Is Islam an evil religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig B said:
Fire Garden

A fourth. Epistle of Jude: So now the Quran and the Bible are equal 4 each!
Click to expand...

Don't correct FireGarden. It will mean all his arguments are inaccurate. I mean, that is the magical logic he is using on me. You take away his magic spell he has cast upon me.
 
RandFan said:
Nonsense Bill. Humans and religion can mix for both good and bad. Inquisitions, crusades, burning witches. We have plenty of examples of Christians acting badly.

We need to reduce or eradicate religion in general.
Click to expand...

There are problems with that beyond the scope of this discussion thread. Why not start a new one about your subject?
 
bikerdruid said:
so racism only applies to blacks, but it is a lie and does not exist at all?
your raving is getting stranger bill.
this is irrational.
Click to expand...

That is a logical fallacy you are using here called "straw man argument". Straw Man -- You misquote me and create a character of me that is not really accurate. You do this when you insist I think only black people are victims or racism. I never said or implied that just because I only used one example of racism.

WRONG (ugh). That is number 15 I think. I never said racism only applies only to blacks.

What part is irrational to you? What part do you not understand?

I will post it again. What part confuses you and you think is irrational?

=========================================
Biker Druid Epic Fail

WRONG number 13, I think.

BikerDruid, you have confirmed what I have suspected. You do not know right from wrong. In your mind, if something sounds "mean" it is wrong. Either that or you choose to what to believe and what to dismiss based on how it makes you feel.


Racism is wrong for logical reasons. It is wrong because it is a lie. The black people in factories in Chicago who were escaped slaves or descendants of escaped slaves had a higher IQ than the slave owners in the south or the descendants of slave owners. But that is just one fact. Racism is a lie because, simply, race itself is a lie. It is a nonsensical method of classifying people.


Right or wrong is not determined on what sounds mean or not. Tolerance is not love. Tolerance is not compassion. These are three separate things.


It is foolish to think of racism and intolerance of a religion as being similar things.

If I came to a university to give a lecture about evolution, using your twisted logic, I should not be able to do that because it could be deemed as religious hate speech. Some biblical fundamentalists would be upset if I gave a lecture promoting evolution. So, to you, I would be giving religious hate speech.


I think you decide to be for or against something to join a bandwaggon. I accuse you of not thinking for yourself. Then you insist that you do think things out for yourself.

But you are

WRONG AGAIN, number 14

Your claim that you think for yourself is demonstrated by you to be invalid and a falsehood.

last_moments_of_john_brown3.jpg


John Brown did the right thing. He was an abolishionist -- or as you would say, a "Slavery Bigot" or maybe "Confederatephobic".


The fact that you do not understand the full extent why it was the right thing and why doing the right thing is sometimes unpopular and seems hurtful on the surface, is saddening.


John Brown did the right thing. It was not so popular and it cost him. The song "Glory Glory... His Truth is Marching On..." was about him.


It is not helpful or loving to Muslims to be tolerant of Islam. It imprisons minds as Ibn Waraq says -- and he is not a hateful biased person. He does not hate Muslims even if he hates Islam. Even if most Muslims are good or in the dark it will continue to generate terrorism just like Wafa Sultan says -- and she is not a hateful biased person. She does not hate Muslims yet she hates Islam.

Something has to be factually inaccurate to be labeled "Hate Speech". Just because words hurt someone's feelings, those words are not "Hate Speech". The truth is never "hate speech". Speaking out against a religion -- especially one that abuses women and children -- is not hate speech.

Labeling something as "hate speech" just because you do not want to hear or believe it kills progress and science. When people are free to say what they learn or discover, good science and understanding happens. And this is good for everyone. Science and understanding helps all of us. Charles Darwin is one example when he discovered evolution, or as you might call "Myth Bigotry".

-----------

I have noticed FIVE logical fallacies you use over and over and over.
1. Ad Hominem -- you do not like what I say so you attack me personally
2. Pios Fraud -- It does not matter that Islam is a lie, it is still somehow good for people
3. Non Sequitur -- Islam is ok because Christianty is bad.
4. Post Hoc -- So and so did these massive killings and so and so is a Christian. So Christianity caused so and so to do these massive killings just like Islam caused 9-11
5 Straw Man -- You misquote me and create a character of me that is not really accurate. You do this when you insist I think only black people are victims or racism. I never said or implied that just because I only used one example of racism.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Fire Garden

A fourth. Epistle of Jude: So now the Quran and the Bible are equal 4 each!
Click to expand...

Wave_WFUWHL.gif

Hi Craig!! Where is the explaination for the purpose of bringing up the invasion of Turkey? You, yourself, ended up saying that it has nothing to do with religion. So what was that all about? It seemed very important to you. You were hammering that bit of history like a railroad builder hammering a stake into a rock. I want to know what that was all about. Didn't you first insist it was imporant. Then when I said it was not important you seemed pissed. So after we explored it, I asked you what your point was and then you seemed to be even more upset. So I assumed that it had to do with religion and I asked you what I thought you might mean. And finally you said, no, it had nothing to do with religion at all. Sooooo, what was your point? Please explain.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Do you remember when the brits in the house of commons were asking Tony Blare why the UK was taking out Saddam when there were so many other dictators on Earth to worry about?

And I have to warn you, be careful when you say things out of jest. Were you serious about the hilited section? If you were, I suggest you look for the "Apostates of Islam" on the internet.
Click to expand...
I don't try to do jokes of sarcasm, or as you ask, jest, on forums because I understand they do not translate well in this medium.
No, I don't remember if I ever knew, what Tony Blair said about Saddam.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Having trouble with your homework?
Click to expand...

Not really.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in October 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against a perceived trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and include James Montgomery Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Thompson said:
There are problems with that beyond the scope of this discussion thread. Why not start a new one about your subject?
Click to expand...
Because you are being misleading. The problem isn't simply Islam the problem has to do with dogma. Christian terrorists are not as prolific but they can be very dangerous.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Good job. Do you know that 4 is still greater in number than 3?
Click to expand...

I'll look into that.
Meanwhile, is 3 the same as 1?

If I miss two that you caught that does not make all my argumets substandard or my points incorrect.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how easy it is to find anti-gay verses in the Bible? Here's my search: link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3205727.stm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090516051724AATdOUG

The search took less than a minute. So little time in fact, that I would be loathe to assume that I have found them all.

If you only managed to find one, and concluded that your search was exhaustive, then I get the impression that either (a) you're not good at looking (b) you could have found more if you tried, but didn't bother or (c) you just like to fill gaps in your knowledge by guessing.

In any case, I have a poor view of the standard of your scholarship.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Don't correct FireGarden. It will mean all his arguments are inaccurate. I mean, that is the magical logic he is using on me. You take away his magic spell he has cast upon me.
Click to expand...

Showing me a fourth doesn't correct me, Bill. Because I never said there were exactly 3. Neither did Foster Zygote, who I quoted.

Neither have I said that you must be wrong about everything. I've commented on the standard of your scholarship, which I think is low. You are occasionally correct. I've looked into your previous question and, as you implied, 4 is indeed greater than 3. See? I can admit it when you are correct.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
[qimg]http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh80/levibi/Smilies%20Gif/Wave_WFUWHL.gif[/qimg] Hi Craig!! Where is the explaination for the purpose of bringing up the invasion of Turkey? ... Sooooo, what was your point? Please explain.
Click to expand...

That is not relevant to a discussion of the Epistle of Jude. The statements are false. It is abuse. Bill has subjected me to this sort of thing before, because he knows I oppose his hate-filled and dishonest posts. I hope the moderator will read this, and take appropriate action.
 
No Atheism is the evil one. Since you admit, Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. How did you get the proof of your lack of belief, if you don't believe in religion or the bible to have the proof?

You are still in a paradox and very confused trying to come up with some form of logical and sensible reply when there are none. When anything you say, is contradictory and going to be bullocks. Understand, no matter what you say, again understand no matter what you say, YOU CAN'T BEAT TRUTH.

I have just killed Atheism, thanks to God who gave me, anyone who has a religion, believes, this simple statement to say. Since you were all too stupid to agree with me that you shouldn't use the calendar, now look where it has headed. You shouldn't use Atheism.

If you are a Christian or Believer and atheism annoys you, PLEASE spread this simple statement to defend any RELIGION and bring down Atheism. "Atheism has a lack of belief in God(s), you use religion to form a lack of belief, do you believe in the proof of your lack of belief, since you think religion, the bible, isn't proof?" - Novest, i will say my real name on here soon.
 
bikerdruid said:
no bill...hate speech is so called because it presents blind hatred.
your blind hatred of all things islam does not present 'progress and science'.
Click to expand...

You do not understand what the term "blind hatred" means.

You demonstrate this with virtually every post.

What do you suppose it meant by using the word "blind" in "blind hatred"?
 
Craig B said:
That is not relevant to a discussion of the Epistle of Jude. The statements are false. It is abuse. Bill has subjected me to this sort of thing before, because he knows I oppose his hate-filled and dishonest posts. I hope the moderator will read this, and take appropriate action.
Click to expand...
That only makes sense to you and does not answer my question. Where is the explaination for the purpose of bringing up the invasion of Turkey? You, yourself, ended up saying that it has nothing to do with religion. So what was that all about? It seemed very important to you. You were hammering that bit of history like a railroad builder hammering a stake into a rock. I want to know what that was all about. Didn't you first insist it was imporant. Then when I said it was not important you seemed pissed. So after we explored it, I asked you what your point was and then you seemed to be even more upset. So I assumed that it had to do with religion and I asked you what I thought you might mean. And finally you said, no, it had nothing to do with religion at all. Sooooo, what was your point? Please explain.
 
Craig B said:
That is not relevant to a discussion of the Epistle of Jude. The statements are false. It is abuse. Bill has subjected me to this sort of thing before, because he knows I oppose his hate-filled and dishonest posts. I hope the moderator will read this, and take appropriate action.
Click to expand...

It is not dishonest and it is not hateful at all. I honestly want to learn. It was you who were hateful towards me by calling me a bigot and an advocate of genocide.

What was the whole point in the discussion of the invasion of Turkey?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom