Liberals are being split in half by the anti-theists and the atheists

There has been a huge debate between liberals on how to deal with Islam since this whole ISIS situation, the regular atheist/secular liberals seem to just think as long as you leave these people alone they will stop being violent and harmful, whereas the anti-theists see this is just wishful thinking, you have to actively fight them or else they will continue to spread their violent doctrine and not only brainwash their populace into believing their doctrine, but they will actually force them into following it even if they dont believe in it. This is actually the first time ive seen liberals get seriously pissed off at each other, usually they have minor disagreements like one will want to legalize weed the other will want to decriminalize it, so they both have the same basic idea just one takes it a bit farther than the other but they usually dont hate each other over it. This case with Islam though is an entirely different matter, I see liberals actually yelling in each others faces about this and both sides feel very strongly about their position to the point where they actually seem to hate each other over this. I believe this division has something to do with Marxists within the liberal playing field, many Marxists have influenced the liberals to understand that ALL religion is bad, especially religions like Islam that command the death of people who leave the religion, they are cults and should be done away with just like the Nazi's. We dont have to kill them all, we just have to shun them, remove them from ALL power, and make sure its a taboo to join them.


Here is an example of a liberal who defends Islam left and right in the name of "tolerance", but they become tolerant of intolerance, destroying the entire point of being tolerant in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wZAsS0X5xE&index=38&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ


But here is a Marxist, liberal on many things, who thinks we actually have to fight Islam for very good reason. Its Christopher Hitchens,
[video=youtube;pYiCizcm9wA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYiCizcm9wA[/video]

You can see even in this video they are split in half, its at the "Freedom From Religion Foundation", so most atheists are split on whether they should fight Islam or should just leave it alone. Half the claps go for people who say leave Islam alone, the other half claps for when you say we have to fight them. Its a serious divide between the left wing atheists. I obviously fall on the side that we have to fight them, they have been attacking us since before Oil was even used on a mass scale and before we did anything at all to them let alone set foot on their land, yet they still attacked our ships for being infidels so Thomas Jefferson sent a navy to crush the Islamic pirates.


To show you how strong this divide is, look here this is from a hardcore liberal online news network and you can look at their other videos their like/dislike ration is like 99:1, they get a overwhelming majority of likes, but when they sit back and defend Islam? They get a like/dislike ratio of about 1:3, so the majority of liberals will actually dislike their video and if you read the comments you can see liberals tearing each others heads off arguing about this, and a bunch of liberals talking about unsubscribing to TyT (the liberals news network) for defending Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZyC8ya_GvU&index=8&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ
1700 likes, about 3500 dislikes.


For the first time I finally feel how the right wing feels when they are called racist on certain things, when Ben Afleck called Sam Harris and Bill Maher racist for sticking up against Islam it really seemed like a huge step backward for liberals, but seeing so many liberals stand up and continue to stick up against Islam despite other liberals getting mad at them gives me new hope for liberals. I would say the majority of us are on the Bill Maher/ Sam Harris side, where we acknowledge we HAVE to fight these guys or they will hit us when our back is turned than scream "Allahu Akbar! (God is Great) " when they do it. Dont get me wrong, im against Christianity just as much, but the difference is Secularist liberals have already destroyed the Catholic Church's power, now its time to destroy the Islamic Mosques power.

 

I am in favor of YOU personally flying to iraq or syria and fighting these guys yourself.

Kill two birds with one stone.

 

I just can't attack Islam because some Muslims are nuts. Same as I can't attack Christianity 'cause some Christians are nuts, white people because some white people are nuts, etc.

Since when did the rule change, that you shouldn't judge a billion people by the actions of a few?

 

Liberals have no problem judging mass groups of people, look at how they hate anyone that self-identifies as a Tea Party person. They don't even have to know the persons views to hate them.

 

1) It's not hate. It's a political disagreement. Why those get so nuts, I don't know. Probably because it's about determining leadership and policy, which are things that can directly affect people.

2) Judging someone based on their political decisions is entirely different than judging someone based on their religion or ethnicity or financial class. When someone decides to become a Tea Partier, that comes with an agenda that you might disagree with. The same is not true of a religion.

I know too many Muslims, personally, that are good, decent, intelligent, egalitarian, peaceful people. I've never met any of the crazy ones. I know they exist, but the same is true of Christianity, and I'm not going to go judging all Christians by the actions of a few.

I don't get why this is hard to understand. Islam is not the problem. Isn't that obvious?

 

I'm an atheist (a naturalist to be more precise), and I happen to disagree with Sam Harris. He isn't realistic about foreign policy or the situation in general. Christopher Hitches wasn't any better with Iraq. The problem is a generational problem, and it can't be solved with bombs.

