Research on Belief in God

Page 71 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jspear said:
Yes I think people can live good, decent, and moral lives without being a christian. I don't believe myself to be morally better than anyone on this form...at least I'm hoping there aren't any murders around. :D I believe EVERY single human on the planet is a sinner and so in need of a Savior (in this sense I don't think anyone is "good.") We all do things that are not pleasing to God. So being a Christian doesn't stop us from sinning per se. You simply realize that you are a sinner, repent and trust in Jesus alone - that He can forgive you and make you right with God, and live in accordance with what He tell us in His Word. If you are a born again believer you will start to hate sin more and more and want to love God and your neighbors more and more.

Not reading the scriptures doesn't automatically lead to doing bad things. Most people won't murder or rape someone regardless of their spiritual condition. But - I would argue that without the Bible you cannot have a set standard of morality. IF a christian truly follows the bible they won't covet, lie, steal, commit adultury, ect. as much. We still sin, but if our hearts have changed then we will repent, and continue following God. A non believer will be more prone to committing certain sins without it bothering their consciences. Hypothetically if there was a person who could perfectly follow Christ and His Word, than yes he would be better than any other person on the planet. But no one does follow the bible perfectly...we sin and mess up. I think this is one of the reasons why non believers criticize Christianity so much - because they look at the actions of people who say they believe in God and say "well then I don't want to follow that."

No I'm not some holier than thou type person...
However de facto you are, no, according to your faith? Well let's hope all the guilt has its divine compensation. After all, without the reward, why bother? On the other hand, I'm always suspect of the sincerity of people who do things for reward and fear of punishment.

The conviction that we are inherently evil is a useless flagellation, and it plays into the hands to all those who have power.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Organized Religion is really nothing more than a tool for those in power to keep the peasants under control and to send them off to fight wars for more power and/or territory. The Crusades, 100 virgins, "no atheists in foxholes" and on and on. Society would certainly be the better for it if no organized religion existed.
Now don't go all Marx on us Hugh. This critique of yours on organised religion (which is very similar that what Marx thought) is applicable in a way to almost every ideal, regardless of whether it is religious or not. The state has been abused for warmongering, suppression, power-trips and worse; should be abolish the state too? Hey, Marx' own ideas have been (ab)used to justify far more violence than religion ever caused. Shall we abolish socialism too then?

All of that is ridiculous of course; but it's just as ridiculous as criticizing organized religion for being abused.

Can we pleaaassseee get out of the "your ideals are stupid because this person claiming to adhere to your ideals did something bad" phase. It's really childish. Religion isn't bad because some people in some places have abused it for evil. Socialism isn't bad because of Stalin and Mao. Nationalism isn't bad because of Hitler. The Islam isn't bad because of IS. The Enlightenment isn't bad because of Robespierre. Virtually every idea under the sun has been abused to manipulate people and to justify evil. If anything it shows just how morally depraved humans are (can be). Deal with it and find real arguments if you want to attack an idea, preferably based on the content of the idea you wish to attack, not on its abuse.

(btw, Hugh, I'm not attacking you specifically on this point. I'm just getting frustrated in general by this type of reasoning as frequently seen in this topic. So please don't take it to heavy! :))
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Maaaaaaaarten said:
The Islam isn't bad because of IS.
100% agree...

... The islam is not bad because of the IS. The IS is bad because of the islam with it´s manic fantasies of omnipotence, violence against "disbelievers", misogyny, and so on.

The IS (and all the other failed states that have the sharia) do just what the quran tells them. Can´t blame them, they just learned from the book of evil since childhood.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Sura 5, Vers 51:
"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."

Especially decdicated to the christian poster (and all those lemmings from christian churches who did the "lights off" against Pegida yesterday in Cologne and elswhere) who naively think he (they) got moslem friends. That is a oxymoron from the POV of a moslem...

... and more hostility towards women,
Sura 2, Vers 223:
"Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers."

Translation to English that everybody understands: Phuck your woman whenever you feel like, and however you feel like. And if she don´t want... well, just think for yourself.

