Third Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered In As Many Months 284
An anonymous reader writes: Ananta Bijoy Das blogged about science in Bangladesh, also sometimes tackling difficult issues about religion. He won an award in 2006 for "deep and courageous interest in spreading secular and humanist ideals and messages." He's now been murdered for his writings, the third Bangladeshi blogger to die in the past few months. Four masked assailants chased him down in broad daylight and attacked him with cleavers and machetes. The Committee to Protect Journalists says Das is the 20th writer to be murdered globally so far this year. Arrests have been made in Bangladesh for the murders of the previous two bloggers this year, but no convictions have yet been made. Das's murderers remain at large.
Proof (Score:3)
Shows how "progressive" some countries can be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Proof (Score:4, Interesting)
As we speak Budhists are murdering Muslims on at least 2 islands in a vast religiously driven ethnic cleansing war that's been going on for over a year now.
You do actually have examples of ALL the above murdering every OTHER of the above for exactly that reason - in fact the single deadliest religious terrorist group on the planet is the Christian Lord's Resistance Army. Islamic extermists could take lessons - those guys kill more people in a month than all Islamic groups combined have managed in a decade !
You just don't HEAR about the others very much, because they don't make the news, because the places where they happen don't have oil.
rather expected (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.
Re: (Score:2)
IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.
Unless you're writing from the Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure that isn't true.
Re: (Score:3)
Doctors who perform abortions would disagree with you. As would the women who end up dying from miscarriage complications at their Catholic-owned hospital systems. As would the AIDs patients in Africa who were scared away from condom use. There's also the KKK and other white power and militia groups who base their violent rhetoric on fundamentalist Christianity. Or the significant numbers of Christian Dominionists flocking to the military to explicitly wage modern crusade in the Middle East.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
As would the AIDs patients in Africa who were scared away from condom use.
This is a nonsensical argument. If the Catholics had as much sway in this arena as you give them, there wouldn't be an AIDS crisis in Africa. The Catholic position on sex is abstinence outside of marriage. If they didn't listen to the Catholics on abstinence, why would they listen to Catholics if they were pushing condoms? There are plenty of valid criticisms against the Catholic church, this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
One does not need to follow all doctorin to be influenced by a subset.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is getting hacked to death on US streets because Christianity demanded it. Trying to compare the two is a BS argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.
Unless you're writing from the Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure that isn't true.
You [wikipedia.org] don't [wikipedia.org] say [wikipedia.org] ? [wikipedia.org]
Re:rather expected (Score:4, Insightful)
False equivalence. Killers like Eric Randolph are isolated loners, and their actions were justified by almost no one. In some Muslim countries, including Pakistan, more than 90% of the population support killing people that insult Islam. Another 60% support killing the 10% that are willing to allow the blasphemers to live. Most Pakistanis supported the murder of Rashid Rehman [wikipedia.org], who committed no blasphemy, but, as an attorney, merely agreed to represent someone accused of blasphemy, and stated that there should be a presumption of innocence until the evidence was presented. That was enough for the MAJORITY to approve of his murder.
Re: (Score:3)
I apologize for my comment. I shouldn't have made it personal.
I could not disagree more and hold the view to be completely warped in important ways, but I should not have wrote you the way I did.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is the founder of Christianity was against killing people unlike Mohammed.
Deus Vult.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you think Constantine is the founder of Christianity. Granted, he is the one who made it legal and stopped throwing Christians to the lions, but the concept was around long before him. Almost 3 centuries before Constantine I.
Re: (Score:2)
Local Hindu extremists a few hundred kilometres from that place do pretty much the same thing, only on village level. Wrong religion? Get hacked to death.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an ignorance thing, you wouldn't understand.
FTFY.
And I'm sure most people do understand, even if they purport to decry these occurrences and would never acknowledge that they'd do the same when they're in the same state of ignorance, especially if they thought their lives or the lives of their families were in danger.
It's a normal distribution, with enlightenment at one end and depravity at the other. Most of us exist somewhere in the center, no matter what we'd like to think about ourselves.
Re:rather expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Except there are most definitely religious leaders who advocate this crap.
It's not merely random depravity, it's systemic.
Ask Salman Rushdie [wikipedia.org] if this kind of thing is isolated to a few nut jobs.
This has nothing at all to do with a 'normal distribution', and everything to do with officially sanctioned violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:rather expected (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, do you really think this would have happened anyway?
I'm going to assume religion is very much a factor here.
Re:rather expected (Score:5, Insightful)
If by 'political motive' you mean "you disagree with my religion therefore I will kill you", sure.
But if you think this murder would have happened independent of religion, then I'm afraid I can't buy that.
For some people, 'politics' are 100% drive by religion, and are indistinguishable.
But when you have people saying "our religion demands your death", that sure as hell isn't politics. It's religious fanaticism.
Re: (Score:2)
For some people, 'politics' are 100% drive by religion, and are indistinguishable.
This deserves to be doubled. Think of the arrangement that the word "theocracy" was made to describe. In addition to the modern, primarily Islamic theocracies, you have even more examples going down through history. You even had transnational governing bodies like the Catholic church. Like the modern EU, Catholic rules applied to all "member states"... until some of those states got sufficiently pissed and formed, for example the Church of England... another example of the convergence of state and religion.
Re:rather expected (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but what ideology are you accusing me of?
Pointing out that religious extremists of a particular bent feel killing is OK? In which case, sure.
But if you're somehow pretending that religious extremists among that particular religion don't exist, and that they don't commit acts of violence ... well, you're full of crap.
Feel free to use actual facts instead of mere innuendo ... or fuck off.
Re:rather expected (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL, fuck you too, princess.
I never said no murder happens without religion ... but I did say this murder sure as hell happened because of religion, which someone feels the need to couch as "politics".
Is the poor little baby upset that his god won't make the world stop being mean?
Re:rather expected (Score:4, Interesting)
In Islam there is no separation of Mosque and State. This is different to Christianity, Judaism etc but most people in the West don't understand this. They think Islam is some kind of personal faith, but it is not.
Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology with a sprinkling of badly-plagiarized superstition sprinkled on top. It is political because Islam asserts authority over believers AND kuffar (a derogatory term translated as 'infidel' but closer in intent to 'n*gg3r' and applied to all non-Muslims).
Unfortunately, like most Slashdotters, you think you understand Islam and thus ignorantly swat away the argument of someone who correctly deduced that Islam is completely political. This is a bad habit and you should stop it. Please understand that you know very little about Islam and would do well to listen to those that understand it - particularly the Islamic deceptions and political nature (and for real Jedi, the fact that Islamic orthodoxy is completely false and was invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik for *political reasons* [ie. Arab Imperialism] and not Mohammed as Islam falsely claims).
So I would suggest you understand the limitations of your knowledge and *listen* to those who do understand Islam (which is the most evil and deceptive political ideology that man has ever inflicted on other men ). Thanks.
Re:rather expected (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Islam is completely religious, and to its adherents encompass all aspects of life ... I understand this. I have actually endeavored to read about Islam and educate myself about it ... as I have with several other religions.
But having religion encompass all aspects of your life does not make it political. It makes it religious.
So when you use the bullshit argument that "all of life in Islam is Islam, therefore if I kill you in the name of Islam it is political" you are lying through your fucking teeth. Because it is 100% done in the name of religion.
If the religion is the basis for the 'politics' (which is a white washed way of saying 'religion'), you can't turn around and claim its "political" instead of "religious". The two are completely indistinguishable.
So until your "politics" are separable from your "religion", let's be fucking honest here and say that you aren't acting out of political reasons, you are acting out of religious reasons, because the religion provides the justification and rules of your politics.
That someone needs to paint this picture to sound differently isn't my fucking problem.
But you cannot say "politics not religion" when the politics 100% derive from religion. That's an utterly meaningless distinction, and it's mostly a shell game to make it sound like it's not actually religion when it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though there is a clear political motive?
Yeah - killing atheists.
The religious like to pretend this shit doesn't happen, and when it does, you simply reject it.
Re: (Score:2)
The main religion in Bangladesh is Islam (89.7%), but a significant percentage of the population adheres to Hinduism (9.2%). Other religious groups include Buddhists (0.7%, mostly Theravada), Christians ...
You were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying?
That given the social and political state of Bangladesh, the murder was likely to occur anyway as a result of the journalists political views. It's not uncommon for religion to be abused for political reasons, after all. Hence, my suspicions that the religion was used as justification, not as a motive.
guess what (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda like the one that says divorced women should be killed, and stuff?
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda like the one that says divorced women should be killed, and stuff?
Not everything in the bible is a prescription of what should be. Much of it is accounts of the various ways people, governments, and society were horrible.
If you're having trouble distinguishing between what is a religious tenet and what is an account, you may want to try thinking, or you may want to give up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course the problem with that statement is that it is not uncommon for religious people to treat this as a prescription and a set of rules.
Not nearly uncommon enough.
There more certainly are people who want to have a literal interpretation of the bible ... and therefore assert the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that dinosaur fossils are a ruse put there by god.
Honestly, atheists seldom go around killing people over irrational things in their holy book. Maybe for random irrational reasons, but not beca
Re: (Score:3)
Who gets to choose which to follow and which to reject? How about these stories about how the early christian church redistributed wealth. Abhorrent or tenet?
"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sol
Re: (Score:3)
The actual prescription is to kill both man and woman.
[Lev 20:10 KJV] 10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Adding in, that it takes a couple witnesses to execute anyone, it was highly rare that the biblical standards were met.
Re:guess what (Score:5, Informative)
You could try reading the fucking thing.
http://biblehub.com/john/8-1.h... [biblehub.com]
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So..., you're saying that all the Old Testament crap is right out the window? Cool. Please tell all your fellow "Christians". Until then, GP's point is valid.
The "Old Testament crap" is the Jewish fundamentalist law. Notice that Jesus didn't say "Sorry, that law is crap. Ignore it." He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So the law still stood -- he just believed that it should be applied evenly to all. Of course, that's before the whole "atonement" bit came into play: the second part of the Bible (the stuff that follows the Hebrew books) has a significant part dedicated to early followers who were Jewish figuring out how the Hebraic Law
Re: (Score:2)
So if the law still stood why do Christians seem to have no issue violating the rules on being kosher, mixing fibers, etc.? They can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not clear about why you talk about "Jewish hell". IIUC the Jews (pre-christian, at least) weren't big on hell of any sort. They "sort of" believed that their spirits wouldn't die with the body, and had a "sort of" abode of those spirits called, IIRC Gehenna. Originally, IIUC, this was a sort of grey and washed out place, as paradise is a sort of garden named after the Persian gardens around the palaces which contained plants from every country that they has conquerored.
Currently Judianism seems to co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Old Testament is thrown out when it's inconvenient things like no shellfish, no mixing fibers, etc. The parts that justify bigotry, on the other hand, are perfectly valid in their eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
all the Old Testament crap is right out the window?
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [kingjamesbibleonline.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I'm not a religious person myself, but I grew up in one of the most backwoods fundamentalist Southern Baptist Christian families you can imagine. Even they viewed the Old Testament as basically "good reading" that was completely superseded by the New Testament.
You generally can use the Old Testament as a guide (ie, the Ten Commandments), but if it is contradicted AT ALL by the New Testament then the New Testament takes precedence.
Re: (Score:3)
There seems to be some argument over the, um, authenticity of those final lines:
linky [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the Christian bible says much the same sort of thing, but the correct implementation of God's will is spotty at best.
Lies! Lies! All lies! (Score:5, Funny)
Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million. Other than that, it's mostly moderates, who won't actually go out and jihad, but they'll cheer the jihadists on. You've nothing to fear from Islam, there's just no way that there are more than a three or four hundred million activists and jihadists combined!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
Not only is there no biblical basis for those things, the RED words in the bible point the exactly opposite direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
This is actually a pretty common misconception about Islam. You're correct in saying that Christians are hypocrites when they do any of those things, because it runs contrary to the teachings of Christ. You can't say the same about Muslims when they commit acts like this, because they are expressly commanded by Muhammed either in the Quran or the Hadith (honor killings, killing apostates, drawing images of the "prophet", etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
You can't say the same about Muslims when they commit acts like this, because they are expressly commanded by Muhammed either in the Quran or the Hadith (honor killings, killing apostates, drawing images of the "prophet", etc.).
Honor killings are definitely not prescribed by Islamic law. They tend to be most common in Islamic societies because these societies are - let's face it - relatively primitive and more family-oriented (not in a good way). But I've read about Hindus doing the same thing, and I susp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Christianity on gays "we don't want gays to be married"
Islam on gays "We will kill gays"
Christianity on Minorities "people are people"
Islam on Minorities "Convert to Islam, pay a tax or die"
Christianity on Selfish living "Love one another"
Islam on Selfish Behavior "Kill the Infadel" "Hate the Jew" "Kill the people of the Cross"
Christianity on Judging "Love the sinner, hate the sin" "Judge not lest ye be judged"
Islam on Judging "Kill the infadel"
Yeah, they are completely the same.
Re: (Score:2)
The main thing preventing Christians in the U.S. from regularly saying, and acting upon, "We will kill gays", is the protection offered by a secular government.
But give our U.S. Christians some influence outside our borders, like the American Family Association's encouraging Christian-majority Uganda to pass laws making homosexuality a capital offense, and we find Christian and Islamic fundamentalists to be rather similar.
Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Was enacted, has since been struck down but only for technicalities: lack of quorum when passed. That is being appealed to Uganda Supreme Court, and if that fails it will be brought up again. Original bill included death penalty, was changed after International pressure to life sentence, but politicians have been working to amend to make homosexuality a capital crime as originally intended.
Either way, the legislation has also increased vigilante homophobia, Uganda gays "face an atmosphere of physical abuse, vandalism to their property, blackmail, death threats, and 'correctional rape'."
Bill was introduced following a two-day conference by U.S. Christians on how homosexuality is a threat to families in Africa.
American Family Association leader praises bill:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmo... [thenewcivi...vement.com]
Family Research Council supports Uganda anti-homosexuality bill:
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/... [hrc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Modding down. Leaders of an organization are not just random rank-and-file members.
Re:Lies! Lies! All lies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well considering the massive support the Kill the Gays bill had in 84% Christian Uganda, I think a few more than 5 Christians supported it.
Now, if you want to compare Christianity in Uganda and the U.S. in terms of the legacy of exploitation, poverty, and strife, and how those issues are a more important factor in social attitudes and affect the interpretation and execution of a shared religion, be my guest. Just take it up first with the poster who made sweeping statements about Christians and Muslims.
Oh, right, that was you. Talk about disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweeping generalizations to counter sweeping generalizations is effective, when exposing the original hypocrisy. I did it to make a point, one that eluded you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I think you have a pretty good summary of what the Bible teaches here, but I personally know Christians who do not live those values at all. That was my point.
Can't comment on the koran, as I've spent exactly zero time studying it. Something tells me we aren't going to have anybody stick up for islam on this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
The Koran actually *is* more viscious than even the Old Testament. Partially this is due to the fact that Mohammed spent much of his life leading an armed struggle against armed opponents, and needed to rally and advise his followers (i.e., armies).
OTOH, it would be quite interesting to know what the New Testament would be like if we had accurate records rather than third hand accounts written down a century or more later. *Was* JC leading a revolutionary action group against the Romans? (Well, against t
Re: (Score:2)
There is pretty good indication that Matthew was written by an actual witness to the events. These manuscripts copies are within a hundred years of Jesus' life, and are copies of earlier ones. Most scholars view the original manuscript to be closer to 50-60CE, placing it within the lifetime of a contemporary of Jesus, claiming to have known him (20-30 years)
You can't believe the words written in the Bible, even if they are phrased as quotes. They weren't quotes. They were written down by someone who never met Jesus, and never met anyone who had seen him within the last 30 years.
That is your opinion. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Most (many at least) Christians don't have a clue what the bible actually says. They only know what (parts of) the New Testament says. Most only recite what their pastors preach from the pulpit, or single verses (taken out of context)
Most couldn't explain why Jesus didn't condemn the whore to stoning, because they don't know. But he was 100% biblical (Torah Compliant) in his approach and there are many lessons that could be learned from that.
