Bias and propaganda made this woman claim that Islam is a religion of peace.
Sam Harris points out why we should debate and talk about the conflict Islam brings with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JrYCHC0bkE
Sam Harris: Islam Is Not a Religion of Peace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE
Islam - The Religion of Peace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Sam Harris makes a valid argument that ideas alone can convince people to commit violent acts. This holds true for other extremists. Namely white supremacists.
was enjoying watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L0clUgkAD0
did you upload it? , since i noticed the up-loader has your same pic :P
People think it needs to say set in stone to make a religion violent.. Which is not always the case, because religious text has some sort of tie to the all powerful which can be interperted in many ways, and if one reads it in the negative way you cant change that, and thats what makes almost all religions dangerous, claiming to have a tie with the all powerful, and the thought of an afterlife even if you do terrible things..
Thanks for your comments and contribution.
"and the thought of an afterlife even if you do terrible things."
Yea another thing is that it changes your view of reality, religion makes perfectly sane people do incredibly insane shit.
Would we even need to debate gay rights if it wasn't for religion?
When did this insane idea of denying someone his/her rights get into someones heads?
Religion has the ability to make people see basic common sens things differently through it's brainwashing process of indoctrination.
Islam is a perfect example of such indoctrination.
Where you have a prophet which was a warmonger that killed everybody that disagreed with him depicted as a peaceful guy through indoctrination.
A prophet who married a 9 year old wife and made woman dress like a bag instead of having to punish his men for raping them if they do not, is considered "respect for woman" by this feminist(claiming to be non religious).
At which point will we admit that religion is power, it is mind control, the first weapon of mass destruction both physically and mentally.
Thus we should not only recognize it for what it is, but also be against it.
"Thus we should not only recognize it for what it is, but also be against it."
The mind can play games with everyone. If we think in this manner we enjoin the fray in like action. Atheism is simply not that way. Anti-theism is. You have to choose your way. You cannot have it both ways. As an atheist you acknowledge passive isolation from all things theistic. As an anti-theist, you acknowledge militancy as your method. The latter places you outside the circle of the former and, in fact, you do damage to the former by falsely claiming the title.
"The latter places you outside the circle of the former and, in fact, you do damage to the former by falsely claiming the title."
An atheist is a position on a subject. (lack of belief in the theistic god claim)
Anti-theism is a position on a different subject entirely. (that the belief does more harm then good)
Are you seriously claiming that a person cannot have more then 1 position in his life?
Pitar - "As an atheist you acknowledge passive isolation from all things theistic".
So , if you are a liberal you isolate yourself from all things conservative? Who makes these rules ?
"Pitar - "As an atheist you acknowledge passive isolation from all things theistic".
"Who makes these rules ?"
He did, Pitar does not want to recognize that his definition of atheism is quite different from practically everybody else.
He seems to add to atheism(lack of belief) more attributes that seem to reflect his character.
Maybe it is a wish that 1 word could describe all his positions, who knows, but he is definitely wrong.
Atheism does not imply "acknowledge passive isolation from all things theistic", in fact you could live by the book and still be an atheist, you could believe that the book is right in all its claims except the one claim about god's existence.
Eg:
Thinking Jesus was an alien or something, thus Jesus was a god compared to us(superior) and wanted to guide us humans on the right path.(those people do exist and frankly its more likely then the current more accepted contradictory version)