Could atheist westerners, please explain?

[pocaracas]

[ReptilianPeon]

The entire Third World is suffering, so why is it only Palestine people get emotional over? Yeah, it's very bad in Palestine, but there are billions more suffering. People in my country, I understand that many struggle to find sympathy because there are some who suffer here too; every time I see a beggar it reminds of the broken system that we have.

But they need to understand, obviously, that their suffering is nothing compared to the Third World. I agree, more has to be done, even though the odds are stacked against us. At least Europe has been willing to resettle some refugees though. Gulf Cooperation Council is richer than many European Union countries, but they continue to do very little, and they don't have much to say on Palestine either, as far as I'm aware.

The United States continues to support those Fascist dictators because it has certainly lost its way. Today if you tell them Jesus was once a refugee and that he was from "Brown Land", their heads will explode. On the Statue of Liberty there are the lines of the poem The New Colossus:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It makes me think of all of the people making the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean. I cry every time I see those words. I stand with you, opposed to all of this foolish oppression. It makes me angry too. But there people that need to be blamed are not some random "Atheist Westerners".

Atheists are oppressed too, especially in the Third World, but even in some rich countries. There are some states in the United States that ban Atheists from public office (even though it's against the constitution). But that's nothing compared to the Third world, because at least they're allowed to live. Atheists get killed and beaten down all the time in the Third World. Like that Nigerian man who was sent to a mental asylum simply because he did not want to believe, or those Bangladeshi bloggers who were decapitated.

We Atheists value life because we don't know what will happen when we die. This may be the only life. No reincarnation or afterlife. Why would we life this life to the full if there is an afterlife? al-Saud must think Palestine is not worth fighting for because they'll go to Jannah anyway.

There are people who think just like that, even if al-Saud doesn't. Like those Christian who say that we should not look after the environment because, they say, "only got can change the climate, so it's not the fault of the humans". People have been waiting for the End Times for centuries, and they keep convincing themselves: "It's this time for sure".

It is very saddening that the the Third World is in the state that it's in. And it's very easy to forget about that when we have all of these luxuries. I try my best to educate friends and family, and indeed members of this forum, because it's the least that I can do. But, sadly, there is no big appetite for change and people are quite happy to go along with the exploitation of exploitation of the Third World.

If you look at the Gulf, they are much more wasteful than many Western countries. Dubai is full of vanity projects, and Saudi even tried to sabotage the Paris Climate Talks. And they both refuse to let go of the evil Kafalah System, which exploits Third World people. That is how little they care about the Third World. All of the resources spent on their vanity projects could put to better use quenching the thirst of the Third World. It's not just the fault of "the West".

Remember, we are united against imperialism, the forces of al-Saud and those of the Twelve Imams at least. I am not going to dispute the verses that you showed me. I see no point.

It is fairly obvious nukes were used against Japan to try and impress the Soviets and nothing else. The Allies were wining the war, and it ended up killing more people, I suspect, than if they make it to the shore of Honshu. Nuclear fission can be force for good in the fight against climate change, even if the Manhattan Project mostly resulted in bad things.

What I said was that research usually has unintended benefits. They used ICBMs to put humans into space initially. Niel Armstrong took his first trip into space on an ICBM. The technology has evolved obviously, but they helped to start the Space Race because some people had the bright idea of replacing the warhead with a capsule for human transportation.


That's I have for now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nukes weren't used to impress the soviets, lol.  They were used to prevent further loss of american lives to a competent and dedicated enemy.  Island hopping was a meat grinder.  Every island we hit was exponentially worse than the one before it as the defenders became more and more desperate to stall us..towards the end they were throwing civilians and suicide bombers at us.   We suffered just about the same number of casualties as dropping those bombs in the island hopping to get within range.   Iwo Jima and Okinawa are the reason we dropped those bombs, ultimately.  The idea of a mainland ainvasion without first softening them up, when we had air superiority, would have been ludicrous.  The plan was -always- to bomb the shit out of them once we had a suitable airstrip. No american president, at that time and with those years in recent memory, could have justified not using the new bombs. The first one didn't work for a variety of reasons that might seem ludicrous to us today, and japan didn't call it quits over casualties caused by either bomb in any case. They were prepared to suffer those sorts of losses and already had, it was the asymmetry of casualties from those bombs that sapped their will to fight. The second drove the point home and saved -both- nations from further island hopping. Have a little respect for the gravity of the situation and decision for all involved.......impressing the soviets ffs?

