Countering Muslim Stereotypes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.

I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.

Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief!

Whoa this tread got off topic.

Anyway, I stereo typically see atheists as arrogant and narrow minded folk. We have only five senses and a limited reasoning capability. Saying that, that is all we know and can be known is just very shallow based on what we can sense and reason. At very worst the most reasonable thing to be is agnostic, which allows for all possibilities and allows the possibility for God to exist or not exist.
A lot of people seem to have a beef with what God does or does not do, and because He does not behave as they feel He should, he therefore does not exist.

You seem to have a strange definition of atheism. Atheism is just not beieving in any god. Anything else that you attach to it is not atheism. Yes there are a lot of preachy intellectual types currently writing about, talking about and promoting atheism but this is due to how ingrained religion is in our society and how prejudiced most people are against people who have no faith.

To be fair there is also an element of popularism. It is a current trend and a fair few authors are seing a buck to be made out of it.[/quote]

Uh, we agree on the definition of Atheism. I am merely saying, that in my personal experience with most atheists, they are so because they cannot reconcile the problem of evil.
Prior to that, I was asserting, that being atheist is not a really viable conclusion…In a universe where anything is possible, where science and reason takes brings us new discoveries every day, it is unreasonable to think that God’s existence is impossible. Hence, a more reasonable approach is to simply be agnostic, that way you leave the door open for such a possibility.

82

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Wait, how is this any different with an atheist? Do muslims view the atheist as the impartial referees of the world? I really don’t think so.

He, the muslim, is probably thinking “of course this Godless heathen thinks I practice Islam incorrectly (or correctly…), he thinks I’m wrong headed for even practicing a religion, period!” So, no, this just can’t be a factor.

I get what you are saying, actually to a Muslim an atheist is damned whereas a Christian is at least of the book. I just think that the whole arguemnt needs to be about the actions, not the religious basis or lack thereof.

If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you.

And when they say, “oh, but we must do this or that as a religious observance!.” Conversation over? Nope.

In which case we are fucked either way! My point is that if you get two football fans in a bar, if they are fans of different teams, they will end up arguing about football. You put a football fan in a bar with someone who doesn’t follow football, they won’t argue about football.

So, basically, you think atheists ared welcomed by the Islamic world in making observations about how the Islamic world needs to be secularized? An atheist, preaching secularization? You don’t think the secularism preaching atheist would be looked at with the same amount of hatred? Or, that he wouldn’t be suspected of harboring his own prejudices? You’re not even one of the people of the book! Run!

I think the atheist is more able to discuss the real route cause of the issues with the Muslim than the Chistian. It makes any ‘My view of God is greater than yours’ argument obsolete so you can get past those and talk about Oil, Food, Water, divisions on maps, trade etc.

Back to the original post, the report definitely could have been grabbed straight from the Onion.[/quote]

Well that is typical atheistic arrogance. Atheism is still a conscious choice, not a lack of choice. You are in fact arguing now that you belief is greater than the belief of a theist.

As a matter of fact atheists have been historically the most barbaric and murderous of all people ever. See Lenin, Stalin, Mao Se Tung, etc. They murdered and oppressed believers in an effort to crush their beliefs by force. Their efforts were wide spread and their body counts in the hundreds of millions.

So don’t come around as atheism is impartial, fair peaceful and reasonable. History judges your lot differently and fairness and impartiality is not part of it.

83

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t be invited to the discussions about how fucked up the Middle East is, what I am saying is that they need to be extremely aware of the prejudices that they carry with them about Islam because of their religion.

Wait, how is this any different with an atheist? Do muslims view the atheist as the impartial referees of the world? I really don’t think so. He, the muslim, is probably thinking “of course this Godless heathen thinks I practice Islam incorrectly (or correctly…), he thinks I’m wrong headed for even practicing a religion, period!” So, no, this just can’t be a factor.

If you starting attacking religious radicals with arguments about their religion then they are able to drum up support for their Holy War and moderates will side with the extremists.

If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you.

And when they say, “oh, but we must do this or that as a religious observance!.” Conversation over? Nope.

It is very hard to have a rationale discussion once religion has been brought into the mix, religion is due to its very nature totally irrational.

So, basically, you think atheists ared welcomed by the Islamic world in making observations about how the Islamic world needs to be secularized? An atheist, preaching secularization? You don’t think the secularism preaching atheist would be looked at with the same amount of hatred? Or, that he wouldn’t be suspected of harboring his own prejudices? You’re not even one of the people of the book! Run![/quote]

I see the nature of religion as very rational. Some people still believe that religion is used as an explanation for things that are unexplainable. I see it as a means of communication to the Creator. It is an interaction with God, not a definition for unexplained phenomenon as we once assumed early man did.

