quas wrote:
I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.

What you're implying is that some people are better than others. I'll give that a day or two to sink in, to see if you get the connection between 'militant atheism' and other religions. When you suggest that some people are better than others, you have to ask, relative to what?

It's the one good religion, the one that goes crusading against all the false one !

uh, wait?

aban57 wrote:just like anti-abortion people prefer to go by pro-life : to avoid making it too visible that they are anti-something.

I'm not too concerned about self-labelling as "anti", in fact I'd happily call myself "anti-libtard".

Cito di Pense wrote:

quas wrote:
I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.

What you're implying is that some people are better than others. I'll give that a day or two to sink in, to see if you get the connection between 'militant atheism' and other religions. When you suggest that some people are better than others, you have to ask, relative to what?

If you have the courage to follow through your conviction, of course you are better than others. But then again, when you use the term "better", it really depends on perspective. Better for who? The theist who follows his beliefs to its logical conclusion would probably blow himself up for 72 virgins. If that theist blows himself up within your physical proximity, is that better for you? Is that better for himself even?

And there miltant anti-theists.....they are different.

Militant anti-theists are anti-theists. Can't be anti-theist and not militant.

quas wrote:

aban57 wrote:Regurgitation it is, then.

What's the point in discussing with you, if you don't even understand the fundamentals?

ETA : you also confuse atheism with anti-theism.

I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.

Logic isn't your strong suit either, because you manage to say something and contradict yourself in the same post. You acknowledge now that some theists are not "militant", despite saying the opposite a few times, including a sentence earlier. The logic or courage they display is irrelevant to that fact. It is no news either, logic is not a quality evenly spread in the human population, and that has been know since the dawn of humanity.
It is also a reductive and simplistic approach of beliefs (but who is surprised here ?) because it doesn't consider all the people who identify as religious, but which are in reality "cultural religious". Those people can't be defined as "militant", no matter how you present it. Or those who just want to leave in peace, and consequently ignore the bellicose content of their favorite book.
Anyway, the reason why they choose not to be "militant" is irrelevant to the fact that they indeed are not. Which means that Harris' argument (which you keep parroting) is fundamentally flawed.

aban57 wrote: You acknowledge now that some theists are not "militant", despite saying the opposite a few times, including a sentence earlier.

Where? What? How?

aban57 wrote:

quas wrote:

aban57 wrote:Regurgitation it is, then.

What's the point in discussing with you, if you don't even understand the fundamentals?

ETA : you also confuse atheism with anti-theism.

I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.

Logic isn't your strong suit either, because you manage to say something and contradict yourself in the same post. You acknowledge now that some theists are not "militant", despite saying the opposite a few times, including a sentence earlier. The logic or courage they display is irrelevant to that fact. It is no news either, logic is not a quality evenly spread in the human population, and that has been know since the dawn of humanity.
It is also a reductive and simplistic approach of beliefs (but who is surprised here ?) because it doesn't consider all the people who identify as religious, but which are in reality "cultural religious". Those people can't be defined as "militant", no matter how you present it. Or those who just want to leave in peace, and consequently ignore the bellicose content of their favorite book.
Anyway, the reason why they choose not to be "militant" is irrelevant to the fact that they indeed are not. Which means that Harris' argument (which you keep parroting) is fundamentally flawed.

I've added some colors, because you don't seem capable of comprehending your own words. Or maybe it's because they're Harris' words.

抱歉，麻烦你了，如果你不懂英语，请告诉我。

It makes as much sense as the rest you write.

quas wrote:抱歉，麻烦你了，如果你不懂英语，请告诉我。

Sorry, you have nothing to say in any language.

This discussion is terrible.

quas wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

quas wrote:
I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.

What you're implying is that some people are better than others. I'll give that a day or two to sink in, to see if you get the connection between 'militant atheism' and other religions. When you suggest that some people are better than others, you have to ask, relative to what?

If you have the courage to follow through your conviction, of course you are better than others. But then again, when you use the term "better", it really depends on perspective. Better for who? The theist who follows his beliefs to its logical conclusion would probably blow himself up for 72 virgins. If that theist blows himself up within your physical proximity, is that better for you? Is that better for himself even?

Your ignorance of Islamic theology parodies the right wing islamophobia rampant in the West.

Your assertion without substantiation that if Muslims were consistent in their beliefs it would all lead to militantism is incorrect. Try again.

willhud9 wrote:

quas wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

quas wrote:
I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.

What you're implying is that some people are better than others. I'll give that a day or two to sink in, to see if you get the connection between 'militant atheism' and other religions. When you suggest that some people are better than others, you have to ask, relative to what?

If you have the courage to follow through your conviction, of course you are better than others. But then again, when you use the term "better", it really depends on perspective. Better for who? The theist who follows his beliefs to its logical conclusion would probably blow himself up for 72 virgins. If that theist blows himself up within your physical proximity, is that better for you? Is that better for himself even?

Your ignorance of Islamic theology parodies the right wing islamophobia rampant in the West.

Your assertion without substantiation that if Muslims were consistent in their beliefs it would all lead to militantism is incorrect. Try again.

Well the Quran does teach intolerance (and sometimes murder) to the other believers or unbelievers. Apostasy is punished by death. And let's not get into how it portrays women.
But what quas harris doesn't understand, is that being raised in this religion, being forced to obey that book, and making the conscient choice of refusing to apply the violent part, makes the large majority of "non militant" Muslims much better humans than quas harris and consorts. Like I said earlier, they just want to live in peace, which is not something he-they can say.

ETA : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Quran

They are instructed to live in peace with each other, and they are instructed to have no friends outside of this group. Do not be so foolish as to imagine you would live in comfort, should the country you live in became dominated by an invader religion. Christianity was no lawn party or tea with the vicar, until it had gone beyond full seizure.

There is a reason why Islam for centuries was known as a religion of tolerance. There is also a reason why when it spread throughout Northern Africa and the Balkans it was met oftentimes with voluntary conversion to Islam, rather than forced submission to the "Will of Allah." Sure were Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, etc. considered same status as Muslims? No. Much in the same way those that Rome subdued were not considered true Romans.

The point being that for centuries Muslims did not believe in forced conversions and conquering people to force infidels into Islam. The "Great Muslim Conquests" discussed in many history books as one giant event and summed up in one giant lesson is actually a nuance of complicated reasons why. The real common denominator as to why Islam spread was a) the people in the Middle East needed fertile land to farm, fresh water, and resources b) the Spread of Islam was a secondary effect to the expansion of the territory.

There were many Muslims of Arab descent who were against mass conversions of the people believing it lessened the importance of Arab faith. This is why the "faith tax" became a thing in the Muslim world where non-Muslims paid a tax for being non-Muslim. The Arab leaders did not want a dissatisfied or unruly population. As new leadership came into power and laws were laxed more people started to convert to Islam.

The Muslim Turks would bring about a change in doctrine and shift away from Arab leadership to Turkish leadership. It was here that we see the acceptance of mass conversions and see the largest amount of conversions occur. It is also here we see a lot of the jihadist mentality come forth. Not against Christians or Jews, but against other Turks. Ethnosuperiority complex between Turkish factions and sects led to some pretty awful things by the Turks, but also led to the Ottoman Empire which became a powerhouse in global affairs.

This idea that the Western World was at odds with the Turkish kingdoms is always one that strikes me as weird. Yes there were skirmishes and political leaders tried to grab land, resources, and stuff from each other. Yes there were cultural differences. But there was also expansions of trade, knowledge, and welfare of people during this time as well.

The ultimate point being if y'all could forgive the history rant is that Islam and the Quran is full of internal contradictions. But to suggest that to follow it to its conclusion ends in violence is ignorant. The link Aban links to even cites clear examples where the Quran stresses peace and reconciliation and even goes on to present apologetics rationalizing the more violent verses.

I am not saying that Islam is some great religion. As all religions it is illogical, inconsistent, and downright silly. But, it is also a religion that gave us some beautiful architecture, poetry, and historical importance. It has a following of some amazing people that I have come to call friends.

I feel many atheists and non-Muslims continuously show a massive amount of disservice to their Muslim neighbors due to their ignorance and fear-mongering. My two cents, at least.

Sadly, a lot of the 'New Atheism' that was in vogue a few years ago has devolved into Gamergate, anti-feminism, and white supremacism. It turns out there's a lot of money in pandering to the right wing fringe.

What makes you say that?

willhud9 wrote:There is a reason why Islam for centuries was known as a religion of tolerance. There is also a reason why when it spread throughout Northern Africa and the Balkans it was met oftentimes with voluntary conversion to Islam, rather than forced submission to the "Will of Allah." Sure were Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, etc. considered same status as Muslims? No. Much in the same way those that Rome subdued were not considered true Romans.

The point being that for centuries Muslims did not believe in forced conversions and conquering people to force infidels into Islam. The "Great Muslim Conquests" discussed in many history books as one giant event and summed up in one giant lesson is actually a nuance of complicated reasons why. The real common denominator as to why Islam spread was a) the people in the Middle East needed fertile land to farm, fresh water, and resources b) the Spread of Islam was a secondary effect to the expansion of the territory.

There were many Muslims of Arab descent who were against mass conversions of the people believing it lessened the importance of Arab faith. This is why the "faith tax" became a thing in the Muslim world where non-Muslims paid a tax for being non-Muslim. The Arab leaders did not want a dissatisfied or unruly population. As new leadership came into power and laws were laxed more people started to convert to Islam.

So an intransigent minority is practicing one of the world's most devious business expansion strategy?

The ultimate point being if y'all could forgive the history rant is that Islam and the Quran is full of internal contradictions. But to suggest that to follow it to its conclusion ends in violence is ignorant. The link Aban links to even cites clear examples where the Quran stresses peace and reconciliation and even goes on to present apologetics rationalizing the more violent verses.

The peace and reconciliation part is a necessary component of the "embrace" and "extend" stage. Once they have sufficiently extended themselves, built up their numbers, they can proceed to the extinguish stage.

Oh, I'm sure.