Should Atheists commit to Terrorism?
Offline DISCLAIMER TO THE F.B.I WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS: 100% hypothetical, I love mankind, America, and the F.B.I. ;o
I can see only three possible outcomes for out future in regards to theism:
1. Religion slowly dies away.
2. We kill each other. Boom.
3. THROUGH killing each other, we unite and reshape humanity without religion.
I would hope number 1 is the most likely outcome, but I was wondering if people sped up the process for number 3, if that might save us from number 2. Now, you could say it might speed up number 2, but I think that depends on how you do it. Let's consider the details:
- NO ACTS OF TERRORISM would be in the name of ATHEISM. In fact, they would be masked as one of the major religions. The last thing Atheism needs is religious people uniting against it.
- Limiting human casualities would be a priority. Now of course, people would have to die to send forth a message, but (as bad as this sounds) keeping the number high enough for outrage, but low enough to avoid retribution would be the goal.
- Targets would have to create a sense of futility and frustration. For example, when terrorists bomb UN stations, that's expected and doesn't really shape the minds of those in the country. However, blowing up a church in the same country while claiming to be terrorists FROM that country could cause those living there to speak up and fight back. People at this level wouldn't be able to do any MAJOR damage like nuclear holocaust, but they would be able to dissolve the efforts of terrorist cells in their respective countries.
- Targets in countries like the United States would be very similar. Say for example, abortion clinic bombings. The citizens would be made to believe it was from fundamentalist christian networks instead of islamic radicals. Now, unlike arabic countries, the terrorist threat is imaginary here. Meaning, the people in the United States wouldn't have to fight back against specific militants but instead against religious parties. Since no one group would specifically be blamed, it would lead to verbal discourse and a loss of interest in the church. It's possible christian leaders or their members could become targets for retaliation in isolated incidents, but I don't think so. If you keep the number smaller in the United States than say Pakistan, I think people could actually live with the losses without feeling obligated to commit violence. After all, we watch the news every day and see small numbers of people getting killed domestically while barely flinching.
- The number and locations of the attacks would be planned, but appear sporadic. No need arising suspicion of a secular terrorist network. The terrorist networks would infilitrate the media in all outlets (have people inside for spin control) to help send the message home without deviation.
- In congruence with the efforts of these terrorists, respected worldly nonbelievers like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris would speak up not against religion SPECIFICALLY, but the violence associated with irrationality and faith-based society. Careful attention to detail would be prudent. No mention of atheism, ever. It's important to remember that people are naturally atheistic and that labels make targets.
- Lastly, the act of KILLING people doesn't necessarily have to be the method used in this attack. I mention it, because it seems to be what best communicates worldwide. Not to sound cheesy, but if you could use landmarks (like in V for Vendetta) or strategical attacks on important logistical facilities (like when the pentagon was attacked during 9/11) that would obviously be the best course of action.
Let it be known, I hate violence but we shouldn't ignore the reality that countless lives have been lost FOR NOTHING. You could easily write a history book with ONLY the details of murder, rape, pillaging, intolerance, and suffering that we've committed on ourselves. CAN we enlighten people through understanding? I hope so, but if our primal instincts are too overbearing for reason, does this really sound THAT ridiculous? That classic adage, "the pen is mightier than the sword," will certainly be put to the test in our near future.
Thoughts?
- Login to post comments
Spaggy, i suggest you leave something like this to the proffesionals...
edit; How about instead of me typing 20pages worth of theory, you give me a very specific end goal, and i work towards that...?
What Would Kharn Do?
We Atheists don't need to kill, sarcasm is usually enough.
Atheist terrorists, yeah!!
.............volunteers?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Eh sure... why not? i need something to do on the weekends...
72 virgins BEFORE i die would be quite acceptable as well ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
4. Religion becomes obsolute when limbic system stimulation technology makes the limited anxiety and stress relief provided by religion obsolete.
There will be a backlash against the technology by the religious(it's of the devil). But, mostly from the people that make their living off religion. The masses will go with whatever makes them feel best and is convienient. So there may be a battle for a short period when the technology is introduced.
I think one should only fight back againt the religious if they first use violence to prevent our hedonistic pursuits.
You've got balls FSM(I can see from your avitar), but my advise is become an unabashed hedonist and stop thinking about violence.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Wouldn't you want a few that knew what they were doing? You know to teach the others.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Oh, I could type an entire novel on the details of performing such a task. I'm talking city by city, but because of bullshit like the Patriot Act I try to limit what I really think, just in case.
