Did Someone Say "religion Is Bad"?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 10:18am |
 Coolness: 685725 | What happens when you take away the guns? People die. Knives, chainsaws, cars running them over, machettes, etc.
And, guns DON'T kill people. Bullets do. Now, take away religion, and granted that doesn't solve 100% of the world's problems, but it causes a LOT of people who hated each other for no reason other than books and imaginary friends to NOT have that same reason to hate each other. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 10:23am |
 Coolness: 339800 | No.1 cause of death among children under the age of 16 in california.
Gun shot wounds. Guns do kill people, i can bet you without all the guns in the US, the murder rate would go down about 50%.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 10:37am |
| Coolness: 685725 | There's a REASON for the gunshot wounds. Granted there are accidental casualties on occaision, but it's gang violence or people settling scores. So, if they wanna kill each other, they will.
As retarded as it sounds, it's the exact thing as the old joke, where the CIA is testing 3 women to see which will be loyal to the CIA. They tell the first one to go into a room and shoot her husband with a gun and she says no and walks away. The second one walks in and comes back out with him and says she couldn't do it. The blonde goes in, they're a loud scuffle and she comes back out and says "The gun you gave me was empty, so I had to beat him to death with the chair" When people have a "reason" they find any way they can to kill. Guns don't mean shit. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 10:45am |
| Coolness: 339800 | see in real life the blond would have a damn hard time beating her husband to death with a chair..
the collumbine shootings.. you think 2 kids coulda killed all those people should they have been equipped with a knife, or a baseball bat? having a machine gun or even a hand gun can kill dozens of people very quickly. any other weapon requires the person to have very good combat skills to achieve the same death toll. and as for the gangs thing.. what are you gonna have? drive by stabbings? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 10:49am |
| Coolness: 685725 | Kids are creative. Didn't you know, they had enough explosives to level the school? That would have been more effective than a gun. And yes, they could go in with a baseball bat. Knife, too. For the creative, maybe sneak a chainsaw in a duffle bag. What about the kid here in montreal last summer that was stabbed with a machette by another student? Guns aren't the only way to kill people. Hell, they could even drop poison of some sort into people's food. Get the cafeteria person to turn around and drop the contents of a ziplok bag into a huge "bowl" doesn't take too long. 2 people can do a LOT of damage with just baseball bats. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 10:52am |
| Coolness: 339800 | you come at me with a chain saw, i'm gonna run.
with a gun. well.. it's a lot harder to outrun a bullet. sure given motivation you could probably kill the same ammount of people.. but that only applies to premeditaded murder.. when someone kills out of rage, they wont have the time to plan the whole explosives thing.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 11:15am |
| Coolness: 685725 | Pre meditated or pure rage, you seem to never have seen the kind of damage someone who is trully pissed off can do. I personally would much rather someone pull a gun or knife on me than try and go hand to hand, because that shows that they KNOW what their doing and they WILL fuck you up if you screw up in the slightest. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 11:21am |
| Coolness: 339800 | ever see those video's on fox where someone tries to rob a dep. with anything but a gun?
that's some funny shit. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 4:08pm |
 Coolness: 148950 | and do i have te explain to you again that Islam had NOTHIGN to do with September 11th?? It was just muslim people who did it. I doubt it's written in the Qu'ran "Kill the american pigs"
no... they have a deep rooted hatred for americans because they keep backing the Jews who kill, rape, and pillage muslim territory in Israel. THeyre protecting themselves. It has nothign to do with what their religion told them to do. If i killed you family would you not want to protect them? And, if necessary, kill mine? I think you would. Also, Yes Islam is tolerant. Read the Qu'ran, you'll see. They have their beliefs and as long as you dont try to stop them from living out what they think is right to show their love for Allah, then they will not touch you. And now youre gonna bring up Ji'had because, well just because, who wouldn't. Yes, it's a religious war. For two reasons cana Ji'had be called: A foreign people are trying to bar you from doing your daily religious duties (ie: forcing you to convert or killing you cuz youre muslim) or if someone has taken over Mecca, which is their sacred place. THe Ka'bbah in particular. As for the Bible saying really horrible things... Firast of all, christianity added a whole second part, the NEW TESTAMENT, in which they refine their thoughts. Chronology, ever hear of it? When things happen in an certain order in time. THe old testament said many stupid things, it was also written by people who very much more ignorant then us, their world was WAY different from ours. The new testament says new things. THey came after and these are what we must listen to. THe old testament is garbage to christians. WHatever it says can be summed up in one sentence: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 5:09pm |
| Coolness: 52680 | afrokaboozy, who do u even bother?