I can understand that may some/many sickos from original Europe like this religion coming completely forward in our (still) secularisation countries, so to have full power over women, but women demonstrating against Pegida are plain and simple dumb. Complete morons. They ask for oppression from the islam/quran.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Now don't go all Marx on us Hugh. This critique of yours on organised religion (which is very similar that what Marx thought) is applicable in a way to almost every ideal, regardless of whether it is religious or not. The state has been abused for warmongering, suppression, power-trips and worse; should be abolish the state too? Hey, Marx' own ideas have been (ab)used to justify far more violence than religion ever caused. Shall we abolish socialism too then?

All of that is ridiculous of course; but it's just as ridiculous as criticizing organized religion for being abused.

Can we pleaaassseee get out of the "your ideals are stupid because this person claiming to adhere to your ideals did something bad" phase. It's really childish. Religion isn't bad because some people in some places have abused it for evil. Socialism isn't bad because of Stalin and Mao. Nationalism isn't bad because of Hitler. The Islam isn't bad because of IS. The Enlightenment isn't bad because of Robespierre. Virtually every idea under the sun has been abused to manipulate people and to justify evil. If anything it shows just how morally depraved humans are (can be). Deal with it and find real arguments if you want to attack an idea, preferably based on the content of the idea you wish to attack, not on its abuse.

(btw, Hugh, I'm not attacking you specifically on this point. I'm just getting frustrated in general by this type of reasoning as frequently seen in this topic. So please don't take it to heavy! :))
Ahh, but now we come full surface. Unfortunately the State has the same calling, a higher power and so forth, the only difference being a cosmological precept, or not.

Once we figure out how to help each other, instead of preditory prepotency, then surely the Golden Age is near. All sarcasim aside.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
German vid, but the start says enough. Which "tolerant" lefty who defenses the islam here would like to be woken up in the night by such a fanatic sound day-in day-out? Who? I guess no one. The outspoken lefties sleep behind save walls (financed by the taxpayers), and let the others suffer for their wrong politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bynU-_R3yf0

I got trou it for three days once in holiday, then I just changed hotels. Never gone back to the one, even though they lowered prices.

Which other church needs such aggressive "advertising"? ... rhetorical question. Don´t mind.
 
Echoes said:
What is the historical context for Surah 9 - At-Tawbah? It's easy to take a quote out of its context. You can make it say what you want then. But it's pretty dishonest, I must say.

The context is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (628 or 6 AH). Before that Treaty the Muslims were already often persecuted by the other Meccans but the Treaty affirmed peace, .. for two years. In 630 the Banu Bakr tribe (allied with the Quraish - the Pagans) attacked the Khuza'a (allied with the Muslims) and the Quraish's supported them. They had just gone back on their words from the Treaty. They were at fault. Hence that order. The whole thing is of course explained in the Koran. It stands clear that the order is circumstantial. The Muslims did not kill the Pagans because they believed in idols or so, they did because they had broken their commitments.
Where is it explained in the Koran? Can you point me to a passage explaining the context?

On the other hand, the Surat Al-Baqarah (2nd one): 256 clearly states:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
The fact that you can cite passages indicating religious tolerance doesn’t reassure me. On the contrary, it makes the Koran appear schizo, saying there is no compulsion in one verse, exhorting followers to kill non-believers in another. If it’s true that the orders to kill were only given for the case of self-defense, then I find this a pretty major flaw in a Holy Book for this not to be emphasized. It is in fact NOT easy to take a quote out of its context IF some care is taken in describing exactly what one means.

Not to mention the fact that a genuine religion ought to be far more concerned with describing how its followers are to awaken than encouraging them to fight battles, even if the battles are in self-defense. The book teems with absolute statements—this is right, this is wrong—while lacking any of the subtlety that anyone in the process of awakening understands. It preaches a morality that is clearly a prisoner of its particular era and culture, rather than a product of experience of anything transcendental.

