I didn't attack your character Sukhamaya, I attacked the quality of your argument and your lack of reasoning.Well, thanks for the clarification. It does indicate that you realize that personal attacks are not what we need in a discussion/forum. In any case, we all have our weaknesses and strengths in reasoning, discussions and arguments; but those are nothing compared to the problem of injustice, hatred and atrocities that are going on in the world due to too many humans being too stupid when it comes to what they think is their religion.
Maybe it comes down to humans taking themselves way the heck too seriously.
Too many thin skinned tough guys running around. Easy access to weapons doesnât help.
Of course, convincing oneself that they understand Godâs mind and will - canât help but inject a certain insanity into the believer.
And so it goes.
I see what you mean. It is a total religious element we are talking about. My understanding is that the answer to the problem is recognized. But do to todayâs political methods we no longer have the audacity to deal with these types of evils. The method is, when you catch someone harming someone else because they are not the proper type of Muslim. You kill them, then you kill their family, then you destroy their house. It is my understanding that you do that a couple of times and the message gets comprehended and the problem is fixed. Working in the court system that is Muslim controlled, will not work. Just look at the population where the problem is. Using the historically proven methods should work. But donât expect it to happen in todayâs world.No, we punish/correct the criminal; we do not punish his/her family for his/her crime unless if the family directly facilitated the crime. Having said that I would say that religious zombies that have no brain to think and understand his/her own human dignity and rights do not grow in vacuum. What can be more brainless than being willing to kill oneself for the so-called almighty? But do these creatures come out of thin air? No. They need an environment where there is too much of blind following of religions. The sensible, responsible and civilized components of the world must discourage, and if needed stop forcibly, all kinds of blind following of religious stupidity, injustice, hatred and atrocities. For example, it was very disappointing when Michelle Obama visited a girls' school in London where the innocent little girls looked like Islamic zombies wearing hijab, and had group photographs of her and the girls to show her respect for Muslims. Those girls were brainwashed to think that it was a fashion/choice/right to wear that. But in reality it is nothing better than following an Islamic edict that treats women as inferior to men and as properties to be guarded, as opposed to humans who should be free to dress comfortably/fashionably. While we should respect everyone's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without trampling the same rights of others, we should have no respect for religious fanaticism where acts of injustice are perpetrated and accepted willingly due to brainwash.
You know, just saying words like, âlooked like Islamic zombiesâ, should make little red flags pop up in your head. And dignitaries visiting a school is not an endorsement for the entire curriculum.
They need an environment where there is too much of blind following of religions. The sensible, responsible and civilized components of the world must discourage, and if needed stop forcibly, all kinds of blind following of religious stupidity, injustice, hatred and atrocities.You make very good points. When I was talking about killing the families, I was talking about how history dealt with the problem in the past and how it evolved its method in Israel use of the method today. My thinking on the history and a breakdown of the problems you are talking about to the root levels. Religion has been around for a long time going back into pre-history. Religion has been proven to be good for mankind. Religion is nothing more than judgement. Good verses bad, or right from wrong. Then we have heaven. Nothing more than the reward for doing right and the human desire of live forever. Then we have the god. Just another word for knowledge. Some of the oldest pre-history stories comes from the gods (the people of knowledge). Our DNA points to mankind just about becoming extinct, somewhere between 500 to 5,000 humans left on earth. Religion and heaven survived but the gods as knowledge did not. Mankind lost the pre-history knowledge and this seeking of this lost knowledge has been going on since the beginning of history. Even Jesusâs teaching were gnostic (of knowledge) which is becoming more understood today. But what replaced the gods was deities. Deities seemed to have knowledge of some level on certain subjects. And RA, the main god of the time, control all knowledge. In the timeline of mankind we went from the Age of Domestication to the Age of Deities. And the problems we are having today is not in religion, but in the deities. And the power of the deities is knowledge. What the deities do not want is their knowledge challenged. The people who represent the deities are controlling religion and afterlife by controlling the deities. My point is that we should not go after religion or afterlife, but go after the deities themselves. Because that is where the problem is. And we need to combat theses deities with knowledge. Or put another way. Knowledge verses knowledge. So what is knowledge? Knowledge is comparison of new ideas with existing ideas. The Christian and Islamic churches understand this and have been destroying all counter knowledge for a very long time. We need to use science and history to build a knowledge base to destroy the deities. That would solve the problems like Abdus Salam and change foreign policies over time. So, why are we not doing this? There is nothing stopping us from digging up our past history. There is a lot of data available today for the people to start understanding.
Just an add-on to the last post. As an atheist, I donât believe in deities. But I do believe in religion. I would like to see the end of the Age of Deities and would like us to get back into the Age of Domestication. Domestication is âgod created earth for mankind" or translated âknowledge created earth for mankind". We have so far changed the plants, animals and even the elements like the weather. Religion without deities worked in the past and will work today. We really need to get back to domestication and take better care of the earth. The people need to see that mankindâs task is to care for the earth and come together on this point.
I didn't attack your character Sukhamaya, I attacked the quality of your argument and your lack of reasoning.Well, thanks for the clarification. It does indicate that you realize that personal attacks are not what we need in a discussion/forum. In any case, we all have our weaknesses and strengths in reasoning, discussions and arguments; but those are nothing compared to the problem of injustice, hatred and atrocities that are going on in the world due to too many humans being too stupid when it comes to what they think is their religion. What exactly goes through your head when you say something reasonable, then, with a semi-colon switch to "those people are stupid"?
You know, just saying words like, "looked like Islamic zombies", should make little red flags pop up in your head. And dignitaries visiting a school is not an endorsement for the entire curriculum.You cannot even begin to address, let alone solve, a problem when you are unwilling to honestly identify it. Dignitaries in comfortable company with brainwashed willing victims wearing a symbol of oppression is contrary to progress of human civilization.
You know, just saying words like, "looked like Islamic zombies", should make little red flags pop up in your head. And dignitaries visiting a school is not an endorsement for the entire curriculum.You cannot even begin to address, let alone solve, a problem when you are unwilling to honestly identify it. Dignitaries in comfortable company with brainwashed willing victims wearing a symbol of oppression is contrary to progress of human civilization. You have a distorted view of how the world works. You cannot begin to solve a problem by refusing to visit children at school. Those children will remember that they met the First Lady for the rest of their lives. It will spark their curiosity about what the US is. No one will be able to tell them Michelle Obama hates them or wants to burn them at the stake. Of course indoctrinating children is wrong, that's exactly why she went there and met them.
You know, just saying words like, "looked like Islamic zombies", should make little red flags pop up in your head. And dignitaries visiting a school is not an endorsement for the entire curriculum.You cannot even begin to address, let alone solve, a problem when you are unwilling to honestly identify it. Dignitaries in comfortable company with brainwashed willing victims wearing a symbol of oppression is contrary to progress of human civilization. You have a distorted view of how the world works. You cannot begin to solve a problem by refusing to visit children at school. Those children will remember that they met the First Lady for the rest of their lives. It will spark their curiosity about what the US is. No one will be able to tell them Michelle Obama hates them or wants to burn them at the stake. Of course indoctrinating children is wrong, that's exactly why she went there and met them. Correction: "You have a distorted view of how the world works." is too opinionated; "I disagree with you." would have been a better expression. Let me advise people here that when I ignore this kind of statements, it does not mean "silence implies agreement." Now, as for Michelle Obama looking at home with the hijab-clad innocent little girls (let us try to avoid repeating "who look like Islamic zombies"), isn't it likely for those girls to feel like their way is not a problem for respectable people like the First Lady of the United States? Whereas in reality they are wearing a symbol of repression of women, which is contrary to the liberty people have, and aspire to improve upon, in the USA. And who is asking anyone to hate those girls? In my first mention of this in this thread, I wrote ".... the innocent little girls looked like Islamic zombies .....". Calling someone "innocent" does not express "hatred", does it?
Correction: "You have a distorted view of how the world works." is too opinionated; "I disagree with you." would have been a better expression. Let me advise people here that when I ignore this kind of statements, it does not mean "silence implies agreement." Now, as for Michelle Obama looking at home with the hijab-clad innocent little girls (let us try to avoid repeating "who look like Islamic zombies"), isn't it likely for those girls to feel like their way is not a problem for respectable people like the First Lady of the United States? Whereas in reality they are wearing a symbol of repression of women, which is contrary to the liberty people have, and aspire to improve upon, in the USA. And who is asking anyone to hate those girls? In my first mention of this in this thread, I wrote ".... the innocent little girls looked like Islamic zombies .....". Calling someone "innocent" does not express "hatred", does it?I would be fine with you not responding, and don't worry, I wouldn't think you were agreeing with me. Yes, why don't you try to stop calling little girls names. That's a great idea. Now, let's try not thinking they are stupid. They are young however and may not be aware of all the symbols of the world. Just as you weren't aware that your school was preparing you for your place in the industrial world by having you respond to bells and sit quietly while the master told you what to do. (I'm assuming you went to some sort of Western public school). Did spouses of leaders visit those kinds of schools where such brain washing was going on? Where they taught that Christopher Columbus was a hero? And I never said you hated those girls.
Yes, why don't you try to stop calling little girls names. That's a great idea. Now, let's try not thinking they are stupid. They are young however and may not be aware of all the symbols of the world. Just as you weren't aware that your school was preparing you for your place in the industrial world by having you respond to bells and sit quietly while the master told you what to do. (I'm assuming you went to some sort of Western public school). Did spouses of leaders visit those kinds of schools where such brain washing was going on? Where they taught that Christopher Columbus was a hero? And I never said you hated those girls.I would not call up the girls and say, "you look like Islamic zombies." But I would advise Michelle Obama, other naive/corrupt humanists and possibly the Islamic adults that are spoiling the little girls that you called "may not be aware of all the symbols of the world." Indeed, little children are not aware of most of the symbols of the world. But it is the responsibility of good adults to give them the right stuff, as opposed to raising them without the senses of self-respect and respect for the rights of others. It is wrong to compare hijab with pupils running to the class at the bell, being attentive to the class lesson from the teacher, or learning that Columbus was a hero. The first two are vital for discipline and learning. Unlike hijab, the last one does not involve a symbol of lack of self-respect, nor does it have a long-lasting divine brainwashing component; and it can be unlearned (or learned more objectively) easily as the children grow up and analyze the history.
I would not call up the girls and say, "you look like Islamic zombies." But I would advise Michelle Obama, other naive/corrupt humanists and possibly the Islamic adults that are spoiling the little girls that you called "may not be aware of all the symbols of the world." Indeed, little children are not aware of most of the symbols of the world. But it is the responsibility of good adults to give them the right stuff, as opposed to raising them without the senses of self-respect and respect for the rights of others. It is wrong to compare hijab with pupils running to the class at the bell, being attentive to the class lesson from the teacher, or learning that Columbus was a hero. The first two are vital for discipline and learning. Unlike hijab, the last one does not involve a symbol of lack of self-respect, nor does it have a long-lasting divine brainwashing component; and it can be unlearned (or learned more objectively) easily as the children grow up and analyze the history.Oh, that's too bad, you kinda cancel out the comment you made in our other thread. Oh well. Re: your comments on Columbus, I wonder what you know about Columbus. You might enjoy the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me". It's by a college history professor. He talks of having to spend most of his Freshman classes undoing everything kids were taught in High School. And that's people who are interested in history and are seeking information. Most people don't want to be corrected on what they know about their country's founders. Or perhaps you have had a different experience. Perhaps you missed the news about the confederate flag. Perhaps you don't have any friends who are 1/4 Cherokee and annually protest the celebration of Columbus Day. Maybe you don't live next to South Dakota, where they renamed the day "Indigenous People's Day", and that was not a bipartisan effort. One of their colleges is still "The Fighting Souix", despite the lack of Native Americans playing on their teams. Maybe you haven't been to New Orleans and noticed the lack of honest information about the slave trade. I picked up a history book in my school library in 4th grade, not a textbook, not the stuff they water down and present to us because we aren't ready for the real story, an actual history book. In the first few pages it laid out the facts of Columbus being rejected by Portugal because he asked for too much in return, not because they didn't believe the world was round or some other ridiculous notion. That was 1970, and I've paid a lot of attention to how schools have changed over the decades. To say that it is easy to grow up and analyze history, is to me, absurd.
Another senseless and hateful act of murders and atrocities on innocent people! Shouldnât people like us who live in safe zones think beyond âWhy they hate us?â and address the question of âWhy they hate?â?
Al-Shabab âkills Christiansâ in Kenyaâs Mandera town
Have you read âEnd of Faithâ by Sam Harris? Heâs reading it for free on his blog, and adding commentary about the passages that have caused him trouble over the years. About a half hour in to the first chapter he talks about moderates. Itâs an extensive discussion and a scathing review of moderates. It seems this project you keep asking about has been going on for 12 years.
Have you read "End of Faith" by Sam Harris? He's reading it for free on his blog, and adding commentary about the passages that have caused him trouble over the years. About a half hour in to the first chapter he talks about moderates. It's an extensive discussion and a scathing review of moderates. It seems this project you keep asking about has been going on for 12 years."End of Faith" by Sam Harris is indeed a well-written book of reasoning. The trouble of analyzing and attacking blind faiths, especially the ones that cause hatred between people, needs to be taken up by not only more secular humanist intellectuals, but, more critically, by politicians. I am quite convinced that without the so-called moderates providing the breeding ground, there would be no religious extremist in the world.
Have you read "End of Faith" by Sam Harris? He's reading it for free on his blog, and adding commentary about the passages that have caused him trouble over the years. About a half hour in to the first chapter he talks about moderates. It's an extensive discussion and a scathing review of moderates. It seems this project you keep asking about has been going on for 12 years."End of Faith" by Sam Harris is indeed a well-written book of reasoning. The trouble of analyzing and attacking blind faiths, especially the ones that cause hatred between people, needs to be taken up by not only more secular humanist intellectuals, but, more critically, by politicians. I am quite convinced that without the so-called moderates providing the breeding ground, there would be no religious extremist in the world. That's a long discussion, so I'll just leave it that obviously, there is a spectrum. I don't know about this "breeding ground" however. Most stories I know go from fundie to liberal. History has also been going this way. I think we call it a problem because it seems to be taking so dang long. One thing that pushes people toward conservatism is difficult times. When there is war, death, famine, or natural disasters, people move toward familiar and comforting beliefs. It doesn't need to be conscious, but politicians can create that kind of world, then say they have the cure for it. A moderate, someone more open to evidence, someone espousing universal values, can't do that.
How Sweden became an exporter of jihad: How Sweden became an exporter of jihad - BBC News
Sweden is a peaceful democratic state that has long been a safe haven for Muslim refugees. It surely is not blamed for any kind of atrocities on Muslims anywhere. Yet, per capita, that country is one of the biggest exporters of jihadists from Europe. Here is why they do it, as per one former jihadist: âWhen you go this way you donât think about the worldly life. Like I (sic) can have a good bed. You donât care about these things. You just think about the fastest way I (sic) can die and go to heaven.â
What a shame, as per this this article, âReligious enforcers attempt to control the community to ensure Sharia law is adhered to. They allegedly harass and intimidate people - mainly women - for the way they dress and for attending parties where there is music and dancing, which they consider haram (forbidden).â Islamic religious enforces ensuring Sharia law in Sweden! Isnât allowing it pure and simple stupidity on the part of the Swedes?
Thereâs really nothing that you canât turn into support for your narrative, is there Suky? The story is about a country that is accepting refugees in huge and numbers, and is having trouble keeping up with housing and jobs. What would you like them to do? Leave those people to die where they were? You have one police officer reporting a fairly small number, but you blame the entire country. You complain a lot about others, but offer nothing.
Maryland imamâs advocacy of ISIS lands him at center of terrorism probe: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/maryland-imams-advocacy-of-isis-lands-him-at-center-of-terrorism-probe/2016/10/06/421c6627-c715-4fe7-a246-70871169cf49_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_imam-715am:homepage/story
Advocacy of ISIS is a problem all right.
How about:
- A Blistering fatwa against feminism through a Sharia Law Center in Montgomery County, MD, not far from the US capital!!
- An Islamic Jurisprudence Center in the USA to promote understanding of Sharia law and to engage in âfighting the anti-Islamic agendas of the kuffar [unbelievers] and munafiqeen [hypocrites] in the West."!!