SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Monday April 06 2015, @11:05AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @12:24PM
Nope. They dump openly on Christianity, no matter how mainstream or how "extremist", while clamoring for the "rights" of Islam and sharia law.
Tell me - what neighborhoods in the United States have vigilante Christians posted to prevent non-Christians from entering? Maybe you would like to google "Muslim no-go zone" to see what Islam has in mind for America?
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned [clarionproject.org]
http://www.inquisitr.com/1763922/americans-beware-muslim-no-go-zones-are-here-in-the-united-states-video/ [inquisitr.com]
Snopes claims that it's all a hoax - but you can watch the freaking video of Moslem mobs stoning Christians who dare to speak up.
Find me a video of Christians stoning Muslims. Find one of Christians stoning homos. Find any of Christians stoning women for failing to cover their faces.
Don't give me that hypocritical shit. Open your eyes and look. In the mideast today, Muslims are killing Yazidi Christians just for being Christian. You don't find Christians ANYWHERE in the world slaughtering non-believers just for being non-believers.
Pull your head out, and put the Kool-Aid down. Islam has NOTHING in common with liberalism. Want to be a liberal? I have an idea - BE A LIBERAL!! Dump the Democrat party, and act LIBERAL. You'll respect yourself a lot more, I'll respect you some, the world will respect you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:00PM
God you're dumb.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:36PM
Even though I'm not religious, Amen.
That is all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:18PM
Like burning Christian crosses on lawns in a neighborhood where a black man had the gumption to break God's law and get run into by a white woman? Yes, it was 50 years ago, but it's not like it was in the middle ages.
If you prefer more modern examples, there are people in the US who in the name of Christianity try to interrupt funerals for gay people. Or the places where they try to (are enacting God's Law, or "sharia" if you prefer a non-English word) to block abortion clinics. And didn't President Bush bring the country to war because "God told him to" (or maybe it was just he "consulted with God")?
As a side note, I'm sure you'll find lots of liberals do criticize the Democratic party. There is a reason why many classify themselves "libertarian." For what it's worth, the Democratic Party (and "the left") in the US is very different than political liberalism, much like the Republican Party (and "the right") in the US is very different than political conservatism.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:30PM
Your ignorance is overwhelming. Tell me - WHICH CHURCH endorsed those actions?
No, I'm not denying that some people burnt crosses on black family's lawns. I'm denying that ANY CHURCH ENDORSED THOSE ACTIONS!
Find me a church that endorses, encourages, and openly flaunts these actions.
Now, tell me, WTF is going on in the mideast today? ISIS is openly destroying historical sites, trying to destroy any cultural ties with the past, killing anyone who isn't Muslim.
Did you read about that hit on the university? A gunman demands that you recite some passage from the Quran - you fail, he puts a bullet in your head. How is that for tolerance and acceptance?
Once again - people better pull their heads out of their orifices, or that same shit will be happening here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @05:23PM
So, tell me. Which Mosques preach no-go zones, stoning christians and "Jihad"? You can't switch from bashing ALL Muslims as a whole based on the actions of a few to then trying to defend christians from christian extremism by trying to separate them based on a per church basis. You are desperately grasping at straws, and might I add: missing by a long shot, trying to make your point here.
In the end, you are the ignoramus who is spouting nonsense.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:16PM
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=imam%20preaches%20jihad [google.com]
Number two hit in that search has in imam near Washington D.C. who answers to your description.
Third hit has another imam who has connections to D.C. and New York.
Fifth hit another imam in Chicago.
Sixth hit cites the FBI as stating that 10% of imams in the US preach jihad.
Next to the last hit on the page has another in Tennessee.
I leave it to you to browse the following pages. Jihad and hatred of the United States, as well as hatred of infidels is widespread throughout the Muslim world.
Perhaps you need to read this assessment - it's been published many times, but it seems liberals never get the message:
https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_muslim_population_of_america_is_expanding_at_warp_speed.html [americanthinker.com]
To summarize an oft-quoted section:
When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @08:05PM
I'm not going to argue that Muslim clerics aren't preaching violence and hatred against gays and non Muslims. There are certainly those who are. When someone countered your arguments by mentioning Christian extremism you tried to dodge them by demanding the individual church containing said preachers be named.
counter example:
If we allowed the loony christian extremists to have their way, what would the USA look like? My bet is... no wait, *I guarantee you* we wouldn't look much different than any of the "modern" oppressive Muslim nations. We would be indistinguishable.
Bottom line: All religion should perish. We have no need for silly beliefs. If you want to be spiritual, fine. Just keep it to yourself.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:21PM
The proof that you are wrong, is the fact that Christianity ruled this country for years. We still have remnants of that rule - so-called "Blue Laws" for instance. Despite the "intolerance" of Christians, we have what we have today, do we not?
When you speak of "extremist Christians" in the United States, you are just blathering.
One of our more horrific episodes in Christian America was the Salem witch trials. What happened there? Did the federal government come in, and outlaw any future witch trials? Nope. The state got involved, but the state didn't even pass any laws regarding witch trials. What really happened was, the church leadership was rational enough to realize what happened - and they put a stop to witch trials.
Do you see this happening in Islam today? No - you do not. Instead, you see Muslims clamoring for the right to impose Sharia law on their communities, their nations, their neighbors. The LOVE to put people to death in messy ways. Christianity was shamed by their excesses, while Islam begs for ever greater excesses.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @09:28PM
Yea. And? So what Christianity ruled this country. It is still a majority and still influences the daily lives of people and government. Why do you think we still have morons trying to re-enable religious freedoms by denying people service using their religious beliefs as an excuse? If you don't think that is extremism then you need help. I'll grant you that most of the stuff coming from present day Muslims is bat shit insane. But it does not reflect all Muslims. And it is not unique to them.
Remnants yes but not too long ago Christianity was much more oppressive in this country. Women couldn't vote and lacked many rights which was supported by christianity: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html [biblicalnonsense.com]
Slavery was also defended by christianity [google.com]
Need I go on? And lets just ignore the middle ages when people were tortured and horrifically executed for heresy, homosexuality and other things deemed unsavory by the church. As a modern nation we evolved to become better people.
Islamic extremism is actually a more recent problem after the governments of the USA and others decided to become oil company whores. They started mucking around and wound up destroying progressive democratic governments (see Afghanistan) in order to ensure that oil companies had dibs on middle eastern oil reserves. Who put Saddam in power and armed the Taliban? The US government. My cheap whore of a government actually fucked up entire nations so some dynasty can waltz in and drill for oil. If they didn't destroy those nations and install friendly oppressive governments then those people would tell them to piss off and sell the oil themselves. Couldn't have that now could we? So we pissed all over them until we have the mess we have today. If the USA and others did not actively destroy the middle east for the past 60+ years then we would not have the problems we have today.
Correct! The Federal government didn't put a stop to it because it didn't exist for at least another 80 years.
The state of Massachusetts did not exist either, it was a crown colony called Province of Massachusetts Bay.
So are you denying their existence, ignoring their presence or defending them?
Are all muslims begging for it unanimously? Or more likely, a few nut jobs using their oppression combined with their common beliefs as a tool for manipulation? In my opinion, Europe screwed themselves by letting so many Muslim immigrants in, millions of them. All the while, where are they getting jobs, living and becoming educated? The overcrowding combined with discrimination has further pushed them down. What do they have left? What do they have in common to find solice? Answer: Religion. I guarantee you if the European Muslim population had jobs, money and went to school we would not see the current behaviour.
And Christianity had plenty of gruesome, violent excess but it thankfully calmed down some a long, long time ago.
Been awake and had a few cups already. Thank you very much.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:31PM
The US is not and never was a Christian theocracy. Christianity has never ruled the US.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:40PM
I'd like to somewhat disagree with you. While yes, we are not a christian theocracy, our government has enacted laws shaped by the christian religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:15PM
None of which are specific to or only exist in Christianity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:31PM
> Find me a church that endorses, encourages, and openly flaunts these actions.
Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan [splcenter.org]
Church of the American Knights of the KKK [adl.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:35PM
> No, I'm not denying that some people burnt crosses on black family's lawns.
> I'm denying that ANY CHURCH ENDORSED THOSE ACTIONS!
The Church of Jesus Christ-Christian [jta.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @09:45PM
Like burning Christian crosses on lawns in a neighborhood where a black man had the gumption to break God's law and get run into by a white woman? Yes, it was 50 years ago, but it's not like it was in the middle ages.
No, it still happens. [abc27.com]
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Monday April 06 2015, @02:31PM
Sounds like you want to be exactly like them, just on the other side of the fence...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM
I think you are projecting.
Want to play some numbers games? Compare the number of people put to death throughout all of the Inquisitions in Europe, to the number of non-Muslims killed in the past year or two by ISIS. Islam is a truly malignant movement.
Like them, you say? Sonny, if I kill someone, they will be armed, they will be facing me, and they will have some kind of a sporting chance to defend themselves. Have you seen the images of Muslims blowing out the brains of infants, because their parents were Christians? Killing Kurdish babies? ANY babies, it doesn't matter, so long as they aren't Muslim. And, if they do happen to kill a Muslim baby, well, Allahu Akbar - Allah's will be done.
TRANSLATION: Kill them all, let God sort them out.
THAT IS ISLAM!
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:17PM
yes, extremists are bad and should be stopped.
and there you go off the rails with faulty generalizations. [wikipedia.org] try again without the sophistry.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:40PM
Sophistry my arse. Look at the world today. Where are all the trouble spots? Where are people dying en masse? Who is doing the killing? TODAY, not a thousand years ago, or even five hundred years ago. Christianity was never this extreme, and it has mellowed over time. Count the bodies.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And, no, you do NOT get to claim that either Hitler or Stalin were Christian, or that they committed their crimes in the name of Christianity, or in the name of God.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:55PM
like i said, extremists are bad. using extremists to generalize an entire religion is fallicious, specifically faulty generalization. even if you're fine with people using Westboro Baptist Church and the Church of the American Knights of the KKK to generalize for all Christians, its still a faulty generalization and thus not valid.
again, try again with the sophistry. either put together - at minimum - a logically consistent argument or stfu. your constant spewing of fallicious, hate-filled arguments only makes your own religion look just as bad as what you're claiming of another religion which you obviously know nothing about.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @07:01PM
"which you obviously know nothing about."
Now you claim to know Islam? Are you Muslim? No?
The sophistry is all one-sided here. Islam incites violence throughout the Pacific island nations, throughout Asia, and it is beginning to be violent in Europe. Africa has known nothing but violence for decades, most of it Islamic.
The sophistry is coming from your side of this - uhhhh - discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:03PM
> Now you claim to know Islam? Are you Muslim? No?
He might not be. But my wife and inlaws are and they are nothing like the bullshit you are selling.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:16PM
Buddhists are killing people in Burma, Sri Lanka, Indonesia. Christians are killing in Ethiopia and Eastern Europe. Muslims are killing in the Middle East. Quit being a closed-minded ignorant dick and actually think about the world you live in. Also, Christianity was MORE extreme. During the Crusades, it was straight up religious genocide all day. Muslims have Sunni-Shiite, Christians had massive wars between Protestants and Catholics, and also between Catholic sects and many different purges of heretics and the like. In fact, Protestants and Catholics are STILL killing each other in Eastern Europe.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:21PM
Christians are killing in Eastern Europe? Maybe you have a link to that. I'm aware of some fascist rat bastards who are intent on ethnic cleansing of Ukraine - but I was NOT aware that those fascists were invoking the Name of God in their war against Russian speaking people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:37PM
Its not Eastern Europe, but here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] you go.
No True Scottsman, ahoy!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:45PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/06/middleeast/iraq-mass-graves/index.html?eref=edition [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:49PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/boston-marathon-bombing-trial-reaches-closing-stages-n336201 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @03:14PM
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
ISIS (or what everyone who actually lives in the Middle East calls "Daesh") is currently a declared enemy of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, UAE, and Syria, and is widely opposed by most of the residents of the Middle East as well as by their governments. It's about the only thing that everybody in the Middle East agrees on. The only reason Daesh has any kind of traction whatsoever is that the governments in Baghdad and Damascus have been even worse to the residents of the area now controlled by Daesh than Daesh has been.
The reason that liberals tend to be supportive of Islam is not because they support terrorism or stoning people to death, but because the vast majority of Muslims don't actually behave like that and blaming them all for that is both bigoted and wildly inaccurate. Mosques don't, as a rule, promote terrorism as an appropriate action to take, and numerous clerics and scholars have spoken out against it (sometimes risking their life to do so). Your average Muslim basically wants a good job, a reasonable guarantee of personal safety, and time to spend with his family - in other words, what your average Christian wants.
Liberals also are quite supportive of liberal Christianity: When Pope Francis goes around emphasizing taking care of poor people, liberals are happy to support it. Heck, many liberals *are* Christians - I've found people with liberal views in Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal (Anglican), black Baptist, and congregational churches.
Also, if you're looking for some bad stuff that Christian churches have endorsed:
- Christian ministers pushed Uganda to pass a law that allowed the government to round up and kill homosexual people (they eventually were convinced to change that to locking them up for life). Hundreds of thousands of people have signed on to a similar measure in California.
- There are many Christian ministers who endorse the utter slaughter of the non-Jewish residents of the Middle East. They're truly upset that the US isn't at war with Iran right now.
- There are many Christian churches that advocate the male head of household beating his wife and children. In addition, many Christian leaders do not consider it rape if a husband forces his wife to have sex.
- Many Christians (and pretty much all Jews, for that matter) endorse male genital mutilation a.k.a. circumcision.
- Many Christian churches historically were advocates of racial segregation and discrimination. More than a few had ties to the KKK.
- Many Christian churches oppose abortions that are necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
- Many Christians in the United States endorse very publicly the idea that Christians should have more political rights than everybody else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:33PM
"(sometimes risking their life to do so)"
Imagine that. When was the last time the Pope, or a bishop, issued a fatwah against some other cleric with different views? What barbarians - and you help to make my point.
Your points against Christianity are noted. Also noted, are the lack of citations.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @06:53PM
Here is another citation for you to ignore:
Lord's Resistance Army [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM
Uh-huh. And, who endorses this "army"? The pope? American baptists?
Maybe you should read the article you cite in it's entirety. It explains who and what the "Lord's Army" is. It could go further in depth with the explanation, but it most assuredly makes the point that it is NOT part of Christianity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:09PM
You've got a big case of no true scottsman fallacy going on there.
> And, who endorses this "army"? The pope? American baptists?
So if religious authorities fail to endorse a sect that makes the sect not part of the religion?
What if religious authorities actively denounce a sect? [mediamatters.org]
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Monday April 06 2015, @07:52PM
Death of Savita Halappanavar:
The death of Savita Halappanavar on 28 October 2012, at University Hospital Galway in Ireland, led to nationwide protests—which spilled over into India, Britain and many other countries—calling for a review of the abortion laws in Ireland. Halappanavar, a woman of Indian origin, was suffering from a miscarriage (which was later assessed to be most likely due to a bacterial infection), when she was some 17 weeks pregnant, she sought medical attention and treatment at University Hospital Galway. Beginning no earlier than the date of her hospital admission on October 21, her requests for an abortion were refused, instead being told that due to her fetus retaining a heartbeat and her life not appearing to be in physiological danger, this was not legal. On one occasion she was told "it was the law, that this is a Catholic country." On the night of October 23, according to Praveen, her husband, Halappanavar was standing in a restroom and collapsed. The following day the foetal remains were removed from her womb on 24 October in the operating theatre due to a diagnosis of septic shock being made by a consultant, per Irish law. Savita Halappanavar's septicemia further deteriorated despite being treated with oral antibiotics for infection since late October 22 and intravenous antibiotics since October 24. Both were ineffective and her condition rapidly evolved to the point of organ failure and finally cardiac arrest and death on 28 October 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar [wikipedia.org]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:29PM
Doctors were less than competent - and they allowed their religious beliefs to interfere with their diagnosis. Got it - and your point? Oh - abortion. Well - I'm opposed to abortion in general, so I can't follow you on that line of thought. I can agree if you are condemning those doctors for incompetence.
