Can Islam Coexist Peacefully?

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
Travis Paskiewicz's picture
Can Islam Coexist Peacefully?

I think the subject pretty much sums up the rest of what I'm about to say, but I'll go into detail to explain the intracacies of the situation Islam seems to present to the free world.

First, I think Elaine Pagels stated it best by saying "There is practically no religion I know of that sees other people in such a way that would affirm the other's choice". However, do to the wide variance of adherence of an individual to his or her proffessed religion, it can be hard to get a reading on the overall interactions of a given culture. Essentially, in very few cases can a single person or group be said to represent a populace.

But, more so, I'm curious to discuss some of the ideas of Islam and how it seems to be manifesting and interacting in the Americas and Europe, as populations of Muslim communities begin make a pronounced presence.

I suppose my first question would be about the prospect of Muslim assimilation. Most free countries have open borders, and in recent years, Muslims have taken advantage to move to countries that offer a higher quality of life, and escape the war torn middle east. However, there are situations that may suggest that these immigrants refuse to adhere to their new countrie's laws. For example, there is arising in Britain, France, and now America has its example in Dearborn, so called "No-go Zones". These are essentially areas where large Muslim populations have began enforcing Shariah law, and due to prevalent levels of violence, native law enforcement has been unable to ensure the freedoms for native minorities in those areas. In simple terms my first question is: "Does Islam promote a supremist mindset of Islam in its followers, that gives rise to the illegal enforcement of Shariah Law?"

So my question is, "What is the politically correct course of actions to be taken with these situations?"

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I thought "No-go Zones" were

I thought "No-go Zones" were a right wing myth. You know like death panels, wide-spread voter fraud, global warming is a hoax, America is a Christian nation, there is a war against Christmas...

Heri Joensen's picture
I've been trying to find out

I've been trying to find out precisely that for some time now. It's difficult to find impartial and neutral information online. These alleged No-go Zones sound like something european religious zenophobic fascists would make up to bolster their case against non-european immigrants. However, In Sweden at least it appears to be very real indeed, according to this police report:

https://polisen.se/Aktuellt/Rapporter-och-publikationer/Rapporter/Public...

Harry Truman's picture
We have added an additional

We have added an additional 50 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the past 50 years, altering the atmospheric composition by 0.005%, in addition to this- carbon dioxide is among the weakest greenhouse gasses and only 3% of CO2 emissions are man made. Sorry but the numbers don't add up.

A 100% alteration in composition, from air to 100% CO2, results in a difference of 4 degrees Celsius.
http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm

Doing the math, CO2 only could have raised the global temperature by 0.02 degrees Celsius.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - A 100%

Harry Truman - A 100% alteration in composition, from air to 100% CO2, results in a difference of 4 degrees Celsius.

Did you not read the experiment you linked? The temperature rose 4 degrees in the CO2 bottle as compared to the regular bottle, over a 20 minute interval. However your extrapolation does not contain time. To put it nicely: you are in apples and oranges territory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harry Truman - Doing the math, CO2 only could have raised the global temperature by 0.02 degrees Celsius.

Ignoring the fact that you are missing a dimension (time); who told you the relationship was linear?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harry Truman - 0.02 degrees Celsius

Finally; even if we accept everything you've said as fact, assume linear relationship, and ignore time (as you have done); you still got the wrong answer. Remember 0.005% = 0.00005 not 0.005; so your answer is off by 2 orders of magnitude.

Harry Truman's picture
Then 0.0002 degrees. Also, if

Then 0.0002 degrees. Also, if the temperatures were to continually rise into infinity, then our global temperatures should have been continually rising with our previous levels of CO2 as well, yet according to you they were stable before industry. They must reach an equilibrium at some point, and from what I can tell that was the equilibrium.

For thousands of years nut jobs have been running around claiming 'the end is nigh! The end is nigh! We're all going to die!' And it never happened. Been there, done that, seen it before- just like when they dug up that old Mayan Rock that caused everyone to start freaking out thinking the world would end December 21 2012.

Carbon Dioxide is harmless- this global warming shot is just nonsense.

LogicForTW's picture
Almost no one says that

*Edit*

First: Harry Truman please do not necro 2+ year old threads like this, I know there is a bug on the forums that has old threads pop up in the "new responses." And that it is easy to miss the time stamps on it. (I missed the time stamp on this thread even though I am aware of this bug.) If the topic interest you, create a new thread, and cite the part that interest you. If you notice after you respond to a thread that you necro'd it, please delete your comment so the cycle of necro'd threads does not continue.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Almost no one says that global warming is not occurring in the last couple of decades. There is far, far FAR! too much evidence to deny that. (That is kind of like people in religions saying the earth is 6000 years old, almost none of the major churches say the earth is only 6000 years old anymore, simply too much overwhelming evidence.) Both are about on par with arguing that the world is really flat.

Also, almost all of scientist saying human caused climate change is real and that it is dire, they do not say: it is the "end." Humans will still be living on this planet, even if average global temperatures rise 20 degrees celsius.

The argument is: is there human caused climate change? Can we slow or reverse the damage the humans have caused to the climate stability? We could argue back and forth until we are blue in the face about it.

The real answer is: if you have the means to be on the internet, and the education background to write complete sentences and thought like you do, climate change, real or not, is not going to affect you much in the next 10-20 years or more. But, if you have kids, and would like grandkids, etc. And their future is important to you, can you take that chance that thousands of experts in the field are right and you are wrong? Are you so sure you are right you are willing to bet your kids and grand kids and all following generations livelihoods that you are right? This of course is assuming you do not care about animal or plant diversity, beyond the helpfulness biological diversity represent to human quality of life.

Also, be aware that the enormously powerful and rich fossil fuel industry are employing the same tactics, (and some of the same people,) that big tobacco utilized to: delay and cast doubt upon evidence that cigarettes greatly increase lung cancer risk.

Ask yourself, do you deny human caused climate change because some of the "facts," (I use that term loosely,) that tell you what you want to hear? That tells you: that you are not doing a grave injustice to your children and all biological diversity on this planet living the way you do?

You managed to shed the comfortable blanket of religion Harry Truman, for the better reality that Atheism is a far FAR! more likely based on the evidence, reasoning and logic. Not an easy thing to do, admitting you got it wrong all the years before, and that your family that took you to church every sunday got it wrong and were suckered in too.

Apply the same reasoning and logic and evidence to the human caused climate change debate, as you did to break free of your church. Even if the answers are uncomfortable. Do it for your kids and grandkids if you plan to have any.

Harry Truman's picture
I used to believe in global

I used to believe in global warming, but I no longer do because, contrary to what you are saying, no one has provided one iota of evidence that this is happening. Deforestation, poisoning the water supply, and chemical emissions reducing the fertility and hormone levels of humans and Manu other animals- that has been proven, global warming hasn't.

LogicForTW's picture
I am debating moving this

I am debating moving this topic to a new thread, But then you do not really respond to my response anyways. Ignoring the points and assertions I made in my previous post. I get arguing with you on this is probably a waste of my time just like arguing some of the theist on these boards.

Plenty of people have provided enormous amounts of evidence that climate change is occurring, and the earth is currently going through a warming phase. Almost no one, agrees with you that global warming is not occurring. Even the fossil fuel industry will say climate change/warming is occurring. To say that the earth is not in a warming trend right now is akin to saying the sun will not rise tomorrow. Do you not trust the evidence of thousands of thermometers with millions of data points across the world?

The argument that I think you mean to make is: is humans, through the burning of fossil fuels contributing to this sudden rise is overall global temperatures? The evidence gathered on this points towards yes, it may possibly be fairly small, but yes.

The argument that humans through their actions causing global climate change? The evidence points overwhelmingly to yes, and on earth's time scale, the climate change is occurring very rapidly.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as you cannot even get keywords in your statement/argument correct, I had to correct it for you. You clearly have not properly researched this topic, and probably heard/read a short blurb from some idiot with an agenda somewhere saying global warming is not real. You accepted this idea because it is easy and comfortable and absolves you of responsibility. I get you are going to want to cling to that warm blanket of ignorance.

Harry Truman's picture
I think it is the opposite-

I think it is the opposite- you haven't provided any real evidence that CO2 is causing our rise in temperatures. I have shown that I have reason to believe it is not the case, those are:
1. We have altered the CO2 composition in our atmosphere by a very small amount.
2. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas
3. The math simply does not add up.
4. These same scientists said we were heading for a new global ice age in the 1970s, something that is completely false and is actually a new conspiracy theory.

They predicted that the UK would be flooded and go under the ocean by the 1990s, that the human population would drop to 1.5 billion by the 1980s, and that all article and Antarctic sea ice would melt by the 2000s, none of it came true, and all that has happened is them being proven wrong repeatedly. Its like the boy who cried climate change. Don't be surprised when people don't believe you anymore.

