not.

For example, in law, if there is a void judgement, one would not say, "the judgment is void." To say, "the judgment is void" is to at least suggest that there was a judgment. If it is said like, "the void judgment," there is denial that the judgment even existed.

Call it what you will, or attempt to believe or disbelieve what you will, the fact is that there is scientific proof that God exists. Someday, this proof may be overturned. There are reasonable theories that are almost doing it right now by becoming proof. Until they come out of the theory stage, God exists.

In the face of proof, disbelieving is a religion... especially if it is expressed with evermore firmly understood and repeated dogma.

As a layman, I'm pretty well informed, and have not seen this so-called proof. I've seen a lot of bunk science from "young earth creationists". So, gimme links. As always, I'm willing to consider other points of view.

However, what I was getting at, very specifically, is that you used the modern definition of atheist (which I accept) to make an argument and refute it. That argument was predicated on NOT ACKNOWLEDGING that part of that definition is a simple disbelief, not a dogmatic "there is no god". I work from the "the proofs are insufficient for such a bold claim" ideation. One cannot disprove a negative.

I will state, AGAIN, that if there IS an all powerful deity, it doesn't care to be worshipped. This, too, is based on logic. If there is an all powerful deity, and it wishes to be worshipped, there could only possibly be ONE religion. Because if the deity is all powerful, it can EASILY make it's wishes known, and if it wishes to be worshipped, it would do so. The fact that there in existence literally thousands of ideations of "gods" proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they are all false.

This of course does not directly address the question of whether or not there are gods. Because if there are, they are hiding their existence, and have structured the universe in such a way that it CAN BE understood based solely on observed phenomena, and those observed phenomena generally have a less fantastical explanation than "god did it".

The understanding of the physical universe at the times of the writings of the various "holy books" was, to put it politely, dismal. That they got a few things right with almost no rigor is nothing short of amazing, but it does not make the overall paradigm work. Most of it does not. For instance, most "learned" men at the time of the writings of the New Testament still believed the earth to be held up by four pillars on the back of a turtle, and that the stars were holes in something called the "firmament". Better understanding via observation and testing (the beginnings of what has been formalized as the scientific method) proved beyond any doubt that this widely held ideation was just plain wrong. With every advance in scientific knowledge, the "god did it" argument got pushed further into the background until there was only a small amount of gaps. Which the religious seize on like a drowning man will grab a stick.

disbelief is NOT a system of belief. Skepticism, however, is. I am a skeptic. On damn near everything. I hold to Mark Twain's observation that Faith is the belief in what you know ain't so.

When it comes to Christianity, it is so self contradictory within it's own books, leaving alone the sects, that it cannot possibly be inspired by an all powerful deity. Unless, of course, that deity is completely mad. I suppose that's possible, but hardly cause for admiration or worship. You cannot, for instance, simultaneously condemn and command murder. Yet the bible does so, and that's peripheral. The PRIMARY DOCTRINE of christianity is that it's perfectly legit to kill an innocent man to "atone" for the crimes of the guilty. Try that one in a courtroom some day.

Further, within the Christian scriptures it says that churches and places of worship are vain, as god cannot be seen or heard in such places. Rather, and this one isn't a paraphrase, "The Kingdom of God is within you". Yet a very pious group of men who made that connection were hunted down, forced into a mountain retreat, besiged, and killed at Montsegur in 1284 by other very pious men. Both sides were utterly convinced that they were right. This is the sort of crap that strong religious belief breeds. Divisions that need not exist, and in many cases throughout history have led to bloodshed on a massive scale. That Islam is now convulsing in the same way is not surprising. Organized religion, regardless of it's pantheon, is based upon control of the masses. It will fight for that control at ANY cost, conceding only when not doing so would utterly destroy the organization. Christianity reached that point about 150 years ago. If the timeline remains similar, that means Islam has about 550 years before they stop believing it ok to kill for the faith. Given modern communication, I suspect it won't take that long.

[Spendulus]

......Islam has about 550 years before they stop believing it ok to kill for the faith. Given modern communication, I suspect it won't take that long.

Another possibility is that Islam does not adapt to changing times, and dies out.  99% of all religions that have ever sprung to life have died.

This is particularly noted around religions which have geographical locations of primary importance.

Islam does this, Christianity does not.

[BCEmporium]

Spendulus, on geo-specific behavior, Islam demands some compensations to be paid in camels... Would be hard to get them from the zoo around here!   

[Spendulus]

Spendulus, on geo-specific behavior, Islam demands some compensations to be paid in camels... Would be hard to get them from the zoo around here!   

Hey, you don't get to pick and choose.  If it says camels, and you are a True Muslim, you must pay in camels.

[Beliathon]

It would be unethical to nuke the entire middle east into glass, but we should still do it, because we can.

[PrikiNo.1]

Thank you for informing me of things that I know. You are such a wonderful person for doing so.

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

I can not stop, because I see that you use the word religion instead of spiritual...

I am sure that if you read the whole Bible, you will see that there isn't such a word like ''religion''. This word is create by us (humans) to define something that we still don't understand it. What is written in the Bible and what is interpreted by the church is very different!

I can not remember now, but will you please give your definition about what is the meaning of the word ''religion'' and what is ''spiritual''? - In your point of view, please!

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach?
No, it is time for a revolution and the only way to start the revolution is to start talk against the preachers, because their the ones who bring this world in to chaos!

Some people have a religion of spirituality. Some people have a religion of materialism. Most people incorporate some spirituality and some materialism into their personal religion. Since we are both spiritual and material beings, there is nothing wrong with incorporating both into our religion. There is danger, however. Wherein? Wrong spiritualism, and wrong materialism.

