I think I understand now...

[Cu Chulainn]

Look! Evidence Dawkins is just as militant as religious zealots!

Spoiler :

Oh wait...

 

[civ_king]

The difference between the pictures is that the first one is of soldiers who signed up to lawfully defend their country and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with zealotry, the second one is terrorists and the third one is Dawkins arguing for nothing

 

[NovaKart]

The soldiers, one kind of has a lewd look on his face and the other has a vacant not really there expression.

 

[Cashie]

Those aren't bibles or Qur'ans, they're copies of The Secret.

 

[Flying Pig]

The difference between the pictures is that the first one is of soldiers who signed up to lawfully defend their country and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with zealotry, the second one is terrorists and the third one is Dawkins arguing for nothing

More to the point, there have been a large number of very nasty terrorists who are not motivated by religion - in the case of communist ones, the exact opposite. Religion makes some people into terrorists, but can't be helf accountable for them all

 

[kiwitt]

RE: Terrorists.

Terrorist's are simply criminals and should be treated as such. The argument that they are "freedom-fighters", doesn't hold water as they kill innocent civilian's. Just because the Allies also kill civilian's is not justification and those who do should be made accountable and punished for their crimes as well. Otherwise more terrorists would simply be motivated to act against civilians as well.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

The difference between the pictures is that the first one is of soldiers who signed up to lawfully defend their country and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with zealotry, the second one is terrorists and the third one is Dawkins arguing for nothing

There is a disturbing similarity between the first two pictures but, yes, the second is obviously more threatening. The purpose is to point out the hypocrisy of people calling atheists "militant" for merely having the audacity to speak their beliefs in public without any type of violence or promotion thereof.

More to the point, there have been a large number of very nasty terrorists who are not motivated by religion - in the case of communist ones, the exact opposite. Religion makes some people into terrorists, but can't be helf accountable for them all

You can't use atheism to justify terrorism or any other form of violence. There's just no way to get from is to ought. No step 2 to complete

1. There are no gods.
2. ???
3. Therefore (violent action) is permissible.

 

[NovaKart]

For communist terrorists their god is their ideology.

 

[Dachs]

You can't use atheism to justify terrorism or any other form of violence. There's just no way to get from is to ought. No step 2 to complete

1. There are no gods.
2. ???
3. Therefore (violent action) is permissible.

1. There are one or more gods.
2. ???
3. Therefore (violent action) is permissible.



Now, if we actually had a sensible discussion about the Terror, that might help.

 

[Flying Pig]

You can't use atheism to justify terrorism or any other form of violence. There's just no way to get from is to ought. No step 2 to complete

1. There are no gods.
2. ???
3. Therefore (violent action) is permissible.

I think they view it as 'we need to liberate the masses from the slavery of religion, so we'll attack religious buildings'. So yes, you can

 

[Cu Chulainn]

1. There are one or more gods.
2. ???
3. Therefore (violent action) is permissible.



Now, if we actually had a sensible discussion about the Terror, that might help.

Indeed, deism doesn't lead to violence either.

I think they view it as 'we need to liberate the masses from the slavery of religion, so we'll attack religious buildings'. So yes, you can

No. You've inserted another premise, "religion is slavery" thus making the argument:

Violence to free people from slavery is justified and religion is slavery, thus violence against religion is justified. Atheism doesn't enter into it.

 

[Flying Pig]

No. You've inserted another premise, "religion is slavery" thus making the argument:

Violence to free people from slavery is justified and religion is slavery, thus violence against religion is justified. Atheism doesn't enter into it.

Agh. Can I state the bloody obvious here? Communist terrorists don't think in the most rational, logical way, and yes they do insert that extra premise. And so, yes, Atheism does enter into it; if you think there's a god then freeing people from religion is misguided.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Agh. Can I state the bloody obvious here? Communist terrorists don't think in the most rational, logical way, and yes they do insert that extra premise. And so, yes, Atheism does enter into it; if you think there's a god then freeing people from religion is misguided.

Allow me to amend my previous statement so that the obvious assumption made therein is stated: There is no logical way to justify violence using atheism. Logical arguments require at least two premises and atheism has only one premise, thus there is no logical way to justify ANYTHING using just atheism.

 

[BuckyRea]

The soldiers, one kind of has a lewd look on his face and the other has a vacant not really there expression.

Do you mean to say "One of them is smiling and the other isn't ready to pose for the camera yet, but I disagree with whatever I assume their philosophy to be based on whatever they're holding in that photograph."

Cause, honestly, we don't know anything about them except that they're Christians and in the military. To assume anything else vis a vis lewdness or mental vacancy is simply emotional projection.

 

[NovaKart]

It's more of an attempt to be humorous. I'm probably one of the less anti-Christian people on this forum who is not a practicing Christian. Honestly though, I stand by my interpretation of the photo. It does look pretty goofy.

 

[Millman]

The solution: Getting people to abide by their own values and not taking the law into their own hands. Unless it saves a life in an immediate danger?

Using your values for defensive productive values not antagonisitic destructive values. (List of all physical destruction possible.)

Without a list, anything but the one you personally believe.