Harry Truman's picture
I think it is the opposite-

I think it is the opposite- you haven't provided any real evidence that CO2 is causing our rise in temperatures. I have shown that I have reason to believe it is not the case, those are:
1. We have altered the CO2 composition in our atmosphere by a very small amount.
2. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas
3. The math simply does not add up.
4. These same scientists said we were heading for a new global ice age in the 1970s, something that is completely false and is actually a new conspiracy theory.

They predicted that the UK would be flooded and go under the ocean by the 1990s, that the human population would drop to 1.5 billion by the 1980s, and that all article and Antarctic sea ice would melt by the 2000s, none of it came true, and all that has happened is them being proven wrong repeatedly. Its like the boy who cried climate change. Don't be surprised when people don't believe you anymore.

LogicForTW's picture
First you said:

First you said:

Doing the math, CO2 only could have raised the global temperature by 0.02 degrees Celsius.

Then you said in another post:

Carbon Dioxide is harmless- this global warming shot is just nonsense.

Which I can only guess that you are implying that global warming can only be caused by CO2.

Then you said:

...- that has been proven, global warming hasn't.

Then I said:

The argument that I think you mean to make is: is humans, through the burning of fossil fuels contributing to this sudden rise is overall global temperatures?

Finally you said, seemingly ignoring what I said in your response post:

you haven't provided any real evidence that CO2 is causing our rise in temperatures.

So let me get this straight: You argue that: not only is global warming is a myth (an almost unimaginably vast, conspiracy by 1000's of well educated and generally respected scientist all around the world, utilizing real data collection methods) but that CO2 has a negligible effect on temperature differences.

As I said before, that you conveniently ignored, even the enormously powerful and very monetary biased fossil fuels industry does not deny that there has been a sudden warming trend in the last 50 years. They know better than to argue real data points collected and verified all around the world 1000's of times.

1. I agree, human caused CO2 release has altered the CO2 composition in our atmosphere by a small amount. However overall ppm co2 levels has risen from 320 in 1960 to 400 in 2015, an increase of . Unfortunately for us, it only takes a small amount, also unfortunately for us it only takes a "small" amount of temperature change to really cause a lot of devastation. Also incase you never heard of it, there is tipping points, runaway cyclic effects that kick in amplifying greatly the amount of CO2 released. We can only hope that there is counter effects that kick in as well to slow down/stop this cycle.

2. CO2 is a "weak" greenhouse gas, but there sure is a lot of it. A lot of weak is still very signficant thankfully we do not release methane in the air at anywhere near the rates of CO2 or our situation would be incredibly dire already.

3. I assume the math you gathered from that experiment you linked.

And the experiment you posted, did you even READ IT??? That experiment proves my point not yours. If you took the time to read it at all, you would see the entire experiment was created to help prove the warming effect of CO2. In a tiny 20 ounce bottle in just 20 minutes with a simple heat lamp!!

You took one data point of the experiment (4 degrees celsius change) and ran hog wild with it to try and make it fit your particular opinion that is not shared by any reputable scientist. Making all kinds of crazy assumptions without any basis. Go talk to any person with a 4 year science degree or better, that you trust, with your data point and where/how you got it, and they will point out the ridiculous flaws in your conclusion. Preferably a chemist teacher, as this experiment is designed as a high school level chemistry experiment.

4. Scientist that said science conclusions in the 1970's are generally retired by now. Also you are cherry picking what a few scientist said, in science circles and material taken out of context by media, that was mostly unsupported or just theory. What scientist have today about global warming is vast scientific consensus. A consensus on part with: regular smoking greatly increases bad health outcomes. In fact it is far closer to scientific consensus that the earth is indeed round, rather than a crazy "sky is falling chicken little." You are comparing apples to oranges.

You are falling for fossil fuels industry misinformation campaign hook, line and sinker. And you like a fool to the rest of us that actually know the issues when you argue your point.

Do you need evidence? Fine. Go read.
Start here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Harry Truman's picture
Alright look- long ago there

Alright look- long ago there were plants, these plats, through a number of chemical process lasting milionsof years, turned into petroleum and coal. Burning coal or petroleum only releases carbon dioxide that had been trapped. If anything we are returning the CO2 levels to their previous states.

Now, according to the epa, our methane emissions amount to one 8th the size of CO2 emissions:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
If anything, it is all that methane that is causing the rising tempartures.

Another source for you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/6466890/Methane-impact-o...

Methane is apparently 25 times as powerful as CO2, which means that the total damage of methane per tonne relative to the effects of CO2, is 25:8. which means that Methane is causing 75% of all global warming- and I even doubt that.

Case and point- the effects of CO2 on the global tempartures are negligible.

