A Sincere Question for Those Who Condemn the Burning of Korans in America

DAdams91982 said:
Thats where the double standard comes in. It is okay to attack Christian beliefs in America today, but hands of islam.
Click to expand...

See, this is where you are wrong. Rationalists/secular humanists/atheists (whatever word you want to use) points out the absurdity of ALL religions without fail. You feel more persecuted because your beliefs are more dear to you.
 
gamer2be08 said:
Not saying I am for or against that; not gonna lie more for than agains though... More like modern crusaiders again, guess you can call them terrorists.. I have been stripped of rights to please other cultures/religions.. ****, I couldnt say Christmas in my high school, but if you were islamic, you had an Islamic club and could where an Islamic shirt to school and celebrate Eve or Ede, whatever it is called.. Hell, I think they even had a certain day to wear the stupid shirt.. But hell, if I wear a Christian shirt, I get sent home..
Click to expand...

You can't even wear an American flag shirt on Cinco De Mayo as well.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Oh that is ****ing bull****. You know that. If a white christian burns down a mosque he will be ****ing crucified (no pun intended)... and you know that damn well. The state of America is catering to muslim faith, especially with the liberal lean hating Christians as it is.

If you really believe what you just said you are blind to the social-political climate we live in today.
Click to expand...

Trure true true...
 
I mean to me bro its whatever you believe in, I'm not a part of any religion not bc I don't believe bc I am not in any way ready for that type of devotion, but yes you are wrong and I don't mean that in a demeaning way I'm just correcting, in the christian faith he should not retaliate and if he is even feeling hatred for someone intense enough to do something like that he should be repenting for feeling that way, its so sad how american christians somehow single themselves out, like they believe that god created the whole world and all the people on it, but yet they are so patriotic they will discard some of the biggest influence from their bible to get social aproval by making such an aggravated reaction, you wouldn't know bc more than 70 percent of christians don't even know the history behind their religion and all the wars it has caused and debate and anger and hatred, to me it has be a mass confusion from the start, if you read the bible in the mind state you believe a christian should have you see a super conservative life gridlocked to praise and laws that you must follow and strive to truelly feel the impact of your mistakes when doing those kind of wrongs, and then repent. But no there are these people spawning off little hate consumed bible bred idiots, I think they should stop, put the bible down and suit up with a assualt rifle and go fight in the war bc in their religion, fueling the fire is just as bad as being the fire
 
dsade said:
See, this is where you are wrong. Rationalists/secular humanists/atheists (whatever word you want to use) points out the absurdity of ALL religions without fail. You feel more persecuted because your beliefs are more dear to you.
Click to expand...

No, the problematic part that I see as well (having no religious beliefs) is that our government is not dealing with all religions equally. They are literally funding the Imam's trip to do fundraising to build a mosque. Yet displaying the 10 commandments at a courthouse was deemed unconstitutional. Its a travesty that our government is so full of hypocrisy.
 
dsade said:
See, this is where you are wrong. Rationalists/secular humanists/atheists (whatever word you want to use) points out the absurdity of ALL religions without fail. You feel more persecuted because your beliefs are more dear to you.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. I do find it comical that atheists are religious in believing in non belief and must spread their word to anyone who listens, but then turns their cheek to chastise another for merely whispering their beliefs.
 
DAdams91982 said:
And you would be wrong. I do find it comical that atheists are religious in believing in non belief and must spread their word to anyone who listens, but then turns their cheek to chastise another for merely whispering their beliefs.
Click to expand...

The whole "atheism is just another religion" argument is thoroughly discredited and ridiculous, at this pooint trotting that one out is purposely being intellectually dishonest.
 
dsade said:
The whole "atheism is just another religion" argument is thoroughly discredited and ridiculous, at this pooint trotting that one out is purposely being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Isn't it ironic that you make your way into every thread that mentions religion here on AM to preach your word? I know a few true athiests that could just care less about religion and feels no need to thrust their views upon those who do believe.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Oh that is ****ing bull****. You know that. If a white christian burns down a mosque he will be ****ing crucified (no pun intended)... and you know that damn well. The state of America is catering to muslim faith, especially with the liberal lean hating Christians as it is.

