samcdkey: could you enlighten us please, and explain this site thank you
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm
samcdkey on Islam
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
Shaitan said:
you look like darth Maul....
Shaitan said:
Simple. Here is an analogy:
Science equals technology. (Islam equals a philosophy of life)
Technology equals weapons. (Philosophy of life equals extremism)
Technologically superior weapons equal mass murder. (Extreme interpretations equal militancy)
Hence science equals mass murder. (Hence Islam is militant)
Now can you look at this site and tell me which religion is more militant?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF
Last edited:
but they kill there own, who are they being extreme against.samcdkey said:
so if we are to play silly games then lets, you forgot to include demo/geno/politicide prior to the 20th century.samcdkey said:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2382/pre20thci4.gif
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
people have commited evils against there own for millennia.
but were it mention religion is impossible to equate, so we are to assume it's the religion of the country at the time.
however the atrocities, shown on the site, I posted are all islamic/muslim acts against there own and others.
here it is again. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm
Dear Darth Maul,
could i be so bold as to ask what religion you are or whetehr you are an atheist etc..
TRhanks
could i be so bold as to ask what religion you are or whetehr you are an atheist etc..
TRhanks
Shaitan said:
We've already done this in one of the older threads, ad nauseum.
People kill people, from neanderthals in Britain who chop skulls, to genocide in Darfur.
Dolphins kill baby seals, gorillas kill baby gorillas, yada yada.
Lots of reasons. I could just as easily say that science has perfected the art of war so now we can kill 300,000 people with just two atom bombs.
Violence is inherent and people justify it with many excuses: power, resources, etc.
The biggest killing spree in modern times has been the 60 million people killed in the USSR between 1917 and 1959 all during the time when communism was in power (ie the people in power were atheists).
Read the Prince by Michiavelli. Or the Art of War by Sun Tzu.
Or the latest WHO report on violence which shows that more people (women children elderly) die of violence than men in military conflict.
An objective look at the history of humanity and violence will indicate that violence is caused by humans, no other reasons.
The five members of the Security Council are also among the top arms traders in the world. Go figure.
PS I can add a religion before any persons name and claim it is for religious reasons. It has been done for suicide bombers. And we know now that it is not true.
e.g. Christians kill 40,000 Muslims
What is interesting to me is that this website is hosted by the same domain that hosts Robert Spencers Jihadwatch and Apostates for Islam (both propaganda sites). No references, no contact info. How do you even know any of this information is true?
Pure propaganda.
As for the massacres, lets go as far back as possible. Still only proves that people kill people. Now that more people are present more people are killed per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres
Last edited:
to be religious would be to condone murder, I sir am a bright. http://www.the-brights.net/Zakariya04 said:
we have more morality in our excreta, than 4.4 billion religious people put together.
religion is evil, and has no place in human society.
samcdkey said:
I agree with what you are saying here.
I would go on to say that , people are very quick to try and blame atrocities on belief systems; whether religious or otherwise. In the same way others try to attribute the good in the world to belief systems.
In truth there is no good thing that can only be attributed to one religion or belief system anymore then there is one bad thing that can only be attributed to one religion or belief system. All atrocities have been committed a thousand times before under different banners, as have all acts of charity honour and kindness.
It is people who act, not ideas. Of course people are influenced by ideas, but if two people can be exposed to the same ideas and interpret them completely differently (more importantly act completey differently based on them) then there is obviously no objective action of the ideas – it is the individual responding to those ideas.
Some Muslims have been inspired to charity and mercy by the koran others to suicide and war. Some Christians have been inspired to kindness and forgiveness by the bible others to martyrdom and condemnation and cruelty. In the name of communism charity is given and dissidents are shot. In the name of democracy freedoms are given and women and children are killed. There is always a reason to kill if an individual wants to find one.
If religious ideas had objective effects they would act the same on every individual throughout history and they clearly dont. Other factors therefore apply, mainly the response of the individual.
the key word here seems to be "inspired", few people without a religion are ever inspired to kill. thats why religion is evil, it's words incite hatred.
nobody disbutes that it's man that kills man, but one of the main causes for killing is religious inspiration.
nobody disbutes that it's man that kills man, but one of the main causes for killing is religious inspiration.
geeser said:
Absolute rubbish - you cant support that .
Sam has already posted about the extent of communist violence (communism being expressly oppossed to religion).
Sam has also posted about the violent deaths of women etc - are you really trying to claim all these are religious killings.
What about all the gang crime - the drug crime. Are you now saying these are all related to religion.
Your post is baseless propaganda, of exaclty the same sort you object to from fundamentalist relioginists.
Shaitan said:
The bright movement ??……………. well i've read the site........its only aims seem to be gaining power and influence.
Well its certainly a very pure ambition - to gain power and influence on society for no other reason than to gain power and influence for its members.
There is very little substance on this site but here are the few references to aims that I could find;
“initiate and sustain notable collective social and political action”
“undertake social and civic actions designed to influence a society”
“Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.”
(the only stated worldview being non-belief in the supernatural)
You talk of ‘principled action’ but what are those principles. Universally accepted principles don’t exist? Please define the bright’s principles for us?
Would a bright define a principled action made by a supernatural believer of less value then a principled action made by a ‘bright’?
Don’t get me wrong - you have as much right to form a society, or to lobby politically as any other group of like minded individuals.
But I don’t see how a collective of largely anonymous individuals whose only stated aim is the influence of politics and society for no other reason than the influence of politics or society can hardly stake a claim as the bastions of morality!!!
And how you demonstrate your superior responsibility and morality on this site is by posting a Satan avatar and listing your interests as “hot women”. What a joke (well it would be if you weren’t serious – the sad thing is I am sure you really view yourself as the worlds moral guardian and potential saviour of western, nay world, society)
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Did anyone say pleasure? *looking around*
So in your opinion the fact that violence in some form or another has always been present in humans (along with religion) is a clear indication that the two are related?
And this "theory" of yours is in no way negated by evidence of violence in other species?
Amazing. Is this a usual practice with you? To ignore any evidence that does not correspond to your established notions?