Religion
Related: About this forumNorwegian Muslims volunteer to protect synagogue
Norwegian Muslims volunteer to protect synagogue
After deadly attack at prayer site, activists intend to form a human ‘peace ring’ of protection after weekend services
By Stuart Winer February 18, 2015, 12:28 pm
In the wake of a deadly shooting attack at a synagogue in Denmark last week, a group of Norwegian Muslims intends to hold an anti-violence demonstration at an Oslo synagogue this coming weekend by forming a “peace ring” around the building.
“We think that after the terrorist attacks in Copenhagen, it is the perfect time for us Muslims to distance ourselves from the harassment of Jews that is happening,” Arshad told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation NRK in an interview cited by The Local News website on Tuesday.
She noted that the group aimed to “extinguish the prejudices people have against Jews and against Muslims.”
snip----------------
Arshad promoted the initiative as an event on Facebook, and by Wednesday morning over 630 people had indicated that they would attend.
“Islam is about protecting our brothers and sisters, regardless of which religion they belong to,” the event page explains. “Islam is about rising above hate and never sinking to the same level as the haters. Islam is about defending each other.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/norwegian-muslims-volunteer-to-protect-synagogue/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)Very happy to see this..
Edit to add link to story
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0218/Norwegian-Muslims-vow-to-protect-Oslo-synagogue
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)See it as inevitable, or highly likely that the dictates of their religion will inspire some of its practitioners to hate, intolerance and violence.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Muslims, Christians, and non-believers are all capable of horrible acts.
I mean, let's see... Joe Stalin? Mao Zedong?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that feelings about their religion can be exactly what fills some of those people with hate? "Hate-filled" people aren't born that way and don't just become that way in a vacuum. Something inspires the hate in every one. Is it impossible that religion is that something for some of them?
Do you have any evidence that Stalin specifically was inspired to horrible acts by his lack of belief in any higher power than himself? Like direct quotes from him?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)In fact, all leading religions promote peaceful coexistence despite the fact that some of their dated writings include very hateful passages.
The people who abuse the local religion to brainwash people to do their bidding are not really acting in good faith, they are evil to begin with.
Nobody suggested that Stalin's evil was inspired by his lack of belief in a higher power, so I don't feel inclined to do any research.
My point is simply that religious types don't have a monopoly on doing evil things to millions of people.
But, come to think of it, had they been provided with a healthy spiritual upbringing, maybe those millions would never have suffered.
On that we can agree.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Try again.
Do you completely dismiss the possibility that feelings about their religion can be exactly what fills some of those people with hate? Yes or no?
Something inspires the hate in every one. Is it impossible that religion is that something for some of them? Yes or no?
Do you have any evidence that Stalin specifically was inspired to horrible acts by his lack of belief in any higher power than himself? Like direct quotes from him? Apparently not a shred. Which leaves him in the class of birdwatchers, stamp collectors and opera lovers who have committed horrible acts.
And just to re-iterate, as stated in the OP, directly from the activists:
if anyone wants to commit violence in the name of Islam you will have to go through us Muslims first.” What they're doing is admirable, but they explicitly acknowledge that the reason for doing it is their clear recognition that SOME Muslims are being inspired to commit violence because of their religion.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Zo:
Do you completely dismiss the possibility that feelings about their religion can be exactly what fills some of those people with hate? Yes or no? Yes, they are doing it wrong and probably know it.
Something inspires the hate in every one. Is it impossible that religion is that something for some of them? Yes or no? Yes, impossible, they are hateful first and find religion later, or are indoctrinated by usurpers
Do you have any evidence that Stalin specifically was inspired to horrible acts by his lack of belief in any higher power than himself? Like direct quotes from him? Apparently not a shred. Which leaves him in the class of birdwatchers, stamp collectors and opera lovers who have committed horrible acts. You wrote: "Apparently even other Muslims see it as inevitable, or highly likely that the dictates of their religion will inspire some of its practitioners to hate, intolerance and violence." Inevitable? Highly Likely? Nah, I don't think so and my evocation of Stalin was just to make the counter case that religion isn't necessary for evil to occur and may, and probably does, prevent evil from happening more often than not.
And just to re-iterate, as stated in the OP, directly from the activists:
if anyone wants to commit violence in the name of Islam you will have to go through us Muslims first.” What they're doing is admirable, but they explicitly acknowledge that the reason for doing it is their clear recognition that SOME Muslims are being inspired to commit violence because of their religion. See the subject line of this reply.