If you really believe what you just said you are blind to the social-political climate we live in today.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say bull****, but maybe I will give you that it was a bit of an exaggeration. The hate towards islam is significantly larger than the hate towards christians. Dsade's comment below is very accurate.

I am a liberal, and I hate all relgions equally. I see them all as the opium of the masses. But I don't hate the religious, and don't judge them on it. I don't cater to the muslim faith more than any other faith, I have no reason to. But I like to call it like it is, and being outside the realm of religion, I can more easily distinguish the wrongs on both sides of the argument.

dsade said:
See, this is where you are wrong. Rationalists/secular humanists/atheists (whatever word you want to use) points out the absurdity of ALL religions without fail. You feel more persecuted because your beliefs are more dear to you.
Click to expand...
 
dsade said:
The whole "atheism is just another religion" argument is thoroughly discredited and ridiculous, at this pooint trotting that one out is purposely being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

^This is true, and I mentioned a similar comment in the previous thread on this.

DAdams91982 said:
Isn't it ironic that you make your way into every thread that mentions religion here on AM to preach your word? I know a few true athiests that could just care less about religion and feels no need to thrust their views upon those who do believe.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I too would like to never have to discuss religion, but it seems to be the forefront of politics in this country. Which is sad.
 
EasyEJL said:
No, the problematic part that I see as well (having no religious beliefs) is that our government is not dealing with all religions equally. They are literally funding the Imam's trip to do fundraising to build a mosque. Yet displaying the 10 commandments at a courthouse was deemed unconstitutional. Its a travesty that our government is so full of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Well said Easy, I agree with you 100%
 
Angelbolic said:
Actually, there is a bit truth to that statement. It depends a little on which definition you use, but generally atheists 'believe' that there is no a god. They base that on the fact that there is no proof for the existence of a god. While that is true, that doesn't exclude the fact there could be a god. Same example is saying there is no proof for life outside of the earth, but that doesn't mean there couldn't a blue Gojo living somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Agnosticism OTOH takes no position, and says basically the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable. All options are open.
Click to expand...

No, we know there is no God.
 
Angelbolic said:
Prove it ;)
Click to expand...

While my comment was sarcastic in nature, that argument in itself is what bothers me about religions. Its a mirror of glen beck politics.

The fact that I cant prove the non-existence of something, doesnt mean that it exists. It is up to those who believe in the extraordinary to prove otherwise. Besides the equivalent of hearsay, they can't.
 
HereToStudy said:
Oh man, I know your throwing a bone to the dogs with that one, so before I react with the expected growling, Im going back to enjoying my puppy chow.
Click to expand...

I have to turn him off when he goes on a religion rant, but otherwise a fair bit of what he says has accuracy, a higher accuracy rate than Obama or Joe Biden "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed"....

Its impossible to argue that each time payroll tax rates were lowered that actual US tax dollars coming in to the federal government has gone up, as its well documented statistically. Bits and pieces of what he says go off on a tangent though. His show has gotten more religion based as time has gone on, so I listen to him less and less
 
Angelbolic said:
I basically agree with your reasoning, but atheism is still a bit hypocrite IMO. Heck, I don't believe in a god either and possibilities are quite huge there are none. But claiming there is no god without substantial prove is a form of religion also.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't a logically sound argument. Disbelieving in what is not provable is rational. Believing in god is no different in that respect than believing in karma, four leaf clovers, or voodoo dolls. Disbeliving in those things because there is no proof of their existence or effectiveness is based on rational thought.
 
Irish Cannon said:
... if this were a Bible burning, it wouldn't have even made the news.
Click to expand...

Actually it did make the news not to long ago! Check it out...

US Army burns Bibles

Invalid Link Removed

But it didn't even make a ripple in the news, compared to the tidal wave this Quran thing has generated.
 
