You like Muslims? Guess what happens when the cult's population grows?
- Thread starter flysarescary
- Start date
I would agree with you that things that happened in the past affect us now. So you're wrong on that one, again.
What is affecting your life more right now? Christianity, or Islam? Is all the extra security and screening due to Christians? Do you hear about the most recent Christian attack on the news?
Yesterday my employee was searching for a picture for a dating ad. I think he typed "hot blonde" or something into Google images and the first result was a decapitated girl from a recent Muslim beheading. I don't want to see that disgusting shit, but it happens so frequently that it's impossible to avoid.
Andrew Scherer said:
You still haven't showed me where CHRISTIANITY is killing innocent people. It's nowhere near a holy war in the name of religion. Also, thanks for another reference from 2007.
Honestly you cannot argue this, for every 1 video you post or pull, there is 10 news clippings of Muslims killing innocent people in the name of Allah. Not from 2007 either like your only 2 sources are.
Apparently you're in good company, Popeye. Nothing's changed since Churchill's time, except that we're surrounded by more sniveling cowards, false moral equivocators, and brain-dead confused drones, all robotically spouting the doctrines of political correctness and anti-Christian propaganda.
Churchill warns us above what will happen. It's enough to really make you fear for the future of the West.
OK... this is why I said.
So why did you respond again?
In all honesty...Christianity is. (now I'm just talking personal basis here)
I've never flown on an airplane and I've never been exposed to Islamic terrorism personally (however, this terrorism I'm sure does some how trickle down and affect me in some way, I'll give you that), or been to an Islamic country.
Christianity on the other hand affects me daily...I have to listen to Christians spout falsehoods all the time. I never have to listen to a Muslim. Every Sunday morning I have to go help get my grandpa out of the house to go to church... I had to waste lots of time in my childhood days going to church...on Sundays and Wednesdays. I have to listen to my mom praising Jesus... (I'm not trying to come up with violent examples, just ones that affect me personally)
The only way Islam affects me is what I hear about in the news.
Now...if you asked me this question and I was born in the Middle East, then Islam would affect me more.
Basically....I live in a Christian nation (by demographics) and am surrounded by it. Of course, Christianity affects me more. How could the thing I'm surrounded by not affect me more than something thousands of miles away?
BTW, the most recent Christian attack that I've heard on the news is Tiller murder. I know this isn't indicative AT ALL of Christianity on the whole. Just sayin'... (and if you don't believe he was a Christian...I don't care (most Christians wouldn't)...I won't argue on that point, but don't think I can't...He thought he was a Christian...and he read the same bible you do...)
OK... I agree with Churchill...Islam sucks.
Brah, if you have a problem with CHristianity, you should be shitting your pants over Islam.
Brah, I was answering the question of which one affects me more. (obviously Christianity....shit I was practically born a Christian) Not which one I have more of a problem with. I have a problem with both of them...
------
Edit: Your signature on the right explains you. You have to read the question I was answering.
Also, I'm not morally equating the two...I'm simply saying that they're both false.
The only way I could, possibly, morally equate the two is by saying believing in false things is potentially harmful. (no matter what label you put on that false thing) (if you believe in Islam your odds are much higher you will be harmed than if you believe in Christianity...so I can't equate them in that manner, no...)
Again...not anti-Christian...anti-religion.
Since you were wrong on those things I'll just assume that you're wrong about me being a "robotic-drone who's spouting doctrines".
I don't think anyone can be sure who this is directed towards. I'm not at least.
Methodological individualists don't judge people as groups by their faith, or culture, or race or sex. Methodological individualists judge individuals by their actions.
Collectivists (like marxists, communists) make blanket judgments based on class, creed, culture, sex, race etc, within the context of historical materialism (ie, Muslims were on Jihad, Muslims are Jihadis, Christians crusade, all Christians are crusaders).
Islamics in particular are already one quarter of the world's population. In many countries, they could take control democratically and impose Sharia, but they have not. That is because while there are over a billion muslims, most of them do not want to live under Sharia law.