 

We have gone through this before, if you knew a bunch of KKK members who were honestly very good people, they are intelligent, peaceful all of the things that make a good person, does that mean the KKK is not a problem? No of course not. Just because there are good people who follow a crooked ideology dos not make the ideology good in any way. Im sure there are plenty of Nazi's who are loving people that we would get along fine with, does that mean Nazi'ism was never the problem? The good people you see in Islam simply are not following their religion, the same goes for Christians. If they were to follow their religion, they would kill apostates in the case of Muslims and the Christians would stone gay people or murder people who work on Sunday. If you find a group of Nazi's who dont hate Jews, does that mean Nazi's dont hate Jews? No, so when you find a group of Muslims who dont want to kill apostates that does not automatically mean Islam doesnt condone killing apostates. Why is it that every single country in the world that you can be killed for leaving a religion is a Muslim country? Its not a coincidence, its in their (*)(*)(*)(*)ing book it says directly over and over to kill apostates. Do you want me to find you the passages?


The Quran is like Mein Kampf, just because there are peaceful people who like those books does NOT mean those are peaceful books, correlation is not proof of causation that is a logical falacy. I think you are wrong but for the right reasons, unlike conservatives who are right for the wrong reasons, at least on this particular subject.

 

If you allow Islamic Theocrats to continue running the Middle East and brainwashing their populace its only going to make things worse further down the line, the sooner we stop this the better or else it will just keep spreading. Do you honestly believe if we just sat back and did absolutely nothing the problem would go away someday? I know you mean well but its wishful thinking. Tell me, do you know of the Treaty of Tripoli?

 

I'm not allowing anything; instead, I'm telling you that the problem can't be solved the way they are advocating. They simply don't understand the limitations of foreign policy, military strategy, and american power in general. The problem will take multiple generations to solve if not several centuries. Christianity has been on decline for nearly 700 years; however, it still has great influence in our political system. People just don't wake up one day and become "enlightened." They have to be exposed to diversity, education, and communication. A bomb will not bring them any closer to any of those.

Finally, it's not an enlightened argument. We can't champion the separation of church and state in America then use state power to crush religions elsewhere. There is great danger in that line of thinking.

 

Dont hesitate read about the life of Prophet Muhammad.

 

False dichotomy.

The only two options aren't to either ignore Islam or fight it.

 

Why shouldn't "even atheists" be divided? Did you think not believing in people's god claims represents some kind of shared belief system or hive mind?

 

The Separation of Church and State does not put church and state on equal terms, how will you enforce the separation of church and state without state power? Republicans are constantly trying to throw Christian law into the government and have already done so in many areas, how do you suppose we fight this without using state power? You think just talking about it will fix everything? Thats funny.

You think these people will let us educate them? They bomb schools if they are too "western", we have absolutely no choice to fight them like we had no choice but to fight the Nazi's. Do you think we could have won WWII with education and communication? No, that is what comes AFTER the war to keep the war from resurfacing, once the war is already in motion communication becomes essentially non-existent, thus eliminating the education aspect. Again, only after the war can we begin the education process as we did in Germany and Japan. Its a sad reality.

 

Wow, cant even read the title of the thread eh? Its about the division of liberals, not atheists lol.

 

False dichotomy. We arent saying we should JUST fight it, we should fight it and take a huge array of steps to educate the people and support the secular factions within the Middle East. You pretend all we want to do is bomb them all and be done with it, as you said, its a false dichotomy.

 

"Liberals" as you use it is too broad and undefined to be of any use, anyway. I have no way of knowing who you're actually talking about, especially when you go and lump the late great Christopher Hitchens under that label. He wasn't even American, FFS, but at this point the Faux News crowd seem to have broadened the word to include pretty much anyone who doesn't vote Republican.

 

A serious fallacy that the militant atheist argues with is of course that they are more rational than the religious. They are not as rational as they think they are. Saying "that's not rational" is merely another way of saying "I disagree with you."

People don’t make purely rational decisions based on careful analysis of cost and expected utility. People make decisions driven more by emotions than logical and conscious thinking. The parts of the brain that decipher rationality among the myriad of synaptic activity on the scale of billions of cells... are still new on an evolutionary time scale, and very limited in capacity. To give you an idea of the scope of the complexity of your brain...let's talk numbers.

On average we have 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses....

The militant atheist contends that given this level of activity...rationality is somehow always deciphered among all this flurry of activity we recognize as a thought.

They are of course wrong...human beings are irrational...including themselves, though they'd never own up to it...
However, this irrationality is predictable.

Let's talk Christopher Hitchens.

He was a heavy smoker and drinker and despite the "Science" behind the risks of these behaviors, he ignored it and continued in his ways resulting in his developing esophageal cancer which eventually took his life at a relative young age (62).

Is it rational to smoke cigarettes and drink heavily knowing the adverse risks these present to a person's health?
Of course it is not rational.

Christopher Hitchens was therefore equal to embracing irrationality in his behavior as someone who "irrationally" believes in a "made-up" religion and non-existent God.

Mr Hitchen's irrationality cost him his life in fact. Will it cost you your life to attend Church once a week and pray? I doubt that.

 

You're brilliant when arguing strawmen. The separation of church and state does not permit the government to use its power to crush religion in America.

You are trying to compare two very different situations as if they are the same. So you're looking for whatever you think might serve as evidence to support your already existing conclusion.

Germany and Japan were not backward nations. Germany, for example, did more to educate the USA than the other way around.