Why atheism makes you mean
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Loosely, it means "outsider"; this is the logical outcome of positioning anything, it's either 'in' or it's 'out', every language expresses this logic somehow. It's really neither 'here', nor 'there'.
There's a way to say it in Hebrew and Aramaic, as if you didn't know that. There's a Classical way to say it in several dead languages, Latin, say.
There's a way to say it in Hebrew and Aramaic, as if you didn't know that. There's a Classical way to say it in several dead languages, Latin, say.
You're not using the word unbeliever, you're using the word kaffir which has negative and derogatory associations with it. Same as with words previously such as heretic, heathen, pagan, satanist(in it's general use by christians not any new age meanings it might have) etc.
Much the same way calling a black man a black man is fine, but if you call him a nigger it's not.
Are you deliberately being dense again?
If you mean unbeliever why don't you say it? Or perhaps you don't merely mean unbeliever as you would have us think and it's yet another poor attempt at a veiled insult from you.
For the record: personally I do this for the benefit of others reading your posts. After encountering many like you in my life(and thankfully many not like you) I'm far too thick skinned to take you, your opinions, or your insults seriously. However, clearly there are others who take offence.
I should also note for others that SAM is not representative of muslims in general. Specifically when it comes to obsessing about the jews and the west.
Kaffir is a perfectly acceptable Arabic word that means unbeliever. Unlike nigger, it has no negative connotations in its meaning.
I may call you an unbeliever in English, but I'll certainly say kaffir in Urdu and not only that, since kaffir is my own language [Urdu] as well, I don't need anyone's permission to use it. I can see banning South Africans and other non-Arab non-Urdu non-Muslim speakers from using it. Its not their language and any usage by them would have a different connotation. Consider it like nigger to be a word that belongs to the people who own it. As a Muslim and as an Urdu speaker, I own the word. Its my freedom to use a more apt word in my own language than one which is meaningless to me. I think it is racist to misappropriate a word from another language, bastardise it and then ban it.
I may call you an unbeliever in English, but I'll certainly say kaffir in Urdu and not only that, since kaffir is my own language [Urdu] as well, I don't need anyone's permission to use it. I can see banning South Africans and other non-Arab non-Urdu non-Muslim speakers from using it. Its not their language and any usage by them would have a different connotation. Consider it like nigger to be a word that belongs to the people who own it. As a Muslim and as an Urdu speaker, I own the word. Its my freedom to use a more apt word in my own language than one which is meaningless to me. I think it is racist to misappropriate a word from another language, bastardise it and then ban it.
Polynesians have words for 'outsiders' which we usually translate into our paradigm as things like "pale or white-skinned".
The Maori word 'pakeha' is translated as "white face", but if you ask a Maori what it means, it isn't that straightforward. It can mean several things, but it was initially their version of kaffir, because Europeans, mostly whalers at the first, then missionaries, had a strange mythology, a King on a big island across a sea they'd never seen. Pakeha were outside their paradigm.
The Maori word 'pakeha' is translated as "white face", but if you ask a Maori what it means, it isn't that straightforward. It can mean several things, but it was initially their version of kaffir, because Europeans, mostly whalers at the first, then missionaries, had a strange mythology, a King on a big island across a sea they'd never seen. Pakeha were outside their paradigm.
So can a theist. Atheism and theism are very general labels. Your comment doesn't apply to secular humanists, for example.
Not true - Satanism is a theistic religion which explicitly disavows responsibilities to others. Secondly, theism has at times come attached with responsibilities like upholding Mayan human sacrifice, the Hindu caste system, Christian crusades and Islamic jihad, which are antisocial responsibilities. Responsibility is just pressure to act, and can easily be pressure to act wrong.
I don't deny any of that. However, right and wrong are both subjective values. You may consider it wrong, does not necessitate they should.
Human beings can be deeply effected and or mentaly wounded when they believe their short life will cease to be one day forever. it has been well documented and known for a very long time that humans take death very seriously. One of the typical atheist stances is to sweep the subject under the rug and try your hardest to get on with life and not think about your mortal death.
It is not very complicated it is quite simple, that's a big reason why elderly people get very grumpy and cold hearted, they know the time is nearly up and it effects there everyday life sometimes to serious degrees. Humans do not wish to give up the life they have been given so soon, it can make people very bitter and resentful knowing the life they have will be taken from them and there is nothing they can do to stop it.
Many people who do not have faith in an afterlife will sometimes turn to science hoping there will someday be a way to increase there lifespan or give them immortality. This is one reason why some people might see science as a type of brotherhood or cult, something they can put faith in to save them and the loved ones that surround them, when death and immortality is concerned it can sway people to form groups of brotherhoods searching and aiming for a thing to save them from death.
Religious people turn to god for salvation from eternal death, some people turn to science for salvation, it is not the fault of the individual who seeks a saviour life can make people desperate.
Atheists can turn very bitter without hope, I don't blame them not everybody is strong enough to be happy and nice while deep down thinking they are forever doomed to be dead and non existent. when confronted by a person who has hope and faith in god and an afterlife it can trigger a nasty jelous fueled reaction towards the theist. There are many excuses to defend your bitterness but I can see through the guises.
peace.
It is not very complicated it is quite simple, that's a big reason why elderly people get very grumpy and cold hearted, they know the time is nearly up and it effects there everyday life sometimes to serious degrees. Humans do not wish to give up the life they have been given so soon, it can make people very bitter and resentful knowing the life they have will be taken from them and there is nothing they can do to stop it.
Many people who do not have faith in an afterlife will sometimes turn to science hoping there will someday be a way to increase there lifespan or give them immortality. This is one reason why some people might see science as a type of brotherhood or cult, something they can put faith in to save them and the loved ones that surround them, when death and immortality is concerned it can sway people to form groups of brotherhoods searching and aiming for a thing to save them from death.
Religious people turn to god for salvation from eternal death, some people turn to science for salvation, it is not the fault of the individual who seeks a saviour life can make people desperate.
Atheists can turn very bitter without hope, I don't blame them not everybody is strong enough to be happy and nice while deep down thinking they are forever doomed to be dead and non existent. when confronted by a person who has hope and faith in god and an afterlife it can trigger a nasty jelous fueled reaction towards the theist. There are many excuses to defend your bitterness but I can see through the guises.
peace.
The Mayan empire, the Indian caste system, the crusader kingdoms and the caliphate all collapsed. I thought you liked using survival as an indicator of worth?
Sure they did, but they only collapsed from outside intervention, not internal implosion. Also, none of them collapsed in favour of an atheistic society [barring Ataturks massacres in Turkey]
I don't think that's accurate. The tenets of the Church of Satan, for example, resemble Libertarianism more than anything else. What Satanism eliminates is the responsibility to God, not to one's fellow man. It may add up to less responsibility than in some religions, but all the basic "pro-social" elements about not hurting anyone are there. Actually, the "pro-social" elements that are missing are the ones that enable the society in question to "thrive" by dominating other societies: command-and-control, taxation, in-group privilege, etc.
What is often called Satanism is actually the expression of Christianity in troubled individuals. Call that whatever you want, but I don't think it's relevant to Satanism-as-theistic-religion.
Last edited:
S.A.M., have you read Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond?
iceaura
“
“
“
“
Sheesh!
In its hey day, it had whole prisons dedicated to this issue ...
“
“
when you start being accountable to X, X becomes the source of determining one's values
“
hence there are arguments for the reasonable acceptance of religious claims, as well as examples of the unreasonable acceptance of religious claims .. much like there are arguments for the un/reasonable acceptance of marriage, of politics, of school teaching, etc etc
“
so what of, say, humans being accountable to the something greater than themselves, like the planet?
“
you can't draw up general social guidelines of what is considered right and what is considered wrong in regard to the individual from communism?
Sheesh!
In its hey day, it had whole prisons dedicated to this issue ...
Mao himself confessed, the most important ideological support of the communist regime in China is Darwin's theory of evolution.
“
Has any society collapsed with no external intervention?
When has an oppressive atheistic society collapsed in favor of a theocracy? After oppression of any kind people usually prefer tolerance, which leads them to form secular societies where religion (or lack thereof) is a personal choice.
Mod Note: posts with derogatory language deleted.
All atheist societies. From the Carvakas, to the Soviet Union, to the Chinese to the Cambodians, to the Vietnamese. One could even lay the fall of empires to a greater egoism on the part of the ruler who then saw himself as god.
If they posited themselves as gods, those societies are, therefore, 'theistic.' Their existence as gods are no less legitimate than the existence of the gods of modern societies whose members claim to be theists. Indeed, their existence as gods are more legitimate since we have evidence of their existence.
Also, does your absolute claim extend to modern atheist societies, such as Japan, New Zealand, and Scandinavian nations? Are their elected officials gods or think themselves to be?