Oh - you're trying to make a case that incompetent doctors are a Christian thing? I certainly hope not!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:30PM
I think the point is that religion (specifically the Roman Catholic form of Christianity in that case) interfered with proper medical care. The religiously inspired laws directly contributed to that woman's death. You can't simply call the doctors incompetent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday April 06 2015, @08:08PM
WRT circumcision:
Male circumcision has arguments in it's favor, as well as against it. It does, e.g., offer a measure of protection against some diseases. It's not profoundly disabling. (There are those who claim a minor decrease in sensitivity, but I doubt that there can have been reasonable comparison studies, so I feel free to doubt them.)
OTOH, other similar practices, e.g. subincision, or when circumcision is performed in a non-sterile environment, etc. really are difficult to accept. I understand their historic rationale, but I still find them hard to accept. Also I'm assuming that circumcision is performed under an anesthetic (local).
Even so, this is a matter that is ... I have difficulty accepting it as desirable. I just don't consider it horrible. Perhaps if I had not been circumcised as an infant I'd have a different feeling. I doubt that it would be more positive.
Still, I don't think that it's correct to lump circumcision in with the other abominations committed by those Churches and Ministers that, without much contradiction, call themselves Christian. But do note that many Christian Churches and Ministers don't accept the abominations that you recite as valid Christian behavior. And certainly the New Testament gives them scant grounds for acceptance.
The Muslim situation is a bit different. Their primary source book was written by a Religious leader engaged in armed struggle for dominance, and it reflects that. There has been a great Muslim civilizations that did not consider those an essential part of the teaching (at least the fragmentary records seem to indicate that), but it was wiped out by the Mongols. The survivors were from the fringe, and again needed to practice the military virtues, and ignore the military vices. This has created a quite unfortunate religion that the planet would be much better off without, but there's no obvious reasonable way to get from here to there. The ideal way would be to de-emphasize the effects of religion in communal life, but many people seem to have an inbuilt need for some "great sky father", however unreasonable that may be. And certainly there are plenty of reasons to not trust those who are guided by non-religious emotions. They are often merely power seekers, and have no care for ethics. (I'd say "or morals" but too many people read that as sexual, which is only vaguely related to what I'm talking about.)
Please note: One shouldn't whitewash the vile Christian behaviors on a wide scale just because it is currently restricted to relatively powerless groups. But the New Testament doesn't give them valid religious grounds for their behavior. So that is probably more a matter of "the love of power entices the corrupt, and further corrupts those it entices", and ANY group that seizes power on that scale should not be trusted. No matter HOW they got it. The Catholic Church became powerful through largely peaceful means, if you exclude things like the forcible conversion under Constantine and Charlemagne. And you will have to excuse me if I consider that more a means of shrewd amoral politicians seeing a path to power. Then, of course, it was powerful, and embraced the amoral corruptions of power rather then attending to the actual religious message. But do note that as soon as the Christians became powerful, rather than abolishing the arena they started sending Pagans to it. (And I must admit that even in this case I'm avoiding such things as the massacre of the Nazarenes under a Christian general of a Roman army. This lead to the destruction of those maintaining (as near as can be told) the original Christian belief...whatever it was. The New Testament is a grossly unreliable source in this matter, being mainly that which the Christian group at Rome found acceptable and desirable. Much was censored long before the Council of Nicea, but nobody is quite sure what it said. That it may well have been radically different is shown by how different the Gospel of Thomas (from the Coptic Church) is from the others. but this doesn't mean it was like that, either. All of the "official documents" were preserved by some group with a particular ax to grind. The variation from different sources (and forgive me if I count the standard New Testament as being from only one source, but it came under the power of the Church of Rome. I believe that the Nazarenes has a quite different set of beliefs, just judging from fragmentary records I've encountered. The Byzantine Church and the Church of Rome made various agreements as to what should be included, so their general agreement doesn't count for much. And both gave clear evidence that they were more interested in power than in purity of doctrine (unlike the Jews arguing over the meaning of the Torah, who seem to have given priority of purity of doctrine, even if they seem to have occasionally gotten it wrong).
FWIW, most Muslims seem concerned with purity of doctrine. If I thought more highly of their doctrine than I'd approve of this more. And with most doctrines different groups hit on different parts as the most important. So many Muslims actually are peaceful, and see their religion as peaceful, despite the literal reading of the scripture if you give equal weight to all parts. Unfortunately, there are enough parts encouraging violence that purity of doctrine doesn't provide any shield against the more violent desires that some people have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Monday April 06 2015, @09:54PM
I think people got it backwards. There is no good liberal Christianity against bad Christian fundamentalism.
The faith is fundamental by definition. Deploring fundamentalism is being a troll or having been trolled, because a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian, can't do anything but follow the word and example of the guy called Christ (with the problem of trusting written words, or the tradition, or the examples of earlier believers), who was a pretty harmless guy.
Some examples you reported are clearly not following the words nor the example of Christ.
Forcing people to follow your belief is especially anti Christ, the guy never ever forced anybody. Attention to sexual issues is also suspect because the guy never raised the subject (being adulterous is a breach of social contract more that a sexual issue). What about discussing the things that made Christ angry in the temple, instead?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:46PM
I don't think I've ever met a self-proclaimed Christian who followed the words or example of Christ. Every single one I've met just cherrypicked and twisted the scripture to support their pre-determined biases and prejudices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:15AM
There is a word for people who cherrypick facts to support their pre-determined biases and prejudices: "People"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @11:03PM
That, in essence, is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: I was responding to the argument that Christians don't endorse awful things by pointing out many awful things that were indeed endorsed by Christian leaders. The answer of "Well, they aren't real Christians" doesn't hold any more weight than the argument (which many have made in the Muslim world) that Daesh leader Ibrihim al-Badri is not a true Muslim.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:15PM
I don't think that the No True Scotsman fallacy applies here. Being a Scotsman (or whatever) is both an inherent quality and one that does not prescribe behaviour. Being a member of a religion however has neither of these traits (even though most people only belong to their religion because of what they were raised to believe by their family and society, it is still not an inherent quality). It does prescribe behaviour. So if you belong to Religion X, and it says "Don't kill under any circumstances" and you go around killing people, I think that that disqualifies you from being properly called a member of that religion because you are not following the prescription. If there are many such prescriptions (as there usually are), how many you follow properly I think qualifies you as being "more or less" of a member of that religion, and if not all then you can say that they are not a "true" member. NTS only applies when characteristics are being talked about that do not have anything to do with the actual quality or requisites of the thing being discussed (such as wearing a kilt a certain way for a Scotsman, since the only thing necessary to be a "True" Scotsman is to be born in Scotland).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:09AM
I agree, but at the same time I don't. The only way we can know somebody's belief system is by them self-identifying it, and the church isn't going to ban people from attending because they don't follow Christ's teachings perfectly, so even if they do the opposite of every single teaching in the book they can still be "Christian", otherwise we need new terms for people who state they have a certain belief system but whose actions say otherwise.
When it comes to religion, whatever they self-identify as is their religion is their religion, whether they practice it or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:51AM
No True Scotsman applies when someone completely arbitrarily decides that someone isn't a True X even when they fit the definition.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:25PM
> Muslims are killing Yazidi Christians just for being Christian.
Yazidi aren't christian any more than they are muslim.
> You don't find Christians ANYWHERE in the world slaughtering non-believers just for being non-believers.
Sure. Christians aren't emptying entire muslim villiages in the Central African Republic. [reuters.com]
The overwhelming majority of ISIS's victims are muslims. Your hang-up on christian victims makes it sound like you watch the 700 club because that's the kind of myopic stupidity that robertson regularly puts out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:56PM
> Find one of Christians stoning homos.
