Research on Belief in God

Page 72 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
frenchfry said:
He of the gun lovin' nation.

We could have used you at Charlie Hebdo earlier today.
Well I don't own a weapon. But days like today I truly wish for the terrorist to get what they deserve.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
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.
We may not agree on all issues and I don't feel like Foxy is borderline racist with his views.

But I still love ya like a brother!

That is what makes the world great.

NOT what we are witnessing via a video as to what just took place in France.

Religion of Peace?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Well I don't own a weapon. But days like today I truly wish for the terrorist to get what they deserve.
What you think is that?
Even if they´d get the death penalty (impossible in France), they would think it´s fine, because 72 virgins wait for them in heaven. At least that´s what they believe in. So disgusting...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Descender said:
I take him seriously. And I find it hard to disagree with him.

For all it's worth, I'm a foreigner living in Germany.

Religion is a plague, and Islam, right now, is the worst of them all.
Thank you. :)
And thanks to merckxindex, Glenn Wilson, and all the silent masses who share my belief that is based on sad hard facts and numbers.

I apologize to you (and only you guys) who share my thinking. I apologize for my "hammer home style" and that I don´t go into details every now and then. There are countless books about the danger of the islam (the quran itself being No 1), thus I don´t have to write books here, but just give short summaries and links.

The others? Well, I just wish you to wake up one day, and hope for you not crossing the way of the ever growing moslems in our countries wanting to harm you. You shall know one thing: There is no good/bad islam. The terrorists go by the book of quran. The other believers in the book of evil are silent yes men. Why? Because you never see moslems demonstrate against the killings by moslems, but only see them spill hate ("Jews to gas" for example) or doing harm to innocents.
I am deeply sorry for you. No more, no less... And yes, you are brainwashed. You just can´t accept this hard truth.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I apologize to you (and only you guys) who share my thinking.

( ... )

The others? Well, I just wish you to wake up one day, and hope for you not crossing the way of the ever growing moslems in our countries wanting to harm you. You shall know one thing: There is no good/bad islam. The terrorists go by the book of quran. The other believers in the book of evil are silent yes men. Why? Because you never see moslems demonstrate against the killings by moslems, but only see them spill hate ("Jews to gas" for example) or doing harm to innocents.
I am deeply sorry for you. No more, no less... And yes, you are brainwashed. You just can´t accept this hard truth.
Yes, everybody who doesn't share your thinking is brainwashed. Oh us poor unbelievers. If only we would see the truth! But 'alas, 't appears that "those who disbelieve are deaf, dumb and blind; they do not understand." (Surat Al-Baqarah (2):171). You're slowly starting to sound like those religious fundamentalists you so despise, you know. :rolleyes:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Yes, everybody who doesn't share your thinking is brainwashed. Oh us poor unbelievers. If only we would see the truth! But 'alas, 't appears that "those who disbelieve are deaf, dumb and blind; they do not understand." (Surat Al-Baqarah (2):171). You're slowly starting to sound like those religious fundamentalists you so despise, you know. :rolleyes:
Poor boy... because I don´t believe in any religion. So you have your "argument" with yourself.

How about to try to coment my posts? What you think of the countless "Allahu Akbar" attackers, the religion wars between moslems (oh how stupid is that), the moslem demonstrants chanting "Jews to gas", the women getting raped in the name of quran, islamic protesters against cartoons :eek: , non-protests against killings in the name of the islam, travel warnings for countries where 10% (speak moslems) of the population spread war and terror over the peaceful majority (like in the beautiful country of Kenya), and so on? Rhetorical. If you´d think about that, instead of trying to bait me, you´d see you are fooling yourself... Thus, the last laugh is on me (and the silent masses who are against islamisation of Europe).
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Stop insulting me. I am NOT a racist. A racist is against races. Get it!



The terrorists are not some individuals. They go by the book killing "disbelievers". Get it!

