Well, I’m not sure about that. I thought the main objective in war was to try really hard not to sacrifice your own life, but to get the enemy to sacrifice his.
Yeah, probably. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Or are you just making shit up?
When ITR Champion is joining in with the consensus and the worst that any body’s said about Dawkins is he’s “not good” (and that was kanicbird, for God’s sake), I think this thread is proof that atheists come in all kinds of weird and wonderful varieties.
ETA: Oh, and that the answer to the OP’s question is “Hell no, what are you talking about?”.
When I remember about the sacrifices of many from the Soviet army against the Germans in WWII I don’t so.
And I think that the relatives of the fallen non-believer American soldiers and active service persons would like to have a word with you.
(to paraphrase) That’s the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered atheist you ever set eyes on! This guy’s got a vicious streak a mile wide! He’s a killer! Seriously…he’s got huge, sharp (makes sharp teeth motions)… er… He can leap about <-------------------------->. Look at the bones, man!
Wouldn’t want to meet him in a dark ally, if you know what I mean…
-XT
I admit, “Look at the bones, man!” was the first thing this thread title made me think of.
< pictures xtisme saying “I told you! I told you!” to a pack of theists watching as Richard Dawkins gnaws on their dismembered comrades >
-xt
Fetch the holy hand grenade!
Within the context of what I was replying to, Dawkins is not dangerous. People who think I’m going to hell would do things dangerous or evil to me and my rights so as to affect my wellbeing. I don’t give a shit what dark realm religionists think I’m going to, but I care a lot about how they influence politics, my free time, and their danger to my body
One thing is based on facts, the other is based on fairy tales. Looking down your nose at someone who is being deliberately ignorant is perfectly fine with me and necessary to eliminate or marginalize those beliefs
There are people who would kill to force that lump to fester in the womb of a woman who does not want it. I know of no one would could justify killing an adult because another adult wants to, in this analogy, pull the plug on a terminal patient. Even if we assume the given that the fetus/patient has full rights, it doesn’t give anyone else the justification to prevent the guardian of that person from pulling the plug, which is essentially what abortion is in this analogy, by killing her. The people like the ones who murdered Dr. Tiller do feel fetuses should get more rights, and that they would kill to enforce that makes them dangerous. There is no comparison
Originally Posted by Zoe:
Where did you come up with that? You don’t know me well enough to be making such claims. And you are very mistaken.
[/quote]
Marley, about the cites: See Post #78 in this thread for a big hint. One down and one to go. I have someone in mind, but it’s been a long time. I will see if I can find some of his comments, but I don’t want to waste too much time on it.
[quote]
The Hamster King: I can’t find anything wrong with your argument at all. I surrender. You win.
Would it be fair to call Dawkins a “God-fearing man”? Perhaps “religion-fearing” would be more like it.
But, more seriously, I do wonder-- are you a God-fearing person kanicbird? If so, how does that jibe with your “God never intended for us to have fear” comment?
Originally Posted by Zoe:
Where did you come up with that? You don’t know me well enough to be making such claims. And you are very mistaken.
[/quote]
I heard the results of a Gallup Poll on television this week. 93% of Muslims disapproved of what the Jihadists did on 9-11. I don’t remember which television show I was watching at the time and I don’t remember when the poll was taken.
Marley, about the cites: See Post #78 in this thread for a big hint. One down and one to go. I have someone in mind, but it’s been a long time – sometime after the grammar wars but perhaps before Liberal’s bribe.
No, I give up on the search. It’s not worth my time. Surely it wouldn’t really surprise you.
7% approved? Good God (or the deity of your choice or lack thereof), that’s horrid. There is something hideously wrong.
Meh. You can generally find percentages of people that small to support just about anything, anywhere. Actually, I’m more surprised at how small it is. And sceptical about how accurate it is; if, say, some American fanatics back during the Cold War had somehow managed to fly a jet into some Soviet landmark like the Kremlin, I’d expect more than 7% approval. Look how many people have supported our war on Iraq, and that is much worse than 9-11.
The support for the war on Iraq is an excellent example of something that is hideously wrong. Does anyone have figures that break down by religion or lack thereof that compare which Americans did/does or did/does not support that war?
For example, studies such as this one: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/5/9/6/pages175969/p175969-1.php .
Lets just assume that this insult was true for a moment, and that religious people could be relied upon to throw themselves upon grenades or in front of bullets while atheists could not. Have you considered the possibility that this would simply be a consequence of religious people being more likely to believe that death leads to heaven rather than oblivion?
How is this relevant to what I did quote from the Qur’an that instructs to kill non-Muslims? So what if there are peaceful parts too? You said it was “intolerance and the distortion of religion” that caused 9-11. I showed you that there was no distortion at all and intolerance is preached in Islam.
You don’t quote Biblical scripture for what reason? I didn’t get that point.
That’s good. I’m glad there are lots of Muslims that cherry pick for the benefit of us all. I feel the same about Christians. It’s the evil inherent in both religions that I hate. 7% of millions can do a lot of bad in the world and has been mentioned, moderate believers unknowingly help the cause of extremists.
That’s quite a charge to make against someone and then turn around and say you don’t feel like backing it up. In any case I think this post contradicts you.
I was being sarcastic. Of course I don’t think that whatever you don’t like is a distortion of religion. There is no such thing. Terrorism (for example) may only be supported by a small faction of the total believers, but the fact is - as has been pointed out in this thread - those 7% or whatever have every bit as much evidence that their interpretation of their religion is correct than do the other 93%.