How are various religions and cultures coexisting so relatively well in the Americas and much of Europe?

[Kharakov]

What you are missing is that it's usually for a deceptive cause. Suicide bombers aren't acting rationally, they're brainwashed into it. If not, they were already suicidal.

Sure they are brainwashed. So are all religious people too, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, even Buddhists, etc etc. Religion is brainwashing.

Everyone needs a good brain washing every once in a while. You know how hard it is to wash an uncooperative animal? Like trying to wash the mind of a theist or an atheist who thinks that fertilizer is the whole truth.

 

[4321lynx]

Sure they are brainwashed. So are all religious people too, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, even Buddhists, etc etc. Religion is brainwashing.

Everyone needs a good brain washing every once in a while. You know how hard it is to wash an uncooperative animal? Like trying to wash the mind of a theist or an atheist who thinks that fertilizer is the whole truth.

I absolutely agree. There are fanatic atheists, as doctrinaire, as dogmatic, and as convinced that they hold the key and the answer to all of the Earth's problems, as any biblethumping godbotherer that ever lived. We do not lack them on this Forum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that it's usually for a deceptive cause. Suicide bombers aren't acting rationally, they're brainwashed into it. If not, they were already suicidal.

Sure they are brainwashed. So are all religious people too, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, even Buddhists, etc etc. Religion is brainwashing.

True, but what the suicide bombers undergo is much more severe.

 

[JonA]

What you are missing is that it's usually for a deceptive cause. Suicide bombers aren't acting rationally, they're brainwashed into it. If not, they were already suicidal.

Sounds like you're trying to avoid blaming the suicide bombers. Someone else brainwashed them; they suffered suicidal tendencies anyway; etc.

Why won't you blame them? They did it. Them. Not someone else. Them.

It seems pretty clear to me who is responsible; who to blame.

Can't you see it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that it's usually for a deceptive cause. Suicide bombers aren't acting rationally, they're brainwashed into it. If not, they were already suicidal.

Sounds like you're trying to avoid blaming the suicide bombers. Someone else brainwashed them; they suffered suicidal tendencies anyway; etc.

Why won't you blame them? They did it. Them. Not someone else. Them.

It seems pretty clear to me who is responsible; who to blame.

Can't you see it?

They should know better. There's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[skepticalbip]

What you are missing is that it's usually for a deceptive cause. Suicide bombers aren't acting rationally, they're brainwashed into it. If not, they were already suicidal.

Sounds like you're trying to avoid blaming the suicide bombers. Someone else brainwashed them; they suffered suicidal tendencies anyway; etc.

Why won't you blame them? They did it. Them. Not someone else. Them.

It seems pretty clear to me who is responsible; who to blame.

Can't you see it?

But there isn't just one "who" to blame in a suicide bombing. Certainly the fool, nut, or zeolot carrying the bomb is to blame but also everyone in the group or groups that convinced him such an act would be just a jim-dandy idea.

 

[Underseer]

Everyone needs a good brain washing every once in a while. You know how hard it is to wash an uncooperative animal? Like trying to wash the mind of a theist or an atheist who thinks that fertilizer is the whole truth.

I absolutely agree. There are fanatic atheists, as doctrinaire, as dogmatic, and as convinced that they hold the key and the answer to all of the Earth's problems, as any biblethumping godbotherer that ever lived. We do not lack them on this Forum.

The fanatic atheists disagree with theists in public.

The fanatic theists set children on fire, suicide bomb coffee shops, murder doctors, behead little girls, blow up gay night clubs, beat gays to death with baseball bats, etc.

Why would you even draw a comparison between the two?

If you want to say atheists and theists can be just as irrational, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Goodness knows, we have atheists on these forums using logical fallacies and bad information to promote a variety of bizarre ideas: GMO causes health problems, anthropogenic climate change is the result of a vast international conspiracy by over 90% of the world's scientists, 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines cause autism, gun availability reduces violent crime rates, etc.

However, just as fanatical? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

 

[Kharakov]

You're Stalin, aren't you?

 

[4321lynx]

I absolutely agree. There are fanatic atheists, as doctrinaire, as dogmatic, and as convinced that they hold the key and the answer to all of the Earth's problems, as any biblethumping godbotherer that ever lived. We do not lack them on this Forum.

The fanatic atheists disagree with theists in public.

The fanatic theists set children on fire, suicide bomb coffee shops, murder doctors, behead little girls, blow up gay night clubs, beat gays to death with baseball bats, etc.

Why would you even draw a comparison between the two?

If you want to say atheists and theists can be just as irrational, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Goodness knows, we have atheists on these forums using logical fallacies and bad information to promote a variety of bizarre ideas: GMO causes health problems, anthropogenic climate change is the result of a vast international conspiracy by over 90% of the world's scientists, 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines cause autism, gun availability reduces violent crime rates, etc.

However, just as fanatical? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Nowhere in The above quote did I say "just as fanatical" and certainly did not mean that their methods of asserting themselves are as violent. I stated or implied that fanatic atheists exist and are as dogmatic,doctrinaire and convinced etc ... If you or anyone else got the impression that I meant "as violent and as pathological",then perhaps I should have included this disclaimer in the original post.

 

[fromderinside]

What about Iran, North Korea, Iraq (prior to 2002) etc. These countries are/were relatively peaceful under oppression.

Yup. The real cause of such violence is somebody pouring money into it. Almost always it's an outside group and if it isn't it's a group with access to outside funds.

Within the leviathan order is secured by threat of force which comes before opportunity offered by brand of leviathan. One needs to include murders by the state in any calculation of 'peaceful measured by violence. If everybody is equally poor there is no real need to fight for what one doesn't have since there is nothing to have. If one has opportunity there is something to have so there will be conflict among the governed masses. In the case of Iran, North Korea, Iraq, there is no opportunity for anybody (the elites who are also the force holders exempted). The arrests and murders of those who would act need to be taking into account when evaluating the 'peace and stability' in such states.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh come on mate. Are you even hinting anarchist aren't usually atheists and that these types are actually in control of such a ISIS?

 

[skepticalbip]

The fanatic atheists disagree with theists in public.

The fanatic theists set children on fire, suicide bomb coffee shops, murder doctors, behead little girls, blow up gay night clubs, beat gays to death with baseball bats, etc.

Why would you even draw a comparison between the two?

If you want to say atheists and theists can be just as irrational, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Goodness knows, we have atheists on these forums using logical fallacies and bad information to promote a variety of bizarre ideas: GMO causes health problems, anthropogenic climate change is the result of a vast international conspiracy by over 90% of the world's scientists, 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines cause autism, gun availability reduces violent crime rates, etc.

However, just as fanatical? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Nowhere in The above quote did I say "just as fanatical" and certainly did not mean that their methods of asserting themselves are as violent. I stated or implied that fanatic atheists exist and are as dogmatic,doctrinaire and convinced etc ... If you or anyone else got the impression that I meant "as violent and as pathological",then perhaps I should have included this disclaimer in the original post.

But then the case could be made that fanatic atheists are as extreme as fanatic theists if they get the power to impose their atheistic beliefs. The USSR, China, and Cambodia all slaughtered priests and destroyed churches and temples in the name of an officially atheistic state.

 

[Underseer]

The fanatic atheists disagree with theists in public.

The fanatic theists set children on fire, suicide bomb coffee shops, murder doctors, behead little girls, blow up gay night clubs, beat gays to death with baseball bats, etc.

Why would you even draw a comparison between the two?

If you want to say atheists and theists can be just as irrational, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Goodness knows, we have atheists on these forums using logical fallacies and bad information to promote a variety of bizarre ideas: GMO causes health problems, anthropogenic climate change is the result of a vast international conspiracy by over 90% of the world's scientists, 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines cause autism, gun availability reduces violent crime rates, etc.

However, just as fanatical? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Nowhere in The above quote did I say "just as fanatical" and certainly did not mean that their methods of asserting themselves are as violent. I stated or implied that fanatic atheists exist and are as dogmatic,doctrinaire and convinced etc ... If you or anyone else got the impression that I meant "as violent and as pathological",then perhaps I should have included this disclaimer in the original post.

You used fanaticism as the basis for your comparison.

If you had used irrationality (or something similar) as the basis for your comparison, I would have had no problem, but I already explained why I cannot accept fanaticism as the basis for your equivalence claim.

 

[Underseer]

Oh come on mate. Are you even hinting anarchist aren't usually atheists and that these types are actually in control of such a ISIS?

Could you rephrase that, please? I don't follow.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh come on mate. Are you even hinting anarchist aren't usually atheists and that these types are actually in control of such a ISIS?

Could you rephrase that, please? I don't follow.

For those in need of proper grammatical constructions. Do you actually think anarchists aren't usually atheists? Do you actually think that anarchists are not the ones in control of the proclaimed Islamist caliphate ISIS? Don't you see your problems with an organization setting people on fire and suicide bombing in the name of anything but anarchism.

We are talking sociopaths here. Any group seeking power by eliminating everybody they oppose cannot ever be considered part of a social group. To be a social group requires a system for ruling others who would, according to dictates of these thugs, be nobody. In the end there would be one survivor. One is not a society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Could you rephrase that, please? I don't follow.

For those in need of proper grammatical constructions. Do you actually think anarchists aren't usually atheists? Do you actually think that anarchists are not the ones in control of the proclaimed Islamist caliphate ISIS? Don't you see your problems with an organization setting people on fire and suicide bombing in the name of anything but anarchism.

We are talking sociopaths here. Any group seeking power by eliminating everybody they oppose cannot ever be considered part of a social group. To be a social group requires a system for ruling others who would, according to dictates of these thugs, be nobody. In the end there would be one survivor. One is not a society.

ISIS is Islamist, they certainly aren't anarchist.

 

[4321lynx]

For those in need of proper grammatical constructions. Do you actually think anarchists aren't usually atheists? Do you actually think that anarchists are not the ones in control of the proclaimed Islamist caliphate ISIS? Don't you see your problems with an organization setting people on fire and suicide bombing in the name of anything but anarchism.

We are talking sociopaths here. Any group seeking power by eliminating everybody they oppose cannot ever be considered part of a social group. To be a social group requires a system for ruling others who would, according to dictates of these thugs, be nobody. In the end there would be one survivor. One is not a society.

ISIS is Islamist, they certainly aren't anarchist.

For once we agree 100%

 

[fromderinside]

For those in need of proper grammatical constructions. Do you actually think anarchists aren't usually atheists? Do you actually think that anarchists are not the ones in control of the proclaimed Islamist caliphate ISIS? Don't you see your problems with an organization setting people on fire and suicide bombing in the name of anything but anarchism.

We are talking sociopaths here. Any group seeking power by eliminating everybody they oppose cannot ever be considered part of a social group. To be a social group requires a system for ruling others who would, according to dictates of these thugs, be nobody. In the end there would be one survivor. One is not a society.

ISIS is Islamist, they certainly aren't anarchist.

Really? You are suggesting that because these atheists use scripture to recruit they take on religious credibility? Sure they proclaim to have established a Caliphate and they are from Muslim origins but they have no charter other than to kill which I have trouble getting others to demonstrate is constituted from Islamist principles. Their purpose is to tear down and destroy. Their practices suggest power goes to the strong with the last one being the strongest. That's about as anarchist as it gets.

 

[skepticalbip]

ISIS is Islamist, they certainly aren't anarchist.

Really? You are suggesting that because these atheists use scripture to recruit they take on religious credibility? Sure they proclaim to have established a Caliphate and they are from Muslim origins but they have no charter other than to kill which I have trouble getting others to demonstrate is constituted from Islamist principles. Their purpose is to tear down and destroy. Their practices suggest power goes to the strong with the last one being the strongest. That's about as anarchist as it gets.

My experience is that the term anarchy is extremely misused today. The mobs that call themselves anarchists today are generally just organized and active anti-capitalist extremists. They don’t really want to eliminate government and rule of law. They want to impose their ideas of government and law. The true anarchists today are the survivalists hunkered down in the mountains of Idaho. They want nothing to do with organized government and law.

ISIS is certainly destroying but they want to impose sharia law which would require an all controlling government, not no government as the word anarchy means.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

ISIS is Islamist, they certainly aren't anarchist.

Really? You are suggesting that because these atheists use scripture to recruit they take on religious credibility? Sure they proclaim to have established a Caliphate and they are from Muslim origins but they have no charter other than to kill which I have trouble getting others to demonstrate is constituted from Islamist principles. Their purpose is to tear down and destroy. Their practices suggest power goes to the strong with the last one being the strongest. That's about as anarchist as it gets.

"Atheist" != "Anarchist".

And they definitely have a charter--hardline Islamic government.

- - - Updated - - -

My experience is that the term anarchy is extremely misused today. The mobs that call themselves anarchists today are generally just organized and active anti-capitalist extremists. They don’t really want to eliminate government and rule of law. They want to impose their ideas of government and law. The true anarchists today are the survivalists hunkered down in the mountains of Idaho. They want nothing to do with organized government and law.

ISIS is certainly destroying but they want to impose sharia law which would require an all controlling government, not no government as the word anarchy means.

The average "anarchist" wants a government that obeys their wishes and thinks that eliminating the government that's imposing it's will on the people will magically make this happen.