Bad semantics. It's not even equivalent, nevermind more ridiculous. In any case, I only wanted to argue about the fact that atheists are not a group, not this semantic bullshit about whether people ever killed in the name of god.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
In reply to this comment by budzos:
Buddy, if your point is "people have differences which are the cause of conflict", then you have no point at all. My point is simply that atheists don't exist as a group in the same way that people of common religious affiliations exist as groups. Therefore, atheists have never ganged up and killed en masse in the name of atheism.

Yeah, Christians were persecuted by Romans. Last I checked, the ancient Romans were not atheists.

My point is that calling religion the cause of historical conflicts and atrocities is as ridiculous as blaming atheism. The real world is extremely complicated and explaining disasters like genocide as being done "in the name of God" is more ridiculous than talking about atheists as a group.

Buddy, if your point is "people have differences which are the cause of conflict", then you have no point at all. My point is simply that atheists don't exist as a group in the same way that people of common religious affiliations exist as groups. Therefore, atheists have never ganged up and killed en masse in the name of atheism.

Yeah, Christians were persecuted by Romans. Last I checked, the ancient Romans were not atheists.

Get it through your head. Atheists are not a group any more than people who dislike peanut butter are a group. That's why they are "insignificant." There is no "they" there.

Like Dawkins says, everyone is an atheist, it's just Christians have a hard time when people take it one god further.

Yeah, I don't count that. You completely miss my point that atheists are not a group. Nobody's for atheism in the way that christians are for christianity. It's like saying all people who don't believe in Santa Claus are some kind of collective group you can refer to.

Yeah, but that's not what I said. I don't claim atheists are unique or special. They are not even a group except for their common disbelief in a supreme being. What I said is atheists have never gotten together and killed in the name of their no-god, as opposed to christians, muslims, jews, et al throughout history, who have used their god as a reason to kill people.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^budzos:
"Communist atheists have killed a lot of people."
I don't care how measured the rest of the comment is. To even repeat something like this is so fucking retarded I just want to scream "FUCK YOU RETARD" at you (yes you Ryjkyj). Nobody was ever killed in the name of atheism. You may as well say "air-breathing communisists have killed a lot of people" and then try and say there is some connection between breathing air and being immoral.



You are part of the problem. History doesn't specifically show that any given religious belief system or lack there of leads to war or genocide. It shows that fanatical intolerance of other people's beliefs, or lack there of, almost inevitably does. Claims that people following any particular belief(or lack there of) are immune to repeating such atrocities is repeatedly shown to create fanatical intolerance. The moment you start saying your belief system, or lack there of, is completely unique and no adherents of it could possibly repeat the atrocities of history, you're part of the problem.

bcglorf:

Fade once called me a "lefty wingnut" in a PM because I don't have the same desire he does to spend my time fellating Hugo Chavez. Of course, he didn't realize that his purported insult was oxymoronic. I suppose he might've meant "moonbat," but since he seems to be farther to the left than most on the site (including me), that wouldn't have made sense either.

I share this to make the point that Fade is, for all intents and purposes, quantumushroom's alter ego. The only difference is that he's less coherent (I know. Who could believe it was possible?). As such, he isn't to be taken seriously. I just wanted to let you know since you're a probie, and I'd hate to see you waste anymore time on him or the vitriol he spews.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Either the man is genius or they aren't really out to get him.


Or maybe Pakistan has nukes and it's border region with Afghanistan is mostly run by Islamic extremists who love him. Then perhaps the US and Britain simply aren't willing to destabilize a nuclear power just to get one man, which seems the most plausible explanation, no?


I know the whole story.
...
Bcglorf if what I am posting is misinformation please go to wikipedia and change it to your "correct" information.


I never said your information was incorrect, I just stated that presenting an incomplete picture and out of context is misinformation. And I stand by that.

Can you explain why Massoud was killed 2 days before 9/11? It seems to me the only sane explanation is that he knew something. Earlier that year he had been stating the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda, and a major attack was coming.

More to the point, can you explain what more evidence the Taliban wants than the fact that Al-Qaeda assassinated Massoud 2 days before 9-11? You plainly posted how the Taliban was being oh-so reasonable about wanting to hand over Bin Laden if only there were some evidence. Leaving Massoud's assassination out of your post shows either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking the Taliban wasn't certain Al-Qaeda was responsible for both attacks.