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 9 of 11
 [ 212 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

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.


More specifically, at the time the troll's appealing to, heresy or heathenism were absolutely not tolerated whatsoever in Christian lands. Both Islam and Christianity were vicious politico-religious doctrines, but Islam was by far the more tolerant of the two. It's always going to be better to pay a tax that you would have paid to someone else anyway, and get the protection of the local powerful lords, than it was to have an aggressive crusading fanatic stick a sharpened stake up your arse.

One only need look at how Catholics treated Christian heresies to see how tolerant they were, and consequently how our troll is employing endless half-truths to revise history for his political agenda...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

The Albigensian Crusade or the Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in southern France. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French crown and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practising Cathars, but also a realignment of the County of Toulouse in Languedoc, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown and diminishing the distinct regional culture and high level of influence of the Counts of Barcelona.

The Cathars originated from an anti-materialist reform movement within the Bogomil churches of Dalmatia and Bulgaria calling for a return to the Christian message of perfection, poverty and preaching, combined with a rejection of the physical to the point of starvation. The reforms were a reaction against the often scandalous and dissolute lifestyles of the Catholic clergy in southern France. Their theology, neo-Gnostic in many ways, was basically dualist. Several of their practices, especially their belief in the inherent evil of the physical world, conflicted with the doctrines of the Incarnation of Christ and sacraments, initiated accusations of Gnosticism and brought them the ire of the Catholic establishment. They became known as the Albigensians, because there were many adherents in the city of Albi and the surrounding area in the 12th and 13th centuries.

...

Massacre at Béziers
The Crusaders captured the small village of Servian and then headed for Béziers, arriving on July 21, 1209. Under the command of the papal legate, Arnaud Amalric,[40] they started to besiege the city, calling on the Catholics within to come out, and demanding that the Cathars surrender.[41] Neither group did as commanded. The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates.[42] The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. It was reported that Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, responded, "Kill them all! God will know his own." Whether this was actually said is sometimes considered doubtful, but, according to historian Joseph Strayer, it captures the "spirit" of the Crusaders, who killed nearly every man, woman, and child in the town


2 Timothy 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His.



Our race troll is also struggling a bit with the concept of the past not being the present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_G%C3%BClhane

On November 3, 1839, the Edict of Gülhane (Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane) edict was put forth by the Sultan, in part proclaiming the principle of equality among all subjects regardless of religion.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_R ... ct_of_1856

The edict proclaimed the principle of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and produced many specific reforms to this end. For example, the jizya tax was abolished and non-Muslims were allowed to join the army.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:12 am
Tree
Online
Posts: 154Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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.


Can you list these countries?

Homosexuals are worthy of death.


Before we go any further a quick reminder that this is nothing but whataboutism. Let's say you were right, it doesn't therefore follow that we need to mainstream more violent ideologies in our societies, just as it doesn't follow that since someone has cancer might as well contract several more serious medical conditions.

Now, this may foster bigotry but saying that someone or a group is "worthy of death" isn't quite the same as saying you personally should kill them.

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.


So you're saying that if I go to the south in America and yell "I'm gay!" I have an equal chance to be assaulted or killed as if I do that in any of the 50+ Muslim majority countries? I don't think so.

Your ignorance is showing.


LOL. No.

You forget the context of my statement. It was in response to me stating that all the Abrahamic faiths are anathema to modern values.


Which isn't my main concern to begin with. I'm more interested if you can refrain from violating the non-aggression principle. How traditional you make your personal life is not up to me.

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.


Most of the Old Testament were laws meant for ancient Israel. They are largely ignored and considered not universal, including by Jewish denominations. And even when Jews applied those laws, they didn't try to conquer the world.

There are no terrorist cells or propaganda groups run by Christians or Jews trying to implement them worldwide.

It is pointless to cite a few African countries because those countries are an aberration to the norm, for the most part, you should be safe in Christian country and even those countries don't replicate a great deal of the Old Testament laws. There's a difference between a theocratic regime and people just bringing up their prejudices in the democratic process.

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.


The list you provided cites instances of intolerance. Intolerance isn't the same as wanting to kill someone.

At best you can argue that intolerance raises the probability of aggression, which isn't the same thing.

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?


I have no idea what the strange obsession is, but it's good that they focus on that and ignore most of everything else.

Those are not laws that they're supposed to follow. No Christian society in history ever followed the entire Torah, no prominent Christian theologian argued for it, even when they were more backward and violent and even Jews haven't followed it for 2000 years.

I am talking about all the sodomy laws that were and still are on the books in the US.


They are not on the books anymore, the last ones were struck down in 2003 and having sodomy laws isn't the same as following the Torah. The US has never followed the Torah, even when it was more socially conservative and more Christian. US laws come from the consent of the people, not from theocracy. People will sometimes bring up their prejudices in the legislative process, but they're not trying to overthrow the system.

the Christians have also been the only religion in the US trying to get abstinence only education in the schools[/url]. One wonders if you will also try to spin that against the SJWs


I never liked those programs but abstinence only education doesn't prevent you from having sex outside of marriage, does not prevent your parents or your peers from informing you on sex ed properly, does not prevent you from googling real sex ed information.

So exactly how does this regulate where you can put your genitals?

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


Only if you have utopian aspirations. I do not, therefore this interests me and it does concern me if things go from bad to worse.

Would you prefer a society where a small percentage have retrograde views of sex or one where you legally cannot have sex outside of marriage even if you consent?

Since apparently any amount of inconvenience to you is equivalent to a human rights violation, does that mean you're equally concerned about SJW sex negative attitudes? Most SJWs are atheist or embrace some trendy spiritual mumbo jumbo in case you need to be reminded. Rarely are they Christian.

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?


The real question is, is it subdued?

I'm interested in what the reality is, not on how things could be in X unknown number of years and what we're seeing is very troubling. There is absolutely no evidence, no guarantee that Islam can be tamed and it certainly will not be tamed by progressive politics of appeasement where we just pretend, against all evidence, that Islam is a peaceful tolerant religion and we don't allow the slightest bit of criticism.

Maybe just a reasonable discussion of the issue could have worked years ago, maybe there could have been more apostasy as a result, but we're not even allowed to do that since every time the issue is brought up, regressives start crying bigotry and racism.

Tell me, how is it possible that fascism and to some lesser extent communism can be shunned from polite society because they're totalitarian, but we don't do the same to Islam?

Muslim youths in Europe are more radical than their parents, whenever more secular dictators fall in the Islamic world, pro-Sharia forces fill in the power vacuum, and even secular Muslim countries like Turkey are becoming less secular each day because their secularism never evolved organically but through dictatorship. Haven't you been paying attention these last 16 years? The entire experiment of post 9/11 appeasement is a failure.

Your call. If you want continue this cycle of:

1. Muslim terrorist kills 1-100 people.
2. Population outraged for 2 days.
3. Muslims wash their hands of any responsibility and never question the ideology they're helping to propagate.
4. Muslim propaganda organizations issue yet another copy/pasted public statement that doesn't resolve anything.
5. Politicians deny it had anything to do with Islam.
6. Rinse and repeat.

Good luck to you. We can do better than this. This doesn't need to be a permanent thing.

The edict proclaimed the principle of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and produced many specific reforms to this end. For example, the jizya tax was abolished and non-Muslims were allowed to join the army.


At the pressures from the west, not impressed. They would have never done this on their own.

Although the goal of the Hatt-ı Hümayun was to bring equality among Ottoman citizens, the process was perceived more as one intended to please Europe.


In case you forgot, the Ottoman Empire was an empire in decline by that time. Certain concessions were made, just as Shinto Japan made many concessions when they were at the brink of annihilation.

So if anything, if you want to tame Islam, you're only going to do that through superior strength and having enough leverage over it. You are only proving my point that appeasement doesn't work.

Sparhafoc wrote:The Gospel according to Tree looks very much like a thinly veiled xenophobic tirade.


At the end of the day this is nothing but a buzzword used to push an open border agenda where NO foreigner's loyalty can ever be questioned, no matter the circumstances or the evidence.

Xenophobia means an IRRATIONAL fear of foreigners. You have to prove that the fear is irrational, you cannot just assert it. And the fact is the nations that have embraced mass migration from Islamic countries have a disproportionate rise in crime and a wave of deadly terrorism that did not exist before. Nothing irrational about wanting to prevent that in your country. Self-preservation is rational. Any other concerns?

Give me an example of a fear of foreigners that would not be irrational to you. You don't even believe borders should exist.

Sparhafoc wrote:More specifically, at the time the troll's appealing to, heresy or heathenism were absolutely not tolerated whatsoever in Christian lands. Both Islam and Christianity were vicious politico-religious doctrines, but Islam was by far the more tolerant of the two.


How desperate that you have to go back into the past centuries ago to find instances of large-scale violence cause by Christians. And even then you fail to realize those conflicts were localized. Crusade is not analogous to Jihad which is a universal doctrine of conquest. There are no "Crusade" terrorist groups, no "Christian States", no "radicalized" Christian youth united by global terror networks, but there are plenty of jihad groups.

Yeah, everyone was an asshole in the past. The question is why is it still happening today with Islam? All this abundance of wealth, information and technology, new innovations in law enforcement that mean you don't need to have a brutal society anymore to ensure order (it's not like back then you could fingerprint someone or analyze DNA, if you wanted people to behave you needed to scare them good), and still no improvement. Why is that?
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:06 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

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

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: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.


Can you list these countries?


Image


Tree wrote:
Homosexuals are worthy of death.


Before we go any further a quick reminder that this is nothing but whataboutism.


It is not a tu quoque because I am not excusing the Koran or the people that follow. I am merely trying to understand why you think they are a special case.

Tree wrote:Let's say you were right, it doesn't therefore follow that we need to mainstream more violent ideologies in our societies, just as it doesn't follow that since someone has cancer might as well contract several more serious medical conditions.


Yeah. No one is saying that. I oppose Islam, just as much as I oppose any falsity. Again, you seem to think it is special and I am trying to understand why.

Tree wrote:Now, this may foster bigotry but saying that someone or a group is "worthy of death" isn't quite the same as saying you personally should kill them.


:lol:

Are you going to explain to us the meaning of is next?

Tree wrote:
They both call for their death, so yes.


So you're saying that if I go to the south in America and yell "I'm gay!" I have an equal chance to be assaulted or killed as if I do that in any of the 50+ Muslim majority countries? I don't think so.


Nope. Not saying that, I am saying that all the Abrahamic faiths are terrible and anathema to modernity. Whether the followers of that faith actually follow them to the letter has far more to do with where they live. Modern society nooddered Christianity, why can it not do the same for Islam?

Tree wrote:
Your ignorance is showing.


LOL. No.


Context is key to my statement. You said, "Before you start quoting the Torah, keep in mind the context isn't universal." To state that you must have not known that the New Testament also teaches that homosexuals are worthy of death.

Tree wrote:
You forget the context of my statement. It was in response to me stating that all the Abrahamic faiths are anathema to modern values.


Which isn't my main concern to begin with. I'm more interested if you can refrain from violating the non-aggression principle. How traditional you make your personal life is not up to me.


Than again, modernity pacified one death cult's followers, why can it not do it to another?

Tree wrote:
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.


Most of the Old Testament were laws meant for ancient Israel. They are largely ignored and considered not universal, including by Jewish denominations. And even when Jews applied those laws, they didn't try to conquer the world.


What does that even mean to try and conquer the world? The first half of the Old Testament is Israel trying to concor everything around them. Yahweh tells me explicitly to go forth and take everything.

Beyond that, I just have to laugh at the idea that you think people just ignore the Bible.

Tree wrote:There are no terrorist cells or propaganda groups run by Christians or Jews trying to implement them worldwide.


Ignorance is bliss.

Tree wrote:It is pointless to cite a few African countries because those countries are an aberration to the norm, for the most part, you should be safe in Christian country and even those countries don't replicate a great deal of the Old Testament laws. There's a difference between a theocratic regime and people just bringing up their prejudices in the democratic process.


Quite a double standard there.

Tree wrote:
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.


The list you provided cites instances of intolerance. Intolerance isn't the same as wanting to kill someone.


One example from the source:

Skeptic's Annotated Bible wrote:Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23


Tree wrote:At best you can argue that intolerance raises the probability of aggression, which isn't the same thing.


No. I can argue that it tells people to kill other people for not believing.

Tree wrote:
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?


I have no idea what the strange obsession is, but it's good that they focus on that and ignore most of everything else.

Those are not laws that they're supposed to follow. No Christian society in history ever followed the entire Torah, no prominent Christian theologian argued for it, even when they were more backward and violent and even Jews haven't followed it for 2000 years.


Yet, that is exactly what some Christians want.

Tree wrote:
I am talking about all the sodomy laws that were and still are on the books in the US.


They are not on the books anymore, the last ones were struck down in 2003 and having sodomy laws isn't the same as following the Torah. The US has never followed the Torah, even when it was more socially conservative and more Christian. US laws come from the consent of the people, not from theocracy. People will sometimes bring up their prejudices in the legislative process, but they're not trying to overthrow the system.


Again, context is key to this statement. I said there was one religion in the US that has told people where they can and cannot put their genitals. You said, "... there's actually little genital regulation beyond violations of the non-aggression principle." Now you basically agree with my original statement, since people will bring their prejudices in and where did those prejudices come from? No talk of following the Torah or over throwing the system by the way.

Tree wrote:
the Christians have also been the only religion in the US trying to get abstinence only education in the schools[/url]. One wonders if you will also try to spin that against the SJWs


I never liked those programs but abstinence only education doesn't prevent you from having sex outside of marriage, does not prevent your parents or your peers from informing you on sex ed properly, does not prevent you from googling real sex ed information.

So exactly how does this regulate where you can put your genitals?


Are you really asking how regulating abstinence only education is not a form of regulating how we use our genitals?

:lol:

Beyond that, you brought up abstinence education, and I merely am pointing out how the Christians are the ones backing that regulation.

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


Only if you have utopian aspirations. I do not, therefore this interests me and it does concern me if things go from bad to worse.

Would you prefer a society where a small percentage have retrograde views of sex or one where you legally cannot have sex outside of marriage even if you consent?


I could have made myself clearer in my post. What I meant by "it happening at all" is the problem is that the reasoning behind it comes from religion. I live in a secular society, religion should not factor into that. However, to answer your question, the former.

Tree wrote:Since apparently any amount of inconvenience to you is equivalent to a human rights violation, does that mean you're equally concerned about SJW sex negative attitudes?


As I already said. I was talking about how religion should not factor into our policies at all. I will also say that your fear of SJWs is hilarious.

Tree wrote: Most SJWs are atheist or embrace some trendy spiritual mumbo jumbo in case you need to be reminded. Rarely are they Christian.


Citation needed.

Tree wrote:
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?


The real question is, is it subdued?

I'm interested in what the reality is, not on how things could be in X unknown number of years and what we're seeing is very troubling. There is absolutely no evidence, no guarantee that Islam can be tamed and it certainly will not be tamed by progressive politics of appeasement where we just pretend, against all evidence, that Islam is a peaceful tolerant religion and we don't allow the slightest bit of criticism.


Again, says you. However, I will agree that Islam is fare game to criticism, just like any other religion.

Tree wrote:Maybe just a reasonable discussion of the issue could have worked years ago, maybe there could have been more apostasy as a result, but we're not even allowed to do that since every time the issue is brought up, regressives start crying bigotry and racism.


Tilting at windmills again.

Tree wrote:Tell me, how is it possible that fascism and to some lesser extent communism can be shunned from polite society because they're totalitarian, but we don't do the same to Islam?


Because people hold religions to a different standard. As I already said, I agree that Islam is a backwards death cult and it should be criticism right along with the other Abrahamic faiths.

Tree wrote:Muslim youths in Europe are more radical than their parents...


Citation needed.

Tree wrote:... whenever more secular dictators fall in the Islamic world, pro-Sharia forces fill in the power vacuum...


Why do those secular dictators fall?

Tree wrote:.... and even secular Muslim countries like Turkey are becoming less secular each day because their secularism never evolved organically but through dictatorship.


I wonder if it being a dictatorship has anything to do with that?

Tree wrote:Haven't you been paying attention these last 16 years? The entire experiment of post 9/11 appeasement is a failure.


Yes. I have seen several countries meddling in the Middle East by outside powers. Not sure why appeasement has factored in.

Tree wrote:Your call. If you want continue this cycle of:

1. Muslim terrorist kills 1-100 people.
2. Population outraged for 2 days.
3. Muslims wash their hands of any responsibility and never question the ideology they're helping to propagate.
4. Muslim propaganda organizations issue yet another copy/pasted public statement that doesn't resolve anything.
5. Politicians deny it had anything to do with Islam.
6. Rinse and repeat.

Good luck to you. We can do better than this. This doesn't need to be a permanent thing.


Yeah, I would rather not repeat that, but when did I come out in favor of that?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:18 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree's laughable notion is that people who did not commit a crime should be considered guilty of committing a crime because they... are in the same tribe?

Who knows, it's typical Tree: delusional xenophobia.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:17 am
Tree
Online
Posts: 154Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

Sparhafoc wrote:Tree's laughable notion is that people who did not commit a crime should be considered guilty of committing a crime because they... are in the same tribe?

Who knows, it's typical Tree: delusional xenophobia.


Not even remotely what I said. This is such a delusional strawman it's not even worth a response.

he_who_is_nobody wrote: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?


You know what? Maybe they are. Maybe ways to prevent mass shootings should be explored as long as the 2nd amendment is upheld and we don't need to choose between gun control and doing nothing.

For starters, mass shooters tend to have troubled lives especially troubled childhoods. We could for starters do far more to ensure children grow up with both their natural parents, single parenthood is not good for children. But this would require a cultural shift, not so much political action.

It is not a tu quoque because I am not excusing the Koran or the people that follow. I am merely trying to understand why you think they are a special case.


Fair enough, I explained why. Because it generates violence on an unprecedented level when compared to other religions.

Yeah. No one is saying that. I oppose Islam, just as much as I oppose any falsity. Again, you seem to think it is special and I am trying to understand why.


I do think it's special and I'm not interested in falsity alone, I also care how dangerous something is.

Are you going to explain to us the meaning of is next?


This was a fairly simple point to understand, I'm not sure why I need to explain it further.

What I think someone deserves and what I think should in fact be done to them by other human beings are two different things. Maybe I don't trust humans to inflict the punishments that someone justly deserves.

There are people who believe murderers are worthy of death, but oppose capital punishment for practical reasons and would certainly never accept vigilante justice. But maybe they'd be happy to hear some murderer got cancer and died.

Nope. Not saying that, I am saying that all the Abrahamic faiths are terrible and anathema to modernity. Whether the followers of that faith actually follow them to the letter has far more to do with where they live. Modern society nooddered Christianity, why can it not do the same for Islam?


It's not just that Christians don't follow everything to the letter, but letter of the religion itself has mitigating factors.

Context is key to my statement. You said, "Before you start quoting the Torah, keep in mind the context isn't universal." To state that you must have not known that the New Testament also teaches that homosexuals are worthy of death.


Again without clarification on who exactly must carry out the execution, this doesn't say much.

There are plenty of people that I personally would say are "worthy of death" but I wouldn't actually condone their killing by other human beings.

Than again, modernity pacified one death cult's followers, why can it not do it to another?


They were never equal death cults, they have different theologies, even the concept of martyrdom is different. In Christianity you're a martyr if you die (murdered) for what you believe in. In Islam martyrdom is dying in jihad. There's no reason to believe they would respond equally to "modernity". They already do not respond equally. All this wealth, all this technology, advancements in many aspects of life hasn't made the Islamic world less brutal.

What does that even mean to try and conquer the world? The first half of the Old Testament is Israel trying to concor everything around them. Yahweh tells me explicitly to go forth and take everything.


"Everything around them" is very little if you look at old ancient Israel maps.
Image

They never had an interest outside of the promised land.

Beyond that, I just have to laugh at the idea that you think people just ignore the Bible.


And I have a good laugh that you don't understand what a statistical average is.

There have been entire empires governed as caliphates i.e. under Sharia law, not even one country governed by Dominion Theology. From all the major branches of Islam, both Sunni schools and Shi'ite schools, not one rejects the notion of governance by Sharia law, while all the major branches of Christianity reject Torah law. Using the theology of a cult to paint both religions as equal is laughable.

What is it with you people that you have such a poor grasp of nuance? I mean let's say you had two extended families. One had many kids in this generation growing up to be doctors, engineers etc but one criminal dropout - the one black sheep of the family. The other family produced almost nothing but dropouts, criminals and unemployed.

Now people with common sense would say the first family probably had better parenting. People like you would say the families are essentially no different because "well, they both have a criminal in the family don't they?"

It's a really sloppy way of thinking that is only possible if you completely reject everything you know about statistics and probability. You don't need to be some expert, but damn, don't be dunce either. Try to think.

Ignorance is bliss.


I specifically asked for Christian and Jewish groups trying to implement the Torah's laws and doing terrorism for it.

There are Christian terrorists, but they tend to be single issue terrorists like anti-abortion and they're nowhere near as common or as deadly as the vast network of global Islamic terrorists which have operatives now in half the globe.

No shortage of Islamic groups trying to implement Sharia.

Quite a double standard there.


Why is it a double standard to point out violent Christian countries are a statistical aberration and even then they are not governed by the Torah?

Skeptic's Annotated Bible wrote:Peter claims that Dt 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23


Actually the only thing he's claiming is:

"3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

Descriptive. Not prescriptive.

I can tell you for example that going on tourism to North Korea is dangerous without supporting what they do to some tourists.

No. I can argue that it tells people to kill other people for not believing.


See above.

Yet, that is exactly what some Christians want.


You really struggle with the concept of a statistical average, don't you?

Again, context is key to this statement. I said there was one religion in the US that has told people where they can and cannot put their genitals. You said, "... there's actually little genital regulation beyond violations of the non-aggression principle." Now you basically agree with my original statement, since people will bring their prejudices in and where did those prejudices come from? No talk of following the Torah or over throwing the system by the way.


I never said Christianity doesn't have issues, it's just not usually issues I'm super concerned about.

Are you really asking how regulating abstinence only education is not a form of regulating how we use our genitals?


What then is the criminal penalty or fine if I simply ignore everything that these lessons tell me and go ahead and have premarital sex anyway?

Answer: none.

Beyond that, you brought up abstinence education, and I merely am pointing out how the Christians are the ones backing that regulation.


It's a regulation of school curriculum, not genitals.

I could have made myself clearer in my post. What I meant by "it happening at all" is the problem is that the reasoning behind it comes from religion. I live in a secular society, religion should not factor into that.


We don't live in a perfect world. Rather than spend time on crumbs, I'd rather deal with real threats to the republic.

Citation needed.


You're free to interact with SJWs and come to your own conclusions. Not everything is going to be given to you on a platter with some survey.

Again, says you. However, I will agree that Islam is fare game to criticism, just like any other religion.


Tell that to the elites. Apart from Trump, almost everyone else is stubborn to face the reality. And Trump can't do much alone.

Tree wrote:Muslim youths in Europe are more radical than their parents...


Citation needed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... dical.html

Why do those secular dictators fall?


Some are overthrown by US decisions, but that's not all of it. The people in those countries can also overthrow them or they can die of natural causes and their successors can be less secular.

It should be noted that even these secular dictators aren't fully secular all the time. General Sisi removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt, but he didn't abolish blasphemy laws for example, those are still on the books. Assad's Syria still mentions Sharia in the constitution. It's possible even these dictators need to play ball to some degree. The more they anger practicing Muslims the faster they get overthrown.

I wonder if it being a dictatorship has anything to do with that?


The dictatorship is what keeps pro-Sharia/caliphate forces like the Muslim Brotherhood from taking over.

What can I say, it's a mess.

Yes. I have seen several countries meddling in the Middle East by outside powers. Not sure why appeasement has factored in.


Because due to misinformation on Islam being a "religion of peace", Bush falsely determined that democracy could just flourish over night if you removed Saddam.

If his advisors had told him the truth, maybe he would have made different decisions, or at least NOT overthrown Saddam without a very good backup plan.

Yeah, I would rather not repeat that, but when did I come out in favor of that?


How do you propose we change course?
Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:55 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Tree's laughable notion is that people who did not commit a crime should be considered guilty of committing a crime because they... are in the same tribe?

Who knows, it's typical Tree: delusional xenophobia.


Not even remotely what I said. This is such a delusional strawman it's not even worth a response.



Not worth a response because the relevant dogs have already been whistled to.


Tree wrote:What's delusional (and wrong) is the idea that regular Muslims bear absolutely no responsibility for Islamic terrorism or other forms of Islamic oppression.

They do. Why? They're perpetuating the ideology along with all the crimes this ideology instigates people to commit. And instigating a crime is still a violation of a non-aggression principle.


Perpetuating ideology (read: being Muslim), other Muslims commit crime, therefore guilty of 'instigating' crime simply by being in the tribe.

Yeah, don't bother waving your hands around pretending it's a strawman trying to obfuscate away and spin bullshit - we can all read, and read between the lines too. You're no longer a subject worth speaking to, but a subject worth speaking about.


How thin the veneer of bullshit is overlaying the xenophobic hate-mongering Tree's brought to this forum. In so few posts, so many groups he's mongered fear of or hate for. What a pitiful person who fears everything different just because it's different.

Again, the answer to the OP is simple as to why such people are not welcome in conventions about rationalism, atheism, etc.: because no one serious wants to affiliate with rabid xenophobic assholes. If the atheist movement were to accommodate such bullshit as expounded in this thread, then it'd be no more developed than the origins of the xenophobic, tribalist bollocks all religions are founded on. These tools already have their own hate clubs and echo chambers, and consequently have no need to drag others down to their level.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:13 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

Tree wrote:
he_who_is_nobody 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.

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.


I haven't kept up with everything Tree is trying to make us swallow but, ignoring his obsession with SJWs...

"there's actually little genital regulation" and "Whatever sex negative attitudes spill into law from Christinaity, Islam did it 10 times worse" seem to ignore that homosexuality is still outlawed in some christian-majority countries.

Lest we forget that the parliement of Uganda passed the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 which was signed into law by their president. The act increased the penalty for sexual acts to life in prison, from the original version which proposed the penalty of death instead. The influence of U.S. evangelists was noted in the creation of the act.

It rather seems convenient to forget how christians have treated atheists, homosexuals, blacks, etc. in the past, how some of them argue for for the death penalty for for various offences they see against their religion now, yet cite how moderate they are today and not extend that possibility to majority muslim-countries in the future. Reducing the current status to only religions seem to be an entirely simple-minded comprehension of a complex issue.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:15 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

May the gods save us from absolutely confident ideological fanaticism.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:59 pm
Tree
Online
Posts: 154Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

Perpetuating ideology (read: being Muslim), other Muslims commit crime, therefore guilty of 'instigating' crime simply by being in the tribe.


It's not a tribe it's an ideology. A set of ideas, including ideas on how to run a nation.

Now if you publicly declare that a set of ideas is worth following, then you bear at least some responsibility for the outcome of following those ideas. Not a lot, there are mitigating factors, but you're not fully blameless either.

I also don't see why ignorance of those ideas should be an excuse. If you think of yourself as a responsible adult, I expect you to know better.

What a pitiful person who fears everything different just because it's different.


Why do you fear white supremacist neo-Nazism just because it's different?

Why are you bigoted against the tribe of white supremacist neo-Nazism?

If the atheist movement were to accommodate such bullshit as expounded in this thread, then it'd be no more developed than the origins of the xenophobic, tribalist bollocks all religions are founded on.


Welcome to the real world where atheism means exactly what is: no belief in gods. Beyond that atheists aren't obligated to adopt your particular positions. But good luck with your cult.
Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:28 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

If the atheist movement were to accommodate such bullshit as expounded in this thread, then it'd be no more developed than the origins of the xenophobic, tribalist bollocks all religions are founded on.


But of course, it doesn't. So tough titties for the rabid xenophobes.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:10 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:Getting endorsed by white supremacists, even if it's specifically because they agree with some of your political views, isn't a bad thing. It depends on what those views are. Not everything that white supremacist say is wrong. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

For example, white supremacists would probably agree with me on there being a border and immigration tightly controlled. So in a world of open border propaganda, I might come across as an ally . That doesn't mean I'm actually an ally, it doesn't mean I endorse them back and if they endorse me or Sargon or whoever else they're doing it in vain and for superficial reasons. They have nothing to gain from it. We don't even share views for the same reasons. I mean white supremacists want any immigration control they can get because they want as few non-whites as possible in the country (none if possible and they want to get rid of non-whites even if they're a citizen), I just want immigration control cause I want quality people in the country, I don't give a shit what their race is and I don't want to deport anyone who's already a citizen.


Perpetuating the same ideology as white supremacist neo-Nazis by actually agreeing with and supporting their policies to the point that you are endorsed by them... totally fine, and it's preposterous to think it means there's any relationship between the two.


Tree wrote:What's delusional (and wrong) is the idea that regular Muslims bear absolutely no responsibility for Islamic terrorism or other forms of Islamic oppression.

They do. Why? They're perpetuating the ideology along with all the crimes this ideology instigates people to commit. And instigating a crime is still a violation of a non-aggression principle.


Perpetuating the same ideology as Muslim terrorists by just being Muslim, even while explicitly not engaged in any terrorist or criminal activity at all and therefore not actually supporting that terrorist or criminal activity, still means you are culpable of that terrorist or criminal activity by association.


It's so useful not giving a fuck about honesty, integrity, consistency and the like: when your objective really is just to monger fear and hatred of the other, none of those can be employed anyway. Makes asserting bullshit that much easier.

Now to sit back and watch Tree attain low Earth orbit through energetic hand-waving.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:35 am
Tree
Online
Posts: 154Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

Sargon does not support the same ideology as white supremacist neo-Nazis.

agreeing with and supporting their policies to the point that you are endorsed by them


They also believe the sky is blue and you shouldn't drink poison.

You better believe the sky is red and poison isn't actually poisonous otherwise you're also a white supremacist. Because as we know, in order to prove you're not racist, you have to take the opposite position of EVERYTHING they ever agreed with.

Please fuck off you utter simpleton. I debunked your point ages ago.


Perpetuating the same ideology as Muslim terrorists by just being Muslim, even while explicitly not engaged in any terrorist or criminal activity at all and therefore not actually supporting that terrorist or criminal activity, still means you are culpable of that terrorist or criminal activity by association.


Not the same thing. Part of being a Muslim is supporting the Quran and hadiths which do in fact promote terrorism and criminal activity. More specifically fighting unbelievers, see Surah 9:5, 9:29 or 9:111.

The fact that some Muslims are either not aware of this information or pretend it doesn't exist does not concern me. Everyone is responsible for their choices in life, ignorance - not an excuse. We cannot afford to excuse ignorance anymore after all the lives lost and the trillions spent.

Notice that you will not answer the question:

Why are you bigoted against white supremacist neo-Nazis just cause they're different?
Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:24 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Ladies and gentlemen, we have lift off!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:06 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Oh... and the reality is that the crystal ball which keeps telling us about how North Korea's going to nuke us (so we'd better bomb them first), and that Mexicans are going to rob us (so we'd better kick them out first!), and that Muslims are going to murder us in our beds (so we'd better collectively demonize them first) is ironically, in each case's allegedly justified advance reaction, apparently designed to cause the very friction it supposedly seeks to pre-emptively address.

The much vaunted Western values don't need to be destroyed by the faceless hordes at the gates supposedly out to destroy our way of life if we let hate-mongering numpties pervert those values beyond recognition in desperately trying convince us to stay permanently afraid of the other.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:12 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:Please fuck off you utter simpleton. I debunked your point ages ago.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:23 am
Tree
Online
Posts: 154Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

Your response just now is probably the worst one yet... :roll:

I mean damn, I disagree with a lot of people in this forum, but you don't even make an effort.

No reason to even try to engage this time, you won't understand anything anyway.
Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:Your response just now is probably the worst one yet... :roll:

I mean damn, I disagree with a lot of people in this forum, but you don't even make an effort.

No reason to even try to engage this time, you won't understand anything anyway.



For clarity Tree, troll as you may, the problem you have is that everyone here feels exactly the same way about you - not worth engaging because you are aggressive and delusional. The unusual aspect of this forum is that most people, when faced with a complete fucking tit, generally elect to ignore said tit and let it slink off. In actuality, you have behaved like a dog in heat throughout - majorly over-excited by any form of contact but people don't want their legs humped.

As amusing as it is that you so naively think you can emote the world, it's really just an example of an overweening hubris getting in the way of your ability to make accurate observations, thus the notion that you are somehow doing well couldn't be more removed from reality and you couldn't be less self-aware.

In actual fact, the only comments made by other posters in this thread since the first couple of pages have been either in support of my posts, or critical of yours. But keep stroking yourself off that you are the arbiter here of discursive competence; public onanism and self-delusion go hand in hand.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is most apposite indeed: low-skilled persons unable to recognize their own ineptitude or evaluate their incompetence.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:47 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Quick reality check for you Tree...

You are functionally identical to this guy (eass3) in every way except that you write in full syntactic sentences:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12462

Deranged, blind, over-confident, incompetent, aggressive, incoherent: a tit, in summary.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:02 am
Tree
Online
Posts: 154Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

The feeling is mutual.
Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:39 am
Steelmage99Posts: 174Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

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

Tree wrote:The feeling is mutual.


And thus the value of feelings in determining truth is yet again exposed......
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:22 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 9 of 11
 [ 212 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests