Quote:


You left out atheists. I've come across plenty of mini-hitlers in my time who are just itching for an opportunity to impose atheism on everyone in the world.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 7:25am:


There's a big difference between making a strong argument and forcing that argument on others by coercive means. Most, if not all, Anarchists are atheists. Yet what is singularly different about Anarchism is its rejection of coercion as a valid means for change.

Quote:


Really?  You should blush at writing such guff. It is religious people who absolve themselves from all fault with the lines "it's gods will", "god is on our side" "they are the heathens" etc. You who have faith in god and abdicate responsibility treat 'others' as cockroaches. We who retain our sovereign responsibility keep faith with common humanity.

Just look at your 'Holy Land'. What are you, dense? Look at what has been done in the name of Abrahamic religion. Show me one death that can be attributed to Atheism. No not what has been committed by somebody who was coincidentally an atheist, show me what has been committed in the name of atheism. Communists don't count. They kill everybody and anybody including each other. A great communist is a great hypocrite.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 12:55pm:


Yes it does actually. Since an atheist holds that there is no soul, and that life has no intrinsic value. To an atheist, murdering another human being is little different to spraying mortein on a roach or weed killer on your garden. What basis would an atheist use to separate these actions? If we are just a bunch of random chemicals that happened to end up in this "configuration" by chance, then what would be the incentive not to murder others, if it happened to be conducive to your aims in life (like it was for Stalin, Mao & Pol pot)?

By what criteria could an atheist determine that another human's molecules are any more worthy of remaining in their current "configuration" than the molecules that make up a roach?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 12:55pm:


If that's the case, then it makes my case for how defective the Western system is then, doesn't it?

A system which, as you claim, does not ensure its own survival is doomed to failure, and is not a system worth preserving, is it? By the great law of evolution, then it _must_ by necessity perish.

Quote:



Atheism is simply to not believe in god; it is simply a negation of god. Any construction after the negation of god, like the quasi-scientific one you're projecting, is of another philosophy. Incidently, Stalin and Pol Pot's philosophy was Marxist, not about atoms or amino acids.
You're arguing with yourself by erecting such a strawman.



Quote:


Types such as yourself take the classical liberal idea of minimal government interference into the lives of citizens and maximum personal liberty to its extreme. You castigate the institutions that protect your personal freedoms; you will the destruction of these institutions.
The classical liberals did not extend their ideas on personal freedoms to those who set about to destroy society. This includes those of your ilk.
The problem is not Western society, but the white-ants who spend all their time undermining it.

Yeh nice insect analogy there Bolshie, thanks for validating my points about atheism.

Can't keep your true colours from shining through can ya?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 5:02pm:



All societies look down upon those who try and destroy it. Just like those you look down upon who don't practice Islam, or the Western world in general.
To claim you don't view your inferiors as "roaches" or "white-ants" or whatever other derogatory term is deceitful.
What did you call atheism again, a "sickening belief," and an "empty view of existence"?

Quote:

If the 'human' was flaying a woman to death and throwing acid over girls for the crime of going to school I'd certainly favour the cockroach.