It's a given that stuff like this would happen. Look at 9/11 and how any person wearing a piece of cloth on their noggin was instantly called a Muslim

Funny. The person who was arguing with me about Canada's laws blamed Obama.

Back then right after

that happened, some right wing Christian assholes murdered a Sikh mistaking him for a Muslim.

And shortly after 9/11 I ran into a Muslim woman in full dress. Holy fuck was she scared when I walked up to her. I merely told here that sane people do not blame all Muslims. 

NOW again, the cries of hypocracy by my "DETRACTORS" is going to pop up. 

There is a huge difference between hating all religious people, and hating the fact that humans of all religions fail to see it as divisive and also fail to see it as the mere gap filling placebo it is in reality.

Penn put it best "Don't hate the faithful, hate faith itself"..........Meaning the blind acceptance it is without questiong/.

Translation, "I will use buzz words and fake philosophy to sound correct"

Just admit you don't like my tactics. 

"Religion is poison" is not an indcictment of human rights. It is a statement of fact. It allows humans to set up divisions and hide behind them in order to avoid chritisism. It is no diffrent than saying "Yes that volcano is dormant now, but it is still a volcano".

And the fact you focus on my arguments instead of the violent fucks who murdered in the name of a god over a cartoon is proving my point. Thank you for giving them cover.

and why shouldn't vastet "focus on your arguments"? you made a shitty argument, the latest of many. should we all forget about that because something terrible has happened?


oh, and just what is "fake philosophy"? i find it laughable you would challenge the authenticity of anyone's "philosophy." obviously you know nothing about philosophy or you would realize what an asinine term "fake philosophy" is.

So Sunnis don't kill Shiites, Muslims don't kill Christians, Christians don't shoot abortion doctors? Protestents never killed Catholics. White Christians never killed blacks or gays? All that is in my head. 

You are an idiot. You have no clue how much of a part of the problem you are.

Religion will ALWAYS divide humans, and unless you face that you will not manage that reality to a better degree. Political correctness is bullshit and does nothing but lend cover to the worst in ALL religions. 

Religion will happen, but religion itself must always be treated as dangerous, not to get rid of peaceful people, it must be treated as dangerous to protect everyone, including peaceful people. The peaceful people of all religions still use the same books as those who are violent and use those same books. That is the failure of moderates and liberals and that is what allows violence to arise. 

Your schoolyard "don't be a bully" crap does not wash. You enable the violent bullies of all religions with your stupid argument. I can smell Ben Aflack's ass on your lips.

 Brian is dead on though, throwing little homemade grenades at empty buildings is NOT the way to handle it. They didn't even manage to kill a single rag head. 

Some things, America is just better at. 

Just flood your country with a many immigrants as you can. Got to keep those population pressures as high as possible then be shocked when conflicts and violence breaks out. As the USA goes the way of France:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010815-733901-america-ushers-in-islamic-immigrants-while-france-pulls-up-welcome-mat.htm

Religion is just diversion from the real problem.

Here is how I see it: 

God is a creation of the mind of Man.

The belief in a God allows the believer to justify any act which can be interpreted as endorsed by their personal interpretation of whatever text they believe is the 'word' of that god, regardless of errors of logic or fact that that interpretation may contain. So it is a very flimsy basis for such beliefs and any implied morality. We see one consequence of this in the many conflicts between different groups of religious believers around the world. The nastiest aspect of this is how it allows the believers to wrap any accepted traditions and customs within their particular culture in the authority of religion, with little or no serious justification.

Since religions do not rely on rigorous demonstration of the truth of their claims, but typically use what in a general scientific or philosophical context would be called 'special pleading', their 'arguments' start from the naked assumption of the truth of their central doctrines, such as the existence of their particular deity, so literally 'anything goes', whether people outside the tradition would regard it as good or evil. This is why Christopher Hitchens called Religion 'poison' - anything from the extremes of good or evil can be incorporated into a religion, logic and reason and evidence can be utterly ignored if it suits the believer.

Once the doctrines have been passed on a few times, the actual thinking which led to the doctrines is soon forgotten, and they are seen as ultimately originating in the religion itself, endorsed by whatever spritual or divine authority is regarded as the ultimate grounds of the belief system.

last i heard, he doesn't, and of course that's everyone's fault but his.

Are you saying it does not apply because they they do not specifically have a belief in a god figure? 

Because as long as they have some text they regard as 'holy' (or equivalent), or some figure whose words are venerated, what I said still pretty much applies, AFAICS. 

I would be genuinely interested in a discussion on this.

The 'Prophet Muhammed' is really just a cultural and ethic symbol. I doubt these "believers" really new much about the Koran or what they believed and why the "believed" it. They felt they were part of a persecuted minority group with little economic prospects or political power.

The same thing could happen in the USA to someone that went around burning the flag(assination by ultra-patriots). Would you then say patriotism is poison?

Religion(and ultra-patriotism) is just a response to the real problem(population pressures), but not a root cause.

fair enough, but when we play the blame religion game here it often ends up something like "6 degrees of kevin bacon," e.g. (hypothetically) a group of marathi-speaking hindus in a certain area of mumbai kill several urdu-speaking muslims because they heard that the muslims are trying to enforce the speaking of urdu at primary schools in that area, which hindu students also attend. this is exacerbated by the known fact that urdu-speaking merchants dominate at the local market, and will invariably charge someone more if they hear him speaking marathi. the guns used to kill these muslims were provided by the rashtriya swayamsevak sangh, a well known indian nationalist organization which also takes a certain synthetic form of "hinduism" (what india scholar romila thapar would call "syndicatd hinduism") as part of its criteria for what constitutes a true indian. where does the fault for the violence lie? linguistic differences, economic underhandedness, the idea of cultural purity, the ideology of nationalism, or religion? my point is, religion is such a pervasive phenomenon, of course it's going to be incidentally connected to almost everything.