Sudan: brutal torture of hundreds of converts

Originally posted by Rajk999
Since I started this thread I might be the first suspect. So let me say that I almost never get involved in this thumbs down and thumbs up foolishness. If I have to compliment or condemn a post I say it in a reply.

You would prefer 3~5 people all post variations of "I agree with this post" or
"I think that post was stupid" after half the posts in the forum?

Thumbs up and down allows people to register an "I agree with/like/support this"
without cluttering up the thread with posts saying so.

-Removed-

you are missing the point. as with grampybobby in the other thread thinkofone is being critical about the quality and trustworthiness of the articles being linked. at no point in either posts does t.o.o deny or support what truth there may be behind the topics mentioned. his (as far as i can tell) issue is that the people providing the links do not seem to care how accurate the stories are. in the case of this link, appear to be looking at web-pages that are specifically anti-islamic, not caring about an articles accuracy and looking at anti-islamic websites would indicate a the poster also has an anti-islamic attitude.

Originally posted by Penguin
Who on earth gave this carefully crafted and insightful post a thumbs down? And why?

Was it because their should have been there?

Penguin

Thankyou.

And for the record, I type all 'there''s as their due to muscle memory and then
go back and correct them... And I simply don't catch them all.

-Removed-

Remember the bottom line of the atheist. No matter what is said or written he must barricade the door of his heart to the existence of God.

Everything else is just minutia.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You would prefer 3~5 people all post variations of "I agree with this post" or
"I think that post was stupid" after half the posts in the forum?

Thumbs up and down allows people to register an "I agree with/like/support this"
without cluttering up the thread with posts saying so.

People often use it simply to support those they like, or condemn those they dislike ie it has nothing to do with the content of the post.

Originally posted by Rajk999
People often use it simply to support those they like, or condemn those they dislike ie it has nothing to do with the content of the post.

I don't know about 'people' but that's not how I use it.

And I don't think many use it the way you are describing if any do.

If they did every post would have many thumbs ups and downs as people just
blindly supported or opposed each other regardless of post content.

Originally posted by sonship
Remember the bottom line of the atheist. No matter what is said or written he must barricade the door of his heart to the existence of God.

Everything else is just minutia.

Wrong. And implicitly insulting.

And atheists are not all male so please use non gender specific language.

Particularly as in this case it would make a better and more aesthetically
pleasing sentence... even though it would still be wrong.


By claiming that atheists 'harden their hearts' to 'the existence of god' implies
that atheists can't genuinely believe what they say, and that they are engaged in
wilful self deception... for some reason none of you have ever adequately explained.

In general, we do no such thing.

If compelling evidence were presented I would believe that a god or gods existed.

I don't turn blind eye to evidence, I seek it out.

I am an atheist not because I want to be an atheist but because I can't find any
reason to suppose gods exist.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Is this spirituality?

Are you saying that Islam has nothing to do with spirituality?

You may be right about that.

-Removed-

its a fair point that t.o.o. (and myself) assumed the worst of gbobby. so i suppose we were jumping to conclusions. rather outright calls of bigotry and islamaphobia, maybe a suggestion that putting links to a anti-islam website may 'appear' to condone bigotry and islamaphobia would be better.

however. it still baffles me that most people would rather call out t.o.o. on him calling bobby a bigot rather than tackle an extremely one side, narrow viewed article taken from a bigoted website. i personally find that way more disturbing. if bobby had really wanted a fair discussion about sharia law, wouldnt he have linked less biased website? doesnt the fact that he didnt seem to care how fair or accurate the link was say a lot about either his intelligence or his agenda?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Does an article entitled "SUDAN: BRUTAL TORTURE OF HUNDREDS OF CONVERTS OUT OF ISLAM UNDER THE SHARIA" that does not even mention no less provide details or evidence of the "brutal torture of hundreds of converts" count as fear-mongering?

Remarkable how hatred seems to render Islamaphobes dead from the neck up.

A woman getting her ribs broken sounds fairly detailed to me.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its a fair point that t.o.o. (and myself) assumed the worst of gbobby. so i suppose we were jumping to conclusions. rather outright calls of bigotry and islamaphobia, maybe a suggestion that putting links to a anti-islam website may 'appear' to condone bigotry and islamaphobia would be better.

however. it still baffles me that most people would rathe ...[text shortened]... to care how fair or accurate the link was say a lot about either his intelligence or his agenda?

It would be nice if you could provide links to less biased websites on the atrocities carried out by muslim extremists in Sudan.

Originally posted by Rajk999
So its fine to relate your experience with the violent side of Islam without being accused of bigotry or fear-mongering. I gather that is what you are saying.

I wouldn't say fear mongering, which I think you mean to want to foment reprisals or revenge. I can tell you if I was in that situation I would start hating them really fast and do whatever I could to fight them. I don't care what apologists say, they are barbaric and belong back 1000 years ago, not in the 21st century.