SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Related to the earlier discussion about where ISIS gets its weapons, I wanted to share this great in-depth article from The Atlantic about the motivations of ISIS. Then In order to provide a more nuanced view of ISIS, here is criticism of that Atlantic article from thinkprogress.org.
From the Atlantic:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
The thinkprogress.org criticism by one of the primary sources cited in the Atlantic article:
One of the oft-mentioned criticisms of The Atlantic piece is that it echoed the inaccurate belief that since ISIS’s theology draws upon Islamic texts to justify its horrendous practices, it is an inevitable product of Islam. Haykel didn’t say whether or not he thought Wood’s article says as much, but when ThinkProgress asked him directly whether Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS, he was unequivocal.
“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”
He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.
“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:22PM
Another hypocrite?
How many would have be "saved" by an evidence based approach that did not rely on accepting complete bollocks?
And speaking of selection bias, how about your wonderful self selection bias?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @03:48AM
> How many would have be "saved" by an evidence based approach that did not rely on accepting complete bollocks?
What are you going on about? Catholic hospitals are some of the best hospitals out there. They are one of the few remaining non-profit groups of hospitals.
Are you so blinded by your anti-theism that you think they don't apply evidence-based medicine?
> And speaking of selection bias, how about your wonderful self selection bias?
Sorry I have no fucking clue what you mean by that. How about having a conversation with the people who are actually here instead of just the voices inside your head? hhhm?
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday May 01 2015, @08:45PM
As per usual there is no arguing with "faith".
IOW The believe in something without evidence and in practice with evidence to the contrary.
But you'll show me when you go to "heaven" and I end up in "hell" right?
This conversation is done...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:03PM
> As per usual there is no arguing with "faith".
Hey dumbfuck, I am an atheist born and will always be.
What I am not is blinded by my own ignorance of the world I live in.
The only faith here is your own now disproven belief in your own infalliability. The irony is rich.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @10:52PM
Wow. Mr crazy pants goes ad hominem in multiple posts, saying that I am wrong because I am religious and offers no actual support for his own position, I call him out for it and I get the flamebait mod?
10:1 odds the modder is mr crazy pants himself, having utterly lost the debate he resorts to the ego-soothing illegitimate mod smack-down.
I am always disappointed when people live down to the worst stereotypes. You disgrace real atheists with that shit.