Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[lionking]

I’m currently high in the Himalayas, sitting in lotus position chanting and in a state of peace and goodwill. I thought it would be a good idea to re-read TBD’s posts to see if there is any inner meaning or even if they make sense.

Nope. Still all ********.

 

[Norman Alexander]

An update regarding the ongoing human rights atrocities in China, crosses burning, churches razed...

And actively deplored.

... all in the name of the godless atheist leadership in China

And proven time after time to NOT be the reason. But dredging it up again only proves you have a mania, not that we are wrong.

Oh well, expect to see misplaced attacks on the big dog

Aw, but we love you, you poor deluded thing! We wonder how you keep down a job, though. All those nasty atheists lurking around you. Perhaps one served you lunch today. Or did the nasty Commie have his atheist tattoo covered up?

 

[David Mo]

Already did

Toccata and fugue again. Appalling.

 

[The Big Dog]

I’m currently high in the Himalayas, sitting in lotus position chanting and in a state of peace and goodwill. I thought it would be a good idea to re-read TBD’s posts to see if there is any inner meaning or even if they make sense.

Nope. Still all ********.

I am sorry that the subject can be difficult to understand. I would be happy to break it down further if you had any serious questions

 

[baron]

True enough. I'll retract the claim that you did say that. You simply object to letting 1.8 billion Muslim be represented by those who actually did fly planes into buildings. That, itself, is fair. Objecting to Islam being portrayed as the sole factor in such a decision is entirely fair, too. On the other hand, trying to deny Islam's influence and that some of the texts that many of them use in an authoritative manner outright condone or recommend a follower to do such a thing is just as bad as trying to belittle any other important factor in play. That the Quran doesn't specifically demand Muslims to crash planes as part of a terrorist act is completely irrelevant when a specific method to accomplish goals that it did demand wasn't stated in the first place. I'm fairly sure that Thor 2 is quite willing to admit that Islam was not the sole reason in play, regardless.

Not so long ago ISIS had a magazine by the name of Dabiq. I think it has now merged with social media, but that's an aside. In August 2016 they published an article entitled 'Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You," aimed at the West.

They listed the following points, in priority order:

We [in the West] are hated...

1. Because we do not believe in Islamic monotheism.

2. Because we do not obey Allah.

3. Because of the atheists among us.

4. Because of our crimes against the religion of Islam.

5. Because of our crimes against Muslims.

6. Because of our invasion of Muslim lands.

To reinforce these reasons they followed up with:

Just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by... living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims

Then, perhaps anticipating the level of self-delusion with which their article would be received in the West, added:

Although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

and

Our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.

From the horse's mouth.

 

[dann]

And like TBD, you seem to be more than willing to believe the horse's mouth ...
It's self-evident that the guys who wage war in the name of Allah aren't suddenly going to say, "Just kidding! The actual reason why we hate the West is ..."

Did you also believe the horse's mouth when it claimed that the so-called "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq because of WMDs?!


You do know that ISIS doesn't and didn't represent the Muslims of the world, don't you?!

 

[baron]

And like TBD, you seem to be more than willing to believe the horse's mouth ...

Yes. That's what the phrase means, 'direct from the authoritative source.' I am more inclined to believe the authoritative source than some terrorist apologist argument that pops up on the internet.

It's self-evident that the guys who wage war in the name of Allah aren't suddenly going to say, "Just kidding! The actual reason why we hate the West is ..."

If they wage war in the name of Allah I expect them to say, "We wage war in the name of Allah." Whoa! They just did!

Did you also believe the horse's mouth when it claimed that the so-called "coalition of the willing" attacked Iraq because of WMDs?!

So your point is that people lie, and that because of this we should only believe people when it suits your own personal agenda. Not a strong point, I'd advise against pushing ahead with that line of argument.

You do know that ISIS doesn't and didn't represent the Muslims of the world, don't you?!

Wow, suggesting that the whole Muslim world is responsible for terror attacks on the West. What a racist and bigoted stance.

 

[dann]

... trying to deny Islam's influence and that some of the texts that many of them use in an authoritative manner outright condone or recommend a follower to do such a thing is just as bad as trying to belittle any other important factor in play. That the Quran doesn't specifically demand Muslims to crash planes as part of a terrorist act is completely irrelevant when a specific method to accomplish goals that it did demand wasn't stated in the first place. I'm fairly sure that Thor 2 is quite willing to admit that Islam was not the sole reason in play, regardless.

I don't think that T2 is willing to admit that. I've seen his references to the 9/11 hijackers too often to think so. They are his #1 argument against not only Islam but against religion as well. He doesn't know and doesn't understand what religion is.
But of course, "the Quran doesn't specifically demand Muslims to crash planes as part of a terrorist act." I do know both when it was written, and when airplanes were invented. What I wanted T2 and similarly minded people to acknowledge was that no matter what a book contains, you, the reader of the text, are the one who decides what to believe and what to obey. (An authority figure may force you to obey certain scripture, but then that is the point, not your allegiance to the text.)
This goes even more for self-contradictory religious texts: You make your choice between the contradictions: What do you believe in? What do you obey? What do you ignore? Are Christians "people of the book" or kafirs, for instance?)
Persecution of the infidels weren't exactly invented by the Muslims and brought to the West by Muslims. And no matter what the Bible says, only a very small minority of Christians today seem to think that it's a good idea.

If we trace this particular discussion back, of course, it looks like it starts with you denying Islam as a factor in play at all and Thor 2 pointing out that your reasoning for denying that Islam could be a factor was... terrible. Which it was. And your rebuttal to that went off in another direction entirely.

It starts l-o-n-g before that, in other threads, actually.
But what do you mean by "factor"? I would never deny that it is Islam is referred to a lot by the holy warrior. It is! But what some of the atheist extremists misunderstand is the exact role that religion plays. It's not a factor, it's subterfuge. It works much like whatever ideology school shooters (slightly different brands of suicidal mass murderers) invoke as their cause when they go on a rampage. It glorifies their revenge and their self-loathing.

Are you trying to claim that that is the only factor in play?

Yes. Much the same what that The Troubles in Northern Ireland wasn't about religion and the uprising of the Catholic Poles against the Sovietunion wasn't about religion. This day and age religion may serve as a rallying cry and a banner, and to ISIS it certainly did, but even to the leaders of the movement that was not what it was about. It was no coincidence that the leaders of ISIS were recruited from the rather secularized forces of the Iraqi army. What does that tell you?!
ETA: What motivates the leaders and generals of an army is often different from what motivates the suicide squads. The leaders rarely intend to become martyrs.

Take a moment to reread if you don't believe my earlier summation of the start of this. I didn't see anywhere where Thor 2 claimed that, on review. Feel free to point me at something that I missed though, if I did?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12452527#post12452527

 

[dann]

If they wage war in the name of Allah I expect them to say, "We wage war in the name of Allah." Whoa! They just did!

That's the difference between you and me. I don't expect war wagers to be telling the truth. They hardly ever do.
That you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between why people wage war and what they claim as the reason why they wage war probably can't be helped. I guess you did believe Bush and Blair ...

 

[abaddon]

Makes a note....

Oh good. Send the note to your pope who supports the Chinese regime.

 

[dann]

Good one!

 

[baron]

That's the difference between you and me. I don't expect war wagers to be telling the truth. They hardly ever do.

So what reason do ISIS have for lying? Bearing in mind their claims are backed up by untold quantities of video and literature. Please share your in depth knowledge on this matter, including a few of your no doubt numerous sources.

That you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between why people wage war and what they claim as the reason why they wage war probably can't be helped. I guess you did believe Bush and Blair ...

No. I don't believe that everybody tells the truth. Nor do I believe everybody lies all the time. Because I'm not a moron.

 

[dann]

What reason did Bush and Blair have for lying about the WMDs? Were their claims backed up by reports and articles?
And yet you seem to think that ISIS is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they say that their war is about religion.
'They say they do it in the name of religion, so their motivation must be their religion. All their propaganda videos say so!'

 

[baron]

What reason did Bush and Blair have for lying about the WMDs? Were their claims backed up by reports and articles?

You stated that ISIS's own reasons are lies. Please detail why you believe this, and show your evidence.

Look, I'll show you how it's done. Blair lied about WMDs so that he could pull the country into a war in order to fulfil his commitment to Bush. Here's a link.


Now you have a go.

And yet you seem to think that ISIS is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they say that their war is about religion.
'They say they do it in the name of religion, so their motivation must be their religion. All their propaganda videos say so!'

Yes, I believe them. And I will continue to believe them until evidence to the contrary emerges that is more credible than the evidence we currently have. International Skeptics 101.

 

[baron]

And not that it's necessary, but here's some more evidence by independent researchers.

When I spoke to people who were associated with ISIS, it was a very different type of hatred. They would emphasize this concept of loyalty and disavowal. Loyalty to all Muslims, disavowal and hatred of non-Muslims. So for them, it was an inherent obligation of their religion to hate me.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/author-delves-motivates-isis-supporters

and

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.... Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

and

The researchers discovered that three crucial factors motivate both ISIS fighters and those fighting them: a deep commitment to sacred values, the readiness to forsake family for those values, and the perceived spiritual strength of the group or community that the fighter represents.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/health/isis-fighters-human-behavior-study/index.html

 

[Norman Alexander]

Mitch McConnell =/= All Christians.

ISIS =/= All Muslims.

 

[baron]

Mitch McConnell =/= All Christians.

ISIS =/= All Muslims.

You're kidding! Well, I can't say I'm not relieved.

 

[Aridas]

You do know that ISIS doesn't and didn't represent the Muslims of the world, don't you?!

It does represent some. baron didn't claim that it represents "all." The overt and pointed focus on religion that pervades nigh everything about their propaganda, though, should make it clear that it primarily is trying to attract people who are more motivated specifically by their religious values than for any other specific motivation.

I don't think that T2 is willing to admit that.

Thor 2! Here's a good chance for you!

I've seen his references to the 9/11 hijackers too often to think so. They are his #1 argument against not only Islam but against religion as well. He doesn't know and doesn't understand what religion is.
But of course, "the Quran doesn't specifically demand Muslims to crash planes as part of a terrorist act." I do know both when it was written, and when airplanes were invented.

But you aren't acknowledging the part where some of the authoritative texts do give the adherents relevant directions.

What I wanted T2 and similarly minded people to acknowledge was that no matter what a book contains, you, the reader of the text, are the one who decides what to believe and what to obey. (An authority figure may force you to obey certain scripture, but then that is the point, not your allegiance to the text.)

I think that you're forgetting something important here. Religion plays a major role in shaping culture and values, especially in societies where it has become entrenched. It stacks the deck in its favor, as religions do. Denying this and trying to focus on the individuals alone can only lead to a much poorer understanding.

This goes even more for self-contradictory religious texts: You make your choice between the contradictions: What do you believe in? What do you obey? What do you ignore? Are Christians "people of the book" or kafirs, for instance?)

Sure. A choice is made. You seem to be trying to focus solely on that, though, and ignore the foundation of how choices are made.

Persecution of the infidels weren't exactly invented by the Muslims and brought to the West by Muslims. And no matter what the Bible says, only a very small minority of Christians today seem to think that it's a good idea.

Of course it wasn't invented by Muslims. I would dare to say that it's been around for much longer than Christianity, for that matter. With that said, do you recall some of the major causes for why relatively few Christians today think it's a good idea?

It starts l-o-n-g before that, in other threads, actually.

My apology for my error.

But what do you mean by "factor"? I would never deny that it is Islam is referred to a lot by the holy warrior. It is! But what some of the atheist extremists misunderstand is the exact role that religion plays. It's not a factor, it's subterfuge. It works much like whatever ideology school shooters (slightly different brands of suicidal mass murderers) invoke as their cause when they go on a rampage. It glorifies their revenge and their self-loathing.

And we certainly disagree here. "Subterfuge" is entirely inappropriate to describe the role that religion's playing here. It's far more appropriate to describe it as setting the stage and providing both justification and motivation (not solely for violence and "evil," of course, but also for what many people consider "good," depending on the specifics in play). Human behavior is rarely truly simple, and various other factors can and will be balanced with that. One who lives a happy life is not likely to want that situation to change, while one who is very unhappy with their life is very likely to want that to change, to mention another factor.

Yes.

I think I've already adequately elaborated on my disagreement sufficiently earlier in this post, so I'll point you right back up there.

ETA: What motivates the leaders and generals of an army is often different from what motivates the suicide squads. The leaders rarely intend to become martyrs.

Indeed. It's certainly worth offering a distinction between the leadership and the rank and file. The rank and file are certainly much more numerous, though.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12452527#post12452527

Mmm. I did see that, but I don't think that it's the slamdunk that you seem to think it is. By the look of it, he's mostly reacting to bad arguments that you made, when it comes to the discussion that took place in this thread.

 

[Thor 2]

It's likely worth qualifying that a bit more. Just about everyone other than some hardcore pacifists condones violence as OK under some circumstances, after all. What makes the numbers I linked to of some relevance is that it was specifically about killing oneself to harm civilian targets, explicitly because of religion. Each of those things tends to be problematic on their own, and all three combined is more problematic.

A bit separately, I would also hesitate to call the numbers in question "very high" without some qualification. Gaza's numbers are indeed somewhat incredibly high, while I wouldn't call Tunisia and Pakistan to be very high at all, relatively speaking. Even they are a bit problematic, of course, but I suspect (without being aware of any available verification) that most countries have at least that percentage of potentially problematic people when it comes to those quite willing to condone attacking civilians for other questionable reasons.

Oh yes I agree with all that although the definition of what is "very high" needs looking at.

In the West now we would find a high number who do and would support violence - usually with a self preservation motive. Those who would support violence to promote or even defend a religious agenda would be very small I think. Wasn't always so I hasten to add however.

A number who would condone violence with a religious motive, even if it were a single digit percentage, would be considered "very high" in the West I suggest. Not so in the Eastern, (Islamic), countries you list.

No doubt dann will continue his rant suggesting no connection between Islam and violence and accusing me of tunnel vision because, in his view, (aided be his remarkable mind reading ability), he thinks I see Islam as the "only" reason for it. I do not, but it certainly looms large.

Note! Sorry about the tardy reply. Had to buy a new laptop cos the old one didn't like red wine. Funny thing that, Islam may have something to do with it.

 

[Thor 2]

Thor 2! Here's a good chance for you!

Doesn't matter to much what you and I say. Dann has this incredible mind reading gift, so he can see what you and I think, no matter how we try and shield it with words.