Reply With Quote
Those primates even poured millions into 9/11 and we tucked that under the rug pretending they had nothing to do with it.
'murica getting punked by an Islamic theocracy
80% of the terrorists from 9/11 being Saudi
Let's get to a point here where we understand that not everyone who questions the possibility of a creator believes the superbowl outage was an act of God. Or that Tim Tebow's pass to Demaryius Thomas was an act of divine intervention.
Those primates even poured millions into 9/11 and we tucked that under the rug pretending they had nothing to do with it.
Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?
Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism." Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.
Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.
In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the iden y of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.
More significantly, there is no known evidence, at least not publicly available, about their alleged motives. Indeed, Obama himself - in the statement he made to the nation after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured on Friday night - said that "tonight there are still many unanswered questions" and included this "among" those "unanswered questions":
"Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ora-sandy-hook
Attempting to reconcile religious belief with scientific methodology is about as stupid as ins utionalizing religion and believing that said ins utionalization is a good thing ...
Boutons!! sup mah
not sure if you're always lazy, but you sure have been in this thread.
Are you saying the Majority of Christians are in the KKK? what %, 80, 90?Are you saying the KKK wasn't a Christian organization?
Probably already answered, but this is a logical fallacy known as "Pascal's Wager". There's just as much a chance that there is a God up there that is cool with atheists, but pissed off at believers who followed the "wrong" God.
Edit: DoK already pointed that out. Thanks!
Bull .
Secular ethics and morals are why we continue to morally evolve for the better.
Indeed, we have advanced morally precisely because we have continuously subs uted secular morality for that of the Christian Bible.
Tell me how many witches you have stoned to death, or children for dishonoring their parents. If the number is zero, you are not, by the definition of the Bible, a good Christian, i.e. not obeying God's laws.
I could go on. The Bible is not a source of morals, and anyone thinks it is, really hasn't read it closely.
Really Jag? Really? I thought better of you.
You can't "prove" the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists; therefore, shouldn't you believe in him, just to hedge your bets? See how fun this can be?
Yeah, we've done this already.
According to polls, 27% of America believes the superbowl power outage was an act of god, while 30% of America believes a rapture is coming in their lifetime and that the world is only 6,000 years old. Additionally, 28% of the people who voted for Romney believe Obama is the anti-Christ.
Let's get to a point here where we understand that not everyone who questions the possibility of a creator believes the superbowl outage was an act of God. Or that Tim Tebow's pass to Demaryius Thomas was an act of divine intervention.
It's not everyone, but it's a significant amount of people in this country who have absolutely bat Christian-based beliefs.
I am saying that God was not bound by anything and therefore did not have to sacrifice anybody. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand this? If there was a God, and if he took human form and died on the cross to save us, he chose to go that route, making the sacrifice meaningless.
Arizona's obesity rate is like 25%. I'm not calling you obese, brah.
Depends on the cartoon honestly. The cover of Frankenchrist had Christians and Tipper foaming at the mouth.
Are you intentionally ignoring the New Testament, which pre-dates the United States? Just read the words of Jesus and tell me how he's not a source of morals? Tell me where Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong?
Even just leading up to the civil rights movement, a significant number of Christians were in the KKK.
Since the civil rights movement made it socially unacceptable to be in the KKK, Christians moved on socially acceptable forms of hatred like believing gay people are possessed by the devil. There IS currently a significant number of Christians (in the tens of millions) in America who believe sexuals are possessed by the devil. Once it's no longer socially acceptable to hate gay people, that same group of Christians will move onto a new demographic of people to hate.
And you are wrong. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something that hasn't met its burden of proof. Period.
I'm not calling you someone who believes any of that, I'm saying you're lying to yourself about how many people believe completely primitive things due to Christianity.
Calling me stupid isn't going to make your lack of logic any more logical.
A lot of the morals that Jesus espoused were relatively secular in nature. (Meaning, a secular person could follow those same morals and not be considered religious.) The Bible probably had a good hand in spreading the value of these morals though, which is a plus.
Someone who compares believing in jesus to flipping a lightswitch getting on a soapbox about logic is pretty funny.
Jag, it's much easier to believe nothing exists (hey, nothing exists!) than it is to believe a religion which has many different facets built into it (heaven exists, you get there if you do x,y,z, these religions are wrong because abc etc etc).
Would it be as easy for you to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it would Jesus? If not, why?
2Cents, it's pretty easy to understand. If God didn't want there to be a sacrifice, he could've just chosen to absolve us without the sacrifice. If he's omnipotent, God wouldn't "need" to do anything.
I don't know _JaG but I believe there is nothing after so I don't need back up plan.
Truth. The 10 commandments in a nuts :
1. Our God is #1.
2. Obey the Golden Rule.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions