Massive Terract campaign in India

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


An atheist nation recently slaughtered Tibetian protestors. Another atheist nation recently sentenced Myanmar protestors to life imprisonment. Yet another atheist nation continues to play footsie with the nuclear arms race while North Koreans are forced to eat their children.

Is teh atheist religion bad too?

Yep, the atheists who form a religion around atheists (with meetings, etc) are no better than the theists. Good catch, but a spectacular miss all the same.

Otherwise there is no such thing as an "atheist religion".

[Sandman]

I'm not sure you could call North Korea atheist when their head of state is a ghost, worshipped in the media.

[Pekka]

This action seems the most tense in few years. The attack seems to be quite massive, two hotels are still kept in a hostage situation, random events here and there, explosions... they say that at least 100 people killed, 290 wounded so far, action continues. Woah.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Winston
Obligatory: It's not just Islam, all religion is bad, m'kay?

no, its mainly islam

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


no, its mainly islam

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. They're engines for conflict.

The fact that your entire country exists has caused countless peoples' deaths, and your religion is the reason your country exists.

Don't even ****ing try to pretend that it's mainly Islam, it's all of you. You just think you're the good guys, just like they think they're the good guys.

[onodera]

Oh, ****. I've glimpsed the news report on TV, but I had no idea that this was such a big attack. I'd joke about the terrorists being Somalian pirates, but that's too ****ing gruesome to be joked about. This was better planned than the attack on Nalchik.

[-Jrabbit]

I read the thread title as "massive tesseract campaign" -- then opened my morning newspaper. Looks pretty brutal.

[Ecthy]

German news media report of some guy who among others jumped off the hotel and broke all his bones upon landing. Then he called his friend on the phone, told him he was going to die if no help arrived. They arrived, but too late, and that semi-VIP was dead already.

Gruesome story, even more gruesome they'd tell us the details on the news. An automatic reaction that I'd post it here.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Asher
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. They're engines for conflict.

The fact that your entire country exists has caused countless peoples' deaths, and your religion is the reason your country exists.

Don't even ****ing try to pretend that it's mainly Islam, it's all of you. You just think you're the good guys, just like they think they're the good guys.

It's really fun to paint things with a wide brush, but it's not the same and you have to know a bit more to realize the differences.

Of course, all religions are all potential engines of conflict. But some actually are and some aren't. Non-religious ideologies are also potential engines of conflict - but you can agree that fascism is more militaristic than democracy. I do agree that a theist ideology is more militaristic than a humanist one.

But if you choose to "compare" religions, you have to look at objective differences.

The fact of the matter is that Islam is the least mature of the major religions - making it more likely to go back to more primitive, militaristic expansionist phases.

Religions go through phases, and Islam, through out the 20th century, has been slowly reverting to middle ages school of thought, following the crisis in former Ottoman states during the 20th century, and their failure to challenge the west.

Most religions had an expansionist militaristic phase, during which they fought other religions and tried to convert other people by force. Islam is sadly, not far enough from that phase, as Christianity is, or Judaism is.

Also, the muslim world did not experience a renaissance like revolution in ethics and did not develop humanist thought.

Not only did it not happen, Islam is probably the least likely religion to undergo such a development, because it conflicts with its core values. Islam at it's core is very anti-individualistic, and conflicts with humanist values. Islam, at its core, rejects separation of church and state. Islam, at its core is an expansionist religion that believes in using violent means.

Much of this exists in Christianity but to a lesser degree and Christianity has mostly grown out of it already. Islam has not yet.

Judaism is mostly a different story, as it does not have expansionist theory. Judaism does not require converting people. The core thought always speaks of Jews as a small group among other nations, that strives to be more enlightened and give example, but never requires anyone else to convert. The only religious war in the Old Testament is the reconquest of Israel and the tribes' territories. All following conquests by David and Solomon are discussed as political endeavors. Later Judaism turned to become an even more personal religion.

Buddhism is probably a different story alltogether.

And my country does not exist because of religion, but rather because a lack of it.

Zionism was born as an entirely secular concept. It was born around the same time as other European secular nationalist movements. And even then, the main schools of thought talked about keeping your religion to yourself and attempting to integrate into the local statehood and values. Zionism was born as counter-reaction when that policy of integration failed.

At that time, pious Jews were all rabid anti-zionists.

[Winston]

Sirotnikov

(For those who maybe couldn't tell, my previous post was one of sarcasm).

[Asher]

Siro's justification is cute, but predictable. I'm not going to say anything more aside from this: Israeli schools are probably some of the best institutions for brainwashing around.

The best part was how Zionism was born as a secular concept. The fundamental tenet of Zionism is to provide a homeland for Jewish people. You have a funny definition of "secular", but then again your country is a theocracy so it's all relative to you...

[Sirotnikov]

Asher, you and KH made a career out of tearing up people who make bold assertions in fields they know next to nothing about.

I did not expect you to make such rookie mistakes yourself

If you have concrete knowledge you could use against any of my arguments, you're welcome.

Regarding your pathetic "retort" on Zionism's birth, go read some Pinsker or Theodore Herzel and comeback educated.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Winston
Sirotnikov

(For those who maybe couldn't tell, my previous post was one of sarcasm).

All we notice is how much compassion you showed for the victims before attacking a religion that is obviously beyond your comprehension.

Fool !

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Asher, you and KH made a career out of tearing up people who make bold assertions in fields they know next to nothing about.

I did not expect you to make such rookie mistakes yourself

If you have concrete knowledge you could use against any of my arguments, you're welcome.

Regarding your pathetic "retort" on Zionism's birth, go read some Pinsker or Theodore Herzel and comeback educated.

My time is valuable, I'm not wasting it on a fool's errand.

The word "Zionism" itself is derived from the word Zion (Hebrew: ציון, Tzi-yon). This name originally referred to Mount Zion, a mountain near Jerusalem, and to the Fortress of Zion on it. Later, under King David, the term "Zion" became a synecdoche referring to the entire city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. In many Biblical verses, the Israelites were called the people, sons or daughters of Zion.

"Zionism" was coined as a term for Jewish nationalism by Austrian Jewish publisher Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the first nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) in 1890. (Birnbaum eventually turned against political Zionism and became the first secretary-general of the anti-Zionist Haredi movement Agudat Israel.)[9]

There's no way you can call this, in any way, a secular movement.

As you can see, not only do I tear up people who make assertions in fields they know nothing about -- I also tear up people who make assertions in which they obsess over.

[Winston]

I will attack Islam in the context of something like this, yes. Compassion doesn't enter into it. Did you show any, by the way?