Obama: No Religion is Responsible for Terrorism

Atheism at it’s core is the principle of non-contradiction of motive, which will always be the perfect north star to perfect ethics. Religion cannot claim this. In fact even atheists are holier than religious people. because the go through the pains of existential anguish without the belief that wrongs will be righted or life is even fair, so when they are good it is a PURE goodness, and when they sacrifice, it is a PURE sacrifice. No religion can claim this.

By the way, I think Obama was wrong to say this.

I think he was trying to say certain persons encourage terrorism…it is unwise to attack religions because you are also attacking the good parts of religion…you are being too black or white…

What good parts? I just gave you the proof that atheism is better at formulating ethics and the people of atheism are purer than theists when they are good people. He flat out lied.

I know what you said…I do not like when someone says they are SUPERIOR to me…

Obama is paid, and therefore he says such a nonsense. It is a self-evidence for all islamic terrorists (fundamentalists, ideologs), a matter of course, that they speak for all islamic people, that they speak for the islam, thus not for “islamism” ( :laughing: ). “Islamism” is an Occidental invention as much as every “ism” is an Occidental invention. No “ism” is invented by others than Occidental humans.

There are three kinds of so called “revolutions” which threatens the modern Occident:

  1. One “revolution”: the “Occidental revolution”.
  2. Two “revolutions”: the “Occidental revolution” and the “White revolution”.
  3. Three “revolutions”: the “Occidental revolution”, the “White revolution”, and the “Colored revolution”.

The islam as islamism (Occidental spoken) belongs to the “Colored revolution” in the Occident.

Islamic people do not call their islam “islamism”, although the Occidental people do it, if they speak about the extreme or funfamenatistic islam. That’s the point.

The “Colored revoultion” in the Occident - islam/ism and other religions / ideologies (i.e. voodoo/ism) included - will only end, when the Occidental modernity will end.

Before the modern times of the Occident there was merely one real foreign threat for the Occidental culture: the islam!

arm—are you really talking about what Obama said

But it’s a fact that atheists have purer motives when they are good than theists do, their sacrifice is purer for sure, because they don’t believe there’s a justice being out there who’s going to settle all the scores, and the scores that need to be settled are immeasurable. It’s amazing atheists are nice to anyone given how psychopathic people are… but they are, and they don’t believe some deity is out there going to make it all better for them, so when they are kind it is the PUREST sacrifice, because let’s face it, to get ahead in this world, you need to be a dickhead… It’s axiomatically superior. It comes from a deeper and purer place.

You know… the scripture says that someday when God brings all those assholes up who said God was real, and all the atheists burn in hell, Gods chosen are going to laugh at them and mock them from heaven… I can tell you for sure, not one atheist on earth would find someone going to hell funny. Atheists are just objectively better people, when they don’t have a God complex, which technically makes them deists. Using religions own axioms about purity and sacrifice, atheists actually WIN!!!

Oh please. I already addressed that argument. You can’t know who really has pure motives and who doesn’t until you remove all restrictions and forms of punishment for crimes. For all you know, theists may be the ones doing good because they are good and NOT because they are afraid of God, while atheists might be the ones doing good only because they fear retribution from the state. I am NOT saying that is the state of things, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Do you acknowledge that what you’re doing here resembles proselytizing a great deal? You just keep on asserting and asserting and ignoring counter-arguments.

I didn’t see your argument, apologies… thanks for reposting it. It’s not just about being afraid of God… it’s the peace of mind that life is ultimately fair, Atheists have to go through the existential anguish of knowing life isn’t fair and there may never be redress - and this is a HUGE difference, because when an atheist is nice, it comes from a real place, a purer place. I’m not proselytizing, I’m pointing out objective facts. Punishment from the state? Are you kidding? The worse of an asshole you are the better life you have, even in prison… you get conjugal visits all day, you get fancy meals, you bribed all the guards, women flock to you like you’re the fucking messiah…

 I don't understand why this is relevant. They certainly speak for several hundred million Muslims, that's plenty enough to admit that we're at war with Islam extremism. It is most certainly not some secular guys using Islam as an excuse, either. 
   Well, that's just baloney too. You don't need to demonize something just because it is your enemy.  Islam is a religion, it's not all that different from many others, but it's different enough that we are where we are and must do what we must do.   If covering your eyes and saying "Islam isn't the problem!" against all evidence to protect cherished views of multiculturalism is the easy way out, declaring that Islam is an utter crap faith that doesn't deserve to exist in order to justify what's to come  is the OTHER easy way out. 

It is a tragedy that our survival is going to depend on wiping out these people.

I am sure you have not research Islam and its history sufficiently.
Note this;
Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women

In real life at present, minorities in most Islam nations are oppressed. Churches and temples of non-Muslims are not allowed in Saudi Arabia.

If one understands the history of Muhammad, Islam and the Quran, one will note the Quran is represented by two phases of Muhammad life, i.e. the Mecca [the mild] and Medina [the evil and violent] phases.

When Muhammad started to claim he was a messenger, he was in Mecca. During that time he did not have many followers and in a way he had to plead with the Jews, Christians and others to accept him as the foretold Messiah. He and his few followers were heavily condemned and criticized.

The Jews and Christians claimed their prophets produced Miracles as stated in their holy texts, therefore if Muhammad claimed to be the foretold messiah, then he should produced miracles to support his claim. Muhammad could not produce any miracles at all and on this basis was condemned as a fraud [in fact his is fraud].
In this weak Mecca phase, his verses were mild, calling for peace and notably patience. This was when the ‘No compulsion verse’ was asserted. This was not a general statement, but related to asking some of his followers not to force their sons to convert then.

Upon further threats, Muhammad migrated to Medina and fortunately managed to built a strong army.

With his stronger army, he returned to Mecca and took revenge on those who rejected him earlier. To support his heinous crimes and evil, Muhammad introduced the principle of Abrogation, i.e. latter violent verses cancelling the earlier milder verses.
The verses from his Mecca verses condoned the killing and enforcement of all sorts of terrible evil on non-believers.

In his lifetime from the Medina phase, Muhammad participated in 100 battles that were accompanied by terrible evils.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex … f_Muhammad
Thereafter Muslims started hundreds of battles and wars that created an empire from Spain to China that included terrible evils. There were positives, but the net effect is net-evil rather than good. And this is still going on at present in the same evil-spirit that initiated Islam.

The apologists assertion of Just War principles are bullshit.

I recommend you read and understand [not necessary agree] the history of Muhammad, Islam and the Quran rather than rely on hearsays.

That is Obama’s point, I do not agree with it and yes, it is irrelevant.

It is not demonizing. I am stating facts based on extensive research.
I have been stating Islam as an ideology contain elements of religion and it is PARTLY malignant.

Islam is just like asbestos which is cheap and very useful to many since long ago and now in developing countries. However, we must recognize the fact despite the usefulness and being economical, asbestos has a malignant potential which all users must be aware of. Thus all users must be informed of the truth of asbestos and if they use it, they must be aware of the risks.

It is the same with Islam. I am not advocating the elimination of Islam immediately but rather believers must be informed on its truth that Islam has a malignant potential. What Islamist apologists are doing is, they totally blanket out this malignant risk, thus covering up and lying. In addition they condemn critiques to silence their voices.

IMO, all especially those in authority must recognize the malignant potential within Islam itself and direct attention to resolve it at the roots and deal with the malignancy instead of fire-fighting terrorists on the surface with force.

The two things aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s entirely possible to demonize something by stating facts based on extensive research- all you have to do is only state certain facts your extensive research revealed, and fail to state others. Or, what is becoming increasingly popular, limit your extensive research to sources that are only going to present you with the facts you wanted to be presented with. It’s pretty clear from reading your posts what it is that you do Re: research.

Anyway, I’m not disagreeing with you that much. Islam really is a problem and something really does have to be done about it, and Obama’s “But it’s not all of them” remarks are eye-rollingly useless for somebody with as important a role to play as he should have. I just don’t see what blowing things out of proportion is going to accomplish: Islam is a religion of 1.5 billion people with several hundred million fanatics that want to kill us. The fanatics are neither a bizarre outlier distant from ‘real Islam’, nor is Islam on the whole comparable to Nazi-ism.

But anyway, pragmatically we agree; the Islam apologists are a much bigger threat to the world than the Islam demonizers, and we have to act as though the latter are right if we want to save western civilization. That they’re both wrong is merely academic, as the former have gotten into power and let things go too far.

I don’t need belief to be a positive person. I don’t think anyone should rely on belief to mold who and what they are.

Your statistics are nonsense.
You might not want to call the invasion of Iraq, American aggression because the army that invaded only represented 0.0001% of the US population.
Is that what you mean?

You wrote about oppression of non-Muslims. I wrote about oppression of non-Muslims. Now you respond with a quote about the oppression of women.
Need I say more? Do I have to explain the problem with that?

Notice that the treatment of non-Muslims varies by country. Could the government be a factor? Churches are allowed in Iran. If Saudi Arabia gets a different ruler, then maybe churches will be allowed.
There is also a difference of treatment between accepted religions (Judaism and Christianity) and non-accepted religions. That is due what is written in the Koran. ‘People of the Book’ were given protections which others were not.

I may or may not respond to the rest of your post dealing with the historical treatment of non-Muslims if I have time and interest.

You need to believe you exist to be nice to people including yourself. My point is that atheism is the belief in rationality, which when taken to it’s logical conclusion facilitates kindness.

Agree with op.

Islam is like Christianity; when it had power. …and probably any religion.

What it needs, is to not have power certainly at the state level, which should all eventually be secular. Secondly that a change in culture is needed and manifest probably via future technology and respective cultural developments.

For example, flying cars [not four blade helicopters or aircraft with car shaped bodies] would effectively rub out borders ~ eventually. Currently the gathering of ideas via our ever improving communications possibilities, are doing a good job. Its only a matter of time when similar social pressures to living next door to one another and going to the same schools etc, will take full effect.

As i see it, what’s going on now with Muslims is like the last gasp of ignorance having power.