RE: What Muslims Believe
Please enlighten us to the harshest tyrannies not being related to religions.
A Dose of Common Knowledge, spreading the ever common sense.
Religions known to many as "governments" deeply entwined in actual religion, which has never really escaped the influence of religion.
The people who trail off your comment with "Human nature is the problem because we have the capacity to do evil (huh.. do you even realize what sentiment you are spreading and the insanity of your thinking?!) " and the other user says: "Yeah, you're right, human nature is the problem, people cannot even believe what behaviors human nature can excuse". Epic fail? Or just a dose of reality? all 3 of you share the same sentiments that plagued every ruler EVER: they are the problem, they cannot help themselves, I am the solution.
No Religion Here, Ever
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zadong, Pol Pott
Just saying.
Christian
Nothing to do with Religion
Worst what?
So fascism and bolshevism are "godless religions"? What the hell does that even mean? And were does it put the balme? Doesn't it mean that religious extremesim is just like any extrismism? And if so then what's your point?
Where did you form that from? I read this:
Keep saying that, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pott weren't religious and their atrocities have nothing to do with religion. The blame? All extremism is the same? How are all extremes the same as religious extremism? Aren't you the one who's writing these "how to jurnalism" so to that I say fuck off, you want to know what my point is you hack job? What the fuck was your point with religion is not the problem? Didn't bother to read the article to realize it has nothing to do with "religion is the problem"?
You clearly didn't take the the time to understand my first reply to your comment. That you are clearly in the lost as to what the article was about when you remark that religion isn't to blame, as if there is one mention or a hint that religion itself was to blame, or that the article painted religion in a shady way, as is obvious to everyone else I assume. In that comment I said, tying your redundant remark back into the discussion at hand:
So back to my original reply indeed. Did I say that human nature is the problem?
You didn't.
When you say "A is the cause of B", that implies that if we want to stop B, we have to stop A.
I say, "C is a much more significant cause of B", to which you reply, "no, it's C+A that causes B".
I say, "C+A is a subset of C and all C causes B. Also, C+A is just a subset of A. Ergo we should eliminate all of C, not all A"
Is that clear?
NO. Define the fucking terms if you're going to speak in mumbo jumbo.
Larken says "religion isn't the problem, the cult of government is" to which you said:
So it doesn't mean anything if you excused religious atrocities by claiming religion had nothing to do with past atrocities when it clearly and most certainly did, just as it doesn't mean anything when you made your very first comment saying that nonsense and alluding that the article made a case about religion being bad, but now you can allude that you're not guilty of blaming human nature. LMAO.
Har Har, next you're going to say that you were blaming the cult of government, because if you weren't excusing the previous atrocities of religion by saying religion had nothing to do with it, you were indeed agreeing that religion isn't what you should be worried about.. HAR HAR