EasyEJL said:
No, that isn't a logically sound argument. Disbelieving in what is not provable is rational. Believing in god is no different in that respect than believing in karma, four leaf clovers, or voodoo dolls. Disbeliving in those things because there is no proof of their existence or effectiveness is based on rational thought.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but that is not logically true either. In life, odds are all we really have to count on, and 100% certain is technically never achievable. For example, I have no proof that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow. But based on the available evidence, I am 99.99999% sure enough such that I will go ahead and schedule may day with that assumption, based on statistical probability.

In other words, it is best NOT to form a conclusion, if you can't substantiate it with at least 50% or greater odds. If you choose a side, you may be right or you may be wrong, but if you remain agnostic and don't choose for absence of evidence, you are necessarily not wrong. ;) Know what I mean, EZ?
 
Just as an aside easy, there was a Muslim prayer room in the twin towers, which I guess constitues the towers as a mosque. Justan FYI
 
AE14 said:
Just as an aside easy, there was a Muslim prayer room in the twin towers, which I guess constitues the towers as a mosque. Justan FYI
Click to expand...

The twin towers weren't built with specific internal plans of that being there, it was rented out space.
 
Okay, I've just kind of been reading for the most part, but I'm going to lay out some further hypocrisy...

Ground Zero Mosque in NY:

*Un-American to ask where the funding comes from
*Imam supports Iranian revolution (the same people that stone women, hang gays/lesbians, and kill adulterers)
*Built on the site of conquest
*Imam is totally rational and mainstream

Terry Jones:

*Said to be a crazy lunatic pastor when he's done nothing but exercise his 1st amendment rights
*Double-crossed by the FL imam
*Told IF HE STOPS THE BURNING OF THE BOOK he can come to "talk" with the Ground Zero imam (NOTE: He has to stop, but the GZ Mosque imam doesn't - Putting himself in control) - This was only after they said that the mosque wouldn't be built

Fck them all. I'm sick of this BS.

‎"Moral cowardice is fear of upholding the good because it is good, and fear of opposing the evil because it is evil." - My faith upholds the good, and my guns take on my adversaries.

I do nothing but live my life and let others live theirs, yet I'm being attacked and so are many other Americans. This $hit needs to get turned around. If America won't do it, I'll join the IDF. I don't give a fck anymore. America is only an idea anymore.

Réabhlóid !
 
EasyEJL said:
The twin towers weren't built with specific internal plans of that being there, it was rented out space.
Click to expand...

that is truly neither here nor there. The fact is that there was prayer at the twin towers.

At the end of the day, I hae n o issue with the burning of bibles or qu'rans to be honest. I think it is a good start :)
 
AE14 said:
that is truly neither here nor there. The fact is that there was prayer at the twin towers.

At the end of the day, I hae n o issue with the burning of bibles or qu'rans to be honest. I think it is a good start :)
Click to expand...

just need to burn them all at the same time :D
 
Irish Cannon said:
Okay, I've just kind of been reading for the most part, but I'm going to lay out some further hypocrisy...

Ground Zero Mosque in NY:

*Un-American to ask where the funding comes from
*Imam supports Iranian revolution (the same people that stone women, hang gays/lesbians, and kill adulterers)
*Built on the site of conquest
*Imam is totally rational and mainstream

Terry Jones:

*Said to be a crazy lunatic pastor when he's done nothing but exercise his 1st amendment rights
*Double-crossed by the FL imam
*Told IF HE STOPS THE BURNING OF THE BOOK he can come to "talk" with the Ground Zero imam (NOTE: He has to stop, but the GZ Mosque imam doesn't - Putting himself in control) - This was only after they said that the mosque wouldn't be built

Fck them all. I'm sick of this BS.

‎"Moral cowardice is fear of upholding the good because it is good, and fear of opposing the evil because it is evil." - My faith upholds the good, and my guns take on my adversaries.

I do nothing but live my life and let others live theirs, yet I'm being attacked and so are many other Americans. This $hit needs to get turned around. If America won't do it, I'll join the IDF. I don't give a fck anymore. America is only an idea anymore.

Réabhlóid !
Click to expand...

America has been only an idea since the early 20th century. All of these troubles go back to some of our earlier wonderful Presidents
 
AE14 said:
America has been only an idea since the early 20th century. All of these troubles go back to some of our earlier wonderful Presidents
Click to expand...

Some of our earlier presidents were the only ones with balls... nows its all PC bull****.

I would love to see an Ex-General president again.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Some of our earlier presidents were the only ones with balls... nows its all PC bull****.

I would love to see an Ex-General president again.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they would be able to exhibit any real power any more. The more I look at Washington the more I see that the President (regardless of affiliation) is nothing more than a puppet.

I would say the president with balls stopped with TR(with a few minor exceptions afterwards)
 
dsade said:
See, this is where you are wrong. Rationalists/secular humanists/atheists (whatever word you want to use) points out the absurdity of ALL religions without fail. You feel more persecuted because your beliefs are more dear to you.
Click to expand...

Just as your unbelief is obviously extremely dear to you.Why is it that atheist seem to have an overwhelming need to prove how much more logical their belief \unbelief ( or whatever) is than of those who believe.Are you trying to prove it to others or yourself?
 
416 said:
Just as your unbelief is obviously extremely dear to you.Why is it that atheist seem to have an overwhelming need to prove how much more logical their belief \unbelief ( or whatever) is than of those who believe.Are you trying to prove it to others or yourself?
Click to expand...

My unbelief is not dear to me...it simply exists due to lack of evidence. Calling a dog a cat a million times will not change the fact that I am not expressing a positive assertion...merely indicating that there is no evidence to claim a positive assertion, therefore that assertion does not exist. A-theist = without belief in god.

Whereas your typical religious minded folk will continue to profess belief IN SPITE of either lack of evidence or blatant evidence to the contrary, scientists - if presented with credible evidence - gladly shift their worldviews to accommodate the new evidence.
 
dsade said:
My unbelief is not dear to me...it simply exists due to lack of evidence. Calling a dog a cat a million times will not change the fact that I am not expressing a positive assertion...merely indicating that there is no evidence to claim a positive assertion, therefore that assertion does not exist. A-theist = without belief in god.

Whereas your typical religious minded folk will continue to profess belief IN SPITE of either lack of evidence or blatant evidence to the contrary, scientists - if presented with credible evidence - gladly shift their worldviews to accommodate the new evidence.
Click to expand...

:goodpost::clap2:
 
dsade said:
My unbelief is not dear to me...it simply exists due to lack of evidence. Calling a dog a cat a million times will not change the fact that I am not expressing a positive assertion...merely indicating that there is no evidence to claim a positive assertion, therefore that assertion does not exist. A-theist = without belief in god.

Whereas your typical religious minded folk will continue to profess belief IN SPITE of either lack of evidence or blatant evidence to the contrary, scientists - if presented with credible evidence - gladly shift their worldviews to accommodate the new evidence.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think you know what a crock that is. Most scientists are possibly more biased than anyone. Science is hardly based on factual evidence, as much as you or me or anyone would like that to be the case.

One would like to think that "free scientific inquiry" exists, or even as stated in Atlas Shrugged, "the first word is redundant." - But as we see in real life, and as we see in Atlas Shrugged, it's not at all true.
 
Irish Cannon said:
I'd like to think you know what a crock that is. Most scientists are possibly more biased than anyone. Science is hardly based on factual evidence, as much as you or me or anyone would like that to be the case.

One would like to think that "free scientific inquiry" exists, or even as stated in Atlas Shrugged, "the first word is redundant." - But as we see in real life, and as we see in Atlas Shrugged, it's not at all true.
Click to expand...

There are always going to be those with agendas. As well, it is human nature to hide in carefully constructed worldviews...but that is as dishonest when committed by scientists as the religious, is it not?
 
dsade said:
There are always going to be those with agendas. As well, it is human nature to hide in carefully constructed worldviews...but that is as dishonest when committed by scientists as the religious, is it not?
Click to expand...

Yes, it very much is.

