What causes muslims to be violent

[Immanuel Can]

Yes.
Note, the question of God exist is a non-starter for an Atheist or non-Theist, so no such point as 'if He did'.

Oh. So you're going to say that BOTH Atheists and non-Theists have already closed the question of whether or not God exists? Essentially, then, they're both positive deniers of the existence of God? That's your view?

Just want to make sure...

Yes.

So there is no difference between "Atheist," "Non-Theist" or "Anti-Theist," in this respect? All make the affirmative claim that God doesn't exist?

I just have to be sure I've got you right. If you say "Yes," I'll move on.

Yes, that is correct.
But an Atheist or non-Theist is a human being and will get involve in the above mentioned

Ah, yes...that is just the point. That is just the reason why Atheism is so deadly.

Nope!

You object too soon. You don't know what I was going to say.

For the moment, all I mean to point out here is that it is you who has just said that Atheists et al still often want to get into the matter of morals, meaning, purpose, teleology, and so on. I want you to realize YOU said it...and I didn't have to. We're both conceding it, yes?

Maybe you mistyped there. Could you reword, so it becomes coherent, please? I want to make sure I understand your meaning there.

Yes, there is a typo error, should be;

'Atheism' i.e. with 'ism' denote an element of ideological beliefs that will lead SOME [not all] atheists to commit certain acts against theism and theists.

What "certain acts" will "some" Atheists be "led" to commit? I assume you know, because you call them "certain" acts...so you must know what they are...

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA wrote:
If politics were not the "significant point " you would have no occasion to complain about either the Koran or Muslims.

Why cannot complain about the Quran?
The Quran which is the core of Islam is intrinsically evil.
It is the commands in the Quran that drive evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts against non-Muslims.
As such an individual Muslim and small groups of Muslims who do not belong to any political organization can still create terrible evils and violent act based on their religious obligations.
Therefore we should condemn the Quran itself for its inherent evil contents.

However as stated above when Islam which is inherently evil is combined with politics the threat is greater. In this case, the ideology of Islam is primary and politics is secondary, that is what I meant by politics is not the 'significant' point but it is still a deadly catalyst.

As for Muslims, I am not blaming them as the main causes since they are in fact victims of the religious impulse in seeking for an eternal life in heaven.
If all Muslims has adopted Christianity for their salvation, they would not be committing any religious driven evil and violence because the ideology of Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim. If any Christian commit terrible evil, it is not driven by Christianity itself, but rather by the person's inherent evil nature, e.g. born or nurtured as a psychopath and the likes.

Islam is a political ideology with the myths added on. The Holy Prophet had political motives that were well suited to conditions in Arabia at the time. Christianity has often been politicised, beginning with Constantine and the Romans, but since the scientific enlightenment (which for historical reasons did not affect Islam) has been apolitical except for so-called fundamentalists. This is a matter of accredited historical fact, AT.

I agree the political elements as compared to other religion is quite prominent with the ideology and history of Islam right from the beginning.

However I have analyzed the Quran very extensively and deeply and noted the majority of the verses the 6236 verses of the Quran are related to religious matters, and 30% are related to soteriological matters, i.e. the quest for salvation to eternal life and avoiding the doom of Hell. 30% of myths and stories are from the Bible [religious] and only a minimal from elsewhere.

As such the Quran weigh more heavily on the religious rather than on the political matters therein.

It is only the politically inclined Muslims who pushed Islam towards and emphasized on the political.
I believe the majority of Muslims are more concerned for the critical soteriological [to be SAVED] issues than the political ones.

[Belinda]

Why cannot complain about the Quran?
The Quran which is the core of Islam is intrinsically evil.
It is the commands in the Quran that drive evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts against non-Muslims.
As such an individual Muslim and small groups of Muslims who do not belong to any political organization can still create terrible evils and violent act based on their religious obligations.
Therefore we should condemn the Quran itself for its inherent evil contents.

However as stated above when Islam which is inherently evil is combined with politics the threat is greater. In this case, the ideology of Islam is primary and politics is secondary, that is what I meant by politics is not the 'significant' point but it is still a deadly catalyst.

As for Muslims, I am not blaming them as the main causes since they are in fact victims of the religious impulse in seeking for an eternal life in heaven.
If all Muslims has adopted Christianity for their salvation, they would not be committing any religious driven evil and violence because the ideology of Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim. If any Christian commit terrible evil, it is not driven by Christianity itself, but rather by the person's inherent evil nature, e.g. born or nurtured as a psychopath and the likes.

