Quote:
I don't even know where to begin with this. First off, we weren't just talking about religion we were talking about atheism as well. Secondly, why are you jumping to quantum mechanics? I'm not talking about scientific theories, I'm talking about ethical belief systems such as humanism. And lastly, how is it even remotely logical to think that just because someone isn't religious that they couldn't be offended by religious talk? You do understand that religion doesn't exist in a vacuum, right? It affects everyone, even the people who aren't believers.
|
1. Atheism is not a thing. Atheism is an unthing.
We were debating the thing vs the unthing, I didn't make any sort of argument against Humanism. That's crazy.
I was saying atheism is irrelevant in the end. Either there's a God or there isn't, if there isn't how can you be "a-" to it?
If you say theism and being theist refers to more than just God, and refers to ideas and structures of Humanic morals and goals et.
Then wtf does that have to do with being atheist?
Atheist means "I'm not a theist"
Doesn't mean anything else beyond that. Ergo, if you define yourself purely and utterly as atheist, then you live your whole life saying
"im not a theist im not a theist im not a theist"
Well I'm not a ****ing turtle, I don't live my whole life saying "I'm not a turtle" sheesh
Quote:
|
Dude, who are are you even debating with here? I'm not in favor of book burning and I already said I think the guy's an ass for doing what he did. He still has a right do it though in a society that values free speech, just as you have right to do something equally obnoxious.
|
You accused me of condoning the murders. You said when I come in here saying they have a right to defend, that that sounds like I'm saying they have a right to kill.
I didn't say they have a right to kill, that whole paragraph there is why they want to kill. I'm saying there are more productive ways of showing the flaws in the book burning.
They didn't need to kill anyone. There are situations where you do. Namely, when it's your kids they decide to burn. But in this situation it was not neccessary, because the Qu'ran is only a physical copy of the words; they could burn every copy, are they gonna burn the brains of people who memorise it as well?
By burning the books, that's essentially what they're showing they want in the long run, imo. WHEN they do that, I condone the killing, hell if someone wanted to brain wash me, and used force, then I would kill them.
But as it is, every Muslim holds a copy of the Qu'ran that can't be burnt. They should take it down to where it's being burnt. Stand around. And recite.
That is freedom of speech. The day that happens is the day this is no longer an issue.
Quote:
It's understandable that I'd be confused about your position on it, because in that statement you certainly didn't seem to have a problem with what the Afghans did.
I didn't read your entire argument with Janszoon, so if you clarified then good for you. I said "people" anyways, not crukster.
|
Well you're an idiot then. That doesn't say kill that says defend it.
When they pick up a sword and swing it in your face, then you have a right to kill. But not as the instigator/aggressor. There weren't any swords being swung physically. The swords were words and actions, they should have answered them in turn.
You know what though man. If I saw someone burning Qu'rans, I would be angry. I would put out the fire, I would hurt anyone who tried to stop me. I would be ****in angry.
The best thing, the ideal model thing to do in the long run, like I said, is recite it in front of them.
But I ain't a ****ing model Human Being. I'm not patient enough to do that, how could I sit there and let it burn? I would be violent. But only towards anyone who tried to stop me stopping them. In the long run I'm not a scholar, i can't sit and watch,.