Sometimes revolution is good. Revolution is NOT good if it is rebellion against the God of the Bible. What is rebellion against God? It is not believing in Jesus salvation as explained in the Bible.

You are free. You are not forced to believe in Jesus salvation. But, it will be good for you if you do believe.

Get Jesus salvation however you can. The only clear way is through the Bible.

You are free. You are not forced to believe in Jesus salvation. But, it will be good for you if you do believe.

Get Jesus salvation however you can. The only clear way is through the Bible.

Mate, do you think that I am not accept Christ? Then tell me why I speak about the Holly Spirit or the Light?

The only way if we want to reach to that level of consciousness is by accepting Christ as our savior! Every word who came up from His mouths was about the Light, every word that Apostles preach us was about the Holly Spirit. Sometimes, Paul admitted that even he doesn't understand the words, because it is not he who is talking, but the Holly Spirit.

We are still humans and we are far away of this level on consciousness, but I am sure that there will come a time where we will all be transformed and discover the power of the the Light!

[EdenHazard]

people hate islam,because some terorist claim that they are muslim. so if terrorist claim that they are cristian/budhist or other religion,people will hate that religion? i dont think it make sense,its a just trick from people hate islam,and they use this way to make islam name on pain.

[BCEmporium]

people hate islam,because some terorist claim that they are muslim. so if terrorist claim that they are cristian/budhist or other religion,people will hate that religion? i dont think it make sense,its a just trick from people hate islam,and they use this way to make islam name on pain.

Isn't the terrorists who claim to be Muslims, are the Islamic books which are made by a terrorist and mainly supports it...

[MRKLYE]

I don't think most hate islam per say but your guys' extremest are definitely fucking shit up for your religion.
The Christians are pretty fast to forget about the crusades and I think this is basically the same idea ISIS has going on at the moment.

I don't believe in condemning many for the actions of few, But sadly most human aren't as understanding as I am.

Mindless hate is human nature.. and only through education will be be able to fight this and further ourselves as a species.

[BADecker]

You are free. You are not forced to believe in Jesus salvation. But, it will be good for you if you do believe.

Get Jesus salvation however you can. The only clear way is through the Bible.

Mate, do you think that I am not accept Christ? Then tell me why I speak about the Holly Spirit or the Light?

There are a lot of people who speak about the light without talking about Christ. You have asked me two questions here. Yet you have not said that you accept Jesus salvation as the Bible states it. You keep on wanting teasing me with questions while not making a statement.

Besides, the admonition was really rhetorical, anyway, regarding you personally.

The only way if we want to reach to that level of consciousness

What is a level of consciousness? Why would one want to be more conscious that he is when he is conscious? If there is something in the idea of being conscious that you like, then go for it.

is by accepting Christ as our savior! Every word who came up from His mouths was about the Light, every word that Apostles preach us was about the Holly Spirit. Sometimes, Paul admitted that even he doesn't understand the words, because it is not he who is talking, but the Holly Spirit.

We are still humans and we are far away of this level on consciousness, but I am sure that there will come a time where we will all be transformed and discover the power of the the Light!

One does not need a special level of consciousness to believe in Jesus salvation. Remember that Jesus said that unless we become like little children (who believe in Him), we will not make it to Heaven. If you want to see the Jesus light, you need to become like a little child who believes in Jesus.

[n691309]

It's media's power and most of the time manipulates these information, mostly people hate terrorist but they think that all muslims are the same which is wrong.

[BADecker]

I don't think most hate islam per say but your guys' extremest are definitely fucking shit up for your religion.
The Christians are pretty fast to forget about the crusades and I think this is basically the same idea ISIS has going on at the moment.

The crusades are long gone. Islam is here.

Islam should be hated because it is driving Muslims to Hell.

I don't believe in condemning many for the actions of few, But sadly most human aren't as understanding as I am.

There is no Islamic condemnation for Muslim terrorists. The reason is because they are following their Islamic religion better than the peaceful Muslims. Peaceful Muslims who condemn Muslim terrorists are not following their religion very well, simply because they are peaceful. When they condemn Muslim terrorists, it is weak Islam trying to condemn fatihful strong Islam.

Very few people want to condemn peaceful Muslims. And they don't want to have to condemn Muslim terrorists. But people need protection from Islam. And it is the peaceful Muslims who need it the most, because the Muslims terrorists are against the peaceful Muslims for not obeying Islam by becoming terrorists.

Mindless hate is human nature.. and only through education will be be able to fight this and further ourselves as a species.

That's why it is a good idea to get rid of Islam, so that Muslims who want to obey a peaceful religion won't have to become terrorists to obey.

[BCEmporium]

The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim invasions and stopped more than 7 centuries ago!
The Inquisition is a Catholic version of Sharia.

So cut out those arguments! Basically you're condemning "Catholic modules" which are built-in in Islam.

[Spendulus]

The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim invasions and stopped more than 7 centuries ago!
The Inquisition is a Catholic version of Sharia.

So cut out those arguments! Basically you're condemning "Catholic modules" which are built-in in Islam.

Bah.

Let's look at the facts.  How many were killed in the Inquisition?

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_from_the_Inquisition

the Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people.

That's in a hundred and forty years.

How many are being killed in violent Jihad by Islamic Terrorists today?

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Jihad Report  November, 2015
 Jihad Attacks:    169
 Countries:    30
 Allah Akbars:    34
 Dead Bodies:    1455
 Critically Injured:1706

Does any Muslim wish to compare FACTS about the Inquisition with FACTS about violent Islam?
Two months of Jihad, matches the toll in death of a hundred and forty years of the very worst of Christianity's oppressive eras.