Church Arson

[Koravin]

Arson a*****e. It's very bad on all fronts. We get blamed, they lose their church, it all sucks. This sort of behavior is most unjustified.  

[AnonymouZ]

Tenth Speed Writer

"Just a church"?

You need to open your mind just a bit, I think. There's nothing I could relate it to for you, apparently. Imagine a place you treasured as much as your own home being burned by a Christian trying to "purge the world of a worthless cancer."

You think yourself better than them, Anon, but you're just the flip side of the coin to those you hate. You close your mind to why they do what they do, how they live and what they believe, and rely on your own assumptions and generalizations, barely any of them actually learned first hand. You refuse to believe there are wise people, good hearted people, anyone with a working mind among them. You refuse to accept that sense and faith in a higher power are not mutually exclusive. Instead, you childishly turn against anyone who professes anything close to belief in a higher power, calling them weak, calling them foolish.

And, just to let it be known, it was an attempt at personal change that eventually failed. My reasons for doing so are my own. Call me gutless if you will, though, but let me remind you, that it takes far more strength to put aside pride and arrogance than it has ever taken to hate someone blindly.

Ah, but you are taking the point a bit further than i did. I never said, GO BURN CHURCHES, CUZ IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THAT DISGUSTING AND CORRUPT IDEA OF RELIGION!, because if i did, i would've done it just like that. I also haven't claimed that it was an atheist move by ANYBODY. Get that through your heads kiddies. I was just saying, (because i apparently have to spell it out for you guys) "Arson? yeah, why not. As long as no one gets injured, i don't care, it's just a church! " Yes, it might have bad repercussions on the "good" atheists, but i can guarantee you that it was just a disturbed, retarded CHRISTIAN kid. So, if we are ALREADY going to be blamed for it, I SAY: GO ARSON!

THEN i proceeded to criticize atheist movements that lack the balls to act on ANY action, other than "cute, lovely DEBATES." And online debates at that.

Also, i have said before that i don't claim to be better than them. Yes, i feel arrogant, because even someone as ******** stupid as "I" am KNOWS there's no ******** GODS. So, if I know the idea of gods is dumb, and i am not that smart, the people that believe in them, no matter how much higher their IQ, are ******** RETARDS to me. This i've said before in other threads. So it's nothing new.

It may help to understand all this if i say i am an ANTI-SOCIAL almost in every extent of the word. So, if i already DESPISE society... why the ******** should i care if i help or hurt anybody's cause? That's right, no reason at all to care if you're an anarchist-antisocial freak like me.

However, i do realize there's good heartened people in churches. I just call them ******** hypocrites for not believing ALL of their ridiculously retarded book. If they can go by on life thinking that their god-idea has only ONE facet, and that it's the lovely one, then, please, no matter how good, get them the ******** out of my sight.

So there you have it. I don't think i am better than ANY believer. Well, except maybe for those who are unemployed or at a distinctly lower level of "happiness" below me (christian emos? roflcopter). I don't believe they ALL have low IQ's and lead a life with grunts and yells all the time, nor do i hate THEM specifically. They're just the easier of targets, and i'm not that strong to look past my vile slanderous ways. twisted  

[AnonymouZ]

Lethkhar

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

But doesn't that just prove to them that religion is necessary for morality?

No, violence is never the proper route. We have to show compassion for people, or we're no better than them.

It would prove there's still crazy people out there. But... who are we kidding here? Are you telling me that christians don't do arson?

The majority of Christians don't do arson. Why should the majority of atheists do arson?

I never said it was an atheist that did it, nor that atheists should. I said, if we're gonna be blamed for an action where we had nothing to do, it is MY opinion to just say... (and now i'm getting bored of writing it out) GO ARSON...!

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

Violence is not the answer? I bet many of you were all excited when "V" finally blew up the parliament.

Actually, I was really dissapointed by that movie...I could have been so much better...

Hahaha, forgot the "t" after the "I"! But yes. I agree. He didn't have to die in the end... and they also could've shown a bit more of his background other than him just being on a prison some time ago.

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

Violence, in the right setting and context can bring awesome amounts of change in a determined location. And if used or enhanced properly, it can change a whole lot of people beyond this determined location. Look at ANY countries fight for independence. Look at their revolutions. Civil wars and FIGHTS (literal ones too) for rights and recognition all finally started to pick up or gather more strength when violence was used.

You know, you're right. I mean, just look at Rwanda, Burundi, Guatemala, Colombia, and Nicaragua! See how stable and prosperous their countries are? And all because of a little violence. rolleyes

As you might notice. I foresaw some argument like this, which is why i didn't say "GOOD CHANGES." Since, it's up to the population to stop them or be stopped, but the fact of the matter is still the same. Thousands and thousands of hutus dead is still "proof" that violence CAN bring awesome amounts of change. The argument is good for both sides. If you believe in "good" and "evil" that is.

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

"What about Gandhi" you say. "He gained a whole lot of people's independence with a PEACEFUL movement!" And to that i say. Was it sustainable? Is something like that truly achievable, AGAIN?

Why ever not?

Oh, by all means, let's have another one. I'd probably be one of those in the front line too since i am a bit of a masochist myself, so i wouldn't mind a few bruises or broken bones. But you forget to remember that India wasn't supposed to spawn Pakistan in it's birth, or you may be forgetting about Gandhi's untimely death. ALL the movements have to start, or FINISH with violence. Luther King and Gandhi serve as proof.

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

With media that gets more ratings by telling lies, or distorting the reports; with a government bolder than before that COULD just take you out of the picture by putting you in a prison who knows where, or might as well kill you; with all this in mind, WHO THE ******** IS WILLING TO BE A MARTYR? For ANY cause now? Those that are doing it right now, would we EVER find out about their actions? With censored news, and a government that is already against this... i think not.

I think you should read 1984. There's an interesting theory concerning martyrs in a censored press.

Dude, i saw the movie... and it ******** OWNED. Still, are you saying that i am only fantasizing about wasted efforts of people being killed in the name of justice/peace/equality? That their movement and deaths ARE going to reach global acknowledgment, other than a cry of help from Amnesty International using their examples to ask for money?

AnonymouZ

Lethkhar

Violence gets attention. The age of idealistic, peaceful movements came and went. Either that, or current leaders have NO balls, since they already know how that ends up. ALWAYS.

John F. Kennedy - Assassinated (murdered, depending your point of view)

Martin Luther King - Assasinated

Gandhi - Shot (murdered)

Vernon Jordan - shot and critically wounded (civil rights leader)

Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall, James Miller. - Run over by army bulldozer, shot while taking a kid away from gunfire, and murdered(?) (respectively)

Zilla Huma Usman - murdered (for not wearing a veil)

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun

Yet I'm sure most of those people, looking back at it, would be ok with that. I'd be willing to be a peaceful martyr for the right cause.

If you don't think a peaceful movement would catch people's attention, what makes you think a violent one will? And better yet, even if it gets attention, what makes you think everyone else will support a violent movement?

Ah, but now... you seem to fail in grasping the concept. It doesn't HAVE to be everyone else, but the right amount of people in the right time.

Just look at all the coverage we get of angry muslims throwing stones at people or Embassies. And look at all the coverage you got when 500,000 people mobilized in protests against the war, or about the same number when people protested for rights, even tho they were illegal.
Did it take more than one day on the news? Not unless you were watching Univision, because otherwise, those days came and went and "few" people even found out or cared about joining either. Neither one had violence on it, so the little coverage they got is "bunch of people gather to make a point, what point? oh we can't say it on the air, cuz then people would find out about the "problem" and we don't need that, since they wouldn't be watching tv, as much as they would join them"

And glad to know you'd be a martyr too. However, can you think of ANY cause worth it* now?

Heh heh. I thought so.

*your life  

[AnonymouZ]

Napoleon_Danneskjold

AnonymouZ

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun

What makes you think wholesale slaughter of everyone who disagrees with you is radical? I'd call that conservative, considering it's the norm through most of history.

Properly aimed force, in the name not of making primitive noises and expressing how much you dislike the other person, but of actually pursuing one's own interests, well, that's radical, i.e. hasn't happened much before biggrin

Because i quit looking out for the benefit of society a few years ago. If i do anything, anywhere, NOW, it's only going to be because it benefits/pleases ME, directly or indirectly. : |  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

AnonymouZ

Napoleon_Danneskjold

AnonymouZ

*edit* damn you danneskjold... now it seems like i copied your ideas! Still... mine seem to be a bit more "radical" so i'm just gonna leave mine as is too... domokun

What makes you think wholesale slaughter of everyone who disagrees with you is radical? I'd call that conservative, considering it's the norm through most of history.

Properly aimed force, in the name not of making primitive noises and expressing how much you dislike the other person, but of actually pursuing one's own interests, well, that's radical, i.e. hasn't happened much before biggrin

Because i quit looking out for the benefit of society a few years ago. If i do anything, anywhere, NOW, it's only going to be because it benefits/pleases ME, directly or indirectly. : |

Wolves broken from the pack rarely survive, you know. With as many bridges as you burn, I wish you luck.  

[AnonymouZ]

Buddy, what makes you think i am OUTside the pack. If i ever burn any metaphorical bridges, i'm not gonna lock myself out. Everything i do is to benefit ME, how would THAT help me...? twisted twisted


It's called anti-social disorder dude. Psychology 101 if i remember correctly. Altho... it may be that psychopath thing... either way, it's not good for anyone... but me. wink  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

AnonymouZ

Buddy, what makes you think i am OUTside the pack. If i ever burn any metaphorical bridges, i'm not gonna lock myself out. Everything i do is to benefit ME, how would THAT help me...? twisted twisted


It's called anti-social disorder dude. Psychology 101 if i remember correctly. Altho... it may be that psychopath thing... either way, it's not good for anyone... but me. wink

Well, I'll kindly ask your anti-social self to think through your actions a bit. I'll forgive you since, as you point out, you're mentally unable to comprehend why destroying someone's property and justifying it with your own loathing of them is so awful, but please keep your distance from the threads I post in this vain, or it seems we'll having quite a bit of conflict.  

[Koravin]

AnonymouZ

Buddy, what makes you think i am OUTside the pack. If i ever burn any metaphorical bridges, i'm not gonna lock myself out. Everything i do is to benefit ME, how would THAT help me...? twisted twisted


It's called anti-social disorder dude. Psychology 101 if i remember correctly. Altho... it may be that psychopath thing... either way, it's not good for anyone... but me. wink

Do you take medication? You probably should. Are you psychotic? Have you been actually diagnosed? I have a psychotic friend. Meds really help her.  

[AnonymouZ]

Tenth Speed Writer

AnonymouZ

Buddy, what makes you think i am OUTside the pack. If i ever burn any metaphorical bridges, i'm not gonna lock myself out. Everything i do is to benefit ME, how would THAT help me...? twisted twisted


It's called anti-social disorder dude. Psychology 101 if i remember correctly. Altho... it may be that psychopath thing... either way, it's not good for anyone... but me. wink

Well, I'll kindly ask your anti-social self to think through your actions a bit. I'll forgive you since, as you point out, you're mentally unable to comprehend why destroying someone's property and justifying it with your own loathing of them is so awful, but please keep your distance from the threads I post in this vain, or it seems we'll having quite a bit of conflict.

Awww, but you still ignored my arguments, where i clearly explain i'm not justifying anything. Are you *gasp* discriminating me because of my illness?

Can you look beyond the point that i made fun of your hypocrite ways for a while? Good to know you're atheist again. Maybe this time you'll get it. On the other hand, i wasn't JUST trying to flame you, you know. wink  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

You forget that the rest of the guild has done that for me.  

[AnonymouZ]

You're right, i think i'll just have to go home and cry myself to sleep then. crying Since, you know... there's people that don't agree with my point of view, which should be taken seriously... because i'm ... you know... on the INTERNET. And if people don't agree with me it's because they hate me, and just want to flame me... boo hoo! crying  

[Cirosan]

It's interesting to see the sides of this argument.

I'm fairly certain that everyone in here, with their innate distaste for religion, had a small, primal voice in the crevices of their brain cry out, "Yeah! Church burned down! Score!" before the voice of reason chimed in.

That is human nature, is it not? That one small feeling that can never quite be quelled, where the light of common sense and the greater good cannot shine. Nay, we all have the desires of anarchy, that primal feeling of every-man-for-himself driving us.

We must never allow ourselves to backtrack to that point. The voice of reason, the drive that allows us to care about people other than us (and by extension institutions that we are not a part of), is all that separates us from animals.

To burn down a church solves nothing. To build a church solves nothing. Perhaps one day we'll learn what to burn down and what to build to solve something. Until then, it's purely trial and error.

I can understand why the suspect burned down a church. It was certainly not right, but I can see their side of the story.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

Agreed.. That little burning light of human depravity is something we'll not eradicate in our lifetimes; likely, not even in the life of our current civilization.

Overcoming his depravity and the ability to see systems both as a whole and for their parts. Those are the next two required steps in the evolutionary path for Homo Sapiens.  

[AnonymouZ]

Tenth Speed Writer

Agreed.. That little burning light of human depravity is something we'll not eradicate in our lifetimes; likely, not even in the life of our current civilization.

Overcoming his depravity and the ability to see systems both as a whole and for their parts. Those are the next two required steps in the evolutionary path for Homo Sapiens.

Well, this one kinda dropped like a bomb. If you had said those steps would "sure be nice to happen", i wouldn't have flinched when i read it, but to say they are "REQUIRED"? It makes me think you're just as closed minded as I am. Or that you have this god-complex where you think you know how to fix the problems of the world, if only it was up to you to fix them. But then again, we all have that complex, don't we? twisted  

[AnonymouZ]

Cirosan

We must never allow ourselves to backtrack to that point. The voice of reason, the drive that allows us to care about people other than us (and by extension institutions that we are not a part of), is all that separates us from animals.

I agree with your other arguments, (which, some people refuse to understand) except for that last small one.

We are not Humans, or Homo sapiens, because we have learned how to respect or care for other people. We are what we are, because of what we did. And in between caring for people, we have robbed them, killed them, ruled over them, used them in wars, killed them in masses, and deceived them. We've also destroyed their history, mystified their gods, demonized their ways, and separated them by colors, or their heritage; lately, their music trends or sexual orientation serve as a "point of reference" too.

If there was only care and love in this world, it would not be functional one. At all. And you all know it, you just can't help but to keep idealizing reality.