the september 11th comment proved what i've suspected for a while now. spooky is MAAAAAAAAAAAAD dummin. like, mental retardation dummin. so dont even bother, just tell him he's stupid and dont waste your mental energy on him. imagine you get him to change his mind? do you really want someone that stupid defending your point of view? for afrokaboozy: you are correct, islam is by far one of the most tolerant religions. christianity doesnt come close. there were 4 or 5 crusades during the middle ages, the first one was actually successful (they took over jerusalem), and each subsequent one was a failure. several mosques from the period actually had christian chapels as a side part of the building. "religion" as a word is interesting, and i wonder if you are all using the same definition. if i believe in a spiritual underpinning to the universe, is that a religion? if i have a friend who walks on water, and have a whole book about him, and i worship him as god, is that a religion? or does he have to die, and then wait a few centuries? before you start debating, u should iron out exactly what you mean when you guys say "religion". nah mean? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 5:14pm |
 Coolness: 471940 | Wisely said !! Islam is a just a victim,some excuse for US abuse.It is a peaceful religion for most people who believe in it.Power is the baddest religion,it is the one who kills people and create conflicts ,more than any religion we could name. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 6:54pm |
| Coolness: 148950 | first of all: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!
secondly: true.. but according to me "if i believe in a spiritual underpinning to the universe" then that is a religion.. no need to wait centuries... it's a religion as soon as there's a higher meaning to life than that of the aesthetic or even psychological pleasures... when spirituality comes into play... thats a good point... it all depends on your definition of religion |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PoiSoNeD_CaNdY replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 7:16pm |
 Coolness: 91825 | afrokaboozy...
I agree with some things you said and disagreed with others, I will elaborate.. First of all, I agree that you can't blame Islam for 9/11, but then again, you can't completely disassociate the two. Saying that 9/11 is a result of Israel's treatment of Palestinians is incorrect. If that were so, it would make much more sense to attack Israel than the US, and it is not just me saying that, but Hamas also. Bin Laden basically sees himself as the saviour of Islam, the one who will unify and restore an Islamic empire like in Muhammed's time (he even claims to be a descendant of Muhammed) The main obstacle to this happening is the US, for two main reasons: (1) supporting a strong non-Islamic power in Israel, thus weakening the presence of Islam in the region and preventing a Moslem takeover, and even more significantly, (2) supporting a pro-west government in Saudi Arabia, moreover having troops there, preventing an Islamic revolution in that country, the birthplace of Muhammed and home of the 2 most important Moslem shrines (in fact Bin Laden consistently lists this as the #1 offence of the west) In summary, Bin Laden's attack on the US, in his own mind, is part of the struggle for the revival of the Islamic empire against the world dominance of the US. Its not about justice, its about ideology and power. Fortunately, most Moslems do not agree with this ideology. ps. while israel does plenty of horrible things there's no need to slander it...since when do Israelis rape Palestinians as you suggested? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 7:24pm |
| Coolness: 148950 | i understand what youre saying, and in essence, we're saying the same thing. Yes, Islam cannot be dissociated from the September 11 attacks, but it's not because theyre Muslim that they did it. If the Jewish and Muslim situations were reversed, I think the Jews would have done the same, and even if it were Christians. We all have our thresholds for non-violent resistance. But enough's enough. And as for the rape thing, when I say rape i mean the land, not the people. Sorry for the misunderstanding. No slandering intended. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 11:23pm |
| Coolness: 339800 | [ dictionary.reference.com ]
what are you bill clinton? religion has one definition.. you can't ask "whats your definition of the word" since words have set definition.. not "i get to choose what words mean"... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Mon Nov 25, 2002 @ 11:37pm |
| Coolness: 148950 | yes and thats what i said it was.. exactly what the dictionary says...
some other people (who shall remain nameless) chose other definitions that they pull out of their ass... what do you want me to do about it? call them communists in the hopes that theyll change their minds? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Tue Nov 26, 2002 @ 5:12am |
| Coolness: 52680 | djneoform
i am not bill clinton, but i've been an avid student of language use and socio-linguistics for several years. your link was a great example of what i was talking about: did you notice that there were 6 different definitions there? there are some CRUCIAL contradictions between them, CRUCIAL to this debate. i'll leave you the fun of finding them yourself. i can also come up with probably about 30 others from equally reliable sources. do you believe the Oxford dictionary to be the final authority on language? or is it Merriam-Webster? or maybe a thoughtful approach to language use shows that almost all pointless debates are based in the fact that people are operating with (sometimes slightly) different definitions of certain key words. maybe. maybe the solution is to recognize that meaning is assigned to words on a temporary basis, and that it only matters that ONE agreed meaning is shared for the purpose of the debate. but what the hell do i know. ( ps: bill clinton's a member of mensa with an IQ of 160. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Nov 26, 2002 @ 8:22am |
| Coolness: 339800 | those are 6 deviations of the same definition.
merely to explain the word better, you could easily merge them together to form a definition. none of the definitions contradict each other. so there are no different definitions, merely varied versions. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Tue Nov 26, 2002 @ 10:20am |
| Coolness: 148950 | hey! you wanna be part of the lot youre trying so hard to knock?
let's go! fight to the death!!! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Tue Nov 26, 2002 @ 11:30am |
| Coolness: 471940 | Batman on the battlefield... |
Did Someone Say "religion Is Bad"?
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
