Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So the atheist "movement"...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:
Tree wrote:It is heavily implied by your post that what Trump is retweeting is factually wrong because it comes from people that you think are white supremacist neo-Nazis.


You are completely delusional, and it's genuinely twisted that you think you can keep telling me what my position is, keep making up bullshit that doesn't exist in my posts, and still think you will be taken seriously?

It's just transparent trolling, Tree. My sentence bears no such implication - it's purely a product of your febrile imagination.

If you cannot allow people to make their own positions, if you insist on telling people what they mean, what their position is, then you're a total fuckwit who can never expect to hold an honest discussion.


You're responsible for both the content of your stated opinions as well as they way you portray yourself to others, the impressions you make. Maybe you're just a very poor communicator and you need to do better. So get a grip.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:28 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:
Muslim Migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches.


That's the title of one of the videos posted by Britain First, and retweeted by Trump, the President of the United States of America.

What was the basis for this contention?

How would one be able to make an assumption about the religious beliefs of a person from a video showing only their appearance?


How do you know the video is all the information BF has on the case?

And is it only their appearance when people are TALKING in the video?

Did you ask BF for clarification?

Granted the video alone is inconclusive especially if you don't even speak the language, you're making a lot of assumptions too.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:51 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Greetings,

Did a 'Muslim Migrant' Beat Up a Dutch Boy on Crutches?

By the way, Tree, although a poster may be responsible for what they post, the reader is also responsible for what they infer from what's written.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:You are completely delusional, and it's genuinely twisted that you think you can keep telling me what my position is, keep making up bullshit that doesn't exist in my posts, and still think you will be taken seriously?

It's just transparent trolling, Tree. My sentence bears no such implication - it's purely a product of your febrile imagination.

If you cannot allow people to make their own positions, if you insist on telling people what they mean, what their position is, then you're a total fuckwit who can never expect to hold an honest discussion.


You're responsible for both the content of your stated opinions as well as they way you portray yourself to others, the impressions you make. Maybe you're just a very poor communicator and you need to do better. So get a grip.


Troll.

At least we know why you started using the term gaslighting.

I am not responsible for your repeated mendacity - that is yours, and yours alone.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Did a 'Muslim Migrant' Beat Up a Dutch Boy on Crutches?

By the way, Tree, although a poster may be responsible for what they post, the reader is also responsible for what they infer from what's written.



This video was first posted to the web site Dumpert.nl, a popular video portal in the Netherlands, in May 2017. Although the original posting largely focuses on the act of hitting a person on crutches, and it was not shared with any claims about the attacker’s religion, some people on the comment section naturally — and baselessly — assumed that the perpetrator was Muslim. As the video was reposted to other web sites, the unfounded claim that the attacker was a Muslim migrant followed it.


Exactly what's going wrong in the alleged Information Age.

It's all very well making endless information available to all, but if they've never been taught how to analyze claims, check facts, and decipher potential biases, they're unwitting tools for bullshit.

Some, unfortunately, not so unwitting.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:48 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:How do you know the video is all the information BF has on the case?

And is it only their appearance when people are TALKING in the video?

Did you ask BF for clarification?

Granted the video alone is inconclusive especially if you don't even speak the language, you're making a lot of assumptions too.



The Troll's Trickbook is clearly running out of new mendacious discoursive strategies Tree can use!

viewtopic.php?p=183823#p183823

Tree wrote:We don't know what happened. Maybe they were sexually assaulted/raped/harassed, maybe they're gold-diggers with regrets, maybe they just want to lie for attention. Maybe it's a combination of some legitimate complaints vs. phony ones for attention/money.

I'm not going to speculate too much, but if Sargon wants to do that, at worst he's jumping to conclusions. But that doesn't make him a sexist. His view of what happened is plausible. And maybe he knows something that I don't. Why don't you ask him why he thinks that?

We really need to stop this trend of accusing people of racism and sexism on flimsy evidence. It's getting silly and it makes you look like the boy who cried wolf.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:00 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 147Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Which stupid beliefs are we talking about? The part about magic shit being real or the political aspects that say gays should be killed, women can be subjugated and non-Muslims should be dhimmis or killed if they refuse? If we're talking about the latter, no, you cannot hold those beliefs and still be a civilized, tolerant person.

