Yanks better convert to Islam, or bad things will happen (AlQaeda)

[SlowwHand]

What horse****.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whoha
the taxation and legal system are designed to squeeze non-muslims out of existence.

Are you sure about that? One early dynasty of Caliphs (I think it was the Ummayads) raised the taxes too high and people converted to Islam in droves. The resulting drop in tax revenue eventually destroyed that dynasty. The next dynasty was careful to leave the taxes at a level the infidels could afford. At least, that's what I read in the latest "Cartoon History" by Larry Gonick.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
the taxation and legal system are designed to squeeze non-muslims out of existence.

Not really, since muslims don't pay taxes, the state needs a base of revenue. That's why the Ottoman empire made converstion to Islam illegal in the Balkans, of course, once someone convereted, they couldn't be punished.

[Heresson]

I don;t believe they made the conversion illegal. Never heard of it.
I believe that rulers, especially of light-religioned (except for a couple, like Umar II) dinasty like Umayyads, intended it as a way to convert people.
Still, it was the obvious result.

Originally posted by BeBro
Hey, they stole the idea from Poly, someone (was it Dis?) was posting here long ago that we all should convert!

hey, I merely borrowed it!\

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
No, it doesn't. Look at the latter half of what you quoted. The part about "only those who assert the nonexistence of gods." I'm pretty sure that's what we're all talking about when we discuss atheism. People who say nothing about it one way or another are classified as "agnostics" by me and most other people I know.

IMO there a several ways to describe atheism, from the "absence of belief in god" to the "denial that there is/can be a God at all". IIRC agnostics are sometimes summed under weak atheists as well.

And if you're asserting the nonexistence of things "beyond science," you are NOT ignoring them, but making claims about them. Even if those claims are merely that they do not exist, you are still making a statement not based on empirical evidence.

I don't state "things that aren't scientifically proven do not exist" - I say that if we don't have scientific evidence of things it's a rational approach not to believe in these things. That's the difference to religious people, they believe despite the lack of scientific evidence. Now if somebody wants to believe something it's all fine, but I don't think that's the same as lack of belief due to lack of evidence.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Elok


Are you sure about that? One early dynasty of Caliphs (I think it was the Ummayads) raised the taxes too high and people converted to Islam in droves. The resulting drop in tax revenue eventually destroyed that dynasty. The next dynasty was careful to leave the taxes at a level the infidels could afford. At least, that's what I read in the latest "Cartoon History" by Larry Gonick.

The ones Bin Laden would be in charge of would. the wahabis are a little more infidel unfriendly then some of the others. Note I said taxation and legal system.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
I don;t believe they made the conversion illegal. Never heard of it.

Every book on the Ottomans I've read mentions it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
IMO there a several ways to describe atheism, from the "absence of belief in god" to the "denial that there is/can be a God at all". IIRC agnostics are sometimes summed under weak atheists as well.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that, for the purposes of this thread, we're all using the "strong atheism" definition, i.e. that there is no God, period.

I don't state "things that aren't scientifically proven do not exist" - I say that if we don't have scientific evidence of things it's a rational approach not to believe in these things. That's the difference to religious people, they believe despite the lack of scientific evidence. Now if somebody wants to believe something it's all fine, but I don't think that's the same as lack of belief due to lack of evidence.

You're conflating atheism and agnosticism. "Nonbelief in the existence of X" does NOT equal "belief in the nonexistence of X," despite the similarity in phrasing. There is a difference between having no opinion and having a negative opinion.

[Heresson]

gimme exact quotes.

[chequita guevara]

Dude, I don't have any of the books anymore. They were all from the library.

[Heresson]

visit library

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
You're conflating atheism and agnosticism. "Nonbelief in the existence of X" does NOT equal "belief in the nonexistence of X," despite the similarity in phrasing. There is a difference between having no opinion and having a negative opinion.

Both are types of atheism, though only the strong version is what gets the name in contemporary America.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
visit library

Labor Day weekened, everything's closed.

[Heresson]

break in

[chequita guevara]

Gimme some frogs and I'll consider it.