http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16127078/

Do you think Christianity should be banned? I am serious here.

No. You have your answer.

Now move on.

I am serious here.

You are but I wonder if Pete thinks Christianity should be banned.

No, I don't think ANY religion should be banned.

I just posted this because I think it qualifies as an example of religion causing terror.

There.

deleted

Lets be honest here Pete. Would you be saying religion caused terror if you didn't hate religion?

Religion does not cause terror. People use religion as a reason to cause terror.

there are plenty of people who are religous and are not terrorist

Thanks for saying that!

"People use religion as a reason to cause terror."

Which pretty much proves there is a link between religion and terror.

The terrorist's are just the "TOOL'S"! Weak minded people exploited' into beleiving' what other's say to be real. At one point a religious belief will become twisted into an "IDEAL"! It is then these ideal's that are acted' upon. Usually carried' out by the "TOOL'S" or the "PAWN'S"! To bad the terrorist leader's don't go no their on suicide bombing missions'.....!!!!!

Of course an atheist is going to try to ascribe all kinds of negative things to faith.

Life without God is meaningless. For if we indeed 'evolved' we are nothing more than mere animals.

Herb

"Of course an atheist is going to try to ascribe all kinds of negative things to faith. "

May I please ask who that was directed at?

WW.....
Do you think anyone else's opinons but YOUR'S should be banned?
I am serious here.

I think we're closer to being mammals than animals.

"Get Your Stinkin' Paws Off Me You Damn Dirty Ape!" (Planet of the Apes)

Although similar in appearance there are still to many missing links to form this chain.

EDIT:
Open minded to hear opposing viewpoints though.

Author: Reinstatepete
Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 10:03 am


"People use religion as a reason to cause terror."

Which pretty much proves there is a link between religion and terror.

---
Which proves the exact opposite. Religion doesn't cause terror evil does. Do you think there is evil in the world?

Would you be saying religion causes terror at all if you didn't hate religion?

If you're going to tell me that the Taliban are in no way religiuos, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, you lose.

Would you say that religion causes terror if you didn't hate religion? Honestly? Where does the statement religion causing terror come from? I tell you where. Its from hate toward religion and God.

I don't see any hate toward religion being expressed here.

Not believing is not the same as hating. It's just a rational rejection of one potential faith.

What I am seeing expressed here, and something I agree with, is that the clashes between various religions has brought us, as a people, a lot of trouble.

I'm also seeing the idea forming that religion, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I agree with this. However, some people appear to be predisposed to the kinds of actions and needs that cause them to leverage religion as a justfication for terror and other criminal and harmful deeds.

Finally, the case for actually hating religion and god, could be very strong if one was the subject of, or is affected by actions of those citing some religion for their justification. IMHO, this is wrong to do, but understandable all things considered.

None of this should threaten your particular faith, but it's simply not rational to deny these things happen.

I don't think the problem is not believing. The thing I am trying to figure out is why someone would insist that religion causes terror. The only thing I can see it coming from is a bad experience in some church that would produce that attitude. I could understand if that were the case. I am not saying it is. But there has to be other reasons for terror. Its a bit unfair to say that only religion can cause it. I know many people who are religious and terror is the last thing on their mind. Especially if God told us to love one another.

Lets be specific here. Can somebody name a person they know who is religious and that terror is the direct result of that?

Maybe you could define " terror " for me, Wayne. Maybe you define it as something different than I.

So what's your definition of " terror "?

Oh and hey - and I'm ready for those other two questions I asked for answers on ( 500 WMDs, Lincoln wiretapping ) anytime you are ready to show me where you answered them.

Fine but lets do that on another thread but not here. I can show you photos of the 500 WMDS but I doubt if even that would convince you.

Thats a good question. We probably need the dictionary's defination here. A terrorist to me is somebody who straps bombs around themselves and claims that there are 72 virgins. Thats the exact opposite of what religion is supposed to be.
anyone who claims that he does that in the name of religion is fooling himself and God, especially when God told us not to kill.

You do know that there are religions that believe in a different God than you, right?

Here is a QUANDRY for you to think about!

Even the most fanatic ATHIEST beleives in RELIGION. For without beleif in it's existance how could he be against something that does not exist. So thereby in beleiving that it does not exist he in fact confirms it's existance. By confirming it he can be against it!

Makes my head hurt!

Religion is easy.

It exists. Look around, plenty of it in many different forms.

It's the actual diety embodied by the religion that's a bit difficult to accept for some.

Like DT said even an atheist is religious in his own way.

So if atheism is a religion too can't atheism cause terror?

I did not exactly say an athiest was religious more so that the athiest by denial of religion just confirms it's existance!

I realize that but atheists can be as religious as anybody that believes in God. That was my point. I didn't mean to misquote you.

You mean they are religious in their faith that there is no God?

Thats what I mean.

Wayner is wacked!

Wayne,

You ask over and over again, "Why do people keep saying religion causes terror?' I've just scanned the entire thread and the only one talking about religion causing terror is YOU. Many others have said "there is a link between religion and terror" and Mc74 said "Religion does not cause terror. People use religion as a reason to cause terror." NO ONE has made the statement you are objecting to! Wayne, you are typing without reading or thinking. Responders to Wayne, many of you are doing the same.


Finally, in response to DT's quandry:

"Even the most fanatic religious zealot believes in athiesm. He must, because how could he be against something that does not exist? So thereby in believing that it (an absence of God) does not exist, he in fact confirms it's existence."


Someone who is committed unwaveringly and wholeheartedly to athiesm could be described as "religiously athiestic".

Figure that one out.

Here's my take: (And I love this topic, BTW)

The state of god is one of the body of not known things. Because of this, one must take a position on faith, or reason given the unknown exists. In this, we see the core of realism, BTW.

Frankly, it's a gamble either way. The athiest does not believe in god, and sees enough merit to warrant ongoing conviction in this regard. It is no different for the believer, but for the position on god. Each path has it's implications, but each is also valid and rational, given the ideology that forms as a result of the chosen path is itself consistant.

This is why I said denial of god is simply a rational rejection of one possible faith!

Author: Edselehr
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 11:05 pm


Wayne,

You ask over and over again, "Why do people keep saying religion causes terror?' I've just scanned the entire thread and the only one talking about religion causing terror is YOU. Many others have said "there is a link between religion and terror" and Mc74 said "Religion does not cause terror. People use religion as a reason to cause terror." NO ONE has made the statement you are objecting to! Wayne, you are typing without reading or thinking. Responders to Wayne, many of you are doing the same.


Finally, in response to DT's quandry:

"Even the most fanatic religious zealot believes in athiesm. He must, because how could he be against something that does not exist? So thereby in believing that it (an absence of God) does not exist, he in fact confirms it's existence."


Someone who is committed unwaveringly and wholeheartedly to athiesm could be described as "religiously athiestic".

Figure that one out.

----
You need to read the original post of this thread because that was the point Pete was making.

Author: Missing_kskd
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 11:45 pm


Here's my take: (And I love this topic, BTW)

The state of god is one of the body of not known things. Because of this, one must take a position on faith, or reason given the unknown exists. In this, we see the core of realism, BTW.

Frankly, it's a gamble either way. The athiest does not believe in god, and sees enough merit to warrant ongoing conviction in this regard. It is no different for the believer, but for the position on god. Each path has it's implications, but each is also valid and rational, given the ideology that forms as a result of the chosen path is itself consistant.

This is why I said denial of god is simply a rational rejection of one possible faith!

------
Having encountered many who deny God on this forum I would hardly call their denial based on reason at all. At least thats my experience here

Many? Name them.

And now listeners we bring you the following special:
"The Sound of Silence"
Sponsered by our Special guest Wayne!

LOL

I have seen very little reason from you, Mrs M. I have seen much trashing from you and very little respect toward anyone who believes in God.

"I have seen very little reason from you, Mrs M. I have seen much trashing from you and very little respect toward anyone who believes in God."

Nah, I think she has plenty of respect for people who believe in God.

She just has no respect for YOU.

Nice diversion, Wayne, but sure, I'll play.

It's just you, Wayne, I have zero respect for you.

I "think" you are an insult to God and Jesus, and you are singlehandedly doing them harm. I have no doubt they'll have something to say to you when you reach the pearly gates. Pack a thong.

"Pack a thong."

Ugh.

**NOBODY** wants to see that.

I haven't seen much respect from Mrs M.for either me or Herb. The reason is because we are both committed Christians and she doesn't like anyone who is a conservative. Her problem is that we don't agree with her "values." The only way she will ever respect either of us is if we agree with her demand for gay marriage and gays parading naked outside of my house. The issue with her is about nothing else.

Thank you, Brian!

100% Correct!

Author: Mrs_merkin
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:41 pm


Nice diversion, Wayne, but sure, I'll play.

It's just you, Wayne, I have zero respect for you.

I "think" you are an insult to God and Jesus, and you are singlehandedly doing them harm. I have no doubt they'll have something to say to you when you reach the pearly gates. Pack a thong.

----
No it isn't its about me and Herb opposing gay marriage. Your problem with us is that we object to your demand for gays parading naked outside of our homes.

"No it isn't its about me and Herb opposing gay marriage. Your problem with us is that we object to your demand for gays parading naked outside of our homes."

Now find a post, ANY post, where ANY of us demanded for gays to be parading naked outside of your home. Find it. Please. I'd LOVE to see where any of us suggested this.

I volunteered to do it. But I'm not gay.

And if you've seen the size of my butt, it's not a pretty sight, clothed or otherwise.

If I remember correctly, Wayne actually first suggested it himself, by saying that having gays parade around naked in front of his house would make us happy.

So HE suggesting it means WE want it, right?

Riiiiight.

Author: Waynes_world
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:43 pm

"The reason is because we are both committed Christians"

Oh....I get it now.....say what time is visiting hours....maybe someday i'll stop by the looney bin and read you guys a book or something....how does curious george sound or maybe go dogs go!!!!

LOL

Ms. M -

You can parade around my house naked ANYTIME!

Just make sure the wife ain't home!

I will be the first to let your wife know.

Man I got a Migraine today....anyone got some spare Morphine....Demerol would be fine to. Bout the only thing that'll knock the edge off of this baby!!!!

Today is one of my "DARK" days!!!

C'mon over, I have some spare morphine pills. Hated those things (the pills, I mean).

I think a shot of Demerol at the ER is about the only thing that can really stop a migraine isn't it? I feel for you, I have a friend who gets them, and they're debilatating (sp?)!

Ya...the kind that hit's you right behind the eye's.....Found some hydrocodene and that knocked of the edge a little. will be gone like a bad hang over tomorrow.