Atheists Vs Muslims

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What filthy rants? When have I ever acted like I thought it was illogical that die-hard Muslims may have trouble understanding my points?



I don't want you to assimilate -- I want to learn about you, and try and understand you -- and get you to understand not everyone in the world has to assimilate to *you* for the world to get along just fine.

Hi Ozy

Nice to meet you. I dont think we've had the chance to interact. I think that GYE is onto something... remember its not simply hearing someone's words that should help you learn about them. Its observation and investigation. So observe events and try to interpret them please.

In regard to assimilation and who wants to assimilate what...

Most devout Muslims may not like aspects of your way of life (and they may admire others)... in their ideal nation state they probably would not incorporate certain aspects of what we call Western secular life. But that doesnt mean that they would ban you from their country (if they ever get one), as long as you respected their rules as you ask them to respect the rules of your nation state.

These discussions, about beheadings, about kids in chains, about mullahs gone wild, about an indian pop star and a mullah having a love affair... they are irrelevent to this discussion in that two concepts are purposefully being mixed here by Soldat and his colleagues.

1) Religion and 2) The right to Political Autonomy.

Turn the concept on its head and back around.

Who has 200+ bases in countries around the world? Who harps on democracy being the way and the light for all people? Who has army action going on in multiple Muslim nation states today?

But but but but... its always the "but" that confuses me when the response comes.

There is no "but"... if the but precedes a statement saying that you are there because they hammered you here... thats an incomplete truth.

Because the response to your "but" is their own "but you intervened in our world many times over and propped up tyrannies in places to keep the oil flowing and to protect Israel."

So these folks are basically trying to say: Hey look over here... because this Mullah chained up a 5 year old.... or because this Mullah blew up a truck stop... this provides us the moral reason that we have a right to bomb and occupy them.

For someone in the realm of computer science technology, I would hope that you utilize logic and realize that its a ridiculous association to make.

Take a look at Soldat's response to my response a few pages back. I try to nail him down on this tactic he uses and instead he attempts another diversion.

Note that each and every diversion that he does is a two step dance to try and say: The Quran is in a dead language (its not, its as Shakespearian English is to modern English... but thats a different discussion for a different day) etc. How these answers of his relate to what I accuse him of is beyond me.

I think that you being an American know very well that in your rural lands where Mr. Perry and Mr. Bush and Mr. Falwell and the fallen from grace Mr. Haggard dominate the airwaves.... they have very similar, pointed, vicious and aggressive tones about how to use the American military to ensure the safety of Israel and to subvert the will of the peoples in these respective countries.

And in the US you have your child molesting ministers and catholic priests.

It would, however, be absurd of me, if I were in the dominant position to pull the ideological bait and swtich that Soldat and his colleagues do.

If I were to say: I have the right to take an Army and occupy Ozzy's home town because Rick Perry is a clown or because Preists molest children or because churches are serving as the equivalent of army recruitment vehicles in teh US... Id be morally bankrupt.

You are turning a nonthreat into a threat with these ideologies. Your 10 foot tall enemy is actually 2 feet tall and has neither bunker buster bombs, nor laser guided missiles, nor drone technology, nor a navy, nor special forces, nor modern guns etc.

Where he even to acquire his own independent nation state and were he to access WMDs, he has no means to use these when he knows that we have 1000s more than he does and that his country would be turned to green glass within the matter of minutes if an aggressive action was taken against the US.

Rather, its Hilary Clinton that has to comment on why its any of her business if men vote in Afghanistan, if hazaras own goats or not, if women are in jail or not, etc.

Just as it is not Mr. Bin Ladin's business to intervene in the US because Miss Spears releases a new album promoting promiscuity... or because the the local Pizza chain denies a Muslim a job... its also really none of the US's business in regard to what these people or, for that matter, any independent peoples do anywhere else.

These colleagues of yours here are basically morally bankrupt in that they are saying: John, Pat, and Tim get to go fight Mullah Omar because they believe that Mullah Omar, by extension of their logic, chains people up, reads an outdated book, and is subverting what they will for the people.

And in many ways, this insulting of religion debases the discussion in that direction.

It takes a meaningfull discussion about intervention in foreign lands to further the desires of a few people and turns it into an us versus them motif.

I have never yet seen a Muslim burn a copy of Arthur Jeffry's writings on the Quranic text that question the authenticity of it.

I have yet to hear about Muslims burning Gerard Puin's books questioning hte fundamentals of Islamic theology.

I have yet to hear about Muslims beating up Bernard Lewis for being critical of Islam in a scholarly sense.

But its utter nonsense to assume that while your army is occupying and invading a series of Muslim countries, that emotions will not run high when in the background, Soldat and these folks and people in Europe are making fun of the religion as opposed to discussing its details in a scholarly sense.

Its basically like saying to the victim being raped: Quit being so sensitive while I spit on you too.

I mean look at the common link between all 1000 of the posts that these guys like LZ and Soldat put up here. They reflexively post absurd comments on issues such as: Islam does not allow you to play chess.... or Muslims beat up a Christian in Islamabad... and then they snidely sit back and wait for the fall out. Its not because they care at all about chess or about the beat up person. Its because they are trying to do a bait and switch where they say to the reader: If the Taliban take over.... its gonna mean that kids in Alabama wont be able to play chess anymore! If the Taliban take over... its gonna mean that in Minnesota kids are going to get beat up for being Christian! So by extension we gotta make sure to hit them there so they cannot it us here.

Basically its a strategy of war mongers.

Not a single iota of proof exists from teh scholarly works done on the insurgency that they want you, Ozzy, to stop drinking beer or to stop listening to Music and that is why they attack you. Instead the consistent thread in their writings is that they want you to:

1) Take your bases and your military out of their countries
2) Quit backing israel indiscriminantly as its sole weapons provider and money backer
3) Quit propping up tyrannies
4) quit using the tyrannies to steal resources from these people
5) Quit playing the hypocrite by helping other oppressive western powers in their personal issues with Muslim separatists but then crying foul about oppression in south Sudan and Timor where Christian populations reside.

If these things are accomplished and Americans learn that they cannot force democracy (an 800 year endeavor here in the West) on a people who dont want it... I think that you will see less venom.

Generally, there will still be the Muslim equivalents of Fallwell and Rush Limbaugh... but they will not have mass support like you are giving them now with your actions all over the globe.

So each time this atheist versus Islam discussion comes up... note that these people are not getting involved solely to discuss a viewpoint... its because they have an agenda that is tied to political motives.

Its ironic because they defame Islamists as following a virulent brand of Political Islam but yet they are also *******izing history and true discussions that need to be had in order to ensure that American blood and treasure is spilled in places that it does not need to be.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I am sure Soldat will answer now with another retarded round of: You blame the West for problems in the Muslim world with the post above ^

Thats not true. I am saying, to an American, from an American perspective, that whether Muslims are starving in Pakistan or whether Muslims are killing eachother in Iraq... its not a bit of America's business to get involved.

The decline of Muslim society does have a large proportion of blame assignable to Muslims themselves. But that has nothing to do with the exclusive concept of Ozzy's view on what threats Muslims constitute to him and to the US. Or by extension, what threat Islam poses to the West.

And its the same for Latin American countries. As Dr. Geuvara tried to point out... its not our business to go and prop up dictators in Cuba like Batista and then cry foul and they get kicked out.

There is endemic corruption in Latin America... but that has not a thing to do with what role outside powers play.

This is not a commentary saying that Muslims would have produced 1000 Bill Gates had the West not intervened.

Thats a moot point and has little to do with anything at all. The real issue is: Who cares what the Muslim world would have produced or will produce. Let free trade and commerce occur, travel, meet people... but dont use military force to forcibly ensure that women in Libya can have a farm or to gaurantee that men can marry polytheists. Thats an equilibrium that Muslim nations have to find on their own time.

[Manzareh]

you say you want to understand "us" ?than why are you pushing yourself on us as if you to understand "us" according to your view and than make us believe that your view of "us" is the right one?

Exactly, if people were here to learn they would ask questions, theres etiquette's of learning..i cant go into a philosophy class as a learner and then start arguing with the teacher and project what i think is correct and force it on the teacher - is it not right for the teacher to label the so called student as somebody that doesnt want to learn but there as a smartass to deviate people that actually want to learn.

Soldout_Amir and co come here try and impose their point of view on us, i cant see a single post from these kufaar that isnt full of indirect slander - many of these people are just spiteful. when you try and have constructive debates with them they simply drift onto tangents or make a mockery out of Islam (which immediately stops you from even wanting to explain anything to them)

To me just by looking at soldats face you can tell he's an evil person, look at how he speaks to muslims infront of muslims, imagine how he is in real life towards muslims - i wouldnt put it past him if he's physically harming innocent muslims, smashing mosques or working as a joey for skinhead gangs.

we cant make a single thread on our own religion without seeing some filthy mouthed pest instigate an argument, everybody stands back and lets the same user get banned time after time but come back in another form - nothing is done about these tactics which clearly break forum rules, its like they want him to be here, infact i wouldnt put it past the PF elders of being on these rats side. Iv got a big family alhamdulilah iv met pashtuns from all over the UK, iv lived in KP for years and wallah iv never come accross such passive, pessimistic pashtuns in my life. What kind of pacifist pukhtana are these? Nobody is saying dont give these people a chance, but isnt that chance stretched out long enough the first time the user is banned?? let alone turn a blind eye to multiple accounts being made, since iv been in PF iv seen this Soldat guy in so many uncountable usernames, disrespected Islam uncountable times yet he's still called Soldat jaana by one of our 'muslim' PF elders - no doubt the admins/mods know this aswel.

I believe Pashtunforums.com should show the true image of pashtuns and the common views we all know pashtuns as a majority have, PF fails in doing this - i believe a false image of pashtuns is being portrayed here.

[torkham]

. . . . . . I find religious discussions to be entirely frivolous. In fact as a secularist, it goes against my philosophy to even give religious discussions credence . . . .

I was going to ask you about K.A. in your profile pic, now it makes sense.

[ozymandias]

According to modern philosophers right and wrong should be derived from rational, and logically sound deductions. Your claim to something being rational but at the same time not right is your opinion resulting from your subjective morality. It is no different than me saying that belief in God is good. The value of positive good and negative bad to beliefs and actions is given by us as a people. Science does not dictate what is good or bad, nor does nature. As an atheist your sense of right and wrong are merely your personal opinions, not objective moral truths. You should know this, and I'm sure you do, so please don't intentionaly make intellectualy dishonest statements.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. My moral system is *not* arbitrary. Like many atheists, my moral system is constructed on the idea of ensuring safety and the rights of as many people as possible, by harming the fewest possible. As such, I am free to state that something is immoral, based on the system I have constructed -- and I can point to more than a holy book to back that up. I don't see how that is intellectually dishonest.

Your reason to reject God can not be based on something being right or wrong, that sort of reasoning is intellectually flawed. You then argue material achievements which is the only logical reason to reject a God and His laws, that is the exact argument of most atheists against Islam is the material state of the Muslims.

Huh?

[ozymandias]

what is the reason of discussing if you have your mind made up and your tactic is putting your fingers in your ears and than going blblahblah.

Since I don't use that 'tactic' I am not sure you are addressing that question to me. My goal here is, and always has been, to create a dialog between myself and anyone else that wants to talk with me. I was asked to come here and provide a different view point so that many who are not exposed to that viewpoint can see it, and interact with it.

I am here to learn about what you (as in Islam) believe, and not just book learning -- but what the actual faithful actually believe. I am looking to interact with many that I don't get to see on a daily basis. For instance, I have never actually met Holocaust deniers, 9-11 deniers, or evolution deniers of the degree that I have found here. On the reverse, I see many stereotypes and lies about atheists I wish to correct.

Finally, as a scientifically minded person, I am fully willing to examine any and all evidence, and reject my previous stance, assuming a new proposal fits the evidence better than what I am currently using.

[ozymandias]

you know when you went to rant bout the prophet(pbuh) on the atheist pedophile thread.
Doesnt even have to be "die hard" to say that abusing the prophet is wrong.

I disagree that a 2 sentence comment not even directly about mohommad constitute a rant, nor does making polite reference to historical fact constitute abuse. You are welcome to disagree.

Out of respect for this thread, and the administrators, if you care to continue this discussion, please create a new thread, and we can continue that discussion.

you say you want to understand "us" ?than why are you pushing yourself on us as if you to understand "us" according to your view and than make us believe that your view of "us" is the right one?

Who is 'pushing'? I am merely offering my view, and letting others see it. When people make a statement that is incorrect, I correct them (such as a story about their cousin's uncle's brother's neighbor is 'proof' of something).

I want to understand you, and that requires questions -- for instance, I cannot understand the thought process many of you have without trying to examine the evidence that led to that process.

[ozymandias]

so tell me what is it that i lie about? and what is it that you are bringing?

Well, if you read the quote from you that I was replying to, you can see several:

1)you dont bring anything constructive to the forum

Just because you disagree with what I have to say, does not mean it is not constructive

2) want to cause friction

Again, not at all. In fact, I go pretty far out of my way to be inoffensive and touch certain topics as delicately as possible.

3) and hate amongst people here.

Really? You think I am trying to cause hate? The only hate caused by me being here is people that hate me, simply for existing.

yes join the constructive conversations which are yet to come and dont try to convince us about your belief.

I'll continue to join the constructive comments, and carry on the pattern I have set for myself. The only believe I try to convince you about is the fact that I have the right to have the belief I have. The rest of it pretty much amounts to me shooting down the illogical arguments people make to me to convince *me* they are right.

[Manzareh]

Hi Ozy

Nice to meet you. I dont think we've had the chance to interact. I think that GYE is onto something... remember its not simply hearing someone's words that should help you learn about them. Its observation and investigation. So observe events and try to interpret them please.

In regard to assimilation and who wants to assimilate what...

Most devout Muslims may not like aspects of your way of life (and they may admire others)... in their ideal nation state they probably would not incorporate certain aspects of what we call Western secular life. But that doesnt mean that they would ban you from their country (if they ever get one), as long as you respected their rules as you ask them to respect the rules of your nation state.

These discussions, about beheadings, about kids in chains, about mullahs gone wild, about an indian pop star and a mullah having a love affair... they are irrelevent to this discussion in that two concepts are purposefully being mixed here by Soldat and his colleagues.

1) Religion and 2) The right to Political Autonomy.

Turn the concept on its head and back around.

Who has 200+ bases in countries around the world? Who harps on democracy being the way and the light for all people? Who has army action going on in multiple Muslim nation states today?

But but but but... its always the "but" that confuses me when the response comes.

There is no "but"... if the but precedes a statement saying that you are there because they hammered you here... thats an incomplete truth.

Because the response to your "but" is their own "but you intervened in our world many times over and propped up tyrannies in places to keep the oil flowing and to protect Israel."

So these folks are basically trying to say: Hey look over here... because this Mullah chained up a 5 year old.... or because this Mullah blew up a truck stop... this provides us the moral reason that we have a right to bomb and occupy them.

For someone in the realm of computer science technology, I would hope that you utilize logic and realize that its a ridiculous association to make.

Take a look at Soldat's response to my response a few pages back. I try to nail him down on this tactic he uses and instead he attempts another diversion.

Note that each and every diversion that he does is a two step dance to try and say: The Quran is in a dead language (its not, its as Shakespearian English is to modern English... but thats a different discussion for a different day) etc. How these answers of his relate to what I accuse him of is beyond me.

I think that you being an American know very well that in your rural lands where Mr. Perry and Mr. Bush and Mr. Falwell and the fallen from grace Mr. Haggard dominate the airwaves.... they have very similar, pointed, vicious and aggressive tones about how to use the American military to ensure the safety of Israel and to subvert the will of the peoples in these respective countries.

And in the US you have your child molesting ministers and catholic priests.

It would, however, be absurd of me, if I were in the dominant position to pull the ideological bait and swtich that Soldat and his colleagues do.

If I were to say: I have the right to take an Army and occupy Ozzy's home town because Rick Perry is a clown or because Preists molest children or because churches are serving as the equivalent of army recruitment vehicles in teh US... Id be morally bankrupt.

You are turning a nonthreat into a threat with these ideologies. Your 10 foot tall enemy is actually 2 feet tall and has neither bunker buster bombs, nor laser guided missiles, nor drone technology, nor a navy, nor special forces, nor modern guns etc.

Where he even to acquire his own independent nation state and were he to access WMDs, he has no means to use these when he knows that we have 1000s more than he does and that his country would be turned to green glass within the matter of minutes if an aggressive action was taken against the US.

Rather, its Hilary Clinton that has to comment on why its any of her business if men vote in Afghanistan, if hazaras own goats or not, if women are in jail or not, etc.

Just as it is not Mr. Bin Ladin's business to intervene in the US because Miss Spears releases a new album promoting promiscuity... or because the the local Pizza chain denies a Muslim a job... its also really none of the US's business in regard to what these people or, for that matter, any independent peoples do anywhere else.

These colleagues of yours here are basically morally bankrupt in that they are saying: John, Pat, and Tim get to go fight Mullah Omar because they believe that Mullah Omar, by extension of their logic, chains people up, reads an outdated book, and is subverting what they will for the people.

And in many ways, this insulting of religion debases the discussion in that direction.

It takes a meaningfull discussion about intervention in foreign lands to further the desires of a few people and turns it into an us versus them motif.

I have never yet seen a Muslim burn a copy of Arthur Jeffry's writings on the Quranic text that question the authenticity of it.

I have yet to hear about Muslims burning Gerard Puin's books questioning hte fundamentals of Islamic theology.

I have yet to hear about Muslims beating up Bernard Lewis for being critical of Islam in a scholarly sense.

But its utter nonsense to assume that while your army is occupying and invading a series of Muslim countries, that emotions will not run high when in the background, Soldat and these folks and people in Europe are making fun of the religion as opposed to discussing its details in a scholarly sense.

Its basically like saying to the victim being raped: Quit being so sensitive while I spit on you too.

I mean look at the common link between all 1000 of the posts that these guys like LZ and Soldat put up here. They reflexively post absurd comments on issues such as: Islam does not allow you to play chess.... or Muslims beat up a Christian in Islamabad... and then they snidely sit back and wait for the fall out. Its not because they care at all about chess or about the beat up person. Its because they are trying to do a bait and switch where they say to the reader: If the Taliban take over.... its gonna mean that kids in Alabama wont be able to play chess anymore! If the Taliban take over... its gonna mean that in Minnesota kids are going to get beat up for being Christian! So by extension we gotta make sure to hit them there so they cannot it us here.

Basically its a strategy of war mongers.

Not a single iota of proof exists from teh scholarly works done on the insurgency that they want you, Ozzy, to stop drinking beer or to stop listening to Music and that is why they attack you. Instead the consistent thread in their writings is that they want you to:

1) Take your bases and your military out of their countries
2) Quit backing israel indiscriminantly as its sole weapons provider and money backer
3) Quit propping up tyrannies
4) quit using the tyrannies to steal resources from these people
5) Quit playing the hypocrite by helping other oppressive western powers in their personal issues with Muslim separatists but then crying foul about oppression in south Sudan and Timor where Christian populations reside.

If these things are accomplished and Americans learn that they cannot force democracy (an 800 year endeavor here in the West) on a people who dont want it... I think that you will see less venom.

Generally, there will still be the Muslim equivalents of Fallwell and Rush Limbaugh... but they will not have mass support like you are giving them now with your actions all over the globe.

So each time this atheist versus Islam discussion comes up... note that these people are not getting involved solely to discuss a viewpoint... its because they have an agenda that is tied to political motives.

Its ironic because they defame Islamists as following a virulent brand of Political Islam but yet they are also *******izing history and true discussions that need to be had in order to ensure that American blood and treasure is spilled in places that it does not need to be.

Salaam wrora, Dasi khalq surra khpal wakht ma zaaya kawa, du srif nukhsaan la reghelidee, zama khyaal deh staa post ta khaa katelidee kho wayrido ka watakhtehdo lol

by the way great post lala my views are the same as yours (i just cant word it as well as you).

[faye]

You don't see a reason anyone would have a problem with that? That's because you absolutely have no idea what it means to be atheist.

so what does it mean to be atheist and are there atheist extremists?

[Afghanistan2010]

Atheism is the parable of the dog,
when a dog goes crazy and starts biting even its owner.


i do not have the time to reply to certain childish posts by certain members , there is quotation in afghan lang,dogs that bark loud do not bite it resembles the situation of these persons.

and another in german language people who talk much know less....my friend soldate.


i will soon post a reply regarding the issue of the mathematical proof why you can't see God but he stil exists.

why mathematical because the non-muslim do not believe in Quran nor in Ahadith.

[Insaaf_انصاف]

Atheism is the parable of the dog,
when a dog goes crazy and starts biting even its owner.


i do not have the time to reply to certain childish posts by certain members , there is quotation in afghan lang,dogs that bark loud do not bite it resembles the situation of these persons.

and another in german language people who talk much know less....my friend soldate.


i will soon post a reply regarding the issue of th

e mathematical proof why you can't see God but he stil exists.

why mathematical because the non-muslim do not believe in Quran nor in Ahadith.

There aren't mathematical proofs that God exists .

We have to believe that God exists, and I believe it.

[thegood]

Athiests most of the time are more moralistic than believers. They don't discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. They value reason, knowledge, inquisitiveness, and all other higher values and ideals. Believers, e.g., extremist Muslims self-deludingly consider themselves to be God's chosen people that others should emulate and obey. This almost in all cases reduces to sectarian animosity and hatred.

[ozymandias]

so what does it mean to be atheist and are there atheist extremists?

*In context*, my comment was responding to a proposal to 'leave the discussion to the afterlife, I don't see why atheists would have a problem with that' -- one thing atheists typically do not believe in is an afterlife.


Typically atheists reject all forms of supernatural claims, but that is not really required. The only requirement to be labeled an atheist, is a disbelief in gods, nothing more is required. That said, every atheist I have ever met is also a skeptic -- someone that requires proof of claims -- not just the religious.

There could be atheist extremists, there is nothing that stops an atheist from taking extremist actions (just like anyone else), but they are very rare -- far more than their religious counterparts. They also tend to be solitary people, and not organizing militias, terrorist cells, or governments. Those are typically people with either religious fervor, or political ambitions.

[ozymandias]

There aren't mathematical proofs that God exists .

This, I agree with. If such a proof could even possibly exist, it would be major news. Given the fact that by definition a god is unprovable, since it is a matter of the supernatural, I have a hard time believing that claim.

We have to believe that God exists, and I believe it.

I disagree on this point -- I see no reason we 'have to' believe in any such thing. with no evidence justifying belief, I would say we have to disregard any and all gods until they can be bothered to give evidence of their own existence.