Like Tree298Likes

Soldier beheaded in Woolwich, UK. Sickening.

Closed Thread
Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 42 47 48 49 50 51 LastLast
  1. #491

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913

    Raccon, Usehername, you might find this interesting:



    Yes, the current focus is on whether or not Sharia law ought to be permitted as between two consenting adults in a domestic context, however, this isn't a problem confined to Islam. This is a serious problem in NYC in the context of extremist Judaism. Hasidic Jews even have their own form of rogue religious police enforcement in Brooklyn.

    Raccon, it is too simplistic to say "Sharia law has not business in the west". Sharia law, as is currently applied in the west, is a voluntary quasi judicial system which deals with (1) domestic matters (i.e. financial disputes) and (2) matters outside of the jursidiction of the UK legal system (e.g. ruling on divorcing marriages not registered/recognised in the UK).

    This, as a concept, is not dissimilar to two consenting adults agreeing to forego the UK court adjudication in dispute resolution for other forms of dispute resolution such as mediation, arbitration or expert determination. The concept is the same: apply a different and more suitable (to the particular circumstance) method of dispute resolution which circumvents the need to go to court.

    Yes, some militant atheists are terrified that "in twenty years time" we will all be bearded and veiled and all subject to Sharia law. The reality is that it will never happen. The most that could happen is a type of system that militant Jews have implemented. This, however, is more than enough to be concerned about. It isn't conducive to prohibit the free will of people, but it is conducive to put a noose around it so that the same "community privileges" hasidic jews have aren't replicated.

    I actually think that these satellite quasi-judicial sharia law courts are fine - in fact, should be promoted. It is the best of both worlds. You can subscribe to your own religion and mode of dispute resolution in a country who doesn't accept it in a judicial sense (but certainly does not prohibit it) and you're also free to not subscribe to that. That's a luxury that people in Middle Eastern countries don't have. Why clog up the UK court system with complicated disputes that invariably involve matters of foreign law (which, if the UK court agreed it had jurisdiction, it would have to rule upon). That's not helpful to anyone concerned.

    I would have a concern if I was riding my bike around, say, Blackburn, and a a crack squad of knife toting, bomber jacket-wearing, scary as hell, Muslim Police tried to run me off "their" land though.


  2. #492

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,831

    ... dead militant atheist in that particular case :-(


  3. #493

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wrong side of the door to hell
    Posts
    6,088

    This is why Sharia Law has no place in the West :http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...ligious-courts

    This isn't about religious freedom, it is about basic human rights.


  4. #494

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sarcasm - because beating the crap out of people is illegal
    Posts
    14,636

    Maryam Namazie's speech at the May 2013 Women in Secularism conference in Washington DC.

    (Not in italics to make it easier to read.)
    __________________________________________________ _________________


    Secularism is my right; freedom is my culture

    * The outrage over the attempted assassination of 15 year old Malala Yousefzai shot by the Taliban for defending girls’ education

    * The mass protests against Islamists for the assassination of Socialist leader Chokri Belaid and Amina Tyler’s topless activism in Tunisia – My body is not the source of your honour and fuck your morals

    * The anger over the murder of Neda Agha Soltan in broad daylight at a protest in Iran

    * The February day of action against sexual terrorism in Egypt, Egyptian atheist Aliaa Magda ElMahdy’s nude scream against misogyny and the Harlem Shake in front of Muslim Brotherhood headquarters…

    Even if you’re not looking, you can still see the immense resistance and dissent taking place.

    It’s a new period of human development after decades of Islamism, US-led militarism, unbridled free market reign, cultural relativism and the retreat of all things universal.
    Today is an era of the 99% movement and revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa – many of them female-led.

    Whilst it may sometimes be hard to see given the perceived “gains” by Islamists in the region (in fact as counter-revolutionary forces aimed at suppressing the revolutions), the change of era is palpable.

    Nonetheless, many post-modernist and culturally relativist Leftists, liberals, and feminists remain firmly on the side of the Islamists.

    Any opposition to Sharia law, (which is based on the Koran, Hadith, Islamic jurisprudence), the veil, and Islamic misogyny are met with charges of racism and Islamophobia, cultural imperialism and more.

    Those who say so though have bought into the culturally-relativist notion that societies in the Middle East and North Africa (and even the “Muslim community” in the west) are homogeneous, “Islamic” and “conservative”. But there is no one homogeneous culture anywhere.

