Do muslim exremists consider Chinese to be infidels?

[WhipperSnapper]

To bad atheism is just another "religious" concept to be corrupted. 😛

There's nothing to corrupt. Atheism doesn't provide any philosophical guidance. There simply aren't any ideals at all to corrupt.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There's nothing to corrupt. Atheism doesn't provide any philosophical guidance. There simply aren't any ideals at all to corrupt.

That's a bit nihilistic, no?

There's clearly an internet culture of Atheists and that culture can become corrupted. Further, out of the 'incorruptible' Atheism we see the philosophical humanism of both Marxism and Libertarianism.

Atheism itself cannot be corrupted any more than any pure idea.

But those who drink from it as a cultural wellspring and turn to declare it the ultimate waters of truth... oh they can be just as corrupted as anyone else.

 

[CZroe]

There's nothing to corrupt. Atheism doesn't provide any philosophical guidance. There simply aren't any ideals at all to corrupt.

Ever see the South Park episodes about the warring atheists? Praise science.

 

[Sulaco]

That's a bit nihilistic, no?

There's clearly an internet culture of Atheists and that culture can become corrupted. Further, out of the 'incorruptible' Atheism we see the philosophical humanism of both Marxism and Libertarianism.

Atheism itself cannot be corrupted any more than any pure idea.

But those who drink from it as a cultural wellspring and turn to declare it the ultimate waters of truth... oh they can be just as corrupted as anyone else.

Well said.

In it's purest, truest form, yes.

Literally, taken on its etymology, "atheist" of course means the absence of theism. The problem of course is that in the real world, we're talking about actual human beings, who can distort and co-opt anything, so that in actual practice, the "atheists" can be just as dogmatic and proselytizing as any of the theists.

 

[Omar F1]

1) Wiki isn't a biased terror site since even muslims can edit it. And what attacks on the list do you disagree with? That's all public info from news sources around the globe.
2) In fact, if you "read through the Koran", specifically 5:33 you'd find emphasis on believers as well. Believers who are commanded to kill, dismember, or exile anyone who creates "mischief" as Allah. This is indisputable and public information what this verse commands. However, what "mischief" means is anyone's guess.

If muslims want to progress and be taken seriously, they either need to remove or reword that verse.

Slamming me for spreading public information is laughable. Anyone can verify what the Koran says or Islamic attacks around the world. You just choose the ostrich method (head in the sand) and scream fud fud fud!! whenever someone posts something you don't like. Back your opinion up with facts or no one will take you, or muslims, seriously.

You need also to check the cause and story behind 5:33.
In fact, I'd like to apply that verse exactly on IS individuals while fighting them - and I'm not talking trash here.


That verse as well as other similar ones can be neither removed nor altered, otherwise we would fall in the same misdeed as those before us; Jews & the Jesus followers.
What we must do, however, is to enforce a moderate religious teachings and setting the rules very clearly for such critical matters like the infamous jihad.

Religious texts are subjective to different interpretations. Allowing some bearded ignorant narrowly-viewed loser, without any historical background and nothing better to do, to start teaching people their own religion is basically the disaster we're in right now.


Most of the people just believe in the media to teach them the necessary facts they've to know. Not by a long shot, those media channels are all owned by politically-motivated groups, planned well to direct the viewers into specifically chosen direction.
That said, a lot of facts goes down unnoticed, and people easily tend to forget history.

Likewise, from my limited early Islamic history, I've never ever stumbled on an order by Mohamed to sneak and assassinate some of his fieriest enemies. Will you imagine that.
As I once told one of those IS sympathizers: give me one example, only one, where one of his followers drew his sword in Makkah's market and started killing infidels, whether arbitrary or in act of revenge.
Treachery was never moral of old Arab tribes nor Muslims. When you trust and allow me a safe place among your community, to later blow myself up, is something undefined in our book.


Here is another fact you may be interested in.
Mohamed's prophecy started when he became 40 (you notice all those youth 20-30 years old committing all that nonsense). He started preaching his people then, peacefully of course, without a hint of violence, and those muslims whom were oppressed he kept reminding them of patience - as prize is the Heaven.
He stayed like this for 13-years in Makkah - inclusive of a short stay at Ethiopia - while he endured many woes, before he considered immigration to Madina; under persistent threats of death and oppression to him and his followers.
After they settled in Madina, and two years later, he ordered to target Quraish (Makkah's dominant tribe then) caravans as an act of retaliation against their crimes and the seizure of muslims' properties and money. And there when it had all started....

So, bottom line is, it's truly false to call him 'violent prophet', he never asked for war neither had started it.


As for that 'Islamic terrorism' list, lets first exclude Iraq ones as you might be aware of some of the Arab accusations in that subject.
For the rest, however, personally I bet the US offense in Afghanistan alone does far exceed any terrorism done under Islamic pretense - whereas Islam is innocent from their actions exactly as the wolf was from the blood of Joseph.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"Jews and Jesus followers"
This was a flatly ignorant statement : as though contextual hermanutics wasn't a "thing" for Christians, or the oral traditions unimportant in Judiasm.

Let's be clear: what any religion teaches about another is total bullshit. It's there to create fear and hate, and reinforce that you've made THE "right" choice.

You haven't!

At best you made the right choice for you: at worst you were forced into brain washing as a kid and are threatened with death if you ever change your views.

 

[CZroe]

As for that 'Islamic terrorism' list, lets first exclude Iraq ones as you might be aware of some of the Arab accusations in that subject.

For the rest, however, personally I bet the US offense in Afghanistan alone does far exceed any terrorism done under Islamic pretense - whereas Islam is innocent from their actions exactly as the wolf was from the blood of Joseph.

What "US offense in Afghanistan?" Rambo III or 2001?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

People who try to justify murder...

 

[gururu2]

Muslims (extremist or not) do not consider Chinese infidels solely based on their nationality.

 

[Art&Science]

You don't hear about them because the government controls the news

China is a totalitarian society - they execute people for SPEAKING against the government. They will terminate a pregnancy at will, at any stage if you violate the 1 child law. They strap women down kicking and screaming to do this. Muslim violence is not tolerated in China, that's why you don't hear about it. China doesn't put up with it.

 

[Art&Science]

There's nothing to corrupt. Atheism doesn't provide any philosophical guidance. There simply aren't any ideals at all to corrupt.

I love when people think that atheism is a religion. I actually don't like the term, but use it because it's the easiest identifier you can use.

Atheism is a religion like not believing in the easter bunny is a religion.

 

[Remobz]

I love when people think that atheism is a religion. I actually don't like the term, but use it because it's the easiest identifier you can use.

Atheism is a religion like not believing in the easter bunny is a religion.

To be an atheist one needs faith as well.

 

[sm625]

Yes Chinese are infidels. But chinese arent bombing the everloving hell out of them so they could care less. This is proof that this isnt about religion. If it were about religion, the carnage would be distributed more equally towards non-islam nations than it currently is.

 

[bshole]

For the rest, however, personally I bet the US offense in Afghanistan alone does far exceed any terrorism done under Islamic pretense - .

LoL. Afghanistan..... the worst place in the world to exist before America entered and still the worst place in the world to exist. Islamism and tribalism have ruined that country far more than America could ever hope to. It doesn't look like they will ever contribute a damn thing to civilization at large other than a base for Islamic terror attacks and opium production.

 

[CZroe]

Yes Chinese are infidels. But chinese arent bombing the everloving hell out of them so they could care less. This is proof that this isnt about religion. If it were about religion, the carnage would be distributed more equally towards non-islam nations than it currently is.

LOL! We thoroughly established that they attack China too so you just debunked your own dumb theory!

 

[Art&Science]

To be an atheist one needs faith as well.

No, no you don't. :thumbsup:

Atheism is literally non-belief. There is nothing more than that.

 

[Remobz]

No, no you don't. :thumbsup:

Atheism is literally non-belief. There is nothing more than that.

http://www.strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/

Read and learn.

"There are different kinds of faith, and atheists obviously do not possess some of them:
It’s obvious that atheists do not have Christian faith. If they did, they’d be Christians.
It’s also apparent that they do not have the theological virtue of faith, by which we believe in God and believe all that he has revealed to us because he is truth itself.
But there are other forms of faith. Unfortunately, the definitions proposed for them are often inadequate."




If you disagree, then you better come up with a good counter argument.

 

[Tormac]

http://www.strangenotions.com/do-atheists-have-faith/

Read and learn.

"There are different kinds of faith, and atheists obviously do not possess some of them:
It’s obvious that atheists do not have Christian faith. If they did, they’d be Christians.
It’s also apparent that they do not have the theological virtue of faith, by which we believe in God and believe all that he has revealed to us because he is truth itself.
But there are other forms of faith. Unfortunately, the definitions proposed for them are often inadequate."




If you disagree, then you better come up with a good counter argument.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of faith do you think atheists universally have?

I read that article from the link that you posted, and it seems to make assertions based on its own particular and rather peculiar definitions.

There are some Atheists that do go on to have faith in a particular philosophy (such as a faith in Maoism), but this is not a universal quality of Atheism, any more than a belief in Monotheism is a a universal faith of Theism.

The word "Atheism" just mean not believing in the existence of any god. It is no more a faith than not believing in the existence of Santa Clause is a faith.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of faith do you think atheists universally have?

I read that article from the link that you posted, and it seems to make assertions based on its own particular and rather peculiar definitions.

There are some Atheists that do go on to have faith in a particular philosophy (such as a faith in Maoism), but this is not a universal quality of Atheism, any more than a belief in Monotheism is a a universal faith of Theism.

The word "Atheism" just mean not believing in the existence of any god. It is no more a faith than not believing in the existence of Santa Clause is a faith.

All affirmative believe requires faith. It's just that we tend to embed a great deal of that faith into our assumed social world; so we don't recognize it as such.

I don't KNOW at a red light will wait there until it's green, but I ACT like I believe it.

ACTing like you believe something that you don't or can't KNOW is faith.

Faith is the basic unit of analysis in understanding our being in the world.

The question is, does being an Atheist require non-rational faith?

The answer is: what do you mean by rational?

 

[Nebor]

To be an atheist one needs faith as well.

Lol

 

[BudAshes]

All affirmative believe requires faith. It's just that we tend to embed a great deal of that faith into our assumed social world; so we don't recognize it as such.

I don't KNOW at a red light will wait there until it's green, but I ACT like I believe it.

ACTing like you believe something that you don't or can't KNOW is faith.

Faith is the basic unit of analysis in understanding our being in the world.

The question is, does being an Atheist require non-rational faith?

The answer is: what do you mean by rational?

Did you just get high for the first time?

 

[Tormac]

All affirmative believe requires faith. It's just that we tend to embed a great deal of that faith into our assumed social world; so we don't recognize it as such.

I don't KNOW at a red light will wait there until it's green, but I ACT like I believe it.

ACTing like you believe something that you don't or can't KNOW is faith.

Faith is the basic unit of analysis in understanding our being in the world.

The question is, does being an Atheist require non-rational faith?

The answer is: what do you mean by rational?

Atheism is not inherently an affirmative belief. If someone claimed that they could prove there there were no god(s), they would have to put up strong evidence, or accept that this is something that they put on faith.

This is subtly different than saying that I do not believe in the existence of god(s) (particularly in the lack of any physical evidence of the existence of any god).

The claim that they know that there are no god(s) is not the claim that most atheists make, although it is the one that I have heard many theists claim atheists are making (and thus trying to shoe horn atheists into making an affirmative statement requiring evidence).

The theist is the one side that is making an affirmative statement, and the atheist is rejecting the supposition that god(s) exist.

I understand your argument with the traffic light, which seems to be a different argument, but one accepting that atheism is making a positive statement. It is a mistake to assume that a declaration of atheism is one making a claim about the nature of the universe, instead of just rejecting a statement made by someone else.

One can extend your traffic light analogy to any changing process. I suppose that the sun could blow up tonight, or the earth may go off its orbit and I will never see a sunrise. I can not prove that it will not happen. But given our knowledge of cosmology it seems more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow in the same fashion that it did today. I think that we are in agreement in this instance.

 

[Victorian Gray]

To be an atheist one needs faith as well.

No.

 

[Zorkorist]

Nyet.

Logic only.

-John

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Atheism is not inherently an affirmative belief. If someone claimed that they could prove there there were no god(s), they would have to put up strong evidence, or accept that this is something that they put on faith.

A-Theism is an affirmative statement about the physical-real influence of a God.

It is a Gnostic stance.

A-Gnosticism is statement about one's state of belief regardingthe physical-real influence of a God.

This is subtly different than saying that I do not believe in the existence of god(s) (particularly in the lack of any physical evidence of the existence of any god).

I do not belive in any physical evidence of the existence of any God and I'm a Christian.

The claim that they know that there are no god(s) is not the claim that most atheists make, although it is the one that I have heard many theists claim atheists are making (and thus trying to shoe horn atheists into making an affirmative statement requiring evidence).

A-Gnosticism

It is a mistake to assume that a declaration of atheism is one making a claim about the nature of the universe, instead of just rejecting a statement made by someone else.

True.

I've met a self-described A-Theist who believed a creator God who will forgive all sins.

But was called an 'atheist' for disagreeing with the narrow church her parents went to.

The following definition of God I feel everyone can agree to:

"God is that which was not created."