Yes, there are some pretty strong prescriptions in the Bible, but
Re: (Score:2)
She's a witch! BURN HER!
Re: (Score:2)
If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
Not only is there no biblical basis for those things, the RED words in the bible point the exactly opposite direction.
The Bible is very vague on whether you should still hate gays, have slaves, stone people, etc... Pretending that
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
obviously means the old law can be ignored is moderate apologetics. All the Abrahamic religions have plenty of fire and brimstone, and killing in the name of God. Ignoring that is just as much an act of cherry-picking as is ignoring the more love and tolerance passages. The fact that it takes a "bible/koran scholar" to make a plausible argument other than "just ignore the old stuff" is problema
Re: (Score:2)
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
Perspective. Christians over here are greedy, call some people some mean names, and are refusing to make a few gay wedding cakes, whilst Muslims are hacking up and beheading people with machetes and you try to draw an equivalence?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the third person to miss the point of what I wrote. The other two posted as AC, though, so I guess I should give you some credit. Here's what I wrote in reply to the first one:
I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I told the other poster, I wasn't trying to compare acts. So, I didn't pick comparable acts. If I wanted to, there is a long history of murder and oppression in the West I could have listed.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is the religion of peace! Well, except for a few radicals, maybe 2 or 3 percent, which would only make about a million radicals. And, maybe except for their supporters, maybe 20 percent or so, which would make about 200 million.
I actually think you have those numbers closer to reversed. The financial supporters of terrorism seem to pretty much be limited to those loyal middle eastern friends of ours, Saud royal family.
How is killing him Unislamic? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Guardian shies away from discussing the motivation, but even their description of an earlier attack [theguardian.com] alludes to it:
Could some Islamic scholar chime in to describe, how such an attack (as well as that against Charlie Hebdo [wikipedia.org], or Pamela Geller [yahoo.com], or Salman Rushdie [theguardian.com]) is not in perfect conformance with Koran?
No, pointing fingers at other religions will not answer the question and will be ignored.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You could sit down a group of scholars and ask them to find a justification for genocide and they will be able to. Regardless of which book they use.
But your request is the reverse. You request someone find that there is no support in the quran for this act. I believe that is impossible. It is quite probably just as impossible with the bible or any other book. It is simply too easy to pick any line said by any character and use that for justification of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Why AC goddamit?
This should be upvoted to the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
That whole page is the worst piece of weasel word riddled crap I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
On the other hand, some scholars argue that such verses of the Quran are interpreted out of context, and argue that when the verses are read in context it clearly appears that the Quran prohibits aggression
Multiculty claptrap straight out of The Guardian. "some scholars argue" and "clearly appears."
Re: (Score:2)
supporting references
Islamic "scholars" and Islamist apologists opining about the meaning of Jihad. They and Benny Hinn have approximately the same credibility.
Of course (Score:2)
Of course you never read about enraged scientists hacking religious zealots apart...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there was that nasty bit during French Revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that nobody has shown that those "whack-jobs" weren't following orthodoxly accepted interpretations of the Koran. That some "scholars claim those quotes are taken out of context" is clearly true, but that doesn't mean it's not a reasonable and common interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling either Mao or Stalin a scientist is so strange as to qualify for wierd. Hitler had some doctors working for him who would meet the qualification, but I haven't been able to think of any other scientists that engaged in multiple murders, though I sure some must have existed. I suspect that this is largely because scientists are rarely in positions of power, and don't like to expose themselves to violent circumstances. But not entirely. The kind of mind that will devote itself to science must of n
Meanwhile in America... (Score:3)
>> Arrests have been made in Bangladesh for the murders of the previous two bloggers this year, but no convictions have yet been made.
You know, in America it would also be rare for a murder conviction to happen the same year an arrest was made. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Weakness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you respect the spread of ignorance? Which is all religion is, ignorance... that's why Islam is growing so fast, they target uneducated youth. When religion gets to shape young minds everyone suffers.
Sadly this is not true. Extremely intelligent people can be and are religious. Assuming otherwise is hubris and ignorance on your own part. The 9/11 hijackers were by and large well educated and successful.
I agree that religion can be a vector of incredibly bad ideas. Unfortunately intelligence does not inoculate people against bad ideas. It's worse than that, intelligent people are better at constructing complex justifications to support their bad ideas. The sooner that secular people (myself include
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as I like to think: you can agree with the right people and the right ideas, but such agreement is not a serviceable substitute for actual intelligence.
Chilling Effect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck atheists (Score:5, Insightful)
True. We must all worship the son of God the father, born to a mortal woman, who traveled the mid-east several thousand years ago performing miraculous deeds and building a religious following. Lets all worship Hercules.
Or did you have some other silly myth in mind? You were not very clear on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Theseus.
Don't like my choice? We should arrange a bout and see what Vegas thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, we could be good progressive people who believe that trees and rocks have souls. If you split atoms or build telescopes or engineer genes, Mother Gaia will unleash Her righteous wrath upon you.
I thought that was Greenpeace. (Score:2)
Then again, we could be good progressive people who believe that trees and rocks have souls. If you split atoms or build telescopes or engineer genes, Mother Gaia will unleash Her righteous wrath upon you.
I thought that was Greenpeace.
And isn't their thing these days defacing world heritage sites in more or less irreversible and environmentally damaging ways?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was Greenpeace.
And isn't their thing these days defacing world heritage sites in more or less irreversible and environmentally damaging ways?
Since when is Greenpeace spelled ISIS [google.com]?!?
Re:Fuck atheists (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to interrupt a good smug-a-thon, but it should be noted that the assailants were Muslim.
As you were...
Re:Fuck atheists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of atheists in America, particularly those who live in conservative areas report hiding their beliefs from neighbours (often claiming to be agnostic) for fear of discrimination and reprisal.
It would appear that even in the US of A atheists feel legitimately scared of religious people who are decidedly NOT Muslims. 3 Atheist murders in a short period is distressing but hardly above average, it COULD be just a random statistically clump which has no deeper meaning. There is nothing to sugges
Re:Fuck atheists (Score:5, Informative)
I think he was referring to the Son of God, and also God himself (part of the holy trinity), born as a man from immaculate conception, the Savior, the adoptive son of a carpenter, visited at birth by wise men guided by a star, whose human parents fled when angels predicted that the local dictator would attempt to assassinate the child, born without sin, the miraculous healer of disease, followed by disciples, capable of raising the dead, host of one hell of a last supper. He who made the lepers whole! He who was meek, merciful, and forgave his enemies! He who was crucified, and was then resurrected! Ladies and gentlemen, the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head! The Lion Of The Tribe Of Saki! My savior, and yours! Give it up for Krishnaaaaaaaa!
Sorry, I got confused. I'm talking about the Holy Child, born on December 25th to a virgin and placed in a manger! The traveling teacher who performed miracles! The sacred king of kings killed and eaten in a eucharistic ritual of purification! The one who turned water into wine, was crucified, and was resurrected after death! The God of Gods! The Only Begotten Son! The Redeemer, Bearer of Sin, the Anointed One, Alpha and Omega, the Lamb of God! My God of the Vine, and yours! Dionysuuuuuuus!
Sorry, I was confused. I'm talking about THE ONLY begotten son of God, born of a virgin! His birth heralded by the brightest star in the sky! Threats of death upon his birth, with his mother rushing to hide them! Nothing at all known about him between the ages of 12 and 30! Baptized in a river at 30! The baptizer got beheaded! The one who walked on water! Cast out demons! Healed the sick! Cured the blind! Crucified, died, and was resurrected 3 days later! My God of the Sky, and yours! Hooooooruuuuuuuus!
Or maybe someone else. I'm sure their mother claimed to be a virgin too. Suuuuuuure, honey. Whatever it takes to avoid being stoned to death.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was always partial to Gabrielle myself. She can be god, so I can "worship" her latex blowup images.
For science for of course.
Re:Fuck atheists (Score:4, Funny)
Ramen.
Re:Fuck atheists (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting. You can do this here, but as the article points out, it will get you killed in other areas with other religions.
|-&
Look, I just drew a picture of Mohamed fucking the spaghetti monster. But wait, before you yell "blasphemy". I said spaghetti monster not Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's his mentally challenged cousin I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
yes people are bad... religion is an convenient excuse....