The truth is that's exactly what is delusional. I have no idea what you base this on other than wishful thinking. The reality of most Muslim nations don't reflect a tolerant group of people, nor do I care how many of them are civilized or tolerant as long as even a handful of individuals who are not can do irreparable damage. You think the "tolerance" of "moderate Muslims" is somehow going to grow the legs back of people butchered in these attacks or somehow bring their loved ones back. Don't be a retard please.

If tolerance was such a priority moderate Muslims would either denounce and leave Islam (best choice, the one I recommend) or demand a reformation. Maybe to the point of forming an entirely new denomination that completely rejects the supremacism inherent in both Sunni and Shi'ite schools of jurisprudence and is clearly distinguishable from them. I'm not holding my breath.

The Pew Research Center polls done on Muslims attitudes disproves the notion of a vast majority of tolerant Muslims.
Image

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/


It's at this point I feel the need to point out the difference between tolerance and acceptance/agreement. If you tolerate something, by definition, you do not necessarily agree with the thing about the person you are tolerating. I have plenty of Christian friends, and I tolerate their Christianity. I don't agree with it at all, but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to bother them about it; unless it comes up in a discussion for some reason, I just leave them alone about it. If they're of the sort that actively wants to impose it on me one way or another, well, yeah, that friendship won't last very long, but as long as they aren't doing that, on issues we disagree on, we tolerate eachother just fine.

Maybe the Muslims surveyed really do feel that way, but this graphic alone neither falsifies nor confirms the notion of a vast majority of tolerant Muslims or intolerant Muslims. It does not address specifically what these people are actually doing with their cited position on the issue; only what their positions are.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Akamia wrote:Maybe the Muslims surveyed really do feel that way, but this graphic alone neither falsifies nor confirms the notion of a vast majority of tolerant Muslims or intolerant Muslims. It does not address specifically what these people are actually doing with their cited position on the issue; only what their positions are.


Absolutely, but because it's got the words 'Sharia Law' in there, it's very common that agitators against Muslims appeal to it to incite fear, conjuring up images of medieval practices enacted on the population, regardless of whether they're Muslim or not.

As is typical with such right-wing fictions, their idea of Sharia has nothing to do with reality.

The first distortion of reality is the notion that Sharia is one thing. In reality, there are multiple schools of jurisprudence, and various ways Sharia has been interpreted and applied and is employed today by Muslim nations. Sharia itself is not a body of dictates, but requires both consensus through discussion (as between a village council, elders, and the like) and analogical interpretation by various independent imams. Sharia can produce very different results depending on the country it's in, because it reflects the existing values of the society more than anything else.

Secondly is the spectacularly delusional notion that a Muslim who wants to obey Sharia law is one who wants Sharia law to supersede the secular laws of the nation in which they live. Sharia laws covers a vast array of topics that most secular laws have no interest in prescribing or proscribing, such as how one should go about cleaning themselves. Given how entwined with their mundane daily practices Sharia feels to many Muslims, it's often 'obvious' to them that they want Sharia in much the same way that a large number of Christians would say they want the Ten Commandments without necessarily meaning they want to impose it on everyone, or expecting it to circumvent existing law.

Finally (well, this is a short rendtion, because there's a lot more to say about this) is the counterfactual notion that Muslims seek to impose Sharia on non-Muslims. This couldn't be more arse-about-tit if it tried. Historically, huge numbers of non-Muslims lived in Muslim land; they paid a dhimmi tax, and thereafter were legally autonomous, able to make and enforce their own laws, including all manner of freedoms disallowed to Muslims, for example the rearing and consumption of pigs. Sharia isn't enforced on non-believers because it is a code of practice explicitly for Muslims, and to many Muslims it's part of what makes them Muslim, and obviously being Muslim is teh awesum, so they would be horrified at the notion of non-Muslims play-acting their 'sacred' duties.

Of course, there is some horrifying content in Sharia, and this is what the right-wing appeals to through carefully eliding it from the wider context. But that no more means that most Muslims want that aspect of Sharia than it does that most Christians who say they want God's law also want to stone children who speak back to death, or kill those who work on the Sabbath.

As usual, when the xenophobe raves about the fearful other, he turns them into simple little automatons, monolithic, unbending, and faceless, whereas he's perfectly capable of navigating the complexities of the society he's familiar with, and recognizing the nuance and subtle interplay between tradition and culture. When he gazes fearfully at the dark continents, he doesn't look at the real complexity of their historical, cultural and social situations, because complexity is just too human, and it's vital to convert the other into something different to humans to be able to maintain that fear and hatred. But complexity exists in droves, and it's one of the most compelling arguments against Islam, the fact that the supposedly revealed word of Allah produced such utter disagreement even among 'his' purported followers, let alone its failure to appeal to most of the world.

Of course, the same xenophobe, when given enough rope, will slyly share the information he knows in his heart of hearts to be true - that they're all out to get us, it's their ultimate secret agenda, and just because the other who lives here smiles, and appears to be a perfectly normal member of society in every way, he's still one of 'them' and he'll come for you when the time is ripe.

Lucky we're not in a different age, because such 'reasoning' is where we get pre-emptive non-aggression, otherwise known as 'getting them before they get us'.

When will our species grow up? :roll:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:12 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Maybe the Muslims surveyed really do feel that way, but this graphic alone neither falsifies nor confirms the notion of a vast majority of tolerant Muslims or intolerant Muslims. It does not address specifically what these people are actually doing with their cited position on the issue; only what their positions are.


Akamia, they were polled specifically on the issue of whether or not they "favor making sharia the official law in their country". So we know how they feel about it and how they plan to act about it. They have this view and they want it in law, which means it's going to affect everyone whether people like it or not.

Maybe that is not enough for you, but we have other ways to add it all up and reach the kind of conclusion you want. First, we can analyze how they run their countries in practice, most of them tend to have exactly the kind of poor human rights treatments you can expect from people who support Sharia values. Though even the more moderate ones aren't exactly spectacular when it comes to human rights including political freedoms, see Turkey's situation which has deteriorated over the years, a country with a pro-Sharia president who does everything he can to squash dissent, with more journalists jailed per capita than even Iran and a failed coup that was in all likelihood staged in order to crack down on the military, the last institution in Turkey that can safeguard a secular system when the government fails or refuses to uphold it. If he subverts the military it's pretty much game over.

You should also ask yourself how these more moderate countries became so moderate. None of it was done organically. All of it was done through measures that so-called progressives would consider both Islamophobic today and far more extreme than anything BF ever proposed doing. Turkey went through a secular dictatorship that tried to condition the population to be as un-Islamic as possible while Albania, Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Kosovo, Kazakhstan territories were part of communist regimes.

That is not an option for Europe or the US. The fact is, there is no way to integrate large Muslim populations. I don't see a way forward unless we stop the migration pattern, decline all refugee applicants coming from those countries and slowly work to make Islam as socially unacceptable as fascism (and communism to some extent) which over time would cause the Muslims we already have to voluntarily apostatize which should make them much easier to integrate.

Your call, it's either that or you're in for more strife and terrorism in the coming century. 16 years of post-9/11 progressive appeasement has failed, it's time to try something new before this degenerate ideology does more harm.


The first distortion of reality is the notion that Sharia is one thing. In reality, there are multiple schools of jurisprudence, and various ways Sharia has been interpreted and applied and is employed today by Muslim nations. Sharia itself is not a body of dictates, but requires both consensus through discussion (as between a village council, elders, and the like) and analogical interpretation by various independent imams. Sharia can produce very different results depending on the country it's in, because it reflects the existing values of the society more than anything else.


Sharia is not a fixed set of laws it's not monolithic that's true, it's also nowhere near as flexible as you imply it to be. None of the schools of jurisprudence are what you would consider compatible with American or your European values. The idea of individual rights, being governed by consent or all people being equal before the law - not a thing in any Islamic school of jurisprudence. Liberty, equality, fraternity? Ha, not even close with the burden imposed on non-Muslims whenever Muslims take power and govern according to Sharia values. Women being equal to men? Islam is so extremely unequal to women it will make western anti-feminists seem like feminists, relatively speaking.

Please state for the record what Islamic school of jurisprudence you consider to be moderate enough to make it compatible with western expectations. The sooner you do that, the sooner I can start quoting from it to debunk your claim.

See what I wrote to Akamia above as well because even the moderate countries aren't moderate because there's a moderate Islam, but because Muslims were forced to be less Islamic by secular or communist dictators who suppressed Islamic identity - sometimes over the course of multiple generations. Are you proposing that kind of a regime to fix the problem? I don't think you'd want that. So you better think of something better than your cliches and platitudes about just getting along cause it ain't working. We've had to endure 16 years of post-9/11 appeasement, none of it has worked and our good will has always been used against us.

Lucky we're not in a different age, because such 'reasoning' is where we get pre-emptive non-aggression, otherwise known as 'getting them before they get us'.


Well though luck because human nature didn't change. You can't be accepting to people who can't or won't reciprocate it and Islam is the aggressor here, the moment the Qur'an declared that non-Muslims must be conquered and forced to submit under the rule of the Muslims.

For the same reasons you're not accepting of the fascist ideology, I am not accepting of Islamic one, is that clear enough for you?

I will tolerate it in so far as I'm not going to do something foolish and unproductive like vandalize mosques or randomly pick on strangers or whatever, just as I don't vandalize or support the vandalizing of fascist or communist icons, but I will vote my conscience. I don't expect Trump to wave a magic wand and fix everything, but so far he's the politician with the most realistic understanding of Islam. I'll also oppose any attempts to obscure criticism of Islam. The more the better because that leads to more apostasy, in fact everything on the news at peak hours should be quotes from the Qur'an and hadith so all can see how violent it is. The sooner Muslims figure out they've been conned the better.

For clarification, this has nothing to do with opposing religion. I don't oppose Islam because it's a religion, I oppose it because it's an oppressive ideology like fascism and communism.

Historically, huge numbers of non-Muslims lived in Muslim land; they paid a dhimmi tax, and thereafter were legally autonomous, able to make and enforce their own laws, including all manner of freedoms disallowed to Muslims, for example the rearing and consumption of pigs. Sharia isn't enforced on non-believers because it is a code of practice explicitly for Muslims, and to many Muslims it's part of what makes them Muslim, and obviously being Muslim is teh awesum, so they would be horrified at the notion of non-Muslims play-acting their 'sacred' duties.


Listen, you crazy apologist, being a dhimmi is not a positive thing and it's not a state you would want to be in.

It's a form of subjugation and very similar to say an apartheid and sure your community can have some level of autonomy, but only as much as the Muslims allow you to have. You are their bitch and you're subject to many other restrictions. And woe unto you if you can't pay the tax. It's a protection tax. You don't pay, they destroy your life. The IRS will seem like nice guys by comparison.

It is also not true that Sharia applies exclusively to Muslims. The dhimma IS part of the Sharia, Sharia regulates the status of non-Muslims in a Muslim country too.

You might be allowed pork or alcohol, but you'll still face other restrictions depending on the caliph's whims, there may be restrictions on how tall your house can be, you are prohibited from owning weapons, there may be restrictions on building new churches or repairing old ones, you WILL be disadvantaged in a legal dispute as a non-Muslims vs. a Muslim, there will be lighter sentences for crimes done against you by Muslims, certain sex crimes apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims like no premarital sex and don't even think about getting hookers, non-Muslim men can't marry Muslim women.

In some cases dhimmi regions were still subject to abuse such as the Ottoman requirement of blood tribute where they took non-Muslim boys and raised them as Muslim fighters.

So what's next, are you going to lecture us next on how great apartheid was?
Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:40 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

I'll leave it to someone else to explain to Tree why he's such a numpty, maybe he'll finally grasp the difference between explaining something and apologizing for something.

Unlikely given that I've so far been aiding and abetting the enemy, meaning North Korea, I've been perverting the minds of good American children, I've been a communist supporter, an antifa supporter, and of course, now a Muslim apologist too.

Good luck getting through his thick skull.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:20 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:Of course, the same xenophobe, when given enough rope, will slyly share the information he knows in his heart of hearts to be true - that they're all out to get us, it's their ultimate secret agenda, and just because the other who lives here smiles, and appears to be a perfectly normal member of society in every way, he's still one of 'them' and he'll come for you when the time is ripe.


Enough rope was indeed given! ;)

So it's good that we've got all the hate centralized in this thread. All Tree's numerous demons are cackling here in coven. The amount of fear and hate generated by one individual alone tells its own tale.

The communists are coming! Beware, beware! The left wing radicals are coming! Beware, beware! The cultural marxists are coming! Beware, beware! The illegal immigrants are coming! Beware, beware! The Social Justice Warriors are coming! Beware, beware! Beware, beware! The Moooooslims are coming! Beware, beware!

White supremacist neo-Nazis? Nah, they're fine, not dangerous, misunderstood, they have a point, they just want to make society better by protecting us against the many enemies we have! Anyway, maybe they know something you don't!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:32 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

It's a real shame that you explain things in a way that minimizes their danger either by lying or obscuring some details or both.

It would be like saying something to the effect of: If the propane gas leaks in your home, it's going to be bad. The smell is unpleasant. But this gas isn't poisonous so it can never kill you.

Now if this was all the instruction provided for handling propane gas, I would seriously start wondering whether the person saying it is either a complete moron or deliberately trying to get people killed because that's just blatantly inaccurate and incomplete information. I'm sure you can spot the 2 (arguably 3) major flaws there without having to explain it to you.

This is the level of inaccuracy you display when talking about Sharia or the dhimma status applied to non-Muslims.

And I never defended white supremacist neo-Nazism so that's a lie. Asking you to prove that BF are white supremacists isn't the same as defending white supremacism.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:17 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3479Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Kahn said "Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant."

Kind of a dumb thing to say considering there are cities around the world including "global cities" with no Islamic terrorism. Want to know the secret? Don't fucking invite mass migration from countries that hate your own. The implication that this is a new reality people have get used to is one I reject. People shouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulders just because politicians are too dumb to close the border with certain countries.


Ignoring the correction that Sparhafoc gave, how is what Khan said any different from what politicians in the US say after a mass shooting?

Tree wrote:
I live in a Muslim neighborhood, I work in a Muslim neighborhood, and there are no such events taking place here.


Only cause they're not following Islamic teachings. Don't count on that in the long-term. The only advantage you still have is that Muslims are still a minority around 5% or so in your country which means they generally have no choice but to play ball if they don't want to become total outcasts. We don't really know how many of them genuinely have positive views about the west or about democracy. Everywhere else they're a majority, they call the shots and they tend to not create countries worth living in. Very hard to when your core values are totalitarian in nature.


Sparhafoc, do Muslims only make up 5% of the population where you live?

Akamia wrote:Maybe the Muslims surveyed really do feel that way, but this graphic alone neither falsifies nor confirms the notion of a vast majority of tolerant Muslims or intolerant Muslims. It does not address specifically what these people are actually doing with their cited position on the issue; only what their positions are.


I wonder if someone has done something similar for Christianity, since all the Abrahamic faiths are anathema to modern values.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:22 am
YIM WWW
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Ignoring the correction that Sparhafoc gave, how is what Khan said any different from what politicians in the US say after a mass shooting?


The difference is in the US owning and using guns is a right while immigration is just a privilege. It's not an unlimited right, any right can technically be suspended if you abuse the rights of others (felons) or you're just fundamentally incapable of being responsible for the consequences of your actions related to those rights - kids, insane people, blind people - and even here I would argue that they should be able to own a gun on paper as long as it is not within their actual possession and is controlled by a more responsible guardian-like entity).

The problem with "common sense gun reform" is that it's not common sense at all. Average citizens are basically being asked to prove they're not insane or the bad guys before they can enjoy a right and that's just not how rights works. If the government has a compelling reason to suspend your rights, any rights, then the burden on proof is on the government to show that compelling reason, not on the citizen to prove he's not going to use it to murder multiple people. In fact he shouldn't even need to provide a reason for owning a gun anymore than he needs to provide a reason for buying a home or investing in stocks or going to Las Vegas or whatever else he's entitled to do.

Other countries are free to ban guns I guess, no guarantee that will be effective especially if they have a large criminal element including a gun black market that can negate the effects of gun control. But that comes with its own unique risks that may lead to outcomes far worse than mass shootings. Tyrannical regimes have frequently popped up in history including recent European history and each time the population were completely defenseless and unable to meaningfully resist the tyrants.

There's also the issue that if someone is determined to commit a mass killing, he won't need a gun. Use your own imagination, I'm not going into details.

Removing the gun from a person does absolutely nothing to remove criminal intent, doesn't do anything to free him of whatever toxic ideology has gotten a grasp on him, doesn't cure him of any mental illnesses. I'm also far more worried about the silent killers who quietly pick us off 1 by 1 and aren't found for years because they don't make any noise and hide the bodies, that is much more dangerous than someone opening fire which almost immediately attracts police attention.

Instead of trying to control guns, the US would best be served by more guns in the hands of responsible people. There's a reason you don't tend to see mass shootings inside a police station or a gun store. For open air events, two words: sniper coverage. If you have the money to organize a large open air concert, you have the money to hire snipers to cover your ass. If it's good enough for the president it's good enough for you.


I wonder if someone has done something similar for Christianity, since all the Abrahamic faiths are anathema to modern values.


Anathema in what way?

Do you know how much I care that the Christian woman next door won't put out? Very little. Practically not at all. So who cares if her values aren't modern, it doesn't affect me.

Now if you have a system explicitly mandating legal punishment for premarital sex, then you and I have a problem. That's not just traditionalism, that's kinda totalitarian to tell me where I'm allowed to put my dick in my own home and with another adult.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:04 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3479Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Ignoring the correction that Sparhafoc gave, how is what Khan said any different from what politicians in the US say after a mass shooting?


The difference is in the US owning and using guns is a right while immigration is just a privilege. It's not an unlimited right, any right can technically be suspended if you abuse the rights of others (felons) or you're just fundamentally incapable of being responsible for the consequences of your actions related to those rights - kids, insane people, blind people - and even here I would argue that they should be able to own a gun on paper as long as it is not within their actual possession and is controlled by a more responsible guardian-like entity).

The problem with "common sense gun reform" is that it's not common sense at all. Average citizens are basically being asked to prove they're not insane or the bad guys before they can enjoy a right and that's just not how rights works. If the government has a compelling reason to suspend your rights, any rights, then the burden on proof is on the government to show that compelling reason, not on the citizen to prove he's not going to use it to murder multiple people. In fact he shouldn't even need to provide a reason for owning a gun anymore than he needs to provide a reason for buying a home or investing in stocks or going to Las Vegas or whatever else he's entitled to do.

Other countries are free to ban guns I guess, no guarantee that will be effective especially if they have a large criminal element including a gun black market that can negate the effects of gun control. But that comes with its own unique risks that may lead to outcomes far worse than mass shootings. Tyrannical regimes have frequently popped up in history including recent European history and each time the population were completely defenseless and unable to meaningfully resist the tyrants.

There's also the issue that if someone is determined to commit a mass killing, he won't need a gun. Use your own imagination, I'm not going into details.

Removing the gun from a person does absolutely nothing to remove criminal intent, doesn't do anything to free him of whatever toxic ideology has gotten a grasp on him, doesn't cure him of any mental illnesses. I'm also far more worried about the silent killers who quietly pick us off 1 by 1 and aren't found for years because they don't make any noise and hide the bodies, that is much more dangerous than someone opening fire which almost immediately attracts police attention.

Instead of trying to control guns, the US would best be served by more guns in the hands of responsible people. There's a reason you don't tend to see mass shootings inside a police station or a gun store. For open air events, two words: sniper coverage. If you have the money to organize a large open air concert, you have the money to hire snipers to cover your ass. If it's good enough for the president it's good enough for you.


Image


Someone was triggered.

Honestly, at what point in my question did I even bring up owning a gun? I asked how Khan's statements of being vigilant is any different from what happens in the US after a mass shooting. Yeah, some politicians call for gun control, but since Khan did not call for migration control and talked about being vigilant in the modern world, one would think it would be easy to see which politicians I was talking about in this context. For whatever reason you think Khan is a moron for saying that, yet that is the exact same thing that happens in the US. Are the politicians in the US that say that also idiots?

Tree wrote:
I wonder if someone has done something similar for Christianity, since all the Abrahamic faiths are anathema to modern values.


Anathema in what way?


Violently opposed to homosexuals, intolerance towards non-Christians, and an aspiration of the supremacy of Christianity over other religions; just to name a few.

Tree wrote:Do you know how much I care that the Christian woman next door won't put out? Very little. Practically not at all. So who cares if her values aren't modern, it doesn't affect me.


One has to wonder if you would care if she was Muslim.

Tree wrote:Now if you have a system explicitly mandating legal punishment for premarital sex, then you and I have a problem. That's not just traditionalism, that's kinda totalitarian to tell me where I'm allowed to put my dick in my own home and with another adult.


:lol:

Christians do not have this? Beyond that, I know of one religion that has always been trying to tell adults in the US where they can and cannot put their genitals, and it is not Islam.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:51 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Sparhafoc, do Muslims only make up 5% of the population where you live?


Hard to say, I can only guess by the number of mosques in this area compared to Buddhist temples that the proportion is perhaps the highest in the country save from the handful of predominantly Muslim southern provinces. There are 6 mosques in the immediate area, a significant percentage of women wear a hijab, and a significant number of men can be seen wearing religious garb. My local shops don't sell pork products. I would hazard a guess it's about 40-50% Muslim in my borough.

Aside from the above, though, you wouldn't be able to tell any difference from another borough. Quite the contrary to be secretly conspiring to Jihad on me, or whatever febrile delusion Tree wrote that I couldn't be bothered to read, they're friendly, helpful, chatty, and typical Thais.

When ideology dictates reality, and yet fails to accurately correspond to reality, then that ideology is akin to fanatical religion.

Personally, it wouldn't surprise me from his arguments if Tree were Christian, as I've most commonly seen the arguments he's made from right-wing US protestants. I was considering tossing out the word 'Jew' somewhere to see if he could be encouraged to show more viciousness and hate-mongering with only the slightest degree of invitation.

But there's something delicious I am saving to share later, anyway! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, at what point in my question did I even bring up owning a gun? I asked how Khan's statements of being vigilant is any different from what happens in the US after a mass shooting.


he_who_is_nobody, meet red herring! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:51 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Violently opposed to homosexuals


I won't deny that there is some, the question is:

1. is it clearly mandated by the belief system to be violently opposed to homosexuals?
2. is the degree of Christian violence equal to the Islamic violence? Is it even close?

In both cases the answer is no. Before you start quoting the Torah, keep in mind the context isn't universal.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:intolerance towards non-Christians


I won't deny there is some, just as I won't deny there is some atheist intolerance to the religious and possibly some agnostic intolerance to both atheists and the religious.

That's not really saying much since you don't have specifics.

Precisely what kind and in what quantity, to the extent that you can quantify it. Because there's a major difference between say being told you're a poopy headed atheist going to Hell and I'm not going to invite you to dinner, and being forced to pay a protection tax just to live and keep the rest of my property. Based on your understanding of both the theologies involved and the actual data, what levels of intolerance are we talking about?

and an aspiration of the supremacy of Christianity over other religions; just to name a few.


That depends on how you plan to achieve it.

Missionary work is fine with me. Telling people convert, pay a protection tax or die is not, that's a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Christians do not have this?


An equivalent to Sharia? No, I don't believe they do. Sharia is a complete theocratic system, a political system, not just a set of values.

Beyond that, I know of one religion that has always been trying to tell adults in the US where they can and cannot put their genitals, and it is not Islam.


You might be right there, SJWism might actually prove to be even more sex negative than Islam some day with all these ridiculous standards of what real consent is. Shit like if you're too drunk to drive (which keep in mind is very very VERY little) you're too drunk to meaningfully consent to sex or consent only counts if it's "enthusiastic". So basically, if she agrees to sex, but only because she's desperate or she wants your money, that's somehow not-consent cause yay special pleading or something. I dunno, the far left is very retarded.

Going back to the issue on a more serious note, there's actually little genital regulation beyond violations of the non-aggression principle. So what are you talking about cause preaching abstinence isn't the same as mandating abstinence.

Whatever sex negative attitudes spill into law from Christianity, Islam did it 10 times worse and they actually mandate those laws be in place. Being a secular Muslim is not a logical option. Islam is both religion and politics.
Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:56 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3479Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Sparhafoc, do Muslims only make up 5% of the population where you live?


Hard to say, I can only guess by the number of mosques in this area compared to Buddhist temples that the proportion is perhaps the highest in the country save from the handful of predominantly Muslim southern provinces. There are 6 mosques in the immediate area, a significant percentage of women wear a hijab, and a significant number of men can be seen wearing religious garb. My local shops don't sell pork products. I would hazard a guess it's about 40-50% Muslim in my borough.


How can that be? According to Tree Muslims only play ball when they are a small minority. They must not be calling the shots, since Muslims never create countries worth living in, since their core values are totalitarian in nature.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Tree wrote:*Hand wave*

*Hand wave*

*Hand wave*

*Hand wave*

*Hand wave*

*Hand wave*


Image


Someone was triggered.

Honestly, at what point in my question did I even bring up owning a gun? I asked how Khan's statements of being vigilant is any different from what happens in the US after a mass shooting. Yeah, some politicians call for gun control, but since Khan did not call for migration control and talked about being vigilant in the modern world, one would think it would be easy to see which politicians I was talking about in this context. For whatever reason you think Khan is a moron for saying that, yet that is the exact same thing that happens in the US. Are the politicians in the US that say that also idiots?


So, are you just going to ignore that?

Tree wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Violently opposed to homosexuals


I won't deny that there is some, the question is:

1. is it clearly mandated by the belief system to be violently opposed to homosexuals?


Homosexuals are worthy of death.

Tree wrote:2. is the degree of Christian violence equal to the Islamic violence? Is it even close?


They both call for their death, so yes.

Tree wrote:In both cases the answer is no. Before you start quoting the Torah, keep in mind the context isn't universal.


Your ignorance is showing.

Tree wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:intolerance towards non-Christians


I won't deny there is some, just as I won't deny there is some atheist intolerance to the religious and possibly some agnostic intolerance to both atheists and the religious.

That's not really saying much since you don't have specifics.


You think I do not?

Tree wrote:Precisely what kind and in what quantity, to the extent that you can quantify it. Because there's a major difference between say being told you're a poopy headed atheist going to Hell and I'm not going to invite you to dinner, and being forced to pay a protection tax just to live and keep the rest of my property. Based on your understanding of both the theologies involved and the actual data, what levels of intolerance are we talking about?


You forget the context of my statement. It was in response to me stating that all the Abrahamic faiths are anathema to modern values. Meaning, that in the holy book they adhere to, it excrescence an intolerance to other belief systems. Now, I could cite examples from Africa of Christians acting terrible to others, but all I need to do is cite their holy book to prove my point.

Tree wrote:
and an aspiration of the supremacy of Christianity over other religions; just to name a few.


That depends on how you plan to achieve it.

Missionary work is fine with me. Telling people convert, pay a protection tax or die is not, that's a violation of the non-aggression principle.


Yet the Bible teaches that they can tell people to convert or die. The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has the dhimmi.

Tree wrote:
Christians do not have this?


An equivalent to Sharia? No, I don't believe they do. Sharia is a complete theocratic system, a political system, not just a set of values.


Is not the book of Leviticus and Numbers the laws that they are supposed to follow? Beyond that, what is up with their strange obsession with the Ten Commandments?

Tree wrote:
Beyond that, I know of one religion that has always been trying to tell adults in the US where they can and cannot put their genitals, and it is not Islam.


You might be right there, SJWism might actually prove to be even more sex negative than Islam some day with all these ridiculous standards of what real consent is. Shit like if you're too drunk to drive (which keep in mind is very very VERY little) you're too drunk to meaningfully consent to sex or consent only counts if it's "enthusiastic". So basically, if she agrees to sex, but only because she's desperate or she wants your money, that's somehow not-consent cause yay special pleading or something. I dunno, the far left is very retarded.


Tilting at windmills again. At least this screeching was funny.

Tree wrote:Going back to the issue on a more serious note, there's actually little genital regulation beyond violations of the non-aggression principle. So what are you talking about cause preaching abstinence isn't the same as mandating abstinence.


I am talking about all the sodomy laws that were and still are on the books in the US. Since those have been around for decades, it would be kind of hard to blame that on the SJWs, but I am sure you will try. Since you brought it up as well, the Christians have also been the only religion in the US trying to get abstinence only education in the schools. One wonders if you will also try to spin that against the SJWs.

Tree wrote:Whatever sex negative attitudes spill into law from Christianity, Islam did it 10 times worse and they actually mandate those laws be in place.


The fact that it happens at all is the problem. It should not happen, thus something being X times worse is irrelevant.

Tree wrote:Being a secular Muslim is not a logical option. Islam is both religion and politics.


Says you. Not sure when you became the high Pope of Islam. However, as I see it, if the other two Abrahamic faiths can be subdued by humanism and the enlightenment, why cannot Islam?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:56 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

The Gospel according to Tree looks very much like a thinly veiled xenophobic tirade.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:00 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests