• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why not war against Islam?

DC said:
interesting, for one group you are willing to accept different streams and main streams. But when it comes to Islam, there is only one stream.......
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?
Did you have a dream last night and you are confused about what is real and what is not?
 
Bill Thompson said:
Nope. That is not true. He did not say "war against Muslims". Big difference.
Click to expand...

the word war that confuses me. when your weappons are arguments and fact, , open fire.

when you weapons are bombs and machineguns, then no. keep that for the extremists.
 
Bill Thompson said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Did you have a dream last night and you are confused about what is real and what is not?
Click to expand...

i didn't know you was aware that Islam has many different streams and different interpretations of their fairytale book.

many people are not aware of that.
 
Bill Thompson said:
I have fought Catholicism too. So your criticism of the catholic church does not impress me. Did you think it would? Why do youthink it would?
Click to expand...

Bill, please believe one thing about our exchange: you have utterly misunderstood what I am trying to say.

I would be interested in where you think I criticised Catholics. I certainly have done so. But my last posts were not intended as such.

What is your point?
Click to expand...

As I said:
The point is that you are talking about Catholics in the same way that you talk about Muslims -- treating them as all being the same.

I'll try direct questions: why do those in the polls I quoted consider themselves to be Catholic? Why does the Pope agree that they are Catholic?

Please answer -- with reference to their disagreements on abortion.

And, no, I'm not at all surprised that you also criticise Catholics. And I'm not surprised that the quality of your criticism is the same regardless of the target. I'm sure that you talk about Catholics in the same way that you talk about Muslims -- in fact, that's at least the third time I've given that opinion.

Or do you only make logical fallacies to support a fantasy world that you wish was real?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how this is a response to anything I said. And please pass on my sympathies to your in-laws.

My inlaws wanted to baptize my baby in a catholic church. I told them that they would have to kill me first and I was serious. Do you ever put your life on the line for what yo believe in?
Click to expand...
 
You don't state your conclusion. You post little facts that I would imagine everyone already knows. So what?

It is as if you drop little hints because you want someone to figure out what you mean. This seems to delight you. Why else would you do it again and again and again?

It reminds me of a relative who would drop little facts that would point to JFK being killed by the mob. He would not come out and say it. But he got pleasure in dropping little hints. He did not have the courage to come out and say that he really believed that JFK was killed by organized crime because that was probably not true.

I am just guessing here but are you saying that all religions are bad and since you think Atheism is not also just another religion, this means Atheism is good and has no faults? You don't have the courage to come out and say this because this is possibly and probably not true. So you just drop little hints.

Well, do you think people have NOT done horrible things in the name of atheism or because they are atheists? This is an interesting idea. Why not start a discussion thread about it? It is unethical for you to hijack this discussion thread to make your point.
 
citizenzen said:
Dude, your in-laws just wanted to get your baby's head wet.

Or at least that's how you could have seen it.

What great principle were you willing to die for here? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I imagine the church would have license to keep coming by and knocking on the door and accusing me of either being a hyprocrite or a bad catholic. And they would have a point.
 
Pretty sure all monotheistic religions are dominant and spread war. When Islam started they almost wiped out Europe. Christianity had the crusades. The Jews weren't really friendly with any religion when they first came out of Egypt. Relativism or the belief the only "God" figure we really have is time, as it controls our day to day, are the only non-violent monotheist religions I've seen. Mostly because the time one is a self belief I made up and relativism came out at the peak of Greco-roman culture when all was being accepted, and then the society was destroyed. Polytheistic relgions were far less warlike due to the salad bar type of gods, so everyone just accepted everyone else's gods (not all the time, but as culture progressed).
 
Bill Thompson said:
You don't state your conclusion. You post little facts that I would imagine everyone already knows. So what?

It is as if you drop little hints because you want someone to figure out what you mean. This seems to delight you. Why else would you do it again and again and again?

It reminds me of a relative who would drop little facts that would point to JFK being killed by the mob. He would not come out and say it. But he got pleasure in dropping little hints. He did not have the courage to come out and say that he really believed that JFK was killed by organized crime because that was probably not true.

I am just guessing here but are you saying that all religions are bad and since you think Atheism is not also just another religion, this means Atheism is good and has no faults? You don't have the courage to come out and say this because this is possibly and probably not true. So you just drop little hints.

Well, do you think people have NOT done horrible things in the name of atheism or because they are atheists? This is an interesting idea. Why not start a discussion thread about it? It is unethical for you to hijack this discussion thread to make your point.
Click to expand...

who did what?
 
