Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29821 Dec 6, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> 71 per one hundred thousand to 715 per one hundred thousand....I don't know dude, what do you think?
Again, I am asking you what you think.I am not even sure what the stat is about, as you did not say.

I have stated several times our drug laws are draconian and cause more problems than they fix. Not sure of their laws, so I am asking you what policies are contributing to the situation there? Your vague posts just confuse me.

Also, I think religion has much to do with it, religion has a lot to do with draconian drug laws.
One must look at the root problem to find solutions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29822 Dec 6, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?
As I claimed, religion suppresses women.

And yes, information is key. This is why I urge you to discuss your own beliefs of god. You see, every religious person feels his faith is not of harm. So when you call out Islam, you may wish to consider they will not listen to you, as you will not listen to me about faith. Set an example or just look hypocritical.

Note the Christians here that have been claiming Christianity does not suppress women. Well the Muslims might just feel the same about their treatment of women. It is all denial.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29823 Dec 6, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?
Maybe their Koran says something like the bibles passage about not allowing women to teach.
If you think about it, they are just following their religion more strictly than many modern Christians.
And no, that is not good to do.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29824 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I feel it was religion foremost. The Saudi Muslims were brainwashed by blind belief in god, that martyrdom would be rewarded in the afterlife.
They believed America was infringing upon their religious lifestyle, which the Koran demands one must fight to the death to keep.
We are infidels in their eyes.
Without the religious belief, they would be far less likely to have done what they did. Religion is the tool for war, and this is a perfect example. Ignore and deny it at your peril.
The bible speaks of war for martyrdom also. It commands one to kill infidels also. And many did all throughout history, in the Judeo/Christian gods name. It is claimed in the bible and documented in the history books. It is still happening in Africa today. The lords resistance army.
So when Christians deny 9/11 had anything to do with religion, it reeks of protectionism of their own faith.
If you do not understand the problem, you will never be able to find solutions for them.
Promoting blind faith only emboldens and justifies them. Protecting religion from scrutiny is part of the problem. This is why I speak out on religion. So when I see you guys run from the scrutiny, it shows me why we have a problem.
I have no doubt the 9/11 terrorists also refused to debate their beliefs.
Mike, I did a little research and pardon the fact that I can't post any links because I had two power outages within a few minutes and lost the name of the sites.

I wrote this one down there, out of the history of wars the total given was 1763 only 123 were because of religious beliefs and this would be 6.98%. This can be found in Philips and Axelrod's 3 Volume Encylopedia of Wars. I also went to a site by an athiest and while writing down his statistics I had another power outage and didn't get his name . He stated or "ceded" that his statistics are closer to 16% of wars being because of religion. I didn't get a chance to read either sites' opinion of 9/11. However today as I was the news regarding the lunatic in Syria threatening to nerve gas his own people, I haven't heard anything about religion mentioned. Not saying that's not the reason, just saying I haven't heard it as a reason.

IMO, 9/11 had little to do with religion and more to do with them being pissed at the U.S. I never heard the attack on the WTC was motivated by religion. I think we would be foolish to disregard there are power, money hungry dictators that are willing to start wars and kill to acquire power, money and land. For example, if the Castro brothers started a war (as if), I know they don't give two hoots in hell about religion, it would be about power and monetary gain. Don't be so quick to blame everything on religion because there are just flat out evil people in this world and they kill or war for a cause bigger than some god they claim to worship.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29825 Dec 6, 2012
TSF wrote:
Possibly typical but not all inclusive. Also , I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict in any way. For instance, I see overwhelming evidence of evolution and do not believe that the theory conflicts with scriptures. If God is all powerful, he can use any process he choses to develop species.
The most misguided human individuals in my estimation, are the ones who claim to know the mind of God and to be in possession of the "only true religion". These folks do more damage to their beliefs than they can ever know. On the opposite end of that extreme are those who deny the possibility of existence of God, or anything else for that matter, just because they have not yet seen proof. The first lesson a scientist has to learn is to keep an open mind and to the extent humanly possible, to exclude personal bias in evaluating evidence/results/data/calculat ions/observations.
<quoted text>
Just so you know, I have never denied the possibility of a god existing. I base my view on the likelihood of a god existing. I withhold belief due to the lack of likelihood.
When I say a specific god is a myth, it is more due to the knowns about the god and evidence against the claims of said god.

For example, the god of the bible is said to have created all "kinds" (as in all species) in one day. Science can show massive amounts of evidence that the different kinds of animals came to be in stages of time, not even close to what the bible claims.

This is why literalist believers claim evolution is false. Now if you wish to claim the bible is of metaphor and not literal, your god is not the god I might be talking about.

Now when you speak of understanding the mind of god, I think it is only human to project what the god may be thinking. Any all powerful god would surely understand this human instinct.
The bible describes what god wants, and thus man will project what the god may think. Just as when you try to understand the mind of your mate.

If you cannot comprehend the mind of your god, then just what are you thinking of your god? What is it you think your god does or wants? I am asking, what is the point of belief in your god, if you do not know what he wants or thinks?

If the bible is of metaphor, then would that not mean it is a guide to how god thinks and thus wants you to act?

BTW, most scientists are agnostic. It is the "open minded" way.
I think technically most atheists are agnostic. Most would be open to the idea a god exist, they just withhold belief until evidence or some better reasoning is produced to show likelihood.

I also think many agnostics are also atheist, as they do not believe in a theistic god, they just remain open to the idea a bit more.
Even prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, when penned down on this, says he is technically agnostic, because he leaves open a .01% chance a god could exist.

So they problem is, the English language is not sufficient in categorizing us to well. I have seen countless debates of the definitions of these terms.

Note, there is no term for the non belief in unicorns. And if one does not see a likelihood they exist, he need not withhold disbelief.

You note scripture, so does that mean you think one source of scripture is more accurate than any others?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29826 Dec 6, 2012
TSF wrote:
I am not sure about the amount of scientific knowledge St Thomas Aquinas had, but his statement reveals that he clearly understood why there is a difference between believers and non believers. The church opposition to science has been brutal in the past to protect dogma, which is much different than religion. Much later, Copernicus was deemed a heretic and a fool because he had the audacity to claim that the Earth was not the center of the Universe and that the Earth was revolving around the Sun. Galileo was convicted as a heretic as a result of confirming the ideas of Corponicus and was only post humanously pardoned by the Catholic Church in 1996. Church adherance to dogma has created the carnage, conflict, injustice, horrors,ignorance , etc. That dogma is not religion.
<quoted text>
Not sure what you feel 'religion' means.
Lets look at this first, because otherwise we are just disputing a word.

Wiki,
Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

The Catholic dogma is of the collection of belief systems, it is a cultural system, and is a worldview......
It fits the description of religion perfectly. So saying it is not religion is just denying the definition of the English language.

Now as I noted about atheism and agnosticism, words do not always describe what we think as fully, so we need to come to some understanding of what your perspective of religion is.

Yes, Aquinas did show the differences in mentalities, but he did so poorly in some respects, as I showed. What I do agree about his statement is, many of the religious do not feel a need for answers to the natural world through science due to the idea they already know the answers due to testimonies of scripture.

I think this is dangerous and ignorant,just ask Copernicus and Galileo.