For reference, the bomb that hit Nagasaki caused half as many direct casualties as the assault on Iwo Jima.  The assault on Okinawa caused more direct casualties than both bombs combined.  Japan, by itself, lost three times as many men in the island hopping campaign as they did with the bombings. If we wanted to talk about heinous shit, "losing our way" in WW2, the fire bombings of dresden and tokyo are better examples. Rambling idiots fixate on the a-bombs because they desperately need a point of focus around which to rally while they cry for the blood of the great satan.

[robvalue]

Well, Atlas hasn't done another reflex post. That's a good sign.

I hold out hope he has given this some thought now.

[WinterHold]

robvalue


  

  You complained secularism was stopping you ruling with religion. What has the Quran got to do with that? Are you changing your position now? I'd be really happy if you did.

    I don't know how you can rule with religion without forcing me to do things.

    I'm using ISIS to show you what a ridiculous mess you are making of secularism. It's exactly the same thing.

The Quranic reference was a response to the ISIS accusation, and to you thinking that Islam is forced by the sword.
These verses are what I believe and act upon; actually in practice they're pretty much peacful, I just don't seem to find a reason that would encourage me to force something on you, but let's be honest: the majority's voice is the way to go everywhere on earth today.

Democracy is all about that. If you lost the elections, then you lost your ruling position. I totally believe in that. So if I'm in the west, the majority there is secular, and their vote actually"OVERRIDE ME", I either like it or immigrate to somewhere else, Unlike what ISIS (and Sunni/Shia ideas) advocate, do you think I support the Salafi/Wahhabi beards that protest in Britain to force Islam on you??

  robvalue :

  You blame every secular person, including me, for everything bad any secular person has done.
    I blame every Muslim, and you Atlas, for everything bad any Muslim has ever done.

    How is that any different?

My comment to you on page 9; I literally said:

    AtlasS33:
   

The idea of secularism itself, is denying me my right to rule with religion, even if the majority was by my side. That's why -for the existence of Israel-, I blame each and every secular person -if they accepted it as a legitimate state-; and accuse them of hypocrisy and bigotry if they didn't oppose Israel.

So the problem I have -as I have cited in that page- is with each and every secular person whom:
1) Accept Israel as a legitimate, legal state
2) Smile to the UN and the global system -and describe it as authentic- despite knowing that Israel exist.

It wasn't a broad generalization. One doesn't simply get to carry the sins of others.

  robvalue:

  I know you said "if the majority agree with you". But that doesn't change the fact that you want to force religious rule on me, if you had the chance.
    Would you think it's fair and right to be forced under a different religious rule, if you found yourself in the minority?

Honestly, I don't care. Honestly, I have to say it, rob. Live like you wanna live, to each his way, to each their path, I know the truth of life on earth, apathy was rained on me a long time ago.

I don't have an "agenda". I just want this exam to end as fast as possible, without me adding more corruption or contributing in more evil.

As a shocking concept, the Quran states clearly that "it will never ever happen". That is, the unified one "Muslim land", where angry Musliims jump around with swords, forcing everybody to the faith:

Sura 11:
( 118 )   And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ.
( 119 )   Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them. But the word of your Lord is to be fulfilled that, "I will surely fill Hell with jinn and men all together."

Sura 13:
( 31 )   And if there was any qur'an by which the mountains would be removed or the earth would be broken apart or the dead would be made to speak, but to Allah belongs the affair entirely. Then have those who believed not accepted that had Allah willed, He would have guided the people, all of them? And those who disbelieve do not cease to be struck, for what they have done, by calamity - or it will descend near their home - until there comes the promise of Allah. Indeed, Allah does not fail in [His] promise.

Technically, according to these verses, we can forget the global "Caliphate" that ISIS wants to make for a while. It will not come to be.  God created us to differ, Sura 11 is so obvious, it is even a "literal" mention. We will always differ, because this life is no more than a test. And you have the right to differ.

Your right to differ is here:

Sura 35:
( 39 )   It is He who has made you successors upon the earth. And whoever disbelieves - upon him will be [the consequence of] his disbelief. And the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them in the sight of their Lord except in hatred; and the disbelief of the disbelievers does not increase them except in loss.

So, I don't have an agenda to rule. That's what I learned from the book of God, and that is why I think anarchy is the way, what's the point of governments anyhow? we will always differ, even if an illusion -like the UN, which is a vegetable- came to be. Rather, I prefer the term "community" or maybe "society". 

In comparison to the Quran, secularism is a joke. The logic above, will prevent any war from even starting, homosexuals would've got their marriage rights thousands of years ago, atomic weapons would've never came to be, but hey, we were created to differ, after all. And God would intervene to cleanse what he doesn't want, didn't he annihilate the people of Sodom? but did anybody remove their rights to have sex with each other? did Lot -peace be upon him- or any other human, was allowed to hang them and kill them, like the bigot hypocrites in Saudi Arabia, Iran & ISIS do??, but who said we as humans, have the right to burn others??

Are secular countries giving any better example?
Oh no, smoking a joint can lead you to be electrocuted to death, nowadays.

Islam is not Christianity, Islam is not the Roman Catholic Church.
Secularism is the anti-dote of the Church. But Islam is something else.

[WinterHold]

    MrNoMorePropaganda
   

The entire Third World is suffering, so why is it only Palestine people get emotional over? Yeah, it's very bad in Palestine, but there are billions more suffering. People in my country, I understand that many struggle to find sympathy because there are some who suffer here too; every time I see a beggar it reminds of the broken system that we have.

    But they need to understand, obviously, that their suffering is nothing compared to the Third World. I agree, more has to be done, even though the odds are stacked against us. At least Europe has been willing to resettle some refugees though. Gulf Cooperation Council is richer than many European Union countries, but they continue to do very little, and they don't have much to say on Palestine either, as far as I'm aware.

    The United States continues to support those Fascist dictators because it has certainly lost its way. Today if you tell them Jesus was once a refugee and that he was from "Brown Land", their heads will explode. On the Statue of Liberty there are the lines of the poem The New Colossus:
    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    It makes me think of all of the people making the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean. I cry every time I see those words. I stand with you, opposed to all of this foolish oppression. It makes me angry too. But there people that need to be blamed are not some random "Atheist Westerners".

    Atheists are oppressed too, especially in the Third World, but even in some rich countries. There are some states in the United States that ban Atheists from public office (even though it's against the constitution). But that's nothing compared to the Third world, because at least they're allowed to live. Atheists get killed and beaten down all the time in the Third World. Like that Nigerian man who was sent to a mental asylum simply because he did not want to believe, or those Bangladeshi bloggers who were decapitated.

    We Atheists value life because we don't know what will happen when we die. This may be the only life. No reincarnation or afterlife. Why would we life this life to the full if there is an afterlife? al-Saud must think Palestine is not worth fighting for because they'll go to Jannah anyway.

    There are people who think just like that, even if al-Saud doesn't. Like those Christian who say that we should not look after the environment because, they say, "only got can change the climate, so it's not the fault of the humans". People have been waiting for the End Times for centuries, and they keep convincing themselves: "It's this time for sure".

    It is very saddening that the the Third World is in the state that it's in. And it's very easy to forget about that when we have all of these luxuries. I try my best to educate friends and family, and indeed members of this forum, because it's the least that I can do. But, sadly, there is no big appetite for change and people are quite happy to go along with the exploitation of exploitation of the Third World.

    If you look at the Gulf, they are much more wasteful than many Western countries. Dubai is full of vanity projects, and Saudi even tried to sabotage the Paris Climate Talks. And they both refuse to let go of the evil Kafalah System, which exploits Third World people. That is how little they care about the Third World. All of the resources spent on their vanity projects could put to better use quenching the thirst of the Third World. It's not just the fault of "the West".

    Remember, we are united against imperialism, the forces of al-Saud and those of the Twelve Imams at least. I am not going to dispute the verses that you showed me. I see no point.

    It is fairly obvious nukes were used against Japan to try and impress the Soviets and nothing else. The Allies were wining the war, and it ended up killing more people, I suspect, than if they make it to the shore of Honshu. Nuclear fission can be force for good in the fight against climate change, even if the Manhattan Project mostly resulted in bad things.

