• This website is being maintained/upgraded and may have some downtime or errors. Report any problems to the admin.

The Dangers of Atheism

here we go @Al Kafi searching up for militant atheist history like stalin, pol pot, etc. That's like me judging Islam with 'alqaeda, isis, shabab'. Every idealogy in the world has 'flavors' and 'moderates, extremes, middle grounder'. Atheism isn't a system, it's a disbelief and yes they are camp within the 'secularist idealogy' or as you muslims call us'cilmaani' people who prefer evidence, science, testing of ideas and not opinions or belief in society.

Stalin was a militant cilmaani of the marxist flavor, even your siyad barre was and executed 20 damn wadaads on live TV to send a message to you islamist boys that SCIENCE WORKS and we aint ruling each other on 'who prays or fast anymore'.

I am a secularist of (nihilist flavor but actually believe there is god but not religion). Ayan Hersi is secularist of the atheist flavor. Some secularist are of the muslim flavor(like lots of turkish parties, somalis who pray and fast, arabs, etc). Some secularist are (agnostic position and non religious). Some secularist are (capitalist orientated). U get the drift, stop cherry picking cilmaani 'worst' time in history and then trying to dismiss cilmaani and 'scienctific inquiry' system and arguing for faith based governance what the fuck u loon.
 
@Al Kafi China is following pol-pot vision to eradicate this ancient system
from the 7th century that is causing locals to turn against it's government. The fight is on believer and disbeliever, it's not even exposed in China(ma xishoodo) wala qariya (re-education camp) like western world does. Iyaga iska nixi doone diinta markay arkan waxba laguma noqon karo aduunka



This is what I want to do in Somalia, not 'strip' religion though because I am not militant atheist. I want them to learn 'religion' has no role in this world and teach them the 'scientific idealogy' is the only system they must use in the world. They can have their personal beliefs but the nation will be governed under scientific thought
 
@Al Kafi China is following pol-pot vision to eradicate this ancient system
from the 7th century that is causing locals to turn against it's government. The fight is on believer and disbeliever, it's not even exposed in China(ma xishoodo) wala qariya (re-education camp) like western world does. Iyaga iska nixi doone diinta markay arkan waxba laguma noqon karo aduunka



This is what I want to do in Somalia, not 'strip' religion though because I am not militant atheist. I want them to learn 'religion' has no role in this world and teach them the 'scientific idealogy' is the only system they must use in the world. They can have their personal beliefs but the nation will be governed under scientific thought
May Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) guide you. Why would you want to put muslims in camps? To force your way of life is oppression. Atheism itself is incompatible with the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting thread but it seems like there is a need to have an honest conversation about atheism and agnosticism rather than mudslinging and antagonism. It is this that escalates into an environment in which we, as human beings, fail to get along. Each side blames this on the other and everyone looks bad in the end.
 
Atheism is not a group. It's simply the idea that there is no god as the word is used in religions to describe a personal deity. I think we need to understand what atheism is and is not before attaching it to people. There are billions of people so you can always attach an idea to person or group of people who do not represent the majority view of what that idea should be or how it should be distributed or integrated. If any atheist wants to go to an extreme to resort to re-education camps, or whatever, it is only a reaction to the seemingly endless wars and violence between Christianity and Islam and Judaism which all profess the same deity.

Everything is relative so compared to that re-education camps may not be such a bad thing to someone as it may save tens of thousands of lives. I simply think all schools need to be secular and teach only subjects that are common to all humanity. If a religious family wants to pass on religion to their children I have no problem with that. But at least then the children can CHOOSE between what they learn at home and what they learn in school. Many children don't have this choice and when everyone around you tells you there is a God it is easy to believe. But if your faith requires that it has no intellectual competition then what does that really say about it?
 
This is an interesting thread but it seems like there is a need to have an honest conversation about atheism and agnosticism rather than mudslinging and antagonism. It is this that escalates into an environment in which we, as human beings, fail to get along. Each side blames this on the other and everyone looks bad in the end.
Akhi, are you a muslim?
 