Arguably, the mark of a genuine religion is the ability of its followers to live with anyone, in any circumstances. Muslims and others end up fighting battles because like the religiously ignorant in all eras and places, they focus on external rules and conditions, apparently blind to the fact that awakening is consistent with any kind of external conditions. The whole point of awakening is freedom from external conditions.

You don’t want to be persecuted? Then don’t flaunt your beliefs. Don’t proclaim them, don’t advertise them, don’t compare them with other beliefs by denigrating the latter. Just live them.

Being religious is sort of like being politically powerful. If you have to tell people you are, you ain't.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Merckx index said:
The fact that you can cite passages indicating religious tolerance doesn’t reassure me. On the contrary, it makes the Koran appear schizo, saying there is no compulsion in one verse, exhorting followers to kill non-believers in another. If it’s true that the orders to kill were only given for the case of self-defense, then I find this a pretty major flaw in a Holy Book for this not to be emphasized. It is in fact NOT easy to take a quote out of its context IF some care is taken in describing exactly what one means.

Not to mention the fact that a genuine religion ought to be far more concerned with describing how its followers are to awaken than encouraging them to fight battles, even if the battles are in self-defense. The book teems with absolute statements—this is right, this is wrong—while lacking any of the subtlety that anyone in the process of awakening understands. It preaches a morality that is clearly a prisoner of its particular era and culture, rather than a product of experience of anything transcendental.

Arguably, the mark of a genuine religion is the ability of its followers to live with anyone, in any circumstances. Muslims and others end up fighting battles ...
Amen. ;) 1+

While I try to hammer away my thoughts into political corrected and gendermainstreamed brainwashed heads of the declining western civilization, you always come up with longer explanatory posts in a friendly manner (not only this thread, but any other).

But in the end, we agree more often than not.

P.S.: Always enjoying your well thought posts. :)
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Kenya travel warning (because of moslem terrorist attacks):

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/DE/Laenderinformationen/00-SiHi/KeniaSicherheit.html

Note: Kenya has "only" about 10% moslems.

Boston Marathon bomber (another one of those friendly poverty "refugees") may receive death penalty:

http://world.news-round.com/boston-bomber-threatens-the-death-penalty/

And the USA "only" has 1.5-2 % moslems.

And yet some "clever" poster (Maarten?) said it would "only" be a problem when the majority of a society are moslems. Epic Fail!
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Amen. ;) 1+

While I try to hammer away my thoughts into political corrected and gendermainstreamed brainwashed heads of the declining western civilization, you always come up with longer explanatory posts in a friendly manner (not only this thread, but any other).

But in the end, we agree more often than not.

P.S.: Always enjoying your well thought posts. :)
This has to be the best statement of 2015 so far! :D
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Now don't go all Marx on us Hugh. This critique of yours on organised religion (which is very similar that what Marx thought) is applicable in a way to almost every ideal, regardless of whether it is religious or not. The state has been abused for warmongering, suppression, power-trips and worse; should be abolish the state too? Hey, Marx' own ideas have been (ab)used to justify far more violence than religion ever caused. Shall we abolish socialism too then?

All of that is ridiculous of course; but it's just as ridiculous as criticizing organized religion for being abused.

Can we pleaaassseee get out of the "your ideals are stupid because this person claiming to adhere to your ideals did something bad" phase. It's really childish. Religion isn't bad because some people in some places have abused it for evil. Socialism isn't bad because of Stalin and Mao. Nationalism isn't bad because of Hitler. The Islam isn't bad because of IS. The Enlightenment isn't bad because of Robespierre. Virtually every idea under the sun has been abused to manipulate people and to justify evil. If anything it shows just how morally depraved humans are (can be). Deal with it and find real arguments if you want to attack an idea, preferably based on the content of the idea you wish to attack, not on its abuse.

