[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< I have a feeling you’re the stereotypical 21 year old, 6’0", 155 lbs. kid over on the Bodybuilding forum who argues with Professor X on how to build muscle mass.
[/quote]
Are they still doin that. (stupid question I guess) I was in the middle of that debate for a couple years and had to take a couple off. I don’t know how he does it. Anyway, sorry for my second hijack of the night.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s when I reminded everyone they, atheists, had THE worst record in terms of raw numbers and did it all in one century.[/quote]
Funny how that works. More people alive, more to kill. This is where that relativism thing becomes valid again. Give a serial killer access to 40 potential victims and give another access to 400. Is one less evil suddenly?
And it’s very telling when the best you can effectively say is “well shucks, at least our mass murderers weren’t as bad as x or y”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s when I reminded everyone they, atheists, had THE worst record in terms of raw numbers and did it all in one century.[/quote]
Funny how that works. More people alive, more to kill. This is where that relativism thing becomes valid again. Give a serial killer access to 40 potential victims and give another access to 400. Is one less evil suddenly?
And it’s very telling when the best you can effectively say is “well shucks, at least our mass murderers weren’t as bad as x or y”.[/quote]
Well shucks, “we” have no mass murderers. I’ve already been over that. Pay attention.[/quote]
Well, no you don’t I guess. Just institutions that sanction (and used to enforce) it.
Sorry, what Christian institutions sanction and employ mass murder?
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Joeb the ass:
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]
Islam is an object, not an ethnic group. It is a set of beliefs, not a people. and yes I discriminate against the groups I mentioned, is that racist?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It has much to do with it. It can easily be argued from their writings and actions that their atheism allowed them to place little to no intrinsic value on human life. When one places little value on human life it becomes extremely cheap. And again, the numbers speak for themselves.[/quote]
Yeah but all those dudes could have gone to ‘church’ and still done what they did. Not prescribing to any religion doesn’t mean one doesnt have any morals, I’m pretty sure you know that. They were psychopaths.[/quote]
So you are comparing less than .01% of christians to about 30% of Muslims. You might want to do some homework on Islam. 30% of Muslims are fundamentalists that back up what the radicals are doing. It might be higher because they are allowed to lie to us about it.
[quote]Cameron_Phillips wrote:
Sorry, what Christian institutions sanction and employ mass murder?[/quote]
I am curious too? Not even the Westboro Baptist Church does that, and they are hardly Christian and definitely lower than dog shit.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[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]
People are so dumb about the Crusades, the where not launched for the pure fuck of it. It was a war to fight off the invading forces of the Moores who were working their way into Europe. The goal was to push them right back where they came from as they were conquering and killing everything insight. It was not a mere exercise in plunder and conquest.
http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/comments/reasons_for_the_crusades
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Dude who the fuck are you to say Islam is a religion of violence.
[/quote]
None of us said that. The fucking KORAN said that.
Maybe you should read it yourself.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
but how many have read the Koran?
[/quote]
OOh OOh OOH - - ME!!! (waves hand in the air)
and my arabic is descent on the reading level - working on the speaking right now (Syrian family)
any other questions?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Who the fuck are you guys to criticize someone elses religion except your own? [/quote]
I’ll tell you the fuck we are. We are the people who have had our friends or family murdered, our lives threatened and our hard won freedoms compromised because of islam.
In America we have the first amendment right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly. That means we have the right to form an opinion on islam and the right to voice that opinion to an assembly of our peers.
Moreover we have a duty to our descendants to take a stand and voice these opinions.
[quote]
Stop being hypocritical, shut your mouth and practice your own religion. [/quote]
What hypocracy? No. Our lives are being adversely affected by islam, this gives us reaon to speak out agianst it. If you don’t like it too fucking bad.
[quote]
I know quite a few Muslims and have Muslim friends and I can say they are kick ass cool and fucking hate those radicals. [/quote]
I’ve had muslim friends too. I even liked them. But it doesn’t change the simple fact that mohammad and his komraden were no different from the “radicals” who your muslim friends profess to hate. These so called “radicals” are meerly following the example that was set by mohammad.
