When Muslims by Muslims outgoing aggression - military or other nature - could be criticized, you get to hear often: "Yes, but atheists have fought wars and violence perpetrated". This pseudo-argument makes me sick. For two reasons: First,
would be subordinate to the correctness of the statement to the debate contributed nothing. Because one can not be set off with the other. If I accuse person A, physically abused a man to have, it helps the accused not if his counsel points out, he knew a person B, which also have once beaten a man. Because the two situations have absolutely no relation to each other and not relative to each other.
But secondly - and this is my key point - the statement is false. Because with her is actually meant that because atheists and atheism in the name of wars and violence have done wrong. But it has to my knowledge in human history at any time. It is true that, for example, the Stalinist Russia waged war and suppresses its own people and has destroyed. And since the ruling class themselves as 'Marxist-Leninist' understood, it was probably mostly with their families to atheists. But Russia never held an atheist war against theistic enemies, to say: either you cease to believe in, or we will destroy you! Rather was the motto: either you take our political ideology, or we will destroy you! On the other hand, practicing and practicing religious groups but aggression in the name of their religion against believers of other religions and non-believers off.
therefore expected by Muslims often-heard phrase: "Yes, but also atheists have led war and violence perpetrated!" like the famous bread example, which you could read variously in the discussion of killer games "before he committed the massacre, he has eaten bread - any bread eaters are therefore potential mass murderers."
would be subordinate to the correctness of the statement to the debate contributed nothing. Because one can not be set off with the other. If I accuse person A, physically abused a man to have, it helps the accused not if his counsel points out, he knew a person B, which also have once beaten a man. Because the two situations have absolutely no relation to each other and not relative to each other.
But secondly - and this is my key point - the statement is false. Because with her is actually meant that because atheists and atheism in the name of wars and violence have done wrong. But it has to my knowledge in human history at any time. It is true that, for example, the Stalinist Russia waged war and suppresses its own people and has destroyed. And since the ruling class themselves as 'Marxist-Leninist' understood, it was probably mostly with their families to atheists. But Russia never held an atheist war against theistic enemies, to say: either you cease to believe in, or we will destroy you! Rather was the motto: either you take our political ideology, or we will destroy you! On the other hand, practicing and practicing religious groups but aggression in the name of their religion against believers of other religions and non-believers off.
therefore expected by Muslims often-heard phrase: "Yes, but also atheists have led war and violence perpetrated!" like the famous bread example, which you could read variously in the discussion of killer games "before he committed the massacre, he has eaten bread - any bread eaters are therefore potential mass murderers."
0 comments:
Post a Comment