The whole discussion, which I tried to avoid today, is like insisting that black people are inclined to eat fried chicken, watermelon and pick cotton, or that all Jews are natural bankers, movie producers and observe Passover.
Except in those countries with little economic and political freedom, most Islamic nations are becoming more modern, and less radicalized. This is a natural consequence of capitalism (which incentivizes property rights and peace) and prosperity which flows from capitalism, which reduces population growth and increases education. Although people see everything in a post-9/11 context, Iran of 30 years ago was much more radical than today, likewise Pakistan of 50 years ago was much more radical than today. The incremental change, I believe, isn't observed because people just didn't pay a lot of attention to these places pre-9/11, and so there is no context on where their social development is at.
If you oppose ever having Sharia law imposed on you, as I am sure nearly all of us would, then you should support individual liberty and small government, because if radicalized population growth is a concern, as irrational as I think that is, then you definitely don't want to hand over an all powerful central authority in a militarized police state to a majority that holds a radically different idea of justice than you do.
Collectivists (like marxists, communists) make blanket judgments based on class, creed, culture, sex, race etc, within the context of historical materialism (ie, Muslims were on Jihad, Muslims are Jihadis, Christians crusade, all Christians are crusaders).
Islamics in particular are already one quarter of the world's population. In many countries, they could take control democratically and impose Sharia, but they have not. That is because while there are over a billion muslims, most of them do not want to live under Sharia law.
The whole discussion, which I tried to avoid today, is like insisting that black people are inclined to eat fried chicken, watermelon and pick cotton, or that all Jews are natural bankers, movie producers and observe Passover.
Except in those countries with little economic and political freedom, most Islamic nations are becoming more modern, and less radicalized. This is a natural consequence of capitalism (which incentivizes property rights and peace) and prosperity which flows from capitalism, which reduces population growth and increases education. Although people see everything in a post-9/11 context, Iran of 30 years ago was much more radical than today, likewise Pakistan of 50 years ago was much more radical than today. The incremental change, I believe, isn't observed because people just didn't pay a lot of attention to these places pre-9/11, and so there is no context on where their social development is at.
If you oppose ever having Sharia law imposed on you, as I am sure nearly all of us would, then you should support individual liberty and small government, because if radicalized population growth is a concern, as irrational as I think that is, then you definitely don't want to hand over an all powerful central authority in a militarized police state to a majority that holds a radically different idea of justice than you do.
Another thing, "false moral equivocators" is a double negative. Thanks for the compliment.
and +rep guerilla that kicked ass.
-------
Also, when I say, "They are both false". This statement is actually crap...
I should say, "They both lack falsifiability". Just like Bigfoot/UFOs/ESP...I can't prove he/they don't exist so people's claims still constantly pop up... Same concept. No falsifiability, so silly claims linger.
and +rep guerilla that kicked ass.
-------
Also, when I say, "They are both false". This statement is actually crap...
I should say, "They both lack falsifiability". Just like Bigfoot/UFOs/ESP...I can't prove he/they don't exist so people's claims still constantly pop up... Same concept. No falsifiability, so silly claims linger.
Shit, one more thing...
I don't hate religion simply because it's silly... (it's silly because most religious claims lack falsifiability^)
I hate religion because of what it leads to...religious extremism.
WTF! Atheism can lead to extremism too! Well...atheism is simply a lack of belief in religious claims. It's a subset of the skeptic community. As skeptics, we're more critical of the things we believe/don't believe. That's it...we're big fucking skeptics. Atheism is not an ism.
Ism - doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school (link goes to an article titled "Is Atheism an Ism? Atheism is No Religion, Philosophy, Ideology, Belief System")
Atheism is not a doctrine/creed/ideology/belief/or worldview.
There is no doctrine (bible equivalent) that we can take to the extreme... WTF! Atheism has the "The Origin of Species" by Darwin... This isn't atheism, this is evolution. You can not believe in any gods and not believe in evolution at the same time.
I already know...atheism leads to people believing in evolution, regardless of what I'm saying. But, Darwin's book didn't come from the heavens (claiming something is divinely inspired is another claim lacking falsifiability)...he was working from the shoulders of people proceeding him (his past)...and collaborating with people in his time (his present). It's a science. Science itself can evolve. Science doesn't have any one book...like Darwin's "TOS" that it looks at for authoritative guidance... anything that Darwin said that is wrong will be thrown out immediately by the scientific consensus. (indeed, the concept of evolution has become more sophisticated) No scientist claims to be unerring. If they do it's laughable to the scientific community. Any rational human being knows that the knowledge we have and the science we practice evolve over time, a rational human being won't claim to be unerring.
Also, you don't have to believe anything I just said and still be an atheist.... There is no authority, by definition.
There is no authoritative text/person/or creed in atheism.
It's not an overriding political ideology, either, that can lead to crazed governmental styles. It's simply being skeptical. That's literally all it means. Basically... Atheism = Skeptic of All God/Religious Claims.
We're just skeptics. Just like most people are skeptic of all religions that have existed in the world past and present (and presumably the future, unless you change your mind
).
Most people just aren't skeptical of the one that they were born into. Hmmmm........
Technically, Buddhists are atheists. (further google it...if that's not good enough for you.)
I don't hate religion simply because it's silly... (it's silly because most religious claims lack falsifiability^)
I hate religion because of what it leads to...religious extremism.
WTF! Atheism can lead to extremism too! Well...atheism is simply a lack of belief in religious claims. It's a subset of the skeptic community. As skeptics, we're more critical of the things we believe/don't believe. That's it...we're big fucking skeptics. Atheism is not an ism.
Ism - doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school (link goes to an article titled "Is Atheism an Ism? Atheism is No Religion, Philosophy, Ideology, Belief System")
Atheism is not a doctrine/creed/ideology/belief/or worldview.
There is no doctrine (bible equivalent) that we can take to the extreme... WTF! Atheism has the "The Origin of Species" by Darwin... This isn't atheism, this is evolution. You can not believe in any gods and not believe in evolution at the same time.
I already know...atheism leads to people believing in evolution, regardless of what I'm saying. But, Darwin's book didn't come from the heavens (claiming something is divinely inspired is another claim lacking falsifiability)...he was working from the shoulders of people proceeding him (his past)...and collaborating with people in his time (his present). It's a science. Science itself can evolve. Science doesn't have any one book...like Darwin's "TOS" that it looks at for authoritative guidance... anything that Darwin said that is wrong will be thrown out immediately by the scientific consensus. (indeed, the concept of evolution has become more sophisticated) No scientist claims to be unerring. If they do it's laughable to the scientific community. Any rational human being knows that the knowledge we have and the science we practice evolve over time, a rational human being won't claim to be unerring.
Also, you don't have to believe anything I just said and still be an atheist.... There is no authority, by definition.
There is no authoritative text/person/or creed in atheism.
It's not an overriding political ideology, either, that can lead to crazed governmental styles. It's simply being skeptical. That's literally all it means. Basically... Atheism = Skeptic of All God/Religious Claims.
We're just skeptics. Just like most people are skeptic of all religions that have existed in the world past and present (and presumably the future, unless you change your mind
). Most people just aren't skeptical of the one that they were born into. Hmmmm........
Technically, Buddhists are atheists. (further google it...if that's not good enough for you.)
Thats debatable, because in Buddhism theres no restriction from belief in God. I know Buddhists who have faith in their peaceful leader, and I know Buddhists who believe in their brain.
Before Sup3r the grammar nazi enters.
Proceeding != Preceeding.
Would it be more fair to say, "one could be a Buddhist and an atheist at the same time, but is not necessary?"
Proceeding != Preceeding.
Would it be more fair to say, "one could be a Buddhist and an atheist at the same time, but is not necessary?"