LogicForTW's picture
Sigh.

Sigh.
On every point you are mostly correct, but the conclusions you draw from them are... how do I put this nicely... in error.

1st point: You literally stated the problem in your first point why this is such a big deal. You said: chemical process that takes millions of years. Burning them releases the trapped CO2. Do you not see the problem with that? Millions of years versus 100?

2nd point:you compared human caused emissions percentages of methane in the US to the global already existing greenhouse gas levels. You want global levels, and you want measures of what is in the atmosphere. If you looked a little further into the site you linked you would find the data. I want to point to you, that methane is measured in parts per billion still, where CO2 is measured in parts per million, There is 500 times as much CO2 in the air then methane.
But yes you did hit on something, Methane is a big and scary component to rising greenhouse gases, but before you were only arguing about CO2. Worse still, Rising CO2 levels creating warmth, and causing thawing in permafrost means incredible amounts of previously trapped methane will be released.

3rd point: This build on your faulty 2nd point conclusion. There is over 500 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere then there is methane. 500 the amount of CO2 divided by that 25x multiplier in potency = 20. CO2 has 20 times the global warming impact of methane at the moment.

Also, you keep saying CO2 effect on global temperatures is negligible, where ice cores that record CO2 levels going back 100's of thousands of years can correctly track ice ages and periods of intense warming very accurately. Like rings on a tree showing the age and good growing years versus bad. CO2 plays an enormous role on temperatures. You sound like a fool when you deny that.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - if the

Harry Truman - if the temperatures were to continually rise into infinity

Who said that?
----------------------

Harry Truman - yet according to you [temperatures] were stable before industry

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say that, and I don't believe that.
----------------------

Harry Truman - Then 0.0002 degrees

OK, so you fixed your 2 orders of magnitude mistake. Are you going to address the other mistakes?
----------------------

Harry Truman - Carbon Dioxide is harmless

Carbon dioxide has a tiny cross section for scattering light in the visible range, but has a larger cross section for scattering light in the infrared range. In English: CO2 is essentially invisible to visible light, and opaque to infrared light.
----------------------
Also the function typically used to model heating from CO2 is logarithmic. In English: it is front loaded, the first 100 parts per million increase temperatures more than that second 100 parts per million (and so on). The simplest version goes something like:

Δt = 4.76 * ln{A/B}
Where t is in degrees Celsius or Kelvin; A is the new ppm, B is the old ppm.

Notice that it does asymptotically approach a maximum (as you hinted at), as:
lim A/B -> 2500, 4.76 * ln(A/B) ≈ 38

Harry Truman's picture
You took parts of my post out

You took parts of my post out of context, I said that the tempartures of a bottle of CO2 cannot continually rise into infinity with the same level of heat coming in. Therefore, at some point it must reach an equilibrium, which in this case was 20 minutes,therefore the time it took to develop said temperature difference is irrelevant.

Either way, CO2 is still harmless, its natural, and all of the CO2 we are emmittimg, be it from coal or gasoline, was originally in the earths atmosphere until it was taken out and hidden underground. If anything we are returning that carbon to its rightful place.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - Therefore, at

Harry Truman - Therefore, at some point it must reach an equilibrium, which in this case was 20 minutes

Uh, no. Do you know how to read a graph or just not look at the graph of the data? It had an essentially constant non-zero slope, which means not only was it still heating up, it was still heating up as a constant of time; it wasn't even close to asymptotically approaching a stationary point.

The Pragmatic's picture
Harry, I commend you on how

Harry, I commend you on how you have managed to re-establish yourself. It is a sign of strength and integrity to be able to change like that. Well done.

However, on this topic, I would recommend that you ask yourself the hard questions​:
Are you looking for the answers that you want to find and rejecting those you don't like?

You were shown to have made some incorrect assumptions, yet you reiterated your position without hesitation. To me, that is a sign of belief without evidence, or even belief despite the evidence.

xenoview's picture
@Harry

@Harry
Humans have made more than 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans started to add to it since the start of the industrial revolution. Then you have the billions of livestock raised by humans adding to the CO2 also.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"What is the politically

"What is the politically correct course of actions to be taken with these situations?"

I do not really know but i can tell you what i would do :)

Extradition or jail time for whoever even hints at defending Shariah Law.

Since they are potential rebel leaders or propagandists.

If someone's values are so low to publicly speak up against the law (he agreed upon entering a country) in a religious context, he is a potential threat to the country in question.

He/She should not be tolerated or ignored because the state has to secure the safety of the law abiding citizens first.