(btw, Hugh, I'm not attacking you specifically on this point. I'm just getting frustrated in general by this type of reasoning as frequently seen in this topic. So please don't take it to heavy! :))
Nope, I disagree. Only religion uses the burn in eternal hell fire end result for anyone who dares to disbelieve. The others may threaten death but they do not claim to own your "soul".
BTW all the control mechanisms that you mentioned have come (and for the most part) gone, only religion has held on, controlling people, for as long as people have realized that they will one day die.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,222
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
German vid, but the start says enough. Which "tolerant" lefty who defenses the islam here would like to be woken up in the night by such a fanatic sound day-in day-out? Who? I guess no one. The outspoken lefties sleep behind save walls (financed by the taxpayers), and let the others suffer for their wrong politics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bynU-_R3yf0

I got trou it for three days once in holiday, then I just changed hotels. Never gone back to the one, even though they lowered prices.

Which other church needs such aggressive "advertising"? ... rhetorical question. Don´t mind.
You get mad about about a call of a muezzin but wonder why people believe that you are afraid of foreigners? I mean you bemoan the decline of the western world and believe islam/moslems are responsible for it. That means you are afraid of them. You also state that a "multi kulti ideology" is bad and brainwashing people so they don't understand (in contrast to you who has seen the light) whats going on, and that "multi-kulti" is actually bad for them. So you are against more than once culture at once, and you fear the consequences, but still you claim not to be afraid of foreigners and foreign cultures. How can that not be true? Or do you simply don't know what xenophobic means and equate it with "nazi"? It simply means "afraid of foreigners". It doesn't mean "hating foreigners" and it doesn't mean "wanting to harm foreigners".

The reason no one here is taking you serious, isn't because all of us are brainwashed, even though you obviously like to believe taht. The reason is that you don't use arguments that are worthy of the term. There are no conclusions in anything you say. You just state "Evil politically corred femi nazis" and than post some kind of stuff, and believe that to be an argument. Well it isn't. If you state an entire religion and all of it's followers are evil and try to back it up with an article about terrorism. That's not an argument. You need to explain why that is evidence of your point. Something at wich you fail every single time. You don't even try to. And it's very convienient for you to do so as well. Because that way you can just ignore everything that doesn't fit for opinion.
All you do is wildly associating stuff and say "See, see! There it is! You must see it! I am right!" That's not forming an argument, that's simply an emotional reaction. You have a fixed view of the world, and you take anything as prove that is fitting you're predjudices. You don't take examples, examine them, analyse them into bits to draw your conclusions. The conclusions are already made up. The world has to be the way you see it. So you take what is fitting and discard everything as illusion that isn't. Because it has to be like this, it cannot be like that. That's a classical "Sein/Sollen" mistake, executed in an extremly crude way.

And herein lies another problem. Because you construct everything around a normative scheme of your view of the world, you are unable to deal with conflicting parts of reality. There cannot be a muslim that is not lying about his liberalism. There cannot be peaceful and violent tendencies within the same framework of an overlying religions believe system. Everything can only have a single property in the way you analyse things.

To make it short at the end: no one is taking you seriously because you don't adhere to the logical principles of argumentation. Not because they are brainwashed.

That unwillingness is not only executed by you, especially not in this thread. But it's executed by you in the most crude way. It does also somewhat explain why people fall into fundamentalist believe in general I think.
 
Rechtschreibfehler said:
...
To make it short at the end: no one is taking you seriously because you don't adhere to the logical principles of argumentation. Not because they are brainwashed.
...
Yesterday Foxxybrown’s posts on this thread seemed like over the top rants.
Today they seem almost prophetic.
 
frenchfry said:
Yesterday Foxxybrown’s posts on this thread seemed like over the top rants.
Today they seem almost prophetic.
You're very short-sighted if you think that. Nothing happened today to change the argument. What happened today in Paris was happening yesterday elsewhere.

Still doesn't make Muslims part of a murdering hivemind.
 
hrotha said:
You're very short-sighted if you think that. Nothing happened today to change the argument. What happened today in Paris was happening yesterday elsewhere.

Still doesn't make Muslims part of a murdering hivemind.
It was happening elsewhere yesterday, so somehow that minimises the barbary?

Should we ignore the danger religious fundamentalism poses to our society?

Should we force ourselves into a political correct mindset, and treat some groups as victims even when they commit heinous acts?

Obviously, most muslims on French soil are not terrorists. This shouldn't keep us from being outraged at what happened and take necessary steps to ensure extremists aren't allowed to function with impunity.

It is a sad day when we can no longer lampoon the excesses of certain groups at the risk of being assinated.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
rhubroma said:
This has to be the best statement of 2015 so far! :D
You see, I am self-critical. Always been, in various threads. You further know from early last year (world politics thread, Ukraine "revolution") that I like short "hammer the message home" posts. You and I know that many people don´t like to read long detailed posts. Even though Merckxindex posts are well-thought, I guess many skip them because of their length.
But we both come to the same conclusions.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
You get mad about about a call of a muezzin but wonder why people believe that you are afraid of foreigners?
I am not afraid of foreigners. Please re-read my posts. I don´t like a certain group of foreigners that destroy our culture. Crystal clear. Don´t twist my posts.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
I mean you bemoan the decline of the western world and believe islam/moslems are responsible for it.
Not only them. Please remember I said the islam is the 2nd worst religion. Plus I called out the Femi-Nazis (see the "Cosby threads"; I gave detailed infos and links why it is so), and then some more...

Rechtschreibfehler said:
That means you are afraid of them.
So be it. And you know what? Better be afraid, than running into desaster unprepared.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
You also state that a "multi kulti ideology" is bad and brainwashing people so they don't understand (in contrast to you who has seen the light) whats going on, and that "multi-kulti" is actually bad for them.
Exactly. Only that many others see it the same way as I. Have a look at the friendly Pegida demonstrants who got attack(ed) by politicans, MSM, christian churches, business people, "celebs" and others that fight against their own tribe (original germans). They are also afraid, but with different reasons than us who want to defend our culture and nation.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
So you are against more than once culture at once, and you fear the consequences, but still you claim not to be afraid of foreigners and foreign cultures. How can that not be true?
I am not against foreigners, I am against the islam. Crystal clear. Not my mistake that most immigrants come from countries like the Turkey (with 96+ % of people beliving in the book of evil).
All my italian, brazilian, american, etc. friends are welcome. I stated that before also!

Rechtschreibfehler said:
Or do you simply don't know what xenophobic means and equate it with "nazi"? It simply means "afraid of foreigners". It doesn't mean "hating foreigners" and it doesn't mean "wanting to harm foreigners".
If I go by translation, xenophobic means "ausländerfeindlich". And that is something I am not. That is crystal clear!

Rechtschreibfehler said:
The reason no one here is taking you serious,
How you know that? Did you ask every single poster? May many don´t like my style (short "hammer home messages"), but many agree with me in general (like Merckxindex, Glenn Wilson, Bavarianrider, Descender, and many more). I also know that when I talk with people in detail (something I can´t do here, because my time is presicious, thus I don´t like to write books as posts). No matter where they come from (outside of Moslems OFC, I try to stay away from them as far as possible).

Rechtschreibfehler said:
isn't because all of us are brainwashed, even though you obviously like to believe taht.
Yes I do. Because it´s obvious. Just have a look at the Pegida discussion for example. Every single comment section is closed at the big newspapers. The friendly demonstrants get called "nazis", "mischpoke", and other insults. There is so much more... Clear propaganda against the original peaceful hard working population. It´s disgusting!

Rechtschreibfehler said:
The reason is that you don't use arguments that are worthy of the term. There are no conclusions in anything you say. You just state "Evil politically corred femi nazis" and than post some kind of stuff, and believe that to be an argument.
I use more arguments (give mumbers and links) than any political leader gave/gives in the Pegida discussion. See last chaper. They don´t argue at all!

Rechtschreibfehler said:
Well it isn't. If you state an entire religion and all of it's followers are evil and try to back it up with an article about terrorism.
They are evil. That is a fact. Read the quran. It´s not peaceful at all. The IS and other terror states & organisations just go by the book. In their minds they do nothing wrong. Can´t blame them.
There is no good or bad islam. There is only the islam with it´s sick book of the wrong prophet.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
That's not an argument. You need to explain why that is evidence of your point.
I posted many links, and some very though (30 like?) suras. I gave hints. The rest is up to the readers. It´s all up to them to get more infos and educated. I am not here to write books. I just offer food for thought.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
Something at wich you fail every single time.
I don´t.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
"See, see! There it is! You must see it! I am right!" That's not forming an argument, that's simply an emotional reaction.
I am as emotional as the politicans calling us "mischpoke". Difference is: We have points. They don´t. That´s why the "see, see" is good. And that, in context with suras and hard numbers I post, can form a opinion. If I can just change one persons view of the islam intruders, that´s a win for me!

Rechtschreibfehler said:
You have a fixed view of the world,
Maybe. But I am no different than those who have a dangerous fixed view (because they rule politics) like Cem Özemir, and one of the most disliked woman in Germany: Claudia Roth.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
and you take anything as prove that is fitting you're predjudices.
Facts and hard numbers don´t lie. Sorry if you don´t like that. The truth hurts, I know.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
You don't take examples, examine them, analyse them into bits to draw your conclusions. The conclusions are already made up.
No! My opinions are well formed over three decades seeing the moslems overtaking and spoiling our country. The examples I give are just a tiny tiny amount of the whole picture.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
The world has to be the way you see it. So you take what is fitting and discard everything as illusion that isn't. Because it has to be like this, it cannot be like that. That's a classical "Sein/Sollen" mistake, executed in an extremly crude way.
Not me (!!!) using this tactic, but the tactics used by our "leaders". Not only in the Pegida discussion, but also the Euro disaster, the Ukraine "revolution", etc...

Rechtschreibfehler said:
And herein lies another problem. Because you construct everything around a normative scheme of your view of the world, you are unable to deal with conflicting parts of reality.
Again wrong. It´s the other way around. See last chapter...

Rechtschreibfehler said:
There cannot be a muslim that is not lying about his liberalism. There cannot be peaceful and violent tendencies within the same framework of an overlying religions believe system. Everything can only have a single property in the way you analyse things.
The quran is a book full of violence, hate and misogyny. Either a muslim (under the fear of death) withdrawals from this religion or he follows it. There is no good/bad quran. There is only the quran, with all it´s ugly consequences. That is a fact I can´t change. The only chance for the islam becoming peaceful is to go trou a reformation process. But there is no tiny sign that it will ever happen.

Like you can´t say there are good/bad followers who still believe in Hitler and his "Mein Kampf".

Either you are pregnant or not. There is no in between.

Rechtschreibfehler said:
To make it short at the end: no one is taking you seriously because you don't adhere to the logical principles of argumentation. Not because they are brainwashed.
Wrong. See above.

frenchfry said:
Yesterday Foxxybrown’s posts on this thread seemed like over the top rants.
Today they seem almost prophetic.
My condolences to all the innocent dying of another coward act by moslems. If there is anything good, it´s my hope more people wake up and fight against this misanthropic religion. We need every single brave european to hold them in check (or at best get them out of their religion) before it´s too late. But what we certainly don´t need is more of them.
 
frenchfry said:
It was happening elsewhere yesterday, so somehow that minimises the barbary?

Should we ignore the danger religious fundamentalism poses to our society?

Should we force ourselves into a political correct mindset, and treat some groups as victims even when they commit heinous acts?

Obviously, most muslims on French soil are not terrorists. This shouldn't keep us from being outraged at what happened and take necessary steps to ensure extremists aren't allowed to function with impunity.