    Since it is those in power that determine the dominant culture, this point of view sees Islamist values and sensibilities as that of “authentic Muslims’.

    But as Musa Budeiri, a professor at Birzeit University, the oldest Palestinian University, who was threatened for posting a cartoon on his office door says: Islamists “resort to abuse, and threats of physical violence, attempting to appropriate to themselves the sole authority of what Muslims can and cannot think, can and cannot do. There are and will remain as many different Muslims as there are unfettered minds.”

    In fact, “Muslims” or those labelled as such include secularists, ex-Muslims, atheists, free thinkers, women’s rights activists, LGBT campaigners and socialists. Even someone like the wonderful Salman Rushdie speaks for Muslims. As writer Hanif Kureishi says: “He speaks for their doubts. He speaks the bits of them that they actually think and feel sometimes – do I really believe in all this stuff – but can’t say…”

    Conflating Islamism with Muslim is a narrative peddled by Islamists in an attempt to feign representation, restrict dissent, and prescribe the limits of “acceptable” expression.

    Those who assert that a demand for secularism and opposition to the veil and Sharia law are “foreign” and “culturally inappropriate” are only considering Islamism’s sensibilities and values, not that of the many who resist.

    This shouldn’t be surprising. A large young population in many countries of the Middle East and North Africa brings with it challenges to the status quo as does the recent women-led revolutions and the backlash against Islamism.

    As 34 year old Egyptian female cartoonist, Dooa Eladl who calls herself a Muslim anarchist and is facing blasphemy charges for her political cartoons that poke fun of Islamists says: “The extremists don’t scare me”. “Whatever they do, I will continue to use my skills to poke fun at them. They must understand that we Egyptians have changed with the revolution, and we will not go backwards.”

    In the same way that there are opponents of nude protest and supporters of the veil, Islamism and Sharia in the “west”, there are also supporters of nude protest and opponents of the veil, Islamism and Sharia law in the “east”- even more so as you will find no greater opposition to Islamism than from those who have lived under its rule.

    This has nothing to do with “cultural imperialists” patronisingly “rescuing Muslim women” anymore than the fight for women’s suffrage was a rescue attempt and a form of cultural imperialism (after all the idea was “foreign” to begin with and started in one specific place).

    Only those who see their rights and lives as separate and different from those deemed “other” and who have bought into (or are selling) Islamism’s narrative can see solidarity and the demand for equality and secularism in this warped way.

    Ironically, like the far-Right which “despises” multiculturalism yet benefits from its idea of difference to scapegoat the “other” and promote its own form of white identity politics, the post-modernists also use multiculturalism to side with the oppressor by demanding respect and tolerance for “difference” no matter how intolerable.

    As Algerian Marieme Helie Lucas says, however, “Difference and diversity are double-edged concepts; we should never forget that they have been used by reactionary forces to maintain in their difference – by force – peoples and categories of population. What lies behind ‘respect for difference’ is the deep desire that the ‘other’ remains different…”

    Defending secularism, free expression, and equality and opposing Sharia law and Islamic states have nothing to do with “prejudice against Muslim communities”, racism and Islamophobia.

    Saying so ignores the immense dissent including amongst those considered Muslims and denies the social and political struggles and class politics.

    Clearly, criticism of a religion or far-Right political movement, which Islamism is, has nothing to with racism.

    Islamophobia is a political term used to scaremonger people into silence. Charges of Islamophobia have been coined not because anti-Muslim bigotry is the main concern of these apologists but in order to protect Islam and Islamism. If they were so concerned about Muslims or those labelled as such, they would oppose not support Sharia and Islamism and stop justifying Islamic terrorism which kills more “Muslims” than anyone else.

    As Women Living Under Muslim Laws says:

    “Fundamentalist terror is by no means a tool of the poor against the rich, of the Third World against the West, of people against capitalism. It is not a legitimate response that can be supported by the progressive forces of the world. Its main target is the internal democratic opposition to their theocratic project and to their project of controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people, they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place’, which as we know from experience ends up being a straight jacket…”

    US suffragette and abolitionist Elizabeth Cady Stanton once said “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman’s emancipation”. This is true in particular with regards Islam and Islamism today.

    Of course when speaking of Islam or any religion, I am not referring to religion as a personal belief. Everyone has a right to religion and atheism but Islam today is not a personal matter but the banner of a political movement, an industry, a mafia, a killing machine.

    Those who equate opposition to religious misogyny with racism and an attack on “Muslims” erroneously or more likely deceptively see an attack on misogynist beliefs and movements as an attack on people and choose to side with culture and religion over the lives and rights of human beings.

    This culturally relativist perspective implies that women’s liberation is only for those who are ”white” and ”western”; the rest of us are only allowed “freedom” within the cultural and religious confines of Islam.

    Islamic “feminists” like Shirin Ebadi will say that women have full rights under Islam and if they don’t it is because of the practice and interpretation of states. They don’t need secularism she says. There are several problems with this position.

    Firstly, the Koran and Hadith (which are the saying and actions of Mohammad, Islam’s prophet) upon which Sharia law is based are full of anti-women rules and regulations (even if you choose to leave Islamic jurisprudence to one side). Stoning to death for adultery, for example, is in the hadith whilst wife-beating is in the Koran.

    Secondly, often when there is a discussion about women having full rights, you must ask what is meant by “rights”. Even Islamists will say women have full rights under their rule but that is because to them women and men are not equal but complementary thereby justifying difference in “rights”.

    Also, the problem with interpretation is that yours too is just one of many. Even if you have a “good” interpretation, it is usually a regressive imam or Sharia judge deciding for you. But more importantly I question whether a “good” interpretation is possible.

    If you follow the arguments made by the “good” interpretations you will soon realise the absurdity of this line of defence. Take Sura al-Nisa (the Women) in the Koran 4:34 where it says: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)…” You have Islamic feminists saying that men are only meant to beat their wives with thin sticks or feathers. For Sharia judges (at least in the UK where domestic violence is a crime), as long as it is not on the face and genitals and leaves no mark, this does not constitute violence. The point is though that no woman should be beaten. Full Stop.

    Clearly, one cannot leave women’s rights and lives at the mercy of religious rules and forms of interpretation.

    Religion is a personal matter. When it comes to religion in the state and law and educational system, then it becomes a matter of political power and control.

    No religion frees women, particularly not one that has access to political power and is spearheading an inquisition.

    Women are freer the less of a role religion plays in the public space, in the state, in the judicial system – not the other way around. Secularism is a precondition for the improvement of women’s status – all women – not just those who are ‘western’.

    The conflation between Islamism and Muslim has meant that Islamist demands are seen to be the demands of those living in the Middle East and North Africa. But this is not the case. None of the revolutions in the region had Islamist demands, which are compulsory veiling, sharia law and Islamic states. Islamism is a counter-revolutionary force to suppress revolutions.

    If people really wanted to live under medievalism, if it was really people’s culture, Islamists would not need to impose their rules with such sheer brutality. The fact that they must control the streets and arrest and fine people for what they wear and what they think is evidence enough that their rule is an imposition.

    Of course there might be those who prefer Sharia law to secular law as there might be people who prefer to bring back slavery or racial apartheid but that is irrelevant here. Sharia law and Islamic states are oppressive. There is no “right” to oppress.

    Their post-modernist friends will tell us that our demands are western. But since when are secularism, rights, freedoms, equality “western”? Islamists use the latest technology to advance their barbarity – and these very people are at the forefront of demanding the Islamic regime of Iran’s right to nuclear technology – but when it comes to women’s rights and secularism they’re “western” and “foreign”?

    Even if rights are western (which they are not), they were fought for by progressive social movements and the working class and belong to all humanity.

    In the words of women’s rights campaigners who chanted on the streets of Tehran in 1979 in opposition to compulsory veiling: “Neither eastern nor western, women’s rights are universal” and “Freedom is our culture”.

    In this new era after decades of brutality, terrorism and militarism, it is finally our moment to shine. It is we who must now be on the offensive.

    The Islamist obsession with controlling and targeting women and the many decades of resistance along with a new era of revolutions has meant that the women’s liberation movement is at a place where it will bring Islamism to its knees.

    Whilst misogyny will not end with Islamism, the situation of women will improve greatly across the world as one of the leading proponents of feminicide is brought to its end.

    Of course no fight is predetermined. It depends on sheer human will and intervention.

    The point of course is where each of us will stand in this final battle. As the late Marxist Mansoor Hekmat has said:

    “We are not sitting in judgement of the world; we are players and participants in it. Each of us are party to this historical, worldwide struggle, which in my opinion, from the beginning of time until now has been over the freedom and equality of human beings…” (Mansoor Hekmat, Islam and De-Islamisation,January 1999)

    MovingIn07, kimwy66 and Skyhook like this.

  5. #495

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Grüne Hölle (CWB)
    Posts
    1,464
    So, when you say atheist zealotry is "worse than" religious zealotry, you're just talking about the context of an internet discussion, and that, therefore, you mean it is just worse for you? Oh.

    (By the way, are you somebody's sockpuppet?)
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    Lootoo, here is the abridged version.

    You're using semantics. But that's okay. I can too.

    Atheism = lack of belief of the existence of a god
    Theism = belief of at least one god

    Neither of these terms possess designs over belief systems. They are base matters of fact.
    Given that you have now clarified that you were actually just referring to the relative pain of internet discussions with atheist and religious zealots, I'm not sure why you are prolonging this. Perhaps because you relish semantic debates?

    Well, then let's first correct your erroneous re-statement of the premises: Your original statement was not about discussions with atheists on the one hand and theists on the other, it was about discussions with atheist zealots and religious zealots. The terms are not interchangeable, for one thing "theist zealots" probably don't exist. Religious zealots act in the name of a particular religion, more precisely in the name of a particular sect or grouping of followers of a particular religion. A particular "belief system", to use your term.

    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    You say Stalin didn't kill religious people in the name of atheism.
    I'm not aware that he killed anyone in the name of atheism. I'm also not aware that he specifically targeted religious people--did he?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    You could go further and say Stalin actually committed those atrocities in the name of his belief system - namely, Communism. Marx himself said that Communism is at its root atheism but not vice versa. This is important.

    The same is true therefore the other way round. Atrocities aren't committed in the name of theism. They are committed in the name of a particular belief system. For example, the Inquisitions. People were tortured and killed not in the name of theism itself, but in the name of the Roman or Spanish church.
    I would agree with that. (Except that the "Spanish church" was the Roman Catholic church at the time.)

    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    We're splitting hairs but what I'm trying to say is that both rules must apply. So for you to suggest that one way is mass human atrocities and the other way is removal of crucifixes is just absurd.
    Well, that was a quick conclusion! I appreciate that this was a re-creation of a more elaborate first effort, but aren't you missing a few premises?

    If I may summarise the above, you're saying that Stalin commited atrocities in the name of his belief system (communism), and various religious nutters have committed atrocities in the name of their own particular belief systems (different brands of religion), and you conclude that it is, therefore, wrong to say that religious zealots are any worse than atheist zealots (speaking here outside of the narrow internet discussion context).

    The problem with the above is that you've substituted "atheist" for "communist" in your conclusion, after having established above that Stalin was not actually motivated by atheism but by communism (or Marxism, whatever). Accordingly, it would have been more appropriate to conclude that atrocities have been generally committed in the name of various belief systems (religious or otherwise), and given that, as you have noted, atheism is not a belief system, it is not possible for any atrocities to have been committed in the name of atheism. Were you secretly trying to prove my point?

    Perhaps it is unfair to compare the number of people murdered in the name of various religious belief systems with those murdered in the name of a label representing a lack of belief in the existence of any god, but you chose the terms...

    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    Finally, you certainly did allude in your post to me being a lapdog of someone in particular. Be brave. Who did you mean? If you say Bryant, I'll get my coat :-D
    Exposing you as a sock puppet of Bryant would be a counter-counter-espionage feat of which ouwen would be proud.
    MovingIn07 and INXS like this.

  6. #496
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    Given that you have now clarified that you were actually just referring to the relative pain of internet discussions with atheist and religious zealots, I'm not sure why you are prolonging this. Perhaps because you relish semantic debates?

    Well, then let's first correct your erroneous re-statement of the premises: Your original statement was not about discussions with atheists on the one hand and theists on the other, it was about discussions with atheist zealots and religious zealots. The terms are not interchangeable, for one thing "theist zealots" probably don't exist. Religious zealots act in the name of a particular religion, more precisely in the name of a particular sect or grouping of followers of a particular religion. A particular "belief system", to use your term.


    I'm not aware that he killed anyone in the name of atheism. I'm also not aware that he specifically targeted religious people--did he?


