My Magical Button to Delete Atheism

If you deleted atheism, then mankind would not be mankind. We would be incapable of thought and we would act strictly on religious scripture as if we were robots.

Of course, let's just say we were still capable of thought. We'd still kill one another for reasons other than religion. Billions would still be dead one way or another.

Aaaaaaaand... death continues!

 

Indeed, it ain't difficult. Hinduism and Christianity are both based on theism which means that they both subscribe to gods that interact with their creations. That in itself poses ideological challenges to the part of the creation that subscribes to the idea of theism.

 

And if you are going to blame atheism for that, I'm blaming theism for every injustice perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Just look at what the sinister cult of Theism has wrought

On second thought, no, I don't like bigotry. I'll treat those that disagree with me as individuals rather than condemning all of them based on a violent few that aren't represented by a single person on this forum. Let me know when you are willing to do the same.

Can you name any malicious deed that has ever been done in the name of secular humanism?

 

It's you and not the dictionary that's wrong. Atheism is an absence of theistic faith. An absence of theistic faith means no theistic deities. See?

As said, it's really simple.

 

Well then, there ya go.

 

Islam, Sharia Law and some elements of Sharia Law implemented in Muslim countries violates international law, basic humanitarian rights and equal rights for women and homosexuals. Islam suppresses the liberties and freedoms of non Muslims, other religions and advocates hatred and intolerance towards mankind. Islam is a faith that is amply determined to conquer the world through intimidation, fear and violence. Historical facts indicate that Islam, and the prophet Muhammad launched their crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades. Listed below is a brief example and history of Muslim imperialism and interventionism, illegally invading and occupying lands that didn't rightfully belong to them.

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

>637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq < at the Battle of al&#8212;Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

>638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines. <

> 638&#8212;650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran,< except along Caspian Sea.

639&#8212;642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

> 641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine. <

643&#8212;707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644&#8212;650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and > establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind. <

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son&#8212;in&#8212;law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

 

And if atheists are responsible for Marxism, theists are responsible for the above.

 

Hmmm, let me get this straight. One is trying to make atheism into a doctrinal ideology in order to infer that doctrinal ideology is the most foul of all human enterprises so as to, hmmm, defend his own doctrinal ideology?

And another poster goes right for the throat of an existing religion to imply that religion is the most foul of human enterprises in order to, hmmm, defend his own religion?

I will never get when atheism is made into a faith just in order to say how evil it is. Or when religions are being accused of being pure evil in order to say how good religion is.

 

Atheism is the absence of spirituality, not the promotion of mass murdering.

 

Leaving aside the risible concept of magical buttons; atheism is the absence of theistic belief. Nothing more, and it is value-neutral. That atheists have committed crimes against humanity is no more significant than that theists have committed crimes against humanity.

Most of the people I know are theistic to some degree, and their behaviour is neither more admirable nor more reprehensible than the atheistic and agnostic people I know.

I regard a belief, or otherwise, in a supreme being, as being a private matter, and as significant, in the overall scheme of things, as a belief, or otherwise, in the historical existence of King Arthur. I do not believe that either informs the ethics or morality of the believer/unbeliever.

 

No... I showed that Stalinism was the religion of the USSR, not atheism... which is neither a faith nor a framework for tyranny.

Setting Trotsky aside for the moment, the rest of these are all right-wing totalitarian systems that rely upon brutal hierarchies of power and obedience... though operating under different approaches.

 

I respectfully diagree. Keep in mind most of these events were forced, yes that's right, forced upon the early ummah. SO for example, the war with the Byzantines was begun by the Byzantines when they allied with a tribe at war with the Muslims and then sent a huge army down to take out Mohammad. Notice how Muslims never went to Constantinople until another thousand years. War with syria and the invasion of north africa began because of tribal raids on the border. Also, with your description of shariah above, thart is a very biased interpretation and implementation of sharia, Remember Islamic law isn't absolute, there are many schools and today even more sects. Historically, after Uthman (who changed the leadership role of the Caliph into a religious from a secular one) the ulama (religious clerical order) systematically persecuted free thinkers and other sects to secure their power. This is why Islam has developed far more slowly than other religions. Sharia is quite compatible with modern secular law, if looked at with the right mind.

 

I can't say I've ever heard that version of history before. The Byzantine Empire was a fairly large empire. If the Muslims didn't go to Constantinople for another thousand years, its because they barely where able to hold them off from their capital city. The Crusades only delayed the inevitable. I find hard to justify the entire invasion of North Africa due to a few raids. The Arabs had laid siege to Constantinople twice in the 7th and 8th centuries.

 

Lots of atheiests and others would love to have a delete button and delete you from this messageboard.

You are the single worst cause of migraine headaches.

Do you have stock in Bayer aspirin?

 

Because everyone in a communist country is a communist. Of course.

 

That's weird.

Indeed...

I am not referring to all Arab history, just the military exploits under Mohammad. I said they began, and indeed they did, early on by offensive attacks on Muslims. Later conquests of course were aggressive quite often, but again these were under different leaders and dynasties. For example, you mention the first siege of Constantinople - this was ordered by Muawiyah I, a man who had started a civil war and seized power, killing members of Mohammad's family. Mohammad and his immediate predecessors were entirely defensive.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>> There are many religious folk in China and over the years many communists have been religious, indeed the views of the Apostles are highly communistic. Today Hui Liangyu is vice premier in charge of agriculture in the People's Republic of China and is religious.

 

Indeed. The different parts of the Muslim world is about as different as different European countries or the US versus an European country.

The first expansion was quite nice, not by modern standards, they used their hadith as war rules, but noone else had any such rules at all, the Muslim world was less brutal than Europe at the time. The expansion looks larger than it was because of the fact that most of the areas consisted mainly of desert, and most of the places preferred the Muslims, they demanded less taxes and they treated some religious minorities better than the Byzantines.

Most of the nasty war stories (not all) are Turkish of one or other description. They had a few leaders who, for instance, forced conversion, but even their leaders could be as varied as Lincoln and Nixon or Obama and Jackson.

 

This thread is a joke based on a ludicrous premise that has been thoroughly discredited.

Unsubscribed.

 

Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?

"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious."

 

None? You know for a fact that is a blatant lie. If there is a Jesus, you're getting on his nerves.

 

Atheists might answer questions "correctly" on a survey, atheists might mouth liberal pieties - but that doesn't make them moral.

Examine the demographics of atheism. In the West, atheists tend to be upper class, white, and male. These are the oppressors - the American and European yuppies that exploit the rest of the world's population.

When the time comes to help people, rather than just talk, atheists are lacking.

quote: The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.

LINK

And even atheist apologists must admit:

quote: While many studies show that secular Americans don’t fare as well as the religious when it comes to certain indicators of mental health or subjective well-being

quote: Some studies suggest that suicide rates are higher among the non-religious.

Both quotes from the website you linked to.

Fashionable atheism is just one more attempt by the rich and powerful to control and emasculate parties of the left. These fawning reports about atheism demanded by the media bosses are just so much propaganda.

 

You don't understand the map. The larger the number of atheists the larger the country appears. Thus North Korea is large despite its small population because many North Koreans have been terrorized into submission to atheist ideology.

 

Actually most North Koreans subscribe to the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong-il.