use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
This subreddit is archived and no longer accepting submissions.
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. reddit learns what you like as you vote on existing links or submit your own!
As an atheist, this is my only 9-11 takeaway. A classic repost that is more appropriate today than ever. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 11 months ago by papasconqueso
[–]ChaosBeast 12 points13 points14 points 11 months ago
American foriegn policy was really the catalyst on that one, not religion. And if people didnt fight over religion, it'd be over vegetarianism, skin color, or hairstyles. Instead, imagine no war.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 months ago
American foriegn policy was really the catalyst on that one, not religion.
[citation needed]
And if people didnt fight over religion, it'd be over vegetarianism, skin color, or hairstyles.
It's not a tenant of the vegetarian 'belief system' to kill people for transgressions. Etc.
Western religions promote and approve of violence and other injustices. It's right there in their fucking books.
[–]jarofclay 9 points10 points11 points 11 months ago
Citation needed. Religious violence comes from extremist Dogma and is not justified by normative religious texts and scholars. Jesus was straight up. Don't kill. It can't be more clear than this.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 months ago*
Jesus was straight up. Don't kill. It can't be more clear than this.
It's cleary so vague as to be useless.
EDIT: "Don't kill" doesn't address self-defense, euthanasia, abortion, nonhuman animals, or war. It doesn't differentiate between murder, manslaughter, medical malpractice and an accident. We have to develop ethical laws about all of that ourselves, in our courts, in our science, in our philosophy.
The Bible does not give us valuable or special moral direction in regard to killing. However, the Bible does frequently advocate killing.
[–]Bluelegs 2 points3 points4 points 11 months ago
It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with human psychology. Yes governments use religion as a way to approve of their wars and violent actions. But if they didn't have religion they would have nationalism. Look at every government who has tried to eradicate religion, China, Russia, and France namely. All of them used nationalism as a way to incite loyalty from their citizens. Clannish thought is inherent in human psychology. Religion is just a way of exploiting that.
[–]ChaosBeast -1 points0 points1 point 11 months ago
Citation #1) The reason there is a great deal of anti-American sentiment in the middle-east is America has constantly been fucking with their shit at least as far back as the Iranian revolution when we had their democratically elected leader killed and we installed the Shah. 9-11 was retaliation for interventionist US policy in our dealings with the middle-east.
Citation 2) People fight over anything they have an excuse to fight over. If you are not aware of this, I wonder if you live in a cave. Under a rock. With your fingers jammed firmly in your ears and your eyes tightly shut against the scaaaaary world outside.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue 3 points4 points5 points 11 months ago
#1 -- And religion has nothing to do with it? Are you suggesting that religion and politics never mix?
#2 -- [citation still needed]
You post a taunt instead of making an argument or giving evidence. Way to go, shitforbrains.
[–]ChaosBeast -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 months ago
Religion has a lot less to do with it than American interventionist foriegn policy. And are you really ignorant to the fact that groups of people have been attempting to dominate/murder other groups of people since time out of mind? A village will attack another village for any of an infinite number of reasons. It's a predator instinct/"who's number one" thing. Is that better, lil guy? are your feelings all better? I mean, people literally shoot & stab & beat each other over the annual 49ers/Raiders game where I live.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue 1 point2 points3 points 11 months ago
You tried to support this:
By saying this:
People fight over anything they have an excuse to fight over.
However, the second point doesn't support the first point. Religion gives people an 'excuse' to fight. It's right in there. Vegetarianism, skin color, etc, do not include 'excuses' to fight.
If you think people fight when given excuses, and yet you don't support fighting, why do you support the excuses?
[–]ChaosBeast 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
People fight when they disagree over any topic, lil guy. Especially in groups. Now get outta here, I hear your mama callin'.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue -2 points-1 points0 points 11 months ago*
I'm not sure if it helps, but I'm female. I look like this. You would probably enjoy sleeping with me, however I wouldn't even choose to be within fifty feet of you. Because you don't differentiate between a fight (the wrong way to resolve a dispute) and an argument (the right way to resolve a dispute), I have reason to suspect that being near you would threaten my physical safety. Further, you've come off here as an all-around disgusting person.
Well...here's the thing. I calledyou "lil guy" because you debate like a dim-witted teenager. I don't suffer fools, nor would I want to sleep with you, for you are not what I would refer to as a "looker". Go eat a sammich and fix those hollow cheeks and maybe we'll review whether or not I would like for you to play with my pants pastrami.
[–]Chicken-n-Waffles -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 months ago
American foreign policy was really the catalyst on that one, not religion.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
Religion and foreign policy were both catalysts. We don't have to choose one or the other.
[–]dfh1979 7 points8 points9 points 11 months ago
As an atheist, your only takeaway from the irreversible (at least, according to your belief system) death of thousands is the smug assurance that, if everyone thought like you, things would be alright? Your logic is callous and short-sighted at best. The attacks on 9/11 were perpetrated by people who use a mixture of Islamic fundamentalism and anti-imperialism as the bases for their Anti-Americanism. The center of this controversy is the state of Israel, which narrow-minded people love to view as a strictly religious conflict, ignoring the centuries of peaceful coexistence of the big three Western religions in Palestine. Israel was created by an international treaty which formally recognized the state as belonging to a non-local ethnic group. This already ruffled feathers, but the fact that Israel is expansionist and not too shy about using violence to achieve their means made matters worse. Attention was brought on the US because of its die-hard support of the Israeli state, through direct aid, weapons, technology, etc. The US doesn't support Israel because they're a country founded on the tenets of Judaism, or even because they're not Islamic, but because they've been a strong, steady government willing to help us gain access to the valuable resources in the Middle East. It is definitely true that for some of the people involved, this is a matter which is couched in religion. But to think that with no religion these problems would have never arisen is to ignore that on a greater level, this amounts to people of different ethnicities trying to act as independent sovereigns. This shit is pre-historical, pre-religious. Don't attach your know-it-all over-simplified bullshit to it.
[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points 11 months ago
If you think religion had anything to do with 9-11 you are a complete fucking idiot.
[–]Shatophiliac 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
The presence of religion is a tiny little factor in the wars of the world. It's more about resources and differences in culture and communication. If I could have one nickel for every time I've had a civilian Atheist tell me they could win the war because they don't have religion, I'd be a fucking millionaire.
[–]Canebrake24782 -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 months ago
But America was founded because people wanted religious freedom, so they wouldn't be there if we didn't have Religion anyways.
And also you're an Asshole.
[–]sim713 -1 points0 points1 point 11 months ago
I see the cross reference
[–][deleted] 11 months ago
[deleted]
[–]bosh-head 3 points4 points5 points 11 months ago
What does this have to do with the message in this image?
[–]rockytimber -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 months ago
Oil.
[–]bosh-head 6 points7 points8 points 11 months ago
And vinegar. What?
[–]rockytimber 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
There is a war between the people of the middle east and the west. It is over self-determination, strategic geography, and oil, a scarce resource. Naturally as usual, all the "isms" and "ologys" come into play, because it just is not popular to mug someone "just" for their oil. It is legitimate to mug "them" for being Islamic fundamentalists, or subhuman inferior anything. It is also a lie. Those Saudis and Egyptians credited with 9/11 were middle class, educated, and far from strict followers of any religion. People never learn about the ways of war, people keep falling for the same old lies and name calling. Even the new atheists fall for the trap. Even the Osamas evoke "isms" to carry out their attacks. But underneath the words, it is always the battle for power (self-determination), scarce resources, and strategic geography. Either the Osamas get the goods or we do, and both sides are ready, willing, and able to kill for it. And to put the killing on steroids, you pull out the "isms" that will be most effective to motivate your side.
[–]Commisar -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 months ago
this belongs in fucking r/atheism, and no not all terrorism is religious in nature, there have been plenty of non-religious terrorists, look at the Red Brigade in Italy
[–]bosh-head 2 points3 points4 points 11 months ago
and no not all terrorism is religious in nature
The image didn't claim that all terrorism was religious. What are you trying to rebut?
[–]papasconqueso[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 months ago
To post this in r/atheism would be to preach to the choir. Yeah sure there have been plenty of non-religious terrorist attacks but if there was no religion or religious hatred we would have the twin towers still.
[–]taozero -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 months ago
That is a very simplistic notion.
[–]0rangeTag -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 months ago
An evangelical atheist is every bit as irritating as an evangelical christian.
[–]pizza_bro 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
Well, maybe. Except he's actually right.
[–]taozero -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 months ago
And even less tolerant.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue 4 points5 points6 points 11 months ago
Tolerating bullshit is a virtue now?
No, tolerating another viewpoint or perspective.
Sometimes, other viewpoints and perspectives are demonstrably wrong. Tolerating them is cowardly and lazy. It does everyone a disservice.
[–]0rangeTag -1 points0 points1 point 11 months ago
It's a good thing we have people like you to lead the rest of us. You and you alone are capable of telling us what is right and what is demonstrably wrong.
Wow, thanks! I've been told that before, but I'm reluctant to agree.
Yes, but I not defending such propositions. In the context here the OP is lumping extreme fanaticism as representative of any and all religious faith.
When confronted with the atrocities and mass murders of those without religious conviction the absence of rebuttal is cowardly and lazy. Lazy is appropriate for the whole argument presented here. It is just simple minded atheistic demagoguery.
If you accept the premise that the 9/11 was evil, one must be prepared to define what is good and where the foundation of that standard arises from.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue 1 point2 points3 points 11 months ago*
Yes, but I not defending such propositions.
WTF? In this thread you criticized atheists who speak out against religion as 'intolerant' as though it's a bad thing. I responded to that. Now you change the subject and pretend I missed the point?
In the context here the OP is lumping extreme fanaticism as representative of any and all religious faith.
First, I doubt it. Second, so the fuck what? I'm not the OP. What are you complaining to me for?
You know, on second thought, I'll play. Extreme fanaticism is representative of religious faith. Where faith is less extreme and less fanatical, this doesn't come from the religion, it comes from secularism. Secularism forces religion, which is naturally fanatical and violent, into moderate territory.
When confronted with the atrocities and mass murders of those without religious conviction the absence of rebuttal is cowardly and lazy.
Your point has been refuted many, many, many times. Closing your eyes and covering your ears, and then claiming that a rebuttal is absent is cowardly and lazy. Watch this and read this, for starters.
BTW, there's really no such thing as 'atheist evangelism.' The label is used by religious people who desperately want atheism to look like a religion. It isn't a religion, and it's not evangelistic. Some people just tell the fucking truth.
[–]pizza_bro 1 point2 points3 points 11 months ago
Great response.
there's really no such thing as 'atheist evangelism.'
When someone tells you "Let me tell you about my beliefs" the conversation is about to get annoying.
You can argue the semantics, parse the word 'evangelical', but anyone who has a personality that's all about their core beliefs is, in general, pretty abrasive.
[–]taozero -2 points-1 points0 points 11 months ago
In this thread you criticized atheists who speak out against religion as 'intolerant' as though it's a bad thing.
Your response was "Sometimes, other viewpoints and perspectives are demonstrably wrong." Where is you argument?
Who here is taking the authoritarian intolerant view?
You continue on now with the cowardly attempt to flee the weak premise of the OP by not only accusing me of 'changing the subject' but also by dismissing the OP's obvious motive
First, I doubt it.
You* doubt it?* Just look at the post? No distinction is made to the undisputed fact that this was the act of radical Islamic fanatics. Not Christians, Buddhists or those of other religions.
Second, so the fuck what? I'm not the OP. What are you complaining to me for?
This thread is based on the OP and it's corollary comments spring forth from it. Be that as it may your initial foray into this was:
Again you have once again presented your authoritarian stance and hence your intolerance
Your references smack of high school level debate league nonsense. My point was both Stalin and Mao (Note I do not reference Hitler) established regimes embracing the supremacy of the state and the nullification of a God.
I leave you again with the crux of the argument. If you accept atheism as truth and thus good (hence religion as evil) by what standard do you base this standard of good on? Did Stalin and Mao, both atheists, miss one of your meetings? Perhaps they had a different standard.
BTW, there's really no such thing as 'atheist evangelism.'
That's fine, those are not my words anyway. You can not logically evangelize a void unless you embrace nihilism as your creed.
Some people just tell the fucking truth.
Really, and who defines this truth? You? Mao? Stalin? Nietzsche? At least he (Nietzsche) had the balls to follow his thought to it's ultimate end.
[–]Commisar -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 months ago
not necessarily, and please put this in r/atheism
[–]papasconqueso[S] 7 points8 points9 points 11 months ago
I know Reddit has a subreddit for damn near everything, but until every damn cat picture in r/pics goes in the r/cats subreddit I can put this wherever I wish.
[–]Funkystain 2 points3 points4 points 11 months ago
He has a point about cats...
[–]Haillo -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 months ago
The 9/11 attacks had as much political motivation as they did religious motivation. You're a naive fool for thinking that without religion the attacks wouldn't have happened. It isn't "religious" hatred - it is simply hatred. Hatred because of political difference, religious beliefs, moral differences... The list goes on. Without religion hatred would still persist to exist and there would be still be attacks.
The 9/11 attacks had as much political motivation as they did religious motivation.
What political motivations? And before you mention some, please be sure to check that those so-called political motivations don't have a religious cause.
We know from Osama's own words, and the words of the hijackers (who wrote letters ahead of time), that they had specifically religious motivations for doing these attacks. And we know they were under a religious delusion that they'd be enjoying paradise for their actions.
There are people who really do believe their religious doctrines. They believe in them as strongly as you believe that you're sitting in a chair right now. Really. Those people exist. Start taking them seriously.
[–]Haillo -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 months ago
Sanctions against Iraq and our presence in Saudi Arabia are two political reasons for the planning and execution of the September 11th attacks. Were these motives necessarily the ones the actual hijackers had? Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know. What I do know is the hijackers are the only group of people papasconqueso seems to be focused on. The hijackers, however, aren't the only ones who are responsible for the planning and execution of the attack. So could it be that there were individuals with purely religious motivation? Of course, and there were. However, there were also people who had political motivation to help make these attacks possible.
Of course there are people who believe their religious doctrine, just as there are people who believe in their political doctrine as well. My point was both played a factor in the September 11th attacks, and both are equally as dangerous. People will always believe in something be it government or God. So to say that without religion the world would be some vastly difference place of peace and tranquility is naive. It wouldn't be.
[–]bosh-head 1 point2 points3 points 11 months ago
our presence in Saudi Arabia are two political reasons
No, that's a religious reason. Osama considers Saudi Arabia to be holy land, and he thought it was defiled by the infidels presence there. He's a bigot. You know who didn't have a problem with our presence in Saudi Arabia? THE SAUDIS. So why is that even a legitimate grievance?
Were these motives necessarily the ones the actual hijackers had? Maybe, maybe not.
You don't get to play that game, they wrote letters.
So to say that without religion the world would be some vastly difference place of peace and tranquility is naive. It wouldn't be.
Without religion the world would be vastly different. Who is claiming that it would be only peace and tranquility? No one is claiming that. That is your strawman. Knock it off.
[–]Haillo 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
I like how you completely skipped over the sanctions against Iraq which are completely political and are in no way religiously based and was a motivational factor by Al Qaeda's own admission. Furthermore, why not our support for Israel, a highly sensitive issue for the entire world whose very existence is both controversial for political and religious reasons. Trying to separate the two in the mess is practically impossible.
Okay. Whoop-de-doo. They wrote letters which makes it explicitly clear that they had religious reasons for carrying through with the attacks. I never once denied it. I really don't know. I never read the damn letters. And not once did I deny or try to claim religion in no way played a part in this. It has been made clear that I take the position both politics and religion played a role in the 9/11 attacks. No games being played here. I can't help it if you and Fido up there like chasing your tails.
Yes. Religion played a role in 9/11. As did politics. The two are intertwined throughout our government and governments throughout the world. That was all I said in my initial post as well as what I have continued to defend from then on. You and Fido are so obsessed with the fact that religion played its part that the two of you can't quit harping on it.
[–]bosh-head 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
Furthermore, why not our support for Israel, a highly sensitive issue for the entire world whose very existence is both controversial for political and religious reasons. Trying to separate the two in the mess is practically impossible.
That's clearly a religious issue. Both sides believe they have a god-given right to the land, and that's why it's been so irresolvable. In addition, many Christians here in the US believe that Israel must occupy that land in order for Jesus to return.
They wrote letters which makes it explicitly clear that they had religious reasons for carrying through with the attacks.
Yup, they did.
It has been made clear that I take the position both politics and religion played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
But the religion influences the politics...
You and Fido are so obsessed with the fact that religion played its part that the two of you can't quit harping on it.
Well, because politics is always going to be necessary. But religion isn't necessary.
See, here is where we will fundamentally disagree. I believe that extremism of all kinds, not just religion, is dangerous. And while I will concede that religion most often influence politics (though that is not always the case) I do not believe we would have fewer wars, destruction or chaos than we currently have should religion cease to exist. I believe that these qualities are flaws of man, not religion itself, and that these flaws inherently corrupt and destroy everything. Corruption is prominent throughout the world in both government and God. Should God cease to exist then government becomes the sole source of it all and it would be just as nasty as what we have now.
Do you think it would be easier for us all to live together on this world if we believed as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible -- or do you think something else? Maybe it's better for us to believe as many false things as possible?
Would it be good for us to believe as many mutually exclusive false things as possible? Such as some of us thinking that the land of Israel belongs to the Muslims? And others of us thinking that it belongs to the Jews? And that god wanted it that way?
Would beliefs like that be conducive to peace?
So to say that without religion the world would be some vastly difference place of peace and tranquility is naive.
No one is saying that. The common claim is that the world would be better without religion. When people say 'better,' they don't mean 'perfect.'
[–]papasconqueso[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 months ago
So 19 Muslims hijackers killed themselves for political gain? It wasn't for a religious reason? REALLY? I am the naive fool?
[–]Haillo -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 months ago
I take the naive fool comment back. You're just a straight up dumbass.
I never said there was no religious motivation involved in the attacks. In fact I said the exact opposite. What I did say is that religion wasn't the sole motivational factor in the attacks. Politics, or rather our own policies and actions in the Middle East, played as much a part in motivating the attacks as religion did. You just pick and choose which parts you want to acknowledge and ignore the rest rather than looking at the whole picture. Did it with my post and doing it with 9/11.
[–]papasconqueso[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 months ago
"as much political motivation as they did religious motivation." that is just not true. Now your qualifier is that OUR OWN politics in the middle east played a contributing role. I AGREE. This is not, however, what you originally said. But on the part of the hijackers, that was a religious motivation almost 100%.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue -2 points-1 points0 points 11 months ago
this belongs in fucking r/atheism,
It's a picture. It's posted in r/pics. Who the fuck do you think you are?
[–]Commisar 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
someone who reads the submission rules asshole
[–]SCHelmick -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 months ago
Thanks for pushing your agenda through a national tragedy. How very um ...dogmatic?... of you. Are you sure you're not religious? You have the tactics down...
If the agenda is to speak out against a main cause of the tragedy... what's the problem?
[–]papasconqueso[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 months ago
Former Christian, learned the tactics from the best. Old habits die hard what can I say? That is my fault I need to look inside to work on fixing.
[–]taozero -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 months ago
Stalin, Mao. Been there done dat.
[–]Navi_to_the_rescue 4 points5 points6 points 11 months ago*
Been there, done that, seven billion mother fucking times, and for some reason, smug assholes like you refuse to even try to listen to the rebuttals.
[–]taozero -1 points0 points1 point 11 months ago
Quite the articulate name caller - I would have thought you could rise above ad hominem attacks and present an argument.
Well, what can one expect from an atheist where really any behavior can come safely into play.
I would have thought you could rise above ad hominem attacks and present an argument.
Adding an ad hominem after presenting a smug asshole with evidence makes it all so much sweeter. Imagine bitchslapping a creationist with Dawkins's 'The Greatest Show on Earth' rather than just handing it to him. It feels like that.
The argument is what you'll find if you click the link in my comment, you smug asshole.
[–]taozero -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 months ago*
I repeat. Answer my question.
By what moral basis does an atheist define good or evil? I honestly do not know what your creed is - please elaborate.
I can take insults all day and sleep like a baby but have some balls and defend your position or walk on.
In your words - not some chick on youtube.
Wrong thread, dude. That conversation is this way.
I linked to Criss because I agree with her. Using my own words would have been inefficient.
[–]taozero 0 points1 point2 points 11 months ago
Then let's do go back then. I am interested in what an atheist's moral code is and from where it comes from.
That is very much a misnomer. Atheism has no moral code, and neither do I. Different people look at morality differently. I am much more concerned with ethics than with morality. But I do not represent other atheists.
Fair enough. What are your ethics and who has defined them for you?
[–]taozero -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 months ago
You atheists just hate hearing that, don't you?
[–]Hypersapien 4 points5 points6 points 11 months ago
They were cults of personality, which is just a religion sans the supernatural claims.
[–]taozero -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 months ago
I'll take the unanswered down votes as a yes.
An atheist rejects religion for reason, critical thinking, and the ability to be their own autonomous thinking person. At least in my case...Stalin and Mao did not have movements based on reason, critical thinking and autonomy of the individual did they? Nope. So no, saying the irreligious Stalin and Mao represent atheists is ludicrous. They were just as bent on unfounded megalomaniac ideology as a religious leader, and they demanded the kind of fear and devotion out of their subjects any demagogue or religious figure demands. They do not by any means represent the reason based atheist that those of r/atheism represent.
Please expose on your source for the moral standard of good that sets the atheistic agenda.
You cite reason, critical thinking and the authority of the 'autonomous thinking person'. I claim to have such tools what is my creed then or did I miss the meeting?
A basic simpleton could imagine numerous scenarios that would fit all those precepts and yet commit unspeakable horror.
Wait, no need really. History is wrought with it.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]ChaosBeast 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]dfh1979 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Shatophiliac 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Canebrake24782 -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]sim713 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]bosh-head 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]rockytimber -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]bosh-head 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]rockytimber 0 points1 point2 points ago