TiaLee's picture
However, this sort of action

However, this sort of action should be taken against ALL religious zealots, not just Muslims. Plenty of "christians" in this country (USA) are declaring that they will only follow "god's law", whatever that is. In fact, a lot of them are politicians and they should be quickly impeached and removed from said office.

LogicForTW's picture
Extremist of any religion or

Whoops I apologize for further necroing this thread. Did not realize the time stamp on it. A crappy bug on these forums pulling up old threads like this.

Travis Paskiewicz's picture
Well... I suppose I'm at

Well... I suppose I'm at fault for that one. A simple question of how cultures should interact would naturally give rise to an anti-semetic comment about how jews think we're all animals. How silly of me.

WvanRheenen's picture
Well whatever I would slove

Well whatever I would slove are mainly the incriminating texts. Rewrite the ink when it comes to discriminating passages.
Now this would be one for all religions, since every religion seems to replace one another in the raise of power.

Now many people throw the '' interpertation '' card. But there are many passages which can only be confided in a negative way. Religion does have potential. But it should be a positive thing. And not condemn every living soul except for when you follow a religion...

Now if this would happen your problem of hatred and judgement would be solved in a few generations.

Even better, come up with some new rules for the lost ones. Make the religion a even brighter place to be.
Personally if this were to happen, I would agree with you when talk about '' enlightment '' within religion.

But is it politicaly correct? Its too broad of a concept i'm afraid. Politics involves every single soul. The voters. Which all have different priorities and values. In which case, youll always step on someones toes. But I wouldn't think about politics in this case, but look at history and ask yourself hoew many wars where started ( not ended ) by religion. Let alone the usual problems in daily base society.

watchman's picture
For my part, I feel that NO

For my part, I feel that NO religion co-exists peacefully .

They all proselytize.

They all try to infiltrate the education systems with their doctrines ,which of course , MUST be taught because they are manifestly true and profound,

They all seek to insinuate themselves into and subvert the organs of government.

Each has the conviction that they have the only, true and correct religion that has ever been .

The only one of the tens of thousand of religions , sects , cults and beliefs …. That the minds of men have conjured from the primeval dark corners of their , feral imaginations.

“If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.”

Personally I feel this is a form of overweening arrogance on the part of the “faithful”.

I see Islam as no better or worse than any of the others …..

The religious right in America buying and selling political power.

The unelected Anglican bishops sitting in the second chamber of the English parliament.

The Vaticans continued use of “concordats” to gain controlling access to both government and education resources in emerging countries.

Whether they (or we) like it or not the incoming Mohammedan migrants will give rise to a variation of “Islam”….

There will , in years to come , be British Muslims ,French Muslims , American Muslims etc. etc.

Each will be slightly different ,arising as they do from differing communities.

(I have seen a Pakistani trudging to the Central mosque through ankle deep slush and snow…wearing his traditional dress of light cotton trousers ,the dhoti [ I think] … the light fabrics were already soaked through and the guy looked frozen ) so if in nothing else they will have to adapt a more “suitable” method of dress.)

As to the several failed and failing attempts to impose Sharia on indigenous populations , it is doomed forever to fail….. for one simple reason.

Those who attempt the imposition are a minority ,even amongst their fellow Mohammedans .

In the west we have always had an unspoken motto …..

One Land, One Law.

(Even the American system of Federal and State Laws presents ,in the main ,as a unified whole)

Rose 's picture
I don't think any religion

I don't think any religion can exist peacefully together until they all come into one conclusion that their god can't be proven for all these centuries which made their god non-existent.

Yousef 's picture
Well that's like saying

Well that's like saying science is all useless bullcrap because we still have no cure for cancer or whatever gap science has not fulfilled yet.

xenoview's picture
Science does fill gaps that

Science does fill gaps that religion tries to insert it's god into. Science has done more for humanity in the past hundred years, than religion has ever done since it was created by humans.

Ellie Harris's picture
Don't know how I missed this

Don't know how I missed this thread, but now that you have my attention.

Mikel Pearson so you distrust all muslims and say they (and the Jews) are all liars? Oh really...

Travis there are no such things as no go zones. If we are discussing whether the theistic religion islam can acclimate to secular nations then let's talk about that. If you intend to discuss if muslims can live in secular nations peaceably then that has been answered by hundreds of thousands of Muslims that do so every day.

Ellie Harris's picture
Mikel Pearson has been given

Mikel Pearson has been given a time out for bigoted statements. Please continue with your discussion.

Truett's picture
Good for you, Ellie. Thanks.

Good for you, Ellie. Thanks.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.