Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
MrWonderful wrote:Who would have thought! No difference between a godless mocker of Jesus Christ and a follower of Jesus Christ. Emily, you are SO WISE - wiser by far than Jesus Christ. What did Jesus know when he scorned non-believers, eh?
Scheherazade wrote:Personal bias aside, the more I observe, the more I become convinced that atheism as a whole appeals more to uncouth and antisocial personalities than to higher society.
Godstud wrote:Please name the last war that was based on religion. I will wait. It'll take some time, as there hasn't been ANY in the last few centuries.
Godstud wrote: The last wars for religion being in Europe, in the 17th century, and before.
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is based solely on religion, then you are ignoring important aspects such as disputing land claims, the role of Israel as a supporter of US neo-imperialism, and the unofficial apartheid of Israel.
BigSteve wrote:I never said the conflict was based solely on religion. But only the most ignorant among us would suggest that it's not an important part. And many of the land claims are based on beliefs tied strongly to religion.
And every time some piece of shit Muslim suicide bomber yells "Allahu Akbar!" before launching his bits and pieces outward at the speed of sound it's a religious attack...
Pants-of-dog wrote: Assuming that Muslim suicide bombers kill themselves in terrorist attacks for religious reasons ignores important aspects of modern US foreign policy, and how said policy causes these attacks.
BigSteve wrote:I dunno'... maybe you're aware of a different translation of "Allahu Akbar", or maybe you're just ignoring it because it makes arguing your point more difficult...
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is merely an exclamation.
It does not actually prove anything about the causes of the attack.
When you look at the actual behaviour of many of these attackers, they do not act like devout Muslims. They eat pork, they drink, they visit strip clubs, et cetera.
If religion was the important cause that you argue it is, the terrorists themselves would be more devout. They are not.
BigSteve wrote:I find it fascinating that you're able to speak with such authority about terrorists.
You're talking about the 9/11 terrorists. I'm talking about terrorists.
Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a gay night club in Orlando in 2016. He identified himself as a "soldier of God" and an "Islamic soldier". He was heard saying it before he opened fire. Considering how tolerant Islam is of homosexuality, I don't think it takes a genius to see how there could be a connection between Mateen's religious beliefs and his actions.
Or howsabout Sri Lanka?
Sure seems as though there's a connection between their actions and their beliefs. They slaughtered known Christians in that attack...
Pants-of-dog wrote:The trouble with this idea is its very simplicity. It ignores important evidence like Mateen's mental illness, his possible homosexuality, and the fact that the preacher at Mateen's mosque never preached against homosexuals.
Why do you assume this was about religion and not (for example) Sri Lanka's recent troubled political history?
BigSteve wrote:You're correct, it is very simplistic. Look up Occam's Razor applies...
Well, because were screaming "Allahu Akbar!" right before they slaughtered Christians.
Call it a hunch...
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you have no actual evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe your claim is true.
I think MMT acknowledges that monetary sovereig[…]
Hmm. You can't help making stupid posts can you?[…]
You guys are off-topic. https://twitter.com/Ali_K[…]