And now sleep on...
You want to argue semantics with me? Ok, maybe technically I should have called you a bigot rather than a racist. But I'm kind of old fashioned about things like this. To me, someone who directs the kind of vitriol that you do against an entire religion, is just as much of a racist as someone who directs vitriol and hate against people of another color. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it is on the basis of race, color, or religion. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for sharing the views of the most repulsive far right elements in European society.
 
Jan 11, 2010
12,582
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Poor boy... because I don´t believe in any religion. So you have your "argument" with yourself.

How about to try to coment my posts? What you think of the countless "Allahu Akbar" attackers, the religion wars between moslems (oh how stupid is that), the moslem demonstrants chanting "Jews to gas", the women getting raped in the name of quran, islamic protesters against cartoons :eek: , non-protests against killings in the name of the islam, travel warnings for countries where 10% (speak moslems) of the population spread war and terror over the peaceful majority (like in the beautiful country of Kenya), and so on? Rhetorical. If you´d think about that, instead of trying to bait me, you´d see you are fooling yourself... Thus, the last laugh is on me (and the silent masses who are against islamisation of Europe).
If you ban Islam from Europe, these people will find something else to kill in the name of. The problem is not religion, you can interpret it in every which way you want. The problem is extremism.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
You want to argue semantics with me? Ok, maybe technically I should have called you a bigot rather than a racist. But I'm kind of old fashioned about things like this. To me, someone who directs the kind of vitriol that you do against an entire religion, is just as much of a racist s someone who directs vitriol and hate against people of another color. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it is on the basis of race, color, or religion. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for sharing the views of the most repulsive far right elements in European society.
I am speechless. You attack me? Me? Wow!

Let me tell you who is bigot: Those who kill in the name of a religion. I have never killed or attacked anyone. I just fight for the rest of our freedom!

Again stop to call me racist (even if hidden in your personal rant against me)! :mad:
A racist is against races. I am the last who could be called one (having a black wife). Shut up. You don´t know a shit about me or my life!

Discrimination, me? Hello? WTF! The quran discriminates women and disbelievers. Stop attacking the messenger!

Far right? What the triple phuck! :mad:
You don´t know nothing. I am a socialist from the heart (as many times expressed in the WP and NFL threads). All I am is being for freedom! Stop insulting me! :mad:

Did I ever personally attack you? No, if needed I attacked your posts (like in the Ukraine crises).

Start being tolerant to other opinions, or shut the phuck up! :mad:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
theyoungest said:
If you ban Islam from Europe, these people will find something else to kill in the name of. The problem is not religion, you can interpret it in every which way you want. The problem is extremism.
I accept that. But you shall keep in mind what young boys are thaught in quran schools. It´s no surprise at all, that many go havoc when grown up.

Please inform yourself about the islam. It will open your eyes. It´s actually worse than any of my "rants" (if some wanna call it that, I am ok with the description. But I would call it more "hammer home messages/posts")...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
hrotha said:
Seriously Foxxy, you attack other people all the time by calling them brainwashed lemmings. Why wouldn't that count as an insult?
I am playing by the rules. Zilch personal attacks. If people feel offended as being the brainwashed I mean, they have some food for thaught... But I never ever got personal (unless I defend personal insults with counter insults. This is fair game for me. Always will be).
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I am playing by the rules. Zilch personal attacks. If people feel offended as being the brainwashed I mean, they have some food for thaught... But I never ever got personal (unless I defend personal insults with counter insults. This is fair game for me. Always will be).
It *is* a personal attack, you're using it against specific people who are debating here with you. The other side could perfectly well say that you are indeed objectively bigoted or whatever and that it's just food for thought. If you want others to drop the personal attacks, you should do the same.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
hrotha said:
It *is* a personal attack, you're using it against specific people who are debating here with you. The other side could perfectly well say that you are indeed objectively bigoted or whatever and that it's just food for thought. If you want others to drop the personal attacks, you should do the same.
We could go on with the definition of what personal attacks are, and what not in PMs.
By my fully understanding (of german law principles only I must admit), my posts are not personal insults. They can´t be by definition of highest courts.

If Amster or whoever would call demonstrants like Pegida as "Nazis" (of which I would feel like offended), that would be no personal insult.
 
Feb 25, 2011
2,539
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
You want to argue semantics with me? Ok, maybe technically I should have called you a bigot rather than a racist. But I'm kind of old fashioned about things like this. To me, someone who directs the kind of vitriol that you do against an entire religion, is just as much of a racist as someone who directs vitriol and hate against people of another color. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it is on the basis of race, color, or religion. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for sharing the views of the most repulsive far right elements in European society.
solidarity, but… there is, unfortunately, a lot of this in the U.S. too…

i am really just disgusted by everything today.

je suis charlie.
 
theyoungest said:
If you ban Islam from Europe, these people will find something else to kill in the name of. The problem is not religion, you can interpret it in every which way you want. The problem is extremism.
Don't agree with you on a sociological level that if you take away the ideology these people will still want to commit terror.
Extremism prays on young males and makes them hate.

Majid nawaz who was part of a terrorist group before maturing and now has a anti extremist think tank, gives a good insight into what it was that made him an extremist and unless he's running histories greatest undercover operation, it's clear he's not a bad guy.
 
Aye, Foxxy, Brother, I hear you. Sad and corrosive to the heart is the day the folk of the West, our Europe, the lasting fraternity aura mind you, not the organisation, is striken with such hideous and wicked blow. Perverted and coward, ratlike gale from the East, which sadly, I daresay, is no worse and no lesser than those who ignore the true root of such evil. I'm not a bigot, and certainly not an anti-theist. My friends, the majority of them, and the whole of my family, are of Cristian religion. They are wonderful and lovable human beings that teach me something new everyday, all day, and whose humanity is far ahead of most other's. Islam, though, as much as the political corrects claim otherwise, has no place in our side of the world, and most definitely not in our homes. Sad day indeed. This tribe of ancient minds trapped in time, the true Islam, will only settle down when it lays to rest and waste the Western civilizations, our culture and our values. While we stand, watch and take, in apathy, the train to the nothing that awaits us. I know my dear friend Echoes thinks otherwise, but I'm not Islamophobic, I simply cannot understand these ways. Perhaps I'm just that ignorant of things.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
BigMac said:
Aye, Foxxy, Brother, I hear you.
Hello, hello, my friend. :)
Hail to all the moderate christians*. After all the reformations those don´t do bad things. While I don´t believe in any religion, guys like you have my respect. I can live in peace and freedom together and next to all ya moderate peace and freedom loving christians.

I wish I could say the same about moslems, but I can´t, as I explained fully.

Cheers :)

(* I guess you agree Echoes completely disqualified himself with his latest rant. Right?)
 
Going to bump the debate where I left it, only mention that I can read some crap as usual. Islam is a "tribe" or is "tribalist". Any informed person on the topic, whether apologist or not knows that Islam condemns tribalism and is universalist. Christianism is also universalist. Judaism is tribalist.

I'm sort of questioning the level of culture of some here. :rolleyes:


Merckx index said:
Where is it explained in the Koran? Can you point me to a passage explaining the context?
9:1 talks about dissociation (so from a former pact):

[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

9:13 is even more explicit:

Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

Anybody who reads the Koran is reading here a passage that claims that their ancestors fought an enemy that broke their commitment and attacked them in the first place.

This is no fight against other people for their beliefs per se. Clearly.

Further information on history books about that periods, which exist.


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.
But it is.

If you want to show that the Koran is schizo on that point, you'll need other example but the fact is that Al-Baqarah 256 has NEVER been abolished and is read and internalised by every kid raised in Islam.

I'll reiterate in there, because if there are honest reader in this thread, I'd like them to record it:

There shall be no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Merckx index said:
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.
This was not the issue but I might understand and discuss it. I'm not Muslim, anyway. There's no encouragement to war in the Gospel. My point was to show there's no order to kill infidels, strictly on their belief in the Koran. That was all.
 
Can we all admit that there is a real dilemma here? The Western liberal tradition guarantees freedom of expression to everyone, and is clearly antithetical to the idea of banning any religion or discriminating against any members of that religion. At the same time, that tradition is also strongly supportive of equality between the sexes, a principle which not only is not supported in Muslim countries, but which Muslim immigrants in Western countries frequently show no allegiance to.

I remember during the Gulf War in the early 90s, American armed forces for the first time featured large numbers of women. There were times when these women had to interact with locals, and they were ordered to wear appropriate clothing to show respect for Muslim culture. No one seemed to have any problem with this, but all I could think of was, if the American military had been called to South Africa for some reason, would we have ordered African-American soldiers not to go to certain places so as not to offend the racist sensitivities of White South Africans?

I don’t agree with Foxxy on everything, but there is a problem, indeed, a paradox, with the multi-cultural ideal. If every culture is considered equal, none better or worse than any other, then a culture that discriminates against women is just as worthy of our respect as one that doesn’t. But by not discriminating against that culture, we are discriminating against women. I don’t see how this can be avoided.

In other words, sometimes we have to make a stand. Is the principle of equal rights for women just a reflection of a different culture, no better and no worse than a culture that discriminates against women? Or is a culture that guarantees equal rights for women a higher and better culture than one that does not? We have no problem with the higher and better stand when it comes to race. We never applied the multi-cultural ideal to apartheid, we never claimed that apartheid was just as worthy of existing as a culture that guarantees equal rights for all races. Why do we not make the same claim with regards to women?

If Islam can’t exist as a religion without discrimination against women, then I’m sorry, but I have a problem with Islam. I understand that a great many moderate Muslims in Western countries have adopted the view that women are equal members of society, and I don’t have any problem with them. But when the Quran describes the relationship between men and women as not one of equality, and that book guides the lives of hundreds of millions of people is Islamic societies, don’t we have a right, really, a duty, to criticize Islam? Am I missing something?

Edit:


Thanks for this discussion, Echoes. But again, I don’t find everything clear:

9:13: Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.
Yes, this supports the notion of self-defense, fighting only those who have attacked you. But that is preceded by:

9:5: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
What does this mean? What are the sacred months in this context? Are they a period in which followers of Allah will allow themselves to be attacked, without fighting back? Or is it a period in which they will not fight against people who are not attacking them, but after which they will?

And this:

9:4: Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended].
What does it mean by “their term has ended”? It sounds as though these non-believers can be fought after being given a certain grace period, even if they are not attacking the believers.

It seems to me that the most lenient, as it were, interpretation of these and other passages is that they are open to interpretation. People who want to claim that the exhortation to fight non-believers is only made in self-defense can cite passages to support this. But anyone who wants to initiate fighting against non-believers (and I'm not primarily thinking of critics of Islam here, but of Muslims who want to use the Quran to justify their actions) can also find support for this position.

Not to mention, of course, that wars all through history have frequently been rationalized as self-defense. The U.S. does this, all the time, and certainly a group like Isis could claim what they're doing is self-defense. And in fact, the verses in 9 and elsewhere could be interpreted the same way, that fighting is rationalized as self-defense. After all, if the polytheists simply criticize Islam, without actually resorting to violence, couldn't believers fight them on the grounds of self-defense?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
hrotha said:
It *is* a personal attack, you're using it against specific people who are debating here with you. The other side could perfectly well say that you are indeed objectively bigoted or whatever and that it's just food for thought. If you want others to drop the personal attacks, you should do the same.
You don't understand, when Foxxy labels people it is not a personal attack because he is right, he's always right. So, just a fact, not an attack. If I call you an idiot, and you in fact are an idiot, then I am just stating a fact and not attacking you. :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS