"She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

[Sampson]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

You have Israelis murdering Pakistanis and half the world thinks it's their right because the Pakistanis killed a handful of people using sugar powered rockets.

"Half the world"? I doubt this. The majority of the political left opposes Israel. Outside of the Jews I know, and a few Christians who believe in end times, I can't say I've talked to any average American that was gung-ho for Israel. And that's the United States. I'd bet anything that the populations of other countries are even less supportive. Just because a nation's government agrees with Israel does not mean that the people of that nation do.

Smoking has been proven countless times to lead to cancer but that doesn't stop doctors, scientists, and average joes from lighting up.

How does this support your argument? It doesn't. Smoking has positives as well as negatives. It reduces stress. It can be enjoyable. The people who smoke have determined that they value the benefits of smoking enough to take the associated risk. I do not know any smokers who attempt to refute any claims that smoking causes cancer.

People are convinced that Obama is a communist despite no evidence proving so.

Well you aren't using the term "communist" correctly, but that's beside the point. Despite the evidence that is presented in the video, the people who do believe in the whole Illuminati conspiracy are more than likely delusional. I'll give you that. I didn't say that delusion comes only from religion, just that religion is a major source of it.

Racial prejudice is still strong in America yet the white man insists that the average "minority" has it better than them.

I'm a "white man". I don't think the average minority has it better than me. They do get some unfair advantages in college admissions and the like, but overall I do not agree with your statement. I don't think most white Americans would either.

People are stupid. Period. Religion is only a factor. If you remove religion you're still left with people being stupid.

There's a difference between "being stupid" and being controlled. A stupid person will have a baby out of wedlock at the age of 17. A controlled person will starve that baby to death. A stupid person will donate money to a mainstream political campaign. A controlled person will strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowded public area. Differences, they are apparent.

There are many radical research projects that could prove useful but never happen because the community is judgmental itself. Proving that one race may be naturally more intelligent than another race sounds like a terrible project doesn't it?

The scientific community is so tight knit that in order to prevent being called out by their peers and keep their funding,

It's not scientists that are judgmental--its society itself.

But it's progression, right? We have little knowledge on how the brain differs genetically based on race but NOT A SINGLE PERSON DARES TRY AND RESEARCH IT for fear of being publicly called out. Progression is halted to save face.

First off, there is really no such thing as "intelligence". People can be "intelligent" in different ways. So actively trying to determine which races are more intelligent than others is a foolish pursuit.

Second, I'm sure the research will be done some day in the future, but I can understand why its not done now. Any data that emerges for any such research would be used by racists and bigots to further their agendas. No scientist wants to give these people any more credibility.

I'm sure there's some cell found in an exotic animal that someone somewhere learned how to extract but can't because someone somewhere else has convinced the government that the creature in question should be protected.

Easy example of this is stem cell research. But the government does not have the power to halt scientific advancement. If something is truly promising, it will occur in a secret lab or outside of the US. I personally know people who have traveled to Mexico to have embryonic stem cells implanted in their own bodies.

I actually laughed at this. Psychologists have studied the effects of cognitive dissonance on people; that feeling of tension when you KNOW you're wrong. People don't like being wrong. You can't tell me that, not once in your life, when faced with overwhelming evidence that proved contrary to what you believed in, you actually willingly accepted it.

Denial is the first step to acceptance. This holds true for every human. Even if it's a fleeting moment lasting seconds, you will deny evidence against something you truly believe in.

There's your answer. Rational people may not like being wrong. They may deny it at first. But they eventually come around to the truth. Other people never come around to the truth. They will remain in denial their whole lives. These people are called fundamentalists.

[marcus]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

Just because a nation's government agrees with Israel does not mean that the people of that nation do.

In a democratic government? It does. We elect the people in power by a majority vote. We have the power to impeach literally anyone in office, it just takes the majority to agree with it. In politics, majority rules.

How does this support your argument? It doesn't. Smoking has positives as well as negatives. It reduces stress. It can be enjoyable. The people who smoke have determined that they value the benefits of smoking enough to take the associated risk. I do not know any smokers who attempt to refute any claims that smoking causes cancer.

It proves that people will continue doing something despite the evidence against it. Praying can be enjoyable and can reduce stress. The people who are "born again" (as opposed to those raised in a religion) found that the benefits in their new found faith work for them. I can't think of a single person who believes in god that hasn't doubted their choice. Every self-aware human worries whether or not their choice is the right choice but we keep on doing what we're doing because we enjoy it or believe it's the right choice.

I'm a "white man". I don't think the average minority has it better than me. They do get some unfair advantages in college admissions and the like, but overall I do not agree with your statement. I don't think most white Americans would either.

As I said above. In politics, majority rules. The entire Bush administration was based around keeping Americans xenophobic and "culturally" pure. Obviously things are different with the Obama administration, but don't forget that in your father's lifetime people of "color" couldn't drink from the same faucets. The idea of racial "equality" isn't even 50 years old.

Well you aren't using the term "communist" correctly, but that's beside the point. Despite the evidence that is presented in the video, the people who do believe in the whole Illuminati conspiracy are more than likely delusional. I'll give you that. I didn't say that delusion comes only from religion, just that religion is a major source of it.

Just do a google search for Obama and Communism and you'll find dozens of dumb conspiracy theories that thousands of people actually buy into but this is beyond the point of this topic.

There's a difference between "being stupid" and being controlled. A stupid person will have a baby out of wedlock at the age of 17. A controlled person will starve that baby to death. A stupid person will donate money to a mainstream political campaign. A controlled person will strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowded public area. Differences, they are apparent.

And a stupid person is one step away from being controlled. The same teenager with a child could turn to crime to make up for the expenses and end up abandoning the child when things become rough. The same person who votes out of racial/gender preference could be putting a complete monster in office. They're both detrimental to the growth of society but ironically they're the results of society. When two people get together they either bash each other in skulls or one exerts dominance and leads the other.

It's not scientists that are judgmental--its society itself.

And yet scientists are members of society. They pay taxes, they require funding, they live normal lives outside of the office. As I linked above, a Nobel award winning scientist revealed his racial bias. Now, he could come up with something truly great but everyone will regard him as "that racist guy."

Second, I'm sure the research will be done some day in the future, but I can understand why its not done now. Any data that emerges for any such research would be used by racists and bigots to further their agendas. No scientist wants to give these people any more credibility.

Change your wording around and you'll truly understand how religion works. Jesus never said that you should hate homosexuals. There's no passage in the Qu'ran telling you to sacrifice your life to destroy your enemies and you'll be granted virgins in heaven.

People can twist anything into a weapon. Millions of people have died in the name of God while millions have been helped in his name. Likewise, the same technology that advances society was, in nearly all cases, originally designed to destroy.

There's your answer. Rational people may not like being wrong. They may deny it at first. But they eventually come around to the truth. Other people never come around to the truth. They will remain in denial their whole lives. These people are called fundamentalists.

And unfortunately fundamentalists outnumber rational people, religious and atheist. We just hear more from the religious side because it's easy to point fingers at their community as a whole.

Easy example of this is stem cell research. But the government does not have the power to halt scientific advancement. If something is truly promising, it will occur in a secret lab or outside of the US. I personally know people who have traveled to Mexico to have embryonic stem cells implanted in their own bodies.

Research that could be improved drastically if it were accepted by society as a whole.

But again, morals hold us back and I doubt any of us are willing to give up our morality in the name of human advancement. Hundreds of people have written stories about science vs. humanity. There's no point in bringing it up again in this topic.

[Red Dragon]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

People are stupid. Period.

qft

I hate religion topics, yet I can't keep myself away.

[Eso Teric]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

This is silly, you're all silly.

[Jamos]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

Welcome to the pavilion. All religion topics become debates, silly.

[Eso Teric]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

Hey, I read it all, I think some of us will agree that it's been hella boring here lately.






Bring Neg rep back.

[Sampson]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

In a democratic government? It does. We elect the people in power by a majority vote. We have the power to impeach literally anyone in office, it just takes the majority to agree with it. In politics, majority rules.

Okay, so because a majority of people in this country elected Obama, that means that every policy he enacts, all of the people in this country must agree with him? Because that's what you're implying. And that's clearly faulty reasoning. Even the people who voted for him don't agree with him all the time or even most of the time.

It proves that people will continue doing something despite the evidence against it.

Once again, there is a difference between doing something despite the evidence against it, and willfully ignoring the evidence against it. Have you ever met a smoker who denied that smoking causes cancer? I can't say that I have. On the other hand, how many people have you met that devoutly pray, and yet acknowledge that it has no purpose?

The entire Bush administration was based around keeping Americans xenophobic and "culturally" pure.

Xenophobic...perhaps. Culturally pure? Quite a stretch. Even then, it was obvious that the majority of Americans didn't agree--Bush left office with the lowest approval ratings ever.

Obviously things are different with the Obama administration, but don't forget that in your father's lifetime people of "color" couldn't drink from the same faucets. The idea of racial "equality" isn't even 50 years old.

Your original idea was that the proverbial "white man" believes he is somehow worse off than the average minority. That he believes this despite overwhelming evidence. That idea is wrong, bottom line.

And a stupid person is one step away from being controlled.

The religious person is already controlled.

People can twist anything into a weapon.

True. But this is my major point: Religion is the easiest "thing" to twist into a weapon. It is easier to get people to do things with religion than it is with nationalism, or pride or xenophobia or anything else you want to throw out there as devices of human control.

This is what makes religion so uniquely dangerous. It is so easy to use. It by design is irrational, makes statements that are completely unverifiable, and pulls at the very heartstrings of the most basic of human desires--self preservation.

If I tell you that you should do X because people living in country Y are all evil and will take your job, you could theoretically correspond with people from that country. Travel there. Study economics. Find out for yourself if the xenophobia is justified.

On the other hand, if I tell you to do X because invisible man Y said so and if you don't your fate forever and ever until the end of time will be torment...well there's no way to test that. You can't check for God. You can't check for an afterlife.

That is why religion is much more dangerous than any of those other forces.

[marcus]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

Okay, so because a majority of people in this country elected Obama, that means that every policy he enacts, all of the people in this country must agree with him? Because that's what you're implying. And that's clearly faulty reasoning. Even the people who voted for him don't agree with him all the time or even most of the time.

In a democratic government, the government represents the people. Ask any foreigner what they think of America and their opinion will be a direct reflection of the man in charge. Realistically you can't achieve 100% agreement with everyone, but bills are passed by elected representatives.

As I said, the voters could move to impeach any person in office. Bush was hated but obviously not hated enough to remove from office.

Once again, there is a difference between doing something despite the evidence against it, and willfully ignoring the evidence against it. Have you ever met a smoker who denied that smoking causes cancer? I can't say that I have. On the other hand, how many people have you met that devoutly pray, and yet acknowledge that it has no purpose?

But it does have purpose, you just don't understand the purpose. I see no purpose in smoking but I'm not going to deny that some people find it relaxing.

Xenophobic...perhaps. Culturally pure? Quite a stretch. Even then, it was obvious that the majority of Americans didn't agree--Bush left office with the lowest approval ratings ever.

Any country that closes its borders and spends millions in tax dollars to remove immigrants is either A) protecting themselves from foreign intrusion or B) removing outside cultural influences. I'd say both A and B imply.

Your original idea was that the proverbial "white man" believes he is somehow worse off than the average minority. That he believes this despite overwhelming evidence. That idea is wrong, bottom line.

It's wrong yet people still believe in it. Do you not watch tv?
Have you ever lived in a southern state where racial prejudice is still strong?

The religious person is already controlled.

The stupid ones. No one influences my opinions. Reverend King wasn't controlled. Ghandi didn't lead his people on a religious crusade. Stupidity is as stupidity does. It's not exclusive to religion.

True. But this is my major point: Religion is the easiest "thing" to twist into a weapon. It is easier to get people to do things with religion than it is with nationalism, or pride or xenophobia or anything else you want to throw out there as devices of human control.

