You never see athiests doing this!
Ulsterguy
Posts: 3,306
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Clashes over Bangladesh protest leave '15 dead'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22423815
Chanting "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest!") and "One point! One demand! Atheists must be hanged", the activists marched down at least six main roads as they headed for Motijheel, AFP news agency reported.
Athiests may have many faults, but we've never demanded the religious hanged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22423815
Chanting "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest!") and "One point! One demand! Atheists must be hanged", the activists marched down at least six main roads as they headed for Motijheel, AFP news agency reported.
Athiests may have many faults, but we've never demanded the religious hanged.
0
Comments
Yeah, Im afraid we pretty much did.
You don't think the fact that they're Islamists and therefore likely fanatic fruitcakes has anything to do with it then? Open your eyes man.
So it's ok to demand death if you're a fanatic?
No, but they're hardly representative of religion per se, which is what you are wanting to have a pop at.
Nice stretch, Armstrong.
Nobody said that being a fruitcake makes it okay to demand hanging. The point is that being a fruitcake means that their point of view is not to be taken seriously.
Are the protesters themselves defaming Islam. or are they showing it up for what it really is? If it's not the latter then they must be falsely representing(ie defaming) Islam.
"I am Muslim and 90% of the population is Muslim too but the protesters do not represent our views," he said.
And, the rest are mostly Hindis.
So a tiny percentage of fanatics.
"I will kill you because no god told me to" or "beacuse you don't not serve the same no god as I don't".
It depends on whether another Muslim agrees with them or not surely?. If they agree with the extremists then yes, this group are representing their views. If they disagree with them, then they aren't. Simple.
Price of beer...
Benefit claimants.
Food and land. And shiny things.
But we might get on with developing technology and expanding our knowledge more rapidly.
He/she isn't saying that, they're just stating that you can't just generalize an entire religion based on a few nutters for your own agenda.
Which is by far the more appropriate place for it.
Your door is always there. Unless someone steals your door. But you and everyone else, has to actively seek out the web pages to be exposed to what's on there.
The bit in bold is obviously true, but it's also tautologous. An atheist can't use God as a reason, because by definition, they don't believe in God.
Atheists can however believe that "religion is a cancer and must be eradicated, even if that means killing the religious". And that is really a subset of the kind of thinking that says "beliefs other than mine are a cancer and must be eradicated, even if that means killing people of other beliefs".
What really matters is not whether people are theists or atheists, but whether they have totalitarian or violent interpretations of their worldviews.
My point is that atheism isn't a worldview at all, that it's nothing. You have to go beyond atheism to see cause for you to behave a certain way.
And that's before you count Pol Pot, Mao, et al.
If it was nothing, it would be called nothing. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. It says something fundamental about how that person sees the world they inhabit.
You have to go beyond mere theism to see cause for you to behave in a certain way too. That's what I meant when I referred to violent and totalitarian interpretations.
That is not the nature of a vacuum.
Create a vacuum and it will be filled by the thing closest to it.
Take away the worship of a higher power (whether it exists or not) and what you are left with is self-worship.
When man worships himself all things become permissible.
Couldn't agree more.