[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I’ve met and know(n) many Muslims and none of them were violent. The fanatics are getting all the attention and giving the rest of them a bad name, which they definitely don’t appreciate. Nor do they appreciate being grouped in with them (the fanatics) by all the ignorant people who think they’re the same.[/quote]
Their history proves that they are a religion of violence. [/quote]
We could say the same of christians…[/quote]
right, because at their founding they were so violent and seeking to take over the world from the lions . . . and the gladiators, and they chose to burn themselves up as “lighting” for the emporer’s parties, and . . . do you even know history at all?
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I’ve met and know(n) many Muslims and none of them were violent. The fanatics are getting all the attention and giving the rest of them a bad name, which they definitely don’t appreciate. Nor do they appreciate being grouped in with them (the fanatics) by all the ignorant people who think they’re the same.[/quote]
Their history proves that they are a religion of violence. [/quote]
We could say the same of christians…[/quote]
I couldn’t see that coming from a mile away…Care to discuss the violence based on atheism say…over just the last one hundred years?
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I’ve met and know(n) many Muslims and none of them were violent. The fanatics are getting all the attention and giving the rest of them a bad name, which they definitely don’t appreciate. Nor do they appreciate being grouped in with them (the fanatics) by all the ignorant people who think they’re the same.[/quote]
Their history proves that they are a religion of violence. [/quote]
We could say the same of christians…[/quote]
Cite actual historical events to back up this claim.
You may cite:
The Crusades initiated by the Pope. Very limited overall violence when totaled up and compared relatively.
The Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors. Although they carried a religious banner their true motivation was greed - money and power - not advancing a religious cause. The Catholic missionaries, Jesuits, etc. that followed them did not convert at the point of the sword ala Mohammed and successors.
So Joey, have at it. Convince us the violent, conquering history of Christianity exists.[/quote]
We could also name the inquisition or the French war of religion. By the way I didn’t say a violent conquering history but a violent history. Now I do not think that christianity is a violent religion. My point is that the fact that some people commit violence in the name of a religion doesn’t prove the said religion is a violent religion.
[quote]joebassin wrote:No it’s not limited to religion.
The definition is: An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group’s distinctiveness.[/quote]A direct cut n paste from Wikipedia, I checked. Think for yourself man.
[quote]joebassin wrote:Concerning the rest of your questions they are good questions :)[/quote]No… they are not good questions. They are idiotic questions that shouldn’t have to be asked.
There is nothing wrong with discriminating against a group of people for their beliefs. I discriminate against the KKK, I guess I’m just racist.
Defining it that way make it devoid of any meaning.
You are essentially arguing against making any moral judgments about anything because it’s racist against people who do or believe that thing.
Example: I hate nazis. Well, nazis by your definition are an ethnic group. Hating them is therefore racist.
Or, I hate cake. Now I’m racist against the society of cake eaters.
You’re argument is so dumb, I’m feeling stupid for even stooping to address it.[/quote]
Racism : the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races; discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
Your are racist if you have discriminatory or abusive behavior not if you hate them.
Hating some people doesn’t mean you will automatically have discriminatory or abusive behavior toward them.
By the way a cake is an object not an ethnic group… And it’s not my argument it’s the definition, I did not invented it. Why don’t you guys just try to find the definition for yourself. Since you seem unable to do so let me once again post this link : http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:ethnic+group&sa=X&ei=vyopTLdZgf3wBvP55YUB&ved=0CBMQkAE
And I will add this one for the pleasure of my friend pushharder (see article 1) :
[quote]joebassin wrote:
…By the way I didn’t say a violent conquering history but a violent history… [/quote]
But that’s the context of this thread - conquering and converting at the point of the sword.
One religion is founded on it and has always practiced it. The other was not founded on nor does it thrive on it.[/quote]
I have no problem with you hating Islam or hating whatever you want to hate. Having discriminatory or abusive behavior toward muslim is not right. They are not all violent people who want to convert the world.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
I have no problem with you hating Islam or hating whatever you want to hate. Having discriminatory or abusive behavior toward muslim is not right. They are not all violent people who want to convert the world. [/quote]
[quote]joebassin wrote:
I have no problem with you hating Islam or hating whatever you want to hate. Having discriminatory or abusive behavior toward muslim is not right. They are not all violent people who want to convert the world. [/quote]
Muslims aren’t a “people”.[/quote]
Merci beaucoup pour cette utile intervention mon cher. Mais ca jlavais deja compris.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
I’ve met and know(n) many Muslims and none of them were violent. The fanatics are getting all the attention and giving the rest of them a bad name, which they definitely don’t appreciate. Nor do they appreciate being grouped in with them (the fanatics) by all the ignorant people who think they’re the same.[/quote]
Their history proves that they are a religion of violence. [/quote]
We could say the same of christians…[/quote]
Cite actual historical events to back up this claim.
You may cite:
The Crusades initiated by the Pope. Very limited overall violence when totaled up and compared relatively.
The Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors. Although they carried a religious banner their true motivation was greed - money and power - not advancing a religious cause. The Catholic missionaries, Jesuits, etc. that followed them did not convert at the point of the sword ala Mohammed and successors.
So Joey, have at it. Convince us the violent, conquering history of Christianity exists.[/quote]
Surely you don’t believe the violence of historical Christianity is summed up in these two examples. What of the North Irish Troubles? What of the Spanish Inquisition? What of the midieval persecution of the Templars? What of Constantine’s landmark conversion at the battle of Milvian Bridge? Joan of Arc’s leadership in the 100 years war?
Edit: Nevermind. The above is to list Christianity as not immune to the violence of the human heart. The vast majority of Christianity’s conquering phase happened alongside European colonialism, so its easy to suggest the various denominations of Christianity weren’t responsible for the suffering, they were just in power afterwards to pick up the pieces left by the ‘secular’ violence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No, Addy didn’t mass murder in the name of Catholicism. In the name of the occult, most possibly.[/quote]
Occultism is now atheism?
That should explain where he got his views from. Particularly interesting is the part where he attributes atheism to his enemies. Oh dear.
[quote]How many folks was Georgia Joe murdering in seminary? Did he ride under the banner of the Greek Orthodox church while slaughtering his 20 - 50 mil? Was he converting folks to Greek Orthodoxy at the point of the sword?
(Always, always, always having to teach history here to the boys)
[/quote]
He picked up his ideas from somewhere. Not only that, he effectively undermined secularism by creating his own state religion, in the same vein as Hitler, creating authoritarian regimes where one person was effectively a God over the state. A modern example is of course North Korea. Also, it’s funny how one of the few areas where relativism would be appropriate, you (and by that I mostly mean pat) choose not to use it.
But that’s not the thread topic, where we find ourselves agreeing on the key points.
Look bub, Hitler was into a bizarre amalgam of goofball occultic superstitions that are denounced by every major religion including even Islam. Whether Stalin and Mao were card carrying self declared atheists is irrelevant. They operated as such on every level. Even secret footage of the two of them singing praises to Jesus would not change this fact. What people do defines what they really believe.