Why it's important to stop Al Qaeda

[Aram]

What is good ?

The death of imperialists.

oh jees

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well your argument that those people aren't fundamentalist breaks down since by your definition Al Qaeda members aren't fundamentalists either since they don't follow the Quran word for word.

I didn't call them fundamentalists, I called them Islamo-nazis. They consider themselves fundamentalists, and that's what the media frequently likes to call them, to avoid "terrorist" or an equally accurate term.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

These are not Christian fundamentalists, this is a loony religious cult.

 

Wow... That is a very ironic thing to say...

[Wrath of Dagon]

What is it that makes atheists so insecure about themselves that they have the constant need to attack the beliefs of others to feel superior?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rosbjerg]

What is it that makes atheists so insecure about themselves that they have the constant need to attack the beliefs of others to feel superior?

 

It's like ex-smokers.. Most of them are always preaching to smokers how bad it is for their health etc etc. It's the "born-again" syndrome.

 

That and religious people are scary when you are not part of it, it's a little unnerving to see others rely so heavily on faith.

[Gorgon]

Leaving LoF for a minute, several people have said that atrocities occur on every side. To me this smacks of intellectual laziness/cowardice (although clearly in this instance I know it isn't). There is a difference between the actions of a movement predicated on the sacrifice of innocents, and the wholesale use of terror, and our own forces who investigate, prosecute and punish people who do this.

I said individual acts. Now that does not exclude the possibility of one side being a good deal worse than another, or indeed being able to tell right from wrong.

 

As difficult as the task may seem you have to employ empathy. I'm not talking about hugs and kisses obviously but being able to imagine what goes on in the other side's heads. That's how you formulate strategies for peace, demonization is merely useful for drafting people into war.

 

I don't think we have gotten very far into their heads simply by dubbing them fanatics or islamo-fascists or whatever.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What is it that makes atheists so insecure about themselves that they have the constant need to attack the beliefs of others to feel superior?

 

Thanks for the ad hominem attack, but, since it's rather overused and stale, I'd rather you actually say something that addresses the issues. Anyways, I'm not insecure, if I were I wouldn't have openly distanced myself from the "mainstream," but I am annoyed when one religious person gets up and labels one group as a "loony religious cult" when their own beliefs are as laughable. That's just hypocritical and, frankly, deeply ironic. This entire line of questioning was stated by a similar double-standard - mainly that many Christians, at least in the United States, view Islam as a harmful, violent entity while ignoring their bloody past.

 

[Hurlshort]

There is also a double standard here where folks love to harp on the horrible acts done in the name of religion while completely dismissing all the kindness and acts of good will done in the same name.

[Trenitay]

I am annoyed when one religious person gets up and labels one group as a "loony religious cult" when their own beliefs are as laughable. That's just hypocritical and, frankly, deeply ironic.

 

Beliefs are beliefs. They aren't fact. Atheists beliefs aren't fact and neither are the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. All groups beliefs are laughable to those outside the group.

 

This entire line of questioning was stated by a similar double-standard - mainly that many Christians, at least in the United States, view Islam as a harmful, violent entity while ignoring their bloody past.

 

 

I'm not sure this is true. Most of the Christians I've discussed this with acknowledge the wrongdoings of the faith and that only the extremists are terrorists.

[Hurlshort]

We can argue about atheism versus religion, but it's really a moot point. Religion is a part of human nature, it isn't going anywhere. It has as much chance of disappearing as sex. Sure, we can reproduce without sex. Science has rendered it an unnecessary function, but people still go to great lengths to engage in it.

 

And even though there are some folks on this board who don't get it, it is pretty easy to understand why folks would do it 5 times a day.

[Walsingham]

There is also a double standard here where folks love to harp on the horrible acts done in the name of religion while completely dismissing all the kindness and acts of good will done in the same name.

 

Hear hear.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

There is also a double standard here where folks love to harp on the horrible acts done in the name of religion while completely dismissing all the kindness and acts of good will done in the same name.

 

True, and I am not trying to say that Religion has never done anything positive. What can be contested is the harm-to-good ratio - not that I'm saying anything about that.

 

Religion is a part of human nature...

 

I would disagree with that. What humans want is answers and Religion fills in unknowns. The factuality of those answers can be debated -or, in some cases, disproved- but the fact is that humans abhor not knowing and want answers.

 

Atheists beliefs aren't fact...

 

I'm not sure what you mean as atheism is simply a dis-belief in a deity or deities, other than that, a lack of belief, there is no dogma or tenets.

[Gorth]

I'm not sure what you mean as atheism is simply a dis-belief in a deity or deities, other than that, a lack of belief, there is no dogma or tenets. >_

But there is. Assuming that atheism is the belief that there is no god. I've seen/met atheists during my life that were more "preachy", more militant and more intolerant of other beliefs than many a moderate poly/monotheist person.

 

When I become spiritual leader of the world, we shall all worship Pragma and be good pragmatheists

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Assuming that atheism is the belief that there is no god.

 

I would say that atheism is the dis-belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. It's 1 or 0 issue, you're either a 1 and believe or a 0 and do not believe. There is no middle ground, no happy in between. Now if you were talking about gnostic atheists I would say that, yes, they are dogmatic and as flawed as any theist - but than that is a positive belief that there is no god and not simple atheism. So it depends on what sort you are talking about.

[Trenitay]

Atheists beliefs aren't fact...

 

I'm not sure what you mean as atheism is simply a dis-belief in a deity or deities, other than that, a lack of belief, there is no dogma or tenets.

 

Would you have liked it better if I had said "thoughts on the subject", instead of "beliefs"?

[Hurlshort]

There is also a double standard here where folks love to harp on the horrible acts done in the name of religion while completely dismissing all the kindness and acts of good will done in the same name.

 

True, and I am not trying to say that Religion has never done anything positive. What can be contested is the harm-to-good ratio - not that I'm saying anything about that.

 

Religion is a part of human nature...

 

I would disagree with that. What humans want is answers and Religion fills in unknowns. The factuality of those answers can be debated -or, in some cases, disproved- but the fact is that humans abhor not knowing and want answers.

 

 

 

Do you think there will ever come a time where we actually know all the answers?

 

I just don't see that happening without some sort of evolutionary transcendence. So religion will always have a void to fill, which sounds like a part of human nature in my book. Sure, there are people that will not need to fill that void, just like there are people that do not have strong desires, or jealousy, or anger. But they are all a part of human nature.

 

Now that I think about it, it is entirely likely that even the most staunch atheists will question their beliefs, just like the most devout priests will question their faith. Life is long and there are a lot of tests to endure. Seems very natural to me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Atheism implies world is completely random, think about that.

[Moose]

If you jump from a moving vehicle, nobody needs to be inside steering it for you to know it's going to carry on moving in the direcction it was going.

 

Nobody in control doesn't mean a complex system (a moving car) will behave in a chaotic fashion.

 

And so it is the same with atheism, the lack of a god, doesn't imply a chaotic (totally random) universe.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I prefer a total random and chaotic universe.

[Killian Kalthorne]

There is also a double standard here where folks love to harp on the horrible acts done in the name of religion while completely dismissing all the kindness and acts of good will done in the same name.

 

Because religion, as a whole, has done more harm than good. 1 good act does not counter 1000s of misdeeds.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Hurlshort]

There is also a double standard here where folks love to harp on the horrible acts done in the name of religion while completely dismissing all the kindness and acts of good will done in the same name.

 

Because religion, as a whole, has done more harm than good. 1 good act does not counter 1000s of misdeeds.

 

Do you have evidence of this? Most cities have hundreds of churches, mosques, and temples, and yet I rarely hear about them committing acts of terror and horribleness. On the other hand, most of them run charities and community outreach programs. Helping those less fortunate is a pillar of major religions throughout history.

 

I'm not even a big fan of organized religion, I think it will always be flawed, but dismissing it altogether seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you jump from a moving vehicle, nobody needs to be inside steering it for you to know it's going to carry on moving in the direcction it was going.

 

Nobody in control doesn't mean a complex system (a moving car) will behave in a chaotic fashion.

 

And so it is the same with atheism, the lack of a god, doesn't imply a chaotic (totally random) universe.

No it won't, it'll crash and burn, bad analogy.

[Purkake]

Wow guys, good job turning this into a religion vs atheism debate! We all know how those end up.

 

Carry on.

[Rosbjerg]

It's still a religious thread, so it's off-topic, but not horribly so.

 

But please keep it civil people!

 

Just had to comment on this:

Atheism implies world is completely random, think about that.

 

Not so, in an atheist world, the scientific rules and laws still apply - I doubt most Christians would use God to explain gravity. Dismissing God simply means that there is no overall deity, but that doesn't mean that the system is random or chaotic.

 

Interestingly though - and for arguments sake, how would the presence of a deity, be an assurance that the world isn't completely random? (especially seeing as a deity is the only thing that radically and inexplicitly change reality)

[Moose]

If you jump from a moving vehicle, nobody needs to be inside steering it for you to know it's going to carry on moving in the direcction it was going.

 

Nobody in control doesn't mean a complex system (a moving car) will behave in a chaotic fashion.

 

And so it is the same with atheism, the lack of a god, doesn't imply a chaotic (totally random) universe.

No it won't, it'll crash and burn, bad analogy.

 

Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDWUhn_CJKU

 

None of these cars are randomly crashing and burning the moment they get out of the car. A car crash will only happen if it collides with an external object, and by definition the universe has nothing external to interact with.