    What I said was that research usually has unintended benefits. They used ICBMs to put humans into space initially. Niel Armstrong took his first trip into space on an ICBM. The technology has evolved obviously, but they helped to start the Space Race because some people had the bright idea of replacing the warhead with a capsule for human transportation.


    That's I have for now.

Palestine is just another drop in the ocean, discussing it in a context that is custom made and limited to the issue, doesn't mean that other conflicts and miseries are forgotten. Caring must be global, nationalism divide us.

Gulf countries are outside the domain of humanity. The society in Saudi Arabia -for example- shows obvious signs of hatred, racism and greed, to insane levels, the typical "refugees will steal our jobs and eat our food" excuse is so on fire there, the treasure has caused many there, to lose their minds. Nothing good can be expected from the sykes-picot puppets after all.

My theory is that losing the way is an inevitable consequence for human-made laws. Our physical inventions fall with the passing of time, our abstract constructs fall, too. The U.S "had" to lose its way, I would've felt strange if didn't. A human trait, that is.

America was a great idea. Integrating races together, melting borders and producing a safe haven for immigrants, but it was built on the skulls and bones of others, natives. My heart also goes to those who got suffocated under the boots of contradiction and double standards. And yes, I can't argue they were all "seculars"; many were Christians acting based on religious ideas.

Don't count the Sauds as believers, they are irreligious
They started to leave wahhabism behind btw, because people in the kingdom stopped buying the wahhabi trash. Actually, I believe that the locals are falling more and more into atheism.  It might cheer you up, but it makes me despise wahhabism more and more. But it still is a taboo to say it in public.

The kafalah system is nothing more than slavery, literally, I tasted the bitterness of this system once, it's slavery. I agree, MNMP: the west would not have gained domination over the third world -and the Middle East in precise- without the aid of local leaders; people like the Sauds, the Tehran Shias, the military SCAF in Egypt, and so on.

If you ask me, I would sacrifice the space programs of NASA and the USSR thousand times, if that would erase ICBM from history.

[robvalue]

I'm going to have to give up. What you are saying makes no sense. You repeat the same errors and contradictions now matter how many times I point them out.

I tried.

[WinterHold]

Nukes weren't used to impress the soviets, lol.  They were used to prevent further loss of american lives to a competent and dedicated enemy.  Island hopping was a meat grinder.  Every island we hit was exponentially worse than the one before it as the defenders became more and more desperate to stall us..towards the end they were throwing civilians and suicide bombers at us.   We suffered just about the same number of casualties as dropping those bombs in the island hopping to get within range.   Iwo Jima and Okinawa are the reason we dropped those bombs, ultimately.  The idea of a mainland ainvasion without first softening them up, when we had air superiority, would have been ludicrous.  The plan was -always- to bomb the shit out of them once we had a suitable airstrip.  No american president, at that time and with those years in recent memory, could have justified not using the new bombs.  The first one didn't work for a variety of reasons that might seem ludicrous to us today, and japan didn't call it quits over casualties caused by either bomb in any case.  They were prepared to suffer those sorts of losses and already had, it was the asymmetry of casualties from those bombs that sapped their will to fight.  The second drove the point home and saved -both- nations from further island hopping.  Have a little respect for the gravity of the situation and decision for all involved.......impressing the soviets ffs?  

For reference, the bomb that hit Nagasaki caused half as many direct casualties as the assault on Iwo Jima.  The assault on Okinawa caused more direct casualties than both bombs combined.  Japan, by itself, lost three times as many men in the island hopping campaign as they did with the bombings.  If we wanted to talk about heinous shit, "losing our way" in WW2, the fire bombings of dresden and tokyo are better examples.  Rambling idiots fixate on the a-bombs because they desperately need a point of focus around which to rally while they cry for the blood of the great satan.

For God's sake Rhythm, everybody knows that there was no need to drop the Fat Man.
The U.S emerged as a super-power afterwards, so you can guess that it was a pretty smart -very evil; but smart- idea to nuke the poor Japanese; and identify the U.S as the new supreme Nuclear Power.

Do you really think, that American decision makers, didn't conclude that the USSR is next after Hitler?

These bombs make no sense, unless you consider the above.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry that a dry and sober appraisal of the military reality of the use of weapons got in the way of your conspiratorial fantasies regarding The Evil Empire, Atlas.  : shrugs :

We were getting our asses handed to us in the pacific, and it was significantly worse for the japanese. The bombs fixed that problem for both of us. It was Japans decision not to surrender, after the first, not ours. I;m sure you can find examples of the US -actually- being "evil"...so I don't know why you'd stick to this one, except of course for the rambling idiot factor. We emerged as a super power not because we had the bombs, but because we had stood back while all the other powers burnt each other to cinder...then mopped up the stragglers and claimed victory (the soviets were particularly salty about this, for good reason). Had we never invented or dropped either bomb this would have been the case all the same. Sure, sure, being a nuclear power with an unscathed homeland when the rest of the developed world was in ruins sealed the deal...but if all we had were rubber band guns we still would have been the last men standing and their cities would still have been in ruin. The greatest weapon we had in WW2 wasn't a bomb, or a fancy plane, or even our permanent war footing (which didn't exist -until- then). It was distance and span across oceans, and the fact that the fighting was in someone -else's- yard.

If you want to point to this span of time as support for your ramblings, I'd suggest you educate yourself, first......and -then- bitch and moan. What, do you think, was the islamic worlds contribution to WW2? Oh, that's right...they were so fixated on the destruction of the jews and allure of fascist nationalism..they threw their chips in with the fucking Nazis, and emulated their regimes. Good call there. Tell me again about WW2 and The Great Satan?

Sig allah hu heil -0/-

[Ben Davis]

Believe me, it does. When you ban religious ideas from being used and practiced, you are actually enforcing your dislike of religion.

Okay, let's dial this back a little: there are some distinctions to make here. I oppose the banning of religion: the government must have no mandate to prevent people's right to self expression or else we end up with totalitarianism. However it must be recognised that people act on their beliefs and if a belief system results in the persecution of other beliefs/believers, there must be no opportunity given for those persecutive beliefs to be mandated in to legislation. We do not live in isolation and if we are going to maintain diverse, cohesive communities, any legislative preference towards any one particular belief is going to be damaging to that end. So in the parts where Islam tells you how to live your life, you're welcome to it however in the parts where Islam instruct you to behave anti-socially, you must expect (and will receive) opposition from those who are community minded.

Allowing people to act the way they want, doesn't actually fall to you. Trying to control others is the tyranny; secularism is nothing more than trying to control the state with enforcing a non-religious route; favoring one idea over the other: and enforce that concept; again and again.

People should be left to do what they want.

Not when what they want is to persecute others. You seem to have things a little mixed up: opposition to tyranny is not tyrannical.

Who are you to decide what my rights are?

It's not me deciding this, it's a natural result of the right to self expression: you have no right to mandate against the beliefs of others. You don't get to cry 'persecution' when you're trying to persecute others.

So you're technically saying, that if I was born in a certain state, then I'm fucked? that's it? I'm a slave? I can't decide the law I want?

If what you want is to oppose freedom then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Oh...I have to agree to the options you give me like a good slave..

You're so enamored and dependent on your chains that you would argue to keep them. That's one of the saddest aspects of religious indoctrination.

Anarchy is the concept of taking down this evil. Nobody spoke about you, but if a group of Muslims wanted to live their way, you have no right to deny them that, or else, you are a slaver.

Quite the opposite: anarchy is a self-organising system however because people disagree so often and so vehemently about how they should live, and because resources are finite, competition arises with often violent consequences. What secularism does is provide societies with a mechanism for resolving those conflicts without resorting to violence.

It's these chains, that lead people to be crazy everywhere in the world. Chains which are forced by the power of the state.

Chains which bind you and your thinking so that you, with full foreknowledge of the results of your actions, dismiss the best opportunity you have for real freedom.

Ah.. Accumalation.

Israel wouldn't be Israel, without help. A help that I believe that a certain ideology(s) helped to feed. Without the holes in that ideology, bad people could've not been able to use them holes to raise the state of Israel.

Nonsense. The creation of Israel as a nation state was entirely religio-political. There is no argument amongst serious commentators about that. You are entirely wrong here.

In other words.. it's not personal. Nobody said you're all evil. But the ideology has holes that I must cite.

That's a great attitude to have and I would welcome a serious criticism of the flaws of secularism. However you do not have one here.