Bill Thompson said:
You don't state your conclusion. You post little facts that I would imagine everyone already knows. So what?

It is as if you drop little hints because you want someone to figure out what you mean. This seems to delight you. Why else would you do it again and again and again?
Click to expand...

I'm not 'dropping little facts'. I've explicitly stated my views.

I've also asked questions you have not answered. Merely stating my views has led to misunderstanding. So why would I just go on repeating myself? If you were to answer the questions I asked, I think you would get a better understanding of what I am trying to say.

It reminds me of a relative who would drop little facts that would point to JFK being killed by the mob. He would not come out and say it. But he got pleasure in dropping little hints. He did not have the courage to come out and say that he really believed that JFK was killed by organized crime because that was probably not true.

I am just guessing here but are you saying that all religions are bad and since you think Atheism is not also just another religion, this means Atheism is good and has no faults?
Click to expand...

Bad guess. Very bad guess. In fact, I'll say it a third time because I pointed out a previous 3 time repetition and I like to work a theme: That was a bad guess.
 
Atheism is not seen as negative because it has no competition. All monotheistic religions all have some person they deem to be a messiah and how they are right and everyone else is wrong. They also have people that manipulate the masses that follow into believing what they say is the words of these people they have such pride in, ie. the Pope. Atheism has none of this, its s social issue not a basis of religious beliefs, which I don't see being split apart here. This topic is being treated, metaphorically, as drunken politics, where when the actual arguments behind the debates of the issues ends people start pointing fingers at those who are in power and how it's so-and-so's fault and not on the issues that are that of politics.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Her name is Mona Pingree. Why do you ask? Do you doubt me? Are you looking to exploit people?
Click to expand...

Mona Pingree lost her niece in the 9/11 attacks, and her niece was the youngest victim?

Hmm.

Yeah, you're lying your ass off. The youngest victim of 9/11 was Christine Hanson (age 2) who was flying with her parents Peter and Sue.

Peter had a sister called Kathryn (known as Kathy) and no other siblings. She married and became Kathy Barrere. Sue, as far as I can find, had no siblings, and her maiden name was Kim.


The next youngest passenger was a 3 ear old boy called David Reed Gamboa Brandhorst.

The third youngest was Dana Falkenberg and next was Juliana Valentine McCourt both 4. I can find no evidence of either of these having a relative called Mona, let alone a Mona Pingree.

After that, we start getting older, with Dana Falkenberg's sister Zoe Falkenberg who was 8.

After that, they're all aged 11+ and would be hard to think were the youngest victims.

So yeah, I think you're lying when you said
Bill Thompson said:
A good friend of mine lost her niece, the youngest victim of 9-11..
Click to expand...
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Mona Pingree lost her niece in the 9/11 attacks, and her niece was the youngest victim?

Hmm.

Yeah, you're lying your ass off. The youngest victim of 9/11 was Christine Hanson (age 2) who was flying with her parents Peter and Sue.

Peter had a sister called Kathryn (known as Kathy) and no other siblings. She married and became Kathy Barrere. Sue, as far as I can find, had no siblings, and her maiden name was Kim.
Click to expand...

He may be lying about knowing Mona Pingree, but not about her relation to Christine Hanson. Christine's grandmother (ie, her father Peter's mother) Eunice's maiden name was Stylos. Ramona Pingree married Eunice's brother (Peter's uncle) Paul Stylos, making Mona Pingree Christine's great-aunt.
 
ANTPogo said:
He may be lying about knowing Mona Pingree, but not about her relation to Christine Hanson. Christine's grandmother (ie, her father Peter's mother) Eunice's maiden name was Stylos. Ramona Pingree married Eunice's brother (Peter's uncle) Paul Stylos, making Mona Pingree Christine's great-aunt.
Click to expand...

Ahh. See, I was looking for an aunt, so I must have overlooked the great aunt. Thank you very much for correcting me, and my sincere and full apologies to you Bill.
 
Bill Thompson said:
What is your point? If the catholic church is bad, this means, what, exactly about Islam? What? Tell me your conclusion?

Do you think that by Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer are bascially full of it and liars? Have you read any of their books? Do you think they are wrong when they say that Islam is a threat to Western Culture, or way of life, science in general and the well being and survival or our species? Is all that a lie?

Better yet, answer this. Since the Catholic church is bad, do you think that the opinions of the people who have written clear, logical and incontravertable proof that Islamic mainstream is bad for all of is, is not true?
Click to expand...

Robert Spencer is a delusional paranoid lunatic. I don't know how anyone can take that freak seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom