ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Summerlander » 14 Oct 2015 00:30

There are at least a dozen countries in the world today where being an atheist is punishable by death or incarceration. Far too many. You are not even safe expressing your views online. In America, an atheist is less popular than a Muslim. In the Levant--with ISIS, Nusra Front, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other Islamic groups--the situation is quite precarious for secularists; even the media cannot spin the truth on this one. Saudi Arabia doesn't even require a laconic appraisal here--Arabian laws regarding non-believers speak for themselves. And last but not least, we hear that atheistic bloggers are assaulted and murdered in Blangladesh by Islamists: Ansar Bangla Team--a jihadi, bank-robbing organisation--has already confirmed responsibility for bumping off 'kāfirs' Ahmed Rajib Haider, Avijit Roy, Ananta Bijoy Das, Shafiul Islam and others. (And they are said to be working on an 'atheist hitlist'!)

The secular government of Bangladesh is not doing enough to protect the atheist minority who merely opine that the separation of religion and state should be preserved and exercised--in contrast to Islamic parties who demand Sharia for all. The leaders are demagogues who will even arrest brutalised atheists in order to conciliate the piously transfixed Muslim majority; ironically, this is their charge against unbelievers: 'allegedly defaming religious groups'.

We are yet to witness the invention of the word 'atheistophia' by secularists--we haven't even heard them demanding that the word 'infidel' be considered derogatory! (And they should do neither as it goes to show that, hitherto, they are slow to throw their toys out of the pram unlike certain sanctimonious some ... )

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
SunTzu
Posts: 48
Joined: 08 Sep 2015 07:19

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby SunTzu » 18 Oct 2015 00:21

What I've always found stupid is that you need to pretend to be a strong Christian to be leader of most Western countries. Atheists are GENERALLY more intelligent than theists, so aren't we excluding our best people? More than a few problems would be solved if the wider population put their faith in man rather than the god delusion.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Summerlander » 18 Oct 2015 00:53

I agree. Unfortunately, there seems to be this ubiquitous creed that if one is godless one is without scruples.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Isaiah
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 17:44
Location: Belgium

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Isaiah » 18 Oct 2015 17:42

First of all I totally agree that oppressing any kind of believe is totally wrong.

I think one of the problems with atheists is that they often attack religions by pointing out they are ignorant, naive, stupid, ... I'm still young and totally inexperienced with deep philosophical discussions about religion but it seemed to me that friends who claim to be atheist express their belief by listing negative stereotypes about Islam, Christianity, ... I got the feeling they felt superior because of their self-claimed "more intelligent" approach of the world. I don't follow atheist blogs (I'll go through a few after I'm done writing) but if they only write about what other religions do wrong I can imagine countries lead by a certain religion view their blogs as offending. Of course this doesn't justify any of the killings but I just try to make a point of how atheists tend to come over negatively to religious people. A theist will talk positively about his religion while an atheist will talk negatively about other religions.

By the way I'm from Belgium and I barely know people who are religious. When asked, most of them say they "don't believe in god". Again, these are the younger generations.

Well, I wonder when people start minding their own business instead of wasting energy on people with different values and beliefs. P
Wonder why a lone wolf don't run with a clan
Only trust your instincts and be one with the plan

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Summerlander » 19 Oct 2015 00:55

Isaiah wrote:First of all I totally agree that oppressing any kind of believe is totally wrong.


Really? Does this apply to neo-Nazis and the KKK--who ludicrously believe Jews conspire to take over the world and that white people are superior? Should we have let Adolph Hitler kill all the Jews--what he claimed to be the doing of the 'Lord's work' in Mein Kampf, by the way--and take over the world?

And just to be clear: it is not belief that's being oppressed here, it is disbelief. :mrgreen:

Isaiah wrote:I think one of the problems with atheists is that they often attack religions by pointing out they are ignorant, naive, stupid, ...


While some atheists attack religions (which are just sets of ideas and beliefs without evidence, I might add), religious fanatics attack--and kill--people. Even many moderate religious individuals believe the unbeliever is doomed--and this according to medieval scripture.

The atheist merely does not believe based on the absence of evidence. And some will try to dissuade people from religion because they see how this one exploits them. Atheistic philosopher Peter Boghossian, for example, sees religious people as brainwashed, or infected with the religious 'virus', and seeks to help them.

Many atheists who attack religion really care about the wellbeing of its pious adherents; but, unfortunately, the religious--with their holier-than-thou attitude--are quick to take offence and misinterpret the help. (Ironically, they forget that atheists have been persecuted, tortured, raped and killed by theists for centuries; in the olden days the secular were known as 'heretics'--today, the religious start crying just because atheists open their mouths to express their doubts and disbelief ... ) :-D

Isaiah wrote:I'm still young and totally inexperienced with deep philosophical discussions about religion


Don't mention it. I can tell ... :mrgreen:

Isaiah wrote:but it seemed to me that friends who claim to be atheist express their belief by listing negative stereotypes about Islam, Christianity, ...


The 'stereotypes' are probably true. And the negativity--which is incompatible with civilisation--can be found in the Bible, the Torah and last but not least, the Quran and the Hadith! (Where do you think notions of jihad, martyrdom and hellfire for apostates and infidels come from?)

Isaiah wrote:I got the feeling they felt superior because of their self-claimed "more intelligent" approach of the world. I don't follow atheist blogs (I'll go through a few after I'm done writing) but if they only write about what other religions do wrong I can imagine countries lead by a certain religion view their blogs as offending.


And for that reason they should keep quiet while the religious majority threaten to kill them if they don't convert to Islam? And is it right that in those countries only the religious have a political voice while the atheist has no say in how things can be run? What happened to egalitarianism and democracy?

Isaiah wrote:Of course this doesn't justify any of the killings but I just try to make a point of how atheists tend to come over negatively to religious people.


But in a way you are saying that it's their fault they were killed. You seem to be implying that they asked for what they got and they deserved it. If you didn't mean this, there would not be a 'but' in your statement. :-)

Isaiah wrote:A theist will talk positively about his religion while an atheist will talk negatively about other religions.


A theist will also talk negatively about other religions and more! That's why in the Middle East, Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other; Catholics vs Protestants; Muslims killing Jews and vice versa; and Wahabis murdering Yazidis on Mount Sinjar in Iraq; monotheists against polytheists; and Muslims vs Buddhists in places like Burma and Sri Lanka ...

Meanwhile, the atheist shakes his head in disgust. 8-)

Isaiah wrote:By the way I'm from Belgium and I barely know people who are religious. When asked, most of them say they "don't believe in god". Again, these are the younger generations.


Get with the program, then. The new generation is waking up and realising that religious beliefs are fantasies and delusions from mankind's infancy. They have access to more information and they are learning about the absence of God in the world. From this, you can see why atheism is the most tenable position--its wellspring is intelligence; the secular standpoint does not come from a perfunctory look at the evidence (or lack of).

Isaiah wrote:Well, I wonder when people start minding their own business instead of wasting energy on people with different values and beliefs. P


You can stop wondering cuz I'm about to tell you why: religion is politically involved and gets the kind of respect it doesn't deserve! Perhaps atheists won't care so much about what others believe when countries like the United States--which is supposed to have a separation between Church and State in its constitution--no longer require religiosity as a necessary qualification to run for presidency. It's disgusting and discriminatory that no self-confessed atheist is allowed to take the Oval Office throne.

Beliefs affect our way of life, by the way. Some beliefs are dangerous and we should care--based on this, no idea or belief should be immune to criticism (especially if they are egregiously bad); that's why we are minding our own business by caring what other people think. I care about what the homophobic think because they might be unjust to my gay friends. I care about what the serial killer thinks because I, or a member of my family, could be next. I care about what people who believe praying is effective think--they could choose to just pray for a miracle instead of taking their dying kid to the hospital; they could be piloting aeroplanes and decide that the Lord will take the wheel.

I care about the tenets of Islam because impressionable Muslim boys can't wait to lose their virginities in heaven and think they can attain this by killing the infidel on Earth. (This is the main reason why the word 'Islamophobia' is so ridiculous: you should be scared because you never know when and where they'll blow themselves up!) And with a doctrine of deception like Taqyyia, no Muslim on Earth can truly be trusted. (Apart from Majid Nawaz, who is seeking to reform it.) 8-)

If you value your life--and the life of your Christian and moderate Muslim friends for this matter--you cannot possibly agree with and respect the active Salafism of ISIS in the Levant. And yet, a substantial argument can be made that they follow Islamic scripture most accurately and are, therefore, the real Muslims. The same goes for the Ansar Bangla Team.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
SunTzu
Posts: 48
Joined: 08 Sep 2015 07:19

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby SunTzu » 19 Oct 2015 06:02

If a national leader truly believes in a religion, then he is both stupid and uneducated. This makes him unqualified for the job

If a national leader does not believe in religion, but pretends to, then he is intelligent but is also deceptive and untrustworthy. This makes him dangerous to the whole nation.

