By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - World conversion to Islam is the only way to World Peace

Alby_da_Wolf on 02 August 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:
Smidlee said:

One world goverment or one world religion (or no religion) would do nothing to stop war since the greatest enemy are those from within and not those from the outside. In American our own government has done more damage to our economy than any  muslim extremist  could ever dream to  do. 

Bit melodramatic, don't you think?

One world religion would just eliminate one of the possible conflict generators, and even if there was one world governemnt there could still be civil wars. So you're right about those wouldn't eradicate war, though they'd certainly eliminate major reasons of conflict.

No it wouldn't. Which specific version of Islam? Because they're killing each other left and right in many parts of the world. Ironically its often the smaller differences that infuriate people the most. It wouldn't be a stretch th say that the biggest killers of Muslims in the world today are other Muslims.

Just like it happened to Communists. Isn't karma a witty bitch?   



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Around the Network
Rath on 02 August 2010
Cypher1980 said:

I recently invented my own religion and within two days my best mate converted.

Thats 100 percent growth in under 48 hours. So tell me whose religion is faster growing now ?


Think about it, when you invented the religion it went from zero believers to one. That kind of growth can't even be done with percentages!



FaRmLaNd on 02 August 2010
Alby_da_Wolf said:
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:
Smidlee said:

One world goverment or one world religion (or no religion) would do nothing to stop war since the greatest enemy are those from within and not those from the outside. In American our own government has done more damage to our economy than any  muslim extremist  could ever dream to  do. 

Bit melodramatic, don't you think?

One world religion would just eliminate one of the possible conflict generators, and even if there was one world governemnt there could still be civil wars. So you're right about those wouldn't eradicate war, though they'd certainly eliminate major reasons of conflict.

No it wouldn't. Which specific version of Islam? Because they're killing each other left and right in many parts of the world. Ironically its often the smaller differences that infuriate people the most. It wouldn't be a stretch th say that the biggest killers of Muslims in the world today are other Muslims.

Just like it happened to Communists. Isn't karma a witty bitch?   

I feel like I've heard that before O.o



sapphi_snake on 02 August 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:

@FaRmLanD

Ideally there would be total religious freedom, however religion would be viewed as a private matter that has no place in the public sphere. A one world government as a secular democracy would be ideal, and I don't think that any ohter type of government could rule the world in the long run (unless the government was despicable like that of Ninteteen Eighty-Four).

True.

But look at the UN, which is passing blasphemy and defemation of religions resolutions (non-binding ones already exist). The concessions made for the Islamic block in the UN is disturbing. I mean criticism is a major cornerstone of the modern world, science, skepticism, non-religion and so many things. To make criticism of religion a crime means that breaking away from religion is many ways will be a crime if these laws become binding. I mean how can one not become an atheist without criticising religion? At least during the initial de-conversion period.

I find it disturbing that so many religious leaders are so offended by criticism that they want to make blasphemy a crime. I doubt that Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great" would get the cut? Surely thats offensive?

My point being is that I think if a world government were to be formed it'd probably have to make tremendous concessions to get everyone on board. Which could potentially set in motion the end of such a government before its barely begun.

Quite true. Freedom of speech guarantees the freedom to criticise religion. It's actually quite shocking that someone would see criticising religion of a human rights issue. There si no such thing as a right to not be insulted, and most of the time the effect of an insult on a person is more the fault of the insulted person's perception, rather than the fault of the person who made the insult. For example I was on another forum and some christian guy was saying that any criticism of his religion is a hate crime (the forum toopic was about some billboards put up by an atheist group which were vandalised by some christians), however he also said that any criticism he made towards atheists or peopel of other religions (like for example "you'll burn in hell!") was not harassment nor a hate crime because his religion taught it.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Alby_da_Wolf on 02 August 2010
FaRmLaNd said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:
Smidlee said:

One world goverment or one world religion (or no religion) would do nothing to stop war since the greatest enemy are those from within and not those from the outside. In American our own government has done more damage to our economy than any  muslim extremist  could ever dream to  do. 

Bit melodramatic, don't you think?

One world religion would just eliminate one of the possible conflict generators, and even if there was one world governemnt there could still be civil wars. So you're right about those wouldn't eradicate war, though they'd certainly eliminate major reasons of conflict.

No it wouldn't. Which specific version of Islam? Because they're killing each other left and right in many parts of the world. Ironically its often the smaller differences that infuriate people the most. It wouldn't be a stretch th say that the biggest killers of Muslims in the world today are other Muslims.

Just like it happened to Communists. Isn't karma a witty bitch?   

I feel like I've heard that before O.o

Yep, it's quite old. A fascist relative of mine always toasted with his brothers in arms to comrade Stalin for the same reason.    



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Around the Network
chocoloco on 02 August 2010

Salvation is finally here, join me in the Church of BOB and you will not be forsaken by the absolute, eternal truth.



highwaystar101 on 02 August 2010
hatmoza said:
highwaystar101 said:

Ok, maybe my first post was a bit inflammatory, but I'm not really flaming against Islam any more, I'm making a valid point.

If this was a thread about a government wanting to punish homosexual behaviour or punish criticism of Islam with death then I think most people would call that law a joke.


Really no need to apologize.

If you got beef with specifics of somethings like you give in that post, you have every single right to criticize and argue. I guess what really got me worked up was when you called sharia as a whole a joke (I now understand you didn't mean like that).

The respect is mutual. At least you're willing to admit to going a little bit overboard and for that the respect  I have for you goes up. You always have interesting posts ... I don't always agree with but nonetheless interesting.

Haha. That's all good then. We can respectfully agree to disagree on this one. 



bazmeistergen on 02 August 2010

http://www.spacemag.org/world/latest-news/397-ahmadinejad-will-nuke-octopus

http://www.spacemag.org/world/latest-news/394-media-not-biased-against-islam-paul-mussel-imzarkunce



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

Smidlee on 02 August 2010
sapphi_snake said:
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:
Smidlee said:

One world goverment or one world religion (or no religion) would do nothing to stop war since the greatest enemy are those from within and not those from the outside. In American our own government has done more damage to our economy than any  muslim extremist  could ever dream to  do. 

Bit melodramatic, don't you think?

One world religion would just eliminate one of the possible conflict generators, and even if there was one world governemnt there could still be civil wars. So you're right about those wouldn't eradicate war, though they'd certainly eliminate major reasons of conflict.

No it wouldn't. Which specific version of Islam? Because they're killing each other left and right in many parts of the world. Ironically its often the smaller differences that infuriate people the most. It wouldn't be a stretch th say that the biggest killers of Muslims in the world today are other Muslims.

Were you replying to me? I wasn't reffering to the whole world converting to Islam, I was reffering to the existence of a one world government or a one world religion (a religion with no different sects, unlike christianity or islam)/prefferably no religion

Its not possible to have one world religion without it splintering. If you look at most of the major religions they splinter further and further over time. So even if you started with one, in 500 years time I very much doubt it'll still be one religion. The ideal as you say would be no religion, as it would remove humanity from that particular cycle of violence but dogma would still presumable exist. Wether its in a religious like personality cult or any other extreme political movements.

True, but I was saying that one world government and/or only one religion/no religion would bring down the tension  a noch from what it is today.

I disagree. It will make things worst. It's not smart to have so much power gather in one place as power has been known to corrupt the best of men. This is one reason to have some separation between church and state as well as freedom of the press. Hopefully the church (people) keeps an eye on the government and the government on the church (people). Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 The Roman Catholic Church in the past  may had good intention in trying to unite all  the churches and go after heretics yet in the end they became the very monster they tried to prevent.



FaRmLaNd on 02 August 2010
sapphi_snake said:
FaRmLaNd said:
sapphi_snake said:

@FaRmLanD

Ideally there would be total religious freedom, however religion would be viewed as a private matter that has no place in the public sphere. A one world government as a secular democracy would be ideal, and I don't think that any ohter type of government could rule the world in the long run (unless the government was despicable like that of Ninteteen Eighty-Four).

True.

But look at the UN, which is passing blasphemy and defemation of religions resolutions (non-binding ones already exist). The concessions made for the Islamic block in the UN is disturbing. I mean criticism is a major cornerstone of the modern world, science, skepticism, non-religion and so many things. To make criticism of religion a crime means that breaking away from religion is many ways will be a crime if these laws become binding. I mean how can one not become an atheist without criticising religion? At least during the initial de-conversion period.

I find it disturbing that so many religious leaders are so offended by criticism that they want to make blasphemy a crime. I doubt that Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great" would get the cut? Surely thats offensive?

My point being is that I think if a world government were to be formed it'd probably have to make tremendous concessions to get everyone on board. Which could potentially set in motion the end of such a government before its barely begun.

Quite true. Freedom of speech guarantees the freedom to criticise religion. It's actually quite shocking that someone would see criticising religion of a human rights issue. There si no such thing as a right to not be insulted, and most of the time the effect of an insult on a person is more the fault of the insulted person's perception, rather than the fault of the person who made the insult. For example I was on another forum and some christian guy was saying that any criticism of his religion is a hate crime (the forum toopic was about some billboards put up by an atheist group which were vandalised by some christians), however he also said that any criticism he made towards atheists or peopel of other religions (like for example "you'll burn in hell!") was not harassment nor a hate crime because his religion taught it.

Thats my biggest fear, the hyporcrisy. I hear all the time that atheists like myself are going to burn in hell, but the moment I open my mouth in response the offense card is played. Its really quite childish. If you're going to dish it out take it, and even if you can't take it, offense is not a proper defense because it means you can't think of any logical argument, hence the offense. It just weakens whatever argument they have in my eyes.

If someone says Hitler was right to kill all the jews for example, yes its an offensive thing to say, but intellectually its far far easier to show how what he was doing was hugely immoral without resulting to the hurt child stance. The same goes for calls for tradition aswell.