Your word choice is pretty revealing there.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:07PM
Wow, you think assholes getting mobbed for xenophobic/racist/religiously inflammatory shirts and posters means sharia law is in effect? I was just in Dearborn yesterday, no problems at all. Maybe that's just because I'm not a complete dick.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:27PM
Yes, assholes being mobbed is a sign of the "peaceful religion", right?
So - you're ready to justify a mob of people stoning gays, the next time THOSE assholes hold a gay pride rally? Same thing, Pal. A mob is a mob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:22PM
> A mob is a mob.
EXACTLY!!!!
Mob violence has no religion, no race, no culture. It is a human thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @09:41PM
Tell me - what neighborhoods in the United States have vigilante Christians posted to prevent non-Christians from entering?
The No-Go zones have been so througoughly debunked that even Fox News apologized for covering them.
It must take actual effort to purposely keep yourself this misinformed.
Fox News corrects, apologizes for ‘no-go zone’ remarks [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @12:36PM
Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense. Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:37PM
> Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense. Try again.
Only to a binary thinker. Religion is an exceptionally complex part of the human existence, to dismiss it entirely due to some parts which are unfalsifiable is a kind of reductionism befitting a 12-year old.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @05:45PM
Nonsense. There's no evidence of magical sky daddies, so I have no reason to believe in such a thing. I also have zero reason to be part of any religion. How complex religions are is irrelevant.
to dismiss it entirely due to some parts which are unfalsifiable is a kind of reductionism befitting a 12-year old.
Only to a "binary thinker".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:59PM
> Nonsense. There's no evidence of magical sky daddies,
See, that is reductionism in the extreme. "Magical sky daddies" are only tiny facet of any religion.
> Only to a "binary thinker".
I do not think that means what you think it means.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @08:58PM
See, that is reductionism in the extreme. "Magical sky daddies" are only tiny facet of any religion.
No, that is a huge facet, because it indicates they are irrational for believing in something without evidence. You can't have a rational religion that encourages people to believe in magical sky daddies. I don't care if you think that is "reductionist"; it is nonetheless correct.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
It means exactly what I think it means. Or do you not like your own words being used against you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:06PM
> No, that is a huge facet, because it indicates they are irrational for believing in something without evidence
As a practical matter it is a TINY facet. It isn't like God is interceding in the daily affairs, it is all just people decding what's important and what's not.
> I don't care if you think that is "reductionist"; it is nonetheless correct.
Oh it is correct, it is just of minor import.
> It means exactly what I think it means.
Your circular reasoning is funny coming from someone who claims that an irrational belief is a huge disqualifier.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:19PM
As a practical matter it is a TINY facet.
I disagree entirely. As soon as you involve supernatural garbage or magical sky daddies, your religion is irrational right off the bat.
it is all just people decding what's important and what's not.
Often based on holy books and the teachings of imaginary magical sky daddies or other supernatural oddities.
Your circular reasoning is funny coming from someone who claims that an irrational belief is a huge disqualifier.
There was no circular reasoning there. You have a poor grasp of logic or your reading comprehension needs work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:04PM
>> As a practical matter it is a TINY facet.
>
> I disagree entirely. As soon as you involve supernatural garbage or magical sky daddies, your religion is irrational right off the bat.
What have learned today?
Words Anal does not understand:
reductionist
practical
binary
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:08PM
I'd say it's you who lacks understanding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:53PM
Not surprising, considering how much you're exemplifying the Dunning Kruger effect while discussing the subject. As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion. An atheist as a self-proclaimed expert on religion is laughable.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:13PM
Not surprising, considering how much you're exemplifying the Dunning Kruger effect while discussing the subject.
That's not an actual counterargument, and could easily be applied to you as well. Anyone can make such random assertions.
As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion.
What is it that you want? Do you want me to read fairy tale books? That is meaningless.
I don't know if you realize this, but my position that belief in magical sky daddies is irrational does not require me to have much specific knowledge about any religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:19PM
> As an atheist, I don't expect you to know anything about religion.
Sorry, I'm the atheist he's been arguing with in this thread and I say you are totally off.
For one thing, atheists have the highest amount of general knowledge about religion. [npr.org] Which makes sense - religious people tend to be experts in their particular sect, but know nothing about any other religions. They will have a more narrow knowledge while those not married to a sect will have a more broad knowledge.
But what I do believe is that as an atheist, Anal hasn't bothered to understand the religious impulse at all. He's so ridiculously dismissive of what he doesn't understand that he can't be bothered to understand. He's taken it on faith that it is all irrational and thus there is nothing of value there. That makes him the worst kind of atheist, the kind that has turned his atheism into a religion itself.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:26PM
But what I do believe is that as an atheist, Anal hasn't bothered to understand the religious impulse at all.
Not understanding it and calling it irrational are two different things.
He's taken it on faith that it is all irrational and thus there is nothing of value there.
It's not faith. It can be plainly observed that a grand majority of religions have supernatural elements to them, which is irrational. I don't think you can just minimize the irrationality by saying that it's just a tiny facet of religion; I believe it's important.
That makes him the worst kind of atheist, the kind that has turned his atheism into a religion itself.
Lacking a belief in deities is not a religion. Neither is observing that religion is irrational.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:55AM
> Not understanding it and calling it irrational are two different things.
It could be, but in your case they are two sides of the same coin.
You are like the queen of flatland, completely and utterly convinced that there are no more than 2 dimensions in the universe. For you a 3rd dimension is so incomprehensible that you can do nothing more than deny its existence.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:47AM
It could be, but in your case they are two sides of the same coin.
So you say.
You are like the queen of flatland, completely and utterly convinced that there are no more than 2 dimensions in the universe.
I don't know how you can say what I am or am not utterly convinced about.
You say the matter of magical sky daddies is, in practice, a small facet of religion. I disagree. I see it as a big problem if you want your religion to be rational. That belief without evidence (not just in god, but in the holy books that are often revered) is irrational. There are other parts to religion, but that is an irrelevant point of discussion to me; you keep acting like I say they don't exist, but that's not what is happening.
For you a 3rd dimension is so incomprehensible that you can do nothing more than deny its existence.
You're just not seeing The Truth. You've turned your disagreement with me into its own religion, resembling that of the worst religious fundamentalists. Obviously. The word "religion" can mean anything and any belief is simply a religion, especially if it's a belief you disagree with. Like all those evil hardcore atheists; that's a religion right there. Just use "religion" as a generic insult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:17PM
Grand majority != All
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:49PM
Yes, and?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:12AM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:03AM
In practice, it doesn't make sense. What about it? A grand majority of religions are irrational garbage (with the remaining few being rather pointless, as they don't need to be religions), and a few exceptions to the rule won't make me change my statement.
I see you're more interested in scoring 'points', though. The Religion Defense Force to the rescue!
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:49AM
Try forming an argument - proof by assertion is no proof at all.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:03PM
I already stated my argument before; you want me to repeat it constantly for you people? Believing in something without a shred of evidence of irrational. There is no evidence for the existence of magical sky daddies or supernatural garbage, so rational people will lack a belief in such things.
Next time you might want to try reading other posts rather than saying that someone isn't putting forth an argument because they aren't constantly restating the same things in every post they make.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:26PM
i disagree, it makes perfect sense. Baha'i [wikipedia.org] is definitely rational. "Baha’is believe in the independent investigation of reality, and encourage everyone to question dogma, tradition and superstition in a personal search to discover the truth."
the baha'ullah specifically said: [bahaiteachings.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @07:23PM
God
There goes rationality.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:57PM
"God" doesn't always mean "sky fairy", but your mind is already made up on the matter so there's no point in trying to discuss it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:01PM
Right. It could also be some irrational newage nonsense. It just depends on who you're talking to.
But I read part of that article, and it sounds suspiciously like magical sky daddies are at work.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @09:18PM
if you'd read the quote, you would know that belief in magical sky faeries is mere superstition:
to Baha'is, God must be scientifically quantifiable:
"magical sky daddies" are contrary to reason and do not agree with science, thus faith and belief in them are impossible. and this is straight from the Baha'ullah, the founder of Baha'i.
how God can be scientifically quantifiable and still be God is left to the individual:
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:25PM
And why would this be a religion? The Wikipedia article even mentions prayer. I think I'm just going to go play with a newage bullshit generator or something.
how God can be scientifically quantifiable and still be God is left to the individual:
Interesting dodge.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @09:47PM
"prayer" is just a form of meditation, even for christians. [wikipedia.org]
how is taking the words at face value a dodge?
its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter, so i'm done wasting my time. i'd have a better debate talking to a wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07PM
Its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter
Don't you know, atheists can't be dogmatic. They are immune to irrationality!!!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:05PM
"prayer" is just a form of meditation, even for christians.
Right. Christian prayer totally has nothing to do with deities.
how is taking the words at face value a dodge?
Because it smells like new age bullshit. Redefine "god" and "prayer" and suddenly everything is 100% secular.
its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter, so i'm done wasting my time. i'd have a better debate talking to a wall.
its clear that you're not really interested in this and had your mind made up long ago, and no new facts or new information will ever influence you on the matter, so i'm done wasting my time. i'd have a better debate talking to a wall.
There, your own words right back at you. Need I remind you that you haven't agreed with me yet? That must mean you're closed-minded!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:12PM
> There, your own words right back at you. Need I remind you that you haven't agreed with me yet? That must mean you're closed-minded!
The difference is that he understands your argument and is saying there is more to it.
He is agreeing with your analysis and adding to it.
You, on the other hand insist that there is nothing to the topic beyond your own personal understanding.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:20PM
The difference is that he understands your argument and is saying there is more to it.
I'm also saying there is more to it than he lets on.
You, on the other hand insist that there is nothing to the topic beyond your own personal understanding.
Maybe my personal understanding is, in fact, correct. Or maybe my original comment mocking the notion of "rational religion" applies to a grand majority of religions and I don't care about a few exceptions to the rule. Either way, I'm skeptical when I see mentions of gods and prayer, but I guess you could define those to mean literally anything (or that they should be defined in a certain way) as seems to be the case here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:15AM
> I'm also saying there is more to it than he lets on.
Like what? I don't see you talking about anything more. In the venn diagram of this discussion your position is fully encompassed by his.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:38AM
He tries to put forth that religion as rational, but if you read the articles, it reads as new age nonsense. References to god, prayer, creation, true religion, synergies, and other such things. Probably all defined in a very 'creative' fashion. If their intent is to paint themselves as rational, they can do a better job than this.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday April 07 2015, @06:21PM
what christians believe has nothing to do with this discussion, except for...
prayer has always been a form of meditation, and don't let the christian idea of god fool you into thinking its the only one, or even a valid one. God is not a blond haired, blue eyed, bearded white guy sitting in the clouds. an anthropomorphized god is a powerless, petty, insignificant god. even one of the branches of christianty acknowledges this - gnosticism (and because of that, and because it put so much emphasis on searching for knowledge and personal truth and such, The Church did everything they could to destroy it and all of their teachings, because what the gnostics believed and taught didn't line up with the narrative The Church wanted to push so they could control everyone). God, by definition, is beyond human comprehension (using the metrics of this universe at least), and usually has the traits of "omnipotence, omnipresent, and omniscient"; whether this means "God" is the universe itself or some being from outside of our universe is unknown (and left to the individual to ponder), but what i quoted clearly states that anything irrational, anything that defies reason, like magical sky daddies, is pure superstitious nonsense.
until it can somehow be verified, the idea of a multiverse is just philosophy, but the science does point that way, and if there is a metaverse, just like its statistically impossible for humans to be the only life in our universe, its statistically impossible for humans to be the only life in the entire multiverse, and the concept that the universe is a simulation running on some trans-dimensional computer (which would, of course, require somebody to write the program and such) isn't totally irrational, so its not like these ideas and concepts are purely held by cloudcuckoolanders.
belief in God and religions can be rational, especially when the creator of the religion specifically states that it must be, and must conform to the standards of science and reason.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:02PM
what christians believe has nothing to do with this discussion
Your words: ""prayer" is just a form of meditation, even for christians."
Clearly, then, what Christians believe *is* relevant. Just because you think prayer is merely meditation doesn't mean everyone believes that. A lot of religious people do not.
whether this means "God" is the universe itself or some being from outside of our universe is unknown (and left to the individual to ponder)
Enough. If you want to refer to the universe, just use the word "universe." Don't define "god" as "universe"; that's confusing garbage. And there's no evidence for beings outside of our universe, so that too would be irrational.
but what i quoted clearly states that anything irrational, anything that defies reason, like magical sky daddies, is pure superstitious nonsense.
And yet in that article we have things like "god", "prayer", suggestions that humans were created, "God's commands", and other new age-sounding nonsense like "profound synergism".
If you're going to redefine prayer as mere meditation, use terms like "god" while referring to something different than the sort of god that people usually think of when they hear that word, and throw in a bunch of new age-sounding nonsense, don't be surprised when people start thinking you're talking nonsense. If you mean meditation, just use the term "meditation." Come up with a better term than "god." Write in a logical, consistent, and easy-to-understand way.
Frankly, we really don't need a religion at all, 'rational' or not. It's just not necessary.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:23PM
good to know that you consider stuff like simulation/holographic theory [bgr.com] and multiverse theories [space.com] to be irrational nonsense. there's also no proof for string theory, so that too much be irrational nonsense, along with the big bang theory, anything having to deal with "before" or "after" the universe, dark matter, dark energy, and countless other "scientific" theories that have no supporting evidence. the only problem is the word "rational" itself - anything that can be reached logically is, by definition, rational. so far your only argument is "proof by repeated assertion", you have yet to find any logical flaws to support your pre-defined conclusion, which means you're the one being irrational here.
all i'm using is two quotes, what anyone else says or does has nothing to do with my argument.
well duh, but only for prayer, which is why i said "except for" and then covered prayer, which is just vocal meditation.
i'm not redefining anything, you're just ignorant and insist that your understanding of the subject is the only possibility.
i already said the christian idea of god is nonsense, and does not come from any of their religious texts at all nor any of the texts predating upon which christianity is built. idiots who think of a bearded white guy in the sky are wrong, per the bible itself.
except for the fact that it seems to be hardwired [studentpulse.com] into humans, so its no different than the urge to eat or fuck.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:19AM
good to know that you consider stuff like simulation/holographic theory and multiverse theories to be irrational nonsense.
At the moment, there is no proof of some being outside of our universe, which is what you mentioned.
Also, if they haven't yet been proven, then believing them would indeed be irrational nonsense. They should be explored scientifically, but not believed without actual evidence.
the only problem is the word "rational" itself - anything that can be reached logically is, by definition, rational.
If there's no actual evidence for something, and you believe it anyway, then you haven't reached that position logically. You lack a logical basis for believing in it.
so far your only argument is "proof by repeated assertion", you have yet to find any logical flaws to support your pre-defined conclusion, which means you're the one being irrational here.
Straw man. You're the one who lacks the ability to grasp basic logic.
You're telling me what I think is merely a "pre-defined conclusion"; two can play at that game. You believe in a magical sky daddy who hates gay people. There, I've told you what you believe even if I have zero evidence of that. Have fun. You remind me of the religious people who spew forth nonsense like, "You know in your heart that god exists." Telling others what they believe or why they believe it is nonsense.
all i'm using is two quotes, what anyone else says or does has nothing to do with my argument.
You linked to those articles yourself, in addition to using quotes. You have no one to blame but yourself.
well duh, but only for prayer, which is why i said "except for" and then covered prayer, which is just vocal meditation.
You didn't say "except for" at first. And obviously, if some people believe otherwise, prayer is *not* just vocal meditation. A lot of people pray to gods and expect results, and not even just Christians.
i'm not redefining anything, you're just ignorant and insist that your understanding of the subject is the only possibility.
Nope. I'm just using the most commonly-accepted definitions of the terms that we have available. If you use the terms in different ways from how they're commonly understood without sufficiently explaining yourself (like those articles do), you have only yourself to blame if people get confused.
i already said the christian idea of god is nonsense, and does not come from any of their religious texts at all nor any of the texts predating upon which christianity is built. idiots who think of a bearded white guy in the sky are wrong, per the bible itself.
Yes, you have said this numerous times. But this isn't just about you, but about the articles you yourself linked to, which use confusing terminology that makes it sound like new age nonsense.
Why use the word "god" at all? Why not use more appropriate terms, like "universe" (if that is what you mean)? There is no need to use terms like "god", "prayer", or anything else.
except for the fact that it seems to be hardwired into humans, so its no different than the urge to eat or fuck.
That's a comical comparison. Eating keeps you alive, and sex allows us to continue the species. As for sex, well, there are asexuals, so that's not universally true.
Whether that science holds up remains to be seen, but even if it is true, we should strive to eliminate illogical impulses. I know I have no desire to be part of some garbage religion, so that's a start.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:31PM
hm, lets see
yup, totally open to new ideas and possibilities. definitely not repeating the same thing over and over again to refute my claim or similar ones, and definitely not begging the question there, with your premise and conclusion being that all religion is irrational nonsense, nope, not at all.
not true. irrationality is believing in something that has been disproven or outright impossible. it hasn't been proven that the universe is real and not just something fabricated by the brain, yet you believe it is real and all there is and can be. there's no proof that other people are real, yet you certainly believe other people are real (otherwise why bother arguing?). hell, there's not even any proof that you're real or that you have the freedom to change yourself or anything in your life (in fact, science is showing that the concept of "free will" - being able to choose anything for yourself - doesn't exist in any way). there's all kinds of things that are accepted without direct proof, but that's not a problem until those things have been proven wrong. all of science is built on falsifiability - nothing is proven true in science, instead everything that is not true is eventually proven to be false. believing in something that is factually incorrect and/or been proven wrong is delusional and irrational; believing that it might be possible for there to be more than can currently be proven with today's technology is not.
the sources are just as proof that i didn't make them up. you do understand how posting sources to back up your claims works, right? how could i prove to you that the creator of that religion stated that its beliefs must conform to reason and logic if not for posting those sources? the rest of the articles have nothing to do with my claim (plus that religion was built on top of all the other major religions, so it couldn't stray too far from them, else unifying all religions - a core component of baha'i is that all religions are the same and from the same source - would be impossible), which is that that religion clearly states that anything that does not conform to reason or logic is superstition and not to be believed. a religion that requires its followers to throw out irrational beliefs and to only believe in rational things must be rational, for any irrational beliefs are, and i quote, "superstition" and "belief in [them is] impossible".
there's a huge difference between "confused" and "refusing to accept any new information as valid". the former is fine, everyone is ignorant until they learn, the latter is "invincible ignorance fallacy" and "argument from pigheadedness", maybe with some "argument from personal incredulity" thrown in. this might also be taboo for you, perhaps your worldview requires that there be no possibility of anything outside of this universe, or even anything outside the earth since it can't be proven that anything 'above' the surface is real until we actually go there.
because people are stupid, and there's no way to know. stuff back at least as far as kabbalah, if not farther back, points to the conclusion that "God" = the universe itself though, its only when christians came along and started equating god with a white guy that everything got all fucked up and made petty and stupid. gods can be anthropomorphized, but an anthropomorphised god cannot be "God". we are both in total agreement that magical sky fairies are irrational, superstitious nonsense.
nobody is asking you to be. nobody is asking you to change your beliefs. i don't agree that illogical impulses should be eliminated though, because that would require with doing away with all emotions; i like being human, i don't want to be an emotionless machine.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:09PM
yup, totally open to new ideas and possibilities.
What do you want me to do, accept everything you have to say without any critical thought? Ignore problems that I see? If we're talking about being open to new ideas and possibilities, you are apparently not open to the possibility that my observations are correct or that there is a problem. You're confusing someone disagreeing with you with someone being closed-minded. Sorry if you can't handle a disagreement.
and definitely not begging the question there, with your premise and conclusion being that all religion is irrational nonsense, nope, not at all.
My position is actually that, in practice, religion is irrational. That applies to a grand majority of religions. There may be very, very few exceptions, but I care not for such exceptions to the rule. Even then, I don't see the point of them, so they're not really worth mentioning. And a hypothetical "rational religion" is almost at the point of not even being a religion anymore.
not true. irrationality is believing in something that has been disproven or outright impossible.
I think it is true. If you believe something without evidence, you are being irrational because you have no logical reason to do such a thing.
It hasn't been proven that there isn't a magical pink unicorn living on Mars. There's all sorts of nonsense that has not been and cannot be disproven, but that doesn't mean you're not irrational for believing in it.
Look, question the existence of the universe if you like, but don't compare that to people who refuse to believe in fairy tales or beings outside the universe without evidence. I care about results, and science has a history of nice results. And, from what I see, it's more productive to assume the universe is real than to assume it isn't without evidence. The situations simply aren't comparable to me.
there's a huge difference between "confused" and "refusing to accept any new information as valid".
The article you linked to uses terminology that leads people to believe it's just another run-of-the-mill irrational religion that promotes magical thinking. That is why I thought what I did.
the sources are just as proof that i didn't make them up. you do understand how posting sources to back up your claims works, right? how could i prove to you that the creator of that religion stated that its beliefs must conform to reason and logic if not for posting those sources?
And the sources had some confusing content, is what I'm saying.
because people are stupid, and there's no way to know. stuff back at least as far as kabbalah, if not farther back, points to the conclusion that "God" = the universe itself though, its only when christians came along and started equating god with a white guy that everything got all fucked up and made petty and stupid. gods can be anthropomorphized, but an anthropomorphised god cannot be "God". we are both in total agreement that magical sky fairies are irrational, superstitious nonsense.
Well, maybe we are, but they need a better PR guy.
nobody is asking you to be. nobody is asking you to change your beliefs. i don't agree that illogical impulses should be eliminated though, because that would require with doing away with all emotions; i like being human, i don't want to be an emotionless machine.
For instance, we should fight the desire to have children so often. 7 billion people is simply too many, and there are many kids without families. Mindless breeding is not good, though that doesn't mean no breeding.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:12PM
My worldview does not require me to not believe in things outside the universe. However, I lack a belief in such a thing until they have been proven to a sufficient degree, much like with god. I'll wait for the scientific consensus on this.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:09PM
well your argument is "even though the founder specifically said anything not supported by reason is not to be believed, i refuse to accept that he actually said it", so i find the idea that your premise is correct as a bit absurd. you can disagree with what he said all you want, but your argument that he didn't say it at all is pure denialism, the height of irrationality.
so the practical application of religion is irrational? meditating, seeking personal enlightenment, taking care of the needy, bonding with others, etc, thats all irrational? surely you mean "in theory" since the practice of religion, what people do because of it, has very little to do with anything supernatural. their reasons for doing it might be an irrational fear of supernatural punishment or whatever, but the actions themselves are rooted in reality. only they know their reasons, everyone else only knows their actions, so the reasons shouldn't matter to anyone but the individual.
so believing in mathematics and anything abstract is irrational. thats a strange notion. you're also raising the barrier for science impossibly high since, again, there's very little that can actually be proven, and science works by not believing in anything that has been proven wrong, rather than only believing in things which have been proven 100%.
no argument there. if people in general are hardwired to be spiritual or religious, i'd much rather their belief system demand rationality and to not believe in supernatural nonsense like magic sky fairies.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:28PM
well your argument is "even though the founder specifically said anything not supported by reason is not to be believed, i refuse to accept that he actually said it", so i find the idea that your premise is correct as a bit absurd. you can disagree with what he said all you want, but your argument that he didn't say it at all is pure denialism, the height of irrationality.
I'm going by the article that you yourself linked to. Anyone can claim to love science and rationality, even people who accept nonsense like homeopathy. So the mere fact that the founder said one thing or another is literally meaningless, as they could also then go on to say something else that is nonsense.
And, also, that's a straw man. I never said that he didn't say it. Why do you feel the need to use straw men every two seconds? Where did I say anything about denying the founder said something? You seem to think you can just tell other people what they believe and make up arguments and say they're the ones who put those arguments forth.
so the practical application of religion is irrational?
A grand majority of religions are irrational, yes.
meditating
Also known as prayer for many religions, which also happens to involve deities for many of them.
seeking personal enlightenment
"Goddidit" is not seeking personal enlightenment. If they wanted enlightenment, they should rely on science. In practice, most religions don't encourage enlightenment.
The other ones are not exclusive to religion and have little to do with it.
surely you mean "in theory"
No, in practice. In theory, a majority of religions could have no supernatural elements at all. In practice, a majority of them do advocate the supernatural. They are, therefore, irrational.
so believing in mathematics and anything abstract is irrational.
Straw man argument. I never once said, "Anything abstract is unprovable and it is therefore irrational to believe it is true." Read my post again if you don't believe me.
you're also raising the barrier for science impossibly high since
No, I fucking didn't. I didn't say anything about proving something 100%. Try again. All I mentioned was believing something without evidence. There is such a thing as "good enough", and science typically meets those standards.
And then you go on to repeat the same "But very little can actually be proven 100% true!" argument that I already fucking responded to. Stop responding to my points in little snippets and ignoring everything else I had to say.
Here: "It hasn't been proven that there isn't a magical pink unicorn living on Mars. There's all sorts of nonsense that has not been and cannot be disproven, but that doesn't mean you're not irrational for believing in it.
Look, question the existence of the universe if you like, but don't compare that to people who refuse to believe in fairy tales or beings outside the universe without evidence. I care about results, and science has a history of nice results. And, from what I see, it's more productive to assume the universe is real than to assume it isn't without evidence. The situations simply aren't comparable to me."
I'll just start copying and pasting my previous replies as appropriate, because typing it all against would be too tedious. Notice how I didn't say anything about requiring absolute proof? Yeah.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:11PM
that people don't always follow it perfectly is beside the point. the point is, rationality is hard-coded in to that religion, and you are saying it is not, because for you, "religion" is by definition "irrational" and "rational religion" is an oxymoron and no evidence anywhere will change your mind.
do tell me, how do you prove something that doesn't exist?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:08PM
that people don't always follow it perfectly is beside the point. the point is, rationality is hard-coded in to that religion, and you are saying it is not, because for you, "religion" is by definition "irrational" and "rational religion" is an oxymoron and no evidence anywhere will change your mind.
No, that's not what I've been saying. Try again.
do tell me, how do you prove something that doesn't exist?
You must have a very deep understanding of mathematics indeed. Mathematicians are just people who make up nonsense out of nowhere and none of their ideas actually make sense in reality or have practical purposes.
Hint: You're equivocating.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:24PM
a dodge, so you must be admitting that its impossible. all of mathematics is built on faith - faith that, because these abstract ideas correlate to reality in a limited number of instances, that they always will do so; they believe in something which does not exist and cannot be proven, only correlated, and for which their is no evidence (except for that which is built upon faith) and this is not a problem until it has been proven wrong. if it is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, no proof, then believing in anything abstract, including math and anything involving math (like science), is irrational.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:48PM
a dodge, so you must be admitting that its impossible.
I said no such thing. Your dishonest tactic of putting words in my mouth and spewing forth straw men is something you use often, but no matter the frequency, I will call you out on your logical fallacies.
Mathematical proofs make use of logic and reason. They are not just mere faith. You seem to be saying, "There are few things you can know with 100% certainty; therefore, a complete nutter who believes in random nonsense is just as good as a scientist or mathematician who uses logic, evidence, and reason to arrive at conclusions, because we can't prove that the universe exists with 100% certainty." It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Mathematics deals with the theoretical, but that does not mean there are no proofs or standards.
The name of your logical fallacy is: Equivocation.
You say you think the supernatural is nonsense, but the arguments you're putting forth are much like the ones a theist nutter would put forth. Is this merely a coincidence?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:06PM
and you are defining "logic" and "reason" as something other than their definitions just to specifically preclude anything you do not already agree with.
there is no evidence for anything abstract, except other abstractions (which also don't exist), so by your own words it is irrational to believe in anything abstract.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:13PM
and you are defining "logic" and "reason" as something other than their definitions just to specifically preclude anything you do not already agree with.
Nope.
there is no evidence for anything abstract, except other abstractions (which also don't exist), so by your own words it is irrational to believe in anything abstract.
What part of "equivocation" do you not understand? You really need to work on your logic.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:40PM
the part that you're saying i'm equivocating. what, exactly, is ambiguous in my argument thats being used to conceal the truth?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:16PM
It's a fallacy. You're confusing two things, intentionally or not. Asking for evidence that some physical being or theory is true, and using abstract concepts like mathematics or logic to prove that something is true/untrue to the best of our ability. You are saying someone who advocates evidence before belief must also believe that the abstract is useless and irrational, when the topic is really about proving the existence of some being or providing evidence of some theory. Something doesn't need to be a real-life phenomenon in order for it to be useful or logical.
Do you think it is irrational to believe in a magical pink unicorn living on Mars when there is no evidence of such a thing? Why do you think it's irrational to believe in magical sky daddies, given all you've said to me? You can't prove that magical sky daddies don't exist. I hope I just don't understand what the hell you're arguing here, because it's not making any sense and seems to contradict what you said previously about magical sky daddies being irrational.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:06PM
you must not, because my argument is still just what i started with:
a religion which demands rationality must be rational. you're stuck with "religion is irrational because its religion" and refuse to ever budge on it because it would require changing your idea that religion requires worshiping supernatural magic sky fairies, which i said at the start it doesn't always (to which you said, "why would this be a religion?", because you're stuck on the idea that "religion = sky fairies", when it doesn't)
abstraction only came into it because of your insistence that its irrational to believe in anything with evidence, and abstract things do not exist so there cannot be evidence for them, thus by your definition it is irrational to believe in them. the problem is that there's nothing irrational in believing in abstract things, so long as they haven't been disproven. once they've been disproven, then its irrational to continue believing in them. this is how science works - things are disproven, and its only then that continuing to believe in them makes one irrational. people used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and there was nothing irrational at the time because there was no evidence proving them false; its only now that there's evidence showing the earth is not flat and not the center of the universe that such beliefs are irrational. the same with the solid state universe, it wasn't irrational to believe in it until it was proven wrong. there doesn't necessarily need to be evidence supporting a hypothesis for it to be rational, it just needs to not contradict the available facts and evidence.
this has gotten boring. like i said at the beginning, there's no point in continuing discussion because the conclusion you started with will never change.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:27PM
you're stuck with "religion is irrational because its religion"
Then you haven't been following the conversation. Do you have trouble comprehending English? Correcting all of your misunderstandings of my arguments could be done just be telling you to read my previous posts again until you understand what I am saying.
My observations are all based on how a grand majority of religions work in practice, and the sort of things they encourage people to believe. Do not mistake that for "Absolutely all religions are irrational and it cannot be any other way, regardless of what the religions do or do not promote." I do not, however, see the point in joining a religion, as I think they can be replaced by more normal and secular organizations, or they are just not needed. It's a personal preference in that case.
abstraction only came into it because of your insistence that its irrational to believe in anything with evidence, and abstract things do not exist so there cannot be evidence for them, thus by your definition it is irrational to believe in them. the problem is that there's nothing irrational in believing in abstract things, so long as they haven't been disproven. once they've been disproven, then its irrational to continue believing in them.
I said that it is irrational to believe in anything without evidence, not with evidence. Second of all, abstract things are just ideas, and ideas do exist. Unless you're a solipsist, maybe? I don't know.
But using this logic, how could you ever call something irrational? *Why* do you believe it is irrational to believe in magical sky daddies, if not for the fact that there is no evidence that such things exist? Obviously you can't require evidence, because then you'd apparently (by what you've told me) have to reject abstract things like mathematics and reason. So there must be something else. Fill me in, would you?
people used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and there was nothing irrational at the time because there was no evidence proving them false
This is a cute idea, but absurd. If you don't know one way or the other, the only rational response is to admit that you do not know. Using this logic, believing in magical pink unicorns living on Mars is perfectly rational simply because we haven't proven that they don't exist. Also, how do you know the Earth isn't flat? Maybe our observations that the Earth is not flat were merely illusions and we live in a virtual reality world, unbeknownst to us all. Hey, you haven't proven this to be false, so it's not irrational to believe in it.
this has gotten boring. like i said at the beginning, there's no point in continuing discussion because the conclusion you started with will never change.
Will the conclusion you started with ever change?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 10 2015, @04:25PM
"a grand majority" is not "all". "Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense." is equivalent to "all religions are irrational", and when you say "all", all it takes is a single counterexample to prove you wrong, but even if i were to point out a religion that doesn't involve anything [wikipedia.org] that could even be interpreted [wikipedia.org] as supernatural, you'd just say its not a religion, because for you, religion requires magic sky fairies, else its not religion (otherwise you must admit that rational religion can make sense, even if it is only a tiny number of them; i agree with you that most religions are irrational nonsense, i disagree that all of them are).
even if our reality is just a simulation, the earth has been proven to be a sphere within the confines of our simulation. unless we find a way outside of the universe, simulation or not, we can only use the metrics from within it to measure things.
my conclusion will change when the evidence does. i'd be irrational if i were to believe something contrary to the evidence.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 10 2015, @05:00PM
"a grand majority" is not "all". "Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense." is equivalent to "all religions are irrational"
Ah, I see. So your entire position is just you being a pedantic asshole. Alright, then. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Even if you are a pedantic asshole, though, I think I've gone into enough detail about my actual position (i.e. not the straw men you keep putting forth) for you to understand it by now, so there's really no excuse. You really do just seem to be bad at comprehending English. Work on that, will you?
you'd just say its not a religion
Nope.
But I find all theism and supernatural garbage to be irrational, not just gods like the Christian god.
even if our reality is just a simulation, the earth has been proven to be a sphere within the confines of our simulation.
Really? It has? Maybe everyone was just given false memories by a magical sky daddy. Maybe we have yet to explore anything about this supposed illusion. You can't win this; you'll never have enough evidence to satisfy anything.
my conclusion will change when the evidence does.
Wow! That sounds a lot like me.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 10 2015, @05:57PM
no, this admission of irrationality sounds like you:
i've presented you two [wikipedia.org] religions [wikipedia.org] which don't have anything that could even be interpreted as supernatural plus another that demands rationality, yet you still refuse to accept that such evidence exists, that religion can be rational. you are holding a belief that goes against the facts, the same belief you started with, and no matter how much evidence i present you will never accept it or change your beliefs - you are being irrational.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 10 2015, @06:49PM
no, this admission of irrationality sounds like you:
Doesn't look like an admission of irrationality to me. I ask again: Do you have trouble comprehending English?
i've presented you two religions which don't have anything that could even be interpreted as supernatural plus another that demands rationality, yet you still refuse to accept that such evidence exists
Why are you telling me what I refuse? You don't get to decide what I think, you moron. If you had been paying attention to the conversation at all, or even the statement that you just now quoted, maybe you'd understand my position better. As it is, you're just putting forth straw man after straw man and not even bothering to try to understand my actual position. Or maybe your reading comprehension is just awful. Who knows.
and no matter how much evidence i present you will never accept it or change your beliefs - you are being irrational.
According to what you told me a few replies ago, you can't be irrational just by believing something that hasn't been proven true yet, and that people who believe in beings outside the universe without evidence are a-okay. Therefore, I could maintain that all of your 'evidence' is merely an illusion and that you haven't actually put forth any good evidence. It's not irrational because it hasn't been proven false. Checkmate!
What's sad is that the point I'm making will probably be lost on you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Monday April 06 2015, @08:12PM
Sorry, but religions can be rational. Rationality cannot derive the axioms that it works from. Mind you, I don't think I've ever encountered one, but to assert that it doesn't make sense is to be unreasonable.
Additionally, many religions have a retro-fitted consistent set of logical arguments justifying their positions. That these are inevitably circular (because they don't want to specify the axioms on which they depend) doesn't make them irrational, just circular.
And guess what, you can't logically justify science without accepting a bunch of unmentioned axioms either.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @09:15PM
Sorry, but religions can be rational.
In practice, no. A grand majority of religions have some nonsensical supernatural aspects to them that you must accept without evidence.
And guess what, you can't logically justify science without accepting a bunch of unmentioned axioms either.
The scientific method is the best way to get to the truth that we know of; history shows this. It is not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. Maybe you want to waste your own time questioning your own existence or whatever it is you mean, but I see that as meaningless. Do not compare the two, as they're not even remotely alike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:09PM
> Do not compare the two, as they're not even remotely alike.
They are identical. Hell you think they are both meaningless, why is that? How are they differently meaningless?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:10PM
They are identical.
Except for their track records and pretty much everything about them? Yeah, I guess they are identical. You got me.
Hell you think they are both meaningless, why is that? How are they differently meaningless?
That's definitely something I said.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @04:21PM
There's no such thing as rational religion, especially when it comes to Islam. Yeah, some of the Christian sects are pretty benign these days I'll admit; just look at Episcopalianism: they're pretty pro-gay and tolerant of most stuff, not anti-birth-control like the Catholics, pro-science, it's basically a religion for people who want a social club and some ceremony every sunday but without a lot of wacky theology. Presbyterians are the same way. But in America, these sects are small and shrinking, while the Evangelical movement is growing constantly.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:00PM
you've obviously never even talked to a single muslim in your life, much less ever known any aside from 6th-hand knowledge from hatemongers on Fox News.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @07:08PM
I don't need to talk to any Muslims. Their religion (as well as Christianity) requires you to believe something with no evidence for it whatsoever. That's the very definition of irrational. How this relates to Fox News I have no idea.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:20PM
except somehow you still felt the need to single out islam specifically. so do tell, what is it specifically that makes it especially irrational, moreso than any other religion?
my generalization may have been wrong in your specific case, but people who single out islam for hatemongering typically have a single, favorite tv channel that they worship like The Gospel Straight from the Mouth of White Jesus...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:29AM
Islam gets singled out precisely because it has so many violent followers. When was the last time organized Christians did anything violent at all, solely for religious reasons? I don't mean some single wacko, I mean organized groups of them. They don't exist. They spew anti-gay bile here in the US, sure, but I don't see them ganging up and decapitating anyone. Christianity used to have some of this, back before the Enlightenment, but that was centuries ago. The Muslims now act like Christians did before the year 1500. So why are we trying to act like they're anything other than backwards? We have enough problems with our stupid Christians fighting against women's rights, gay rights, basic science and reason, so why are we welcoming people who are centuries behind even those dumb Christians?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:40PM
bullshit. other posts have already pointed out threats [soylentnews.org] and mass murder [soylentnews.org] and multiple christian [soylentnews.org] terrorist groups, [soylentnews.org] stuff that is still going on to this day.
defining an entire religion based on a few small extremists groups is pure sophistry. stop with the hatemongering and work to spread facts instead.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:45PM
A few small extremists? ISIS has tens of thousands of supporters, and controls more territory than Belgium. And plenty of polls show that most Muslims support Sharia Law.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:02AM
and there's 1.6 billion muslims [pewresearch.org] in the world. a couple tens of thousands is a tiny fraction. pidgeonholing 1.6 billion people based on the actions of less than 0.000013% of the group is irrational hatemongering.
there's plenty of backwards-ass, irrational, denialist, hatemongering, totalitarian, fascist christians too, you just live in a country where there's a vested interest [theocracywatch.org] in hiding that as best as possible.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:29AM
I don't mean some single wacko,
Let me fix this for you:
I don't mean some single Waco,
Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Alec, the question is: "What is the Branch Davidian?"
Only the top of the pile of Christian Crazy, trust me.