Islam is a political ideology with the myths added on. The Holy Prophet had political motives that were well suited to conditions in Arabia at the time. Christianity has often been politicised, beginning with Constantine and the Romans, but since the scientific enlightenment (which for historical reasons did not affect Islam) has been apolitical except for so-called fundamentalists. This is a matter of accredited historical fact, AT.

I agree the political elements as compared to other religion is quite prominent with the ideology and history of Islam right from the beginning.

However I have analyzed the Quran very extensively and deeply and noted the majority of the verses the 6236 verses of the Quran are related to religious matters, and 30% are related to soteriological matters, i.e. the quest for salvation to eternal life and avoiding the doom of Hell. 30% of myths and stories are from the Bible [religious] and only a minimal from elsewhere.

As such the Quran weigh more heavily on the religious rather than on the political matters therein.

It is only the politically inclined Muslims who pushed Islam towards and emphasized on the political.
I believe the majority of Muslims are more concerned for the critical soteriological [to be SAVED] issues than the political ones.

I choose to believe you about the content of the Koran.

Do you think that as younger more educated Muslims take the place of the old more traditional Muslims, the newer generations will be able to view the Koran as historical instead of eternal?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh. So you're going to say that BOTH Atheists and non-Theists have already closed the question of whether or not God exists? Essentially, then, they're both positive deniers of the existence of God? That's your view?

Just want to make sure...

Yes.

So there is no difference between "Atheist," "Non-Theist" or "Anti-Theist," in this respect? All make the affirmative claim that God doesn't exist?

I just have to be sure I've got you right. If you say "Yes," I'll move on.

Yes.

Ah, yes...that is just the point. That is just the reason why Atheism is so deadly.

Nope!

You object too soon. You don't know what I was going to say.

For the moment, all I mean to point out here is that it is you who has just said that Atheists et al still often want to get into the matter of morals, meaning, purpose, teleology, and so on. I want you to realize YOU said it...and I didn't have to. We're both conceding it, yes?

In life people live with many "hats", i.e. one can be parenting as a father, work as Scientist, a gardener in the weekend, etc. and an atheist [indifferent to a God].

Maybe you mistyped there. Could you reword, so it becomes coherent, please? I want to make sure I understand your meaning there.

Yes, there is a typo error, should be;

'Atheism' i.e. with 'ism' denote an element of ideological beliefs that will lead SOME [not all] atheists to commit certain acts against theism and theists.

What "certain acts" will "some" Atheists be "led" to commit? I assume you know, because you call them "certain" acts...so you must know what they are...

Those [not all] who are into atheism will condemn theists, burn their place of worship or even kill theists in the extreme.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree the political elements as compared to other religion is quite prominent with the ideology and history of Islam right from the beginning.

However I have analyzed the Quran very extensively and deeply and noted the majority of the verses the 6236 verses of the Quran are related to religious matters, and 30% are related to soteriological matters, i.e. the quest for salvation to eternal life and avoiding the doom of Hell. 30% of myths and stories are from the Bible [religious] and only a minimal from elsewhere.

As such the Quran weigh more heavily on the religious rather than on the political matters therein.

It is only the politically inclined Muslims who pushed Islam towards and emphasized on the political.
I believe the majority of Muslims are more concerned for the critical soteriological [to be SAVED] issues than the political ones.

I choose to believe you about the content of the Koran.

Do you think that as younger more educated Muslims take the place of the old more traditional Muslims, the newer generations will be able to view the Koran as historical instead of eternal?

Note my argument why SOME [a significant quantum] Muslims are violent, the critical factor is the evil laden verses in the Quran which trigger SOME Muslims to commit evil and violent acts;

viewtopic.php?p=467626#p467626

1. DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" with a potential to fight and kill which are useful for survival but could lead them to commit the most terrible evil acts.

2. Some humans are born [NATURE] with an active tendency [out of the above potential] to commit the most terrible acts. Some acquire this active evil tendency during NURTURE.

3. Re the Principles of Normal Distribution, it is like 20% [best guess] are evil prone via Nature and Nurture. I can justify for this best estimate.

4. The evil prones are triggered to commit evil via various evil laden stimuli and others, e.g. note the Milgram experiments and others.

5. From 3, 20% [best guess] of the 1.5 billion++ Muslims i.e. 300 millions are evil prone.

6. By definition, a Muslim is a believer who has entered into a spiritual contract [covenant] to adhere to Allah's commands with a promise of eternal life in heaven [some say with 72 virgins].