That's my thoughts, too...for the most part. I can see Atheism tilting the scale just in my lifetime through civil debates and quashing fairy tales. Although, that expression "kill or be killed," still stands out. Never forget, we are talking about people who believe our planet is 6,000 years old.
Just carry a fossil and start every debate by producing the fossil with a magicians flourish and a theatrical "Ahem!".
Works for me.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
This won't work and I find it morally repugnant.
What Would Kharn Do?
It's more like...humoring the idea of violence than really dwelling on it. I consider all angles, but you see, when I read a history book I don't calculate the deaths as just another detail - I put a face and reason on those who were lost. People speak of the millions lost in the Holocaust sometimes as collaterial damage when I envision the screams, the blood, the smells of decaying flesh, starvation, torture, fear, etc.
And I think we could make an argument that not only are our hedonistic pursuits in danger, but our liberities and even our lives at the hands of religion. That's not even an exaggeration, ask any law student or family member from one of the victims of 9/11, or who have sent their sons and daughters to other countries to hunt religious fanatics.
I'll take the high ground and keep an open mind as long as I can, but I never want to be satisfied with simply sitting on the sidelines bitching about change, as our world falls apart. This seems to be the stance of many liberal pacifists, but what are they going to do? Plant a blockade of trees to keep planes from flying into buildings? Picket the outside of Osama Bin Laden's Cave? Call on Captain Planet to rid the world of those who wish to harm us? Come now...
I do agree with you, though on the Science part. Especially because I think the more convenient science makes life for the majority of those in industralized countries, the less they'll care about stupid fairy tales and sacrificing their sundays when they could be spending it playing XBox. I just hope we don't become so complacent we allow the government to take away our freedoms.
I find murder in the name of Jesus and Allah to be repugnant, yet here you are enjoying the freedom of indifference? Sitting idly by as people murder each other for no sustainable reason besides altering property lines, isn't exactly helping in stopping the problem. I consider total pacifism to be weak and selfish when there are those who would exterminate the ones you love without hesitation. If such an act would aid in the betterment of our species in the LONG TERM, I think it's worth consideration. Don't assume that just because I mention violence as a possible solution to peace that I've exhausted all alternatives. I'm just not letting my privileged life (which all Americans ONLINE have) interfere with my conscience. Pretending we're not in a cycle of perpetual murder, world-wide, isn't some type of enlightenment.
Let me ask you this, would you be satisfied if this is the best we'll ever do? If war never ends, religion continually drives politics, and people are too afraid to fight back against the irrationality men possess? If it makes me immoral to want to put a stop to thousands of years of senselessness, then label me as you wish.
Also, if Hitler were to say he would create coalitions, rig elections, spread propaganda, take over the newspapers, and almost become Emperor of the World after failing as a struggling artist...people would call him crazy. I wouldn't underestimate the ability to use fear and peer pressure to get what you want. That IS how the world works.
Oh sorry, I'm not Chuck Norris
No, we could do better.
But I'm also a realist. War will never end. Animals fight all the time, what makes you think humans are any different?
Conflict is in our nature, anybody who knows anything about social and evolutionary psychology will say the same thing.
Wolves will be wolves and humans will be humans.
There is a way to reduce this and guess what, your idea isn't it.
Only the true Chuck Norris would deny his divinity! You ARE Chuck Norris! I knew it!
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
Pineapple is right................but it still sounds awesome.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I think you're horribly limiting human potential. Despite our silly wars and religious preoccupations, we've advanced tremendously. The ones doing the majority of the fighting now, is religious and underdeveloped countries. Through humanitarian efforts we can eventually help bring all struggling nations up to a decent quality of life. Through Science and understanding we can HOPEFULLY rid our species of religion. Ironically, I find your comments to be morally repugnant.
You better hope she's wrong, because if she's right about us never ridding ourselves of conflict on one another, and weapon technology increases in every armed encounter, we literally will destroy ourselves. Not every war can be a Cold War - the threat of nukes will last only so long.
You're idea does nothing to improve quality of life in places where these terorists originate.
It does nothing to address the evolutionary psychology of the situations that breed terrorism.
It does nothing to create social integration, but encourages social division.
Hoping she's wrong doesn't make her wrong. Surely, you've argued with enough theists to know that.
Anyways, there are other methods of satisfying our need for conflict, like arguing on an online forum or watching...
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Look at how the cold war was won. With violence and more destructive weapons? No.
It was won with cheeseburgers, rock-n-roll, big cars, playboy and hollywood movies. The commies just couldn't compete. We're all creatures of comfort and pleasure. So, that's how to win the war against religion and Islamic extremists.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
You do realize the quality of life of those under the threat of violence in these countries isn't exactly ideal, yes? In many cases, these terrorists are being hidden by the very civilians you're referring to. When terrorists lose their support it becomes harder for them to hide and even harder to keep peace with those they choose not to fight. Just because they share the same faith, doesn't mean they necessarily share the same ideals. There are many in the Arabic world who openly protest against the bombings and murder that we're talking about. Giving them a reason to also hate the radicals creates a common interest.
As far as evolutionary psychology goes, look...my best friend has a Masters in Psychology and even he says a large portion of it is speculative if not bullshit. The situation that breeds terrorism is ultimately just ignorance and fear. It doesn't matter what part of the World you're referring to, these people don't have an inherent biological imperative to kill Christians, they're brainwashed from when they're children.
As far as division goes, you do know what a boundary is, right? The World has ALWAYS been divided. Only now are countries forming alliances to combat such concepts as Terrorism, and probably the biggest symbol to defend your "peace will settle all" argument is the United Nations, which as been terribly inefficent. Did the World agree on the United States going to war on Iraq? NOPE. Did the United States do it anyway? YEP. You're debunking my idea based on a false preception of the World. It's like you're saying, we shouldn't kill people in order to fix the planet because that will get in the way of killing people for God. You said you're a realist, let's at least accept what the world really is before we talk about this idea making the world worse.
Plus, and I guess this point was wasted on you, the idea is that people unite after rationally deducing the harm in religion and turning their backs on it.
But if we maintain the attitude that there's nothing humanity can do, we might as well give up on peace entirely and arm up. And yeah, this thread wasn't supposed to be taken TOO seriously, I was just sharing my thoughts on another alternative.
Hah, you do know why they call it the "Cold War," right? There's three terms for identifying a War (Hot, Warm, and Cold). A Hot War is actual warfare, a Warm War is when armies are mobilized but peace talks continue, and a Cold War is when there's simply a threat of War. Now, just for fun, how about you make me a list of REAL Wars that ended without using violence or destructive weapons? I'll wait while you compile this massive list
Psh, there's always something we can do about our instincts; it's never hopeless.
Escalating the cycle of violence is just not the answer.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Pinapple is just being the pessimist she always is, so I don't really need to comment on that.
but I think YOU are VERY dangerously misunderstanding human nature when you tell her: "I think you're horribly limiting human potential".
She is stating the obvious fact that tribalism is hardwired into us. That she then concludes there's no reason to fight that tribalism is just pessimism, and it's what Pinapple does.
But she is offcourse right. Tribalism is hardwired into ALL of us. Even the most peaceful among us.
What it appears to me that you are suggesting, is to use violence towards mankind in general to provoke people into non-violence, and that is SOOOOO not how people work.
I am an atheist, and a very peaceful and liberal person. I also happen to live in a very peaceful, liberal and essentially atheistic country, which allows me to continue in my peaceful, liberal and atheistic ways.
It is not because I witness so much abhorant theistic behavior that I am an atheist, it is not because I am sorrounded by conservative backwards thinking that I am a liberal, and it is most CERTAINLY not because I have witnessed horrible violence in my life that I am a pacifist.
I engaged in a discussion on these boards a long time ago about my pacifism, in which I said that if ever anyone hurt one of my loved ones I would pursue them to the end of the earth, not to kill them, but to keep them in my own personal torture-dungeon for as long as I could.
I obviously hear terrible stories about violence, torture, and rape commited on innocents, from time to time, and sometimes I involenterally think: what if that had happened to one of my loved ones? One of my nieces or nephews? My sister or brothers?
Immediatly following that involentary and painful mental image comes another equally involentary and painful image of what the hatred and revenge in me would lead me to do.
I have no say in these feelings. They are there, no matter how highly I regard my pacifistic ideals.
I'm sure everyone else in Denmark are endoved with the same basic emotional responses. So what makes us such a peaceful nation? The fact that we are a rich, safe, sheltered community!!!
It is not that we have witnessed so much terror and violence, that we have stood up to say: enough is enough.
It is precisely because most of us haven't experienced any violence at all that the very concept of violence is alien to us.
Violence begets violence. It ALWAYS ALWAYS will. That is what lies at the heart of terrorism. Never in the history of the world has terrorism optained a goal of peace.
Annihilation might optain peace, but that is completely impossible in today's global village.
In the stoneage, maybe once in a blue moon, a peaceful outcome might have followed from one tribe taking up arms against another, in that the victorious tribe managed to kill every single member of the other.
But today there will always be survivors and witnesses that will be so TERRORFIED and angered by the acts of one tribe torwards another, that they will make it their life's goal to retribute violently.
I don't have a tribe. I consider myself a citizen of the world, and every human being on the planet is my brother or sister, and I would never want to hurt any of them.
With all due humility I consider this a civilized, enlightened, and wise mindset.
But I am not stupid nor naive. I understand enough of human nature, and certainly of my own nature to know that this mindset of mine is a privilege afforded to me ONLY because of my position in the world, and in history: In a middleclass family in Denmark, 2009.
It is held in a fragile balance that can readily collapse if the peacefulness of my society collapses. I have violence in me, and it will come out if provoked, wether I like it or not.
But it will come out ONLY if provoked. I simply DO NOT HAVE IT IN ME to be violent as my life is now. That's the kind of society we want isn't it? A society filled with people for whom the very idea of acting violently is simply unthinkable?
Well then I assure you you will NEVER get it by introducing more violence into the system.
If you want to put out a fire you pour water on it. Sometimes the fire will be so powerful that the water won't be enough, and it might be painful and frustrating to watch the fire continue to burn. But however frustrated you get you will OBVIOUSLY not help solve the problem by pouring more fire on the fire.
If you want to end violence you pour peacefulness on it. Sometimes the violence will be so powerful that the peacefulness won't be enough, and it might be painful and frustrating to watch the violence continue to rage. But however frustrated you get you will NEVER help solve the problem by pouring more violence into the mix.
If you want to end tribalism you must encourage inclusiveness. Tribalism will FOREVER be so powerful as to live somewhere beneath the surface of a peaceful inclusive brotherhood of man, and it might be painful and frustrating to watch how it sometimes bubbles up to the surface in small pockets. But however frustrated you get you must promise me you will NEVER suggest terrorism as a tool to end the tribalistic mindset of humans.
I say, again as humbly as I can, that I consider myself almost immune to tribalistic thinking, but I am well aware that this is not due to my own strength of will, but to the fortunate set of circumstances I find myself in: A country that through historical coincidence finds itself a homogenous, liberal, safe, rich, and peaceful society.
I am however only ALMOST immune, and I am painfully aware that the one thing that could tip me off my fragile position is terrorism.
If you ever hurt one of my loved ones, as collateral damage in your well-intentioned terror attack, I would form a group, a tribe around me, of others who had suffered equally, and with charismatic oretory, and powerful passion, I would wage war on you and everyone you love for the shear joy of watching you suffer as you had caused me and mine to suffer.
We would consume the world you and I, in a war of revenge upon revenge, and it wouldn't matter if everyone had stopped being religious in the meantime.
Even if is was possible that you would erradicate relgion with your terror idea, in it's place would be the two great tribes of the followers of Nikolaj and the followers of you, and then what good would it have done?
I fight religion because I fight tribalism. Why do you do it?
Are you okay with mankind forever forming opposing tribes, and fighting eachother for wealth, women and territory, as long as we are being rational while doing so?
I don't mind a bit of sarcastic quipping, even about serious subjects such as this, but I think you sound just a little too serious about this and it infuriates me to no end.
Not that I assume you would ever actually pursue your hypothetical, but it does appear to me you are seriously considering if it would work, and that shows me that you are dangerously naive about how human nature works.
If this is just an ellaborate irony on your part then good on you for fooling me, but I still stand by my words.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
I'm not saying don't do anything about it. On the contrary.
By understanding WHY terrorism happens, we can do our best to reduce it as much as possible.
The atheists who run the server should commit to banning you.
Hear hear
I am not a pacifist by choice. I'm a pacifist by circumstance.
The same is true of my atheism, and my liberalism.
Assuming you want everyone in the world to be non-superstitious, peaceful, and liberal, as in accepting other peoples right to eat what they want, have sex how they want, and spend their sundays (or fridays and saturdays) how they want, what you want to do is foster the kinds of circumstances that brings about such people.
EXC is right in that everyone wants to live happily and conveniently. Some of them just don't know that they can. But if you give them the choice between my life and theirs, they'll take mine. They can't help but do so. Because I am a citizen of the happiest nation in the world, and I'm one of the happiest people in it.
That may sound very egotistical, but I'm not saying I'm a better person than everybody else, I'm just better off. That's neither my fault, nor theirs. I just got lucky.
Again, this is not by choice, it's by circumstance.
But while the circumstances that have given rise to Denmark's unfairly safe, wealthy and inclusive culture is an accident of history, it is still possible to foster a development towards such a culture, AND to do the opposite.
The important thing is to never do the latter.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
oh no no no!
FSM here is clearly an intelligent indevidual, who is honestly concerned about the future of humanity.
Banning him would serve no purpose other than to stop this debate in which he is currently engaged. He's allready stated that this is purely a hypothetical, and he is actively responding to and engaging in debate with the rest of us. That's good for everyone involved.
And even if it WASN'T a hypothetical (though, FSM, I don't believe that at all).all the more reason to keep him here. Maybe open debate could sway a TRUE potential terrorist away from their views, and even if it couldn't, banning would only further enflame and anger them.
But FSM, know that while I think you have fundementally misjudged the potential outcomes of your hypothesis, I can see that you are engaging in open and active debate, and that you consider everyones posts, and respond with wellconsidered responses of your own, so I have no reason to be angry at you, or wish to see you banned.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Niko... that was one of the stupidest things i've heard in a while
What Would Kharn Do?
The idea of a pessimistic theist has always puzzled me but ok
Why? That has nothing to do with violence, it has to be with our potential to be peaceful and civil. I understand what our primal instincts dictate, but I also understand how remarkably accepting people have become in just the past 50 years. I just don't think the "wolves will be wolves" argument holds much weight to those of us who have higher aspirations for the human race.
I get her point, we just look at the future a little a differently.
That's not how civilians like you and I work, but that's EXACTLY how those in power work, including the democratic countries. If you honestly believe the United States has never killed people secretly to promote our interests, dissolve leadership, and increase profits, I'd consider more research. That's not even a Conspiracy Theory as much as it is connecting the dots between what isn't covered in the news and the end results of ridiculous situations. Also, it's not that I'm trying to provoke people into becoming non-violent (most people ARE non-violent), it's to provoke people into dropping their delusional religious ideals and become rational about the world they live in. Lol, I think it's just a misunderstood cliche when people say you cannot create peace with violence. You can create anything you want with violence, literally. Whether peoples' perspectives change in the aftermath is debatable.
It's actually countries like yours that gives me so much hope in our future. Can ANYONE here imagine Denmark, Norway, or Canada marching across the planet conquering everyone? I think people in said countries are so successful in not only their national interests, but in their morality because they are free of religion and live fairly rational lives.
HOWEVER, there was a time when a man from Germany marched country to country, ripping apart peaceful nations who couldn't defend themselves and it took VIOLENCE to reach PEACE. The world is not quite ready for Care bears to come to the rescue, so the assertion that violence doesn't solve anything sounds a little silly to me. And to not acknowledge the reality that the world is constantly being faced with violence (whether bombs are going off in the US or Denmark or not) is even sillier.
Unchallenged violence begets oppression. Think on that.
And terrorisim really isn't as bad as it's reputation would imply. The reason terrorism is so powerful is because people have allowed themselves to become paralyzed by fear. False hopes in things like God are what's fueling the fire on both ends. Also, never in the history of our world has terrorism been used to free peoples' minds.
You know, all this talk of peace is a little silly. There has never really been substantial peace on the planet, and "peaceful nations" all have at least some history of violence. The United States almost annihilated an entire race of people for manifest destiny (and god) while fighting off a more powerful nation for our freedom. What was the end result? Freedom, relative peace. The peace Americans enjoy now comes directly from the violence of their predecessors. That's the history books I read. This bleeding heart notion of "let's bring out the inner pacifist" fails on me.
Yes Nikolaj, and those are all noble traits you possess. Unfortunately, while you consider everyone else to be your brothers and sisters, there are those who would split your head open like a canteloupe for no other reason than you being Causcasian (nevermind the atheist part). Just because you're not directly threatened, doesn't mean others aren't.
That is the system, whether you like it or not. When you invent a nuclear bomb that explodes rainbows and gumdrops instead of radioactive material, let us all know, please.
Lol, well while you pull out your super soaker to put out the world's fires, make sure you keep an eye on the militant group of gentlemen standing behind you with AK-47's.
ROFL. That was classic. "Pour peacefulness on it." The world needs more people like you, my friend. Until we reach a point where the weak aren't eliminated by the strong, I'll hold on to my guns.
I suggest this alternative simply as something to think about. However, people need to wake up before any true brotherhood amongst men will be formed. As long as we have religious division, it's not going to happen.
I fight religion because it brings pain and suffering to our species. People use it as a vehicle to understanding, war, and as you've said, tribalism. And I think it's rather backwards for you to insinuate that I am ok with any type of violence, as long as religion isn't the motivator. I am against ALL violence, but as I stated earlier, religion is the number one motivator for violence. Plus, whether it fixes all our problems or not, it's hard to argue it being a bad thing for people to become more rational XD.
I clearly stated in the first sentence of my post that this is hypothetical. Of course I'm not serious in the respect that I will never participate in any type of terrorism, but considering the possibility of it occuring and whether or not it would be good IN THE LONG TERM is something I think about seriously, yes. I know exactly how human nature works, my friend.
For?
Dunno
probably attempting to incite acts of violence or something
Which is funny, cause i do that all the time o_O
What Would Kharn Do?
True, we can reduce it by restricting our freedoms more through phone taps or more extensive searches of our luggage at airports, etc. Terrorism happens because it works. People plague on others fears to cause destruction because they do not like the opposite party.
Haha
I know what you mean.
But the point still stands
It's like the Monty Python sketch:
Soldier: (walks into the general's office) "I'd like to leave the army sir."
General: "But you've only been here a day private! Why do you wan't to leave?"
Soldier: "They've got guns out there sir! Not toy ones, prober ones! And also, this bloke told me, if there's a war on, and you're in the army, you have to go and fight! But I mean, blimy, if it was a big war, someone might get hurt!"
... (It goes on like that for a while until) ...
General: "Look private, are you a pacifist!?!"
Soldier: "Oh no sir, I'm not a pacifist, I'm a coward"
You see what I mean?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Yes, you're not a coward by choice... you're a coward by circumstance!
... wait, wut?
What Would Kharn Do?
Heh, since I see this topic has caused outrage from such...open-minded people, I'll rephrase my intentions:
This was in no way a SERIOUS idea as much as it was a way to generate discussion. I would never support any type of terrorism, even if it helped liberate peoples' minds. The exaggerated approach, in fact, is the result of years of frustration and a sinking sorrow in my heart. Part of me is focused on our future by the advent of science and discovery, while the other part is held down by the ignorance and hatred that's plagued our past and consumes our present. I would most definitely encourage peace and understanding over any type of violence and apologize if anyone was offended. Although, exercising my freedom of thought in what should have been a clearly hypothetical scenario could have been more tolerated considering most of us here are evil heathens destined to burn in hell for eternity. I guess you could call this a modest proposal
LOL wut?
Canada is 77% Christian first of all.
Second of all look at Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Eurobarometer_poll_2005
Really? Is Portugal, Greece, Italy, Malta, or Poland really spiralling into immorality?
Anywho, yes in some cases violence can be justified, but to apply that everywhere is a fallacy of accident.
You fuckin traitor!
I wanted to blow something up!
What Would Kharn Do?
lol, I cannot edit my posts. I must be on my way to being banned XD
No its because i quoted you...
See you cant edit that post now either
What Would Kharn Do?
Canada is more Christian by class than devotion. I know a lot of Canadians and not one goes to church. There's a huge difference between people there and those who live in the United States.
I disagree. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not an intelligent, thoughtful and responsible individual. He's merely a misguided, myopic rabble-rouser who doesn't realize that you cannot publicly advocate or incite terrorism just because you preface it with a caveat that it's only hypothetical. And if he opens his door tomorrow to see two government agents seeking him for questioning he'll realize then exactly how not intelligent he is.
Of course the website owners will probably not ban him unless they find themselves on the receiving end of some sort of harassment, but they could do it preemptively just for good measure.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Nikolaj isn't kidding about his fluffy bunnies and cute rainbows though.
Lol, hahahahaha!
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Pineapple, that link to the countries you posted is 4 years old which I know doesn't sound like it's too old, but the numbers will have changed a bit. Also, when sourcing, wikipedia isn't the best to use (for future reference)
I'm not tyring to say the information is necessarily incorrect, but I've seen other polls that had different results and were more recent.
How many do you know?
Take that number and divide it by about 35 million and then multiply by 100%.
Oh and 64% of Canadians hold religion with high or moderate importance in their life.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/t/4097601-eng.htm
It's from a Eurobaramoter poll, conducted by a research insitute. It also has a link to the study.
And 95% of people hold firearms with high or moderate importance in their life... when pointed at their head.
What Would Kharn Do?
And yet Doomy is still around.