Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Nordic Superman on August 13, 2006, 03:23:09 AM
-
I can understand how people might believe we were "created" by a being above us because of our abilities above any other organism on Earth etc etc...
But...
It really boggles my mind how religious types are not persuaded by the theory of evolution.
How do you explain fossil evidence? How do you explain the past existence of dinosaurs?
I have spoken to a muslim on the matter, she explained it by saying fossils were placed there by God as a test of faith :-X (My reaction: yeah ok love keep thinking that :-[)
My auntie is a devout Christian but acknowledges evolution. (I see this as hypocrisy)
Where do you stand?
-
Let me put on my crazy fundamentalist mask for you.
How do you explain fossil evidence?
God put them there to test our faith...
or
Every single "transitional fossil" in the world has been misinterpreted by the scientific community and my uneducated opinion is more valid. They aint missing links!
How do you explain the past existence of dinosaurs?
[/quote]
Dinosaurs existed but died after Noah's flood because of Starvation....
or
Dinosaurs never existed and the fossils are all fakes...
or
Dinosaurs died out in the 1 day between God making the other animals and God making humans.
or
Dinosaurs still exist in loch ness and some places in the congo.
You pick. ;D
-
lol ;D
Why would a God test our faith? Why would he create a being with such weaknesses?
Why does God even need for us to believe in him? Is he that shallow?
If they died in the great flood why don't such colossal creatures get a mention in the Bible? Doesn't it state: take 2 of each animal, there wasn't any exceptions were there?
-
lol ;D
Why would a God test our faith? Why would he create a being with such weaknesses?
Why does God even need for us to believe in him? Is he that shallow?
If they died in the great flood why don't such colossal creatures get a mention in the Bible? Doesn't it state: take 2 of each animal, there wasn't any exceptions were there?
[Crazy fundamentalist mask]Well don't ya know Behemoth in Job was a dinosaur?[/Crazy fundamentalist mask]
P.S. don't tell anyone Behemoth was actually a Bull.
-
lol ;D
Why would a God test our faith? Why would he create a being with such weaknesses?
Why does God even need for us to believe in him? Is he that shallow?
If they died in the great flood why don't such colossal creatures get a mention in the Bible? Doesn't it state: take 2 of each animal, there wasn't any exceptions were there?
The standard reply to this, and I don't necessarily mean this in any way mocking, but it also explains IMO why it's hard to get to the inner core of Christianity:
Lord works in mysterious ways, ie if you cannot understand something, if it doesn't make sense, that in itself is a proof that God is a supreme being, on a different level and can't be grasped.
YIP
Zack
-
i belive that Evalution is part of the grand scheem of things. the bibel mentions the creation of the world in day however, what is a day to god? it could be 1min, 24 howers, 1,000,000 years. point being we dont know. the bibel did mention the creation of animals befor humens and in acordence whith the theary of a day in gods time, this would give a larg number of spices time to evalve and die off. as for humes spasickly who is to say that we whernt ape like and god began to sculpt us off of that? and besieds what about the posibility of life else where in the univers. god waches over all and is all powerful he could be maneging meay races at once.
but alass my point, god has a plan and works in masterius ways to fufill it, we simply dont know it and will never know it.
-
[Crazy fundamentalist mask]Well don't ya know Behemoth in Job was a dinosaur?[/Crazy fundamentalist mask]
P.S. don't tell anyone Behemoth was actually a Bull.
Hi again Johnny
-
The standard reply to this, and I don't necessarily mean this in any way mocking, but it also explains IMO why it's hard to get to the inner core of Christianity:
Lord works in mysterious ways, ie if you cannot understand something, if it doesn't make sense, that in itself is a proof that God is a supreme being, on a different level and can't be grasped.
YIP
Zack
agree
i belive that Evalution is part of the grand scheem of things. the bibel mentions the creation of the world in day however, what is a day to god? it could be 1min, 24 howers, 1,000,000 years. point being we dont know. the bibel did mention the creation of animals befor humens and in acordence whith the theary of a day in gods time, this would give a larg number of spices time to evalve and die off. as for humes spasickly who is to say that we whernt ape like and god began to sculpt us off of that? and besieds what about the posibility of life else where in the univers. god waches over all and is all powerful he could be maneging meay races at once.
but alass my point, god has a plan and works in masterius ways to fufill it, we simply dont know it and will never know it.
Hi Unknown!
The way I understand it is when God created the world, everything was perfect and no animals died until Adam and Eve sinned, thus resulting in the shedding of blood to kill the animals for their skins to "cover their nakedness" (which hadn't bothered them before they sinned). So no species died off before Adam and Eve were on the earth.
-
The way I understand it is when God created the world, everything was perfect and no animals died until Adam and Eve sinned, thus resulting in the shedding of blood to kill the animals for their skins to "cover their nakedness" (which hadn't bothered them before they sinned). So no species died off before Adam and Eve were on the earth.
There's no evidence for that.
-
Is that avitar your real picture Johnny?
-
Hi Unknown!
The way I understand it is when God created the world, everything was perfect and no animals died until Adam and Eve sinned, thus resulting in the shedding of blood to kill the animals for their skins to "cover their nakedness" (which hadn't bothered them before they sinned). So no species died off before Adam and Eve were on the earth.
you got a point and i hadent taken that in to consideration.
-
lol ;D
Why would a God test our faith? Why would he create a being with such weaknesses?
Why does God even need for us to believe in him? Is he that shallow?
If they died in the great flood why don't such colossal creatures get a mention in the Bible? Doesn't it state: take 2 of each animal, there wasn't any exceptions were there?
Id love to answer your question Nord, but I think you should do some research first. Maybe google the Preangelic conflict and see what you come up with.
-
Is that avitar your real picture Johnny?
I'm not Johnny.
-
you got a point and i hadent taken that in to consideration.
What point?
-
Id love to answer your question Nord, but I think you should do some research first. Maybe google the Preangelic conflict and see what you come up with.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Preangelic+conflict ???
-
Lets be honest about the results of this thread:
Not many people of faith have given any strong evidence against my arguements, other than theorized arguements by Tyrone Power.
Score 1 for Team Atheism!
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=Preangelic+conflict ???
There is no such term as "Preangelic conflict" but he's refering to the time before the conflict between the angel Lucifer and God.
Lets be honest about the results of this thread:
Not many people of faith have given any strong evidence against my arguements, other than theorized arguements by Tyrone Power.
Score 1 for Team Atheism!
Don't expect to get straight answers from these people.
-
I'm not Johnny.
Sure you are not. It's ok dude.
-
There is no such term as "Preangelic conflict" but he's refering to the time before the conflict between the angel Lucifer and God.
Don't expect to get straight answers from these people.
Ok, lets be honest Tyrone, die hard atheists spend far more time on this board trying to discredit God than believers do trying to convince atheists that God exists. So I would say the burden of proof lies with you. I for one don't care what anyone thinks, my opinion is the only one that matters. So religion is far fetched is it??? Let me get this straight 2 planets collided and some gas swirled for a few million years and made a planet and then an amoeba some how formed from this star dust and became a frog and then a few million years later it became a man. ummm ok if you say so
Nord- check around for the pre-angelic conflict you will find it. It explains the purpose of man.
-
Ok, lets be honest Tyrone, die hard atheists spend far more time on this board trying to discredit God than believers do trying to convince atheists that God exists. So I would say the burden of proof lies with you.
Persistence doesn't change the burden of proof.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Did I ever say God doesn't exist? No.
I for one don't care what anyone thinks, my opinion is the only one that matters. So religion is far fetched is it??? Let me get this straight 2 planets collided and some gas swirled for a few million years and made a planet and then an amoeba some how formed from this star dust and became a frog and then a few million years later it became a man. ummm ok if you say so
Who believes that's how it happened?
I don't.
Nord- check around for the pre-angelic conflict you will find it. It explains the purpose of man.
No such term even on google.
-
What point?
i tried to come up whith a way evalution and the bibel could posebly have coexisted however i did not take in to consideration that acrording to the bibel deth did not exist befor adom and eve sind the first time, there for acroding to the bibel my idea could not work.
-
Persistence doesn't change the burden of proof.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Did I ever say God doesn't exist? No.
Who believes that's how it happened?
I don't.
No such term even on google.
You did when you were Johnny did you?
-
How do you explain fossil evidence? How do you explain the past existence of dinosaurs?
Where do you stand?
What part of fossil evidence are you talking about Nordic? And what do you mean by your dinosaur question? You wonder if I believe dinosaurs lived on earth? Yes, I do.
-
What part of fossil evidence are you talking about Nordic? And what do you mean by your dinosaur question? You wonder if I believe dinosaurs lived on earth? Yes, I do.
At what period did Dinosaurs exist? Did dinosaurs and humans co-exist? (Tip: atleast 50 million years seperates the last dinosaur and first human).
-
At what period did Dinosaurs exist? Did dinosaurs and humans co-exist? (Tip: atleast 50 million years seperates the last dinosaur and first human).
I don't think the earth is as old as you do. Yes, I think dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
-
I don't think the earth is as old as you do. Yes, I think dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
I've just wet myself in a fit of uncontrollable laughter!
I think the Earth is 4-5 billion years old. How old do you think it is?
-
I've just wet myself in a fit of uncontrollable laughter!
I think the Earth is 4-5 billion years old. How old do you think it is?
I'll wait while you get some paper towels.... ;D
I think it's 6000 - 10,000 years old.
-
I'll wait while you get some paper towels.... ;D
I think it's 6000 - 10,000 years old.
Radio-metric dating, Geological dating,Cosmological dating all prove the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
What proof do you have it's 6,000 years old?
-
i tried to come up whith a way evalution and the bibel could posebly have coexisted however i did not take in to consideration that acrording to the bibel deth did not exist befor adom and eve sind the first time, there for acroding to the bibel my idea could not work.
- There was no time in which life existed but didn't die.
- Even if that occured that wouldn't explain how evolution contradicts Genesis
- Work on your spelling
-
Radio-metric dating, Geological dating,Cosmological dating all prove the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
What proof do you have it's 6,000 years old?
What proof do you have that Radio-Metric dating, Geological dating, and Cosmological dating are accurate?
- There was no time in which life existed but didn't die.
What proof do you have of that?
He's dyslexic.
-
Evolution reigns supreme.
Stella, you think what some asshole wrote down long ago is more accurate than proven scientific methods like Fossil evidence and Radio-carbon dating?
The question you just asked is equivalent to a child asking why the color blue is blue.
Open your mind.
-
I can understand how people might believe we were "created" by a being above us because of our abilities above any other organism on Earth etc etc...
But...
It really boggles my mind how religious types are not persuaded by the theory of evolution.
How do you explain fossil evidence? How do you explain the past existence of dinosaurs?
I have spoken to a muslim on the matter, she explained it by saying fossils were placed there by God as a test of faith :-X (My reaction: yeah ok love keep thinking that :-[)
My auntie is a devout Christian but acknowledges evolution. (I see this as hypocrisy)
Where do you stand?
And you just had to use a muslim as an example? Tell ya what, if you can go 500 posts without posting about muslims then I'll mail ya 100 Euro.
-
Evolution reigns supreme.
Stella, you think what some asshole wrote down long ago is more accurate than proven scientific methods like Fossil evidence and Radio-carbon dating?
The question you just asked is equivalent to a child asking why the color blue is blue.
Open your mind.
I don't deny that fossils exist. I just don't believe that we can accurately determine when they were formed.
Camel J, I guess what I'm saying is, a lot of people have faith that certain scientific methods
of "dating" are accurate and correct, and a lot of people have faith that the bible is correct.
-
What proof do you have that Radio-Metric dating, Geological dating, and Cosmological dating are accurate?
Do you even know what Radiometric dating,Geological dating or Cosmological dating are?
If you don't then me explaining how they are proven would be a waste of time.
What proof do you have of that?
We can tell how old a specific individual was when it died. There have been no fossils found of for instance humans that were over 120 years old. Or Camels or Zebras that were over their average lifespan. If there was a time in which no life died. How long was that time? If it was dozens of years then we should find fossils of animals all living in the same spot all living far past their average lifespans.
We don't.
-
I don't deny that fossils exist. I just don't believe that we can accurately determine when they were formed.
We can.
Camel J, I guess what I'm saying is, a lot of people have faith that certain scientific methods
of "dating" are accurate and correct, and a lot of people have faith that the bible is correct.
Faith-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
If faith is defined as a belief that does not rest on proof or evidence then by definition faith can not exist in science. If a specific scientific method is proven then saying one has "faith" in it is an oxymoron.
I'm not aware of anyone who has "faith" radiometric dating is correct anymore than I know people who have "faith" 1+1=2 or what goes up must come down.
-
I'll wait while you get some paper towels.... ;D
I think it's 6000 - 10,000 years old.
Stella I don't think the view of an old earth (billions of years old) is necessarily inconsistent with creation of life 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There is no indication whether "the beginning" and the six-day creation happened simultaneously. It is possible the earth was created and that the six-day creation came much later.
-
- There was no time in which life existed but didn't die.
- Even if that occured that wouldn't explain how evolution contradicts Genesis
- Work on your spelling
exactly. but my thery dosent work its that easy, i do belive there was a creation, however i belive that it was far far back at the vary beginig, i belive that god has a plan and like a crafsmen fine tuning his masterpice keeps adusting his work to fit his vistion.
-
The general view in the Christian community today seems to be that Evolution happened, but that it was the creation of God.
The beauty of Christianity, is how its Holy Scripture admittingly is man-made, except for the ten commandments. Thus, giving tremendous room for interpretation.
Currently, two things could be agreed on within Christianity:
Moses received the Ten Commandments from God.
Jesus was the son of God.
Everything else, such as creation theory and such, really aren't a big deal. Some people in the Bible lives to tremendous age, 900+ years old, Methuselah. This isn't a big deal either.
Most logical explanation is that either the guy lived for some 90+ years, or it was a long ass living family. I bet on a combination of the both.
Point is, the Bible isn't accurate. It isn't even holy, except from the Ten Commandments.
Why? Because it is written by man.
Christianity - it all boils down to the Jesus thing and if you chooses to believe in that idea.
When it comes to the Bible, a lot of people often forget that most of it was written by regular blokes like you and me, and randomly put together into a book.
Ten Commandments is the only exception. That's written by God.
YIP
Zack
-
And you just had to use a muslim as an example? Tell ya what, if you can go 500 posts without posting about muslims then I'll mail ya 100 Euro.
Well I didn't make up the muslim example.
500 posts is more than what I have in total, how about 100 for £100? :D
-
Stella I don't think the view of an old earth (billions of years old) is necessarily inconsistent with creation of life 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There is no indication whether "the beginning" and the six-day creation happened simultaneously. It is possible the earth was created and that the six-day creation came much later.
Hmmm, you're right Beach Bum.
I guess my statement should be that I believe "life" was created 6-10 thousand years ago.
-
Ignoring my posts eh Stella?
-
Ignoring my posts eh Stella?
Sorry hon.
Do you even know what Radiometric dating,Geological dating or Cosmological dating are?
If you don't then me explaining how they are proven would be a waste of time.
In general, yes.
Did you see my response to Beach Bum? I accept the possibility that the earth is much older than I previously thought. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but it IS possible. Now as for "life," I still believe that 6-10 thousand years ago was when it began.
If there was a time in which no life died. How long was that time? If it was dozens of years then we should find fossils of animals all living in the same spot all living far past their average lifespans.
We don't.
Do you think it's possible that we just haven't come across that area as of yet w/a dig?
Tyrone, what kind of time frame do you think that fossils are formed?
-
In general, yes.
Really? Explain it in your own words then.
Did you see my response to Beach Bum? I accept the possibility that the earth is much older than I previously thought. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but it IS possible. Now as for "life," I still believe that 6-10 thousand years ago was when it began.
Wrong. Radiometric dating proves the fossils we have of dinosaurs are MILLIONS of years old.
Do you think it's possible that we just haven't come across that area as of yet w/a dig?
I won't hold my breath. ::)
Tyrone, what kind of time frame do you think that fossils are formed?
Depends on the fossils.
-
Really? Explain it in your own words then.
What for? I obviously could google them. And you know how I feel about the magic word :)
Depends on the fossils.
How about dinosaurs and jellyfish
-
What for? I obviously could google them. And you know how I feel about the magic word :)
I didn't ask you to google them. I asked you to explain it in your own words so that I know you know what they are. If you googled them I would figure it out.
So explain what "radiometric dating" is in your own words. Explain how it works and how it's inaccurate.
How about dinosaurs and jellyfish
Then it depends on the environment in which the fossilization occurs. In the environments best fit for fossilization fossilization can occur within 10-15.
However the time it takes fossils to form isn't the problem with your view of the age of life. It's the dating done on these fossils which proves they are millions of years old.
-
I didn't ask you to google them. I asked you to explain it in your own words so that I know you know what they are. If you googled them I would figure it out.
So explain what "radiometric dating" is in your own words. Explain how it works and how it's inaccurate.
Then it depends on the environment in which the fossilization occurs. In the environments best fit for fossilization fossilization can occur within 10-15.
However the time it takes fossils to form isn't the problem with your view of the age of life. It's the dating done on these fossils which proves they are millions of years old.
Johnny,
Whats to say they wont find flaws with radio metric dating just like they did with radio carbon dating?
-
Johnny,
Whats to say they wont find flaws with radio metric dating just like they did with radio carbon dating?
My name isn't Johnny.
And..
1.Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.
2.No one found flaws with it. It works perfectly well when used correctly.
-
My name isn't Johnny.
And..
1.Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.
2.No one found flaws with it. It works perfectly well when used correctly.
Well i think we have all figured out Johnny isn't your real name. However you used to post under the Johnny Apollo name in this forum. You brilliant bastard! ;)
-
Well i think we have all figured out Johnny isn't your real name. However you used to post under the Johnny Apollo name in this forum. You brilliant bastard! ;)
Red Herring fallacy.
Respond to my post.
1.Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.
2.No one found flaws with it. It works perfectly well when used correctly.
-
Stop it! lollololololol
Come on dude.... I know you think you are smart, and you are. But you are being about as obvious as a creationist speaker at a athiest convention.
-
Red Herring fallacy.
Respond to my post.
-
Stop it! lollololololol
Come on dude.... I know you think you are smart, and you are. But you are being about as obvious as a creationist speaker at a athiest convention.
-
Stella...explain what "radiometric dating" is in your own words. Explain how it works and how it's inaccurate.
-
Stella...explain what "radiometric dating" is in your own words. Explain how it works and how it's inaccurate.
Explain why you faked your death and lied about virtually everything including your degrees. (In your own words)
-
Explain why you faked your death and lied about virtually everything including your degrees. (In your own words)
I didn't.
Next question?
And stop hijacking the threads. You Troll.
-
awwwww poor thing. Go hug a creationists.
-
I didn't.
Next question?
And stop hijacking the threads. You Troll.
Explain your science background in your own words.
-
I didn't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been said, but to question evolution is just plain st00pid. What are you going to question next, quantum mechanics? The theory of gravity? Mathematics?
The only debate should be whether or not a Supreme Being ("God") set the evolutionary process in motion or not. Most (non-fundamentalist) religious people would say "yes", while agnostics and atheists would say "no", but only a fool would believe a children's tale about "creation" that goes against all scientific evidence to be anything more than an allegory or parable.
-
I didn't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been said, but to question evolution is just plain st00pid. What are you going to question next, quantum mechanics? The theory of gravity? Mathematics?
The only debate should be whether or not a Supreme Being ("God") set the evolutionary process in motion or not. Most (non-fundamentalist) religious people would say "yes", while agnostics and atheists would say "no", but only a fool would believe a children's tale about "creation" that goes against all scientific evidence to be anything more than an allegory or parable.
Goat boy there are a plenty of questions (that cannot be answered) and problems with the theory of evolution. See the "Darwin's Black Box" thread. There are a number of scientists who have questions and concerns about Darwin's theory. It isn't just "religious people."
I actually think it takes a lot more faith to believe in the creation of life by some big bang, the spontaneous evolution of living matter from non living matter, the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex biological systems, and the evolution of species, than the theory of intelligent design.
-
Explain your science background in your own words.
What ever he says he'll refuse to provide anything verifialbe. Basically a lab assistant who could have beena contender.
How's Mr. Luke? eh Tyrohny?
-
This website has some interesting articles about various aspects of evolution.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
-
This website has some interesting articles about various aspects of evolution.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
"Islam is not the source of terrorism, but the solution"
Hey muzzy, fuckoff!
We don't want your propaganda around here. Muhammad molested children and your mother is a pig fucking whore!
-
"Islam is not the source of terrorism, but the solution"
Hey muzzy, fuckoff!
We don't want your propaganda around here. Muhammad molested children and your mother is a pig fucking whore!
Sure we want that propaganda here. Only then can we debate it, discuss it and put it to test.
We cannot shy away from information, be it good or bad.
Because the intelligent and civilized society we live in allows for idiots like this.
And we must also have confidence that our society will prevail without having to lowering to their standards, without becoming brute, intolerant savages.
""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Would I want to have an Islam-free world? Yes. But only if it came by own free choices, that Muslims realised what a hoax they're into, that it can't be right that women should be treated differently than men.
The same goes with any religion.
Religion is only relevant if it real, and not "a fairytale", a "good story".
Chances are that either Christianity or Hinduism is "a fairytale".
Both can't be right. Both can be wrong, but both can't be right.
YIP
Zack
-
Sounded good hedgehog, until you brought other religions into it :-\
-
"Islam is not the source of terrorism, but the solution"
Until you can prove otherwise, why dont u keep your mouth shut :-*
-
Islam is the solution to terrorism?
-
Until you can prove otherwise, why dont u keep your mouth shut :-*
My evidence is the attrocities in the name of islam.
Sure what you want would effectively stop islamic terror. Because you want everyone to be a muslim haider.
BTW...
Does your mother have a mustache?
-
My evidence is the attrocities in the name of islam.
Sure what you want would effectively stop islamic terror. Because you want everyone to be a muslim haider.BTW...
Does your mother have a mustache?
What does ethnicity have to do with culture or religion?
YIP
Zack
-
Islam is the solution to terrorism?
That is not my assertion, though it is not something I disagree with. I'm challenging the notion that Islam is the source of terrorism.
-
My evidence is the attrocities in the name of islam.
Is manni changing? I'm impressed.
-
Is manni changing? I'm impressed.
Does your mother have a mustache?
-
Does your mother have a mustache?
No, but what stops u from kissing mother Hitler? :-*
Surely he she didnt give u enough love? ;D
-
Do you know what an islamist is haider?
You do know it's not a regular "moderate" muslim in the western sense right?
So you desire the USA to become a muslim state?
-
Actually, I'm not really sure what exactly an "Islamist" is but I understand an Anti-Islamist to be on the other end of the spectrum, meaning that it is an extremist ideology of its own. I dont understand the purpose of asking the last question.
-
Actually, I'm not really sure what exactly an "Islamist" is but I understand an Anti-Islamist to be on the other end of the spectrum, meaning that it is an extremist ideology of its own. I dont understand the purpose of asking the last question.
Islamist is what is known as a islamic terrorist. So you're pro islamic terrorism?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=90538.0
-
My explanation above is enough to cleat any doubts. Stop being a
jew a pain in the ass.
-
My explanation above is enough to cleat any doubts. Stop being a jew a pain in the ass.
Nice anti-semite reply! Typical of an islamist.
-
Islamist is what is known as a islamic terrorist. So you're pro islamic terrorism?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=90538.0
haider stated that he don't know exactly what an Islamist is.
But you're a little off, or rather, way off.
An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam should also be used as a political system.
Quite extremist. But not terrorist.
I doubt haider is in support of either Islamism (Islam as a political theory) or terrorism in the name of Islam.
YIP
Zack
-
haider stated that he don't know exactly what an Islamist is.
But you're a little off, or rather, way off.
An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam should also be used as a political system.
Quite extremist. But not terrorist.
I doubt haider is in support of either Islamism (Islam as a political theory) or terrorism in the name of Islam.
YIP
Zack
Yeah... I think you'd be wrong, he is an islamist.
When are you going to stop seeing "the best" in these people? After you're personally effected by these infidels?
-
Yeah... I think you'd be wrong, he is an islamist.
When are you going to stop seeing "the best" in these people? After you're personally effected by these infidels?
Calling someone an infidel, is what religious zealots like Ayatollah Khamenei do.
Not what we in the secular Western Civilization should do.
haider claims he doesn't want USA to become a Caliphate. Looks to me like that is a sign that he is NOT an Islamist then.
Also, you defined Islamist as islamic terrorist, which is wrong. It means someone who believes in the use of Islam as a political system.
Islamist is what is known as a islamic terrorist. So you're pro islamic terrorism?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=90538.0
You're labeling haider. It's one thing if he would make statements about his beliefs. Then it's easy to challenge them.
But you're attributing opinions and values to him, and that ain't fair.
And we are enlightened. We have to hold ourselves to the highest standards.
In the end, cults and hoaxes will hopefully be abandoned.
YIP
Zack
-
He's an infidel in the sense that...
If humanity was persieved as a religion muslims would be infidels.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139614,00.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman50506.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031028-083517-4718r.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20552
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/03/swedish-muslims-call-for-terror.html
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1145961245962
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1206/p07s02-woeu.html
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20298_Swedish_Muslims_Demand_Sharia&only
-
WOW, you spend all your time looking that shit up? Fucking loser.
The post Hedge made prior to your's was excellent and sums things up pretty well.
-
WOW, you spend all your time looking that shit up? Fucking loser.
The post Hedge made prior to your's was excellent and sums things up pretty well.
I sometimes touch small children in places I shouldn't
No, the scary thing is a simple search on google: sweden muslim, brings them up. 5 sec job.
-
Now you're resorting to child molester and gay jokes. Lame.
-
Now you're resorting to child molester and gay jokes. Lame.
Huh? I was quoting you. You must of edited your post.
-
That is not my assertion, though it is not something I disagree with. I'm challenging the notion that Islam is the source of terrorism.
Islam is not the source of terroism.
Economic conditioins and hatred for the Jews are.
Personally, if my Family was killed by Israelis I'd be come a terrorist who was an agnostic.
If I lived in an impoverished country that was continually being raped by large corporations from another country i might find the only way to combat it might be terrorism.
You don't have to Islamic to have motivations to commit terrorist acts.
However you can use religion to increase the passion and resolve for these attacks.
Point is it doesn't matter what religion you use.
-
False.
Give evidence supporting your statements.
Just another libby apologist.
-
False.
Give evidence supporting your statements.
Just another libby apologist.
Being English i'm supprised you are so daft.... well maybe not ;D
3 letters is all i need.
I
R
A
Care to comment? Or perhaps you believe these guys were all Islamic too?
-
Exception to the rule. What they wanted wasn't really religious, it was indipendance, from England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army
Know your history sonny.
Explain islamic fundamentalism in the west, if you still believe terrorism and islam are not linked.
-
Let's see:
I Said, "Economic conditioins and hatred for the Jews are"
Being independent is an econimic condition in regards to taxation.
So the Irish's "fight" for independence is a fight to be indepenent from taxation form England.
I was responding to this comment by Haider:
That is not my assertion, though it is not something I disagree with. I'm challenging the notion that Islam is the source of terrorism.
Which i backed it up by saying "religion is not the source" but it is used to fuel the passion for terrorism.
And then i linked terrorism to a group who were terrorists and were not Islamic
Here's your wik link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000)
You must get a good workout on your legs from Jumping to conlcusions so much.
-
Islam is not the source of terroism.
I reply:
False.
Give evidence supporting your statements.
You reply:
Being English i'm supprised you are so daft.... well maybe not ;D
3 letters is all i need.
I
R
A
Care to comment? Or perhaps you believe these guys were all Islamic too?
I reply:
Exception to the rule. What they wanted wasn't really religious, it was indipendance, from England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army
Know your history sonny.
Explain islamic fundamentalism in the west, if you still believe terrorism and islam are not linked.
########################
Explain yourself muppet.
-
Did you read the post above yours?
Do you read at all?
Or just shout insults cause i touched a nerve?
Or are you still pissed about the top english restaraunt serving french food?
Do you know the definition of terrorism?
Section 1. -
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
when you say:
Exception to the rule. What they wanted wasn't really religious, it was indipendance, from England.
You suggest acts of terrorism must be religous. I say no based on the definition define in the terroism act.
Becuase terrorism isn't classified as solely for the purpose of advancing a religous doctrine it (Islam) is not the source of Terrorism.
Didn't Enlgand invent the "english language" ? Because being from there i would think you'd have a better grasp of it.
-
No, acts of terrorism don't have to be done in the name of a religion.
Islam feeds the fire for terrorism, and acts of terrorism are done in islams name (for islams cause [see Koran]).
Or are you still pissed about the top english restaraunt serving french food?
You mean the top restaurant in the WORLD serving french food.
-
No, acts of terrorism don't have to be done in the name of a religion.
Islam feeds the fire for terrorism, and acts of terrorism are done in islams name (for islams cause [see Koran]).
You mean the top restaurant in the WORLD serving french food.
Exactly:
You remeber i said:
However you can use religion to increase the passion and resolve for these attacks.
Christians have used their religion as an excuse or reason to commit all kinds of terrible acts over the centuries.
It's about power. Wether you use politcal, idealogical or religion as a bases for it or as a rallying call it's still about power.
And If i was in London right now. I'd go to the best place to eat in the WORLD: "The Fat Duck."
-
Name these terrible acts.
Do note however, the conquests where to protect from muslim invasion.
-
Terrorism happens when any group of people feel opressed and they feel it is the last option.
That was how the Unibomber felt.
That was how the Oklahoma city bombers felt.
That was how the IRA felt.
That was how Islamic Terroists felt
That was how the FLQ felt.
That was how Enviroterrorists.
Terrorism will never over through a government. You need a military to fo that.
But Terrorism will get you heard.
-
Name these terrible acts.
Do note however, the conquests where to protect from muslim invasion.
You remember i said over the centuries.....
Crusades.
Where they when into villages and towns and Jeruselum, and killed EVERY man WOMAN and CHILD. Because they were non-christians.
-
You remember i said over the centuries.....
Crusades.
Where they when into villages and towns and Jeruselum, and killed EVERY man WOMAN and CHILD. Because they were non-christians.
Evidence? ???
Give me a link atleast.
-
Evidence? ???
Give me a link atleast.
Just Google: "Crusade Massacre Muslims" You get some hits:
Here are a few:
http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ef1.htm (http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ef1.htm)
http://san.beck.org/AB19-IslamCulture1095-1300.html (http://san.beck.org/AB19-IslamCulture1095-1300.html)
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab54 (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab54)
I don't have al the time in the world right now to go real deep with research but it's common knowledge among most historians.
they even talked about it in "Kingdom of Heavan" the movie.
If you can find it:
Try the "Book of Martyrs"
-
All those documents go on about "recovery of jerusalem".
Recovering it from the muslim invaders.
Fact.
-
All those documents go on about "recovery of jerusalem".
Recovering it from the muslim invaders.
Fact.
Read em, they massacred jews too.
They invaded. plain and simple. The weren't returning anything to the jews they were "reclaiming" the holy land for christians.
-
Yes, the Christians were wrong for killing anybody.
But there intentions were to reclaim the holy land for Christianity after the muslim invaders took it.
This is all in your own articles.
You might want to try these too:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades.htm
-
Yes, the Christians were wrong for killing anybody.
But there intentions were to reclaim the holy land for Christianity after the muslim invaders took it.
This is all in your own articles.
You might want to try these too:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades.htm
I know what their intentions were. My problem is the way they went about it.
when i have time i'll do some strong research. Right now i can't.
-
Here ya go.... REad it, it's sounds familiar of today's islamic terrorist rhetoric
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm)
-
Bias website.
I could pull up numerous citations from pro-crusade websites that will divulge historic evidence supporting the need for the crusades.
-
the issue here is not about the need.
The issue is about the terrible acts.
Don't tell me you are claim any site that has terrible acts by the crusaders is a bias site.. Because then we should end this debate here.
The massacres the crusaders did down there is well accepted history. (in the first sites i mentioned also) Maybe not in england becuase it makes them look bad, but for sure in the rest of the world.
-
Don't tell me you are claim any site that has terrible acts by the crusaders is a bias site.. Because then we should end this debate here.
The massacres the crusaders did down there is well accepted history. (in the first sites i mentioned also) Maybe not in england becuase it makes them look bad, but for sure in the rest of the world.
I never said they weren't bad. But don't point me to a bias soppy website where the first paragraph is some liberal brown nosing waffle.
Nice use of the old libby tactic: "let's put words into his mouth" :-*
-
The First crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29
Richard the Lionheart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_the_lionheart
Anti-Semitic violence
When Richard was crowned King of England, he barred all Jews and women from the ceremony (this was apparently a concession to the fact that his coronation was not merely one of a king but of a crusader), but some Jewish leaders showed up anyway to present gifts for the new king. According to Ralph of Diceto, Richard's courtiers stripped and flogged the Jews, then flung them out of court. When a rumor spread that Richard had ordered all Jews to be killed, the people of London joined in to persecute the Jews, and a massacre began. Many Jews were beaten to death, robbed, and burnt alive. Many Jewish homes were burned down and several Jews were forcibly baptised. Some sought sanctuary in the Tower of London, and others managed to escape. Among those killed was Jacob of Orléans, widely regarded as one of the most learned of the age.
However other chroniclers such as Benedict of Peterborough tell a different story; the rioting was started by the jealous and bigoted citizens of London. Richard is said to have punished the perpetrators and allowed a forcibly converted Jew to return to Judaism. Archbishop of Canterbury Baldwin of Exeter reacted by remarking, "If the King is not God's man, he had better be the devil's," a reference to the supposedly infernal blood in the Angevin line.
In either case, realizing that the assaults could destabilize his realm at the time of his imminent departure for the Holy Land, Richard ordered the execution of those responsible for the most egregious murders and persecutions (most of those who were hanged were the rioters who had accidentally burnt down Christian homes). Further, he distributed a royal writ demanding that the Jews be left alone. However, the edict was loosely enforced, as the following March there was a renewed outbreak of violence, including a massacre at York.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1190
1190 March 16 - Massacre and mass-suicide of the Jews of York, England prompted by Crusaders and Richard Malebys kill 150-500 Jews in Clifford's Tower
-
I never said they weren't bad. But don't point me to a bias soppy website where the first paragraph is some liberal brown nosing waffle.
Nice use of the old libby tactic: "let's put words into his mouth" :-*
Well that's real spiffy talking but it whether its a liberal web site or not, (which to me it isn't) it doesn't change the facts. Facts are facts. England in it's history has had no problem massacring non-christians... Even acclaimed BRITISH author Bernard Cornwell has detailed these things in his books of Richard Sharpe in India.
Let's not be sooooooo stuffed up that we are ignorant to our own coutries faults.
Makes you look like an ignorant-conny :-*
-
Joker,
It clearly states King Richard had open heart surgery to transplant a lions heart. That's where he gets his name from right? ???
Isn't there atleast a minute possability he began behave like a lion afterwards, so we can blame this on the massacre of the Jews?
-
I never said they weren't bad. But don't point me to a bias soppy website where the first paragraph is some liberal brown nosing waffle.
Nice use of the old libby tactic: "let's put words into his mouth" :-*
Actually, you're doing a bit of that with haider.
Putting words in his mouth and attributing values and opinions he's never vented.
YIP
Zack
-
Actually, you're doing a bit of that with haider.
Putting words in his mouth and attributing values and opinions he's never vented.
YIP
Zack
Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.
I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.
-
Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.
I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.
Haha, good comeback.
I think challenging haider and asking him if he believes in certain things that are written in the Quran is one thing, and definitely fair play. If he doesn't wants to answer, it's up to him.
So why don't you ask him and put him to the test on issues of Islamic Faith instead of accusing him of everything and anything? That will lead to jack squat IMO.
A question for haider could be something like:
This law is in the Quran "---------------------(enter the law or passage in question)----"
What do you think about this law?
My guess is that such an approach would have much higher chance of getting you guys anywhere.
And I have a question for you NS:
What are your religion?
YIP
Zack
-
And I have a question for you NS:
What are your religion?
I have no religion. Man is a biological organism evolving over years upon years.
-
Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.
I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.
Well DAH! Christians, Buddists, Hindus, etc... all hammer their values and ideology into their kids at birth.
"that's like saying Muslim's think the sky is blue and you'll deny that too of course"
Earth Shattering revelation there!
-
Being a muslim, the values and opinions I say are hammered into him from birth. He will deny this of course.
I'm more worried about you wanting to put something else into his mouth.
Okay, you're just talking out of your ass now. I'll admit, that muslim parents do tend to mold their kids to have an ideal mindset, but it's not that EXTREME. If it were, then you wouldn't have people like toxic and I.
-
Okay, you're just talking out of your ass now. I'll admit, that muslim parents do tend to mold their kids to have an ideal mindset, but it's not that EXTREME. If it were, then you wouldn't have people like toxic and I.
You're saying i am wrong and right? ??? Logical fallacy.
-
You're saying i am wrong and right? ??? Logical fallacy.
No, he's saying that you're talking out of your ass. Simple. You're exagerrating. No logical fallacy there.
-
No, he's saying that you're talking out of your ass. Simple. You're exagerrating. No logical fallacy there.
He's says i'm talking out of my ass, yet contradicts himself by saying muslim parents do do this (maybe to a lesser degree than I say).
So, in conclusion, you're a muslim, your prophet was a pedo, and may slabs of pig "meat" be inserted in his anus.
-
It's a stupid point. Muslims and christians start ramming basic values (which are very similar to each other) down their children's mouths right from birth to different degrees depending on each family's value in that regard.
That's why your point originates from you ass. Cause it's a dumb point.
-
It's a stupid point. Muslims and christians start ramming basic values (which are very similar to each other) down their children's mouths right from birth to different degrees depending on each family's value in that regard.
That's why your point originates from you ass. Cause it's a dumb point.
Why are you mentioning Christians? I was commenting on muslims.
Liberal apologist.
-
Why are you mentioning Christians? I was commenting on muslims.
Liberal apologist.
Weak. Again, in your "stupid point" you are only stating the obvious which carries no wieght becuase every other family does the same thing with other religions
So then what do you do? You result to insults. Lame.
Get a real arguement and not something you pull straight out of your ass and have to defend by resorting to insults.
-
I'm stating facts.
YOU "OzmO" ARE A "liberal", WITH "apologetic" TENDANCIES.
True or false?
I'm not trying to "insult" you. I labelling you from the information I get from your posts. Deal with it instead of taking offence.
-
I'm stating facts.
YOU "OzmO" ARE A "liberal", WITH "apologetic" TENDANCIES.
True or false?
I'm not trying to "insult" you. I labelling you from the information I get from your posts. Deal with it instead of taking offence.
You stating Obvious facts as a bases for a stupid point. And then when someone points it out you indirectly try and insult them like a dumb ass.
Does that sound apologetic enough?
-
Hmm, your message formatting is reminiscent of Jag...
Over use of message text formatting in a vain attempt to emphasise point of view: CHECK
Constant libby apologetic tone of posts... CHECK
Love for "man seed" drinks... CHECK
Conclusion:
OzmO is either a gimmick account of Jag OR OzmO is a raging homosexual liberal apologist.
-
Oh and BTW, it's not about being apologetic... It's about knowing all the facts, angles and reasons for things. But you might not being able to grasp concepts that complex so you in turn label it apologetic.
Open your eyes beyond your tunnel vision.
Even "borderline intellegent" conservatives do this.
-
Hmm, your message formatting is reminiscent of Jag...
Over use of message text formatting in a vain attempt to emphasise point of view: CHECK
Constant libby apologetic tone of posts... CHECK
Love for "man seed" drinks... CHECK
Conclusion:
OzmO is either a gimmick account of Jag OR OzmO is a raging homosexual liberal apologist.
Again there ya go .... more of the same dribble.
Can you at least form a decent arguement?
I haven't see it yet.
-
Do you even remember what your point of the arguement was before you RESORTED to insults?
go ahead scroll up if you need to.
Let's see, possible "not related to the point" replies: Meltdown, , get a life, English cooks are better,Touched a nerve, more libby references, spelling errors or even jag stuff. I'm sure i missed something.
-
He's says i'm talking out of my ass, yet contradicts himself by saying muslim parents do do this (maybe to a lesser degree than I say).
Are u being serious?
I have to ask.
-
Let's see, possible "not related to the point" replies: Meltdown, , get a life, English cooks are better,Touched a nerve, more libby references, spelling errors or even jag stuff. I'm sure i missed something.
Hahaha, Jag you're funny. :-*
Yeah yeah, I admit, most of my posts today have been stupid, mainly because they aren't serious, just having a laugh. Got a big software project to finish, but I just can help keep looking at Getbig :o It's such a fucking distraction...
Do me a favour and don't reply to me for the rest of today, that should keep the addiction at bay :-[
-
hahaha, same thing that went on with me when we went back and forth for a week or so in late april or so... .and I was supposed to be preparing for a physics test ;D
Good luck with the project.
-
yeah, i'm at work today also >:(
And i forgot the ever lame: I'm not being serious, Just having a laugh, Got a big project i'm in the middle of, and the addiction angle.
But i'm sure you could think of a few more. ;D
(I would think if you had a good point in the first place it would take much energy to defend it)
But that's just me.
Good luck with your software thing ;)
-
He's says i'm talking out of my ass, yet contradicts himself by saying muslim parents do do this (maybe to a lesser degree than I say).
So, in conclusion, you're a muslim, your prophet was a pedo, and may slabs of pig "meat" be inserted in his anus.
Why don't you drop the insults about pig meat and such and stick with asking Muslims how they feel about Muhammed being a pedo.
That is a legit question.
Your insults are only hurting your argument.
YIP
Zack
-
if you teech that we came from monkies then why do you expect yer childrn act like monkies?
Jesus loves you