[quote]
You can look at history and say what you want but when someone like Triibulus says “you are what you do” you can argue those so called Muslims who preached and acted on violence weren’t actually “Muslim.” [/quote]
What? Where do you get a silly idea like that from? You obciously have no clue about the history of islam. There are two islams. The Meccan islam and the Medina islam.
The Meccan islam is from the time when mohammad had very few followers which made him vulnerable. During this time some of the people who he had to rely upon for his safety were Christians. It was during this era that he said some very nice freindly philosophy that sounded just like Christianity.
Then there is the Medina islam when mohammad had an army behind him. It was during this era that mohammad recanted all the nice Christian sounding philosophy that he espoused in Mecca by saying it was all taqiyya for the kuffar.
This is why the koran is read using the principle of abrogation. The violent Medina islam abrogates the peaceful earlier Meccan islam.
So for your arguement that those who act violently aren’t really musim to be true it would also have to be true that the Mecca islam is not abrogated by the Medina islam which is simply not true.
[quote]
It seems most of the long ass posters in this Political thread have read the Bible but how many have read the Koran? [/quote]
Personally I find studying the hadith to be easier and more useful than studying the koran. About every fifth sentence in the koran ends abruptly and without explanation because much of the koran was plagarized from other texts. That is why twenty percent of the koran is gibberish. Anyways it’s not neccessary to read the whole thing to get the idea of what mohammad was about.
[quote]
Bottom line is you can use any religion as a fore front to your own ideological thinking and then use it as an ‘excuse’ or what have you to engage in violence. [/quote]
I would say the bottom line is you are just another useful fool who has started with an illogical premise (islam isn’t violent) and then logically proceeded to the conclusion that it isn’t the violent ideology of islam that is responsible for it’s violence it is merely bad people perverting it for their own violent ends. It is because of people like you that this will all end in bloodshed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I believe Mao’s, Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, Pol Pot’s, et al, fatal violence hits the ~120 million range.[/quote]
Thats got nothing to do with Islam, Christianity or atheism. Those are just some fucked up psychopaths who unfortunately had great positions of power.[/quote]
It has much to do with it. It can easily be argued from their writings and actions that their atheism allowed them to place little to no intrinsic value on human life. When one places little value on human life it becomes extremely cheap. And again, the numbers speak for themselves.[/quote]
And I can easily argue that Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches. Therefore, mustaches cause mass murders of innocent people.
Push, you tell us to study Christianity (which I have), but perhaps you should study agnosticism and atheism. Here’s the short version: atheists/agnostics simply ask the question, “Does a Supreme Being exist?” Our answer: “We don’t know, but there is really very little evidence for one.” That’s it. You’d be surprised that many atheists/agnostics place a very high value on human life. Why? Because this may be the only existence we have. This may be it. These aren’t warm up sets for some lifting meet later in the sky - this is the meet, here and now.
Hitler, Stalin, et al. were sociopaths. Their brand of crazy was not based on one idea or ideology, and most likely they probably had something physically wrong with their brains. And as someone mentioned, they rejected traditional religions and formed their own (Nazism and communism were essentially “state religions”) and elected themselves as head of the church. These men weren’t atheists - they simply saw themselves as being god-like.
Now back to the discussion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Joeb the ass:
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]
Islam is an object, not an ethnic group. It is a set of beliefs, not a people. and yes I discriminate against the groups I mentioned, is that racist?
[/quote]
you are a desperate case…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It has much to do with it. It can easily be argued from their writings and actions that their atheism allowed them to place little to no intrinsic value on human life. When one places little value on human life it becomes extremely cheap. And again, the numbers speak for themselves.[/quote]
Yeah but all those dudes could have gone to ‘church’ and still done what they did…[/quote]
But they didn’t go to church.
They practiced the religion of atheism. History matters, son.
See…the point of this rabbit trail of discussion is some ignorant schlub tried to compare the “alleged” violence of Christianity to other spiritual pursuits in terms of the carnage they produce. Then MikeTheBerry came on and held hands with the spirit of John Lennon and Jennifer Love-Hewitt and did some kind of seance wishing that atheism would rule the world in the hopes that we would all do the global smoochy-poo.
Then someone else reminded him that atheism has a very poor track record in producing world harmony.
That’s when I reminded everyone they, atheists, had THE worst record in terms of raw numbers and did it all in one century.
Keep up, kid. You’re not reading everything, just riding by on your moped and crashing into the thread hoping to impress someone with your “insight.” You’re not.[/quote]
That’s just beyond stupidity…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
That’s just beyond stupidity…
[/quote]
…screams the kid in the strait jacket.[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Who the fuck are you guys to criticize someone elses religion except your own? [/quote]
I’ll tell you the fuck we are. We are the people who have had our friends or family murdered, our lives threatened and our hard won freedoms compromised because of islam.
In America we have the first amendment right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly. That means we have the right to form an opinion on islam and the right to voice that opinion to an assembly of our peers.
Moreover we have a duty to our descendants to take a stand and voice these opinions.
[quote]
Stop being hypocritical, shut your mouth and practice your own religion. [/quote]
What hypocracy? No. Our lives are being adversely affected by islam, this gives us reaon to speak out agianst it. If you don’t like it too fucking bad.
[quote]
I know quite a few Muslims and have Muslim friends and I can say they are kick ass cool and fucking hate those radicals. [/quote]
I’ve had muslim friends too. I even liked them. But it doesn’t change the simple fact that mohammad and his komraden were no different from the “radicals” who your muslim friends profess to hate. These so called “radicals” are meerly following the example that was set by mohammad.
[quote]
You can look at history and say what you want but when someone like Triibulus says “you are what you do” you can argue those so called Muslims who preached and acted on violence weren’t actually “Muslim.” [/quote]
What? Where do you get a silly idea like that from? You obciously have no clue about the history of islam. There are two islams. The Meccan islam and the Medina islam.
The Meccan islam is from the time when mohammad had very few followers which made him vulnerable. During this time some of the people who he had to rely upon for his safety were Christians. It was during this era that he said some very nice freindly philosophy that sounded just like Christianity.
Then there is the Medina islam when mohammad had an army behind him. It was during this era that mohammad recanted all the nice Christian sounding philosophy that he espoused in Mecca by saying it was all taqiyya for the kuffar.
This is why the koran is read using the principle of abrogation. The violent Medina islam abrogates the peaceful earlier Meccan islam.
So for your arguement that those who act violently aren’t really musim to be true it would also have to be true that the Mecca islam is not abrogated by the Medina islam which is simply not true.
[quote]
It seems most of the long ass posters in this Political thread have read the Bible but how many have read the Koran? [/quote]
Personally I find studying the hadith to be easier and more useful than studying the koran. About every fifth sentence in the koran ends abruptly and without explanation because much of the koran was plagarized from other texts. That is why twenty percent of the koran is gibberish. Anyways it’s not neccessary to read the whole thing to get the idea of what mohammad was about.
[quote]
Bottom line is you can use any religion as a fore front to your own ideological thinking and then use it as an ‘excuse’ or what have you to engage in violence. [/quote]
I would say the bottom line is you are just another useful fool who has started with an illogical premise (islam isn’t violent) and then logically proceeded to the conclusion that it isn’t the violent ideology of islam that is responsible for it’s violence it is merely bad people perverting it for their own violent ends. It is because of people like you that this will all end in bloodshed. [/quote]
Great post. From my research of Islam, and it is not extensive as others here, this is what I took from it.
The first part said love your christian and jewish brothers, but once they told Muhammed that his religion was heresy, he turned on them and said kill the christians and kill the jews, which are the infidels. Also my understanding there we multiple Korans, and when one leader said, he wanted to put together a library for all the Korans, people brought their Korans, and he burned all of them and said his was the true and correct Koran. It was the only one left so it had to be correct. This is why there are Sunnies, Shias, and all the different sects of Islam. They all follow the different self proclaimed leaders after Muhammed died.