Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[Cosmic Yak]

Well certainly the debate about atheism and China appears to be over, lest the faithless would not so desperate to divert the discussion from the actual thread topic.

You have only yourself to blame for this. Had you engaged in honest discussion, people might be more willing to discuss things with you.
Maybe you should try that next time, see how it goes.

 

[Norman Alexander]

But not by the Beatles, which was kind of my point.

Mine, too.

That isn't the Surah I was quoting. I was quoting the Surah of the Sword, which has no such context.
Nice to know the Quran has more of the same, though. Very peaceful.

Sure. The 9th Surah is pretty harsh. It's also not very poetic. In fact it sounds a lot like the Leviticus proscriptions - stoning willful children, etc. But let's see it.

Verse of the Sword

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

[dann]

The religious fundamentalist has many incentives. Some of them are unconscious; other have more or less relevance. But religious exaltation is the main conscious reason for them. You cannot deny that religious exaltation is the fuel that feeds his fanaticism. Maybe you can argue that the Koran has other less aggressive interpretations. Maybe. But it provides the psychological and ideological foundations of religious hate: irrationality, divine community (power and impunity) and absolute rewards. And this is not attached to violence and intolerance by pure chance.

You can analyse what someone says in search for hidden reasons. You cannot forgot what he is really saying.

The atheist has not these incentives. And this is not a trivial difference.

The atheist has very similar 'incentives.' Look how easy it is for atheists in this forum to persuade themselves that religion is what's behind every atrocity committed by a believer; much the same way that TBD is convinced that every atrocity committed by an atheist is because it's written in the (imaginary) "Atheist Bible."
Religious haters will be able to find the verse in their Bibles that corresponds to their hate. If they'd rather love their neighbors and/or turn the other cheek, they can find a verse that corresponds to those feelings too.
It's justification, not cause, which is why I compare it to Bush's WMDs.

 

[Crossbow]

lets put a gauge on that.

internet posts are "even more appalling" than actual human rights atrocities

my broken record monotony more boring than what?

If you actually cared anything about human rights, then you would find a more receptive audience.

 

[baron]

It's justification, not cause, which is why I compare it to Bush's WMDs.

Despite, in some cases, irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your psalmody is much more appalling. It is the more awful method of psychological torture I have never seen.

there you go.

Your psalmody is much more appalling than actual human rights atrocities.

We have a new standard!

"psalmody" "much more appalling" than putting a million Muslims in camps.

 

[sackett]

Of course we all condemn human rights abuses.

But. On the other hand. And yet. Consider how exasperating the believers are, especially to men who use reason. Their stubborn snottiness, their sanctimony, their readiness to suppress ideas if they get the chance -- it can fill a man's belly to the point of disgust and revulsion.

Then: Thud! Crack! Whop! The sound of the religious learning discipline!

It may be wrong, but it has its satisfactions.

TBD, you ought to do something about that. Go ahead.

 

[David Mo]

there you go.

Your psalmody is much more appalling than actual human rights atrocities.

We have a new standard!

"psalmody" "much more appalling" than putting a million Muslims in camps.

Oh my God, you have no idea of what an irony is!
I was waiting a similar answer. Appalling!

Irony; The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies other thing, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

I would explain what I meant, but when an irony is explained it loses its flair. Besides, it was pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have a literal thought.

 

[David Mo]

The atheist has very similar 'incentives.' Look how easy it is for atheists in this forum to persuade themselves that religion is what's behind every atrocity committed by a believer; much the same way that TBD is convinced that every atrocity committed by an atheist is because it's written in the (imaginary) "Atheist Bible."
Religious haters will be able to find the verse in their Bibles that corresponds to their hate. If they'd rather love their neighbors and/or turn the other cheek, they can find a verse that corresponds to those feelings too.
It's justification, not cause, which is why I compare it to Bush's WMDs.

To believe that a thing is bad is not to believe that it must be exterminated by force. The risk of religions is that they take refuge in sacred texts and --those that I know--, almost without exception, they call for holy war or the extermination of the devil and his followers. I do not say that everyone who is religious is violent or that no atheist is violent, but that religion gives an incentive for violence that does not have the atheist.
Your comparison of verbal aggressiveness of some atheists here with the Holy Inquisition or similar "atrocities" is disproportionate.

If you compare a list of atheistic celebrities with religious celebrities in history, you will see that the former are far more peaceful than the latter - with the exception of some Stalinist politicians. This has a very simple explanation that you can draw easily.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh my God, you have no idea of what an irony is!
I was waiting a similar answer. Appalling!

Irony; The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies other thing, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

I would explain what I meant, but when an irony is explained it loses its flair. Besides, it was pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have a literal thought.

There it is! Appeal to irony!

fantastic, just waiting for that. Unfortunately the so called irony has been crushed by the numerous posts bemoaning TBD's so-called attacks on poor atheists which have totally swallowed up the actual human rights atrocities and have served as a consistent excuse to ignore the numerous articles and arguments I have posted (concurrent causation anyone??)

authoritarian + atheist = anti-religious human rights abuses.

Deal with it.

 

[Thor 2]

The atheist has very similar 'incentives.' Look how easy it is for atheists in this forum to persuade themselves that religion is what's behind every atrocity committed by a believer; much the same way that TBD is convinced that every atrocity committed by an atheist is because it's written in the (imaginary) "Atheist Bible."
Religious haters will be able to find the verse in their Bibles that corresponds to their hate. If they'd rather love their neighbors and/or turn the other cheek, they can find a verse that corresponds to those feelings too.
It's justification, not cause, which is why I compare it to Bush's WMDs.

And look at how shamelessly you exaggerate and distort in order to re-enforce your feeble argument. Can you give us one example of an atheist post suggesting that religion is behind every atrocity?

Take heed of what David Mo wrote:

To believe that a thing is bad is not to believe that it must be exterminated by force. The risk of religions is that they take refuge in sacred texts and --those that I know--, almost without exception, they call for holy war or the extermination of the devil and his followers. I do not say that everyone who is religious is violent or that no atheist is violent, but that religion gives an incentive for violence that does not have the atheist.
Your comparison of verbal aggressiveness of some atheists here with the Holy Inquisition or similar "atrocities" is disproportionate.

If you compare a list of atheistic celebrities with religious celebrities in history, you will see that the former are far more peaceful than the latter - with the exception of some Stalinist politicians. This has a very simple explanation that you can draw easily.

 

[Aridas]

The atheist has very similar 'incentives.'

Atheists are people, too. There is certainly a fair bit of potential overlap, especially when it comes to those who value their religion less. With that said, denying the obvious does you no favors.

Look how easy it is for atheists in this forum to persuade themselves that religion is what's behind every atrocity committed by a believer;

Who claimed that, out of curiousity? You're claiming that religion is always irrelevant. Those who are disagreeing with you, including Thor 2, are claiming that it can be a factor and sometimes even a major factor. Misrepresenting the positions of others does you no favors.

much the same way that TBD is convinced that every atrocity committed by an atheist is because it's written in the (imaginary) "Atheist Bible."

It's actually a bit hard to tell whether TBD's just trolling, sometimes, but given the quality of his arguments, it's fairly safe to say that he can be treated as if he was.

Religious haters will be able to find the verse in their Bibles that corresponds to their hate. If they'd rather love their neighbors and/or turn the other cheek, they can find a verse that corresponds to those feelings too.
It's justification, not cause, which is why I compare it to Bush's WMDs.

Are you intentionally arguing that "nature is everything, nurture doesn't really matter at all," when it comes to how people act, to try to get to the root of the disagreement here? That is what you're arguing, after all.

 

[David Mo]

There it is! Appeal to irony!

fantastic, just waiting for that. Unfortunately the so called irony has been crushed by the numerous posts bemoaning TBD's so-called attacks on poor atheists which have totally swallowed up the actual human rights atrocities and have served as a consistent excuse to ignore the numerous articles and arguments I have posted (concurrent causation anyone??)

authoritarian + atheist = anti-religious human rights abuses.

Deal with it.

These "numerous posts" only exist in your sickly imagination. Nobody has ignored your articles. What we ignored is your fanatical repetition of the same slogan. It is appalling. .

 

[David Mo]

It's actually a bit hard to tell whether TBD's just trolling, sometimes, but given the quality of his arguments, it's fairly safe to say that he can be treated as if he was.

It's just that the Jesuit sophistry that the Big Dog was taught at the university he attended--that's what he says--is no different from pure trollism. So it's hard to tell what is really his game.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Was Helter Skelter ever held up to be the undisputable word of god, to be given unquestioning obedience?

By Manson, yes they were.

But not by the Beatles, which was kind of my point.

Mine, too.

So (Rule of So, yeah, I know, but stiill) you're saying that The Beatles wrote Helter Skelter intending it to be seen as the undisputable word of god, and made that clear in the song? Because this is what you said:

Charles Manson blamed listening to The Beatles Helter Skelter song while on drugs for inciting race war and initiating the Sharon Tate killings. That definitely provided psychological and ideological foundations of hate. So does that mean the lyrics of that song are at least partially to blame for the group's murderous actions? That John and Paul were feeding the rage?

I don't think so.

It's the interpretation that matters. It is how some Christians interpret the Bible, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to KKK-like violence. It is how some Muslims interpret the Koran, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to ISIS-like violence. The common factor is not a specific text, it is the use it is put to.

 

[David Mo]

Your knowledge of the Bible appears to be as poor as your understanding of atheism.
The Bible states over and over again that god will intervene to protect believers who are in danger.
TBD, is the Bible wrong?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-protection/

Alternative: God is punishing the terrible sins of Brother Big Dog and the other Christians. This is the main explanation for believers' misfortunes in the Bible. The wrath of God. Given God's usual bad mood, it seems to me to be the most likely explanation.

Brother Big Dog, what is your sin that deserves such a dreadful punishment?

(This is ironic, got it?)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

TBD's sin is obviously to have failed to convert enough Atheists.

 

[Norman Alexander]

So (Rule of So, yeah, I know, but stiill) you're saying that The Beatles wrote Helter Skelter intending it to be seen as the undisputable word of god, and made that clear in the song? Because this is what you said:

Er, no. I intended the opposite of that. Was I not clear?

 

[The Big Dog]

Checks in.... sees that no effort has been given to addressing the experts, articles and analysis I have presented (anyone even want to type the word "concurrent"?)

shockingly Dann is the closest to actually addressing the issues: "Look how easy it is for atheists in this forum to persuade themselves that religion is what's behind every atrocity committed by a believer" (deleted the remainder of the sentence about me because wrong, but the first sentence is spot on). I pointed this out earlier and a skeptic refused to address it calling it a non sequitor)

 

[baron]

shockingly Dann is the closest to actually addressing the issues: "Look how easy it is for atheists in this forum to persuade themselves that religion is what's behind every atrocity committed by a believer"

It depends on the religion. If you're talking about Christianity then that's broadly true. Groups from the Lord's Resistance Army to the IRA are alleged to have committed their atrocities as a result of their Christianity despite the indisputable historical facts demonstrating that this is not so.

However, when a Muslim group commits an atrocity, stands up and explains exactly how it was inspired by their religion, publishes a magazine in which they bust a ball stressing that they do these things because of their religion, and are studied for years by independent researches who confirm they are inspired by their religion... apparently their religion had nothing to do with it. Now religious motivation is just an excuse and this group of people would never be motivated by religion because, you know, Tony Blair.