If a national leader is atheist, and honest about it, then we can say that he is both intelligent and honest. This makes him a blessing to the whole nation.

Of course this doesn't ring true in Communist nations, because atheism there was forced rather than realised/chosen.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Summerlander » 19 Oct 2015 08:13

Atheism cannot be forced upon people, anyway. It can only be realised. Just as you can force someone to believe, you cannot force the to disbelieve. If you threaten them, they will merely pretend for you. The way forward is a secular nation where religion is allow but kept separate from the state. Communism is just another doctrine and does not speak for atheism--it is merely a political and economic method devised by Karl Marx which, it can be argued, was twisted from what was originally intended and never properly tested; when it first emerged it was studied, tweaked and adopted by serfdom monarchies, not capitalist nations as intended by Marx. But certain brands of socialism might not be bad for the world today--something like Trotskyism might just save the world:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15840

What's more, officially, Hitler never renounced Christianity. So, right there, you have a Christian, and certainly a believer in the supernatural, responsible for the Holocaust. Not to mention the pact he had with the Holy See... :twisted:

The deal was: The Christian political party should disband and cease all negative propaganda of Nazism. In return, the Church was granted power over birth, education, marriage, and death. :shock:

Oh yeah! The Church should also supply Hitler with the names of Jewish people as well as Christians who were related to them. The pact between Hitler and the Vatican speaks for itself and this is how the Church is complicit. :o

And before anyone points out that Stalin was an atheist, which he was, let me revive my Hitchensian argument in order to refute that as an argument against atheism... :mrgreen:

Stalin did not subdue the masses in the name of atheism. Stalin did it in the name of his twisted Marxism and still allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to remain active and keep the people servile just like they were during the Czarist regime. (The Czar himself was considered to be a demigod.) 8-)

Stalin, who influenced Saddam Hussein (advocate of Sunni Islam and the socialism of the Ba'athist Party), by the way, was the 'superman' of Russia, to be revered by everyone. He was always right (sarcasm) and knew what was best for his 'children'. So much so that they had to grovel to live. Pseudoscience was employed for his political ends and taught at schools for the purpose of brainwashing. Stalin even appointed Lysenko as director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Union, who caused incalculable damage to Soviet agriculture. If you don't know Lysenko, guys, he was a second-rate plant breeder who opposed Darwinism, Mendelianism, and subscribed to the fallacious Lamarckism. :evil:

Like I said before, we need Enlightenment and secularism. Saddam Hussein and Stalin are not examples of either, much less humanism! If the pious want to have any argument whatsoever against my proposition as a solution to effectively run a nation, they need to point me to a secular society that adopted the teachings of Lucretius, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Paine, Spinoza, Jefferson, Voltaire--and many other enlightened figures of our time (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Krauss)--and still fell into war, famine and death. They won't find one. The closest the religious will get, and these examples are still not quite there, are the European countries I mentioned previously which happen to have the lowest crime rate and the highest number of atheists (some progress as you can all see): Netherlands and Sweden. :ugeek:

And then, of course, there is the story of Thomas Hobbes, who I believe had to pretend to believe in God:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16688

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Isaiah
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 17:44
Location: Belgium

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Isaiah » 19 Oct 2015 13:33

How do you know so much tho? :mrgreen:

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:First of all I totally agree that oppressing any kind of believe is totally wrong.


Really? Does this apply to neo-Nazis and the KKK--who ludicrously believe Jews conspire to take over the world and that white people are superior? Should we have let Adolph Hitler kill all the Jews--what he claimed to be the doing of the 'Lord's work' in Mein Kampf, by the way--and take over the world?

And just to be clear: it is not belief that's being oppressed here, it is disbelief. :mrgreen:


You know what I mean 8-) The beliefs you listed are beliefs who oppress other beliefs and/or groups of people themselves.

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:I think one of the problems with atheists is that they often attack religions by pointing out they are ignorant, naive, stupid, ...


While some atheists attack religions (which are just sets of ideas and beliefs without evidence, I might add), religious fanatics attack--and kill--people. Even many moderate religious individuals believe the unbeliever is doomed--and this according to medieval scripture.

The atheist merely does not believe based on the absence of evidence. And some will try to dissuade people from religion because they see how this one exploits them. Atheistic philosopher Peter Boghossian, for example, sees religious people as brainwashed, or infected with the religious 'virus', and seeks to help them.

Many atheists who attack religion really care about the wellbeing of its pious adherents; but, unfortunately, the religious--with their holier-than-thou attitude--are quick to take offence and misinterpret the help. (Ironically, they forget that atheists have been persecuted, tortured, raped and killed by theists for centuries; in the olden days the secular were known as 'heretics'--today, the religious start crying just because atheists open their mouths to express their doubts and disbelief ... ) :-D


And so do atheists believe, based on literature, the believer is doomed too. I watched a documentary a while ago that was quite interesting. (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/evolution-vs-god/) Don't mind the end tho, if I remember right he suddenly tried to make everyone christian, pretty disappointing. While atheists may care about the wellbeing of others, so do religious people who say non-believers are doomed. I just think others beliefs are none of our own business. 99% only cares enough to discuss about it on the internet like we are doing right now anyway.

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:I'm still young and totally inexperienced with deep philosophical discussions about religion


Don't mention it. I can tell ... :mrgreen:


;)

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:but it seemed to me that friends who claim to be atheist express their belief by listing negative stereotypes about Islam, Christianity, ...


The 'stereotypes' are probably true. And the negativity--which is incompatible with civilisation--can be found in the Bible, the Torah and last but not least, the Quran and the Hadith! (Where do you think notions of jihad, martyrdom and hellfire for apostates and infidels come from?)


Yup, but my point was that I have the feeling their belief is totally based on the negative aspects of religions. Let's not forget our main moral system is based on the fundamental ideas of most big religions.

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:I got the feeling they felt superior because of their self-claimed "more intelligent" approach of the world. I don't follow atheist blogs (I'll go through a few after I'm done writing) but if they only write about what other religions do wrong I can imagine countries lead by a certain religion view their blogs as offending.


And for that reason they should keep quiet while the religious majority threaten to kill them if they don't convert to Islam? And is it right that in those countries only the religious have a political voice while the atheist has no say in how things can be run? What happened to egalitarianism and democracy?


That's no reason at all but I can imagine people who try to control a country with the use of certain rules interfere when someone claims their whole system is wrong. We lock these people up, they kill them. I'm still not sure which one is more cruel. And no they don't have a voice because they're not the majority. That's basically how democracy works in all other countries.

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:Of course this doesn't justify any of the killings but I just try to make a point of how atheists tend to come over negatively to religious people.


But in a way you are saying that it's their fault they were killed. You seem to be implying that they asked for what they got and they deserved it. If you didn't mean this, there would not be a 'but' in your statement. :-)


"But" isn't always used to follow with the complete opposite. Atleast not that I know of, English isn't my primary language so sorry for all the grammar mistakes in my posts :mrgreen:

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:A theist will talk positively about his religion while an atheist will talk negatively about other religions.


A theist will also talk negatively about other religions and more! That's why in the Middle East, Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other; Catholics vs Protestants; Muslims killing Jews and vice versa; and Wahabis murdering Yazidis on Mount Sinjar in Iraq; monotheists against polytheists; and Muslims vs Buddhists in places like Burma and Sri Lanka ...

Meanwhile, the atheist shakes his head in disgust. 8-)


Meanwhile, the atheist shakes his head in disgust, sits behind his desk and scrolls through another blog in his civilized country achieving more and more intellect.

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:By the way I'm from Belgium and I barely know people who are religious. When asked, most of them say they "don't believe in god". Again, these are the younger generations.


Get with the program, then. The new generation is waking up and realising that religious beliefs are fantasies and delusions from mankind's infancy. They have access to more information and they are learning about the absence of God in the world. From this, you can see why atheism is the most tenable position--its wellspring is intelligence; the secular standpoint does not come from a perfunctory look at the evidence (or lack of).


ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE YOUR BELIEVE UPON ME? :mrgreen: First of all I'm not a member of any religion but I wouldn't claim myself to be atheist either. While I don't acknowledge a certain god I don't deny the existence of god either. I just don't know. I have certain values and some of them can change from situation to situation. I'll act upon them when necessary. I'm just trying to make something out of this life. 8-)

Summerlander wrote:
Isaiah wrote:Well, I wonder when people start minding their own business instead of wasting energy on people with different values and beliefs. P


You can stop wondering cuz I'm about to tell you why: religion is politically involved and gets the kind of respect it doesn't deserve! Perhaps atheists won't care so much about what others believe when countries like the United States--which is supposed to have a separation between Church and State in its constitution--no longer require religiosity as a necessary qualification to run for presidency. It's disgusting and discriminatory that no self-confessed atheist is allowed to take the Oval Office throne.

Beliefs affect our way of life, by the way. Some beliefs are dangerous and we should care--based on this, no idea or belief should be immune to criticism (especially if they are egregiously bad); that's why we are minding our own business by caring what other people think. I care about what the homophobic think because they might be unjust to my gay friends. I care about what the serial killer thinks because I, or a member of my family, could be next. I care about what people who believe praying is effective think--they could choose to just pray for a miracle instead of taking their dying kid to the hospital; they could be piloting aeroplanes and decide that the Lord will take the wheel.

I care about the tenets of Islam because impressionable Muslim boys can't wait to lose their virginities in heaven and think they can attain this by killing the infidel on Earth. (This is the main reason why the word 'Islamophobia' is so ridiculous: you should be scared because you never know when and where they'll blow themselves up!) And with a doctrine of deception like Taqyyia, no Muslim on Earth can truly be trusted. (Apart from Majid Nawaz, who is seeking to reform it.) 8-)

If you value your life--and the life of your Christian and moderate Muslim friends for this matter--you cannot possibly agree with and respect the active Salafism of ISIS in the Levant. And yet, a substantial argument can be made that they follow Islamic scripture most accurately and are, therefore, the real Muslims. The same goes for the Ansar Bangla Team.


I don't like to pretend I care too much about people who aren't close to me. I don't like governments either. There shouldn't be any system of total control with peace as a motive. Well that's my opinion.

Summerlander wrote:[ Post made via Android ] Image


Dude did you type all of this on your phone? Respect :shock:

P
Wonder why a lone wolf don't run with a clan
Only trust your instincts and be one with the plan

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Summerlander » 20 Oct 2015 01:45

Isaiah wrote:How do you know so much tho? :mrgreen:


I have a useful hobby: I read non-fiction and I take a journal with me when I travel. :mrgreen:

Isaiah wrote:And so do atheists believe, based on literature, the believer is doomed too.


I'm an atheist and I don't necessarily believe believers are doomed. I do think, however, that they are deluding themselves. (Hence the 'God delusion' as SunTzu put it.) :-)

Isaiah wrote:I just think others beliefs are none of our own business. 99% only cares enough to discuss about it on the internet like we are doing right now anyway.


I'm sorry but I disagree with these statements. People continue to have public debates about these issues--as they should--and ideas are exchanged. What we have mentioned here doesn't even cover the full extent of pertinent discourse around the world. :-)

Isaiah wrote:Yup, but my point was that I have the feeling their belief is totally based on the negative aspects of religions.


And your 'feeling' is misguided. :mrgreen:

As an atheist I can tell you that my secularism is not just based on the negative aspects of religion. It is also the fact that religion tells you to believe in things without evidence--passing them off as the 'unquestionable truth'--which is the very antithesis of science and reason. And hence my disbelief. 8-)

Isaiah wrote:Let's not forget our main moral system is based on the fundamental ideas of most big religions.


This is simply false and a common misconception at that. Way before Christ, philosophers such as Socrates and Confucius had already thought of golden rules and described types of ethical conduct and morality far superior to the Bible's commandments. The good and brotherhood of people as survival traits are products of evolution. If we hadn't formed tribes--and then nations--and didn't help one another, we wouldn't have survived this long. (We would have gone extinct like most of the species that ever lived on Earth.) Religion tends to cause wars and certainly hijacks the inherent good of human beings by saying it is the product of an invisible superpowerful being who is--more likely than not, let's face it--imaginary.

And it is usually the other way around: it is religion that tends to be late in maturing and catching up with morality and civility. That's why we have mostly jettisoned immolation as a method to appease the gods and have become more united than ever (compared to mankind in the Dark Ages the difference is monumental).

Did you know that the Church made a deal with the Nazis? The Holy See helped Hitler to find Jews and in return the Pope was given monopoly over birth, marriage, education, and death. Some dirty deal and here we find religion, as usual, being officially on the wrong side! Furthermore, the Bible supports racism; slavery; genocide; rape and torture--some perfectly good God! (More like a man-made imaginary tyrant, me thinks; a celestial Mob boss) :mrgreen:

Isaiah wrote:That's no reason at all but I can imagine people who try to control a country with the use of certain rules interfere when someone claims their whole system is wrong. We lock these people up, they kill them. I'm still not sure which one is more cruel.


People who are brave enough to go against the majority are known as revolutionaries and tend to be independent thinkers. Better nations have been built because of such people and their bravery is laudable. Such contrarians may be arrested, some are even killed, but they have already spoken and written down their ideas for others to examine and ponder over in order to reach pragmatic perspectives. Improvement can come from revolutions. (And, granted, sometimes new dictatorships are established.) It depends on whether you're a sheep ... or a shepherd! ;-)

Isaiah wrote:And no they don't have a voice because they're not the majority. That's basically how democracy works in all other countries.


Actually, no it's not. A democracy is a system in which everyone has a voice; every vote counts; and everyone is free to express themselves. People are also free to act provided that their actions aren't dangerous. Democracies certainly do not/should not permit majorities to murder minorities. This is tyranny. Public opinion changes with time and roles can be reversed.

Isaiah wrote:"But" isn't always used to follow with the complete opposite.


No, but it always implies some sort of justification, however tenuous, for the opposition. :-D

Isaiah wrote:Atleast not that I know of, English isn't my primary language so sorry for all the grammar mistakes in my posts :mrgreen:


It's not my first language either. :mrgreen:

Isaiah wrote:Meanwhile, the atheist shakes his head in disgust, sits behind his desk and scrolls through another blog in his civilized country achieving more and more intellect.


Meanwhile, atheists and free-thinkers are tortured and murdered for expressing themselves online in uncivilised countries like Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. You only make it easier for the ABT with such remarks.

Isaiah wrote:ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE YOUR BELIEVE UPON ME? :mrgreen:


Disbelief. You seem to think atheists necessarily believe there is no god. (The only public one I know of who does this is Penn Jillette.) This is a common misconception. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, gods or deities because there is no evidence for such. In the same vein, I don't believe in fairies or goblins either. Why believe in something for which there is no evidence?

Isaiah wrote:First of all I'm not a member of any religion but I wouldn't claim myself to be atheist either. While I don't acknowledge a certain god I don't deny the existence of god either. I just don't know.


This is known as agnosticism and it is--in my opinion--a weak position adopted by uninformed individuals who ludicrously assume that God is a 50/50 scenario in probability. I'm sorry to break it to you but God is as probable as the tooth fairy. There is evidence for His absence and none for His interfering hand in the universe as putatively illustrated in scriptures. It's more of a 90-1 scenario (God being the 1%).

The 1% would be the Creator believed by deists--who made the universe and abandoned it--an entity unworthy of worship. But even physicists can come up with richer theories for how the universe arose from quantum fluctuations (a state of nothingness has enormous potential to become something at the subatomic level) which do not require a divine hand. (Hence the Big Bang and Hubble's Law; forget the Biblical god, btw, this is definitely made up :lol:)

Here is a topic authored by me which makes the idea of God so ludicrous as to make you ashamed of your agnosticism ... :mrgreen:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=15030

Dude did you type all of this on your phone? Respect :shock:


Yeah, I did. I must be pretty amazing. 8-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Isaiah
Posts: 7
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 17:44
Location: Belgium

Re: ABT: Killing Cyber-infidels for Allah

Postby Isaiah » 23 Oct 2015 19:19

Aaaand...he typed it again on his phone...Must be a miracle, God sent you? :mrgreen:

Summerlander wrote: I'm sorry but I disagree with these statements. People continue to have public debates about these issues--as they should--and ideas are exchanged. What we have mentioned here doesn't even cover the full extent of pertinent discourse around the world. :-)


Public debates... ;) People think and talk too much instead of taking action.

Summerlander wrote: As an atheist I can tell you that my secularism is not just based on the negative aspects of religion. It is also the fact that religion tells you to believe in things without evidence--passing them off as the 'unquestionable truth'--which is the very antithesis of science and reason. And hence my disbelief. 8-)


Well that's kinda negative too...

Summerlander wrote: This is simply false and a common misconception at that. Way before Christ, philosophers such as Socrates and Confucius had already thought of golden rules and described types of ethical conduct and morality far superior to the Bible's commandments. The good and brotherhood of people as survival traits are products of evolution. If we hadn't formed tribes--and then nations--and didn't help one another, we wouldn't have survived this long. (We would have gone extinct like most of the species that ever lived on Earth.) Religion tends to cause wars and certainly hijacks the inherent good of human beings by saying it is the product of an invisible superpowerful being who is--more likely than not, let's face it--imaginary.


These tribes and nations often use religion to empower their rules. It's also these tribes and nations that cause war, not necessarily the religion.

Summerlander wrote: And it is usually the other way around: it is religion that tends to be late in maturing and catching up with morality and civility. That's why we have mostly jettisoned immolation as a method to appease the gods and have become more united than ever (compared to mankind in the Dark Ages the difference is monumental).


ARE we more united than ever?

Summerlander wrote: Did you know that the Church made a deal with the Nazis? The Holy See helped Hitler to find Jews and in return the Pope was given monopoly over birth, marriage, education, and death. Some dirty deal and here we find religion, as usual, being officially on the wrong side! Furthermore, the Bible supports racism; slavery; genocide; rape and torture--some perfectly good God! (More like a man-made imaginary tyrant, me thinks; a celestial Mob boss) :mrgreen:


I didn't know all that but we are talking about religion here, not institutions. I'm trying to view all this from a regular religious guy's point of view.

Summerlander wrote: People who are brave enough to go against the majority are known as revolutionaries and tend to be independent thinkers. Better nations have been built because of such people and their bravery is laudable. Such contrarians may be arrested, some are even killed, but they have already spoken and written down their ideas for others to examine and ponder over in order to reach pragmatic perspectives. Improvement can come from revolutions. (And, granted, sometimes new dictatorships are established.) It depends on whether you're a sheep ... or a shepherd! ;-)


And again, some are even killed. It depends on what side you are on to justify it or not.

Summerlander wrote: Actually, no it's not. A democracy is a system in which everyone has a voice; every vote counts; and everyone is free to express themselves. People are also free to act provided that their actions aren't dangerous. Democracies certainly do not/should not permit majorities to murder minorities. This is tyranny. Public opinion changes with time and roles can be reversed.


In a perfect democracy every vote counts. But give me one example of that.

Summerlander wrote: It's not my first language either. :mrgreen:


Well you mastered the official vocabulary, I'll give you that.

Summerlander wrote: Meanwhile, atheists and free-thinkers are tortured and murdered for expressing themselves online in uncivilised countries like Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. You only make it easier for the ABT with such remarks.


Again, what you gonna do about it? Shake your head in disgust? :mrgreen:

Summerlander wrote: Disbelief. You seem to think atheists necessarily believe there is no god. (The only public one I know of who does this is Penn Jillette.) This is a common misconception. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, gods or deities because there is no evidence for such. In the same vein, I don't believe in fairies or goblins either. Why believe in something for which there is no evidence?


Isn't your evidence written in books too? Tell me the short version of how you believe (disbelieve?) the world was created.

Summerlander wrote: This is known as agnosticism and it is--in my opinion--a weak position adopted by uninformed individuals who ludicrously assume that God is a 50/50 scenario in probability. I'm sorry to break it to you but God is as probable as the tooth fairy. There is evidence for His absence and none for His interfering hand in the universe as putatively illustrated in scriptures. It's more of a 90-1 scenario (God being the 1%).

The 1% would be the Creator believed by deists--who made the universe and abandoned it--an entity unworthy of worship. But even physicists can come up with richer theories for how the universe arose from quantum fluctuations (a state of nothingness has enormous potential to become something at the subatomic level) which do not require a divine hand. (Hence the Big Bang and Hubble's Law; forget the Biblical god, btw, this is definitely made up :lol:)


In my opinion it's better to accept that you don't know than not knowing and claiming theories as the truth. I don't know and I don't care, that's the way I do it. Unless you got a 100% theory of course, in that case pass it on to me.


PS: Sorry for the short (and I realized after going through it again sometimes brute) replies. No means to offend, to each their own. I was typing long stuff and I was almost done when my computer went down and it didn't save anything and now I'm pissed off :twisted:
Wonder why a lone wolf don't run with a clan
Only trust your instincts and be one with the plan


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests