What are the tenants of atheism that cause violence?

My point is a non believer is propelled toward violence more so then a Muslim. So this is me sort of finally turning the tables after over 400 replies in two threads.

Not really but ok.

okay...

but your claim is still blatently and ludicrously false, something which you have not addressed.

Your claim

Islam eliminates the beast that inside people

I am assuming ( maybe wrongly, you can correct me here) that by the beast inside people, you are referring to whatever it is that causes people to do nasty things.

so

Islam eliminates whatever it is that causes people to do nasty things.

but People who follow islam still do nasty things ( or are you denying that this is true?)

So therefore, Islam does not eliminate whatever it is that causes people to do nasty things.



proof please. Cite reports and studies. thanks


Atheism says nothing about violence.

its almost as if you are programmed to respond like this.

Joe Stalin (a non believer) was responsible for up to and not limited to 50 million deaths of his own citizens. This is just one example

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."

Oh yeah. Also its other religious people with a lot of the reply's itt. But dont let that get in the way of your pitch fork. Just dont nick a fellow abrahamic believer.

can I ask if you believe in one god? What religion do you adhere to?

No, I am not British. You will probably find me using both US and UK spellings, as I am not an English-speaking native. We do use the British royal hymn (translated), but we have a king not a queen.

I am respectful towards the parts of Islam that deserve respect, I point and criticize the aspects that deserve criticism. I don't really see the problem. Consider for a moment that I am not the nationalist you tried to make me out, that my views don't stem from supporting Israel like you alluded to, that I am not an Islamophobe but that I would extend criticism to any parts of a system that do not aspire to fairness and that my posts have not been written as personal attacks towards your person.

Consider instead that great brutalities are carried out in the name of Islam, on the individual, group, cultural, state, legal and cross-cultural levels alike. Consider that these trends are so noticeable that they carry over to both assessments of human rights in general in Islamic states and that causal links to theology do exist. Then next understand that this is not a criticism of individuals or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter that you know Muslims. I have lived with a Muslim for 2 years, have you? She was one of the nicest persons I will ever have the pleasure of knowing. This doesn't excuse Islamic brutalities in the slightest.

This is what is on the table, and you only want to turn a blind eye. If somebody raises criticism of the Islamic Saudi-Arabian legal system, you quote women's rights in Kuwait. If someone criticize Kuwaiti apartheid, you talk about hospitality in Morocco. If somebody talks about terrorists from Morocco you bring average wage in Brunei. If somebody talks about Sharia in Brunei, you bring up Oprah Winfrey.

For the record; I also think your views are genuinely dangerous, as you engage in polemics rather than realities.

Might be one might not.

My argument is that Islam can remove the beast from one who is a non believer. Sure someone can read any book and switch the words into their own meaning. But my argument this whole thread and the other Islam thread has been if you study the Quran along with pieces like the Achitiname of M you will see the tenants of Islam commands equality between Muslims and non Muslims.

If you are indeed a psychologist, should you not use a positive type of dialogue even in a thread like this? Again from the start of the Islamophobia thread you considered me to be pathetic. How do you expect one to react to this, if you claim you are a psychologist should you not act with more of a calm less nasty demeanor? By nature (itt) you are going against what it means to be a psychiatrist by your first response to shahrad itt and by your subsequent responses to my posts.

Btw a few of your claims are false, I criticize the Saudi legal system specifically of not allowing women to drive. Also when did I accuse you(your views) of supporting Israel?

do you adhere to a specific religion? if I may ask

And my argument that your claim that Islam removes the beast from one who is a non believer is obviously false, since there are muslims who havent had the beast removed....


This has nothing to do with Islam removing beasts...

First of all, even if we were to somehow accept that "Islam" is somehow the singular belief you allude to and not the fragmented mess that it is in actuality, this still would not be a dichotomy.

Even if you could show that a person became at the very least more peaceful as a result of (or at least coinciding with the conversion to) Islam, for example a prison convert, this doesn't mean this is all it can do.

I am arguing that Islam can remove the beast from a non believer, my apologies if you took my quote out of context.

I can't really take response for yet another if the posts you have imagined that I wrote, so I don't have a comment to that part of your post. Your imagination is your own responsibility.

Secondly a psychiatrist is not a psychologist. A psychiatrist is a doctor with a specialty in treating mental disorders. Psychologist is a very broad title, and we're not doctors.

Thirdly showing that a religion is peaceful by pointing out that it stops you from killing your mother when she is annoying is absurd. I can't even comprehend that a response of that type is something you are going to celebrate as the second coming, but people who have gone through hours of painstaking referencing gets ignored at your every whim.

Fourthly - as a psychologist I know perfectly well that people can handle some honest criticism, and that most of the time it is only good for them. It's when people get apathetic you should worry.

Well im still a Catholic according to the Church. But no im not a part of any religion and therefor prone to rape and pillage the lands. What ya going to do.

Many modern day non religious scholars argue unnecessary violence is not part of the Quran/Islam but more or less part of human failure.

Cool.

This is IMO incorrect. I have thoroughly responded to posters like coolerboy,doggg and yourself. Yet when I lay out a long detailed post countering the misconceptions of Islam, it does not get any mention or notice. I also asked posters who still have concerns to bump the "ask me about Islam" thread. Who would be more knowledgeable about Islam, its history, and its adherents tame? You or a middle east historian?

Although you know more about your professional field then I do, I believe you are incorrect on your specific views of Islam as a whole in comparison to my view of Islam as a whole.

They should probably re-consider the part about it being a failure. Considering its commonality, it is probably more prudent to assume that it is human.

I'll concede that you often do reply to references, but I will still hold you do so polemically. That is, your response is made to prove them wrong.

I will also grant that your posts are generally a good cut above both Coolerboy's and Doggg's posts in quality. Both those have engaged in fairly cruel and silly stereotyping. That is the danger of polemics.

However I do think your tendency to hand-wave away negative aspects of the institution of Islam is noticeable. If you want to argue that these aspects are not "true Islam" I would have to note that even if many Islamic scholars would agree with you, there certainly would be no shortage of those who don't.

I didnt take your quote out of context.

Heres your original quote.

No mention of "can" anywhere.

Ok, so you are now altering it to

Now you have to show that this is true, and how you know it is Islam that is eliminating the beast, and why sometimes, Islam doesnt eliminate the beast.

Otherwise, it sounds like you are just making stuff up.

If you go back and read my posts in the Islamophobia thread I do try and explain my viewpoint of how Islam seeks to unite as opposed to divide. For example I argued that during ww2 there was a beast in Europe which tried to make its way to North Africa, but the beast was meant with high resistance by those whom identified as Muslim.

As for Islam not eliminating the beast as you suggest, I would imagine you are referring to folks like OBL here?

I have listed a multitude of posts directly responding to the questions wrt Al Qaeda and its offshoots.

Furthermore tame makes a suggestion that I am trying to prove people wrong, I understand this is a debate and each side will have an opinion. I mentioned earlier I do not want anyone banned so I am not interested in silencing anyone, I think folks are entitled to their opinion.

EDIT: I admit I used a demeaning type of dialogue when I first responded to coolerboy, the truth is coolerboys first post struck some sort of mental trigger inside of me. That doesn't mean I should have responded in the fashion that I did so. At the same time in the "ask me about Islam thread" eventually even the most calm, cool, collective posters lost their patience. Sometimes it is understandable, after all we are prone to human failure. Nevertheless I think Islam as a whole is a great tool to be used towards confronting human failure, which is why I strongly agree Islam is a religion of peace.


I will also agree that those who strongly disagreed Islam is a religion of peace are capable of being moral people and to the best of my knowledge of Islam, the tenants of Islam appreciate and accept these type of individuals

again, your multitude of posts are irrelevant with respect to your claim of Islam eliminating beasts, which is the only claim my post was concerned with.

And no, I wasnt necessarily referring to OBL and al qaeda.