World of religion

[Garnaqsi]

N.O.R.F;818087 wrote:

The other thread shows your biased from a 3rd party attempt at the basics.

That's a profoundly useless answer. Be specific. As to whether I've read the Koran, yes I've. (Do you want me to say more?).

[GaroweGal]

Raamsade;818021 wrote:

Stalin was a communist dictator. His atheism was incidental just like Saddam Hussien's Islam was incidental to his sadistic and brutal nature. Ditto Assad who nobody labels as "Muslim mass murderer" even though he is self-professed Muslim. His faith is extraneous to his actions.

 

Hitler wasn't an atheist he was a Roman Catholic. Where do you think he picked all that pent up rage against Jews? You guessed it: Christianity. Just like Somalis hate Jews today thanks to Islam as Jews have historically done no harm to Somalis. Jew hating has long and sordid history in Islam and Christianity.

 

And the reason why Hitler and Stalin killed more people is not because they were atheists as you mistakenly believe. They killed more people because they had better technology than their medieval counterparts. Muslims and Christians of Crusades era, for instance, only had swords, bow and arrows, spears, etc. Where as Hitler and Stalin had mass transportation (trains, trucks, cars, airplanes), mass communication (radio, television, telegraph, phone), gas chambers and modern weapons like tanks, artillery, machine guns, etc. Modern technology makes it easier to kill a lot of people. If there were only swords and spears in Somalia, like the good ol' days, they'd be far far fewer deaths I can assure.

It appears that atheists like you cannot accept the fact that Hitler’s racialist social policies in Nazi Germany were inspired by “social Darwinism” as he believed the Aryan race was far superior than other races, hence paving the way for the Holocaust. I think it is immaterial and irrelevant that Hitler himself professed to be Roman Catholic as no believing person is capable of inflicting such inhumane and indescribable atrocities. Equally, Mao’s, Mussolini’s and Stalin’s murderous systems were also atheism inspired ideologies. Not to mention that European imperialists also used “Social Darwinism” to justify their appalling and atrocious expeditions of civilising the savages. Therefore it is not surprising that modern day atheists like yourself cannot fathom that atheism inspired ideologies such as fascism, Nazism, racialism, and imperialism have resulted so much death and destruction in planet earth.

[Garnaqsi]

GaroweGal;818103 wrote:

I think it is immaterial and irrelevant that Hitler himself professed to be Roman Catholic as no believing person is capable of inflicting such inhumane and indescribable atrocities.

LOL!

[Malika]

LOL@ Che - you stripped the guy bare ..lol

[nuune]

^^ Malika hehe, they are all in hiding and ignoring once Sharmaake asked that question.

 

 

 

Raamsade: Adeer, hadalka badan jooji, diinta Islaamka waad ka baxdey, maalin cad ayaadna gaaloowdey caasiyahow, iskaga har dadka muslimiinta ah iyo waddankooduba, intaas ma sameyn kartaa, Islam kuma daba socdo kumana rabo, iskaga har billa caleyk

[sharma-arke451]

Garnaqsi;817935 wrote:

I fail to see the conclusions which one can draw from that question. I even let him have it that no definition of atheism is possible without a definition of religion and he still couldn't get anywhere with it. If you believe you can, then by all means go on, Nuune.

if you fail to see then i am of help. for atheism to exist, there must be a religion; this is the hard truth.

one wonders, what you people are?

 

Raamsade;818010 wrote:

Which religion? There are many religions.

at least you know there are many religions. do you need a prove for this?

[Garnaqsi]

nuune;818125 wrote:

^^ Malika hehe, they are all in hiding and ignoring once Sharmaake asked that question.

I'm sure people are scratching their heads pondering on the drastic and inescapable conclusions of that profound question! I've asked what the presumed conclusions which I somehow fail to see are so many times, so I'm not going to bother any more.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Red herring che...his view on khatumo hae nothing to do with the discussion at hand

[Garnaqsi]

sharma-arke451;818133 wrote:

if you fail to see then i am of help. for atheism to exist, there must be a religion; this is the hard truth.

Waaba yaabaayey ducaa wiil dhali! What exactly would make that hard? It's a simple statement which might well be true. I don't know what you meant by 'one wonders, what you people are? ', though. It's at times like this you seem to be speaking in riddles.