84

I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

85

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Actually Cockney atheism is the belief that there is no god. A belief that the world is as we see it, four dimensional. A belief that we have it all figured out because there is nothing beyond the four dimensions that we are aware of. In it’s own way atheism is a religious belief.

No it isn’t, atheism says absolutely nothing about the world other than there is no god. The rest of what you wrote is not about atheism. Many physicists believe that there are infinite dimensions. Does that mean they can’t be atheist? [/quote]

Atheism is making a call on whether something which we could call god exists. Sure those physicists can be atheists. They just believe that they have it all figured out what is out there and what isn’t.

[quote]
Atheism is only a religious belief in that it is a belief that there is no real basis to religion.

Organized religions may offer an imperfect model of existence, but by the same token some of our theories of physics are imperfect models too. Interestingly though as we learn more about physics and quantum mechanics some of the lines between them and theology are blurring.

that is where you are wrong, a scientific model is a totally different thing to a religious model. A religious model says everything was worked out thousands of years ago, don’t question, don’t challenge, just believe and follow. A scientific model says, this is our current best fit but lets keep testing round to see if we can better support for the model or if we need to change it.

There is a huge difference between the two.

You come across as a stereotypical new age Brit who is looking for something to be indignant about. We don’t blame Lixy el al for the evils of the world, obviously there is a lot of blame for different issues to go around and it can be placed upon a lot more than just religion.

However Islam is a huge problem, because there are over a billion muslims, they have nuclear weapons, a contradictory and twisted sense of right or wrong and a deeply ingrained hatred for anyone who isn’t following god properly.

They have been attacking and killing for centuries because of this. We are under attack now. So no we don’t have to get our “own house in order” before we can complain about what they are doing to us.

So you can save British self righteous indignation for some other place where people will buy into that bollocks.

You could change the word muslim in your rant above for the word Christian and it would be just as true. [/quote]

No it wouldn’t. Muslims have been attacking, enslaving and killing members of other religions right from the beginning of their religion.

Violence is an integral part of Islam. ie Stoning is part of the five pillars of Islam. There is no equivalent in Christianity. Or a lot of other religions for that matter. Jesus taught that stoning was wrong. Jesus taught that killing was wrong, Mohammad’s example is that killing is perfectly acceptable.

[quote]
Any time that the person who has their finger on the button talks to an imaginary friend about whether to press it or not, I worry. [/quote]

The two worst mass murderers in history were atheists. One of them was killed by his own people before he started world war three.

86

[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.[/quote]

Because they are famous atheists who murdered millions of people because of their religion, ding dong, that’s why…Same reason people mention Hitler with the holocaust. It DID happen btw.

87

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Atheism is making a call on whether something which we could call god exists. Sure those physicists can be atheists. They just believe that they have it all figured out what is out there and what isn’t.
[/quote]

And yet, they cannot even tell us why the matter we experience has mass and what “mass” actually is, and why most of the material in the universe does not have the property of mass.

Get your smartest quantum physicist in the world, hand him an apple and ask him, why does that thing have mass. Since all matter is mostly space, why doesn’t is simply just pass through our hands. Oh there are threories, but know body knows.

If science can not explain fully even the simplest object, how can we trust it implicitly as all there is to know, or the only means of knowledge?

88

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Any time that the person who has their finger on the button talks to an imaginary friend about whether to press it or not, I worry.

You have a puzzling stance. You’ve described Islam as a hateful religion yourself. But, you object to any alliance with folks from other religious traditions (specifically Christianity) in pointing out fundamental problems with Islam that make modernity, tolerance, and basic human rights a challenge in much of the Islamic world.

And, which is presently fueling separatism, terrorism, and hatred of the West and it’s values, outside of the Islamic world. Including, in pockets of the the West itself.

You’ve decided that atheists alone are legitimately capable of speaking, or acting, against this. Good luck with that. That’s a hell of burden you’re insisting on carrying alone.

Your stance is that because of historical wrongs, Christians are not invited to stand with atheists to examine root problems fueling Jihad and Islamic supremacy in the here and now. Of course, this doesn’t explain why atheists even have the go ahead to speak to the issue.

After all, it was pointed out in another thread that atheistic regimes aren’t immune to mass brutality and oppression. Now, I realize that from the there you wanted to compare numbers of victims (though we never factored in population demographics past to present in order to make useful comparisons}, but what would these comparisons prove? Why do you feel the atheist alone can stand against jihad, Islamic supremacy, etc., today?

