What's up, /his/? I'm writing a paper on why refugees shouldn't be accepted into America, and I was comparing Islam to other religions, the main one being Christianity. I touched up on 2 violent verses from the Quran and now I feel to prevent myself from creating a logical fallacy my teacher will inevitably point out and mark me down for, I should also point out that Christianity has some violent verses in the bible, but the militancy rates of Christians are pretty low. Can anyone provide some statistics for the rates of militancy in Christians?
TL;DR I need some statistics for christian militancy rates. Also do you think Islam is really a religion of peace?
>>396080
You've already failed by taking religion at face value
>>396080
Christian Militants have killed more people post 9/11 in america, but you know, higher population and all that.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
has sources and is pretty balanced
Just check through this website in general.
Personal opinion, the refugee's aren't a big deal and are massively overblown in significance.
>>396089
Reiterate. My teacher is pretty fine with my arguments if I can back them up with credible facts.
>>396094
not him
verses shouldn't matter that much. Its whether people actually are more prone to radicalization based on them.
My personal pet theory is that Christians handwaive things more than Muslims. Muslims know every word in the quran and can't just ignore the violent parts.
Militant atheist:stalin.
Responsible for more deaths than anybody ever.
The text and ideology in holy books is irrelevant for comparison because they more or less say the same thing (in regards to violence and leaf and morals)
What you should be comparing is hard facts of how these religions are practiced in the real world. I can't give you any statistics for Christian militism, but trying to define what a religion is from a theoretical standpoint is a futile attempt that will only give you meaningless results.
>>396107
Obviously the only reason he ever killed anyone was because they weren't atheist
>>396122
Yeah and the ops pic is a pristine average.
>>396107
This is very true and I'm trying to work this in via Christians and the Old Testament, but I'm struggling a bit still. I'll get it though.
>>396107
I didn't make this picture, just google christian militants and grabbed the first picture.
>>396112
This is very true and it's what I'm trying to do. However I can't seem to find any statistics on christian militants
You could probably write about how the holy books are interpreted.
Generally in Christianity all the violent stuff is OT and that's largely been superceeded by the NT in general. There are actually a lot of sects that basically ignore every part of the OT except for genesis and the 10 commandments. Whole the Quaran is treated as one whole work.
>>396080
>going with the verses from the Quran strategy
With an entire arsenal to back up your argument on why refugees from militant Islamic societies shouldn't be accepted, you go with baby's first religionofpeace.org idea? Nigga you deserve to fail.
>>396080
words and letters mean nothing, it's execution that matters.
On paper many shitty states are democratic societies that uphold the law, some of those are shit.
Singapore doesn't fuck around and writes its an autocratic state that upholds the law and the country is pretty decent.
>>396133
Are you stupid? Why do you think I'm citing militancy rates of both religions? Use your brain, man.
>>396145
So what have you gotten? Christians are a bigger threat, but muslims are a bigger threat per capita it seems. The refugees are barely going to affect the total population so I highly doubt that will change.
>>396145
That's a shit strategy as well, the way you're framing it. Are you taking into account militancy between sects of Christianity? Catholic vs. protestant, for example. Also, comparing religious militancy in the 21st century between the predominantly developed Christian west and the predominantly undeveloped parts of the Islamic world is so myopic it's laughable.
>>396080
>le richard dawgins is militant aethizt :DDDD
This is probably a good place to start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
>>396189
why are you writing about this in a freshman english class? Its cool you have an opinion but no teacher wants to read what you've admited is half-baked controversial politics
also
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/ has tons of statistics all over the place on it. You can just look through
>>396189
Then why even keep going beyond the verses of the Quran schtick? By bringing up the militancy issue, you make your argument vulnerable to all of these conditionals. Keep it simple, stupid.
>>396080
If you're going to make said claim you should use some modern statistics to your advantage. Find the downsides of letting refugees in, and run with it.
As for it being a religion of peace. I think it's just as much a religion of peace as any other. It's just how people interpret their own doctrine.
As far as the terrorism goes, well that's just a politically motivated thing anyways. A way to wrap resistance of western culture in a nice religious blanket.
Can you quote the Quranic verses here, giving their chapter and verse numbers?
>>396080
Lenin, Stalin, Mao and so on.
Back in the day if somebody tried to use 4chan to do simple homework for them all they got was a bag of dicks.
>>396107
>>396718
>>397206
There's a difference.
Those men weren't killing people for the sake of atheism, they were just atheists who happened to kill people. There's a clear difference between that and Islamic terrorist syndicates or biblethumpers who blow up abortion clinics because they religious views tell them to.
>militant atheist
>Dawkins
Try Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin and Trotsky.
I wonder why atheists never consider these people their own and instead focus on meme celebs like Penn Jillette and Dawkins.
>>397222
Many of the people Mao killed were Christians.
Pol Pot eliminated an ethnic group of Muslims because they wouldn't give up their beliefs.
So yes, they killed to prevent belief.
>>397222
>Those men weren't killing people for the sake of atheism
There were religious people tortured and killed in virtually every communist / socialist country. Lenin interned and murdered a fuckload of Orthodox priests, the Spanish revolutionaries murdered priests and raped nuns, etc.
>Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture, being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[24][25][26][27] Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions (see Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union).[25][26][28] During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.
>In Hungary, a 443 page collection, published by Gyula Havasy in 1990, reveals 10 church show trials and the detention of 2,800 monks and nuns.[4] Many thousands of Christians were imprisoned and many others were martyred. Possibly the best known was Bishop Vilmos Apor.
>During the dark years of Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' (launched in 1958) and 'The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution' (launched in 1966), many of the Christian leaders were killed and imprisoned for their faith, and many others spent years in hard labor camps.
>>397222
Marxist views ARE atheist views.
>>397264
Leopold wasn't motivated by any ideology, he was just a greedy exploitative cunt.
The Soviet communists however murdered Christians BECAUSE they were Christians.
Violent verse =/= violence-endorsing. Most of the violent tales in the bible are meant to teach lessons about how not to act.
>>396093
So when you discount the single-largest Muslim terror attack, Muslims haven't killed many? No shit.
>>397264
Did Leopold kill Africans because of their religion? No.
Did Lenin kill Christians because of their religion? Yes.
Your analogy is shit.
>>397269
The only atheist view is that there are no deities, that's literally it.
>>397273
>>397281
The point is that atheism wasn't their primary motivation, it was political ideology. Religious extremists are motivated by religion, not by politics.
And to clarify, I don't hate religion or anything of the sort, I really don't care if people want to worship gods or anything else. I just don't think Communists killing people is an atheist thing,
>>396080
>Bin Laden
>Implying anything he did was religiously motivated
>>397289
And their political position was, among others, militant atheism.
>An atheists kill religious people because they are religious and he views religion as something that needs to be destroyed
>this is somehow completely unrelated to his atheism
>>397303
Yeah but killing people due to them being christian and not atheist isn't the same as killing them because you're an atheist and there christian retard.
>>396080
Militant Atheists:
Shoot up a university in Oregon
>nobody mentions the IRA
>>396080
>doesn't post Joseph Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot
>do you think Islam is really a religion of peace
Do you know what the word "Islam" literally translates to?
>>397222
funny you should mention that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
>>397867
Which ones? Troubles Era, or the Revolutionaries?
>>397966
There were a lot of those back in the late 40s.
>>397867
Good, since the IRA never fought in the name of religion. If that's what you think then your opinion is worthless
>I should also point out that Christianity has some violent verses in the bible
Name one.
inb4 Old Testament descriptions of stuff that happens.
Even the Old Testament never tells you to kill infidels, the most violent thing you'll find there are some ancient Hebrew laws. The New Testament (which is what is actually relevant to Christians) has no laws spends all its time repeating over and over that violence is bad.
By contrast, the Koran (which unlike the Bible is the LITERAL WORD OF GOD and thus cannot be questioned) not only has laws and assorted punishments, but literally tells you to go kill infidels.
The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam is that the Christian texts are all written from the point of view of the victim, of the persecuted. This is something entirely new in the history of religion, that otherwise only exists in Judaism but inconsistently. Writing from the point of view of the persecuted reveals the victim as innocent and reveals the violence he suffers as evil. Islam on the other hand goes back to the perspective used by all pagan religions: that of the persecutor lynching/sacrificing a victim. In that perspective the victim is portrayed as guilty, and violence is portrayed as justified and as following the will of God. Except unlike in pagan religions Islam also has an omnipotent all-encompassing God with an absolute sense of good and evil and a mission to conquer the world, which makes for the most dangerous combination possible.
>>397264
Do you think muslims kill other people because of ther beliefs because that is bullshit. Muslims generally come from underdeveloped coutries were the western world meddles a lot in for the natural resources there, so they want the the outside influences in their countries to go which makes their attacks political in nature.
>>398024
The koran tells you to kill enemy sokdiers during wartime though its saying that you should kill random civilians.
>>398112
*not saying
>>398018
>the IRA never fought in the name of religion.
False
>>396080
>Soros
>>397810
You're the retard here with your mental gymnastics and shit grammar.
>>396080
>militiant atheist
Stalin and Mao say hi.
>Tell an atheist that Christians committed atrocities based on their spiritual beliefs
>They won't disagree
>Tell an atheist that a Muslim committed atrocities in the name of their God
>They won't disagree
>Tell an atheist that an atheist committed atrocities in the name of disbelief
>"WELL THINGS ARE NEVER QUITE THAT SIMPLE IT'S HARD TO SAY IF IT WAS TRULY ATHEISM OR SOME ULTERIOR MOTIVE THAT CAUSED HIM TO ACT BY THE WAY I'M A HUGE FAGGOT"
Rather than point out how Islam teaches violence km whatever, consider that Islamic culture is entirely antithetical to western cultures and values, and that Muslim migrants are unlikely to assimilate into the larger community due to their upbringing and affiliation with Islam. Since assimilation is a significant part of the American culture or whatever, suggest that introducing a foreign body into a society that Is entirely opposite to their way of life would be beneficial only to the migrants, and detrimental to the host body.
>there is literally nothing an atheist can do, he's always acting out of some other ideology
>everything a christian does is completely out of his christian belief
wow rekt
As the other anon said, communist regimes were filled with persecution and slaughter of christians and destruction of culture.
>>398801
It is though. Literally all militant "atheists" were militant communists
>>398837
You just completely refuted yourself. As you say they were acting out of some other ideology i.e. communism.
>>398801
It's clear those people have no experience with communist countries, anyone who actually lived in one can tell you that they were extremely milititant atheists. Teachers were commanded to expressly condone atheism in classes and attack religious views. People were punished in class when they admitted to attendind church, and so on.
>>398843
Not militants, but people who committed atrocities. Say, like the Nazis?
>>398861
There is no doctrine of atheism that tells you to do that. That is Marxist-Leninism.
>>398867
There is no doctrine in Christianity that tells you to murder people, that's protestantism.
>>398873
What about the bit that says thou shall not suffer a witch to live?
>>398876
Have you seen any witches around?
>>396093
>>398861
So they're killing for Communism, not for atheism. You can't kill on behalf of something that you believe doesn't exist.
>>398880
Whether I have seen witches around is irrelevant. That is a piece of Christian doctrine that can be taken to mean witches exist and that you should kill them.
>>398887
>You can't kill on behalf of something that you believe doesn't exist.
No, but you can kill on account of the people you're killing believe in something which you think is detrimental to your ideology.
>>398917
But the ideology they thought it was detrimental to was Marxist-Leninism.
>>398905
Your quote is from Exodus and is part of the old law.
If you actually took the time to study Christian doctrine you would know that Christ's incarnation fulfilled the old law so that those who believe in him no longer have to follow it to the letter.
>inb4 nuh uh i can take quotes out of context and tell you what they mean! you're just doing mental gymnastics and my interpretation is the right one even though i'm not even christian!
>>396080
>Militant atheist
Someone call?
>>398957
Hallå
>>398946
>If you actually took the time to study Christian doctrine you would know that Christ's incarnation fulfilled the old law so that those who believe in him no longer have to follow it to the letter.
That's subjective.
There are plenty of Christians who quote Matthew 5:18 to show that the Old Law (or rather the parts they want to cherry pick from it) still apply.
All you need is one Christian to kill someone they thought was a witch because of their interpretation of that quote and they have killed because of Christian doctrine.
You can go ahead and argue they are wrong but the interpretation of Christian doctrine is wildly subjective so posting a man in a hat and telling me I haven't studied Christian doctrine is silly because there are wildly different interpretations of it. Yours isn't the 'right' one.
i've always believed militant islam was closer to militant leftism/communism in south east asia than it was to christian militarism.
>>398971
>that's subjective
>proceeds to give a subjective example
>then proceeds to basically state that as long as one person says they are christian and follows the old law, all Christians are the same
so by that logic, all atheists are permavirgin friendless kissless failure white knights with both kekold fetishes and a bizarre fascination with a children's show about horses. Also the fedora collection thing is real.
>>399005
This is an enormous strawman. I never made any claim that all Christians are the same, in fact my entire point is that they are different and there is no one interpretation of Christian doctrine.
>>399005
>proceeds to basically state that as long as one person says they are christian and follows the old law, all Christians are the same
Where the hell did he say that? He was just giving an example of Christian doctrine that could be interpreted as violent because that's what was being discussed to begin with.
Is it subjective? No shit, he literally just said that and even you mentioned he said it was subjective, but his point is that even killing for a subjective interpretation of a doctrine is still killing for a doctrine.
>>396107
Stalin killed for power. Anyone who was a possible threat was eliminated. Correlation ≠Causation
>>397269
And his views were also Russian because he was a Russian.... see how that makes no sense
>>396080
Jesus set the bettewr example
no matter what happens unjust violence in Christianity will be hard to justify when Jesus himself was so heavily against violence that he refused to allow his followers to fight when he was being taken away.
desu the most powerful condemnation of violence imo is when Peter lops off some soldiers ear with a Roman Gladius and Jesus instead than heals the mans ear and walks off with the solders.
Muhammad on the other hand, while he was a strong and respectable leader, is not a great example for a religion to follow being as he was admittedly a normal man with his own vices, but also a legitimate warlord in his own right.
>>398971
>All you need is one Christian to kill someone they thought was a witch because of their interpretation of that quote and they have killed because of Christian doctrine.
No because Christians do not always follow the correct doctrine.
>>399021
Arguing that Christianity endorses violence is an ENORMOUS STAWMAN.
>>397303
dumb argument
He was a militant anti-theist. Being Atheist doesn't put you in a position where you want to feel any type of way towards religious groups because it only encompasses non-belief, a part that has no relation to actions. Anti-theism does have to do with motives for attacking a religion because it is the belief that religion should not exist. And that other poster's argument is correct because Stalin wanted power and anyone or anything that could stand in the way was destroyed for that very reason.
>>396107
And mostly responsible for defeating the nazis
>>398866
>Nazi Germany was atheist
>>399073
>that atheism is not true atheism!
>>398971
reminder that witchcraft was deemed to be non-existent and complete rubbish as early as the Salic Law or the Edictum Rothari after, and people calling other witches was deemed pagan nonsense.
it wasn't until the rule of the Catholic church began to decline that some sects and Protestants went nuts with witch burning.
also remember that persecution of witches was rampant in pagan Rome because they were incredibly superstitious, if anything Christianity pushed this pagan ideology to the brink
>>397919
submission. Through either violent or peaceful means
>>397257
>Many of the people Mao killed were Christians.
>BECAUSE MAO WAS A MILITANT ATHEIST
Christians were- ARE- the target of the Chinese government due to their ties with Westerners. Not due to their religion.
In China, religions must get registered under the party. Muslims did this. Buddhists did this, Tengriists did this, the weirdo animists of the South did this.
But not Christians, because it would
1) Cut them off from American ministers, who were part of their leadership
2) For Chinese Catholics, cut them off from Rome.
And so to this day, Christians are always under the PRC's shitlist.
tl;dr Chinese Christfags brought oppression to themselves.
>>399064
>No because Christians do not always follow the correct doctrine.
There is no one correct doctrine.
>Arguing that Christianity endorses violence is an ENORMOUS STAWMAN.
Oh c'mon off it. You only need to go onto a Christian thread on /pol/ to see people using Christianity to endorse violence and since there is no one correct doctrine and all interpretation of the bible is subjective you have no way of simply proclaiming they are objectively wrong.
>>399086
That doesn't change the point in the slightest.
>>399090
>Chinese Christfags brought oppression to themselves.
>by not abandoning the core aspects of their faith and accepting the state administered substitute.
and you're wrong, the PRC actively attacked religious groups, to the point many Buddhist monks would print pictures of Mao and quotes by him on ancient texts to stop them from being burned.
the Cultural Revolution was the outflow of Atheistic destruction of a society.
>>399073
This, basically. Atheism has no fundamental principle except "God doesn't exist", whereas the Quran and the Bible are holy scriptures that explicitly condone violence in specific circumstances. Anti-theism, however, the belief that religion is inherently harmful or undesirable, can motivate people to violent extremes, but it's not shared by all atheists or inherent to atheism in any way. The existence of agnostics and atheists who glorify Christianity in connection to violence is the inverse of this, like Anders Breivik.
>>399097
>There is no one correct doctrine.
Who told you that?
>You only need to go onto a Christian thread on /pol/ to see people using Christianity to endorse violence
Yeah dude because anonymous anime image boards are a great sample to draw from to determine what Christians actually believe...
>>399081
He didn't say anything about it being "true atheism", just that anti-theism is a sometimes overlapping but not necessary idea atheists can have.
>>399081
you can be an atheist and think that religion is a good thing for other reason or even give no shits about it and leave it alone. Think things through next time
>>399106
I was talking of PRC History in General. Yes the Cultural Revolution was against "The Four Olds" but that Era in Chinese history did not define its entire treatment of religious people.
All religions got shitcanned in the Cultural Revolution. But afterwards only Christianity got canned due to its continued links with the west.
>>399118
I'd like to point out that religious people also sometimes have a paradoxical hatred for religion, or at least major religious organizations and their contemporaries.
>>399115
>>399118
>stalin wasn't a real atheist! You see, he was an anti-theist, it's totally different!
>>399108
should rephrase "God doesn't exist" to "I do not believe that a God exists". Don't want to create a claim
>>399111
>Who told you that?
It is self evident fromt the enormous range of interpretations and possible interpretations of the bible.
>Yeah dude because anonymous anime image boards are a great sample to draw from to determine what Christians actually believe...
It makes no difference to anything I have said whether they are a representative sample of Christians in general or not.