It is a sad day when we can no longer lampoon the excesses of certain groups at the risk of being assinated.
Islam is a tribal religion. As such it has great difficulty with Western modernity, its secularism, freedom of expression, equallity between sexes, etc. Not all Muslims may be terrorists its true, but there is no more offense to this modern social model than what happened in Paris today.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Rechtschreibfehler said:
You get mad about about a call of a muezzin but wonder why people believe that you are afraid of foreigners? I mean you bemoan the decline of the western world and believe islam/moslems are responsible for it. That means you are afraid of them. You also state that a "multi kulti ideology" is bad and brainwashing people so they don't understand (in contrast to you who has seen the light) whats going on, and that "multi-kulti" is actually bad for them. So you are against more than once culture at once, and you fear the consequences, but still you claim not to be afraid of foreigners and foreign cultures. How can that not be true? Or do you simply don't know what xenophobic means and equate it with "nazi"? It simply means "afraid of foreigners". It doesn't mean "hating foreigners" and it doesn't mean "wanting to harm foreigners".

The reason no one here is taking you serious, isn't because all of us are brainwashed, even though you obviously like to believe taht. The reason is that you don't use arguments that are worthy of the term. There are no conclusions in anything you say. You just state "Evil politically corred femi nazis" and than post some kind of stuff, and believe that to be an argument. Well it isn't. If you state an entire religion and all of it's followers are evil and try to back it up with an article about terrorism. That's not an argument. You need to explain why that is evidence of your point. Something at wich you fail every single time. You don't even try to. And it's very convienient for you to do so as well. Because that way you can just ignore everything that doesn't fit for opinion.
All you do is wildly associating stuff and say "See, see! There it is! You must see it! I am right!" That's not forming an argument, that's simply an emotional reaction. You have a fixed view of the world, and you take anything as prove that is fitting you're predjudices. You don't take examples, examine them, analyse them into bits to draw your conclusions. The conclusions are already made up. The world has to be the way you see it. So you take what is fitting and discard everything as illusion that isn't. Because it has to be like this, it cannot be like that. That's a classical "Sein/Sollen" mistake, executed in an extremly crude way.

And herein lies another problem. Because you construct everything around a normative scheme of your view of the world, you are unable to deal with conflicting parts of reality. There cannot be a muslim that is not lying about his liberalism. There cannot be peaceful and violent tendencies within the same framework of an overlying religions believe system. Everything can only have a single property in the way you analyse things.

To make it short at the end: no one is taking you seriously because you don't adhere to the logical principles of argumentation. Not because they are brainwashed.

That unwillingness is not only executed by you, especially not in this thread. But it's executed by you in the most crude way. It does also somewhat explain why people fall into fundamentalist believe in general I think.
To the bold - I realize this post was not laid off in my direction,,,,,,,,,,I agree with Foxy on some of his observations and opinions.... and I'm not afraid of these terrorist who claim to be Muslims. I still have a trigger finger, and that gives me a fighting chance.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
To the bold - I realize this post was not laid off in my direction,,,,,,,,,,I agree with Foxy on some of his observations and opinions.... and I'm not afraid of these terrorist who claim to be Muslims. I still have a trigger finger, and that gives me a fighting chance.
Amen. Thanks for showing up, that I am not alone.

RIP you innocent people killed by followers of a fanatic religion.

2nd vid shows what MSM doesnt: The consequences of the wrong politics applied by "our leaders".

http://www.pi-news.net/2015/01/eilt-massaker-in-charlie-hebdo-redaktion-in-paris-zehn-tote-taeter-auf-der-flucht/
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
To the bold - I realize this post was not laid off in my direction,,,,,,,,,,I agree with Foxy on some of his observations and opinions.... and I'm not afraid of these terrorist who claim to be Muslims. I still have a trigger finger, and that gives me a fighting chance.
He of the gun lovin' nation.

We could have used you at Charlie Hebdo earlier today.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
I totally distance myself from foxxy's borderline racist views, and I utterly condemn the way he uses the deranged acts of some individuals to slander an entire religion. Shameful.

No, I am not brainwashed by anyone.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I totally distance myself from foxxy's borderline racist views,
Stop insulting me. I am NOT a racist. A racist is against races. Get it!

Amsterhammer said:
and I utterly condemn the way he uses the deranged acts of some individuals to slander an entire religion. Shameful.

No, I am not brainwashed by anyone.
The terrorists are not some individuals. They go by the book killing "disbelievers". Get it!

And now sleep on...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS