View Full Version : Militant Atheism


JAMALUDEEN
01-04-2012, 11:26 AM
In earlier times it was widely believed that our children and grandchildren would live in a new era void of religion and its infantile illusions. That generation's cultural high point came on April 8th, 1966, when Time magazine carried a lead story, entitled "Is God Dead?' The story described the advent of the "death of God" movement. And yet, over 50 years on from that proclamation, nothing could appear further from the truth. It has been widely noted that since the 1980’s, there has been increase of religiosity across the world, including in the western world.
The perception of the ‘death of God’ has given way to a renewed interest in God and spirituality. Atheism’s prophecies of a Godless world have in fact, failed to materialise. Belief in God and religion have began once again to thrive, much to the astonishment and intense irritation of those who hold such things to be superstitious and mythological. Out of this sheer annoyance and frustration is born an anti-religious movement, known as the ‘new atheists’ and sometimes ‘militant atheism’

"The forcible suppression of religion is one of the most troubling aspects of new atheism"
The popular science writer Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion went straight to the top of the best seller lists in Britain and America when it was published in 2006. Christopher Hitchens’ book, God Is Not Great, has achieved similar levels of success since its publication in 2007 and other books promoting atheism by Sam Harris, AC Grayling and Daniel C. Dennett, have also found an avid readership.

What’s distinguishes this kind of atheism is not its intellectual content, the new atheists have nothing novel or concrete to add here as compared with the leading pioneers of atheism, such as Hume and Kant, but rather it is the tone, the pernicious and aggressive attitude towards religion which marks it out as a new current. Faced with the realization that religion will not just lie down and die of its own accord, the new atheists have opted for an alternative that is its eradication by force. The forcible suppression of religion is one of the most troubling aspects of new atheism. The discourse of eradication compares religion to vial acts and malignant infections in order to justify its obliteration from our lives.

In the preface to The God delusion, Dawkins declares that his intention is to convert religious believers to atheism by helping them to overcome their ‘childhood indoctrinations’ and that bringing children up with a religious identity is tantamount to a form of ‘child abuse’.

A C Grayling describes religion as ‘one of the worst toxins poisoning human affairs’ 1, whilst co-Atheist Christopher Hitchens compares religious believers with the plague-carrying rats in Albert Camus’s novel The Plague. 2 ‘If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion’, Harris explains, ‘I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,’3

Dennet writes ‘I think that there are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all the species: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as countless smaller infections’ 4



Those familiar and aware of twentieth century political ideologies should recall this kind of rhetoric. As Tina Beattie points out, the language of malevolence to label an enemy is not a new one, before the Nazis killed the Jews, they labelled them as vermin. Before the Rwandan genocide, Hutus referred to their Tutsi neighbours as ‘cockroaches’.

The new atheists uniformly seem to blame all of modern man’s problems on religion. Along with claims that religion corrupts our ethical values and perceptions, they argue that religion is responsible for most of the violence in the world past and present. No one can deny that ‘religious’ individuals have in fact caused a degree of violence in history, like in more recent times. However, this emphasis on the negative actions of believers and the wholesale condemnation of religion, through reference to a minority of extremists, we are left with a reductionist view that allows no room for a more nuanced discussion of the causes of such violence.


Dawkins’ attitude…makes him very much the Nick Griffin of Atheism.


This method of demonisation through the use of sweeping statements and unwarranted generalisations is often seen in current debates with the BNP. Islam is a ‘wicked and evil religion’ says Nick Griffin, ignoring the plethora of injunctions in the Quran to defend justice. Dawkins’ attitude to religion and unwillingness to acknowledge any good that religion has been used for, makes him very much the Nick Griffin of Atheism.
The new atheism is very much a wounded animal, desperately trying to fight back to survive, and in this struggle, it will use any means necessary. What is quite astonishing is that we can see extreme attitudes amongst new atheists that bear a close resemblance to the attitudes of Muslim extremists and Christian fundamentalists.

Sam Harris makes his contempt very clear with the will to justify any violence, however extreme, to fight this alleged threat posed by religion. In his view the threat is not only radical Islamism but Muslims in general.
According to Harris “many Muslims [are] standing eye deep on the red barbarity of the fourteenth century… Any honest witness to current events will realize that there is no moral equivalence between the kind of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all, and the internecine violence that is perpetrated by Muslim militants, or indeed by Muslim governments”. 5 This negative portrayal of Islam leads Harris to conclude that we must continue to spill blood in the war of ideas6 and that torture is not only permissible but even ‘necessary’.7

“We cannot let our qualms over collateral damage paralyze us because our enemies know no such qualms. There is a kill-children-first approach to war, and we ignore the fundamental difference between their violence and our own at our peril. Given the proliferation of weaponry in our world, we no longer have the option of waging this war with swords. It is certain that collateral damage, of various sorts, will be part of our future for many years to come.” 8

We need to view this new movement for what it truly is and not be fooled by its witty rhetoric, masquerading as a protector of pure unfettered reason. Modern western societies prize tolerance and have limited patience for those who demand the elimination of any belief, right or wrong, and its followers. Whilst we should fear religious fanaticism in all its forms, we should for the same reasons fear secular fanaticism, which has griped the intellectual classes in the form of militant atheism, and which should not be underestimated in the equally devastating consequences it could wreak.


[1] AC Grayling, ‘Trough the looking glass’, The New Humanist, Vol. 122 Issue 4

[2]Hitchens used this metaphor during a public conversation with Ian McEwan at the Garrick theatre, London, on 19 June 2007.

[3]Jörg Blech, THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists, October 26, 2006

[4] Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

[5]Sam Harris, The end of faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York and London, W. W. Norton and Company, 2004), p145

[6]Ibid., p. 53.

[7]Ibid., p. 199.

[8] Ibid., p. 203.

Militant Atheism (http://www.adamdeen.com/articles/english/philosophy-a-theology/35-english-philosophy-a-theology/100-god-evil-sin-and-freewill)

JAMALUDEEN
01-04-2012, 11:40 AM
What has been dubbed "the new atheism" came into the cultural spotlight in 2006. In that year, a conference was held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California called "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival". This conference, which attracted considerable media coverage, highlighted the views of atheists who contended that religion is not consistent with a scientific view of the world, including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the philosopher Daniel Dennett. It was also in 2006 that several books were published attacking religion: Dawkins' The God Delusion, Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, and Dennett's Breaking the Spell. These were followed the following year by Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The mere publication by atheists of books against religion is not new; what is new are the sales figures for such books. They are selling millions of copies. Dawkins is still #24 on the New York Times paperback nonfiction bestseller list. No atheists have ever before been able to win quite so much attention. Along with the book sales, there have been numerous television programs, magazine articles, and newspaper columns. Also to be noted on the bestseller list are rebuttals to the atheists, such as Timothy Keller's The Reason for God. There have also been numerous conferences and academic discussions of the phenomenon of the new atheism.

What is new in the new atheism, however, is not merely success in selling books, winning media coverage, and catching the eye of academia. First, the new atheism, in contrast to much of modern atheism, is militant; that is, it takes the stand that faith in God is not only a mistaken worldview, but is oppressive and must be uprooted from human cultures. Modern atheism is largely a European phenomenon. Anti-religious sentiment that came to a head in the French Revolution found expression as philosophical atheism with Auguste Comte (d. 1857) and Ludwig Feuerbach (d. 1872) and became militant in the Communist movement. The movement towards militancy is strikingly captured in the shift from the comment by Voltaire (d. 1778) (who was a Deist rather than an atheist), "If God did not exist, it would have been necessary to create Him," to the words of the revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (d. 1876): "If God did exist, it would be necessary to destroy Him!" The term "militant atheism" was introduced by Lenin in a speech of 1922. The new atheism is not politically leftist, but it takes up the urgency of Lenin's call to stand up against religion.

This brings us to the second major innovation of the new atheism: its opposition to Islam. Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the new atheism.

Most of the answers and rebuttals to the new atheism have been made by Christians, who are not so much concerned to defend any and every religion, but primarily Christianity. Some take the position that the new atheists are only wrong to attack their religion, and attacks on other religions may not be off the mark.

Philosophically, the new atheists do not have anything new to offer. The new atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. Part of the discourse of the new atheism grows out of the debate between creationists and evolutionists, and it often seems to stay at the level of two competing fundamentalisms: belief in the literal truth of scripture on the one hand, and belief in the saving power of science on the other. The scientism of the new atheists is coupled with their moral outrage at religious fanaticism, which is taken as normative for religious belief, and is said to be caused by not basing one's beliefs solely on evidence.

The positivistic strand of new atheist thought was thoroughly refuted in philosophical circles, because it was found that even the natural sciences rely upon assumptions that cannot be supported by scientific evidence. Often the principle of positivism was turned against itself: there is no scientific evidence to support the principle that one should accept only those beliefs for which there is scientific evidence. As for the moral outrage, many of the horrors of so-called religious conflicts have social and political causes rather than religious ones, and some of the worst offenses of the twentieth century by the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot were committed by avowed atheists.

As Muslims, we should try to defend our faith with candor, fairness, and reasonableness. The new atheists seek to provoke anger from those they attack in order to substantiate their own claim that the religious are fanatics. May Allah grant us the wisdom and strength of character to display the religion He has given us as a guidance in its best light.

The New Atheism and Islam | Clergy Corner | Islamic Insights (http://islamicinsights.com/religion/clergy-corner/the-new-atheism-and-islam.html)

faye
01-04-2012, 12:04 PM
see, this is why you need 'the enlightened anarchists' lol. these extremist atheists are trying to rule our minds and dictate their beliefs upon us.

Lemar
01-04-2012, 12:09 PM
Extremism is a bad thing be it atheists or creationists!

JAMALUDEEN
01-04-2012, 12:28 PM
see, this is why you need 'the enlightened anarchists' lol. these extremist atheists are trying to rule our minds and dictate their beliefs upon us.

This is irrelevant.

Can you provide a rational reason as to why, one should join your anarchist group, who loot shops, destroy property, break the law, beat up innocent people...?

Also quit with the ad hominems.

Michin Khel
01-04-2012, 12:33 PM
Actually athiests have derived their morality from religions, but they wont admit it. Now they say that morality is inherent, is to be scaled on scientific princples or laws of nature or some thing like that...if morality was inherent or prophets have no basic role in teaching morality to people then the isolated wild men in jungle of amazon or africa should have been very moral and civilized.
Islam tell us to brush our teeth , with prayers we wash ourselves five times, pubic hairs should be cut regularly, circumscision should be formed, alchol is prohibited, pork is haraam etc etc...these could not be random...because in medicine it is taught to us that most persons are prone to infection with communicable diseases when they dont take care of personal hygiene, islam already has said that cleanliness constitute half of imaan (for idiots like ozymandias who ask for sources, check text books of community medicine, chapter epidemiology in your library).
Alchol sahab and smoking are involved in majority of body disorders and tumours (again if some one want sources, check pathology book)....how a illiterate person, holy prophet p.b.u.h created such health promoting principles? It can not be random..
Stealing is bad, How humans were able to determine it that it is bad?...when i was kid my parents told me that stealing from some one is bad, my mind at that time, unaffected by any religion, was not ready to accept the fact that stealing is bad as you gain a thing without paying any price...so if morality is inherent why it did'nt guide me....innate behavioural pattren is some thing else.

faye
01-05-2012, 03:35 AM
the moral values of atheists and secular societies laws, definitely have been influenced by religion.

faye
01-05-2012, 03:43 AM
This is irrelevant.

Can you provide a rational reason as to why, one should join your anarchist group, who loot shops, destroy property, break the law, beat up innocent people...?

Also quit with the ad hominems.
extremism is countered by extremism. extremists religionists are countered by extreme non-religionists.
i don't know any anarchists who do that, jamaludeen. so what do you love about sitting pretty, safe and educated, in australia?

JAMALUDEEN
01-05-2012, 07:14 AM
extremism is countered by extremism. extremists religionists are countered by extreme non-religionists.
i don't know any anarchists who do that, jamaludeen. so what do you love about sitting pretty, safe and educated, in australia?

I was speaking about anarchist, not extremism, which are both different terms. Stay on topic and don't derail threads..with your nonsensical bs.

Good ol Wikipedia... explains anarchist well..

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

A lawless society with no morals..is an anarchists ultimate dream..

On the other hand, I respect the law in here, and even if the law didn't exist.. i still have my morals...

you want an example?
here

Anarchy in UK: Video of angry London riots as students fight cuts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmF5p2Z7Ec)


also here....

Riots In London: Young boy robbed/mugged by gang of looters after getting knocked out! Sickening! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327J3ISiVOU)

You are a very evil person faye.

Anarchy=Chaos..

Liberty of the people is not my liberty! -- Quote Max Stirner

Khostai
01-05-2012, 08:16 AM
Most atheist says that morality is derived from religion nobody is denieng that, my high school teacher of hystory was also atheist and he said that almost 80-90% of the law in Europe is derived from the bibel. The thing is that what atheist think is that religion is a fase that every civilisation is going true. Its like when kids belive in Santa, when they grow up they realise that Santa don't exist. And atheist also belive that religion was made to control the massas like parents try to control there children by saing if you behave bad santa is not gona give you any presants. The western societies have technologie to control there massas, so thats way they are not that strict on religion. And atheists have a safe and comfortable live here. Societys cultures and religions change die out or becomes part of the mythologie. So one day Islamic countrys will also be like the western countrys. Some of those countrys are alredy like that. If you look at Libanon and the some central Asian states or just look at Dubai and there night clubs and beaches. They are pretty western. And look at Afghanistan even after strict taliban rule peopel are not that in to Islam, and when I see some Afghans who were born and raised in Afghanistan come to Europe they become more westernised than some Afghans that are born here.

Soldat_Amir
01-05-2012, 09:06 AM
Actually athiests have derived their morality from religions, but they wont admit it. Now they say that morality is inherent, is to be scaled on scientific princples or laws of nature or some thing like that...if morality was inherent or prophets have no basic role in teaching morality to people then the isolated wild men in jungle of amazon or africa should have been very moral and civilized.
Islam tell us to brush our teeth , with prayers we wash ourselves five times, pubic hairs should be cut regularly, circumscision should be formed, alchol is prohibited, pork is haraam etc etc...these could not be random...because in medicine it is taught to us that most persons are prone to infection with communicable diseases when they dont take care of personal hygiene, islam already has said that cleanliness constitute half of imaan (for idiots like ozymandias who ask for sources, check text books of community medicine, chapter epidemiology in your library).
Alchol sahab and smoking are involved in majority of body disorders and tumours (again if some one want sources, check pathology book)....how a illiterate person, holy prophet p.b.u.h created such health promoting principles? It can not be random..
Stealing is bad, How humans were able to determine it that it is bad?...when i was kid my parents told me that stealing from some one is bad, my mind at that time, unaffected by any religion, was not ready to accept the fact that stealing is bad as you gain a thing without paying any price...so if morality is inherent why it did'nt guide me....innate behavioural pattren is some thing else.

Let me refute this by a simple line Luffy:-

Under Islamic law and especially under past Islamic regimes, Slavery was accepted and permitted, Saudis just abolished it in the 70s while Amanullah Khan abolished a few decades before the Saudis, now we have the geniva conventions and follow rules of conduct during a battle, we avoid civilian casulities, and provide assistance to "refugees".

Now from where did we inherit this conscience for victims of war when both Islamic and Christian societies took slaves as captives of war and war booty?

What did religion have to do with this way of thinking? absolutely nothing at all!

Our morality changes with time.

If a person does adultery in the Western world. The victims takes counsiling, medication, moves on or attends a dating agency, while in Afghanistan, even if you are in love before marriage, there is a 9/10 you would be lynched by a mob and killed. Even under Sharia you would be stoned.

See the difference, morality differs from region and cultures.

This is my point.

One can say Moral values has a origin in religion, but one must think very carefully about associating total morality with religion, before Abrahmic religions, the Greeks were a very civilised society, and murder was punishable by death or imprisonment, there was no Judaism, Islam nor Christianity back then, but people still follow rules and codes of conduct.

Another example is a woman who is fully covered with a burqa, feet covered and hands, and then there is a naked woman in a thong on a playboy magazine.

Both are two "extremes". now a rational minded person would go for the women in the middle, a balance, a unveiled woman wearing a shirt and jeans would be more preferred.

Where does Religion come into this at all.

Think about it Luffy, if the NATO forces started taking Iraqi women as war captives, you would be the first to object and protest, but the NATO soldiers could say its because the Pope allows it and its permitted under Christianity to do so, in your eyes its immoral and unjustified while in their eyes its permissble.

Soldat_Amir
01-05-2012, 09:13 AM
I was speaking about anarchist, not extremism, which are both different terms. Stay on topic and don't derail threads..with your nonsensical bs.

Good ol Wikipedia... explains anarchist well..

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

A lawless society with no morals..is an anarchists ultimate dream..

On the other hand, I respect the law in here, and even if the law didn't exist.. i still have my morals...

you want an example?
here

Anarchy in UK: Video of angry London riots as students fight cuts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmF5p2Z7Ec)


also here....

Riots In London: Young boy robbed/mugged by gang of looters after getting knocked out! Sickening! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327J3ISiVOU)

You are a very evil person faye.

Anarchy=Chaos..

Liberty of the people is not my liberty! -- Quote Max Stirner


Jamal the london riots is due to economical problems not morals nor liberty.

As a matter of fact the Saudis were close to facing their own riots had it not been for their barbaric handling of the crises by issuing fatwas and blackmailing the society with hell fire.

What about Bahrain?
What about Iran?

What about the way people protested after the cartoons of mohammad were published? destroying their own roads, burning shops, blowing up cars, attacking their own people etc etc etc

Anarancy has nothing to do with morality or atheistism.

You are really using deluded excuses to justify your claim.

Look at the women of Saudi Arabia they protested against their ban to drive and what did the Saudis return the reply as

"Driving will reduce the number of Virgins"

You see Jamal, Saudis will get their fate from their people one day, its how mankind works, and the Muslim world will one day eventually progress out of this superstitious non sense and work to become truely progressive and modern.

gone will be the days when a Cleric can issue a threat and the people bow down in submission.

JAMALUDEEN
01-05-2012, 09:30 AM
pumpkin...

it was used as an example... and totally not related to what you are talking about.. Do you know what anarchy is? Do you know what civil disobediance is? huhuh i betcha don't...

lol

your reading skills are very poor...

JAMALUDEEN
01-05-2012, 09:50 AM
Let me refute this by a simple line Luffy:-

Under Islamic law and especially under past Islamic regimes, Slavery was accepted and permitted, Saudis just abolished it in the 70s while Amanullah Khan abolished a few decades before the Saudis, now we have the geniva conventions and follow rules of conduct during a battle, we avoid civilian casulities, and provide assistance to "refugees".

Now from where did we inherit this conscience for victims of war when both Islamic and Christian societies took slaves as captives of war and war booty?

What did religion have to do with this way of thinking? absolutely nothing at all!

Our morality changes with time.

If a person does adultery in the Western world. The victims takes counsiling, medication, moves on or attends a dating agency, while in Afghanistan, even if you are in love before marriage, there is a 9/10 you would be lynched by a mob and killed. Even under Sharia you would be stoned.

See the difference, morality differs from region and cultures.

This is my point.

One can say Moral values has a origin in religion, but one must think very carefully about associating total morality with religion, before Abrahmic religions, the Greeks were a very civilised society, and murder was punishable by death or imprisonment, there was no Judaism, Islam nor Christianity back then, but people still follow rules and codes of conduct.

Another example is a woman who is fully covered with a burqa, feet covered and hands, and then there is a naked woman in a thong on a playboy magazine.

Both are two "extremes". now a rational minded person would go for the women in the middle, a balance, a unveiled woman wearing a shirt and jeans would be more preferred.

Where does Religion come into this at all.

Think about it Luffy, if the NATO forces started taking Iraqi women as war captives, you would be the first to object and protest, but the NATO soldiers could say its because the Pope allows it and its permitted under Christianity to do so, in your eyes its immoral and unjustified while in their eyes its permissble.

pumpkin...

you are all over the place....and no where did you discuss where atheists get their morals from? Instead you threw ad hominems and other fallacies in order to sound smart.. but in reality you ended up sounding even more dumb...

and its called vice and virtue.. of course you won't know about this since you have never been to a university... There are two extremes of a moral virtue.. which are deficiency and excesss..and moral virtue is the mean..which is moderation..


Deficiency

stupidity
cowardice
lethargy
submissiveness

Moderation

wisdom
courage
chastity
justice

Excess

slyness
foolhardiness
rapaciousness
tyranny

Moral Virtues and Vices (http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/felicities/3.htm)

You see, you speak about justice.. then you want pashtuns to be bombed... living under fear... and atheism imposed on them with a gun to their head...

There is nothing moderate about it... but its more like tyranny...which is a vice..

Thanks for making me laugh with your post.

faye
01-05-2012, 11:52 AM
I was speaking about anarchist, not extremism, which are both different terms. Stay on topic and don't derail threads..with your nonsensical bs.

Good ol Wikipedia... explains anarchist well..

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

A lawless society with no morals..is an anarchists ultimate dream..

On the other hand, I respect the law in here, and even if the law didn't exist.. i still have my morals...

you want an example?
here

Anarchy in UK: Video of angry London riots as students fight cuts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmF5p2Z7Ec)


also here....

Riots In London: Young boy robbed/mugged by gang of looters after getting knocked out! Sickening! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327J3ISiVOU)

You are a very evil person faye.

Anarchy=Chaos..

Liberty of the people is not my liberty! -- Quote Max Stirner

on your feet again.? good. i hate to kick a man when he is down.
jamaludeen.....you are a clown

JAMALUDEEN
01-05-2012, 11:54 AM
lolololol

hehehehehehe

hahahahahhahahahahaha

Ad Hominems..oh well.. can't expect much from people who never had any education..

faye
01-05-2012, 10:19 PM
hmmm, now i am evil kanevil lol.:devilish:
now, make a great big effort and look up the word 'enlightened" typical of a one eyed person to only see half of the issue.
jamaludeen, thanks for showing us how inept the australian education system, now is. we loveboard you with hugs and good vibes.:grouphug:

JAMALUDEEN
01-05-2012, 10:23 PM
hmmm, now i am evil kanevil lol.:devilish:
now, make a great big effort and look up the word 'enlightened" typical of a one eyed person to only see half of the issue.
jamaludeen, thanks for showing us how inept the australian education system, now is. we loveboard you with hugs and good vibes.:grouphug:

oh yes

blame the education system for your own failures..:running:

faye
01-05-2012, 10:27 PM
remember toots, i never gotta edimication;-(

JAMALUDEEN
01-05-2012, 10:31 PM
exactly, you blame it because you failed to get one.

badmash_khel
01-05-2012, 10:33 PM
Personally I think its neither the millitant atheists nor the millitant religious people who are the problem. The real problem are the millitant retards and stupid people who bring everybody down. lack of common sense, stupidity and ignorance are more dangerous than these superficial terms like atheists, islamists and so on. just look at Bush as an Example.

faye
01-05-2012, 10:34 PM
:celebrate:lucky me!!!!!!

faye
01-05-2012, 10:36 PM
EXACTLY!!! mass moronism is the greatest plague on the planet.Personally I think its neither the millitant atheists nor the millitant religious people who are the problem. The real problem are the millitant retards and stupid people who bring everybody down. lack of common sense, stupidity and ignorance are more dangerous than these superficial terms like atheists, islamists and so on. just look at Bush as an Example.

badmash_khel
01-05-2012, 10:54 PM
EXACTLY!!! mass moronism is the greatest plague on the planet.

your wisdom is apparent for all to see, if only they could see with hearts and not their eyes.