/atheism/ - Atheism

That was brilliant

>>10747

So will atheists support throwing the muslims out of Britain?

before you freak out.. consider what the muslims would do to atheists if they become the majority and win political power..

Britain should stay British.

>>10766

I'd remove everyone who values faith over reason, politeness over truth, etc off the earth if I was given the ability to do so.

>>10766

Only those who commit a crime, and that's the vast majority. I've supported this from the beginning.

>>10771

Send the SJWs with them if they love them so much. Isn't this type of thing considered treason or did we just sort of do away with that law?

>>10766

Throw the trouble-making ones out and make it so that you can't pass laws with respect to religion.

>>10778

What percent of muzzies actually commit violent crime?

>>10785

>and make it so that you can't pass laws with respect to religion.

The only way that would be possible is making and ensuring religious are a minority. Otherwise they can always rewrite the books if they have the numbers on their side.

>>10785

>What percent of muzzies actually commit violent crime?

If I had to guess, I'd say 40%

>>10766

Should Britain stay British? I think it's the right of the British people to decide.

Being an American I'm not sure how qualified I am to speak on Britishness. I'd like, for selfish reasons, for Britain to remain unique. I don't necessarily have a stake in Britain. But if the people who live there want it to be cosmopolitan then my opinion doesn't really matter.

More to the topic though. I'd say keeping violent muslim criminals is a mistake. This wouldn't be an issue except for the fact that they're muslim. Which is horrendously stupid.

>>10802

>Should Britain stay British?

I'm not British, but I hope they leave the EU for this reason. I also hoped the Scottish referendum to create a new country.

I'm for diversity, and prefer smaller countries, because they have more identity. I also think decentralization allows better self-government, and creates more peace and liberty. Centralization just creates corruption.

>>10803

I'm English and my position on Scottish independence was a friendly "if they want it, let them have it."

Unfortunately, I don't think it would ever have made much of a difference. The televised debates about it made it very clear that whoever wins, you're still going to be ruled by politicians who are unwilling to ever give a straight answer to any question.

>>10771

>>10802

It might be less impossible to deport violent Muslims that aren't British citizens.

What about the ones that did jump through the hoops to become legally recognized as British citizens? Apparently shipping them to Australia isn't as much of an option as it used to be, not least of all because they've got their own troubles with boatloads of Malaysians.

>>11170

Well people can yell whatever they want from a street corner.

>>11172

This

my kids'll know better than to listen to cranks. The only people who are concerned about said scenario are shitty parents that want society to raise their kids for them.

>>11170

Yeah and I will teach my children evidence-based thinking so they will be able to spot your bullshit and call you out.

>>11218

If we live in a society with freedom of speech, we can rip apart Islamist positions for the inane bullshit it is. If they get violent, then we retaliate likewise.

>>11218

I can understand that sometimes you don't like the short-term results of people saying things you don't like.

The rest of us with impulse control, however, will accept the long-term benefits of a system that makes it easier to correct falsehoods no matter where they spring up.

>>11218

>t.

That's a great universal indicator of cancer right there.

>freeze peach

Are you a feminist or a natsoc? Its getting hard to tell.

>>11224

Maybe Atheists need to encourage Christians to read the Coran. So they can make their own arguments to inoculate their kids against Islam. (Any deconversion that comes from reading it is a side benefit.)

>>11224

>freedom of expression is only acceptable when people agree with me

Are you sure you're not a Muslim?

>>11218

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan where you can be arrested as an apostate and put on trial with an option of the death penalty?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/04/four-lessons-afghanistans-apostasy-trial

And this the government the Americans are supporting as an alternative to the Taliban.

>>11231

Well I haven't declared the shahadah brah, so no

>>11231

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan which ended 14 years prior to the writing of that article you linked. The one which caved as a secular government, permitted free elections, was forced to become an officially Islamic country due to the new parties able to affect policy, and showed the Taliban mujahideen and the people they terrorized that full-blown shariah law was an idea whose time was coming.

That Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

The First Amendment of the Constitution is colloquially described as "freedom of speech," but it actually refers to

freedom of any expression that is politically significant, such as freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of religious expression.

According to some thinkers, scientific expression such as genetic engineering cannot be restricted by the government because it essentially represents the converse of religious expression: the expression of a lack of religion.

As early as 1979, James R. Ferguson wrote in the Cornell Law Review that all scientific inquiry should be protected under the First Amendment:

"Any restriction on areas of scientific research will effectively suppress the data and ideas that would otherwise result if the research proceeded without legal constraint," he wrote. "Accordingly, if scientists are precluded from pursuing lines of investigation, they are restrained in their ability to engage in free expression."

Instead, the government wields its power in other ways, like cutting off federal funding, and the scientific community has placed a moratorium on itself in order to avoid deleterious effects in future generations. And there is a chance that the government could justify prohibiting human genome editing by citing real physical dangers, but it seems that any ideological arguments will be difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment.

https://archive.is/49Ppl

Science fighting for "freedom of religion" for those "free of religion" ?