Radical islam: we drink our enemies blood

farfromglorified

miller8966 wrote:

lol@ the bully being stupid enough to come back for more.

You give us a nose bleed...we give you death.

miller8966 wrote:

Just chilling how stone cold these mutants can be.

Ugh...

miller8966

farfromglorified wrote:

Ugh...

well they kind of do look like mutants.

xmen 4: Wolverine invades pakistan!

farfromglorified

miller8966 wrote:

well they kind of do look like mutants.

xmen 4: Wolverine invades pakistan!

What is wrong with you man? Seriously, I'm not trying to ask in an offensive way, I'm just trying to understand where this stuff comes from.

CorporateWhore

farfromglorified wrote:

Really? Where is the objective dividing line of reason between Islam and Christianity?

Christianity bases morality on faith and reason. Dual faith and reason.

Islam bases it on faith.

even flow?

farfromglorified wrote:

Really? Try understanding this: if suicide bombing is defensible, so are battleships.



Hehe...

I'm sure you're impressed with revenge, and I'm sure you enjoy it in all its forms. It's probably the only thing your mind can muster when it seeks desperately for a form a justice.

Many other nations throughout history are certainly able to fight the United States with the exact same weapons we use to do so. That hasn't stopped the warhawks here or there.

If you like when the bully is stupid enough to keep "coming back for more", do you also like it when the bully's victim is depraved enough to adopt the bullies methodologies?



Not really. I've been reading how bad America is for a long time, but I've seen the evidence to the contrary. And I've been reading how evil brown people can be for a long time too, but I've known the evidence to the contrary.

What I am sick of is people who think they're anti-war yet who are married to a logic that demands it. And I'm sick of people who think they can find a morality by destroying it.

I am not as impressed with revenge as I am with the new ways that come to people's minds when they carry it out. Ah, justice. Please expain this to me. I don't quite understand it. At least not the version you may be trying to get across to me, that I am supposed to be exercising.

I am not anti-war. I know I have never stated that. But I do know when to question things that I think have a line between right and wrong. As in you are in the wrong country and making up excuses as the kills mount.

farfromglorified

CorporateWhore wrote:

Christianity bases morality on faith and reason. Dual faith and reason.

Dual faith and reason??? I'm not even sure where to begin with this....

Ok. Let's say that I tell you that 2+2 = 4.5 because, well 2+2 = 4 because of math and the .5 comes in because God says so. Is that an example of "dual faith and reason"?

Islam bases it on faith.

Yep, and we all know the Ten Commandments get their authority from fact, not God, right?

farfromglorified

even flow? wrote:

I am not as impressed with revenge as I am with the new ways that come to people's minds when they carry it out. Ah, justice. Please expain this to me. I don't quite understand it. At least not the version you may be trying to get across to me, that I am supposed to be exercising.

Justice is the process of treating men as who they are. It is the process of matching your judgment precisely to their acts, and acting accordingly.

Revenge is the ultimate violation of this. If one judges an aggressive act as wrong, justice can never be found in embracing the same acts. That is the complete opposite of justice.

I am not anti-war. I know I have never stated that. But I do know when to question things that I think have a line between right and wrong. As in you are in the wrong country and making up excuses as the kills mount.

You are not anti-war? Then please, ignore the latter half of my last post. Your words make much more sense to me now. I guess I can only wonder now why you would even mind the battleships or the bombs.

NCfan

farfromglorified wrote:

Dual faith and reason??? I'm not even sure where to begin with this....

Ok. Let's say that I tell you that 2+2 = 4.5 because, well 2+2 = 4 because of math and the .5 comes in because God says so. Is that an example of "dual faith and reason"?



Yep, and we all know the Ten Commandments get their authority from fact, not God, right?

Thought you guys might like to read this exchange... it is pretty impressive to me - at least the argument that religion is completely void of reason.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

CorporateWhore

farfromglorified wrote:

Dual faith and reason??? I'm not even sure where to begin with this....

Ok. Let's say that I tell you that 2+2 = 4.5 because, well 2+2 = 4 because of math and the .5 comes in because God says so. Is that an example of "dual faith and reason"?



Yep, and we all know the Ten Commandments get their authority from fact, not God, right?

When you base morality on faith and reason, you admit that you do not have all of the answers, but you know where they come from.

Science may fail to explain the existence of God, but science cannot explain everything.
Science cannot explain some things that exist.
Science may not explain God.
Therefore, God may exist.

That's my own personal simplified argument for the existence of God. Science cannot explain the existence of life. It can explain evolution, but it cannot explain what caused evolution to begin. Experiments cannot replicate the beginnings of evolution.

Science cannot explain the milliseconds immediately preceding the big bang. Time can only be accounted for up to a certain point after the big bang.

Science cannot explain why many things exist. But, is that science's job? Is science not merely a creation of man, which is meant for us to better understand the physical world? How can it help us understand the spiritual world, if we do indeed believe that it exists? There are many people who believe in the spiritual - why can't science help them?

God consistently reveals himself to humanity in any number of ways. He reveals morality through scripture and teaching, but he also created mankind with a purpose. Christians believe that this purpose and morality can never contradict one another. This is the reason part of it. When God says something is wrong, it is not only wrong because he said so but also because, if that something was right, it would be contrary to reason.

Muslims believe that God can say something is right even if it is contrary to reason. They believe that it was moral when Muhammad encouraged the murder of innocent women and children. If Allah says this is moral, then Islam must be irrational since Allah also created mankind. Surely Allah would not encourage innocent people to be killed or else mankind would cease to be. Surely Allah created mankind so that mankind would live and not immediately die out.

There are Muslims who attempt to align faith and reason in their religion. But, this is impossible. God cannot say that murdering innocents is moral if he also created those innocents.

So, I realize that science cannot explain faith, but science cannot explain many things. Therefore, we shouldn't discount faith entirely, unless it is faith without reason. In Christianity, faith and reason run together seamlessly.

CorporateWhore

NCfan wrote:

Thought you guys might like to read this exchange... it is pretty impressive to me - at least the argument that religion is completely void of reason.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

Andrew Sullivan said it better than I:

"…I do not see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding."

NCfan

CorporateWhore wrote:

When you base morality on faith and reason, you admit that you do not have all of the answers, but you know where they come from.

Science may fail to explain the existence of God, but science cannot explain everything.
Science cannot explain some things that exist.
Science may not explain God.
Therefore, God may exist.

That's my own personal simplified argument for the existence of God. Science cannot explain the existence of life. It can explain evolution, but it cannot explain what caused evolution to begin. Experiments cannot replicate the beginnings of evolution.

Science cannot explain the milliseconds immediately preceding the big bang. Time can only be accounted for up to a certain point after the big bang.

Science cannot explain why many things exist. But, is that science's job? Is science not merely a creation of man, which is meant for us to better understand the physical world? How can it help us understand the spiritual world, if we do indeed believe that it exists? There are many people who believe in the spiritual - why can't science help them?

God consistently reveals himself to humanity in any number of ways. He reveals morality through scripture and teaching, but he also created mankind with a purpose. Christians believe that this purpose and morality can never contradict one another. This is the reason part of it. When God says something is wrong, it is not only wrong because he said so but also because, if that something was right, it would be contrary to reason.

Muslims believe that God can say something is right even if it is contrary to reason. They believe that it was moral when Muhammad encouraged the murder of innocent women and children. If Allah says this is moral, then Islam must be irrational since Allah also created mankind. Surely Allah would not encourage innocent people to be killed or else mankind would cease to be. Surely Allah created mankind so that mankind would live and not immediately die out.

There are Muslims who attempt to align faith and reason in their religion. But, this is impossible. God cannot say that murdering innocents is moral if he also created those innocents.

So, I realize that science cannot explain faith, but science cannot explain many things. Therefore, we shouldn't discount faith entirely, unless it is faith without reason. In Christianity, faith and reason run together seamlessly.

I'll just point you here again. This guy can explain why there is no reasoning in any religion a hell of a lot better than I ever could. At least he has me convinced. I would dispute him if I could.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

Ahnimus

NCfan wrote:

Thought you guys might like to read this exchange... it is pretty impressive to me - at least the argument that religion is completely void of reason.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

I honestly believe that religion spawned from centuries of reason. But over more centuries still it has become distorted into religion. I mean, I think the "original" events that happened, or stories if they were, were used as examples of moral rights and wrongs. But somewhere a long the way it skewed off into this God tangent and all this metaphysics and mysticism was fitted in. Now it's basically a bunch of lies and illogical morals. :cool:

NCfan

CorporateWhore wrote:

Andrew Sullivan said it better than I:

"…I do not see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding."

The problem here I see is that you guys assume that reason and faith are reconciled by a truth beyond our understanding. There is no evidence for this, only human hope.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

Andrew Sullivan said it better than I:

"…I do not see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding."

God can not explain how God began. That's the major flaw in all that ID theory.

CorporateWhore

NCfan wrote:

I'll just point you here again. This guy can explain why there is no reasoning in any religion a hell of a lot better than I ever could. At least he has me convinced. I would dispute him if I could.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

Harris is simply making too many assumptions about scripture encouraging violent extremism.

It really isn't a very intellectual exchange at all. Just a lot of assumptions about what religious fanatics believe and how moderately religious people cannot be so.

Every religious person should be 100% religious. They should be extreme. Does that mean they should kill non-believers or discriminate against others? Of course not, and it is highly ignorant of him to suggest so. The Bible teaches no such thing. He should try reading the Bible again.

miller8966

Ahnimus wrote:

God can not explain how God began. That's the major flaw in all that ID theory.

Science can not explain that god does or does not exist.

Ahnimus

miller8966 wrote:

Science can not explain that god does or does not exist.

Neither can God.

Ahnimus

I can actually prove that God does not exist. God is impossible. But you will take the other side.

miller8966

Ahnimus wrote:

Neither can God.

hes divinely inspired countless books

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

God can not explain how God began. That's the major flaw in all that ID theory.

You are thinking like an Aquinian, not as a supporter of ID.

God exists outside of time and space; therefore, he cannot be put into chronological order. Such as: first this happened, then God happened.

This is the problem that all atheists encounter: they attempt to use science to explain God. God designed our physical world. We merely attempt to explain it with science.