[nuune]

Garnaqsi, to make easier for you, I am sure you know what the question is talking about:

 

What are you without religion, no need in la wareegeesto, at least give an honest answer, it is not hard, and don't be like that Raamsade, asking, there are many religions, you are clever enough to give an honest answer, let it out, sxb.

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;818094 wrote:

That's a profoundly useless answer. Be specific. As to whether I've read the Koran, yes I've. (Do you want me to say more?).

If you say so. I just see athiests throwing lot of blunt spears. Why did you reject the Quran?

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;818094 wrote:

That's a profoundly useless answer. Be specific. As to whether I've read the Koran, yes I've. (Do you want me to say more?).

If you say so. I just see athiests throwing lot of blunt spears. Why did you reject the Quran?

[sharma-arke451]

Garnaqsi;818139 wrote:

Waaba yaabaayey ducaa wiil dhali! What exactly would make that hard? It's a simple statement which might well be true. I don't know what you meant by

'one wonders, what you people are? '

, though. It's at times like this you seem to be speaking in riddles.

you are against religion yet you accept it to define you? Think over this.

 

On general note;

without sincerity of purpose, an argument will not be different from a quarrel. of course there is a scholastic approach to a legitimate argument. there should be a common definition base, which acts as reference pertaining to the use of terms. for example, prove. what someone sees as prove, might not be what the other sees as prove.

rules of engagement

[Raamsade]

GaroweGal;818103 wrote:

It appears that atheists like you cannot accept the fact that Hitler’s racialist social policies in Nazi Germany were inspired by “social Darwinism” as he believed the Aryan race was far superior than other races, hence paving the way for the Holocaust.

I don't "accept" it because it is not true. There is no such thing as Social Darwanism since "social" connotes learned behaviour whereas Darwanism connotes genetically inheritable traits (instincts are genetically determined, for example). People learn (and unlearn) to be bigots and racists from their environment be it their parents, extended family or larger society in general. They don't genetically inherit bigotry and racism from their parents.

 

So, it is simply wrong to ascribe Hitler's atrocities to some makebelieve notion called Social Darwanism. Hitler hated Jews because he was reared in a society that fostered antisemitism in the form of wanton demonization and dehumanization of Jews ultimately rendering them sub-humans. In fact, the Holocaust offers a cautionary tale of what happens when wanton bigotry and dehumanization is left unchecked. The Holocaust is the culmination of centuries old European antisemitism.

 

 

GaroweGal;818103 wrote:

I think it is immaterial and irrelevant that Hitler himself professed to be Roman Catholic as no believing person is capable of inflicting such inhumane and indescribable atrocities.

This is outlandish claim born of pious hubris but can you substantiate your claim? Or do you just want us to take your word for it?

 

I think your problem is you think Atheists and unbelievers in general are morally suprior to believers. Let me disabuse of you of such mistaken perception. Athiests have no monopoly on morality or good behaviour. They're human beings and like all humans beings they contain their share of good and bad apples. The only difference is atheists don't justify their atrocities on some prehistoric religious texts and therefore it is relatively easier to discredit their ideas.

[Raamsade]

nuune;818125 wrote:

Raamsade:

Adeer, hadalka badan jooji, diinta Islaamka waad ka baxdey, maalin cad ayaadna gaaloowdey caasiyahow, iskaga har dadka muslimiinta ah iyo waddankooduba, intaas ma sameyn kartaa, Islam kuma daba socdo kumana rabo, iskaga har billa caleyk

Sxb, dalka Somalia wuxuu u wada dhexeyaa Somali oo dhan, gaal ama Muslim. Qof walbe oo Somali waa u xaq in uu ka hadlo dalkiisa iyo dadkiisa. Teeda kale, yaa adi Somali oo dhan afhayeenkooda kaa dhigey? Qur ahaan u hadal.

 

Been ha ka sheegin diinta Islam waayo diinta waxee amartey in qofka ka baxo Islam la daba socdo ka dibna la gowraco. Ta ma been baa? Qof murtad ah maanta parliament Somali ma ka qeybgali karaa? Waa maya. Somali oo murtad ah intee Somalia ku noqdaan Kaniisad ma Synagogue ama Hindu Temple dalka ma ka furan karaan? Waa maya. Marka, maxaad beenta u sheegi?