>>399108
>basically. Atheism has no fundamental principle except "God doesn't exist"
yes and Islam has no fundamental principle except
"God does exist and Muhammad is his prophet"
I don't excuse the damage atheists and Marxists have wrought on society, and the vapid materialism they have left in their wake. Atheists have produced absolutely nothing of value and only brought cultural decay.
>>399111
>Who told you that?
Nobody said it, but that is a debate for another day that would derail the thread. The focus is on people self-identified as Christian, Muslim, Atheist etc. and the violence they commit. You cannot expect to have this kind of interfaith discourse under the pretense that we should all know what sect YOU consider "true Christianity" and agree with it.
>>396093
The difference being that the words of Christ condemn those actions but Muhammad condones them
>>399127
>...
>>399133
>It is self evident fromt the enormous range of interpretations and possible interpretations of the bible.
How is it self-evident when the variety of interpretations can also be explained through human error?
>It makes no difference to anything I have said whether they are a representative sample of Christians in general or not.
It makes all the difference because your argument is "LOOK ON POL THEY USE CHRISTIANITY TO ENDORSE VIOLENCE SO THAT MEANS THAT CHRISTIANITY ENDORSES VIOLENCE XDDD"
>>399121
>Falong Gong is treated fine guys, I promise!!
>>399127
>Muh fallacy of composition
Nigga, do we have to draw you a Venn diagram or something. The properties of a subset cannot be generalized to the whole set that contains it.
>>399121
except Buddhists who don't submit to the State approved doctrine are still persecuted and state promoted atheism is dominant/heavily encouraged.
>>397222
Not all Muslims kill non Muslims exclusively either. Why are you so deluded that you think these people didn't have a superiority complex because they were atheists just like every other atheist. I have no doubt in my mind all of those people intended for religion to be wiped from their countries
>>399134
Anti-theists you mean... and no, atheists have done a lot for society. Just look up *insert profession* and atheism and try to search for the good contributions. You are being derogatory towards atheists for reasons that do not exist. Atheism has nothing to do with being good or bad, it is anti-theism which can lead bad people to doing bad against religious people.
>>399164
>You guys, Stalin was a subset atheist and this is different than a real whole set atheist. You can judge whole set atheists by the actions of the subset because they are not the same but different!
>>399145
>How is it self-evident when the variety of interpretations can also be explained through human error?
Unless you are claiming to be a new prophet with a direct conduit to god you have no way of claiming other people's interpretations are in error.
>It makes all the difference because your argument is "LOOK ON POL THEY USE CHRISTIANITY TO ENDORSE VIOLENCE SO THAT MEANS THAT CHRISTIANITY ENDORSES VIOLENCE XDDD"
Christianity is not monolithic. All you need is one Christian to endorse violence because of their interpretation of it and they have endorsed violence because of Christian doctrine.
Note before you try and employ your little strawman argument (or charitably misunderstanding because you are refusing to read what I have said) that is not me claiming that all Christians endorse violence. I am making no such claim and never have.
>>399134
Also, stop being a baby when you see other people who don't believe in metaphysical happy go lucky stuff. People have their own opinions and you have yours. Deal with it
>>399176
There is no sets or subsets on atheism. Atheism is not an ideology at all. Atheist is merely a discription of someone that lacks belief in gods.
>>399134
>yes and Islam has no fundamental principle except "God does exist and Muhammad is his prophet"
Actually, it does, since the Quran is the central holy text of the religion. Atheism has no such central holy text.
>atheists and Marxists
You attempt to tie these two together, yet the most prominent defenders of libertarianism and capitalism have also been atheists. An atheist can be on any part of the political spectrum.
>the vapid materialism they have left in their wake
Atheists don't have to be materialists. Many are dualists and have spiritual beliefs. Japan and Sweden are majority atheist and the majority of people still have spiritual beliefs.
>Atheists have produced absolutely nothing of value and only brought cultural decay.
Religious-right retards falling back on MUH FEELS. Classic.
>>399176
are you a commercial fisherman? cause you be living off of baiting.
>>399176
Yes, basically.
>>399177
>you have no way of claiming other people's interpretations are in error.
I can cite what the church has historically believed and if someone is preaching an interpretation that has no basis in the tradition of Christianity I can show that it is outside of that tradition.
I can also construct arguments based on scripture to contextualize a faulty interpretation and use that context to explain why the interpretation is false.
>All you need is one Christian to endorse violence because of their interpretation of it and they have endorsed violence because of Christian doctrine.
See your problem is thinking that any person can just pick up the Bible and make their own personal interpretation of it synonymous with "Christian doctrine." The people who use Christianity to endorse violence have been deceived and cannot be used as an example of "Christian doctrine" because their beliefs are not in accordance with the entirety of holy scripture.
>>397264
Ideology and religion are inseparable. Atheism is not a religion, just like theism is not a religion. Buddhism is an example of a religion that can be theistic or atheistic. Liberalism, communism, and national socialism are all atheistic religions for the industrial age. The basic tenets of liberalism require that the adherent take them on faith (we hold these truths to be self-evident). In the macro-historical perspective, what's the difference between Karl Marx and Mohammed, or Ashoka and Abraham Lincoln?
>>399168
>Anti-theists you mean
no I mean atheists because there's no Atheist Martian Luther nailing why he hates God onto the church doors.
Atheism is a symptom of our social decay but its one people seem to revel in because it makes them feel comfortable with how alienated we have become.
Atheism creates nothing and only promotes rot.
I can name a hundred Christian scientists as well but that means jack shit because Christianity isn't directly related to their work.
things like Art, music, social structure, all these things directly inspired by Christ and directly opposed by the artiest whatever his particular bent.
Christianity and Faith is the harbinger of civilization, now we worship not even the Heroic Material any more since Marxism has largely done away with that as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p60HR4NDjDA
I respect and trust even the most bloodthirsty Muslim infinitely more than the average slackthiest
>>399180
It disgusts me how low we have sunk for this mental cancer to be acceptable to tout and hold up high.
>>399207
>I can cite what the church has historically believed and if someone is preaching an interpretation that has no basis in the tradition of Christianity I can show that it is outside of that tradition.
>I can also construct arguments based on scripture to contextualize a faulty interpretation and use that context to explain why the interpretation is false.
You can indeed, but they are all subjective arguments.
>See your problem is thinking that any person can just pick up the Bible and make their own personal interpretation of it synonymous with "Christian doctrine." The people who use Christianity to endorse violence have been deceived and cannot be used as an example of "Christian doctrine" because their beliefs are not in accordance with the entirety of holy scripture.
You mean your subjective interpretation of the entirety of the holy scripture.
>>399207
There hasn't historically been a unified Church, or a unified scripture.
>>399227
>There hasn't historically been a unified Church
yes there has
even the Orthodox-Roman divide was more political than doctrinal
>>399226
>they are all subjective arguments.
>you mean your subjective interpretation of the entirety of the holy scripture.
>it's all subjective maaaaan, you can't know nuthin! That's like just your opinion dude!
>>399227
Do you know what the word "Catholic" means?
>>399214
>this post
>all this naive rationalizing
>all this lack of understanding of life
Let me guess, you're about 19 and you've just discovered /pol/
>>399238
It's no good just greentexting in butthurt fashion. It is just your opinion.
>>399246
It is not "just my opinion" that Jesus promoted peace and not violence.
>>396080
Why not accept Christian Syrians then?
They are less than 10% of the country and the only person protecting them right now is Assad. When NATO kills him, they will probably be the first to be genocided or forcefully converted to Islam by the next government.
>>399239
when I was 19 I was an athiest for a number of reasons, but as I read more I developed a greater interest in theology and studied it more in school.
the athiest has no understanding of anything deeper than the material, when he claims an "understanding" of life he only means he understands it as one would the machinery within a car's engine.
life is not some Newtonian clockwork mechanism but more than that, even in purely secular terms.
all I see in the athiest now is fear of something beyond them, beyond their understanding, and possible judgement for all their private crimes and doubts.
>>399246
Let him. He's just a harmless naive little christfag. He'll figure out the world isn't divided in a black-white fashion when he gets his first job
>>399214
>no I mean atheists because there's no Atheist Martian Luther nailing why he hates God onto the church doors.
There are plenty of atheists expressing their different opinions on religion.
>Atheism creates nothing and only promotes rot
Atheism promotes nothing and isn't a stopping block to being creative.
>I can name a hundred Christian scientists as well but that means jack shit because Christianity isn't directly related to their work.
This goes beyond science, the person you're responding to said "insert profession", and atheists can be found in every profession. I doubt you could just look at 1000 random artistic works and reliably gauge whether an atheist created them. You'd just bend your opinion to dislike whatever an atheist created as soon as you learn about their personal beliefs.
>Christianity and Faith is the harbinger of civilization
I didn't realize the Sumerians were Christian.
>now we worship not even the Heroic Material any more since Marxism has largely done away with that as well.
Marxism is dead. Even Marxist countries aren't Marxist anymore. You might as well be whining about loyalists to the British Crown.
>I respect and trust even the most bloodthirsty Muslim infinitely more than the average slackthiest
If someone asked you to hang around with either ISIS militants or Joe McFedora, you'd pick the latter. Any other answer is just tough guy posturing.
>>399223
>if I call it cancer and express my disgust it makes me right!
>guys, am I being emotional enough yet?
>>399255
>life is not some Newtonian clockwork mechanism but more than that, even in purely secular terms.
Funny that you say this, because your post is the pinnacle of a naive linear clockwork understanding of how the world works. Basically, your understanding is a simplistic causal understanding of "theist = good, atheist = bad".
The only problem with it is that it doesn't reflect reality, at all. But you'll figure that one out when you grow up
>>399253
>asked about interpretation of scripture
>says it's objective and evidence is important
>asked to prove existence of God
>muh faith
>>399253
I would actually personally agree with your opinion but our opinion is just that.
The circumcellions disagreed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
And plenty of people use Matthew 10:34 and / or Luke 22:36 to come up with different interpretations to us.
>>399255
> when I was 19 I was an athiest for a number of reasons
like what? what other reason than not being justified into believing there is a god would you be an atheist for?
>>399253
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
Wow, what a peacenik
>>399235
>even the Orthodox-Roman divide was more political than doctrinal
>what is heresy
"More political than doctrinal" doesn't mean "no doctrinal differences". True representatives of a universal God should be beyond those kind of political divisions, anyway.
>>399238
>Do you know what the word "Catholic" means?
Something Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Anglicans all claim to be.
>>399255
>life is not some Newtonian clockwork mechanism
I hate to tell you this, bro, but the Newtonian worldview isn't even dominant among materialists anymore.
>>399287
Yes I know you disagree and I am telling you that you are mistaken.
Taken in their entirety, the Gospels unequivocally promote peace and to use a couple out of context verses to claim otherwise is proof of faulty hermeneutics.
>>399300
And I'm not saying the Orthodox-Roman divide was considered heresy, but that the gnostic heresies date back to very early Christianity.
>>399313
It's proof the Bible is contradictory for sure.
>>399313
>hermeneutics
>objective
Pick one and only one
>>396093
Most of those "Deadly Right Wing Attacks" seem to be racially motivated.
>>399321
>>399325
That's just your subjective opinion.
>>399334
>when it's someone else's ideology, there's a direct causal relation between it and bad behavior
>when it's my ideology, there can never be any relationship between it and bad behavior
>>399275
I didn't expect much more than this pettiness.
Atheism is a good calling card like being a republican (not the party Yanks) for telling if someone is a complete knob.
>>399267
just reply like a normal person you mong instead of this broken quoting shite
atheism doesn't promote anything, its a symptom of heroic materialism as an ideology and grew out of the enlightenment as a backlash against the religious wars in Europe.
When I speak of inspiration, people can take inspiration from many sourced, but Atheism/materialism as a source of inspiration is not terribly fruitful and has not from my experience produced anything worthwhile to be remembered.
It lacks depth or any understanding for the world beyond that can be sensed. It reminds me of some Demiurgical tradition except twisted around toward the physical rather than away form it.
Marxism is certainly not dead and Marxian materialist ideologies are dominant by far.
I wouldn't appreciate someone who wanted to kill me either way, but between a hardline Muslim and some limp wristed atheist I think I could find more philosophical common ground in terms of how we base our beliefs.
>>399347
>Atheism is a good calling card like being a republican (not the party Yanks) for telling if someone is a complete knob.
And again you prove my point. Someone is an atheist, therefore he's bad by default. This is the very definition of the simplistic Newtonian clockwork worldview you railed against just a few posts ago. The only problem is that you're too thick to realize how much you contradict yourself
>>399313
>Yes I know you disagree
Funny guy.
>Taken in their entirety, the Gospels unequivocally promote peace and to use a couple out of context verses to claim otherwise is proof of faulty hermeneutics.
The gospels are not the entirety of the bible. And the context of Matthew 10:34 is entirely disputable, it is so vague and so unexplained that you can take any meaning you like from it.
>>399344
I know you thought you were being funny and turning the tables on them but you just agreed that interpretation of the bible is subjective.
Whoops.
>>399359
>The gospels are not the entirety of the bible.
True, but they are the fundamental texts of Christianity and are therefore the ultimate authority for determining what constitutes Christian doctrine.
>the context of Matthew 10:34 is entirely disputable
Everything is "disputable" for someone looking for a dispute.
>>399294
its more than just "not believing" really, and few atheists seem to want to admit. I went to church every so often but my family was hardly faithful or particularly religious, for me I was nearly completely ignorant of theology and faith and never cared to learn, it played no role in my life and when I saw people for whom it did it made me resentful for the most part.
Atheism is about power I think, its a very powerful, though ultimately adolescent position to claim yourself supreme by the default of your own mind/existence being the only power you can be certain of.
Atheism is a little gods complex for people who never grew to appreciate the breadth of experience.
Though I'm Christian its not christianity in particular I feel helps people understand this, for me really I found Eastern faith helped me understand better as it was completely novel and I had little bias into starting with it, like reading books on Buddhism like Dhammapada and Mindfulness in Plain English, and Hindu works like the Bhagavad Gita.
from there I wanted to learn more about Christianity, especially early Christianity which I study now.
>>399357
ideology says a lot about a person
>>399365
Human opinions are subjective; the meaning of holy scripture is not.
The authors of scripture had a specific message that they were trying to convey and the interpretations that are most in line with the original authorial intent are correct while those that ignore authorial intent are false.
>>399378
No, it in fact really doesn't. It certainly doesn't tell you enough to make the direct causal relationships you're proposing.
>>399382
>the meaning of holy scripture is not
That must be where there are thousands of denominations of Christianity alone
>>399396
*why
>>399368
>Everything is "disputable" for someone looking for a dispute.
You don't need to take it from me that the meaning is massively disputable. Have a Catholic theologian on the subject.
http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988
>True, but they are the fundamental texts of Christianity and are therefore the ultimate authority for determining what constitutes Christian doctrine.
And both their interpretation and the way you can use them to help you understand the rest of Christian doctrine are massively subjective.
>>396080
On the reason America cannot accept refugees.
In this paper i will advance one argument for why America cannot accept any refugees. This argument can be summed up as follows:
FUCK OFF WE'RE FULL[1]
I have chosen not to advance other arguments, since they are manifestly redundant in the face of the argument above.
[footnote]
[1] This argument was first advanced in the case of Australia, but I believe the principle is transferable to the US. In the case of Australia, it has known as the STRAYA CUNT thesis. I propose that the modified american version is renamed the MURRCA FUCK YEAH thesis.
>>399396
The multitude of interpretations are simply evidence of the broken character of humanity and our inability to perceive truth.
>Well then if humanity cannot perceive truth, how do you know what's true then!?!?
By the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.
>>399382
>The authors of scripture had a specific message that they were trying to convey and the interpretations that are most in line with the original authorial intent are correct while those that ignore authorial intent are false.
What the intent of the authors was is a subjective question.
>>399388
>No, it in fact really doesn't.
are you serious?
a persons beliefs don't say anything about them?
>>399412
>By the power and influence of the Holy Spirit
Which apparently isn't powerful enough to prevent a massive amount of fragmentation in what is supposed to be one homogeneous group
>>399402
>And both their interpretation and the way you can use them to help you understand the rest of Christian doctrine are massively subjective.
Yes my interpretation is subjective but their original meaning is not. I may mistakenly interpret what the author was trying to say but the author still had a specific meaning in mind when he sat down to write.
>>399419
If it did, you'd be able to predict their behavior better than by just randomly guessing. So tell me, what will I be doing tomorrow, at 4 o'clock?
>>399422
Or it is all part of His divine plan that is simply beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals.
>>399436
His plan involves ever increasing chaos? That doesn't sound like a very good plan
>>399444
>he thinks he knows better than God
>>399434
Probably posting dumb shit on 4chan just like today
>>399446
I've never felt the urge to drown women and children for other people's mistakes, so I think I do, yeah
thank the baby jesus and all the saints nobody thinks the IRA was a group of religious extremists
>>399344
>That's just your subjective opinion.
Nope, it's proof their contradictory. I wasn't the guy claiming subjectivism in scripture.
>>399450
Just like you do right now? Are you telling me that your theism made you end up in exactly the same place as me?
Also, I'm not doing this tomorrow, will you admit that you were completely wrong?
>>399430
>Yes my interpretation is subjective but their original meaning is not. I may mistakenly interpret what the author was trying to say but the author still had a specific meaning in mind when he sat down to write.
But even given the (dubious) claim that Jesus really was the son of god and the messiah and the people writing them really were his disciples there are plenty of theological disagreements within the gospels.
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/distinctive-theologies-mark-matthew/biblical-theology/van-pelt-blomberg-schreiner
>>399451
>mortals thinking they can judge the immortal
>>399457
>your theism
What? Don't assume you're always talking to the same person dingus
>>399465
You mean you assume God's goodness without any justification?
>>399458
Any friction between the Gospels are minor and not material to the entirety of their message.
Christianity has flourished precisely because even among the various denominations the general Christ's general message of "love thy God and thy neighbor" is agreed upon.
>>399473
A sunrise is all the justification I need for our Creator's goodness.
>>399486
The poor old Cathars didn't flourish much thanks to the love of the Catholic church for their neighbours.
>>399490
So one instance of the universe being good/beautiful proves that God is good?
Does that mean that one instance of the universe being horrible proves that he's evil?
>>399347
>just reply like a normal person you mong instead of this broken quoting shite
I can format my posts however I want, faggot. It makes it easier to address specific points, instead of the rambling off-topic garbage you dribble.
>atheism doesn't promote anything
AtheISM doesn't promote anything. There's a difference.
>its a symptom of heroic materialism as an ideology and grew out of the enlightenment as a backlash against the religious wars in Europe
Atheism has existed since long before the enlightenment.
>people can take inspiration from many sourced, but Atheism/materialism as a source of inspiration is not terribly fruitful
Again, atheism is not synonymous with materialism, atheists can be ontological dualists or pluralists, you ignore my point where I mentioned atheist majorities in Asia that have spiritual beliefs. In fact, some sects of Christians are materialist monists, like Jehovahs witnesses and Mormons, although Mormons stray far from actual Christianity they're not atheists by any means.
In any case, atheism doesn't need to be a source of inspiration. Of course lack of belief in God isn't inspiring to anything, but atheists can get their inspiration from whatever the individual cherishes. Hobbes was inspired by the desire for law and order. Hume was inspired by reason and consistency. Nietzsche was inspired by power.
>lacks depth [...] for the world beyond that can be sensed
This is a criticism of empiricism, not atheism.
>Marxian materialist ideologies are dominant by far.
Wow, you really proved me wrong there. It's not like the Soviet Union is capitalist, North Korea has removed all references in Juche to Marxist leaders and China is constantly moving towards a free market. You're just trying to conflate materialism with Marxism, and both with atheism.
>between a hardline Muslim and some limp wristed atheist I think I could find more philosophical common ground in terms of how we base our beliefs.
I'm sure you could :^)
>>399492
Heresy is a cancer that requires a scalpel.
>>399473
God is beyond good
beyond all human emotions which are always bound in his temporal place in reality.
Christ is the Logos and bridges the gap between the Absolute of God and the finite of Man
>>399494
The universe was not created horrible, we made it that way when we decided to sin.
btw I have to go now but I enjoyed our discussion. I will pray for everyone ITT and God bless you all.
>>399503
materialism promotes atheism, not the other way round.
atheism is a symptom of a sick society,.
>>399486
>Any friction between the Gospels are minor and not material to the entirety of their message.
They shouldn't exist at all if they're divinely inspired.
>>399499
Thank you.
>>399513
>atheism is a symptom of a sick society,.
"Guys, look at this thing I don't like! I'm going to repeat how bad it is!"
>>399507
>I will pray for everyone ITT and God bless you all.
Thank you, please could you sacrifice a goat for me as well. ;-)
ITT: Atheists proving once again that they are the easiest group to troll.
>>399643
I don't disagree with you in the slightest. Atheists are at a disadvantage due to the fact that all religious claims are indistinguishable from trolling.
>>399167
>Not all Muslims kill non Muslims exclusively either.
If you're talking about fights between different sects, technically those other groups are apostates and thus not true muslims.
>>398884
In the US. Not in the world. I understand this.
>>397274
Yeah, it'd be stupid to use it in statistics because its an incredibly extreme outlier and serves no function.
>>396107
Stalin's regime was nowhere near secular
>>399295
It's a metaphor for destroying the current outlook people had towards life. Loving others more than God and his righteousness. Common argument of retarded atheists is to pull a random verse with no context provided
What's with this atheistic dinduism?
Is it so hard to accept that there were several anti-religious acts motivated by atheism in history?
>>396107
Uh no
>>400700
>motivated by atheism
>this eggplant told me to eat squash
Was the person motivated by the knowledge there's no coherent definition for anything supernatural, or were they motivated by something else? You can't suddenly say recognizing a lack of coherence regarding spirituality promotes violence the way you can say the literal tenets of previous adherents to your religious ideology promoted violence and it's in the holy book.
This is why you can't have nice conversations with people who want to use political spin to turn atheism into a succinct political ideology with warriors so they can be targeted and every time you've thought religion was unhealthy because it is incoherent you'd feel a little ashamed because you've been tricked to think you're promoting violence against religion.
>>396107
Good point, it was because he was an atheist, not a communist, that he did what he did.
>>399134
>Citation needed
>Osama Bin Laden: led Al-Qaeda terrorist network; planned 9/11 attacks
With a little help from Dick.
>>396080
Why is this entire thread about splitting hairs?
A trait of communism is atheism. Believing in a god or having a religion harms the forming of communism. Therefore, communism adopts atheism for its cause.
Many communists killed religious people and believers in order to keep atheism as the prevailing belief.
So yes, atheists have killed many people. Many communists were militant about having a population they control be atheist.
>>396080
>I'm writing a paper on why refugees shouldn't be accepted into America
Were you being forced to against your will?
>>396080
Does no one bring up the militant atheist who killed half a dozen and wounded more in Oregon? He asked if people were Christian, and if they said yes, he shot them in the head.
Nice Reddit image though. Le atheists are the true peaceful people. XDDD
>>396080
>militant atheists
>nothing
>forgetting about Columbine
whew lad
http://strawpoll.me/6252090
>>400700
Motivated by ANTI-THEISM
>>401878
>You can't just paint all atheists with the same brush
>Not all atheists
>Atheism is a belief system of peace
Atheism is at odds with western culture
>Atheism is peaceful
>Christians literally gunned down for their beliefs at two college shootings by atheists
>lol it's the gun's fault
This nation infuriates me to no end.
>>396080
Christians in Africa and Asia are generally just as bad as the Muslims there, because they live in non-secular societies.
>>400447
They sure tried to be. The state was secular, the population not so much.
>>401934
Atheism isn't a call to war. There are no apostates, it's not a political ideology.
If you want to claim atheism is the cause, or a contributory factor in the murder of a religious person, then you're strawmanning atheism by pulling some ideologically twisted form of non-theism which condones violence.
>>401978
>guy shoots up planned parenthood turns out to be Christian
>XTIANITY IS EVIL BAN IT
>guy targets Christians by asking their faith and killing them if they are Christian
>lol it's the guns fault atheism is a religion of peace
>taking a book written by thousands of different authors over a thousand or two years at face value
wew
>>401978
>if the ideology doesn't have a doctrine that explicitly condones doing something, than the ideology can not be the motivation for doing that thing
You're retarded.
>>398801
>>Tell an atheist that an atheist committed atrocities in the name of disbelief
It was about social cohesion and control over the population. In most cases people could practice their religion as long as it did not in any way threaten the state. In Russia, the church had had a lot of power before the Bolcheviks took over. They did not want the Church to mobilize the believers against the state.
>>398843
"Who was Robespierre?"
>>398946
Strange how they kept to the "old law" about witches up until the 1700s, and some places even later.
>>399064
>No because Christians do not always follow the correct doctrine.
So virtually ALL christians three hundred years ago followed the wrong doctrine?
>>396080
Ignoring the atheist governments of Communist China and Russia that killed more people than any culturally religious government ever has.
>>401989
Christianity actually has holy texts that talk about killing people.
Atheism is just the recognition no coherent definition for the supernatural exists so far.
I'm sure you'll keep trying to connect them though.
>>402001
Atheism isn't an ideology. Ram it through your bullshit holes, fuckstick.
If you try to twist it to become an ideology, you're not talking about atheism anymore.
>>402065
yes, but in those nations atheism was just a front for the deification of their leaders, if there was another way for them to gain unquestioned power like that, they would've done that instead.
atheism isn't a reason for genocide, it's a means to gain power.
>>402137
i find it hard to believe that something that influences belief in morality, religion and politics like atheism is merely a position of disbelief and not a belief in itself.
I do not believe in life outside of Earth yet that disbelief doesnt affect my moral beliefs, etc
>>402184
So your saying that the people were killed because of the fact that they were religious? You speak in circles man. They didn't do it to promote atheism but they did it specifically to end religion?
God atheists are clearly too smart for me to comprehend
>>402209
Atheism is just a merely a statement, there's no cohesive belief system or set of dogma behind it like a philosophy or religion.
Unlike theists there's less likely a broad based agreement between two random atheists on things that keep theists in line, like morality, politics and even religion.
>>402240
no, I'm saying people were killed because they disobeyed or were in anyway useless to the state. they didn't care about religion, having a state religion would be counterintuitive because it makes makes it harder for leaders to become deified, as idolization is discouraged by almost all major faiths
>>402032
A deist.
Personally I like Richard Dawkins single response to Islam...
Just ask any Muslim: "What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam?"
>>402243
>Atheism is just a merely a statement
it's a belief that informs other beliefs
>Unlike theists
i dont get it, you want to play the "atheist is just ONE belief guyz" while saying the opposite of the contrary opinion (theism). You cant have it both ways, champ
>>402854
Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.
Christianity and Islam have a particular set of doctrines.
>>402900
Atheism is the belief that God doesnt exist
Theism is the belief that God exists
again, you cant have it both ways
>>402955
In what way both ways?
The thread said Muslims and Christians, both of which have doctrinesm not just someone that was a theist with their own personal special invisible friend.
Atheism has no doctrine, champ, you're going to need to do a bit better.
>>402970
>In what way both ways?
your trying to group Theism the same way you dont want people grouping Atheism, that's what i call "both ways"
> a theist with their own personal special invisible friend.
did your atheism make you do that, fa m?
>>402984
How can a lack of belief and a lack of doctrine make you do anything?
>>402984
well the atheism says I don't believe god but anything else is up for debate.
Is different from I believe in god, you shouldn't eat pig, homosex is bad, divorce is wrong, becuase my special book says so.....
Its kinda hard not to group the latter.
>HURR STALIN KILLED IN THE NAME OF COMMUNISM NOT ATHEISM :^)
Read Marx. Dismantling of religion is a cornerstone of the revolution that Marx depicted.
>>404004
This actually doesn't prove that atheism was a driving force behind Stalin's deeds. To put it in terms you can comprehend, (almost) all communists are militant atheists, not all militant atheists -not even most if you ask me- are communists.
>>404024
Are you denying that atheism and the elimination of religion is a pillar of Marxism? Focus on the content of the post, please and thank you.
>>404032
I'm not denying this, learn to read. The question would be, does atheism turn people into communist murderers? Or does communism turn people into atheistic murderers?
>>398121
Please read a book.
>>404004
Actually, if you read Marx, it's even more damning. Marx wasn't a peace and love democracy type, but he actually believed his own theory.
Sure, there's no religion in a communist state, but that's because without the alienation of the workers, there'd be no need for religion. Churchmen would decline with the death of capitalism the same way vexillologists would decline with the end of feudalism.
There's really nothing in Marx that justifies or encourages Stalin, or Mao or Kim's behavior.
Guess they must have done it because of athiesm.
>>404043
Atheism is inseparable from Marxist ideologies.
So, yes, it's safe to say that the killings under Communism were in the name of atheism.
Your question is completely out of left field and wasn't even implied in any previous posts.
Just a reminder.
>>399295
>Peace can only come from peace.
Go back to Woodstock.
>>404091
We should just exterminate all non-christians and those problems wouldn't exist.
>>404087
>Atheism is inseparable from Marxist ideologies
That means you cannot be a communist without being an atheist. But you seem to be trying to say that you also cannot be an atheist without eventually becoming a communist. Is that what you're trying to say?
>>402209
Well that's the nasty thing about simplification isn't it, you consider it a good characteristic and also part of the ideologies you grew up with (successful because they're simple in that they are broad and incorporate a lot in a simple way like present religious epistemology and a political epstemology in one ideology).
But when you start connecting other things to ideologies they're not a part of, creating parallel infrastructure to your own ideology where there is none, you've got to step back and realize whether there's an actual contribution, or if people appropriate something later to make their case sound stronger ideologically.
Math is 1+1=2. Is this support for marriage over a singles lifestyle?
Atheism is "there's no coherent definition of the supernatural to respond to." Is this support for killing people who promote a religion?
Of course not! In both cases the actual contributing factor is "2 is more stable because you've got more to rely on" or "religion will harm us if we don't do something first" respectively, and only later do people claim "well math is the reason why marriages are more stable than the lifestyles of single" or "the lack of a coherent definition of the supernatural is why I had to kill all of you."
>>404004
Yeesh, you add having trouble separating ideas here.
If I kill you because it makes me safer, because you're religious and my new system is atheist, did the idea that there's no coherent definition of the supernatural inform my decision to kill you, or did my ideological non-atheist-definition based atheist ideological construct within my political ideology contribute to killing you?
>>396093
none of them do it because their god told them to do so
unlike a certain religion of peace
also
>refugees are not a big deal
fuck you i don't want people who will never assimilate in my country, you think they are fine? Then let them stay in your fucking house
