• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (1 Viewer)

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
what unproven assumptions are you referring to?
i'm hazy on how descartes comes into this
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
With point one I was actually trying to argue for something that wouldn't annoy theists or athiests so that I had a reason for the rest of the post.
Yea ok but it was ludacris so I pointed it out to you.

Put it this way: Bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, but it is in the past, let it stay there. Nearly all Chrisitians I've met are as I described them (actually I can't remember a single exception but there probably was one). I see Chrisitians doing a lot of good, I don't see that many doing bad.
Let me put it the way I did in my former post - these people while I'm sure living nice live etc, are affecting all of us in negative ways.

I didn't go to a Christian school, I went to a government school and I can't say whether it is better than a Christian school but there were happenings that lead people down bad routes there.
I dunno what you're going on about here but I was just pointing out that I actually do know quite a bit about christianity and I do and have hung out with alot of christians.

Secularism isn't going to create a perfect society. People who believe in nothing are more dangerous in some ways than people who believe in the illogical (exceptions to this are obvious).
How do Secularists 'believe in nothing' ? I believe in alot of things and I have faith in alot of things, I do have assumptions they are just reasoned assumptions.

Our society seems to be going down the route where it worships capitalism, consumerism and selfishness to the demerit of everything else. Sad but true.
Um and who are the people on the whole whom are pushing this sort of attitude? Is it the atheists? see: religious right, see: hillsong.

Either way I don't see the connection between atheism and consumerism.

Oh, and there is something I heard that perhaps ought to be repeated. With regards to people at a Christian school: Our parents and our teachers think we're Christian and that's all there is to it.
Sounds like a convenient way for you to claim you know 'real' christians and I don't - But I really don't care for this sort of Rhetorical argument you are presenting me with.

Christianity might pervade into your life and annoy you and you have every right to try and denounce it. However, what I was actually asking was directed at our muslim posters and the other defenders of islam: Why, when this thread is about islam, is Christianity constantly bought up. It seems like a case of pointing the finger at someone else so that the accused is able to escape answering the questions.
You make a decent point there and I have noted it somewhat also, but all faiths do this... it's not unique to the muslims.


There are other threads discussing religion that Christianity can be talked about on and if you want create a thread about comparing religions or whatever, but don't take the focus of islam when it faces a question it has no answer for by going off topic and forgetting the real, unanswered issues.
These threads flow naturally, often because of people like you whom don't really argue properly and just say a whole bunch of rhetoric over and over again so we have to continue to divert our attention to some new argument.

Sorry if I seem overzealous but I was just reading the letters in the Australian and some of them mentioned this cartoon fiasco and I'm pretty riled about the double standards going on and the apparent appeasement of islam to the detriment of Western ideals.
It's ok. ;)

Yeah, and science is built upon a whole lot of unproven assumptions, or rather premises. I am referring to Descartes. It's an interesting problem and I suppose one that is conclusively unsolvable.
Well this isn't actually much of a problem for scientists because they work based on provisional truths and 'best answers'. Scientists have never claimed to be able to prove anything to the point where there is no doubt, they just use what knowledge we have to provide the best answer possible. If I say right now, that there is no purple elephant in existance - then I am provisionally correct, because as far as we know and from what evidence we have about elephants there are no purple ones.... Now even if later on we do find a purple elephant, this does not change the fact that what I said before was provisionally true even if ultimately it was not.
 
Last edited:

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
withoutaface said:
What noone has the right to do, however, is burn down embassies and incite violence. The Jyllands Posten is being humiliated by the Arab media, where's the double standard?
Exactly, no one has the right to use violence as a means of making a point.

and at the same time, no one has the right to vilify (not criticise) a religion

Its illegal in Denmark and Australia
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
which is why its good that there's been no vilification
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
davin said:
which is why its good that there's been no vilification
yes there has, depicting the religion as being based on terrorism is vilification
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
1. how did it depict religion as being BASED on terrorism? it only said there was a link
2. true or false, there are groups that are committing horrible acts of terrorism and using islam as a justification, creating a prominant link
3. true or false, threats of violence and actual actions in europe have led to people fearing that offending islam could cost them their lives, such as theo van gough and the cartoonists that refused to draw Muhommad in a children's book for fear of backlash
 

Enlightened_One

King of Bullshit
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,105
Location
around about here - still
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
davin said:
what unproven assumptions are you referring to?
i'm hazy on how descartes comes into this
Basically he says what can he know?

He has to doubt what he can see and hear and touch etc because it could be an illusion. He has to doubt his high level thinking because it is all based upon premises that he takes for granted. He then has to disregard even the simplest thinking because he can't be certain that even his basic premises and simple logic is not corrupted thus he is left with only two certainties:
1. He does exist in some capacity, so therefore he is a thing
2. He is thinking
Therefore he is a thinking thing.

That's putting it really simply and hardly doing it justice.


Ok, NTB, I must brief, really brief.

How are nice Christians effecting us any more ngeatively than anyone else? Or any Christians for that matter?

With the government school thing I was pointing out that most of the people I went to school with weren't religious and they aren't perfect either.

Is hillsong really Christianity or is just a scam? There is more to repeating the dogma.

The thing about the Christian school to put it simply was that I've heard that not many there really believe in Christianity anyway.



I know all threads go off topic and I know Christians do it but I was sick of muslims going off topic in THIS thread.
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
davin said:
1. how did it depict religion as being BASED on terrorism? it only said there was a link
Its simple

Muhammad (pbuh) is THE symbol of Islam, he and Islam are inseparable

If they wanted to point out the link, then why not just use some Danish sheik?

They opted to use the symbol of Islam
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
well, waht we do with science though is look at what we observe and work from that. philosophy is a seperate issue, esp since in that case descartes would rule out pretty much everything
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Enlightened_One said:
Basically he says what can he know?

He has to doubt what he can see and hear and touch etc because it could be an illusion. He has to doubt his high level thinking because it is all based upon premises that he takes for granted. He then has to disregard even the simplest thinking because he can't be certain that even his basic premises and simple logic is not corrupted thus he is left with only two certainties:
1. He does exist in some capacity, so therefore he is a thing
2. He is thinking
Therefore he is a thinking thing.

That's putting it really simply and hardly doing it justice..
I think, therefore I am.
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
yeah, but all they do is link muhommad, and then, through your view, islam, with terrorism. how does it say that islam is BASED upon terrorism rather than simply bring up connections between islam (at least some part, not neccessarily the whole) and terrorism?

and what abotu my other two questions?
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
davin said:
how does it say that islam is BASED upon terrorism rather than simply bring up connections between islam (at least some part, not neccessarily the whole) and terrorism?
Because they depict Muhammad (pbuh) who I pointed out is the symbol of the WHOLE religion as a terrorist. So if they're saying he is a terrorist then what does that say about ALL muslims?


davin said:
and what abotu my other two questions?
I thought that was a given, im not going to disagree
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
so, if you agree that islam has become connected to terrorism by numerous events, and that there is a fear in europe that offending islam could get you killed, then why is it unfair to discuss a connection between the two?
how is it you immediately say that the cartoon was meant to be in absolutes?
heck, its a person, so are they saying that ALL people are terrorists?
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
davin said:
so, if you agree that islam has become connected to terrorism by numerous events, and that there is a fear in europe that offending islam could get you killed, then why is it unfair to discuss a connection between the two?
how is it you immediately say that the cartoon was meant to be in absolutes?
heck, its a person, so are they saying that ALL people are terrorists?
That is because they wernt discussing the connection between the two. They were vilifying the WHOLE religion
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
so, the reason you know they were vilifying the whole religion and not pointing out the connection between the two was because they were vilifying the whole religion?
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
davin said:
so, the reason you know they were vilifying the whole religion and not pointing out the connection between the two was because they were vilifying the whole religion?
umm ... what?
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
i asked you how you immediately reached the conclusion that the cartoons were intended to refer to all muslims (which you call vilification) and not just point otu a connection between some that use terrorism, and your answer was because it was vilifiying all muslims.

do you also believe the cartoons mean that all muslims have oranges on top of their heads, or lead donkeys around the desert at sunset?
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Jordan.J said:
Because they depict Muhammad (pbuh) who I pointed out is the symbol of the WHOLE religion as a terrorist. So if they're saying he is a terrorist then what does that say about ALL muslims?
Given that your prophet is a symbol, couldn't that particular cartoon be trying to suggest that the 'issue' of Islam in Denmark is reaching a crisis point? Or, more broadly, couldn't it be highlighting the way in which extremists have hijacked your prophet's message in order to further their own twisted agendas?

It is a confronting cartoon, but the message isn't as clear as many seem to be suggesting. However, for all that I know the cartoonist may well have been trying to suggest that your prophet was a terrorist and that all muslims are as such tainted by the association, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are more reasonable interpretations that one may make.

Had the cartoon been better, maybe there would have been no need for much of this debate.
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Generator said:
Given that your prophet is a symbol, couldn't that particular cartoon be trying to suggest that the 'issue' of Islam in Denmark is reaching a crisis point? Or, more broadly, couldn't it be highlighting the way in which extremists have hijacked your prophet's message in order to further their own twisted agendas?

It is a confronting cartoon, but the message isn't as clear as many seem to be suggesting. However, for all that I know the cartoonist may well have been trying to suggest that your prophet was a terrorist and that all muslims are as such tainted by the association, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are more reasonable interpretations that one may make.

Had the cartoon been better, maybe there would have been no need for much of this debate.

But the thing is I dont know how that conclusion could be made. One cartoon of the prophet (pbuh) had his turban as a bomb with a real angry look on his face. Im not sure how that can be interpreted any other way other than he is a terrorist
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top