I not only believe that God and Science can co-exist, but are interdependent of one another. - That's my stance. :)
 
dsade said:
My unbelief is not dear to me...it simply exists due to lack of evidence. Calling a dog a cat a million times will not change the fact that I am not expressing a positive assertion...merely indicating that there is no evidence to claim a positive assertion, therefore that assertion does not exist. A-theist = without belief in god.

Whereas your typical religious minded folk will continue to profess belief IN SPITE of either lack of evidence or blatant evidence to the contrary, scientists - if presented with credible evidence - gladly shift their worldviews to accommodate the new evidence.
Click to expand...

The responses you make would say it is dear to you.

Saying a dog is not a dog a million times...

What different people will accept as a positive assertion is varied.Not sure what you mean by typical rel. minded folk.I know Dr.s and scientist who believe and even say it was what they have learned in there respective fields that brought them to that belief.

Even if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt there would still be people who would not believe because they will accept no ultimate authority higher than themself.

Actually a theist believes in God.
 
416 said:
The responses you make would say it is dear to you.

Saying a dog is not a dog a million times...

What different people will accept as a positive assertion is varied.Not sure what you mean by typical rel. minded folk.I know Dr.s and scientist who believe and even say it was what they have learned in there respective fields that brought them to that belief.

Even if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt there would still be people who would not believe because they will accept no ultimate authority higher than themself.
Click to expand...
Appeals to authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.

What I am saying is that an assertion is put forward by some saying: "There is a god"

When asked for objective evidence, an appeal is then made to FAITH which specifically forbids objective evidence (faith has to rely on zero evidence, or else it is not faith, it is knowledge). My reply simply being "there is insufficient evidence for me to believe your assertion that there is a god".

This is enough definition for "atheist"...since all I am saying is "I do not believe your assertion". I never said "I assert that there is no god."

Wow...dragged once again into not a current events/interesting thread but the same tired crap that never ends.

Hint to y'all...define your terms. Atheist has a specific bare meaning. Learn it before trying to argue.
 
dsade said:
Appeals to authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing.

What I am saying is that an assertion is put forward by some saying: "There is a god"

When asked for objective evidence, an appeal is then made to FAITH which specifically forbids objective evidence (faith has to rely on zero evidence, or else it is not faith, it is knowledge). My reply simply being "there is insufficient evidence for me to believe your assertion that there is a god".

This is enough definition for "atheist"...since all I am saying is "I do not believe your assertion". I never said "I assert that there is no god."

Wow...dragged once again into not a current events/interesting thread but the same tired crap that never ends.

Hint to y'all...define your terms. Atheist has a specific bare meaning. Learn it before trying to argue.
Click to expand...

My reference to Dr.s and scientist had nothing to do with appealing to authority.It had to do with your statement implying that anyone of faith had no logic or understanding of science.

You were dragged into nothing but rather on many occassions at least involving this subject have dragged others.

My last comment in my last post was a joke.I thought you were joking when you gave the definition of atheist.I now see from your last comment that was not the case and that you simply believe that any one voicing an oppinion you do not agree with is to stupid to even understand basic english.That being the case I will simply say that says more about you than me.I am done with this.
 
416 said:
My reference to Dr.s and scientist had nothing to do with appealing to authority.It had to do with your statement implying that anyone of faith had no logic or understanding of science.

You were dragged into nothing but rather on many occassions at least involving this subject have dragged others.

My last comment in my last post was a joke.I thought you were joking when you gave the definition of atheist.I now see from your last comment that was not the case and that you simply believe that any one voicing an oppinion you do not agree with is to stupid to even understand basic english.That being the case I will simply say that says more about you than me.I am done with this.
Click to expand...
As I have learned the hard way on many occasions, this is not necessarily the ideal medium for subtle humor...but thanks for the undeserved personal.
attack.

I never said anyone who had faith had logic....I could bring up several people on this board who claim faith, who also claim reason, but have NO illusions that there is anything rational about their faith....simply that they choose irrationality in that particular area of knowledge (or lack thereof) as a personal choice.

I'm quite fine with that.
 
dsade said:
As I have learned the hard way on many occasions, this is not necessarily the ideal medium for subtle humor...but thanks for the undeserved personal.
attack.

I never said anyone who had faith had logic....I could bring up several people on this board who claim faith, who also claim reason, but have NO illusions that there is anything rational about their faith....simply that they choose irrationality in that particular area of knowledge (or lack thereof) as a personal choice.

I'm quite fine with that.
Click to expand...

You are right about the medium.I took the statement that "even if there were evidence to the contrary..." to imply a lack of reason or logic.Then the two statements about the definition of atheism.

There is reason to what I believe.

I did not mean a personal attack by what I said.Just responding the best way I knew how to what seemed to be an attack.Possibly colored by personal experience with some people I know who like to get in peoples faces about their belief that those who do believe are(to put it nicely) not so smart.

Anyway no offense meant, none taken.
 
EasyEJL said:
Someone tell me why our elected officials and government representatives apply such a double standard on such a regular basis? I have nothing against burning books in protest either way, but find it ludicrous that perpetually a double standard is applied with the US giving in to foreign interests, and condemning US citizens actions. The politics of appeasement don't work, unless your plan is to be subjugated.
Click to expand...
Probably because the US Constitution, and the Freedom of Religion, applies...Well....in the United States. As such, these sort of practices are frowned upon...here....in the United States...where we have Freedom of Religion.

Why do we have these double standards on such regular bases. Probably because Afghanistan is not part of the United States of America. Heck it's not even in America. I don't see why just because we have Freedom of Religion, you should assume everyone else does.

It's as simple as that.

Since we live in the United States,
EasyEJL said:
and condemning US citizens actions.
Click to expand...
applies. Since they are the citizens of the US, where Freedom of Religion is applies, said US citizens are condemned for their actions.

Since, Afghanistan is not United States, where the US Consitution is not valid, then you have to essentially bend down to the country's rules.

Or to put it in another way. Why are you allowed to freely use marijuana in Amsterdam. But are condemened for doing so here in the states? Yep, because Netherland is not United States, and vice versa.
 
noot said:
Probably because the US Constitution, and the Freedom of Religion, applies...Well....in the United States. As such, these sort of practices are frowned upon...here....in the United States...where we have Freedom of Religion.

Why do we have these double standards on such regular bases. Probably because Afghanistan is not part of the United States of America. Heck it's not even in America. I don't see why just because we have Freedom of Religion, you should assume everyone else does.

It's as simple as that.

Since we live in the United States,
applies. Since they are the citizens of the US, where Freedom of Religion is applies, said US citizens are condemned for their actions.

Since, Afghanistan is not United States, where the US Consitution is not valid, then you have to essentially bend down to the country's rules.

Or to put it in another way. Why are you allowed to freely use marijuana in Amsterdam. But are condemened for doing so here in the states? Yep, because Netherland is not United States, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but wrong on both parts. US military bases are considered US soil (a person born on base is a US citizen), and in the US we also have freedom of speech, which covers freedom of expression such as burning bibles, Quarans and flags.
 
EasyEJL said:
Sorry, but wrong on both parts. US military bases are considered US soil (a person born on base is a US citizen), and in the US we also have freedom of speech, which covers freedom of expression such as burning bibles, Quarans and flags.
Click to expand...
I guess i was wrong. Maybe it is simply that burning the bible is not viewed as badly as burning the quaran. I remember one of the first things that were talked about is whether burning the quaran could encourage terrorist activity. So maybe it is not a matter of "double standard", but more of a... We will not go ape**** if you burn our book, we can just brush it up and move on with our lives. Sure, it burning the bible is not a nice gesture either, but you don't see the "muslim world" having to worry that we will be sending suicide bombers at them for these actions.

I guess, it's not that burning the bible is any better and or worse than burning the quaran, it is just that unlike the quaran, burning the bible is less likely to encourage such extreme acts of violence, as something like suicide bombing.

Simply put,
Burning the bible -> a few upset people.
Burning the quaran -> 9/11 and or World War 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top