If religion isn't a motivator for violence...

[S.A.M.]

you'll probably need a gargantuan bikini,(big girl) for samcd, or at least a bra with an extra cup to hold her swollen head

Is this what atheist rationalism and pacifism looks like?
lol.
say anything you like, I'm not showing my boobs again.

the core value of most/the major religions is hated, you've only to study their holy books, a book of love as the all seem to call theirs, should not contain words like enemy, evil, etc etc. a god of love would not have evil, a god of love would not kill, all children learn by example, hence why the religious are so violent.

unlike the pacifist atheists, no doubt.

"evil people do evil things, good people do good things, for good people to do evil things takes religion"

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -- GK Chesterton

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html

 

[KennyJC]

say anything you like, I'm not showing my boobs again.

If you show me your boobs, I promise I will convert to your faith.

When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -- GK Chesterton

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Godless]

That doesn't make sense.

It's non-serquitus.

Most theist have to look it up!

 

[(Q)]

Name one part of the world which has ever been free from conflict.

The same parts never under theists influence - there aren't any.

http://www.twf.org/Library/Violence.html
You tell me.

" If they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith."

Did they? So it is only when they are killing people that they invoke God?
Not when they are happy and celebrating?
Not when they are confused and persecuted?
Not when they are talking in general?

Perhaps invoking God is part of their language and not a motive for every action?

And the language says, "kill them" - and we are to assume those who are angry and without hope can discern when someone is fighting them. Of course, they can't.

You mean when the media calls them as Islamic terrorists and quotes their scriptures as a source of violence?

Is that when they are supposed to show their support to the same countries that are supplying the arms which are being used to kill their families?

No, it means people like you who sit idly by defending their actions on science forums rather than doing something about it.

No but its a very good excuse when people don't want to face the actual reasons behind the violence. I mean, better that everyone believes they are blowing themselves up for God. We sure would not want to hear about the 20 years of occupation and murder or in the case of Iraq, have anyone look too closely at the oil contracts and general poppycock fed to the media, would we?

These conflicts have gone on for generations, back when there were no oil contracts.

No just call them ALL terrorists, regardless of their origin or motive, put them in a separate category (very convenient as they belong to the same religion) and feed so much bullshit to the media that after some time no one even questions how it started.

So, the footage released by terrorists is manipulated by the media?

And after all the information available today, if you still persist in believing that religion is a motivation for these "terrorists", then I can only conclude that you are too brainwashed by propaganda to know any better.

Religion creates the thought and decision making processes in which theists abide and which rule their lives. Of course, like all theists, they only glean that which serves their purposes.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you show me your boobs, I promise I will convert to your faith.

I already showed them once.

Too bad you missed it

That doesn't make sense.

Just that those who play the religion and violence card (apropos Dawkins) lack-

1. an understanding of human nature
2. a knowledge of theology
3. an understanding of the reason for conflicts in society
4. an understanding of the role of religion in shaping morality

Here's another one of my favorites:
"Everything, however men may deem it assured and evident, proves, when it is brought under discussion to be no less doubtful than are extravagant and absurd beliefs".Giordano Bruno

 

[S.A.M.]

It's non-serquitus.

Most theist have to look it up!

Do you mean non-sequiturs?

Or is this a word from the atheists dictionary?

 

[S.A.M.]

The same parts never under theists influence - there aren't any.

So your assertion that of the relationship between religion and violence is based on correlation between the presence of theism and the presence of violence?

Hmm

Homer: "There's not a single bear in sight -- the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm."

Lisa: "That's specious reasoning."

Homer: "Thanks, honey."

Lisa: "According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away."

Homer: "Hmmm. How does it work?"

Lisa: "It doesn't."

Homer: "How so?"

Lisa: "It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Makes as much “rational” sense as your assertion.

And the language says, "kill them" - and we are to assume those who are angry and without hope can discern when someone is fighting them. Of course, they can't.

Is that all it says?

No, it means people like you who sit idly by defending their actions on science forums rather than doing something about it.

Don’t presume to know what I do or do not do.

These conflicts have gone on for generations, back when there were no oil contracts.

Yes right back to the neoliths

So, the footage released by terrorists is manipulated by the media?

There is the truth and there is the WHOLE truth.

Religion creates the thought and decision making processes in which theists abide and which rule their lives. Of course, like all theists, they only glean that which serves their purposes.

Unlike atheists who never select for what suits their rhetoric?

 

[Godless]

Do you mean non-sequiturs?

Yea! that one... BTW I type 60wpm, a typo is comon!

Did you have to look it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(absurdism)

Sounds just like religion don't it?


Godless

 

[S.A.M.]

Yea! that one... BTW I type 60wpm, a typo is comon!

Did you have to look it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(absurdism)

Sounds just like religion don't it?


Godless

let's see logical=rational
fallacy=A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.

Sounds like atheism to me.

 

[KennyJC]

The reasoning behind atheism is lack of proof to believe otherwise. Can you get around that one samcdkey? All you have is self-generated.

 

[S.A.M.]

The reasoning behind atheism is lack of proof to believe otherwise. Can you get around that one samcdkey? All you have is self-generated.

Oh I'm all for freedom of choice. Believing in God is not a given.

There is a verse in the Rig Ved-

ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti
Truth is One, but sages call it by many names

and everyone has the right to define the truth as they see fit.


However, claiming that your (non)belief is superior to someone else's faith, when you cannot prove it either way, only indicates to me intolerance and arrogance.

 

[KennyJC]

However, claiming that your (non)belief is superior to someone else's faith, when you cannot prove it either way, only indicates to me intolerance and arrogance.

(non)belief is superior because that's where the evidence has led us. If there was a mobile phone video clip of mohammaed flying to heaven on a winged horse of fire (or whatever it was) then I might just believe in it.

Call it being intolerant or arrogant, but religious beliefs are stupid. And just because I can not disprove them, or disprove the flying spaghetti monster, does not mean their possible existence is equal to their possible non-existence. It's not 50/50.

 

[S.A.M.]

(non)belief is superior because that's where the evidence has led us. If there was a mobile phone video clip of mohammaed flying to heaven on a winged horse of fire (or whatever it was) then I might just believe in it.

Call it being intolerant or arrogant, but religious beliefs are stupid. And just because I can not disprove them, or disprove the flying spaghetti monster, does not mean their possible existence is equal to their possible non-existence. It's not 50/50.

You are dogmatic to assume that evidence is ever conclusive.

All evidence is based on available knowledge.

Just because there is no evidence does not mean it is not real.

Do you believe OJ was innocent?

 

[KennyJC]

Do you believe OJ was innocent?

OJ was known to exist. A crime was known to take place.

At least there are two things to work with there. But religion makes hundreds of far-fetched claims that are based from nothing. And you believe it? Why? Are you that gullible?

 

[S.A.M.]

OJ was known to exist. A crime was known to take place.

At least there are two things to work with there. But religion makes hundreds of far-fetched claims that are based from nothing. And you believe it? Why? Are you that gullible?

Ad hominem, Kenny

And truly, its none of your business

 

[KennyJC]

I know it's none of my business. If only everyone was so secrative of their religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

I know it's none of my business. If only everyone was so secrative of their religion.

Its not secretive, just unnecessary.

 

[Godless]

let's see logical=rational
fallacy=A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.

Now all you have to do is show us why theism is "logical & rational"

Good luck!

Fallacy:

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.

The atheist according to the above descriptune is not in fallacy. Unless of course an atheist were to assert that: (A god does not exist!) In that occasion, the atheist assumes the burden of proof. However to my knowledge, atheism means "lack of belief in god" thus what this emplies is since there's no "evidence" that you can show otherwise, we lack belief in theistic assertions!. Atheism is without religion Sam, don't get confused.

The Premises of Atheism

I think most atheist would agree with the above.

Godless

 

[S.A.M.]

Now all you have to do is show us why theism is "logical & rational"

Good luck!

Fallacy:

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.

The atheist according to the above descriptune is not in fallacy. Unless of course an atheist were to assert that: (A god does not exist!) In that occasion, the atheist assumes the burden of proof. However to my knowledge, atheism means "lack of belief in god" thus what this emplies is since there's no "evidence" that you can show otherwise, we lack belief in theistic assertions!. Atheism is without religion Sam, don't get confused.

The Premises of Atheism

I think most atheist would agree with the above.

Godless

Where did you get the genetic fallacy?
lol

Non Sequitur
Noun
A reply that has no relevance to what preceded it.(i.e. a logical fallacy)

Just in case:

Premise
Noun
A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn

and

Belief
Noun
A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

and

Atheism
A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Premise: there is no evidence of God
Conclusion: lack of belief in existence of God
Logical fallacy: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

i.e. non sequitur

PS I don't have to "prove" anything (see definition of belief)
lol

 

[mis-t-highs]

sammy:
"Premise: there is no evidence of God"( correct)
"Conclusion: lack of belief in existence of God"( yes lack of believe, not absolutely no belief, it is infantile to say there is no god, we can not possibly be sure, but it is irrational to say there is one, without corroborating evidence.
therefore there cannot be any logical fallacy,)
Logical fallacy: absence of evidence is evidence of absence."(wrong: absence of evidence, is simple absence of evidence.)