Boston Marathon explosions......

[TroutBum]

I respect Siro on the subject, since you know, he used to be one of "them"... And I'm pretty sure that TBS is Tink in disguise and he gets a hard on just thinking about trolling this hard, but I am going to jump in and say:

TBS is right, sorta. I find it repulsive how Americans are so quick to judge a religion based on the actions of a very small minority. How many millions of Muslims are there in the world? How many are terrorists? Exactly. Stop blaming everything on "them". It seriously makes me ill whenever I hear some dumbass talk show host blame all of the worlds woe on Islam.

Siro is wrong, sorta. Dude, you have to admit, you can't step back and look at this subject objectively. You hate Islam, period. Most of the stuff you say is spot on and well thought out, but other stuff -- especially in this thread -- is horrible.

 

[MVP]

Now when someone like Carl Sagan or Einstein trashes atheism all the atheists jump on them saying "oh they are practical atheists even if they deny it, they hate religion, don't believe in a personal god etc etc."

Who jumps on them? Sagan did not believe in god, period. He was agnostic - the only difference is he leaves a possibility that something like "creator" may exist. He thrashed islam, christianity or any other organized man made faith, not atheism.

His last wife, Ann Druyan, stated:

When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl.

There are millions of people who believe in illusion of afterlife, god, heaven, whatever. Carl Sagan was not one of them! I suggest you never use him as example here.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Who jumps on them? Sagan did not believe in god, period. He was agnostic - the only difference is he leaves a possibility that something like "creator" may exist. He thrashed islam, christianity or any other organized man made faith, not atheism.

His last wife, Ann Druyan, stated:

When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl.

There are millions of people who believe in illusion of afterlife, god, heaven, whatever. Carl Sagan was not one of them! I suggest you never use him as example here.

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence." - Carl Sagan

Yet atheists still claim Carl Sagan to be an atheist. If Carl Sagan was an atheist Hitler was also an atheist as Hitler didn't believe in "illusions" and trashed religion.

 

[Stoked]

I respect Siro on the subject, since you know, he used to be one of "them"... And I'm pretty sure that TBS is Tink in disguise and he gets a hard on just thinking about trolling this hard, but I am going to jump in and say:

TBS is right, sorta. I find it repulsive how Americans are so quick to judge a religion based on the actions of a very small minority. How many millions of Muslims are there in the world? How many are terrorists? Exactly. Stop blaming everything on "them". It seriously makes me ill whenever I hear some dumbass talk show host blame all of the worlds woe on Islam.

Siro is wrong, sorta. Dude, you have to admit, you can't step back and look at this subject objectively. You hate Islam, period. Most of the stuff you say is spot on and well thought out, but other stuff -- especially in this thread -- is horrible.

It is sad how that is done. However I understand how it is done as well. Most Americans have no direct link to the Muslim faith. They do not know any. So to them Muslims are what their world figures are. Often those world figures are part of that extremely small minority and tarnish the whole religion. Kind of like how people with no link to America think America is like Hollywood.

 

[One Brow]

One brow you mentioned wikipedia when quoting, so obviously you used it.

Of course I did. Primary sources are vital, but since I'm not an expert in German, Hitler, or any of his subordinates, it's also important to check secondary sources and make sure I'm not misinterpreting things. I try to avoid being some nut who leaps at conclusions based on misunderstandings that are out of my area of expertise.

None of that changes any of the content of the three quotes, lifted word-for-word, from the translation you linked to. Hitler does not describe himself as an atheist. In the only three places he mentions atheism, he says atheism comes from uneducated anger with religion, refers to atheism as going back to being a beast, and says people should not be educated as atheists. To say this is evidence that Hitler was an atheist is ludicrous.

Now when someone like Carl Sagan or Einstein trashes atheism all the atheists jump on them saying "oh they are practical atheists even if they deny it, they hate religion, don't believe in a personal god etc etc." Now Hitler does it despite talking negatively about christianity and wanting to destroy religion but he is no practical atheist anylonger.

So, you're current claim is that HItler did not believe in a personal God? Let's see what Hitler says in, once again, the link you provided.

If to-day you do harm to the Russians, it is so as to avoid giving them the opportunity of doing harm to us.

God does not act differently. He suddenly hurls the masses of humanity on to the earth, and he leaves it to each one to work out his own salvation.

You won't read of Einstein or Sagan talking about salvation or God hurling masses to the Earth.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That's not to be desired.

Einstein called belief in a personal child-like. Sagan compared it to believing in a dragon in your garage.

He has observed that the Aryan is stupid to the point of accepting anything in matters of religion, as soon as the idea of God is recognised. With the Aryan, the belief in the Beyond often takes a quite childish form; but this belief does represent an effort towards a deepening of things. The man who doesn't believe in the Beyond has no understanding of religion.

You won't see Einstein or Sagan saying you need to believe in God to understand religion.

What is in opposition to the laws of nature cannot come from God.

If the mental picture that Christians form of God were correct, the god of the ants would be an ant, and similarly for the other animals.

But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.

It's impossible to escape the problem of God. When I have the time, I'll work out the formulae to be used on great occasions. We must have something perfect both in thought and in form.

If God cared about such trifles, he'd have created man already dressed!

God made men. But thanks to original sin we are men in the image of our world, earning our bread in the sweat of our brow.

For five hundred thousand years, God impassively contemplated the spectacle of which He is the author. Then one day He decided to send upon earth His only son. You remember the details of that complicated story !

Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.

It is very curious that devout Christians like the British and the Americans should, despite their constant and fervent prayers, receive such a series of hidings from the pagan Japanese ! It rather looks as if the real God takes no notice of the prayers offered day and night by the British and the Americans, but reserves His mercies for the heroes of Japan.

I think my mind is bleeding from some of the stuff I haven't quoted. However, thus should suffice for any reasonable person. Hitler was not an atheist. Your favored piece of evidence has turned against you. If you maintain any pretense of being reasonable, you'll drop that particular argument.

Less than .5% of attacks were committed by Muslims within a 2 year time frame, Muslims are about 25% of the world's population.

Europe, as always, has issues with territories wanting to become separate nations, which form the vast majority of the reasons for the terrorist attacks. That's not a supporting plank for how peaceful Muslims are, except in the "we're very much like anyone else" category.

Once again you guys are picking the black sheep of the Muslim community and labeling them as exemplary Muslims.

I linked you to a list of complete countries of majority-Muslim countries, and asked you which ones did not have serious prosecution of religious minorities that were not officially secular. Which ones are the white sheep?

 

[MVP]

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence." - Carl Sagan

Yet atheists still claim Carl Sagan to be an atheist. .

Are you freaking serious? Read my above post - I said he was agnostic! Stop embarrassing yourself even more. You lost this discussion so many times that it is not even funny.

 

[Stoked]

Are you freaking serious? Read my above post - I said he was agnostic! Stop embarrassing yourself even more. You lost this discussion so many times that it is not even funny.

But you have to admit you kind have to admire certain posters steadfast determination to keep going no matter how often they get manhandled.

 

[MVP]

In general we should stop feeding TBS troll as there is no way he is going to change his narrow minded approach to life which reflects his lack of education.
Thread is about Boston bombers, not religion vs atheism. They were muslims, they killed innocent people and certainly their religion played a big role in that. End of storry.

 

[Siro]

I respect Siro on the subject, since you know, he used to be one of "them"... And I'm pretty sure that TBS is Tink in disguise and he gets a hard on just thinking about trolling this hard, but I am going to jump in and say:

TBS is right, sorta. I find it repulsive how Americans are so quick to judge a religion based on the actions of a very small minority. How many millions of Muslims are there in the world? How many are terrorists? Exactly. Stop blaming everything on "them". It seriously makes me ill whenever I hear some dumbass talk show host blame all of the worlds woe on Islam.

Siro is wrong, sorta. Dude, you have to admit, you can't step back and look at this subject objectively. You hate Islam, period. Most of the stuff you say is spot on and well thought out, but other stuff -- especially in this thread -- is horrible.

We've had this discussion before. You're focusing too much on my demeanor. I do need to control my temper a bit better, kind of like One Brow does. But none of what I said is wrong. It is simply that people find it unacceptable to "insult" religion.

So a small percentage of Muslims are actual terrorists. Nobody is denying that. But why does terrorism follow Muslims wherever they go? A coincidence? And while a small percentage of Muslims are terrorists, a massive percentage of terrorists are Muslims. How atrocious the consequences of an ideology must be before it can be criticized? And terrorism is not the only issue with Islam. Far from it. Why is it okay to program women to think that being treated like filth is the only way for them to maintain their dignity in the eyes of god? Why should I turn a blind eye to the sectarian violence that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the past decade? Because it's not the religion, it's the people? How strange it is to think that some old ideas written by men of ignorance deserve more protection than the people they destroy.

The issues with religion in general, and Islam in particular, are real and incredibly serious. The fact that people are trained to revere irrationality since the day they're born only makes my attacks more justified. I am sorry decent people get offended by my attitude. But the lives of those murdered in the name of Allah hold far, FAR, more value than the feelings of those who enable them. And they do enable them. The tens of millions of who support terrorist organizations financially, politically, and ideologically are part of the problem. And those people make up a much larger percentage than 0.01% or even 10%. When will it be okay for me to judge?

How about the Muslim public rise up and reject those organizations loudly, publicly, and with overwhelming numbers? Instead of, you know, sheltering them in their homes and towns? But no, they have their protests and their marches, and they paint them with words like democracy and freedom. But what they really want? A strict Islamic rule. Egypt's revolution was about getting the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Pretty much all of the protests related to the Arab Spring are about replacing "pro-Western" dictators with Islamic ones. Regardless of whatever fantasy about the longing for freedom that Westerners like to indulge in.

Edit: Also make no mistake, to them you ARE the enemy. Not to the terrorists, but to the average Muslim. All the liberal talk about tolerance and acceptance is unrequited. But it's okay. That's what makes the West superior. A culture that tries to understand and help everyone, regardless of the occasional villainy of their governments.

https://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion-ever-more-critical-of-u-s
https://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?pnt=361&lb=btvoc

 

[babe]

In general we should stop feeding TBS troll as there is no way he is going to change his narrow minded approach to life which reflects his lack of education.
Thread is about Boston bombers, not religion vs atheism. They were muslims, they killed innocent people and certainly their religion played a big role in that. End of storry.

I'm probably pretty bad for drifting off topic, as bad as anyone. . . . . but I was wondering if I'd clicked on the philosophy thread when I came to this page.

Considering that the FBI knew years ago about the Chechen rebel terrorists who did this deed, I'm officially calling this a US intelligence agency darkside psy-op operation. hmmmm....... well, maybe not. If it had been, they would have had an FBI agent on hand to pick them up and drive them to Times Square. uhhhhhhhmnmmmm. . . . . well, maybe. Not exactly sure I can postulate actual intelligence or competence to gov hacks with no morals.

still, we have a perfect record between the first Twin Towers bombing many years ago, the Oklahoma Murrow federal building bombing in 1995, and the 9/11 bombing, and the Boston Marathon all being perpetrated by twisted perps who'd been on the FBI inventory of potentially useful idiots.

 

[babe]

We've had this discussion before. You're focusing too much on my demeanor. I do need to control my temper a bit better, kind of like One Brow does. But none of what I said is wrong. It is simply that people find it unacceptable to "insult" religion.

So a small percentage of Muslims are actual terrorists. Nobody is denying that. But why does terrorism follow Muslims wherever they go? A coincidence? And while a small percentage of Muslims are terrorists, a massive percentage of terrorists are Muslims. How atrocious the consequences of an ideology must be before it can be criticized? And terrorism is not the only issue with Islam. Far from it. Why is it okay to program women to think that being treated like filth is the only way for them to maintain their dignity in the eyes of god? Why should I turn a blind eye to the sectarian violence that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the past decade? Because it's not the religion, it's the people? How strange it is to think that some old ideas written by men of ignorance deserve more protection than the people they destroy.

The issues with religion in general, and Islam in particular, are real and incredibly serious. The fact that people are trained to revere irrationality since the day they're born only makes my attacks more justified. I am sorry decent people get offended by my attitude. But the lives for those murdered in the name of Allah hold far, FAR, more value than the feelings of those who enable them. And they do enable them. The tens of millions of who support terrorist organizations financially, politically, and ideologically are part of the problem. And those people make up a much larger percentage than 0.01% or even 10%. When will it be okay for me to judge?

How about the Muslim public rise up and reject those organizations loudly, publicly, and with overwhelming numbers? Instead of, you know, sheltering them in their homes and towns? But no, they have their protests and their marches, and they paint them with words like democracy and freedom. But what they really want? A strict Islamic rule. Egypt's revolution was about getting the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Pretty much all of the protests related to the Arab Spring are about replacing "pro-Western" dictators with Islamic ones. Regardless of whatever fantasy about the longing for freedom that Westerners like to indulge in.

Edit: Also make no mistake, to them you ARE the enemy. Not the the terrorists, but to the average Muslims. All the liberal talk about tolerance and acceptance is unrequited. But it's okay. That's what makes the West superior. A culture that tries to understand and help everyone, regardless of the occasional villainy of their governments.

https://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion-ever-more-critical-of-u-s
https://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?pnt=361&lb=btvoc

may I suggest that you study the western origins of muslim terrorists. . . . . the muslims who aligned with Hitler during the second world war, and those who were recruited later by western agents like the KGB or CIA or MI6???

If you just tell me you're interested, I'll PM you some links to folks who have been looking into this. . . .

I put the current controversy in the same class as the agitators who helped stoke the fires on both sides leading up the American Civil War. You have the same point sources of financing between opposite sides of a conflagration pushing us to war???

and those point sources are military industrialists with excess capacity for production???

 

[Siro]

may I suggest that you study the western origins of muslim terrorists. . . . . the muslims who aligned with Hitler during the second world war, and those who were recruited later by western agents like the KGB or CIA or MI6???

If you just tell me you're interested, I'll PM you some links to folks who have been looking into this. . . .

I put the current controversy in the same class as the agitators who helped stoke the fires on both sides leading up the American Civil War. You have the same point sources of financing between opposite sides of a conflagration pushing us to war???

and those point sources are military industrialists with excess capacity for production???

Muslims are the main victims of Islamic terror. The role of Western governments in financing terror groups is well known. And you're counting the Russians as part of the West? Of course major powers are going to manipulate smaller ones to gain advantage. But the West is not the cause of Islamist fanaticism. That had been developing over the past couple of hundred years.

You're overly obsessed with the evils of government. None of what I'm saying relates to war. How do you wage a physical war against an idea? I am simply asking the West to drop the cowardice and call out Muslims on their primitive ways. So next time a European film maker gets killed for making a short movie about Muslim's ill-treatment of women, perhaps the outrage should be directed where it belongs, instead of making excuses about "the peaceful majority". Or maybe when Islamists try to impose sharia in a modern country, like they continuously do in England and elsewhere, they should be met with laughter and derision, instead of apathetic cultural relativism.

 

[One Brow]

Thread is about Boston bombers, not religion vs atheism. They were muslims, they killed innocent people and certainly their religion played a big role in that. End of storry.

I see no reason to assume religion played a role.

For example, here's a blog post with a different theory.

https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/...be-concerned-tamerlan-tsaernev-read-infowars/

 

[One Brow]

Considering that the FBI knew years ago about the Chechen rebel terrorists who did this deed,

These men were Americans.

 

[Stoked]

These men were Americans.

One was naturalized and one was not. Granted he was int he process of it but it was being held up due to a violence background.

 

[One Brow]

One was naturalized and one was not. Granted he was int he process of it but it was being held up due to a violence background.

The older was 14? when he moved to the US. American, if not yet a citizen.

 

[Stoked]

The older was 14? when he moved to the US. American, if not yet a citizen.

He may have felt like an American but he was not. I get the point you are making and am not arguing it. Just adding factual truth to your point.

 

[Siro]

The older was 14? when he moved to the US. American, if not yet a citizen.

That's not enough to draw any conclusions. I know some people who have been in the U.S. for a lot longer than 12 years, and they're not culturally American at all. I think it depends on other factors, like whether they assimilated into a mainstream community, or stayed with fellow expatriates.

 

[babe]

I see no reason to assume religion played a role.

For example, here's a blog post with a different theory.

https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/...be-concerned-tamerlan-tsaernev-read-infowars/

I don't think they were religious, but this is link is about as bad as you can get for unhinged hate-mongering. Not Alex Jones, but your "science blog". Obama has been to, and addressed the content of Inforwars in his own way as well. Are you concerned that Obama is taking his orders from Alex Jones? I think the bombers are just as dissimilar as Obama is from even the craziest conspiracy theorists on the conservative side who basically are wanting a return to open constitutional government the people can be informed about and exercise control of.

If I can speculate about where I think the people of Chechnya might be coming from, they are generally uniting around an Islamic identity in contraposition to Russian communism/atheism, and probably suspect that the Western roots of communism might validate an extension of their specific issues towards Western European nations and the United States. They are probably not good recruits for Chinese agents either.

But after the FBI identified their presence in this country, it would be nothing for them to have some people drop by into their lives on one pretext or another, speak sympathetically of their sentiments. . . . and after becoming friends of some sort begin to manipulate them into doing something like this. . . . even showing them what to do to make a crude but effective "bomb".

You seem to be hanging on the denialism of the ordinary statist who cannot question the capacity of government agents, especially government agents who are operating under the radar of supervision somehow and using their position and knowledge to do some evil of their own design.

Do you trust our visible and public government management to do everything you imagine they should do???

well, all I think I really know is that bombing human beings is a terrible evil thing. It challenges my imagination to try to figure out how or why. I don't outright dismiss any possibility unless I have positive knowlege to the contrary.

I also think a mass media campaign of fear-mongering like I've been seeing. . . . . is just evil, too.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

We've had this discussion before. You're focusing too much on my demeanor. I do need to control my temper a bit better, kind of like One Brow does. But none of what I said is wrong. It is simply that people find it unacceptable to "insult" religion.

So a small percentage of Muslims are actual terrorists. Nobody is denying that. But why does terrorism follow Muslims wherever they go? A coincidence? And while a small percentage of Muslims are terrorists, a massive percentage of terrorists are Muslims. How atrocious the consequences of an ideology must be before it can be criticized? And terrorism is not the only issue with Islam. Far from it. Why is it okay to program women to think that being treated like filth is the only way for them to maintain their dignity in the eyes of god? Why should I turn a blind eye to the sectarian violence that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the past decade? Because it's not the religion, it's the people? How strange it is to think that some old ideas written by men of ignorance deserve more protection than the people they destroy.

The issues with religion in general, and Islam in particular, are real and incredibly serious. The fact that people are trained to revere irrationality since the day they're born only makes my attacks more justified. I am sorry decent people get offended by my attitude. But the lives of those murdered in the name of Allah hold far, FAR, more value than the feelings of those who enable them. And they do enable them. The tens of millions of who support terrorist organizations financially, politically, and ideologically are part of the problem. And those people make up a much larger percentage than 0.01% or even 10%. When will it be okay for me to judge?

How about the Muslim public rise up and reject those organizations loudly, publicly, and with overwhelming numbers? Instead of, you know, sheltering them in their homes and towns? But no, they have their protests and their marches, and they paint them with words like democracy and freedom. But what they really want? A strict Islamic rule. Egypt's revolution was about getting the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Pretty much all of the protests related to the Arab Spring are about replacing "pro-Western" dictators with Islamic ones. Regardless of whatever fantasy about the longing for freedom that Westerners like to indulge in.

Edit: Also make no mistake, to them you ARE the enemy. Not to the terrorists, but to the average Muslim. All the liberal talk about tolerance and acceptance is unrequited. But it's okay. That's what makes the West superior. A culture that tries to understand and help everyone, regardless of the occasional villainy of their governments.

https://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion-ever-more-critical-of-u-s
https://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?pnt=361&lb=btvoc

Supplimenting FBI Data from 1950-2005 Saying only 6% of Terrorist Attacks Were Committed by Muslims, Europol Released a Report Saying From 2006-2008, Less Than .5% Attacks Were Committed by Muslims.

https://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/

Another "argument" from siro dismantled.