7. Allah commands are contained within the Quran, the core holy texts of Islam that is comprised of 6236 verses.

8. More than 3400 or 55% of the 6236 verses are laden with evil elements [evil laden] and to the extreme of Allah exhorting believers to kill non-believers [e.g. Quran 5:33 and other warring and killing verses]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Quran

9. The reason why SOME Muslims are violent is because 20% of them are evil prone [5] and they are contracted [6] has to comply the command of Allah [7] but as evil prone, they are more inclined to execute the evil laden commands [8] within the Quran to ensure of the promise of eternal life in heaven with 72 virgins [6]

Thus to break the potential evil and violent acts from Muslims all one has to do eliminate or prevent any point from 1 to 9 from existing.

Point 1 to 5 are natural and inherent via the human DNA/RNA thus cannot be improved or changed immediately for all humans. [may be possible in 500 years, but not the next 200 years].

Re point 6 above, a MUSLIM be definition is a person who had entered into a divine CONTRACT [covenant] with Allah to comply with the terms of the contract with a promise of eternal life and avoiding the DOOM of hell.

Thus the newer generation as long as they are a Muslim, it is implied they have entered into a CONTRACT with Allah.
Therefore they have a contractual obligation to comply with all command and including whatever 'evil'* commands therein the Quran. [*good for Muslims, but evil to humanity].
If the newer generations treat the Quran as historical, a myth, and the likes, then they are not Muslim per se, but pseudo-Muslims.

But note point 2 above,
2. Some humans are born [NATURE] with an active tendency [out of the above potential] to commit the most terrible acts. Some acquire this active evil tendency during NURTURE.
Because of the above NATURE [DNA wise], those who are pseudo-Muslims can easily be triggered to be genuine-Muslims and therefrom are obligated and inspired to commit evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.
Note the many examples of supposedly 'goody-two-shoes' Muslims who turned violent as suicide bombers out of the blue.
Therefore as long as they are associated with the label 'Muslim' SOME % [a significant quantum] will turn to be Muslim-proper and will be triggered to commit evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.

The THEORETICAL Solution [it is impossible in may be 100 years time] could be as follows;
Given that point 1 to 8 are very complex and difficult issues to solve, the factor that can be changed earlier [than changing DNA] is to prevent people from becoming Muslims, i.e. persuade and influence [with moral reasons] ALL Muslims to convert to be Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, other pacifist religions or be non-theistic.

Tweaking the DNA/RNA is not possible at present, but as glaringly and evidently, conversions out from to another religions is a very common thing at present, thus it is very possible to convert all Muslims out of Islam to other religions, be spiritual, humanists or be atheists.
Thereafter, in this case, the Quran will be a historical book like the Main Kempf.

[Belinda]

I agree the political elements as compared to other religion is quite prominent with the ideology and history of Islam right from the beginning.

However I have analyzed the Quran very extensively and deeply and noted the majority of the verses the 6236 verses of the Quran are related to religious matters, and 30% are related to soteriological matters, i.e. the quest for salvation to eternal life and avoiding the doom of Hell. 30% of myths and stories are from the Bible [religious] and only a minimal from elsewhere.

As such the Quran weigh more heavily on the religious rather than on the political matters therein.

It is only the politically inclined Muslims who pushed Islam towards and emphasized on the political.
I believe the majority of Muslims are more concerned for the critical soteriological [to be SAVED] issues than the political ones.

I choose to believe you about the content of the Koran.

Do you think that as younger more educated Muslims take the place of the old more traditional Muslims, the newer generations will be able to view the Koran as historical instead of eternal?

Note my argument why SOME [a significant quantum] Muslims are violent, the critical factor is the evil laden verses in the Quran which trigger SOME Muslims to commit evil and violent acts;

viewtopic.php?p=467626#p467626

1. DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" with a potential to fight and kill which are useful for survival but could lead them to commit the most terrible evil acts.

2. Some humans are born [NATURE] with an active tendency [out of the above potential] to commit the most terrible acts. Some acquire this active evil tendency during NURTURE.

3. Re the Principles of Normal Distribution, it is like 20% [best guess] are evil prone via Nature and Nurture. I can justify for this best estimate.

4. The evil prones are triggered to commit evil via various evil laden stimuli and others, e.g. note the Milgram experiments and others.

5. From 3, 20% [best guess] of the 1.5 billion++ Muslims i.e. 300 millions are evil prone.

6. By definition, a Muslim is a believer who has entered into a spiritual contract [covenant] to adhere to Allah's commands with a promise of eternal life in heaven [some say with 72 virgins].

7. Allah commands are contained within the Quran, the core holy texts of Islam that is comprised of 6236 verses.

8. More than 3400 or 55% of the 6236 verses are laden with evil elements [evil laden] and to the extreme of Allah exhorting believers to kill non-believers [e.g. Quran 5:33 and other warring and killing verses]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Quran

9. The reason why SOME Muslims are violent is because 20% of them are evil prone [5] and they are contracted [6] has to comply the command of Allah [7] but as evil prone, they are more inclined to execute the evil laden commands [8] within the Quran to ensure of the promise of eternal life in heaven with 72 virgins [6]

Thus to break the potential evil and violent acts from Muslims all one has to do eliminate or prevent any point from 1 to 9 from existing.

Point 1 to 5 are natural and inherent via the human DNA/RNA thus cannot be improved or changed immediately for all humans. [may be possible in 500 years, but not the next 200 years].

Re point 6 above, a MUSLIM be definition is a person who had entered into a divine CONTRACT [covenant] with Allah to comply with the terms of the contract with a promise of eternal life and avoiding the DOOM of hell.

Thus the newer generation as long as they are a Muslim, it is implied they have entered into a CONTRACT with Allah.
Therefore they have a contractual obligation to comply with all command and including whatever 'evil'* commands therein the Quran. [*good for Muslims, but evil to humanity].
If the newer generations treat the Quran as historical, a myth, and the likes, then they are not Muslim per se, but pseudo-Muslims.

But note point 2 above,
2. Some humans are born [NATURE] with an active tendency [out of the above potential] to commit the most terrible acts. Some acquire this active evil tendency during NURTURE.
Because of the above NATURE [DNA wise], those who are pseudo-Muslims can easily be triggered to be genuine-Muslims and therefrom are obligated and inspired to commit evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.
Note the many examples of supposedly 'goody-two-shoes' Muslims who turned violent as suicide bombers out of the blue.
Therefore as long as they are associated with the label 'Muslim' SOME % [a significant quantum] will turn to be Muslim-proper and will be triggered to commit evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims.

The THEORETICAL Solution [it is impossible in may be 100 years time] could be as follows;
Given that point 1 to 8 are very complex and difficult issues to solve, the factor that can be changed earlier [than changing DNA] is to prevent people from becoming Muslims, i.e. persuade and influence [with moral reasons] ALL Muslims to convert to be Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, other pacifist religions or be non-theistic.

Tweaking the DNA/RNA is not possible at present, but as glaringly and evidently, conversions out from to another religions is a very common thing at present, thus it is very possible to convert all Muslims out of Islam to other religions, be spiritual, humanists or be atheists.
Thereafter, in this case, the Quran will be a historical book like the Main Kempf.

You misunderstood "Do you think younger, more educated Muslims might regard the Koran as historical?"

By 'historical' I did not mean' of historical interest only'. I meant the Koran was appropriate to its time but is not everlastingly true, and should be treated like any other literature .

The British and American way to contain ethnic minorities is to place them beneath the rule of law like everyone else. Sharia law is not British or American law.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You misunderstood "Do you think younger, more educated Muslims might regard the Koran as historical?"

By 'historical' I did not mean' of historical interest only'. I meant the Koran was appropriate to its time but is not everlastingly true, and should be treated like any other literature .

The British and American way to contain ethnic minorities is to place them beneath the rule of law like everyone else. Sharia law is not British or American law.

I got your point but I am trying to explain some elements of 'oxymoron' in your point, i.e.
Educated Muslims regarding the Quran as historical.
"Muslim" and 'Quran as historical' are a contradiction in the eyes of Allah.

I tried to explain a "Muslim" by definition is one who has entered into a contract with Allah to comply with the doctrines and commands within the Quran.
The point is the Quran which defined who is a Muslim, do not permit a Muslim to regard the Quran as a historical text but rather the Quran is the perfected book comprising the verbatim words from Allah revealed via the prophet.

A person who relegate the Quran as a historical text would be committing a sin and an insult to Allah. If a supposedly Muslim regard the Quran as a historical text, it is implied he is an apostate,thus cannot be a Muslim-proper anymore, if he insist he will be at most a pseudo-Muslim from our perspective.
But since Allah is omniscient, Allah will know immediately he had sinned and is an apostate.

It would be more proper to say, Muslims convert out of Islam and regard the Quran as a historical texts just like many other non-Muslims do.
As long as one claim to be a Muslim, he cannot regard the Quran as historical at all.

It seem many educated 'Muslims' may regard the Quran [or some parts] as historical in some way and relevant to certain pasts, but they are ignorant they are committing a serious sin in the eyes of Allah to make such a claim.