Fair questions, firstly the factoring of totals killed by Atheists or Christians was pretty much tongue in cheek on my part. What went on under Mao and Stalin was totally insane and the numbers of dead were terrifying.

I went to the ‘Museum of Terror’ in Budapest which is basically a big art installation / museum with details of what happened under the various regimes. It put my wife and I in such a depressed mood that we ended up having a huge row (so I guess it was effective.)

I accept that there are Christians in positions of power around the world and that this is unlikely to change in the short term however it worries me when people start mixing religion with politics. When you have powerful world leaders basing their decisions on religion it worries me.[/quote]

If you weren’t so pathetically blind to your contradictions it would be comical. You just admitted that what Mao and Stalin did was terrifying. But then you come back with you are worried by leaders who unlike them have a belief in a higher power.

Obviously the thought has never crossed your mind that Mao and Stalin might have been a little bit nicer if they had believed in eternal damnation for what they were doing.

The simple fact of the matter is that China in the last fifty years would have been a much better place if instead of Mao and his successors they had been led by the Dalai Lama.

[quote]
I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t be invited to the discussions about how fucked up the Middle East is, what I am saying is that they need to be extremely aware of the prejudices that they carry with them about Islam because of their religion. [/quote]

What prejudices are those? That murder is wrong? That stoning is wrong? That killing in the name of religion is wrong? That we should have forgiveness instead of vengeance in our hearts? That for a holyman to truly be a man of god he should be peaceful?

I think you are just throwing shit out there without even thinking about what you are writing.

[quote]
If you starting attacking religious radicals with arguments about their religion then they are able to drum up support for their Holy War and moderates will side with the extremists. [/quote]

What moderates? Mohammad is the one who started the Jihad. All Muslims worship him. If we cannot point out to them what Mohammad was about how are we going to get them to change?

Besides those who are going to be radicalized are going to be one way or another. Worrying about that is going to prevent us from doing what needs to be done.

[quote]
If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you. [/quote]

You are clueless. Just look at Afghanistan. Under the Taliban it was an Islamic shithole with Sharia law. Today it is still an Islamic shithole with Sharia. If the Taliban could not discredit Islam amongst Muslims nothing short of a massive slaughter will.

[quote]
It is very hard to have a rationale discussion once religion has been brought into the mix, religion is due to its very nature totally irrational. [/quote]

If anyone has made this thread become irrational it has been you!

89

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
No it isn’t, atheism says absolutely nothing about the world other than there is no god. The rest of what you wrote is not about atheism. Many physicists believe that there are infinite dimensions. Does that mean they can’t be atheist?

Atheism is only a religious belief in that it is a belief that there is no real basis to religion.

Are you sure you’re an atheist? I’d point toward apathetic agnosticism in your case. That is to say you accept that there may be a higher level of existence, but also accept that we are in no way capable of understanding such a plane of existence, therefore shouldn’t worry about it.

At base I am a scientist. Therefore I will not rule out any option but will go with the one that has the most supporting evidence. [/quote]

You are so full of it. What supporting evidence can you claim proves atheism is correct?

[quote]
The Universe model works fine with no god therefore I see no reason to arbitrarily add a god. There may be a god but from what I understand of the universe the chance of that being the case is so tiny that one might as well live as if there is no god. It’s kind of like a reverse Pascal’s wager. [/quote]

How do you know that the universe doesn’t need some kind of observer to exist?

[quote]
If there is no god I have lost nothing by living as if there is no god.

If there is a god but god doesn’t actually give a flying fuck about humanity then it doesn’t matter whether I believe or not and I might as well save myself the effort of believing.

If there is a god that expects me follow his rules as laid out in the bible then he should have made a little bit more effort to prove his existence to me, he either understands that because he is all knowing, all loving etc and will forgive me, or he is a psychotic fucker and I was fucked anyway.

I don’t see the need to put a label on whether this is atheism, agnosticism or whatever, I am totally against Dawkins stupid and extremely pompous idea that we should call ourselves ‘brights’ or whatever. I just don’t believe in any god.[/quote]

There is a difference between being an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic is open minded and willing to see shades of gray. An atheist is closed minded and sees things in black or white.

90

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Wait, how is this any different with an atheist? Do muslims view the atheist as the impartial referees of the world? I really don’t think so. He, the muslim, is probably thinking “of course this Godless heathen thinks I practice Islam incorrectly (or correctly…), he thinks I’m wrong headed for even practicing a religion, period!” So, no, this just can’t be a factor.

I get what you are saying, actually to a Muslim an atheist is damned whereas a Christian is at least of the book. I just think that the whole arguemnt needs to be about the actions, not the religious basis or lack thereof. [/quote]

To the Muslims a nonbeliever is worse than anyone else. You are worse than an idolater even. The bad thing about your being so clueless is I know there are a lot more just like you back in the UK.

The really bad thing is some of them are in positions of power and the think that they can use and control the passions of the Muslims in order to pursue their own agenda. They are playing with fire and they don’t have a clue.

The argument about actions needs to be based upon the ideology of the religion that is causing it.

[quote]
If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you. [/quote]

What moderates? Islam is not a religion of moderation. One of the main tenets of Islam is that Muslims are to be fanatically religious. Fanatical people do fanatical things. Negative consequences mean little to them because to them there is a bigger picture of going to paradise.

[quote]
And when they say, “oh, but we must do this or that as a religious observance!.” Conversation over? Nope.

In which case we are fucked either way! My point is that if you get two football fans in a bar, if they are fans of different teams, they will end up arguing about football. You put a football fan in a bar with someone who doesn’t follow football, they won’t argue about football. [/quote]

Religion is not football. But to use your ridiculous analogy when you put a footballer in a bar with a soccer player they may able to find common ground and get along. But put a rugger with the footballer soccer player in a bar, the rugger is liable to say that rugby is for men while they are a bunch of poofters! And they are probably not going to want to disagree with him.

My point is you think that somehow atheism is neutral ground. So by default Muslims are more likely to listen to you than Christians. You are deluding yourself.

[quote]
So, basically, you think atheists ared welcomed by the Islamic world in making observations about how the Islamic world needs to be secularized? An atheist, preaching secularization? You don’t think the secularism preaching atheist would be looked at with the same amount of hatred? Or, that he wouldn’t be suspected of harboring his own prejudices? You’re not even one of the people of the book! Run!

I think the atheist is more able to discuss the real route cause of the issues with the Muslim than the Chistian. It makes any ‘My view of God is greater than yours’ argument obsolete so you can get past those and talk about Oil, Food, Water, divisions on maps, trade etc. [/quote]

Here you prove what I am saying. You really do think that you are better equipped to be able to understand Muslims than a Christian is. Despite the fact that you have less in common with either one than they have with each other.

You show your delusional arrogance. As a non believer you are much more likely to be considered as the voice of Satan trying to mislead the faithful than anything else.

You have repeatedly said that religious scripture is fairy tales, that people are stupid to believe. Yet unlike you, a Christian can understand why a Muslim would take their religious scripture seriously and follow it. If you weren’t so arrogant you would understand that.

[quote]
Back to the original post, the report definitely could have been grabbed straight from the Onion. [/quote]

91

[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.[/quote]

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

92

[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

[/quote]

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

93

[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

[/quote]

Now you are trying to split hairs and not doing a good job of it either. Mao and Stalin certainly purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs. Just look at all the Buddhist temples in Tibet that were destroyed by Mao’s troops.

94

[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

Now you are trying to split hairs and not doing a good job of it either. Mao and Stalin certainly purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs. Just look at all the Buddhist temples in Tibet that were destroyed by Mao’s troops.

[/quote]

Aha.

They “purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs”.

So what religious beliefs did they have?

And how can you call them atheists then?

95

[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

[/quote]

How do you do something in the name of which does not exist? The fact still is, that these most famous of atheists killed millions of people because they did not believe as they did. That would be tantamount to killing in the name of atheism would it not? Or should they be shouting as they pump hot lead in to 200 Catholic school children, “I slay thee in the name of great nothingness!!!” “Long live nothing!”

96

[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

Now you are trying to split hairs and not doing a good job of it either. Mao and Stalin certainly purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs. Just look at all the Buddhist temples in Tibet that were destroyed by Mao’s troops.

Aha.

They “purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs”.

So what religious beliefs did they have?

And how can you call them atheists then?[/quote]

Atheism IS a belief, because despite evidence to the contrary, you still believe in nothingness.

97

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

How do you do something in the name of which does not exist? The fact still is, that these most famous of atheists killed millions of people because they did not believe as they did. That would be tantamount to killing in the name of atheism would it not? Or should they be shouting as they pump hot lead in to 200 Catholic school children, “I slay thee in the name of great nothingness!!!” “Long live nothing!”
[/quote]

Did they believe in “atheism”?

Funny, where I come from we call them Nazis and Communists.

98

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how everytime atheism is discussed, people have to bring up Lenin, Mao and the gand.

Do they teach this at school? It’s a serious question.

I think they get brought up because of the irony of it all.

Atheists will whine about all the killing that has happened because of religion, but two atheists, Mao and Stalin were responsible for killing on an unprecedented scale that puts everyone else to shame.

It really undermines the argument that atheists would be more peaceful.

It is just that that argument was never made-

The actual argument was that nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism whereas the same cannot be said about religion.

Now you are trying to split hairs and not doing a good job of it either. Mao and Stalin certainly purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs. Just look at all the Buddhist temples in Tibet that were destroyed by Mao’s troops.

Aha.

They “purged religious people because they had different religious beliefs”.

So what religious beliefs did they have?

And how can you call them atheists then?

Atheism IS a belief, because despite evidence to the contrary, you still believe in nothingness.[/quote]

So?

Who was ever killed for the general idea that their is no God?

99

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Wait, how is this any different with an atheist? Do muslims view the atheist as the impartial referees of the world? I really don’t think so.

He, the muslim, is probably thinking “of course this Godless heathen thinks I practice Islam incorrectly (or correctly…), he thinks I’m wrong headed for even practicing a religion, period!” So, no, this just can’t be a factor.

I get what you are saying, actually to a Muslim an atheist is damned whereas a Christian is at least of the book. I just think that the whole arguemnt needs to be about the actions, not the religious basis or lack thereof.

If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you.

And when they say, “oh, but we must do this or that as a religious observance!.” Conversation over? Nope.

In which case we are fucked either way! My point is that if you get two football fans in a bar, if they are fans of different teams, they will end up arguing about football. You put a football fan in a bar with someone who doesn’t follow football, they won’t argue about football.

So, basically, you think atheists ared welcomed by the Islamic world in making observations about how the Islamic world needs to be secularized? An atheist, preaching secularization? You don’t think the secularism preaching atheist would be looked at with the same amount of hatred? Or, that he wouldn’t be suspected of harboring his own prejudices? You’re not even one of the people of the book! Run!

I think the atheist is more able to discuss the real route cause of the issues with the Muslim than the Chistian. It makes any ‘My view of God is greater than yours’ argument obsolete so you can get past those and talk about Oil, Food, Water, divisions on maps, trade etc.

Back to the original post, the report definitely could have been grabbed straight from the Onion.

Well that is typical atheistic arrogance. Atheism is still a conscious choice, not a lack of choice. You are in fact arguing now that you belief is greater than the belief of a theist.

As a matter of fact atheists have been historically the most barbaric and murderous of all people ever. See Lenin, Stalin, Mao Se Tung, etc. They murdered and oppressed believers in an effort to crush their beliefs by force. Their efforts were wide spread and their body counts in the hundreds of millions.

So don’t come around as atheism is impartial, fair peaceful and reasonable. History judges your lot differently and fairness and impartiality is not part of it.[/quote]

We have already talked about Mao et al. They were not barbaric because they were atheist. They were atheist and barbaric.

You can call it arrogant if you like but that would be like saying that someone who believes that the earth is round is arrogant compared to someone who believes the world is flat.

My beliefs are based on evidence and my beliefs are open to change based on new evidence. Religious belief by definition rejects evidence and is intransigent.

100

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Atheism is making a call on whether something which we could call god exists. Sure those physicists can be atheists. They just believe that they have it all figured out what is out there and what isn’t.
[/quote]

No they don’t otherwise they would pack up now and stop researching things. Scientists are looking to prove why their existing model is wrong so that they can improve it. Religious people are sticking their fingers in their ears and going “lalallalallalallaliwillnotlistentoanyevidencetothecontrary”

[quote]No it wouldn’t. Muslims have been attacking, enslaving and killing members of other religions right from the beginning of their religion.

Violence is an integral part of Islam. ie Stoning is part of the five pillars of Islam. There is no equivalent in Christianity. Or a lot of other religions for that matter. Jesus taught that stoning was wrong. Jesus taught that killing was wrong, Mohammad’s example is that killing is perfectly acceptable.
[/quote]

And the leaders of the Christian church have supported violent acts from the inquisition to the crusades to the Nazis to modern invasions in Iraq. The Christian faith is built on the violent murder of its leading figure.

[quote]
The two worst mass murderers in history were atheists. One of them was killed by his own people before he started world war three. [/quote]

This is totally irrelevant. They were not violent because they were atheist and they were actually both brought up in religious households. It would be just as sensible to blame that for their killing as to blame their atheism.