[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
His kind of Muslim is in favor of the methods used by Islamic terrorists including the bombing of markets. He is also in favor of rape of young girls, murder of homosexuals and a litany of other crimes.
And let’s not forget, throwing puppies off cliffs.[/quote]
Further, let’s not forget tying, bombs to babies, pregnant women and mental disabled people…
[quote]lixy wrote:
There is no central authority in Islam, and there has never been since the death of the prophet Mohamed. I like it better that way, than having some self-proclaimed guru with an alleged divine channel telling me what the Quran is.[/quote]
The down side is that it makes it very hard to reform anything centrally. How long can a religion unable to adapt to modern times last?
Every time a verse is brought up that seems to condone violence, killing, oppression of women or some other inhumane act; the verses are “excused” somehow by invoking various excuses… The problem is that none of those excuses are actually in the text. At least, not that I can find. Yes, I can find websites repeating the excuses, but why doesn’t the Koran itself just mention that a surah, or some group of verses, are for a particular war and not universally applicable.
I don’t see many disclaimers in the text itself.
[quote]American aren’t really starving. Yet, 90%+ of them are believers.
But I got your point nonetheless.[/quote]
Good. I was going to point out that the ol’US of A certainly isn’t at the forefront of public welfare programs.
I probably should also factor education in there somewhere.
I was wrong. After checking with wikipedia ( Religion in Canada - Wikipedia ) is seems that non-religious people are actually in 3rd place. Their proportion went from 12% in 1991 to 16% in 2001.
Although Islam was the “fastest growing religion” in that period, it went from 0.9% to 2.0%.
Damn. The job would be so much easier.
Basically, I’d go for fairness for everyone. No more fiscal paradises where rich corporations can hide profits and not contribute back. Health care for everyone. Good education (in the sense of teaching people how to think for themselves; not what they’re expected to think.)
Of course, I’d probably get shot during my first week as “President of The World.”
It’s a good call. But be careful not to feed the repressive elites. It seems the richest Arab countries are also the most fundamentalist. A mere correlation, I suppose.[/quote]
A lot of the rich Arab countries have rich leaders, but relatively poor populations. There’s also the matter of education. If your entire curriculum consists of “Allah is Great 101” and “USA is the Great Satan 101,” you’re unlikely to end up with a population of independent thinkers.
Fair enough.
Love of Mankind. We can accomplish great things when we stop hating each other long enough to put our minds toward accomplishing great, noble goals.
I just wish I didn’t have to go back to 1973 and the global eradication of smallpox to find an example of a great global project that benefited the entirety of humankind, regardless of race, income, religion, political affiliation, age, sex, etc.
Er… did you mean that the other way around, or are you actually saying that the Chinese could learn a few brutal tricks from muslims?
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
What’s even more interesting is that said false a-ya (surah means whole chapter!) is getting bumped up on Youtube, and I’m pretty certain that many in here could have taken the OP’s word for it.
I’m not too concerned for two reasons. One, the kind of people who won’t bother checking it out are simply not going to change their mind anyway. Two, there are plenty of real verses much worse than that made up one.
Anyway, you know full well that those verses you claim are “calling for homicide if not genocide” came in a historical context and that there is no way I, nor any of the Muslims, I know would interpret them in the way you do.
Any of the muslims? You’ve interviewed each one individually I take it?
Also, if it’s only relevant historically, where’s the admonition informing us of that fact? Better, why not re-edit a modern “valid for today’s world” version of the Koran with the historical non-applicable parts in some clearly labeled annex?
Much confusion would be avoided. With the current situation, you sound exactly like any Christian apologetic who tried to defend difficult passages of the Bible by invoking historical context.
There is plenty of info on the web if you’re seriously willing to understand that surah, and I know that you are smart enough to do it yourself.
I have no interest in that surah, or any of the others. I’ve read enough of it (the Koran) to know that as a guide for life, it’s about a thousand years out of date.
How do you you propose to do that when atheists are clearly outnumbered? Also, considering that Islam is the fastest growing religion on the planet, how do you plan to relegate it to the pages of history books.
If we can improve the life of enough people around the globe, I believe it will come of itself.
Religions feed of despair and hopelessness. They prosper wonderfully when people are poor, starving, sick and oppressed. Situations that, unfortunately, describe much of the middle east and other muslim regions around the globe.
If you look at the western countries with the best social programs, you find that higher and higher proportions of people claim to be atheist or non-religious. In Norway, some polls have that group as high as 70%… in Canada, I remember reading that recently, “Atheist/Non-Religious” became the 4th largest group behind Protestants/Catholics/Muslims as was the group that had made the most progress.
I think when people have a reasonable expectation of being able to provide a minimal level of support for their families, when their health is provided for and they feel that they can live in a fairly level playing field, many tend to lose the “fire” of devout faith. You don’t need to pray to an imaginary deity and make imaginary bargains with it in hope of bettering your lot in life when the society you live in is humane enough to do it by itself.
Take away the reasons for seeing the world with an “us vs. them” mentality, and I believe that a lot of people will be content with a more personal form of spirituality and much less inclined to follow fanatic religious leaders.
Of course, from where we are now to where we’d need to be for this to even have a chance of happening, there is a enormous amount of work to be done, but it’s not impossible. We’re talking many, many generations here, but if you look at history, the most advanced societies tend to propagate and slowly bring the rest of the world in their wake. There will be much resistance from leaders, religious and political, who profit from the status quo. But as technology such as the internet proliferates, and that more and more people have access to information and are able to communicate, I think most of the power structures that rely on obscurantism and propaganda to survive will fall by the wayside or be forced to change enough to be acceptable to modern societies.
Seriously, what concrete steps would you take if you were put in charge?
In charge of what? The entire Earth? Do I get magical powers too?
[/quote]
I wish I could think like you…Alas, the only way I could become an atheist is if I had ALL the answers. I am not worried about atheism taking over ever. It’s a hopeless belief system. I a world full of suffering, hope is all that keep many going. If you have nothing, not even hope, your dead already.
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
There is no central authority in Islam, and there has never been since the death of the prophet Mohamed. I like it better that way, than having some self-proclaimed guru with an alleged divine channel telling me what the Quran is.
The down side is that it makes it very hard to reform anything centrally. How long can a religion unable to adapt to modern times last? [/quote]
Islam, as I understand it, is pretty safe. It will survive till the end of times.
My beef with Islam is with the inheritance code that gives the male twice what the female gets. It is in the Quran, and I just can’t find a way to justify that. That one bugs me a lot.
[quote]Every time a verse is brought up that seems to condone violence, killing, oppression of women or some other inhumane act; the verses are “excused” somehow by invoking various excuses… The problem is that none of those excuses are actually in the text. At least, not that I can find. Yes, I can find websites repeating the excuses, but why doesn’t the Koran itself just mention that a surah, or some group of verses, are for a particular war and not universally applicable.
I don’t see many disclaimers in the text itself. [/quote]
That’s the way it is. You are entrusted to make your own interpretation of the words of God. While it encourages education, it is also an open-door for whackjobs to push for whatever agenda they have.
[quote]Good. I was going to point out that the ol’US of A certainly isn’t at the forefront of public welfare programs.
I probably should also factor education in there somewhere. [/quote]
Agreed.
I can feel RJ lurking to slam that one.
Explains the Canadian quality of life?
The statement was “fastest growing religion in the world” not “fastest growing religion in Canada”.
[quote]Basically, I’d go for fairness for everyone. No more fiscal paradises where rich corporations can hide profits and not contribute back. Health care for everyone. Good education (in the sense of teaching people how to think for themselves; not what they’re expected to think.)
Of course, I’d probably get shot during my first week as “President of The World.” [/quote]
I’d vote for you.
[quote]It’s a good call. But be careful not to feed the repressive elites. It seems the richest Arab countries are also the most fundamentalist. A mere correlation, I suppose.
A lot of the rich Arab countries have rich leaders, but relatively poor populations. There’s also the matter of education. If your entire curriculum consists of “Allah is Great 101” and “USA is the Great Satan 101,” you’re unlikely to end up with a population of independent thinkers. [/quote]
Most people believe that there’s causality between lack of wealth and poor education.
I’m ambivalent on that one.
Substitute Arab leaders for Muslims, and that’s exactly what I meant.
I mean, the Western leadership is outraged at the Chinese human rights record and slams them any chance they get. Boycott of the Olympics comes to mind. Worse thing happen under the tyrannical Arab leaders and everybody’s smiling at them and felicitating them for their “reforms”.
As I see it, it’s because the Chinese have the nation’s best interest at heart - whether you agree with their methods or not is another story. The Arab leaders have one thing in mind: enrich themselves and their families. The country can crumble for all they care. It is this difference, which benefits Western investors, that make them buddies with the Arabs while slamming the Chinese. You can see a similar trend in Latin America.
How will “freeing people economically” avert jihad terrorism? The guys that just tried to bomb the airport in the UK were doctors. Al-Zawahiri is a doctor by trade. OBL is the son of a fantastically wealthy sheik. Many of these jihadists are well educated and with plenty of financial means.
[quote]pat wrote:
I wish I could think like you…Alas, the only way I could become an atheist is if I had ALL the answers.[/quote]
No one has all the answers. Especially not atheists. We have way more unanswered questions than you do.
If you don’t have an answer to a difficult question, does making one up really make you feel better?
It’s actually the lack of a belief system. And it doesn’t need to take over; it just needs enough adherents to prevent the worst nutcases from taking over.
I simply observe that countries with solid social programs also tend to be the countries with the most “non-religious” respondents in polls.
Maybe there is a better explanation, but I think that if people have less reasons to feel hopeless, then they also have less reasons to believe in God.
Nice sound bite. Doesn’t really mean anything, though.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Islam, as I understand it, is pretty safe. It will survive till the end of times.[/quote]
Do you think that after The Singularity, the machines will convert themselves to it?
Just kidding. There’s no way to settle that question.
If it was just inheritance laws… I pretty much have a beef with the way most muslim societies treat women from cradle to grave.
You’d think that God would manage to be A) clear and not requiring interpretation and B) Whackjob proof. Isn’t He or She supposed to have a Divine Intellect to work from?
I didn’t mention Shithole, Texas; so I feel pretty safe.
I’m not sure I understand your question. The increase in “non-religious” respondents does not explain the Canadian quality of life. It’s the other way around: The CQoL explains the rise in non-religiosity. You can be poor and sick in Canada, but you have to put some real effort into it.
Ok. It’s still true for Canada for that period.
Thanks for costing me the entire T-Nation vote…
[quote]Most people believe that there’s causality between lack of wealth and poor education.
I’m ambivalent on that one.[/quote]
It’s possible. Lack of wealth often means going hungry or being sick. It’s also often present in abusive households. It probably doesn’t make for the best learning environment, no matter how great the school or how gifted the teachers are.
Guess the Arab leaders have bought more politicians than the Chinese have.
Seriously, what can we realistically do with Saudi Arabia? Tell them to keep their dirty oil? I’m sure a lot of people would support reforming Saudi Arabia (and other oppressive regimes); they’re just not ready to see their kids die of hypothermia during winter to reach that goal.
I think one of the difference is that many Arab countries get rich from oil, which requires very little involvement from the population, once the installations are in place.
The Chinese have become the world’s supplier of everything because the resource they have in abundance is labor. You can’t really exploit that resource without at least a minimal regard to your population’s well being.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
How will “freeing people economically” avert jihad terrorism? The guys that just tried to bomb the airport in the UK were doctors. Al-Zawahiri is a doctor by trade. OBL is the son of a fantastically wealthy sheik. Many of these jihadists are well educated and with plenty of financial means. [/quote]
But how many of those guys have family members who died because of the West’s foreign policies? Or who have families back home who are living in abject poverty and have very little chances of ever being able to end it because the repressive regime under which they live is backed up by the West?
Just because you’re educated doesn’t mean you’ll never consider doing violence to others. Just look at the enrollment in the Armed Forces after 9/11; quite a few well-educated, rich Americans were quite willing to go abroad and kill whoever it was that had done that. Imagine that all your life you’ve heard of friends and family members dying and that the blame has always - rightly or wrongly - been placed at the West’s feet. Might that anger not be sufficient for you to consider violent retribution?
If we could free all those people economically, it wouldn’t translate into zero terrorism instantly. But I’m pretty sure that after a few generations, we’d have a lot more people interested in dealing and trading with us than in killing us.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I wish I could think like you…Alas, the only way I could become an atheist is if I had ALL the answers.
No one has all the answers. Especially not atheists. We have way more unanswered questions than you do.
If you don’t have an answer to a difficult question, does making one up really make you feel better?
I am not worried about atheism taking over ever. It’s a hopeless belief system.
It’s actually the lack of a belief system. And it doesn’t need to take over; it just needs enough adherents to prevent the worst nutcases from taking over.
[/quote]
It is a belief system and a religious one at that. You have made a choice and that choice guides every facet of your behavior and thought process. Therefore it is a belief and a guide as to how you are to behave and interact with the world around you.
With out all the answers, you still operate on faith.
I don’t and never have believed in making up answers to questions, nor do I believe in shoving square pegs into round holes. If something doesn’t fit it doesn’t fit.
Sure it does. In psychology it’s called learned helplessness. It is just giving up. If you are in a desperate situation and you give up trying to improve it or get out of it, it will likely kill you.
I think you paint all theists with the same brush, as kooky sheep who just follow mindlessly with out rhyme or reason. That God is the answer to everything and that we are just passing time until we can jump over to the next life.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
How will “freeing people economically” avert jihad terrorism? The guys that just tried to bomb the airport in the UK were doctors. Al-Zawahiri is a doctor by trade. OBL is the son of a fantastically wealthy sheik. Many of these jihadists are well educated and with plenty of financial means.
But how many of those guys have family members who died because of the West’s foreign policies? Or who have families back home who are living in abject poverty and have very little chances of ever being able to end it because the repressive regime under which they live is backed up by the West?
Just because you’re educated doesn’t mean you’ll never consider doing violence to others. Just look at the enrollment in the Armed Forces after 9/11; quite a few well-educated, rich Americans were quite willing to go abroad and kill whoever it was that had done that. Imagine that all your life you’ve heard of friends and family members dying and that the blame has always - rightly or wrongly - been placed at the West’s feet. Might that anger not be sufficient for you to consider violent retribution?
If we could free all those people economically, it wouldn’t translate into zero terrorism instantly. But I’m pretty sure that after a few generations, we’d have a lot more people interested in dealing and trading with us than in killing us.
[/quote]
We have no way of knowing a priori whether Western backed dictatorships would be better or worse than the ones the people of these countries would elect themselves. We recently pushed for elections in Pakistan, and we’ll have to live with the results, just as we will with the election of Hamas in “Palestine” and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The latter base their platform on jihad.
I certainly favor a sort of Ron Paulesque non-interventionism because, more often than not, our State department doesn’t know what it’s doing. But I also believe that with the Arabs, they’re getting the level of government they deserve. They want it both ways: to maintain an Islamic form of government and a society built on Islam, and a society that produces good wealth and freedom. The two are utterly incompatible.
The West we have today sprung out of the Enlightenment, which (in my view) use the idea that man is entitled to rights and dignity. Islam states that we must all submit to the will of Allah and be his slaves. Freedom in the West and slavery in Islamdom. The cultural presuppositions influence the government and culture.
The idea that people are living in abject poverty because of Western-backed dictators doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. China has been influenced a ton by the West and it’s economy is growing at 17% a year. India is also growing a ton as well. Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand are starting to experience the same thing due to Western manufacturing. The West is interested in making money. It’s god is money.
If the family members of these Islamists are dead, it’s likely that they were killed in the process of starting some form of revolt, like Hassan al-Banna or Sayyid Qutb. Perhaps they should work more towards a secular democracy rather than reviving the Caliphate.
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
Islam, as I understand it, is pretty safe. It will survive till the end of times.
Do you think that after The Singularity, the machines will convert themselves to it? [/quote]
I’ll take Asimovism any day of the week.
You don’t know Muslim societies like I do. Most women wouldn’t trade places with your wife or daughter for all the diamonds in Africa.
Whether it stems from independent thinking or just brainwashing is yet to be established.
Then there would be no point in testing us. Might just have kept Adam and Eve in Paradise…
[quote]Explains the Canadian quality of life?
I’m not sure I understand your question. The increase in “non-religious” respondents does not explain the Canadian quality of life. It’s the other way around: The CQoL explains the rise in non-religiosity. You can be poor and sick in Canada, but you have to put some real effort into it. [/quote]
I was asking about the low crime rates and the relative lack of political rifts. I think “non-religiosity” may be behind those things.
Snappy!
Probably right.
Honestly, I’ll be content if Arab leaders get half the trash talk directed at the Chinese by the mainstream media. And stop giving them money! That’s how they buy guns to oppress us.
[quote]I think one of the difference is that many Arab countries get rich from oil, which requires very little involvement from the population, once the installations are in place.
The Chinese have become the world’s supplier of everything because the resource they have in abundance is labor. You can’t really exploit that resource without at least a minimal regard to your population’s well being. [/quote]
Very true.
I have a lot more respect for Lixy’s opinions than many on the site. As for my religious beliefs they point towards an “equal opportunity god”.
This is why I have a specific diagreement with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. The core is the issue of a final immutable revelation. Mainstream Christianity is continually redefining itself and trying to understand the “will of God”. I except literalist Christians here, thankfully a minute minority on this side of the Atlantic. Muslims do not have this option, however. The Qur’an is God’s direct word and cannot be changed. As Lixy points out, female inheritance was a major boost for female emancipation in AH 0, but do we view it as fair today?
Somehow, I see this exasperated God up there, cursing himself for giving man free will, muttering “I sent them Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and a bevy of prophets. When will they get it?”. I rather like the image, more appealing than the accountant god of traditional religion.
[quote]TQB wrote:
I have a lot more respect for Lixy’s opinions than many on the site. As for my religious beliefs they point towards an “equal opportunity god”.
This is why I have a specific diagreement with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. The core is the issue of a final immutable revelation. Mainstream Christianity is continually redefining itself and trying to understand the “will of God”. I except literalist Christians here, thankfully a minute minority on this side of the Atlantic. Muslims do not have this option, however. The Qur’an is God’s direct word and cannot be changed. As Lixy points out, female inheritance was a major boost for female emancipation in AH 0, but do we view it as fair today?
Somehow, I see this exasperated God up there, cursing himself for giving man free will, muttering “I sent them Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and a bevy of prophets. When will they get it?”. I rather like the image, more appealing than the accountant god of traditional religion.
[/quote]
Are you sure you’re not a Muslim yourself, TQB? You’re dating your history after the hijrah (AH). I sense a little taqiyya here. I guess Qur’anic literalists like yourself will have to explain how 9:5 and 9:29 contribute to the progress of mankind in general, huh?
No. If anything, I would be of the faith of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Quicy Adams. (I am not certain about Monroe, though. Conventional bugger) It went downhill from Jackson onwards.
A #20, I believe.
[quote]pat wrote:
It is a belief system and a religious one at that.[/quote]
Really? And to think that all those years, no one ever told me.
You wouldn’t have a list of atheist dogmas or commandments that I must follow, by any chance? Do we have religious rites to be followed or can I see my boss and ask for days off during our religious holidays?
I think you’re confusing “being an atheist” with “being alive.”
If you look into a crowded hall containing 1000 random people, there should be around 100 atheists. Do you think you can pick them out by simple observation?
Since “every facet of their behavior” will be dictated by their “atheist religion,” you should have no trouble rounding them up, right?
Faith in what? I’m quite satisfied with “we don’t know” as the answer to many questions. What am I worshipping? Ignorance?
Well, technically, you’re not making up the answers yourself. You’re accepting the answers that someone else made up because a lot of people choose to do the same.
The USSR had solid social programs?
Waiting 4 hours in line for a load of bread is not what I had in mind.
Do you read what I write, or do you just type random thoughts below every paragraph?
The quote was: In a world full of suffering, hope is all that keep many going. If you have nothing, not even hope, your dead already.
If you have nothing: No air? No food? No water? No head? Yup, you’re dead, but that’s a truism, not social commentary.
Same thing with the other part. I don’t know anyone who’s suffering who doesn’t hope it will end. Whether your only chance of it happening is through an act of God or whether you can get help from your community is where the difference lies.
But your quote says nothing one way or another. Sounds good, though.
You either read very little of what I write, or you’re using your “atheist religion” brush.
I think it is quite useful, often even beneficial, for believers to believe. It makes them part of a community. If you want to hold political office in America, you pretty much have to claim you believe, regardless of what the Constitution says. A lot of people will immediately trust you more if you say you’re a Christian, even if you’re not exactly the right kind.
Far from thinking that believers believe “without rhyme of reason,” I think that most believe simply out of social convenience. Just the hassle of figuring out how to celebrate a birth (baptism), publicizing a union (marriage) or celebrating the memory of a recently deceased friend (service & funeral) is enough to make one pretend to be a Christian for a few days.
So while I’m entirely convinced that there are benefits and good reasons to believe (or claim to); I still don’t think the beliefs are in things that are True with a capital T.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
We have no way of knowing a priori whether Western backed dictatorships would be better or worse than the ones the people of these countries would elect themselves.[/quote]
No, but at least we’d increase the chance of them blaming themselves for their sucky government.
I’m pretty sure that if Muslim radicals take control of nuclear-capable Pakistan, you’re going to do a lot more than just “live with it.”
The US (and Canada) list Hamas as a terrorist organization and don’t recognize the legitimacy of the elections. I’d hardly call that “living with it.”
How could the Saudis, for example, try and topple their government for something better if you supply them with enough weapons and tanks to ensure that their population will never stand a chance?
I won’t presume to know what they want. I assume that most people there basically want to be able to provide for their families and enjoy life in a peaceful environment. Same as we do.
I don’t know how to get them from where they are today to a better, more modern society, but our constant “meddling” over there doesn’t seem to be helping much. At least not helping them.
Who put Saddam in power? Why? Who engineered the coup to assassinate Mosaddeq in 1953 in Iran? Why? Who supports Saudi Arabia when they are some of the worst human-rights abusers on the planet? Why? Who created Israel and gave it to the Israelis without bothering to ask what the current inhabitants thought about it?
The West has always meddled in the affairs and politics of the region. To pretend that the situation as we find it today is entirely of their doing; or that they like it, is, if nothing else, rather disingenuous.
There’s a difference between “influencing” and intervening directly. China is powerful enough that we can’t push them around. That might be why their 1.3 billion inhabitants don’t all hate our guts and prefer to trade with us rather than try and kill us.
As with China, we don’t meddle as much (anymore) as we do in the Middle East.
Regardless of why their family members or friends died, I was simply pointing out that educating someone is no guarantee against them hating us.
Assuming that Saudi Arabians wanted a secular democracy, how could they go about getting one, seeing as how we’d help them crush any efforts toward that goal, in the name of “keeping stability in the region?”
As a believer, I agree! Atheism, including atheism backed by an atheist/secular state, is not a religion. In another thread I brought up brutality and oppression committed in the name of State Atheism against religious folk. These excesses of atheism were explained away as being of a religious nature. An atheistic regime was suddenly a “quasi-religious” regime. All to avoid acknowledging instances of atheistic extremism. And, effectively, somehow placing the blame on the religious, if you think about it. It just dishonest. Atheism, even when holding control of the state, is not a religion.
I don’t think so. More than likely they will blame their backwardness on a lack of adherence to Islamic principles, just like they do now. Sayyid Qutb (read him), blamed the backwardness of Islamdom on the amount of “jahiliyyah” (pre-Islamic darkness) creeping back into their society.
You’re not presuming then presuming. When you see Palestinian parents putting bomb-vests on their kids and giving them AK-47s to hold at these Jew-hate rallies, why do you assume they just want to live a quiet peaceful life?
You’re forgetting the Boxer rebellion and all the other crap the West did to China not too long ago. They’re not out waging jihad as a result. Might the lack of divine mandates to wage jihad against the kuffar be part of the Chinese’ ability to move on?
In the case of Saudi, they have just as much influence on us as we on them. They buy our politicians, send bombers, and fund mosques and da’wa centers in our universities. In order to decouple ourselves from them, we need to get their money out of our politics.
The Mossadeq thing is more complicated than you are making it. He was bringing Iran into the Russian sphere of influence. We should have left it alone, obviously, but it was the Iranians themselves that brought Khomeini to power, not us.
Right. Neither will prosperity. We must take them at their word: they hate us for our unbelief.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As a believer, I agree! Atheism, including atheism backed by an atheist/secular state, is not a religion. In another thread I brought up brutality and oppression committed in the name of State Atheism against religious folk. These excesses of atheism were explained away as being of a religious nature. An atheistic regime was suddenly a “quasi-religious” regime. All to avoid acknowledging instances of atheistic extremism. And, effectively, somehow placing the blame on the religious, if you think about it. It just dishonest. Atheism, even when holding control of the state, is not a religion.[/quote]
Thank you.
Although, I have to admit that I don’t get the point of those “believers/non-believers have killed more throughout history” debates.
What is answering that question supposed to settle?
Flat-Eathers, at this point, probably have killed less people than us Round-Earthers, but that doesn’t make the Earth flat.