[Belinda]

You misunderstood "Do you think younger, more educated Muslims might regard the Koran as historical?"

By 'historical' I did not mean' of historical interest only'. I meant the Koran was appropriate to its time but is not everlastingly true, and should be treated like any other literature .

The British and American way to contain ethnic minorities is to place them beneath the rule of law like everyone else. Sharia law is not British or American law.

I got your point but I am trying to explain some elements of 'oxymoron' in your point, i.e.
Educated Muslims regarding the Quran as historical.
"Muslim" and 'Quran as historical' are a contradiction in the eyes of Allah.

I tried to explain a "Muslim" by definition is one who has entered into a contract with Allah to comply with the doctrines and commands within the Quran.
The point is the Quran which defined who is a Muslim, do not permit a Muslim to regard the Quran as a historical text but rather the Quran is the perfected book comprising the verbatim words from Allah revealed via the prophet.

A person who relegate the Quran as a historical text would be committing a sin and an insult to Allah. If a supposedly Muslim regard the Quran as a historical text, it is implied he is an apostate,thus cannot be a Muslim-proper anymore, if he insist he will be at most a pseudo-Muslim from our perspective.
But since Allah is omniscient, Allah will know immediately he had sinned and is an apostate.

It would be more proper to say, Muslims convert out of Islam and regard the Quran as a historical texts just like many other non-Muslims do.
As long as one claim to be a Muslim, he cannot regard the Quran as historical at all.

It seem many educated 'Muslims' may regard the Quran [or some parts] as historical in some way and relevant to certain pasts, but they are ignorant they are committing a serious sin in the eyes of Allah to make such a claim.

I think you are probably right that many if not most Muslims regard historical relativity as unIslamic. I don't know but I think educated Muslims sometimes do the rituals without believing the rationale for them, ans many of those do the rituals to reassure their relatives who are believers. I don't know if there has been any sociological study about this.

Many Christians literally interpret holy books . Muslims are not alone in so doing. Christians and Muslims should interpret their holy texts according to the theme, not literally. The Muslims' Holy Prophet interpreted Gabriel in such a way as to improve lives of Arabs. And that is the theme of the Koran. It is true that simple village tribal people take the Koran to be a book of instructions, but other Muslims can interpret the Koran as material for religious rites, and continue to revere Muhammad as a man of his time whose wisdom can inform our times.

The political component of Islam is now in disarray, and Islamic regimes are strong by use of terror against their own citizens.

In any case, how would you yourself contain or forestall any possible political Islamic unrest within your own country?

[Immanuel Can]

Those [not all] who are into atheism will condemn theists, burn their place of worship or even kill theists in the extreme.

I grant you that. Absolutely.

In fact, I'm certain that many of my Atheist friends are completely benign in that regard, and their antipathy to my personal beliefs never spills over into unkindness, let alone violence. We have not merely mutual respect, but actual mutual liking, and we get along very well despite our philosophical differences. So I can't emphasize strongly enough that a person who is an Atheist can be completely free of the antipathies to which Atheism itself might tend.

That being said, I think it very interesting that you are frank about the fact that Atheism statistically tends to be associated with "certain acts" of hatred, such as "condemning theists," "burning their churches," or even "killing theists." That's more than many Atheists will even admit. But it's been historically true, of course, so fair enough.

Yes.

So there is no difference between "Atheist," "Non-Theist" or "Anti-Theist," in this respect? All make the affirmative claim that God doesn't exist?

I just have to be sure I've got you right. If you say "Yes," I'll move on.

Yes.

Okay. Well, for convenience, then, I'm going to bundle the terms "Atheist," "Non-Theist" and "Anti-Theist" together, and just refer to them as "Atheists3," since you yourself say they all make the affirmative claim God does not exist, as above. The "3" will remind us both that I mean the bundle of three specified above. Okay? If I want to mean Atheists but NOT Non-Theists or Anti-Theists," I'll just write plain old "Atheist."

Deal?

So Atheists3 all believe they know that there is no God. But of course, we both can see that's impossible. Because for such an affirmative claim, they would have to produce proof. And what proof will justify the claim that the Supreme Being doesn't exist? Only a proof that showed that at no time, and no place, and in no way, did the Supreme Being ever manifest himself. If He did, even once, anytime, any place to any person, then Atheism3 would be untrue, and absolutely wrong. So the Atheist3 has to have proof that no such thing ever occurred.

But how does the Atheist3 know that? Has he the evidence that Creation was not by God? Has he the proof that no revelation of any religion was ever true? Can he show that no miracle ever claimed was genuine? Can he show that no prayer in the history of the world was ever answered? Has he the basis to claim there were no prophets? Can he show that God did not manifest Himself in Jesus Christ, for example?

If he does have that sort of comprehensive proof, then why is he not showing it? Answer: because no human being could possibly have it. In order to get it, he would have to be in all places, at all times, witnessing every supposed 'miracle,' hearing every supposed 'prayer' and seeing its answer, have been exposed to all supposed 'revelations,' and have dismissed them all for empirical reasons...in other words, the Atheist3, if he had grounds for affirmative proof of the non-existence of God, would have had to be everywhere, at all times, in all circumstances since the beginning of time, with his instruments to measure and evaluate.

But if he had done that, the Atheist3 would be wrong: there WOULD be a "God." It would be the Atheist3. Nothing less than God-powers would be sufficient for him to acquire such evidence.

So there is absolutely no way that the Atheist3 can rationally make the claim that God does not exist and he knows it affirmatively. That's an obvious lie, a bluff, a ruse, a false posture of confidence, that is really no more than an ideological preference.

Therefore, let's dispense with the twaddle that might suggest the Atheist3 is operating on evidence or rationality. He's not. He couldn't be. He's operating on ideology.

So far, so good?

Now, earlier, I wrote:

For the moment, all I mean to point out here is that it is you who has just said that Atheists et al still often want to get into the matter of morals, meaning, purpose, teleology, and so on. I want you to realize YOU said it...and I didn't have to. We're both conceding it, yes?

And you replied:
In life people live with many "hats", i.e. one can be parenting as a father, work as Scientist, a gardener in the weekend, etc. and an atheist [indifferent to a God].

Yes, of course.

But now I'll make my argument as to why Atheism3 so often historically has resulted in "certain acts" as you call them, of viciousness toward Theists and others, and why over 100 million people died in the last century at the hands of Atheist regimes.

Premise 1: Atheism3, as a belief, is devoid of any and all positive content regarding anything but a position on the existence of God. It has no information in it pertaining to which morals, motives, meaning, purpose, teleology and so forth. Atheism3 per see has nothing to say about these. (This, you have already said to be true, so let's move on.)

Premise 2: Atheists3 are still normal human beings, who "involve themselves" (as you have said) with things like morals, meaning, purpose, teleology and so forth. (This, you have also insisted repeatedly is true, so we need not debate that either. Let's go forward)

So now I'll make my argument informally. Atheists3 have no information from Atheism3 that will help them in their quest to orient themselves to morals, meaning, purpose, teleology and so forth. So where do Atheist3 invariably get it from? They always get it from ideology. It may be Materialism, Egoism, Nazism, Communism, Libertarianism, Capitalism, Humanism or any other ideology save a "religious" one; but if they still want to "be involved" as you say, with these things, they cannot avoid the necessity of thinking about what the direction and purpose of life should be, and what steps they "should" take to get themselves an our society "there," that is to whatever point they think is the desirably telos.

Since merely material facts are ambiguous on these things (and you can see they are by the range of contrary "readings" Atheism3 may take from them, while still being pure and true to Atheism3) they have no alternative but to adopt one of these sorts of secular ideologies, and act as if it is the right telos. Moreoever, if their chosen telos (end-point for the good life or good society) is ever to be realized, they will need to mobilize people to believe in it and support their telos.

So Atheists3 are uniquely forced to become both ideologues and propagandists -- that is, if, as you say, they still want to keep "involving themselves" in morals, meaning, purpose, motive, and so on. Since Atheism3 itself is so empty, so void of content, so utterly uninformative in these areas, every Atheist3 who is going to remain engaged with these things has to take on some ideology to fill the void.

The popular choice tends to be Communism. It alone offers the combination of a) Atheism3 as a starting point, but also b) mobilization of world-scale collective action to achieve its ends of "the ideal society." Other ideologies, such as Libertarianism, Egoism, Nihilism, and so forth, remain consonant with Atheism3, but do not offer any rationale or support for collective action, so make it far less likely for the Atheist3 to achieve any telos or conception of the universal good.

Communism commences, at the very first stage, with the elimination of religion -- but particularly, as Marx and Nietzsche have both said, of Judaism and Christianity. Thus Atheism3 tends towards your "certain acts" of violence against Christians and Jews, which it treats as its mortal enemies.

This is not just a supposition: it is exactly what has happened in EVERY SINGLE MARXIST REGIME in history. So it's an empirically-backed observation, as well as a logical deduction from Atheism3.

Atheism3 is violent. It ends up being that, because of its need for a supplementary ideology like Communism or Fascism or some other plan of social engineering, complete with its need to eliminate all rivals. But the void that made that move necessary was created by Atheism3 itself. It is because Atheism3 is so vacuous, so devoid of information that every human being needs in order to orient his or her life, so empty of transcendent value, that the turn to secular ideology becomes unavoidable for any person who is serious about morals, meaning, purpose, teleology and so on. Atheism3, all by itself, leaves a person with nothing but dust in hand.

As I say, Atheists, may not be, in some cases. But that is only true for those Atheists3 who stop short of caring much for morals, meaning, purpose, teleology and the good society. If they're generally only self-involved, and not concerned with such matters, they may remain amiable -- a thing for which I, as a Christian, am very glad.

[gaffo]

Perhaps the reason is that they were persecuted by the Christians from the beggining...

Seriously?

No. That didn't happen. Even by Islamic accounts, the Islamic Crusades started because of a dispute between polytheists in Mecca and Mohammed, who was living in Medina in exile. When he came back, he came back with the sword. They he thought that Jews and Christians would join him, it seems, since (as he reasoned) they also believe in "one God." But they didn't. So he rejected them and began his crusades against them, too. And all this is back in the 7th Century, a full 300 years before any of the later Catholic crusades, although there's no reason to regard them as in any sense "Christian" either.

yep, so you know your history per Islam.

good, as you know stuff and we can talk about it.

So, "What causes Muslims to be violent?" The same thing that caused Atheists in the 20th Century to be so horribly violent, and now causes rioters in American cities to be so violent: human nature, plus an incendiary motive of some kind. That's all it ever takes, it seems. It's a human problem.

yep, like the Spanish Christians if 800 yrs ago that force marched the Jews out of Spain (after 500 yrs under Muslim rule in relative peace - no force march out of).

[gaffo]

So, "What causes Muslims to be violent?" The same thing that caused Atheists in the 20th Century to be so horribly violent, and now causes rioters in American cities to be so violent: human nature, plus an incendiary motive of some kind. That's all it ever takes, it seems. It's a human problem.

Cheap shots!
If you conclude 'it's a human problem' why are you blaming 'Atheists in the 20th Century.
Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

The riots you mentioned has nothing to do with atheists or non-theists since atheism is not represented by any specific ideology like theism's specific ideology of Christianity, Islam, etc.
Those who rioted were driven by their specific ideology and their inherent evil tendencies.

While some are driven by their evil ideology to commit evil, some are driven by their own inherent evil nature to commit evil independent of their chosen ideology. This is why despite the ideology of Christianity being overriding pacifist, there will be some evil prone Christians who go on their own to commit evil acts and subsequently ask for forgiveness from their God.

agreed, well said. I'm an athiest - so maybe have a person bias in agreeing with you on this count .

[gaffo]

So, "What causes Muslims to be violent?" The same thing that caused Atheists in the 20th Century to be so horribly violent, and now causes rioters in American cities to be so violent: human nature, plus an incendiary motive of some kind. That's all it ever takes, it seems. It's a human problem.

Cheap shots!
If you conclude 'it's a human problem' why are you blaming 'Atheists in the 20th Century.

Over 100 million killed by Atheist regimes in the last century. Speak to them about what is a "cheap shot."

ok. lets be accurate on your count (and i know your intent here - Atheist not being "believer" do not value life)

SO lets honour history by being as honest as we can!!!!!!!

OK?

YES, your post is saying in effect - Mao was an Athiest, and so he killed many (more than Stalin (we will get to Stalin later - ok?) - 20 million (estimated, due to dictatorships lack of oversight of mudered, so only an estimate).

Question to you Sir, was Mao an Athiest? (I don't know (I ask you, and would like to know myself) - he was a Communist but not the same thing, i the former but not the latter).

Stalin (10 million) was a Russian Orthodox - he enrolled in a Russian Orthodox College and got 1/2 of the way through the priesthood before he dropped out - and so he was not a Priest when he murdered 10 million of his own county men (did he reject his prior Christianity of the 1910's when he came to power 15 yrs later and when on he murder rampage - first with the Eukranians, then with his own Russians (I ask you because you seem to ASSUME Stalin was an Athiest while a Communist - maybe not knowing he was studing being a fucking PRIEST of YOUR FAITH 1.5 decade prior - do you know he was no longer a Chiristian from the time he mudered the Eukranians in 1930+?

Pol Pot - 2 million via Cambodia, Pol Pot (like Stalin) was a "believer" he was a Buddist, was he a buddist when he murdered his 2 million in the 1970s? (I'm asking you Sir! i don't know, i do know he was a Buddist prior to that time - and yes he was a Communist in the 70's - but that is not relivent - i assume one can be a Christian, Muslim. Buddist, Zorroastian Communist).

so we have 35 million - not your 100 million (you excluded the Nazi 7 million BTW? why so? - because Hiter was not a Communist? - he was not a Christian either so why duck this one? - dos not do you credit to ignore those 7 million died Sir).


--so i will do you a favor in the interest if honouring the dead and total the numbers up:

China - 20 million
Russia - 10 million
Germany - 7 million
Cambodia 2 million
Rowanda (via Hutu Christian's BTW) - 1/2 million
Yugoslavia (via Greek Orthodox Christians against the Bosnian Muslims) 1/4 million.


so we have 40 million,

less than half of your assurtion, and many- most? - via the hand of "Beleivers" in God/s, not Athiests.

thanks for playing...........

i guess.......why do i waste my time.

learn history and open your mind/remove your bias.

[gaffo]

Over 100 million killed by Atheist regimes in the last century. Speak to them about what is a "cheap shot."

I say your logic is not sound

I say your lack of historical knowledge is deplorable.

maybe you should take your own post at face value - literally.

face/mirror

40 million - Stalin/Pol Pot were Belieivers prior to their rampage - do you have evidence they were no longer during thier rampage?

not 100 million.

bubba.

[gaffo]

I say your logic is not sound

I say your lack of historical knowledge is deplorable.

Specifically?

I say again, commmunism, fascism and nazism killed millions but they were not driven by the fact that they were non-theists.
This cannot be because theists also killed millions.

Re Islam, note;
+290 million victims of Islamic terror.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledg ... 148469556/
References and links provided above.

Those who killed are not driven by the fact that they are non-theistic.
As you said, "it is a human problem" due to SOME with their inherent evil potential and nature regardless of whether they are theists or atheists.

IC showed his historical ignorance via the 100 million.

so he is posturing, and assumes stuff he knows nothing about.

don't get me wrong, i like the guy, but he is preduced against Athiest - ya i can still like an ignorant "Racist" - which is what he is in mindset - though i can change my faith, but not my skin - the mindset is the same) -and i do like IC.

he has shown me respect (outside of his prejudice against Atheist (the irony is that i have shown no prejudice per "beleivers" - of any religion, though am athiest myself) - but whatver (maybe IC should give that some thought), and i like him as a person.

but he assumes he knows history - and he may - but less than i (if i may be so bold to claim).

40 million (not 100 million as IC claims), Stalin studied to be a Christian Priest, and Pol Pot was a Buddist!!!!!!!!!!!!

but i'm just a death loving Athiest, so what do i know.

only death.


ignore me, i just a death loving Athiest, refer to IC for your instruction.

;-/.

[gaffo]

Islam never had the scientific enlightenment and is late in catching up.

you are wrong,

the Islamic world preserved the Ancient Greek Texts from extinction around 1000 AD (when Europe was in a full Dark Age) - they also preserved Algebra (originally from India), and Astronomy.

We talk of the "Enlightenment" per Europe - and it was one and i value it! (but the Middle East - under Ottoman Islamic Rule had their prior "enlightenment" - saving the great greet works - plato/etc.(which would have been lost if not for those "mooslims" a millinia ago.

so no, you need to learn more about history.

Today, the Islamic world is in the their Dark Age - just like Europe was a millina ago (shit happens, things have a cycle and stuff is regional).

my point is the Arabs 1000 yrs ago were in their Enlightenment period, had the wisdom to save the Greek archaic texts, as well as expand knowledge about astronomy, while the Christian Europeans were hiding in caves in fear of vandil germanic tribes.

Most Muslims have advanced beyond the Koran except in matters of ritual and ordinary morality.

I do not value the Koran all that much - but only read 1/3 of it 30 yrs ago (its very redundant) - basically about the End times - one long and redundent Appocalyse. some of is is ok, as are parts of the Old Testament. but to be frank i found about 3/4 of the Koran to be the same as Leviticus (unworthy fully).

-------------------

to understand "muslims" (by this i mean to understand the mindset of Joe Average Muslim living in Yeman or wherever) - understand they have an inferiority complex (they know of what i said above - 1000 yrs ago when the preserved stuff - but they know also that they have not done shit since that time - so they have the mindset "we" would if we were living in Europe 1000 yrs ago.

Just sayin, i know the mindset - my college GF was iranian in the early 90's and know the mindset from her.

2-cents.