So you're okay with people searching for truth so long as they don't find any answers? Why is it okay for you to say there isn't one true God but it is not okay for me to say that there is? To say this is tolerance is a facade; your tolerance ends when what I believe says you are wrong. The truth is by nature exclusive; just as there is one right answer to 2+2 and an infinite number of wrong answers, it is the same way as to the question of who God is. There is only one right answer, so why should you be surprised, shocked or outraged that I claim it is Jesus Christ, and that His words are truth? And if I sincerely believe that truth, why should you be offended when I claim He is the only way? That is what you would expect a sincere Christian to say, just as a sincere atheist will deny it. We both believe we are right, so why are you more right than I am? Why don't you find people who deny there is one truth, abhorrant? Would you accept other answers to 2 + 2?

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm surprised that atheists enjoy them, considering the explicitly spiritual and christian themes interwoven into their music

Because they are songs sung in general terms of 'A god' and 'A maker' and themes common to people who think and struggle with faith. They do not sing anything like 'Jesus is my lord, he will save me'.
It may be hard for you to fathom, but we have no issue with people searching for or finding solace in faith, what we find abhorrent is people like you who have decided that what they believe IS TRUE and that THEIR BELIEF states that other people are sinful persons bound for an eternity in hellfire.
Their songs are passionate and heartfelt... and I would be not at all surprised to find that in future they have ones that deal with a struggle with and perhaps disillusionment with faith... or not, don't mind either way.
If they become preachy, if they start trying to suggest that they know the one true lord, then they'll lose me.
Up until then I just love their music. As I'm sure you love many things in this world created by athiests

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm surprised that atheists enjoy them, considering the explicitly spiritual and christian themes interwoven into their music


Because they are songs sung in general terms of 'A god' and 'A maker' and themes common to people who think and struggle with faith. They do not sing anything like 'Jesus is my lord, he will save me'.

It may be hard for you to fathom, but we have no issue with people searching for or finding solace in faith, what we find abhorrent is people like you who have decided that what they believe IS TRUE and that THEIR BELIEF states that other people are sinful persons bound for an eternity in hellfire.

Their songs are passionate and heartfelt... and I would be not at all surprised to find that in future they have ones that deal with a struggle with and perhaps disillusionment with faith... or not, don't mind either way.

If they become preachy, if they start trying to suggest that they know the one true lord, then they'll lose me.

Up until then I just love their music. As I'm sure you love many things in this world created by athiests

470 MB HQ video capture ftp://ftp.untergrund.net/users/hellfire/future_crew-second_reality-1993.mp4 from http://pouet.net/topic.php?which=8626&page=1&x=30&y=13 ... This also includes the ending credits with its awesome soundtrack unlike YouTube!

>> ^lantern53:

Assange really needs to be taken out by the CIA, or maybe a Hellfire missile.
We don't need our secrets being splattered all over the internet.
Who's with me?!?!
You have any secrets? How'd you like them publicized?


I'm not a government.

>> ^lantern53:

Assange really needs to be taken out by the CIA, or maybe a Hellfire missile.
We don't need our secrets being splattered all over the internet.
Who's with me?!?!
You have any secrets? How'd you like them publicized?


I would like to put you in a room with Assange and give you a gun and see if you could kill another human being so easily.

Assange really needs to be taken out by the CIA, or maybe a Hellfire missile.

We don't need our secrets being splattered all over the internet.

Who's with me?!?!

You have any secrets? How'd you like them publicized?

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

@heropsycho
Re:war on terror as religious crusade
dismiss, ignore, ignore, deny, dismiss. You're not going to dismiss/deny the other two examples?

Re:Obama and Christianity
Obama claims to be Christian, that's the standard you use for Breivik.

Re:Obama is not intentionally trying to kill civilians
False. It's accepted collateral damage. Raining down hellfire missiles leveling apartment buildings, assassinating entire wedding parties, etc. is terrorism.

Re:Terror bombings in Tripoli
Sorry, everything we are doing in Libya violates U.S. and international law. It's irrelevant what the mission is. Bombing civilian areas and doing fly-overs for hours is done for one purpose: to incite fear into the civilian population i.e. terrorism

Re:"It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large."
It's pretty silly you believe that garbage.

Re:Extreme progressives
So you admit that "progressive" is just another hollow label? What's the difference between regular progressives and "extreme progressives" say...5 years ago? There wasn't. But now it's progressive to illegally bomb other countries.

Thanks for making my point.

"Remember kids, when peddling BS, be wise and safe about it!"

Seriously though, this man of all people should know he's spouting bs. "No one ever spoke that way", eh? Siddhārtha Gautama is from India, Ravi, and one of the only ways in which his message does not anticipate that of Jesus is the lack of all that hellfire, eternal damnation and "you're either with me or against me" crap that Jesus introduced (and I won't mention all the Greek philosophers whose ideas were far more sophisticated than the carpenter's).

Sorry Ravi, but the Jeebs character, like all good tyrants, has two sides to his message: the stick and the carrot. Apologists today have simply put the stick behind their backs, now that centuries of beating humanity with it have borne its fruits.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

Jehovah's Witnesses are rather nice. Growing up, when I was dragged along by my mother to 100 different sects, all but one repulsed me. And that was the Witnesses.

The problem for them is that they have no allies whatsoever. They preach true love (Even to their enemies) and staying away from government because it is all corrupt (They even prohibit voting.) So other Christians hate them and make fun of them (And spread lies on the internet about them.)

They don't do holidays or other "fun" stuff. So most common people disdain them.

They are very serious about their religion. Which means non-believers disdain them as cultish.

More things they do/don't believe.

They do believe that the woman is a guidance for her husband and that the husband is head of the house. He should respect, lead, treasure and provide for his wife. They do believe in loving everyone. They take back members as many times as that member shows effort to live a wholesome life. But they won't tolerate drugs, violence, etc... They do believe homosexuality is a sin (Which is about the only thing they are truly ignorant on.)

They don't believe God will burn you in hellfire, or that you are too far to save. They don't promote backstabbing, loose morals or lies (How uncool is that?) They don't yell and speak in tongues, jump around or poke dolls.

In many ways they are a very good religions group hpqp, from those I met. They saved my mother's life when she should have been dead years ago from suffering. They gave her hope. And the fact that they are mocked actually makes me mad. It seems the truer you are to "Christ" the less respected you become. Ironic.

And yes, they are mostly elderly folk. However, a large number are youthful, powerful builds that are carpenters, artisians, etc. And their younger women are very attractive too.

>> ^hpqp:
I think the Buddhism you like is the philosophy. As for the Jehovah's witnesses, ugh. From what I've gleaned off the interwebs (in only a few minutes, so I could be wrong), they seem to wait for you to grow old and senile, then suck you dry (If I were you I'd keep an eye on my mother). Moreover, people who work their whole lives for the "brotherhood" apparantly get no social security, often work voluntarily for no wages, and are left hanging when they get old.
About their publishing market: http://www.freeminds.org/organization/business/how-the-watchtower-was-financed-pre-1990.html
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
But I will upvote this on one condition hp. Religion is far different than organized religion and "other" religions. Buddhisim (My pref) is nowhere near a money pit. I doubt Hinduism is either. Amish? Jehovah's Witnesses? (My mother's prefs and damn close to a loving fellowship. They are pretty meek believe it or not.)
Change the title a bit to reflect that and I will hit that blue arrow faster than you can say "Rich on pastor."
Ps.
I don't believe anyone should have tax deductions...not since money can be "funneled" around.

@bareboards2

The Jeebs character definitely made some interesting points about love, compassion and charity (it is suggested he got some of these from Buddhism), and ideas of social reform that could almost qualify him as proto-socialist. But the view of all-good all-loving Jeebs that moderate Christians are raised with today is a relatively recent phenomenon, with its roots in the deistic revisions of the Bible and Christian doctrine that began with the Enlightenment.

Having been raised in an evangelical cult, I know the Bible quite well, and can assure you that Jeebs is not all good. For one, the invention of eternal torture and hell is his invention (cf self-quote below); some of his parables are terribly authoritarian (e.g. Lk 19:11-27); he is divisive ("you're either with me or against me","I come not to bring peace but a sword", etc...) and even his treatment of women comes off as condescending at times, albeit much better than the patriarchal misogyny of the OT and St Paul (one example: he doesn't allow Mary to touch him after resurrecting, but allows Thomas (Jn 20:17-27).

I understand the urge to see Jeebs in a purely positive light though, heck, even my favourite poet (Percy Shelley), an avowed atheist and antitheist, tried to project Jesus in his (Shelley's) own image, i.e. as a humanist social reformer.

>> ^hpqp:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman (quoting doesn't work)
Eternal damnation and hellfire are inventions of the character of Jesus (some of the more explicit examples: Mt. 10:28, Mt. 25:41, Mt. 25:46, Mk 9:47-48, Lk 10:15, Lk. 12:5, etc., not counting all the parables where "bad fruit/branches" are cast into "unquenchable fire").
One main point of departure between Christianity and Judaism is hell.
Some good online tools for Bible "study":
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Hunchback of Notre Dame- Hellfire. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

edit: html's not working, so this looks like crap. sorry, i'm too tired to rearrange right now.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
You repeated his speaking points and provided no evidence to support them and then insinuated that I know nothing of Islam's teachings to boot. You've clearly learned from your teachers (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) quite well.
Show me some evidence please that shows that Islamic followers are more likely to cause harm to fellow human beings than others. By evidence I mean an empirical study that controls for other factors that include but are not limited to: education, income, regional cultural factors (other than religion), and local political systems (or lack thereof as the case may be, for example in countries such as Somalia).
And no, you didn't correct that for me. It doesn't matter their stated reasons for committing the violence. People who resort to violence do so for a complex array of reasons. I dispute the notion that people commit violence soley "because of their religion" any more than school shootings occur "because kids play violent video games."