Are you really this clueless in world history? What's the last war that was truly started out of reilgion? The crusades? Even the crusades were really about expansion with religion as a coverup.

WWII
WWI
Vietnam
American Civil War
Revolutionary War
War of the Roses
100 Year War
Desert Storm
Iraqi Freedom
Israel vs. Hamas

The Japanese sought to eradicate China out of national pride. Germany invaded Poland out of national pride.
Thousands of African, Indian, and Chinese people were enslaved to work the fields out of national pride. European colonists destroyed the ecosystems and introduced diseases across Africa and the middle east out of national pride. Spain genocided the Mayans and a dozen other meso-american civilizations out of national pride. More people have died out of pride in their race, country, and empirical ideals than religion. People fight to secure their religious beliefs, but not a single war was started because "leader A doesn't believe in Leader B's god."

All of these are the results of human pride, nationalism, ignorance, and xenophobia NOT religion. When you make someone believe that they're truly more important than everyone else, you can get anyone to fight for you.

If I tell you that you should do X because people living in country Y are all evil and will take your job, you could theoretically correspond with people from that country. Travel there. Study economics. Find out for yourself if the xenophobia is justified.

Flowery ideology. There's never been a mass exodus of people visiting their enemies to see things through their eyes. I'll buy you tickets to Gaza if you choose to visit there for a day.

[HolyPhoenix]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

That's pretty sad. Just shows how some people are stupid.... As crazy as the child's mother sounds I doubt any "earthly" punishment would do anything to change a mind as crazy as that. Unless someone could psychologically change it.

[Sampson]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

In a democratic government

Stop right there. Our government is not democratic.

Ask any foreigner what they think of America and their opinion will be a direct reflection of the man in charge.

Doesn't make their opinion correct.

Realistically you can't achieve 100% agreement with everyone, but bills are passed by elected representatives.

The bank bail out bill of October was opposed by the vast majority of Americans. It was passed anyway.

As I said, the voters could move to impeach any person in office.

No. They cannot. The rules vary for each individual office, but even if 90% of the people in this country wanted to impeach Obama, they could not legally do it. Presidents can only be impeached by the Congress. Mayors are often impeached by the governor or the city council. The "people" are rarely, if ever, allowed to impeach government officials directly.

But it does have purpose, you just don't understand the purpose. I see no purpose in smoking but I'm not going to deny that some people find it relaxing.

Well, it depends on your definition of prayer. The traditional Christian definition of prayer would be for the purpose of thanking God and asking him to grant you favors. If you're praying strictly for the purpose of inner calm and relaxation, that's more or less mediation which really isn't prayer.

Any country that closes its borders and spends millions in tax dollars to remove immigrants is either A) protecting themselves from foreign intrusion or B) removing outside cultural influences. I'd say both A and B imply.

The vast majority of US opposition to immigration is based on the faulty economic theory that immigration takes jobs away from domestic workers. People are more worried about "them takin' our jebs" then keeping "our culture pure". Whatever that even means.

It's wrong yet people still believe in it. Do you not watch tv?
Have you ever lived in a southern state where racial prejudice is still strong?

Since you made the claim the burden of proof is on you. So please, show me one statistic, one study that says that a majority of white Americans feel that the average minority is "better off than them".

Stupidity is as stupidity does. It's not exclusive to religion.

I didn't say it was. In fact, I said the opposite if you go back and re-read my post.

Are you really this clueless in world history?

Are you really so clueless as to limit your pool of occurrences to major wars that occurred in the last 100 years?

If you want to argue it that way, then I'll cede the point. Yes, in the last 100 years, more people have been killed for nationalistic reasons than religion. Fair enough.

But I'm not so short sighted as to limit my view to the major wars of the 20th century. The concept of nation that exists today has really only been around for the last 1000 years. In the grand scheme of human history, more people have been killed for religion than for nationalism.

Even the crusades were really about expansion with religion as a coverup.

That's a copout and a total side stepping of the point. If you want to really break it down that way, then every war ever started was about resource accumulation. But that's not the point. We're talking about devices of control. So, if you want to look at a war, you have to analyze it from the methods used to motivate/control the average soldier and the population in general.

So yes, the Crusades were religious wars. As was the Islamic conquest of Africa and Europe, the conquest of Spain over the New World (at least in large degree although to be fair there were other factors) and the recent Israel vs the middle east wars.

But my point is larger than wars. I'm talking about control on a day to day basis. Easy example: I work at a restaurant. On Fridays in lent we have a fish fry and we sell a lot of fish. Why? Because religious control. According to Catholicism, you aren't supposed to eat meat on Friday. While harmless, its still a method of control.

How about Mormon kids being forced to go a specific university? Or Mormon guys being required to give up two years of their life in service to the church? Last night I saw an infomercial of a man attempting to get people to give him money, claiming that if they gave a donation of at least $100 God would "bless them".

Jews that won't spend money on Fridays? People that follow strict dietary religious codes? People that refuse to marry outside of their religion? I mean, the list goes on and on and on. And these are just basic examples in present day American culture.

Just because a million people don't die in a battle doesn't mean the control isn't there.

...[N]ot a single war was started because "leader A doesn't believe in Leader B's god." All of these are the results of human pride, nationalism, ignorance, and xenophobia NOT religion. When you make someone believe that they're truly more important than everyone else, you can get anyone to fight for you.

Again, blinding yourself to everything sans wars is foolish, but it really doesn't matter. The leaders may not have started the war for religion but they damn well appealed to religion to get their soldiers to fight the battles.

Flowery ideology. There's never been a mass exodus of people visiting their enemies to see things through their eyes. I'll buy you tickets to Gaza if you choose to visit there for a day.

It doesn't take a mass exodus. All it takes is one reporter.

[marcus]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

This is obviously going nowhere so I’m just going to close by saying I think it’s ironic Sampson speaks about control when he refuses to acknowledge that nationalism has, historically, controlled more people than religion ever has. Sampson believes religion is this universal thing that can whip people into a frenzy at the drop of a dime. Organized religion is still fairly new with Christianity only being about a thousand years old. While idols and gods have been created by ancient civilizations like Egypt, nationalism has always been the driving force behind human domination and I proved it.

At one point in history religion could be used as a method of control, but to deny that it still has the prevalence now that it did 1,000 years ago is foolish. Ever since 0AD, nationalism has made humans bend to the will of their leaders. If anything, religion is what causes a schism between people of the same nation which is why the Roman empire and several other civilizations would hunt down and kill people who didn’t believe in their god.

If you honestly believe religion is the primary force of control then you’re horribly mistaken or your world view comes specifically from the media. I’ve been to Iraq, I’ve spoken with war prisoners, and I’ve talked with locals who support western society but continue to fight because they love their country and don’t want to lose their values. There are a thousand plus organized religions in the world. You can’t tell me that they control people on the same scale as nationalism.

As far as “control” goes, it’s the same old argument of freedom vs. restraint. Having a strict diet doesn’t make you controlled. Waiting until you’re ready to have sex instead of rushing into it doesn’t make you controlled. Fasting for five days straight doesn’t make you controlled.

And the logic behind prayer is also stupid. The Christian prayer is traditionally about confession, asking for guidance, and praise. Confession requires self reflection, asking for guidance requires the insight to know about future problems that are troubling you, and praising someone’s name unconditionally requires humility. Self reflection, insight, humility… sounds like positive things to me.

Sampson, your entire argument is based around a really juvenile understanding of how the world operates. I don’t want to make assumptions about your personal life, but I bet you were raised religious, naturally rebelled in your teens, and lived in a small town that was mostly Christian. Obviously this would make anyone bitter. You called me out on my opinion that most of white America feels underprivileged based on my assumptions from the media.

Well, I’m calling you out that your opinions on religion are based on assumptions from the media. The stupidest people always talk the loudest. You never hear about these guys on the media, now do you?

[Sampson]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

I think it’s ironic Sampson speaks about control when he refuses to acknowledge that nationalism has, historically, controlled more people than religion ever has.

I won't because it hasn't.

Organized religion is still fairly new with Christianity only being about a thousand years old.

There you go, spouting off more information that's factually incorrect. Christianity at least 1900 years old. How could Romans persecute Christians in the second century AD when, according to you, Christianity didn't even exist?

Christianity as an organized religion is roughly 1700 years old, going back to the council of Nicea in 325 AD.

nationalism has always been the driving force behind human domination and I proved it.

All you did was cite wars occurring in the 20th century. You proved nothing.

Ever since 0AD, nationalism has made humans bend to the will of their leaders.

Nationalism is a relatively new concept. "Nations" are really not that old. Brittan and France are only about 1000 years old. Spain less than that. Germany about 130 years. Iraq less than a hundred.

Prior to the year 1000 AD people were more divided based on the tribe of people they belonged to rather than what nation they considered themselves citizens of. Before that, when Rome ruled most of Europe, it still had a great deal of internal strife including many civil wars. They were not fueled by nationalism, seeing as how they all belonged to the same state.

religion is what causes a schism between people of the same nation which is why the Roman empire and several other civilizations would hunt down and kill people who didn’t believe in their god.

I think this proves my point more so than yours.

If you honestly believe religion is the primary force of control then you’re horribly mistaken or your world view comes specifically from the media.

Well considering your lack of knowledge concerning the history of religion and the US government, I'd bet my bank account I'm better read than you.

I’ve been to Iraq, I’ve spoken with war prisoners, and I’ve talked with locals who support western society but continue to fight because they love their country and don’t want to lose their values.

Let's talk about Iraq since you brought it up.

Iraq is really not a united country in any sense of the word. It has its origins in ancient Babylon, but the country of Iraq as it is known today was created when a bunch of European politicians drew lines indiscriminately on a map of the middle east following WWI.

This ignorant line drawing created a country composed of three different groups: the kurds, the sunni Muslims, and the shia Muslims. Hussein, showing his hatred of the kurds, used WMDs against them in the 1980s. As for the other two groups: the divide between the sunni and shia Muslims, a divide over religion, has marked the entire modern history of Iraq. The ongoing war there today is mostly a civil war between the two Muslim sects. Simply google "sunni shia divide Iraq" to get an endless list of news stories.

Having a strict diet doesn’t make you controlled.

It depends on why. Let's say I offer you a piece of pork. If you say, "No thanks. Pork is too fatty for my diet." Then you aren't controlled. You're making a choice on whether or not to eat the pork based on your own decisions and knowledge of the world.

However, if you say, "I would like the pork, but I will not eat it because my religious beliefs do not allow me to." Then you are controlled. If you were not religious you would eat the pork, but your restraint only exists because the religious beliefs are there. Thus, the religious beliefs are making the decision for you and thereby controlling you.

Sampson, your entire argument is based around a really juvenile understanding of how the world operates.

I don’t want to make assumptions about your personal life, but I bet you were raised religious, naturally rebelled in your teens, and lived in a small town that was mostly Christian.

Nope, nope and nope. I grew up in the suburbs. I was born into a family of non-practicing Catholics. I did become an atheist in my early teenage years, but I never "rebelled".

Obviously this would make anyone bitter

I hold no bitterness towards religion. I only find it ridiculous that so many people allow themselves to be controlled by it.

Well, I’m calling you out that your opinions on religion are based on assumptions from the media.

I have no idea where you get this notion that my opinions of religion are controlled by the media. Anyway, since I already discussed religious control in daily life, I'll close this post with a short list of major atrocities committed because of religion. (the events on this list appear because many/most of the victims targeted were targeted due to their religion or the oppressors used religion as a major justification for their actions)

-Current Islamic Jihad (Iraq&Afghanistan as well as the ongoing terrorist attacks)
-Conflicts in Côte d'Ivoire
-Conflicts in Cyprus
-Conflicts in East Timor
-Bosnian War
-Northern Ireland
-Various conflicts over religion in India in the past 100 years (example: prime minister murdered in 1984 by her Sikhn bodyguards after she attacked one of their temples)
-Conflicts in Indonesia
-Conflicts in Kashmir
-Genocide in Kosovo
-Conflicts in Macedonia
-Conflicts in Nigeria
-Chechnya
-Conflicts in Sri Lanka
-Genocide in Sudan
-Conflicts in Uganda
-The Holocaust
-The Armenian genocide
-The conquest of the "New World"
-The Spanish Inquisition
-Aztec Wars for the purpose of finding human sacrifice victims
-Witch Trials
-The conquest and re-conquest of Spain
-The Crusades
-The Muslim expansion wars
-The Persecution of Christians by Romans

Again, just a short list, not in anyway a complete overview of all the atrocities committed.

[LunarWingCloud]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

I remember reading this.
I wish we could pull this stupid stuff.
"You killed that baby!"
"Yah, but it was possessed!"
"Oh.... Carry on, then."

[marcus]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

-Current Islamic Jihad (Iraq&Afghanistan as well as the ongoing terrorist attacks)
-Conflicts in Côte d'Ivoire
-Conflicts in Cyprus
-Conflicts in East Timor
-Bosnian War
-Northern Ireland
-Various conflicts over religion in India in the past 100 years (example: prime minister murdered in 1984 by her Sikhn bodyguards after she attacked one of their temples)
-Conflicts in Indonesia
-Conflicts in Kashmir
-Genocide in Kosovo
-Conflicts in Macedonia
-Conflicts in Nigeria
-Chechnya
-Conflicts in Sri Lanka
-Genocide in Sudan
-Conflicts in Uganda
-The Holocaust
-The Armenian genocide
-The conquest of the "New World"
-The Spanish Inquisition
-Aztec Wars for the purpose of finding human sacrifice victims
-Witch Trials
-The conquest and re-conquest of Spain
-The Crusades
-The Muslim expansion wars
-The Persecution of Christians by Romans

90% of these are about land. Israel is the "promised land" originally owned by the Arabs. The Arabs want the Jews out because it's their ****ing land, not because they worship yahweh.

Also man, the holocaust? The colonisation of the Americas? If you think Hitler killed Jews and Gypsies because he hates the idea of God then good gracious you're dumb.

yeah, pretty much done here. let this topic die in the bowels of the next pages.

[Sampson]

Re: "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion"

Israel is the "promised land" originally owned by the Arabs. The Arabs want the Jews out because it's their ****ing land, not because they worship yahweh.

The Palestinians may want the land back, but that doesn't explain the hatred of the other Arab states.

For example, the Iranians have not controlled Palestine since the fall of the Persian empire. They do not care about the land. They don't want it. They want to wipe out Israel because Israel is a theocratic state based on a religion other than Islam. It's that simple.

Also man, the holocaust?...If you think Hitler killed Jews and Gypsies because he hates the idea of God then good gracious you're dumb.

Wiping out six million people based solely on their religious beliefs does not count as a religious atrocity? What counts then pal? I really can't think of a BETTER example of religious hatred than the holocaust.

The colonisation of the Americas?

Yes, the colonization of the Americas. The Spanish conquistadors brought armies of missionaries with them to convert the indigenous people that they did not slaughter. They burned Aztec books because they thought they were unholy. Christopher Columbus actually set out on his voyage for largely religious reasons:

Christopher Columbus had a mystic belief that God intended him to sail the Atlantic Ocean in order to spread Christianity. He said his prayers several times daily. Columbus wrote what he called a Book of Prophecies, which is a compilation of passages Columbus selected from the Bible which he believed were pertinent to his mission of discovery. What a person believes is what determines his interpretation of life and history and inspires his vision and purpose in life. Columbus's own writings prove that he believed that God revealed His plan for the world in the Bible, the infallible Word of God. Columbus believed that he was obeying the mission God staked out for his life when he set sail west across the Atlantic Ocean.

source: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/co...columbus.shtml

yeah, pretty much done here. let this topic die in the bowels of the next pages.

Translation: You are making me look like a fool. I cannot continue to argue against you because I do not know what I am talking about. Please stop so people do not realize this.