If Stalin had been raised in a loving family with a benevolent spiritual base, maybe he'd not have been so ass-nasty.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)next.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If Stalin had been raised in a loving family with a benevolent spiritual base, maybe he'd not have been so ass-nasty.
I said nothing about the ability of people to change, I merely pointed out that the idiotic assertion about stalin was based on false assumption.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)His family could have been hateful bastards and the monks could have beat him daily so as not to "spoil the child". I don't know and you've shown no facts to say this is not what happened in is childhood.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)without any evidence that he wasn't. That's where the fucked-up reasoning lies.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)without any evidence that he was. That's where the fucked-up reasoning lies.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)it stated the known fact that he was raised orthodox Christian.
Next.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)He began attending Tiflis Spiritual Seminary in Tblisi when he was sixteen years old. We have it on good authority the Russian Orthodox Church served as the Romanov family's official PR firm in Imperial territories--a fact our friends here like to overlook whenever the topic of religion in the Soviet Union arises--and that the Russian priests who ran the seminary routinely pumped the student body full of pro-Russian and anti-Georgian rhetoric.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that your entire argument is just one steaming pile of No True Scotsman crap. For those interested in rationality, let's make it clear and simple:
How do you know? People who say they are Muslims are committing acts of violence and saying that it is because of the dictates of their faith.
Claim: Those aren't TRUE Muslims and what they're practicing isn't TRUE Islam.
How do you know it isn't TRUE Islam?
Claim: If it were TRUE Islam, it couldn't be inspiring people to violence, because TRUE Islam can never inspire people to violence.
In other words, transparently using your conclusion to try to prove itself. Dopey, circular, fallacious thinking, not worthy of being taken remotely seriously.
Of course,that's not even the full depth of the nonsense you're spouting. You also have this deluded notion that there is some pure, holy ORIGINAL version of Islam (or other religions) for these people and their religion to have been corrupted FROM, which is codswallop. It assumes (without any proof) that Islam and other religions are anything but entirely human inventions. If the original "pure" version is just a human invention, then it is no more legitimate as a religion than all of the "corrupted" versions which were other human inventions. Even if you don't want to call those other versions by the original Islam (r), that doesn't alter their legitimacy as alternative religions one bit, any more than the legitimacy of Lutheranism as a religion is called into question by someone calling it a "corrupted" version of Catholicism (which as we all know, since it tells us so, as you do, is the ONE TRUE CHURCH).
And if it's leaping to your mind to argue that a "legitimate" religion could never espouse hate and violence, don't waste your time. That's just more NTS bullshit. Nowhere in the definition of "religion" is it required that something can only espouse goodness and benevolence to qualify. Anyone with the least knowledge of religious history knows that many of the gods humans have worshipped through the centuries have been anything but good and benevolent. Maybe you WISH religion were that way, and maybe you think religion OUGHT to be that way, so that you can feel all fuzzy-wuzzy about it, but big, fragging hairy deal. That has just exactly zero to do with how religion IS, as real people practice it in their real lives in the real world.
Of course, even if the "pure" version of a religion was actually handed down from an actual omnipotent, goddish being, you have zero evidence that that version is what's being practiced in the 21st century (when most of us live). There is no way to know that the "original", "god-given" version wasn't much harsher, and that a few good-hearted humans softened it up a bit before passing it on, somewhere along the way. In either case, saying that some religious believers are "doing it wrong" is just bunk. There is no single, unquestionable, objective, original core of "it" that you can point to at the center of ANY religion for people to be doing "right" or "wrong", your wishes and wants to the contrary being, as noted, utterly irrelevant to actual religious practice and belief.
As far as people being "corrupted", sure they have. That's the point. The plain simple fact is that religion does a really fracking good job of manipulating and corrupting people. That's why it's such a shitty thing in so many situations. When you start selling people on unalterable, unquestionable dogma, when you start telling people that their orders come from an all-powerful being, it's easy for them to rationalize the most horrible shit imaginable, in ways that no other way of thinking can inspire.
I think we're done here. I'm going to leave you Bobbing in the water. Try to keep your socks dry!
stone space
(6,498 posts)...it's right there in the article.
These Muslims have already explained it to you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)before that article came out? Have all of those Muslims been wasting their time on the Five Pillars all these years? Have all those Muslims in all of those holy wars and jihads been "doing it wrong" before you came along to clue everyone in?
Yet again, the way YOU think Islam SHOULD be or wish it was is utterly, totally irrelevant.
stone space
(6,498 posts)That's my takeaway from this.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Everything would be hunky-dory. In your world, anyway...
stone space
(6,498 posts)How does their religious act of nonviolence hurt you in any way, shape, or form?
Why do they inspire such venom and anger?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I didn't. I said just the opposite. The "venom and anger" part about what they're doing is just you making shit up.
It's your obsession with bringing your gun crap into the religion group that inspires scorn.
stone space
(6,498 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Shoot me.
stone space
(6,498 posts)That's venom.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you might have a point. As it is, you're just slathering at the mouth, looking for anyone or anything to lash out at.
You need to stop sitting at your computer and clicking Refresh every 10 seconds and work on your reading comprehension before you make any more bogus accusations.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Would you?
okasha
(11,573 posts)ss's goalposts are so mobile he's had them motorized.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)the 'sarcasm' thingy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We know that there are people who will do violence in the name of religion.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that in some few, their atheism is at the root of hatred for religion and religious people. The lack of a "Big Book of Atheism" hand-waving is no.more than distraction.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's you redefining atheism to make a false comparison. It's an age old strategy. Atheism says nothing about hating believers.
Atheism not being a belief system is a HUGE difference, not a distraction.
The fact that the Abrahamic religions are belief systems, all of which are explicitly hateful, bigoted and violent in ther texts IS a big deal for followers of those religions. The most dishonest choose not to see that reality, the more dishonest may make the false comparison you do.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As a general rule atheists don't get violent in the name of atheism or an anti-religion kick but this case might be different.
The man was an anti-theist and it is possible he killed these people because of their religion.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)because of religion, but neither atheism or anti-theism are belief systems instructing him to do so. Whatever bigotry or ideology he followed that made him think killing others was OK is to blame. He said he was a liberal and supported gay rights, but neither says anything about killing religious people either.
The Abrahamic faiths, on the other hand, say a lot about killing unbelievers, and homosexuals at that, and lots of people. It's a false comparison.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)as if it is a belief system with religion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And it also says nothing about hating believers or killing them.
Anti-theism would have as much to do with this as his support for gay marriage. Or his claim of being a liberal.
If a supporter of gay marriage killed a homophobic bigot because of his stance on gay marriage, would gay marriage support be the root cause of the killing? That's what you're equating. And it's still a false comparison, even with anti-theism replacing atheism.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Even if he hated Islam as part of his anti-theism, he'd have to go one or two more isms to get to hating Muslims and wanting to kill them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Violence among non-believers against believers is very rare as far as I know. I think I remember only one incident from last year.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The basic premise of which is there is no god. From this position your world view is formed just as it is formed by the opposite position of there is a god forms another type of world view. These two opposing foundations allow someone to build the superstructure of their world view from this.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's not even a single belief, much less a system of beliefs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I choose to follow any religiously-inspired social morals/laws. That's it.
Everything outside that single question, the response of 'no' and disregard of all the shit religious people bolt onto their 'yes', forms nothing at all about the rest of my worldview. I had to construct that worldview by myself.
Try it, you might like it. It's like having all the source code yourself, rather than licensing a copy of windows from someone else who can't explain the entire package to you either.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I didn't redefine atheism. I didn't make a sweeping conclusion about all atheists. I didn't say hatred is the universal end product of atheism. I said that for some few atheists--the bigots among them-their atheism is indeed at the root of their hatred for religion and believers. And yes, the hand-waving about no common textual source of atheists'ethics/morals introduces an extraneous, false premise--that such a textual source is necessary for distorting simple lack of belief--and is indeed an attempt to distract.
The shortcomings of fundamentalist Abrahamic religions are irrelevant to any statement about atheism. Your remarks constitute nothing but further attempts to distract.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)a lack of belief, be at the root of hatred for believers? It's completely non-sensical, unless you redefine it.
If an atheist killed out of bigotry, then bigotry would be the root cause. Atheism doesn't condone bigotry. It doesn't condone anything.
okasha
(11,573 posts)You're still waving your hands.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)you claim atheism can be the root cause for hatred. That's a non-sensical claim, and you haven't explained it either. It isn't possible based on the definition of atheism. Atheism isn't a root cause of anything.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'm talking about how atheism interacts with various personalities, not how it applies to all. It's a range that's clearly demonstrated in posts to this group. Obviously you don't care to acknowledge that and continue hand-waving.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)it doesn't "interact" with personalities. What "interacts" with personalities is prejudice and bigotry, and if this was a hate crime, those would be the cause. Atheism says nothing about either. It doesn't condone or criticize bigotry. It's a lack of belief in a very specific claim. That's it.
Would you say support for gay marriage can be the cause for hatred? That seems non-sensical. It's a position on one issue.
Would you say liberalism can be the cause for hatred? That's a much vaguer term, and refers to a certain ideological preference, but even that doesn't make sense based on common definitions of liberalism. I'm sure conservatives would define it in such a way to say yes though. They have done so for support of gay marriage as well. It's a distortion of definitions and positions and even just non-sensical claims in order to pin the blame on something they disagree with.
okasha
(11,573 posts)you've got going.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The notion that atheism is somehow more simplistic that religion is silly.
Individual atheists may be simplistic, but that's also true of religious folks.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's simply the lack of belief in gods. Individual atheists will have very complex ideologies or beliefs, but atheism isn't either.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Of course, many view religion is a simplistic manner as well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's really that simple.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)religious ideas.
The point was that atheists share no common source, and no common ideals. You get 10 different atheists in a room, you can get 10 entirely different worldviews on the topic of violence.
Most (but not all) of the typical religions in the world today are steeped in violence deep in their (claimed) histories. Looking specifically at the Abrahamic traditions, there are entire chapters in the old testament full of god killing people himself, people killing people at god's behest for what they thought, and people killing people at god's behest due to the physical space they occupy. Their source material gives them rules on when it is or is not proper to kill someone. Surely you've seen different groups of Christians wrangling over whether the bible supports or detracts from even the idea of Capital Punishment by the state?
To some degree, there's a sharing of doctrine/ideals from adherents to various faiths. An atheist can be *anything* because everything beyond the question of 'is there a god' is fully disassociated from their lack of religion. One lends nothing to the other.
A secular humanist, on the other hand, is an atheist that may share a great number of ideals.
An anti-theist, perhaps shares some with other anti-theists as well. I wouldn't bet on being able to enumerate too many of them though.
okasha
(11,573 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's just an idea. A limiting one, too.
At most, it tells me where I DON'T get the rest of my worldview.
stone space
(6,498 posts)You can't really divorce atheism from the atheist. Atheism is a cultural phenomena, like anything else. And culture does indeed interact with personalities.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But it doesn't have to be. I've always been an atheist, and I didn't get it either transmitted to me, or cribbed it from society as an idea I could adopt. I simply have always been unimpressed by supernatural claims.
But I would agree it CAN be culturally transmitted. But it is not absolute, and there are plenty of atheists out there for whom their non-belief is not a conscious/meaningful part of the their cultural identity at all.
stone space
(6,498 posts)And my wife has also been a Catholic as long as she can remember. (In both cases, more than half a century.)
We are both pretty much just like you in that regard.
But, like you, we both exist within a culture, and our personalities interact with our atheism/Catholicism.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Probably a question for a different thread maybe.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...it is possible to be an atheist as far back as you and I can remember.
People are people. And they have many similar experiences.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you're 2 years old, and have no concept of god, you are by default, an atheist. (lacking belief.)
How does one teach a kid how to be a catholic or that they 'are' a catholic prior to the age they start remembering stuff anyway?
stone space
(6,498 posts)...Catholics are just as human as atheists, and have many of the same experiences as we do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When I say I've always been an atheist, it requires no conscious adoption on my part. When I was 2, I was an atheist because I didn't know anything about a god. I hadn't made a conscious decision to identify as an atheist, I simply was. If you don't believe, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter if you don't believe because you didn't know there was anything there to believe in.
How does one adopt a faith at an age before they can remember anything?
stone space
(6,498 posts)...as your experiences and my experiences.
I'm not sure why you find that so hard to believe.
It all part of the human experience.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Before one can adopt an idea and invest belief/faith in it, one must experience it to even be aware of it, yes?
How likely is it, that this experience of Catholicism is the VERY FIRST experience ever, that a child could remember?
That seems a strange order of operations.
Or are you suggesting that children who are catholic are born with an innate knowledge and adoption of the catholic faith?
That would be an interesting claim.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...when you relate your own personal experiences, you seem surprised to learn that others have had similar personal experiences.
Usually people are surprised when others have different life experiences than they have had, not when they have similar experiences.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)they would remember a time BEFORE they actively adopted a faith.
I remember a time going back before I was aware of, and rejected the idea of faith.
If a person were to claim they ALWAYS had faith, going back to birth, that would not be a shared experience.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember.
You remember a time when you made a conscious decision to become an atheist.
Our experiences are indeed different.
My wife's experience is more parallel to my own experience than to yours.
I have known Catholics who have also made a conscious decision to become Catholic, for whatever that is worth, so your experiences are still not really unique to atheism.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You remember a time when you made a conscious decision to become an atheist.
I remember a time before I was aware of the concept of atheism, OR gods, and had not yet chosen between because I was fully unaware of either choice.
Once I became aware of a choice, I made it. Prior to making that choice, I was an atheist without knowing it, because theism requires belief, and I had none. A-theism, without belief. I was without theistic belief before I knew there was a theism/non-theism to choose from.
Were you always aware, as far back as you can remember, that other people had religious belief (exposure to the idea) and that you were by choice, an atheist because you rejected their expressions of faith?
I remember a time before I could even read or write, and that's about when I became aware of other people believing in religious stuff like, angels and whatnot. Once aware of it, I always rejected it as nonsense.
Essentially, I was always an atheist, because that is the default position before you even know that there is anything to *be*. Again, atheism is a lack of belief. Belief is a positive, overt, adoption of faith in... something or somethings..
pinto
(106,886 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Those that want to continue to voice hateful rhetoric and build walls instead of bridges will get what they deserve.
In the meantime, I'm with these people. Together we are unbeatable. Build bridges not walls. Leave the ones that don't want to cross behind.
Nice to see you back. Hope you have been well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.
You must have forgot during your 'absence'.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Unfortunately their interpretation is just as valid as the monsters who lop off heads.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...interpretation of atheism.
But they are most certainly not equally valid.
That's not a statement of fact.
That's a value judgment, and a value judgment that empowers and elevates those who choose the path of violence, and which promotes hate over love.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)There is no "interpretation" of atheism. If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist.
And yes, it IS a statement of fact I made. It's true for any revealed religion - you cannot prove that someone didn't get direct divine communication from the god to clarify or even change any piece of recorded information about the religion. That's how those religions started - if you declare divine revelation null and void, along with it goes the entire religion.
Good luck with your crusade. You seem to have alienated pretty much everyone by now though. No wonder you found yourself on a vacation.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...your attempts to promote and legitimize murderous ideologies as being somehow "equally valid" to nonviolent ideologies.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Nice to see your tactics haven't changed. I'm sure you will be duly rewarded once again.
stone space
(6,498 posts)This is a reflection of your own personal value judgment, and most certainly does not correspond to my own atheist values.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Saying that the interpretations are just as valid (which they are) is not the same as saying the ideologies are equally valid (which they are not).
You lose. Again.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I value non-violence.
You find violence and non-violence equally valid.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But continue in your crusade.
stone space
(6,498 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Saying that the interpretations are just as valid (which they are) is not the same as saying the ideologies are equally valid (which they are not)."
Want to shut me up? Prove that the extremist interpretations are wrong. Go ahead.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Attempting to shut off atheist criticism of Gods and Idolatry is your specialty.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218182449#post19
Some Gods are beyond criticism, I guess.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You are so funny!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's a value that you, an atheist, might ALSO hold, but atheism and non-violence have zippity-do-dah to do with each other.
stone space
(6,498 posts)This nonsense about atheists lacking moral values is a myth.
Of course we have morals values, just like religious folks.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, we have morals and values.
But they don't come FROM ATHEISM.
The only input Atheism has on our morals and values, is a disqualification of readily-available sets of morals and values created by religion.
Atheism doesn't tell me I shouldn't steal someone's stuff, or kill them, etc. My morals and values came from other places. Wholly unrelated to a belief or non-belief in god.
[ey-thee-ist]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Theists get some set of rules/values/laws from their religious doctrine/commandments, etc. Atheism provides none. You can borrow from others, you can crib them from secular sources, or you can create your own. But that doesn't make them ATHEIST VALUES.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,319 posts)and it's not about trotsky's personal value judgements either.
You are claiming that you get to say whether the entire world's religious beliefs are valid or not, and also that anyone who says that religious people get to decide that their own beliefs are valid are making a 'personal value judgement'.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The may not be the alpha and the omega, but they are certainly of use.
Just like these folks' Islamic values are of use.
It's the lens through which I view the world.
If my atheist values are not of use, then my atheism is an impoverished atheism indeed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,319 posts)You are not in charge of the world's religions.
stone space
(6,498 posts)It's a part of being human.
We all bring our values to the table, and we use those values for purposes of discernment.
Because atheists are human, atheist values matter, too.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Everyone got that? Ice cream is now a fundamental tenet of Islam. My discernment has spoken.
Now will one of you clowns please pass me the fucking gummi bears?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)To represent this conversation.
