Will Islam will lead to the end?

[SVT93Style]

So I decided to look into this whole cartoon issue that is going on.
The cartoon's are nothing in my opinion and even a few are based loosley on fact.
You might say since I am not a follower of Islam it is easy for me to say...but on the other hand Jesus is made fun, belittled, etc all the time and its water off my back. I instead pray for them.

People say all the time that not every follower of Islam is radical but here is the issue. When there are 6 million and 10-15% are, this is a problem. I mean come on, they are killing and rioting over this...ridiculous, and they really believe that this is what their God would want. For them to raise up and defend his prophet...by rioting, killing, and threatening the world...I think not.
Look at fruit that is bore by the tree of Islam...God help us all.
Here is the link: http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

The pictures speak for themselves.

[Phillystang]

freedom of speech is great and all but i would have a hard time letting those protestors parade around with those signs for too long before I had something to say...

[White trash wagon]

This will lead to "the end" only if we allow the Islamic extremist to push US into doing it. At present there is no Islamic governed country with much of a military capability, and none have Nukes(that we know of). I'm aware that Iran may be working on that, but if they get close, Israel will liquidate that instantly.

AS I've said before, no country with any sort of military has EVER fallen to terrorist. That requires a real military.

Scott

[nailman]

...AS I've said before, no country with any sort of military has EVER fallen to terrorist. That requires a real military.
Scott
Maybe not "fallen", but definitely assaulted constantly and made to live in fear of suicide bombers taking the lives of their women and children.

[TexasDevilDog]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060207/i/r3048593454.jpg

[regaltip]

Islam is a very violent religion. They are crazy enough to walk into buildings with bombs strapped on or use a car to blow up anything. Those folks are extremist! Believe me the Middle Eastern Muslims are not like the American Muslims. American Muslims are more passive compared to the ones in Middle East.

[thesource]

The middle east has always and will always be the arm pit of the world . The only reason the rest of the world gives a fuck what they say or think is because of the oil they have to offer .

[White trash wagon]

I have said on this board many times that "Religion is the most destructive force known to man". And we have living proof right now, but then again there has almost always been living proof.

Any religion, taken to the extreme, will drive people to edge of insanity. When religious group A believes that religious group B is "wrong" , they try to convert "B". "B" resists and says "A" are sinners and evil. At some point it is decided that the sinners must die, and although murder is illegal in all societies, God's laws transcend man's laws, so in the words of an outspoken DFWstanger "let the slaughter begin".

Religious history is full of faith based genocide, perpetrated by ALL faiths. So ANY faith can be internally driven to the insanity of genocide.

Now in regards to middle eastern Muslims. You have to understand that ,most of the problems stem from the fact that a VERY HIGH percentage of the common people in these countries cannot read. So thier ideas & knowlwdge of the world comes from the spoken word. They learn about Islam by speeches & commentary of thier religious leaders, and thier knowledge of the Que'ran (thier bible) comes from memorization of what thier TOLD.

So if you have radical, corrupt clerics teaching a doctrine of hate, violence and ultimately self destruction, how will illiterate people know any different? The governments are "faith based", so there is no seperation of church & state,and our ideas of civils rights do not even EXIST. Thier media is strictly controlled by the church, so they cannot even hear descenting opinions. Books and magazines are strictly censored & controlled, so even the literate cannot be exposed to different ideas & cultures. They have no other way of viewing of the world. These people live in a total vacuum.

In this culture of corrupted religion,where the church teaches hatred all outside Islam, where most people still live in relative poverty, and struggle with life long civil wars, religious wars and other forms of strife, and death in the name of Allah is seen as infinately better than ANY life here.......It's not hard to see why there are large groups of people who WILLINGLY become suicide bombers, who's main concern in life is "death to the infidels".

This has certainly happened to the Christian faith many times in history.
There are some radical right wing "christians" on this very board who advocate wiping out all Muslims, that's 1.3 billion people.....to avenge 9/11 and the Iraqi war/war on terrorism. About 5800 americans have died from these combined events, and some want to murder 1.3 billion people to avenge it.


Makes you wonder WHO the insane, fanatical religious zealots really are.......

Scott

[DarkWolf]

WTW, exactly :)

How people can't understand that it's religion causing this hatred and violence, as it ALWAYS has, is beyond me. And how supposedly rational people, in this day and age, can willingly shed that rationality in order to consent to whichever religion they choose... is also beyond me.

It's not just Islam. It's ALL religion. Religion is what's going to destroy mankind. Islam is just currently the most unreasonable religion.

In the past it's been crusades, and genocides, but never large enough to affect a global scale. Now we've harnessed the atom. There won't be a "cold war" if Islamic states (extremist or not) get their hands on nuclear icbms... the cold war is based on the idea that neither opponent actually wants to die, so we keep each other in check with equivalent or better nuclear capability. Muslims want to die in the service of Islam. They want to be martyr'd. They won't hesitate to launch nukes at us, knowing full well our retaliation will be assured. Mutually assured destruction.

[nailman]

You two do have a point. I am hoping that Christianity is never taken to that extreme again. That is not what the Bible teaches. It is very sad that the extremists warped views are what a religion's true feelings, beliefs and attitudes are based upon. (I am refering to all religions)

[SVT93Style]

Now we've harnessed the atom. There won't be a "cold war" if Islamic states (extremist or not) get their hands on nuclear icbms... the cold war is based on the idea that neither opponent actually wants to die, so we keep each other in check with equivalent or better nuclear capability. Muslims want to die in the service of Islam. They want to be martyr'd. They won't hesitate to launch nukes at us, knowing full well our retaliation will be assured. Mutually assured destruction.

Couldn't agree more, and the clock is ticking...honestly....the question of today is no longer "if" but rather when it will happen. For all those who don't believe in God, you better hope there is one for the chance that "He" will interceed and not let this come to pass.
I can't even wrap my head around this issue, honestly think about nukes going from one coast to the other...the aftermath is uncomprehensable!

[Tx Redneck]

any one who remotely knows anything about the Bible knows were are living in Revelations.

[zorro]

WTW, exactly :)

How people can't understand that it's religion causing this hatred and violence, as it ALWAYS has, is beyond me. And how supposedly rational people, in this day and age, can willingly shed that rationality in order to consent to whichever religion they choose... is also beyond me.

It's not just Islam. It's ALL religion. Religion is what's going to destroy mankind. Islam is just currently the most unreasonable religion.

In the past it's been crusades, and genocides, but never large enough to affect a global scale. Now we've harnessed the atom. There won't be a "cold war" if Islamic states (extremist or not) get their hands on nuclear icbms... the cold war is based on the idea that neither opponent actually wants to die, so we keep each other in check with equivalent or better nuclear capability. Muslims want to die in the service of Islam. They want to be martyr'd. They won't hesitate to launch nukes at us, knowing full well our retaliation will be assured. Mutually assured destruction.


Why don't you blame the real culprit. It has been pointed out on this forum several times that hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered by atheist political leaders. The problem is not with the philosophy, but with man. Man is not basically good, but basically evil.

I guess it is easier to blame another group, in your case religion, but the matter of fact is you are part of the real guilty group: mankind. and isn't it time that you step up and accept your responsibility as part of the group?

Z

[ELVIS]

zorro is possibly one of the smartest folks in this forum.

god bless.

[46Tbird]

People say all the time that not every follower of Islam is radical but here is the issue. When there are 6 million and 10-15% areWhere did you get these numbers? :confused:There won't be a "cold war" if Islamic states (extremist or not) get their hands on nuclear icbms... Pakistan has nukes and IRBMs. Won't be long. :)

[TK_Blown98_GT]

YES!
And it wil be a happy day!!!!

[Fobra]

zorro is possibly one of the smartest folks in this forum.

god bless.
x2

[DarkWolf]

Why don't you blame the real culprit. It has been pointed out on this forum several times that hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered by atheist political leaders. The problem is not with the philosophy, but with man. Man is not basically good, but basically evil.

I guess it is easier to blame another group, in your case religion, but the matter of fact is you are part of the real guilty group: mankind. and isn't it time that you step up and accept your responsibility as part of the group?

Z

The real culprit is religion. Atheism is as much a religion as christianity, it's simply a dogmatic belief in no god.

Religion in all it's forms has been the cause of a vast majority of violence, bloodshed, and hatred throughout history. Hell, the whole CONCEPT of good and evil is directly from religion.

Mankind, left to it's own devices, is generally reasonable, and not inclined to senslessly butcher each other. If that were the case, we'd have wiped ourselves extinct shortly after we came into existance and LONG before we had any notion of civilizations, or governments, or even God for that matter.

The problem is, religion removes reason. When you stop seeing people as people, and instead as some evil "thing", it's easy to rationalize wholesale slaughter. Even revel in it. You're not killing somebody's husband, or father, or mother, or child... you're wiping out evil.

[zorro]

The real culprit is religion. Atheism is as much a religion as christianity, it's simply a dogmatic belief in no god.

Religion in all it's forms has been the cause of a vast majority of violence, bloodshed, and hatred throughout history. Hell, the whole CONCEPT of good and evil is directly from religion.

OK, good and evil are concepts that come from religion. You being non-religious would never hold to such concepts. You don't seem to like violence, bloodshed, and hatred very much, if they are not evil, what are they?

Regards,

Z

[Phillystang]

OK, good and evil are concepts that come from religion. You being non-religious would never hold to such concepts. You don't seem to like violence, bloodshed, and hatred very much, if they are not evil, what are they?

Regards,

Z
zing

[DarkWolf]

OK, good and evil are concepts that come from religion. You being non-religious would never hold to such concepts. You don't seem to like violence, bloodshed, and hatred very much, if they are not evil, what are they?

Regards,

Z

Being non-religious doesn't mean I don't recognize those concepts exist. Nor does it suggest that I don't realize people conduct their lives based on those concepts.

But to answer your question, violence, bloodshed, and hatred, are antithetical to existence.

Interestingly enough, death is antithetical to existence as well.

Is death evil?

[edit] Oh wait, what am I thinking. Death is the result of sin, so in essense being a byproduct of evil, it too is evil. Because God never intended for there to be anymore than Adam and Eve, right?

Silly me :rolleyes:

[zorro]

Being non-religious doesn't mean I don't recognize those concepts exist. Nor does it suggest that I don't realize people conduct their lives based on those concepts.

I already understood from your last post that you recogize these concepts exist and that people live by them; the question is are they true concepts or are they false concepts

But to answer your question, violence, bloodshed, and hatred, are antithetical to existence.

No they are not. Complete non-existence is antithetical to existence. If what you say is true, then by proving existence is false you would prove that violence, bloodshed, and hatred are true. That doesn't make any sense.

Interestingly enough, death is antithetical to existence as well.

Once again, this is false. You have to have some living thing existing in order to have death. So, they cannot be antithetical.

Z

"You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means" - Indigo Montoya (from The Princess Bride)

[DarkWolf]

So, you're saying somehow that violence, bloodshed, and hatred promote life? And that death is somehow not the opposite of life?

You got some weird definitions for things.

[zorro]

So, you're saying somehow that violence, bloodshed, and hatred promote life? And that death is somehow not the opposite of life?

You got some weird definitions for things.

You don't seem to understand what "antithesis" means.

The antithesis of existence is non-existence, you said it was violence, bloodshed, and hatred.

This should be obvious from the fact that there is violence, bloodshed, and hatred here and yet there is existence. Of course, if there was no existence, there could be no violence, bloodshed, and hatred. So, existence is necessary precondition for violence, bloodshed, and hatred and not its antithesis. Moreover, human existence is necessary for the kind violence, bloodshed, and hatred you are referring to, to exist. You can have existence and no humans and have no violence, bloodshed, and hatred. Look at the moon, it is a good example of this. Surely you are not suggesting that the violence and bloodshed found amoung animals is, how should I put it, ... evil?

So, it seems the problem lies with exactly what I stated: Humans.

Z

[D]

I already understood from your last post that you recogize these concepts exist and that people live by them; the question is are they true concepts or are they false concepts



No they are not. Complete non-existence is antithetical to existence. If what you say is true, then by proving existence is false you would prove that violence, bloodshed, and hatred are true. That doesn't make any sense.



Once again, this is false. You have to have some living thing existing in order to have death. So, they cannot be antithetical.

Z

"You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means" - Indigo Montoya (from The Princess Bride)

You just lost all validity with your quote from the Princess Bride. Take a hike.

[Fobra]

You just lost all validity with your quote from the Princess Bride. Take a hike.
I thought it was funny lol

[DarkWolf]

You don't seem to understand what "antithesis" means.

The antithesis of existence is non-existence, you said it was violence, bloodshed, and hatred.

This should be obvious from the fact that there is violence, bloodshed, and hatred here and yet there is existence. Of course, if there was no existence, there could be no violence, bloodshed, and hatred. So, existence is necessary precondition for violence, bloodshed, and hatred and not its antithesis. Moreover, human existence is necessary for the kind violence, bloodshed, and hatred you are referring to, to exist. You can have existence and no humans and have no violence, bloodshed, and hatred. Look at the moon, it is a good example of this. Surely you are not suggesting that the violence and bloodshed found amoung animals is, how should I put it, ... evil?

So, it seems the problem lies with exactly what I stated: Humans.

Z

Violence and bloodshed among animals, is generally based on the need to ... you know... eat. Survive. There's no hatred, and there's no species that willingly commits wholesale slaughter of it's own kind. Well, other than humans. And the only real difference between us and them is we've got religion.

Death is the opposite of life. It's the same as saying death is the antithesis of life. Violence, bloodshed, and hatred almost always leads to death. Therefore, death being a product of violence, bloodshed, and hatred, would imply that they too are antithesis of life. Maybe you're getting caught up on the usage of "existence" as it pertains to life. Can't help ya on that one.

Main Entry: ex·is·tence
Pronunciation: <tt>ig-'zis-t&n(t)s</tt>
Function: noun
1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being (all the fair existences of heaven -- John Keats) d : sentient or living being : LIFE
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3 : continued or repeated manifestation

If we are "basically evil" as you put it, would you care to explain how it is that we survived as a species when we came into existence? For a developing species to willing wish to kill itself, that's not very conducive to survival. I mean, it was many thousands, if not millions of years as we developed from cavemen into the homo-sapians we are today, before the great saviour of religion was even contemplated, to deliver us from our "evilness". How'd we survive so long with all the wanton death and destruction that we so desire to rain down upon ourselves?

[TexasDevilDog]

Violence and bloodshed among animals, is generally based on the need to ... you know... eat. Survive.

Yep, they wouldn't kill for territory or a mate.

It is all religion's fault.

I'm sorry, carry on.

[DarkWolf]

Yep, they wouldn't kill for territory or a mate.

It is all religion's fault.

I'm sorry, carry on.

Generally != Exclusively ... you also fail to grasp the concept that territory disputes and mating tie into the whole survival thing. It's not fighting and/or killing because they hate each other. (Let's not assume territory disputes and mating rituals always end in death, often they don't)

[edit] I know you are, carry on.

[DFWminis]

I believe politics is more destructive then religion....

[Denny]

I believe politics is more destructive then religion....

And politics aren't a religion?


Generally != Exclusively ... you also fail to grasp the concept that territory disputes and mating tie into the whole survival thing. It's not fighting and/or killing because they hate each other. (Let's not assume territory disputes and mating rituals always end in death, often they don't)

[edit] I know you are, carry on.

There might be hope for DW yet... people are gonna kill people no matter what. It's just easy to use religion as an excuse.

[DFWminis]

And politics aren't a religion?


exactly...but most people think of them as two different things....figured no one would catch that

[DarkWolf]

There might be hope for DW yet... people are gonna kill people no matter what. It's just easy to use religion as an excuse.

Maybe you'd like to answer the question I asked earlier?

[Denny]

It's not an answerable question since the earth hasn't been around that long...

[TexasDevilDog]

Generally != Exclusively ... you also fail to grasp the concept that territory disputes and mating tie into the whole survival thing. It's not fighting and/or killing because they hate each other. (Let's not assume territory disputes and mating rituals always end in death, often they don't)

[edit] I know you are, carry on.

I am sure you consider animal infantcide survival too. :rolleyes:

[Denny]

http://www.creationevidence.org/

Let me know when you're ready to go... I'll take you.

[Fobra]

http://www.creationevidence.org/

Let me know when you're ready to go... I'll take you.
I'll add to that...
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/page2.htm

[zorro]

Violence and bloodshed among animals, is generally based on the need to ... you know... eat. Survive. There's no hatred, and there's no species that willingly commits wholesale slaughter of its own kind. Well, other than humans. And the only real difference between us and them is we've got religion.

So, when we get right down to it, its not the killing and violence, but the hatred that is the problem. You seem to be saying that hatred is bad or wrong or evil, but you didn't answer the question posed to you several posts ago: Is evil a true concept or a false concept?

If evil is a false concept, then what are we discussing this for? Everything just is what it is, nothing is good and nothing is evil. We can condemn nothing nor applaud anything.

If the concept of evil is true, how do we determine what is evil. Is there a set of rules somewhere, or do we just make it up based on how we feel?

Death is the opposite of life. It's the same as saying death is the antithesis of life. Violence, bloodshed, and hatred almost always leads to death. Therefore, death being a product of violence, bloodshed, and hatred, would imply that they too are antithesis of life. Maybe you're getting caught up on the usage of "existence" as it pertains to life. Can't help ya on that one.

The problem is that you originally misused the word "existence," then you refused to admit your error (you have also misused the word "antithetical" and refuse to admit your error there, too). It should be obvious that "existence" and "life" are not the same thing. Yes, sometimes "life" is used metaphorically of existence and vice versa, but we are dealing with philosophy, and we must use words a little more carefully. It is true that if there is life, there necessarily is existence. However, the corollary, if there is exstence, there necessarily is life, is false.

It must be noted that although violence, bloodshed, and hatred can lead to death, in most cases they do not. And also there are many deaths that have no relationship to violence, bloodshed, and hatred. People die of accidental and natural causes all the time. In fact, disease and hunger take hundreds of times more lives on a daily basis that violence, bloodshed, and hatred,

At this point I hope it is clear that violence, bloodshed, and hatred are not antithetical to life. You can only have one term antithetical to another. Here I have demonstrated that we have more than one. Yes, they are contrary, but they are not antithetical.

If we are "basically evil" as you put it, would you care to explain how it is that we survived as a species when we came into existence? For a developing species to willing wish to kill itself, that's not very conducive to survival. I mean, it was many thousands, if not millions of years as we developed from cavemen into the homo-sapians we are today, before the great saviour of religion was even contemplated, to deliver us from our "evilness". How'd we survive so long with all the wanton death and destruction that we so desire to rain down upon ourselves?

Sure, this is easy. Even though we are basically evil, we are not utterly evil. We don't do the worse thing possible at every given moment. If you don't think that violence, bloodshed, and hatred are inherent to man, just check out a preschool playground for ten minutes and you will get a real education on the subject.

The other factor to our survival is that we tend to reproduce faster than we kill each other or die of natural causes.


Z