Vehicles - the new Muslim weapon of choice?

So then you can't say you are pro-science when you reject it the instant it challenges your worldview.

 

1. So you condemn the Qur'an for advocating barbaric Islamic (Sharia) Law, correct? It would be great to see you take a moral stand against evil....for once.

2. I don't really want to ban Muslims, I want more Muslim immigration and more non-Muslim emigration - I don't want a segregated world, so that this "clash of civilizations" can work it's way through, quicker. If Muslims are relegated to traditional Muslim-majority areas (The Middle East) like they have been in the past, then non-Muslims can just dismiss them more easily ("Oh, Jihad/Sharia doesn't really effect me, because it's something that happens half-way around the world.") But if they live among us (like the Ohio State University Jihadist yesterday), then we will get to the truth much faster. People need to come to grips with the evils of religion - today, not tomorrow. Long-term the world will be better for that. Short-term we will suffer, however.

 

My main "pro-science" view is when it comes down to science vs. religious magic/superstition. For example can we agree that Jesus was delusional (and therefore a liar about his divinity) since he approved of Adam/Eve, and adding up the geneologies that shows the earth is a paltry 6000-10,000 years old. So Jesus was delusional - can we agree on that, or is the earth less than 10,000 years old, Questerr?

 

You didn't really answer the question. If a law was passed in America banning Islam, where would you stand?

Enforced sharia is wrong. But if people want to voluntarily use sharia to arbitrate, like Jewish Beth Din courts, then that's their business.

 

Also, Psychology is not perfect, and 100 years from now we'll know so much more than we do now because science grows/improves/admits-its-wrong. But THE BIBLE won't grow/improve/admit-its-wrong, because in Revelation they say you are forbidden to change/improve the texts. So one is clearly superior to the other. The Qur'an says the same thing.

Can we agree that Modern Secular Humanism, on this one issue of growth/change, is better than virtually all religions are.

 

Gee, that is a long thread. Perhaps you could help me out and link to the post where AmericanNationalist advocates sending Muslims to the gas chambers.

 

Wrong and delusional are not the same thing. Psychology has a very specific definition of delusions.

Perhaps you should actually be pro-science instead of doing exactly what you condemn theists for and only approving of science that conforms to your worldview?

 

So then you aren't "pro-science", since you do exactly what you accuse theists of and reject parts of science that you don't like.

You aren't psychologist. You don't have evidence to overturn established science in psychology, but you reject it because your irrational personal biases won't let you believe it. Just like a theist.

 

because we believe in religious freedom in this country

we wont ban Preachers from being left alone with children either.....

you can't mass ban an entire religion based on the actions of it's fanatics

 

I wasn't quoting AmericanNationalist. I was quoting Freedomseeker.

 

FreedomSeeker, then. Point me to the quote.

 

It's not an exact quote. It's based on implications from numerous posts he has made.

 

You mean voluntarily deny women the right to an easy divorce, while the man can get a super-easy divorce by saying "I divorce you" three times? Women will be COERCED to give up their rights even under "voluntary" Sharia Courts. They need to be banned - in favor of the far more civilized American laws.

Today I would vote against a Muslim ban - depending how far along we are in this war - but as things heat up some people might change their minds. I would be glad that, if it actually came up to a vote in Congress, that that would be a sign that enough people finally "got it" about Islam! But banning them is not the best solution (Modern Secular Humanism is) unless things really really heat up - daily running street battles with soldiers of Allah on the streets of Western Europe, for example, or an Ohio State University attack on average every 2 weeks in America, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an unusual war. Normally the enemy is advanced technologically (England in war of independence, Japan in WWII, Germany in WWII, the Soviets, etc.). But Islam is so backwards that they are now having to resort to using vehicles to kill us - so this will be a very different war.

- - - Updated - - -

Are those that believe that orcs are actually real, delusional, Deflector?

 

So Democrat FDR never put the enemy in camps in WWII, right?

 

Banning them from driving wouldn't be banning the religion

 

I appreciate your interest in our topic, but I never actually advocated gas chambers, of course.

Have a great day.

- - - Updated - - -

So the master of deflection is also a master of assumption!!

[Just kidding, hehe. ]

 

1. Coercion is already illegal but in America. If people want to voluntarily submit to sharia, that is their right. Aren't you supposed to be pro-freedom?

2. You still haven't answered the question. If a law was passed in the US banning Islam, where would you stand?

3. I'm not a psychologist. Psychology defines what a delusion is. But you reject that aspect of science because it doesn't conform to your worldview. Like a theist.

 

If the Saudis can ban people from driving because they have a vajajay, we can ban people from driving because they have a Qur'an!!??

Shutting down their mosques has some modern-day precedent, by the way:
"France's Disappearing Mosques -Twenty of France’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls have been shut down since December for allegedly preaching a radical interpretation of Islam." http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/08/french-mosques-islam/493919/

I think more and more people, especially in Jihad-ravaged Europe, are wanting to go the "shut down their mosques" route vs. the more drastic "kick them all out of the country" route, or the "put them all in death camps" route. [Did I say "death camps", I meant "happy camps"! - I love South Park.]

 

You mean this law? Already on the books. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

 

How is that a law banning Muslims?

 

1. They can easily be religiously coerced into following Sharia: "but Allah himself says that the man gets custody of the children, so you don't want to go against Allah and risk eternal hell-fire, now do you Fatima?....."

2. Today I reject a ban on Islam. When they get an Iranian, or Russian, or Pakistani, or North Korean nuke, however, then all bests are off.

3. Then I reject the psychologists' definition - if, repeat if, someone who believes that orcs are actually real is not considered "delusional". Maybe there is a better word - "a nut-job"...how about that? People who believe that orcs (or "demons", or "angels", or "jinns", or "Satan", or the magic "Jesus") are actually real are nut-jobs.

 

So we are all in agreement that we ban Muslims from getting access to weapons of mass destruction (vehicles, or guns), or shut down offensive mosques, BEFORE we'd consider a ban on all Muslims or happy camps, correct?

 

Sounds like another plus for self driving vehicles....

 

1. That's her choice. She could also choose to de-convert.

2. You reject one? What does that mean? Would you stand with Muslims against the ban and work to protect them against their rights being violated?

3. So you reject science that doesn't conform to your worldview. Like a theist.

You aren't allowed to claim are pro-science anymore.