No,

SDA Christian -> Messianic Jew -> Hebrew Israelite -> Agnostic -> Atheist

I believe the more you study the more all roads eventually lead to the same result. Each religion is like a hypothesis that many people believe but that experiments only yield positive results some of the time; enough times to keep those who want to believe believing.

I believe the brain and the mind is so powerful a biological computer that we can convince ourselves that something is true and the mind will use our beliefs to explain different experiences so that each individual person can truly experience their beliefs in a way that is very hard to argue against. But since this works for every religion then logically either all are true or none of them are true.
 
here we go @Al Kafi searching up for militant atheist history like stalin, pol pot, etc. That's like me judging Islam with 'alqaeda, isis, shabab'. Every idealogy in the world has 'flavors' and 'moderates, extremes, middle grounder'. Atheism isn't a system, it's a disbelief and yes they are camp within the 'secularist idealogy' or as you muslims call us'cilmaani' people who prefer evidence, science, testing of ideas and not opinions or belief in society.

Stalin was a militant cilmaani of the marxist flavor, even your siyad barre was and executed 20 damn wadaads on live TV to send a message to you islamist boys that SCIENCE WORKS and we aint ruling each other on 'who prays or fast anymore'.

I am a secularist of (nihilist flavor but actually believe there is god but not religion). Ayan Hersi is secularist of the atheist flavor. Some secularist are of the muslim flavor(like lots of turkish parties, somalis who pray and fast, arabs, etc). Some secularist are (agnostic position and non religious). Some secularist are (capitalist orientated). U get the drift, stop cherry picking cilmaani 'worst' time in history and then trying to dismiss cilmaani and 'scienctific inquiry' system and arguing for faith based governance what the fuck u loon.
The difference is that there is no other atheist state that never persecuted Muslims. All atheist states have attacked Muslims.
 
For that matter, most dictators have black hair. By your logic we could blame their behavior on their black hair. You seem to be implying there is something inherent in the nature of atheism, where you have NO GODS telling you what to do or who to attack or what lands to take as your own, that atheists should persecute a/any religious group. Atheism has no such directives. If a PERSON who happens to be an atheist, feels some kinda way about Jews or Muslims, that's not because they are atheists. It's because of their own personal beliefs about those groups or about certain religions. And atheists have every right to have negative opinions about religions because unlike with atheism, these religions often preach intolerance as a god-given directive, subverting the personal will/morals/beliefs of the person.

Abrahamic religions often have an agenda for world domination. Everyone who reads the bible can see that. And everyone watching Christians in the US can see the leverage they use to push their own agenda in the world. The only thing saving us from these religions is the fact they are waiting for some kind of "chosen one" leader to come down and lead them to war. Atheists are expected to no react to this... and to just kind of sit back and wait along with these religions as if their "gameplan" isn't right there for everyone to read. And so there is always a threat to the rest of the world but we simply fear Christianity less because they're literally waiting for something that will never happen while other religions could produce a person, who, if convincing enough, doesn't need miracles on their side. They could just say "now is the time. Let's go." and suddenly everyone who is convinced is in ***** mode while everyone else simply views them as religious extremists and terrorists.

However, what I don't understand is how any agenda to suppress a religion has anything to do with atheism. It just seems like people are trying to put "crimes" or "sins" upon atheism in order to convince people that godless people are wicked/evil and have bad intent towards the all the "good" and "righteous" people who are perfectly okay with having a plan for world domination as long as its THEIR religion that is in charge. Am I wrong?
 
https://content.ucpress.edu/chapters/10213001.ch01.pdf

Muslim history begins with the hijira—Muhammad’s emigration to Medina (although there continue to be major, unresolved problems with the historicity of the events narrated below concerning the life of the Prophet Muhammad and the first conquests).

Medina was not a town in the conventional sense but rather a collection of small villages and forts spread over the oasis, divided politically among two pagan Arab tribes— the Aws and the Khazraj—and three smaller Jewish tribes: the Banu 5 01ch.qxp 5/20/15 5:35 PM Page 5 Qaynuqa, the Banu al-Nadir, and the Banu Qurayza.

Muhammad and the Muslims based their community within Medina, and over a period of five years they converted the Arab tribesmen that occupied the territory. It was in this context that ***** arose, and the campaigns to gain adherents and control territory constituted the focus of the community’s activity during the last nine years of the Prophet’s life.

Muhammad is recorded as having participated in at least twenty-seven campaigns and deputized some fifty-nine others—an average of no fewer than nine campaigns annually.1 These campaigns can be divided into four groups:
1. The five “thematic” battles of Badr (624), Uhud (625), Khandaq (627), Mecca (630) and Hunayn (630), undertaken with the goal of dominating the three principal settled areas of the Hijaz: Mecca, Medina, and al-Taif
2. Raids against the Bedouin, undertaken to force local tribesmen to support—or at least not to attack—the Muslims
3. Attacks against Jewish tribes to secure the oases in which they resided
4. Two raids against the Byzantines at al-Muta (629) and Tabuk (631) and the campaign led by Usama b. Zayd (632) against Syria, which, though less than successful at best, heralded the direction of Muslim conquests during the years following the Prophet’s death in 632.

This evidence demonstrates categorically the importance of ***** to the early Muslim community. It is no coincidence that a number of the Prophet Muhammad’s early biographers refer to the last ten years of his life as al-maghazi (the raids).2

END quote



Whenever I think about a religion, I don't just think about the spiritual component or what the religious person is able to gain from that religion or the knowledge and wisdom in its traditions. I think you have to be able to see that as a separate entity from other facets of the religion. Another facet of almost every religion is politics because religions often seek power.

And no, this didn't start with Muhammad. In other words, person X, claims God spoke to him (instead of speaking to everyone). If you believe person X then you are trusting person X to lead you as a surrogate... or as a channel... for the leadership of God. The more followers person X has the more powerful he becomes because he can say whatever he wants and as long as it sounds believable that it could have come from God, then that's what people assume. And when person X says... God wants us to fight person Y or person Z... whether its for land or because the people don't believe the same thing, this activity creates a more militarized society.

People talk about peace. But how often do people talk about peace AFTER their side has taken many lands and killed many people? Now you want peace? Where was that peace when you were poor or when you were struggling to survive and saw another group of people with more resources? The morality of religion seems to fail utterly when it comes to standing on principle even if it means you starve to death. They say heaven exists but they're scared of starving and therefore feel like they must control territory. They play the same "game of thrones" as everyone else but act like their reasons are high and mighty and noble and selfless. "Oh we had to do it... we had to kill all those people and conquer them in order to..... help people?"

Once you have fought and killed another group there is no going back to innocence. You cannot ever get it back. You have blood on your hands! And when people believe the command originated from Allah/God/Jesus/etc. then they justify it as the right thing to do. But a thousand years later... still fighting. Why? Still killing people. Why? Still teaching your followers to hate other people because of their differences. Still encouraging your followers to be afraid of people and to think that perfect strangers all want to cause them harm because they hate them or their religion. They're liars. They don't know what's in the head of every Christian, every Jew, every Atheist, just like no one from those groups can claim they know what's in the head of every Muslim. Many Muslims want to live in peace. So what is the common thread between those Muslims and those who strap bombs to themselves? Is Islam the common thread?

People group people together in order to label the whole bunch in a positive or negative light. I'm an atheist. I'm not against any religion. I'm simply FOR humanity. So for those INDIVIDUALS and groups who are against humanity I am against those people. Those people often use the name of the religion to get support from others of that religion and try to pull everyone into the same conflict. But in reality... is the conflict spiritual? or is it political? Is it about God? Or is it about humans and land and who owns what? What's it really about?

If I told you an alien talked to me and told me to kill 5 people everyone would think I was crazy and lock me up. How is it that people can tell others that a being of limitless power wants them (cause he can't or wont do it himself) to kill possibly thousands or millions of people and no one thinks they're crazy and no one thinks they should be locked up?
 

Latest posts

Top