RE: Could atheist westerners, please explain?
February 23, 2016 at 8:46 am
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2016 at 9:03 am by WinterHold.)
Ignoramous
They are not progressing, because they burned their holly book and tried to be nationalists; like the British.
After all, the history of Arabia has wonders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._E._Lawrence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Darin
If the Quran is practiced, peace and prosperity would've rule not just us, but the whole world, people would've immigrated to Muslim lands instead of secular lands, nuclear weapons would've never existed, but hey, nationalism ruins history, as Goeth said once..
TheRocketSurgeon
All I think about when imagining Texas is bikers and shooting people with revolvers, and Daryl Dixon from AMC's the walking dead
Believe it or not TRS, I think life in Texas would be amazing
MrNoMorePropaganda
Hamas are "Muslim Brotherhood"; so I have my concerns regarding them, but I don't think they were Mossad-made, I believe they did fight the war for the people, I need evidence, MNMP.
The Muslim Brotherhood showed suspicious behavior in Egypt & Turkey.
Fatah, on the other hand, did a lot for Israel in my opinion. They even suppressed the people of the region, and kept the west bank safe from revolts.
The housing process it exactly a repetition for American history: the spaniards burned native culture after all (there in the south), but forced conversion doesn't exist in the case of palestine, and the madness of Zionism and extreme Jewish mentality can show its essence right here: Muslims are not native Americans, Mayans neither are they isolated tribes. Trying to repeat the American imperialistic experience would be a disaster in the Middle East. It's gonna get bloody.
About that picture:female warriors exist, a fact that is, the difference though is the cause.
There is no shame in carrying a weapon to defend yourself But indeed it's disaster if you carry it to play God against the innocent.
Constable dorfel
And here is why I asked the question. A secular post WW2 UN, which neglected religion and claimed to be non-religious, was the first to allow religious fanatics to create a caliphate with a religious symbol in the middle of its flag.
robvalue
It's all about linking secularism with atheist from my perspective; that's how my brain is wired for the meantime.
I need to extend my understanding for lots of things, and that's for sure.
Ah, about secularism, my theory and observation (which are based on the events from ww2 until now), tells me that secularism is interest-derived: in other words, human rights are not practiced but because it brings an interest; if violence for example would bring a bigger interest, then to be it.
The foreign policy of many secular states were just like that. If we started by comparing the Soviet Union to any western-Europe states like Germany & France, we'll see the difference in the tactics; the west uses human rights to win battles, the soviet union went with the Stalin-like mentality of war-first; it lost.
In cases of Iraq, for example, human rights are not needed: actually it will make the western forces lose (britain and America), so bring the AC-130s and torture Iraqies in Abu-Ghuraib, and throw human rights from the window.
It's all about interest. That is what secularism is to me.
FebruaryOfReason
Nationalism makes it look that way; that all the British are the same.
If I didn't believe that there are good people out there, I wouldn't be here.
Anyhow, the small minority must act still against the hordes that advocate evil. We must call for virtues, and stand together against evil, the small minority can then defeat the bigger one, with the idea spreading like fire in a swarm of moth.
I'm not generalizing.
But we can do better than this, all of us.
They are not progressing, because they burned their holly book and tried to be nationalists; like the British.
After all, the history of Arabia has wonders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._E._Lawrence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Darin
If the Quran is practiced, peace and prosperity would've rule not just us, but the whole world, people would've immigrated to Muslim lands instead of secular lands, nuclear weapons would've never existed, but hey, nationalism ruins history, as Goeth said once..
TheRocketSurgeon
All I think about when imagining Texas is bikers and shooting people with revolvers, and Daryl Dixon from AMC's the walking dead
Believe it or not TRS, I think life in Texas would be amazing
MrNoMorePropaganda
Hamas are "Muslim Brotherhood"; so I have my concerns regarding them, but I don't think they were Mossad-made, I believe they did fight the war for the people, I need evidence, MNMP.
The Muslim Brotherhood showed suspicious behavior in Egypt & Turkey.
Fatah, on the other hand, did a lot for Israel in my opinion. They even suppressed the people of the region, and kept the west bank safe from revolts.
The housing process it exactly a repetition for American history: the spaniards burned native culture after all (there in the south), but forced conversion doesn't exist in the case of palestine, and the madness of Zionism and extreme Jewish mentality can show its essence right here: Muslims are not native Americans, Mayans neither are they isolated tribes. Trying to repeat the American imperialistic experience would be a disaster in the Middle East. It's gonna get bloody.
About that picture:female warriors exist, a fact that is, the difference though is the cause.
There is no shame in carrying a weapon to defend yourself But indeed it's disaster if you carry it to play God against the innocent.
Constable dorfel
And here is why I asked the question. A secular post WW2 UN, which neglected religion and claimed to be non-religious, was the first to allow religious fanatics to create a caliphate with a religious symbol in the middle of its flag.
robvalue
It's all about linking secularism with atheist from my perspective; that's how my brain is wired for the meantime.
I need to extend my understanding for lots of things, and that's for sure.
Ah, about secularism, my theory and observation (which are based on the events from ww2 until now), tells me that secularism is interest-derived: in other words, human rights are not practiced but because it brings an interest; if violence for example would bring a bigger interest, then to be it.
The foreign policy of many secular states were just like that. If we started by comparing the Soviet Union to any western-Europe states like Germany & France, we'll see the difference in the tactics; the west uses human rights to win battles, the soviet union went with the Stalin-like mentality of war-first; it lost.
In cases of Iraq, for example, human rights are not needed: actually it will make the western forces lose (britain and America), so bring the AC-130s and torture Iraqies in Abu-Ghuraib, and throw human rights from the window.
It's all about interest. That is what secularism is to me.
FebruaryOfReason
Nationalism makes it look that way; that all the British are the same.
If I didn't believe that there are good people out there, I wouldn't be here.
Anyhow, the small minority must act still against the hordes that advocate evil. We must call for virtues, and stand together against evil, the small minority can then defeat the bigger one, with the idea spreading like fire in a swarm of moth.
I'm not generalizing.
But we can do better than this, all of us.