    I would agree with that. (Except that the "Spanish church" was the Roman Catholic church at the time.)


    Well, that was a quick conclusion! I appreciate that this was a re-creation of a more elaborate first effort, but aren't you missing a few premises?

    If I may summarise the above, you're saying that Stalin commited atrocities in the name of his belief system (communism), and various religious nutters have committed atrocities in the name of their own particular belief systems (different brands of religion), and you conclude that it is, therefore, wrong to say that religious zealots are any worse than atheist zealots (speaking here outside of the narrow internet discussion context).

    The problem with the above is that you've substituted "atheist" for "communist" in your conclusion, after having established above that Stalin was not actually motivated by atheism but by communism (or Marxism, whatever). Accordingly, it would have been more appropriate to conclude that atrocities have been generally committed in the name of various belief systems (religious or otherwise), and given that, as you have noted, atheism is not a belief system, it is not possible for any atrocities to have been committed in the name of atheism. Were you secretly trying to prove my point?

    Perhaps it is unfair to compare the number of people murdered in the name of various religious belief systems with those murdered in the name of a label representing a lack of belief in the existence of any god, but you chose the terms...

    Exposing you as a sock puppet of Bryant would be a counter-counter-espionage feat of which ouwen would be proud.
    Looney Toones. Stop exposing my background or I will have to kill you to prevent the leaking of classified information.

    Did you drink your three big glasses of anti biotic and growth hormone laced milk today?
    Did your wife go buy her daily shopping cart load of Gyne Lotrimin today?
    Did you pledge allegiance to the "Democracy" today?
    Lootoo likes this.

  7. #497

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913

    Here we go again. It isn't me who is prolonging this. It is you. Let us start from the beginning:

    1 June 2013:

    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    Well said. There's only one thing worse than ignorant religious zealots and that is ignorant atheist zealots. Especially those with no credibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by lootoo:
    I'm happy to oppose ignorant atheist zealots, but not because I think they are in any way "worse" than equally ignorant religious zealots. I'm not even sure on what basis you could make such a claim. Worse for whom?
    Quote Originally Posted by arrowsmith:
    How many people have died as a direct result of ignorant atheistic zealotry?
    ^Dipper responds to arrowsmith's question:
    Quote Originally Posted by dipper:
    Well I'm an atheist myself, but since you asked:
    Mao - about 30 million
    Stalin - about 20 million
    Pol Pot - about 1.5 million
    To name but 3 examples.
    All of a sudden people change the goalposts (or play on semantics, Lootoo, if you will):
    Quote Originally Posted by INXS:
    Not how many atheists have killed many people! How many have killed in the name of atheism...
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrowsmith:
    How many of those people were killed in the name of atheism?
    I then respond directly to your question (remember - on 1 June - five days ago):
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    I'm talking more in the context of a discussion, rather than your two options of:
    1. perpetuating heinous acts against humanity (in the case of religious zealotry); or
    2. removing crucifixes from classrooms (in the case of atheist zealotry).
    Back to the discussion of theism/atheism/beliefs/non-beliefs, Tigersun summed up your stance:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigersun:
    What moronic nonsense.These guys killed millions because they didn't believe in Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha or Shiva, or Thor... or... or... ???
    Things then appeared to die down. I cannot talk on behalf of Dipper, but there appeared to be no further point in trying to make you understand how the changing of arrowsmith's original position (as taken up by the rest of you) make a fundamental difference to how we tackle this issue.
    3 June 2013:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    If you're aware of any other atheism-inspired bad acts, please do enlighten me. I couldn't think of anything "worse" than the examples I had provided--hence my curious use of the word "seems", which was unfortunately omitted from your re-characterisation of my argument. So, when you say atheist zealotry is "worse than" religious zealotry, you're just talking about the context of an internet discussion, and that, therefore, you mean it is just worse for you? Oh.
    ^So it is clear that you acknowledged my clarification that atheistic zealotry was worse than religious zealotry was in the context of a discussion. On 3 June. Remember this.
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    There has already been debate about worse acts than "removing a crucifix from a school" having been committed in an affront to religion - "seemingly" or not. The point stands. You took an extreme of one and a moderate of another. I can also do that too, you know.
    Note the usage of the words "in an affront to religion". This is important. This was my attempt at responding to the original question posed by arrowsmith. On 4 June, you responded:
    Quote Originally Posted by lootoo:
    Well, no, nobody has mentioned any worse acts committed in the name of atheism. Worse acts committed by atheists is, rather obviously, not the same thing. (And "in an affront to religion" isn't really relevant, is it?) Accordingly, I did in fact use the most extreme examples of both.
    ^Oh, okay. The original question is not relevant anymore. Fair enough. We're only now discussing the revised question.
    Quote Originally Posted by lootoo:
    Regardless, you still have not explained why you think atheist zealotry actually is worse than religious zealotry. Or was that just bullshit for "discussion purposes"?

    ^Lootoo asks the same question again.
    Quote Originally Posted by iliketurtles:
    As I mentioned before, in the context of having to discuss this, an ignorant atheist zealot is much more painful to endure than an ignorant religious zealot.
    ^Once more confirmed.
    5 June:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    Given that you have now clarified that you were actually just referring to the relative pain of internet discussions with atheist and religious zealots, I'm not sure why you are prolonging this. Perhaps because you relish semantic debates?
    ^Not at all, Lootoo. It appears that it was you who didn't take the multiple explanations I provided. I think you're the one relishing semantic debates. If you ask a question multiple times, what more can I do but answer it?
    Quote Originally Posted by lootoo:
    The terms are not interchangeable, for one thing "theist zealots" probably don't exist. Religious zealots act in the name of a particular religion, more precisely in the name of a particular sect or grouping of followers of a particular religion. A particular "belief system", to use your term.
    I didn't change the terms. Murders in the name of atheism is a different concept to "ignorant atheistic zealotry" and one which needs to be met with a different answer. Both Dipper and I answered you along the same terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    I'm not aware that [Stalin] killed anyone in the name of atheism. I'm also not aware that he specifically targeted religious people--did he?
    Yes, he did. Equally, replace with Pot, Mao or (even at a push, Hitler). Same outcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by lootoo:
    I appreciate that this was a re-creation of a more elaborate first effort...
    ^Not at all. One question was raised initially. The goalposts were then moved, Lootoo. I hope you can appreciate that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    If I may summarise the above, you're saying that Stalin commited atrocities in the name of his belief system (communism), and various religious nutters have committed atrocities in the name of their own particular belief systems (different brands of religion), and you conclude that it is, therefore, wrong to say that religious zealots are any worse than atheist zealots (speaking here outside of the narrow internet discussion context).
    Incorrect. My point above was that if you are comparing atrocities committed in the name of religion with removing crucifixes from a school, the premise is incredulous. You need to compare like with like. Either theism -v- atheism or belief system -v- belief system. I don't make comment on which is worse. Both are awful. As for my original comment (which I am grateful that you now understand), it is infinitely worse for me to discuss these topics with an ignorant atheist than with an ignorant religious person. At least a religious person has a belief.
    My conclusion (in part) is as your next paragraph states:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    .... atrocities have been generally committed in the name of various belief systems (religious or otherwise), and given that, as you have noted, atheism is not a belief system, it is not possible for any atrocities to have been committed in the name of atheism.
    ^The only thing you miss from here is that the opposite must also apply. Atrocities, as you correctly identify, are committed in the name of belief systems. Theism itself is not a belief system. It is very difficult to point to atrocities in the purely in the name of theism. You yourself agreed with me on this when put in the context of the Roman or Spanish Inquisitions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lootoo:
    Perhaps it is unfair to compare the number of people murdered in the name of various religious belief systems with those murdered in the name of a label representing a lack of belief in the existence of any god, but you chose the terms...
    No I didn't. Arrowsmith chose the terms originally which were addressed by Dipper. They then were changed by INXS and arrowsmith which you also ran with. I didn't get an option to choose any such terms.

    Hopefully we don't need further repetition
    Last edited by iliketurtles; 06-06-2013 at 09:59 AM.

  8. #498

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sarcasm - because beating the crap out of people is illegal
    Posts
    14,636

    turtles, are you actually saying atheism is a 'belief system'?


  9. #499

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire ex-ax:
    turtles, are you actually saying atheism is a 'belief system'?
    Don't feed the troll.
    kimwy66 likes this.

  10. #500

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire ex-ax:
    turtles, are you actually saying atheism is a 'belief system'?
    No, Claire, I am most certainly am not. It's the opposite of what I'm saying. If I've made a typo please let me know and I'll amend it.