I cannot understand why a religious person would be proud to claim Aquinas's statement as true.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#29827 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I am asking you what you think.I am not even sure what the stat is about, as you did not say.
I have stated several times our drug laws are draconian and cause more problems than they fix. Not sure of their laws, so I am asking you what policies are contributing to the situation there? Your vague posts just confuse me.
Also, I think religion has much to do with it, religion has a lot to do with draconian drug laws.
One must look at the root problem to find solutions.
I don't know dude.Don't have a computer, so I can't get any further into the stats.I'm"assuming"i ts drug related, as our drug laws are draconian,as you said earlier.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29828 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, I did a little research and pardon the fact that I can't post any links because I had two power outages within a few minutes and lost the name of the sites.
I wrote this one down there, out of the history of wars the total given was 1763 only 123 were because of religious beliefs and this would be 6.98%. This can be found in Philips and Axelrod's 3 Volume Encylopedia of Wars. I also went to a site by an athiest and while writing down his statistics I had another power outage and didn't get his name . He stated or "ceded" that his statistics are closer to 16% of wars being because of religion. I didn't get a chance to read either sites' opinion of 9/11. However today as I was the news regarding the lunatic in Syria threatening to nerve gas his own people, I haven't heard anything about religion mentioned. Not saying that's not the reason, just saying I haven't heard it as a reason.
IMO, 9/11 had little to do with religion and more to do with them being pissed at the U.S. I never heard the attack on the WTC was motivated by religion. I think we would be foolish to disregard there are power, money hungry dictators that are willing to start wars and kill to acquire power, money and land. For example, if the Castro brothers started a war (as if), I know they don't give two hoots in hell about religion, it would be about power and monetary gain. Don't be so quick to blame everything on religion because there are just flat out evil people in this world and they kill or war for a cause bigger than some god they claim to worship.
For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.

I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.

I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.

First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.

One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29829 Dec 6, 2012
Snore wrote:
<quoted text>Imo, it's pointless to "debate" with Mike on any front, ESPECIALLY religion. You're wasting your valuable energy on that subject matter. I wonder what the "course" of conversation is during CHRISTMAS feasts are like? I believe Mike is simply addicted to his prejudices period.
Trying to stifle debate on a debate forum?
Contradiction.

Never had a religious debate at a Christmas dinner. Someone asked me last year at the feast if I did not believe in anything(as in a god). I said no, and left it at that.

You see, I try to leave the uncomfortable debates the forums for debate, such as this forum. You see, this is a debate forum, not a pat your buddies on the back forum and coddle the opposition forum. It is a debate forum. Got that? Is this really to hard for you to understand?

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#29830 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to stifle debate on a debate forum?
Contradiction.
Never had a religious debate at a Christmas dinner. Someone asked me last year at the feast if I did not believe in anything(as in a god). I said no, and left it at that.
You see, I try to leave the uncomfortable debates the forums for debate, such as this forum. You see, this is a debate forum, not a pat your buddies on the back forum and coddle the opposition forum. It is a debate forum. Got that? Is this really to hard for you to understand?
It says...this is a"forum".Doesn't say"debate"anywhere.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#29831 Dec 6, 2012
Mike your reasons for insisting that everyone on this forum be hostile to each other eludes me.Mike, I try to talk to people on this forum as if they were sitting across from me.Some of the things you've said to me on this forum.....had you have said them to my face....would have resulted in a physical altercation.I feel as though intelligent people should be able to disagree without being insulting or uncivil.What do you think?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29832 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.
I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.
I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.
First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.
One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.
Mike, Wiki gives differing reasons than you and maybe that's why I'm confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

With that being said, I always thought the attacks were the result of the U.S. not releasing the Blind Sheik, the man that orchestrated the WTC. It's not mind blowing to me that after the attack on the WTC that I would find a correlation between the 9/11 attack and repeated demands for his release because Bin Laden spoke frequently about it.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29833 Dec 6, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>For the record, I never once said all war was of religion, or even close. So I am not sure why you are even arguing this. I do believe many wars are caused by religion, or are at least fuel to prolong wars. I have seen history books that claim more wars were of religious disputes than most historians wish to acknowledge. It is really hard to definitively prove on way or the other.
If you look at the war in Iraq for example, you will see Bush give several different reasons for invasion, at several different times, depending on what was known at the time.
So you can imagine the various historical claims to be made about Iraq down the road.
I am shocked you have never heard the accusation that 9/11 was religious based. I thought at least most people agreed it was a large part of the attack. So to be ignorant of the accusation is mind-blowing.
I will have to do a bit of research to find evidences and claims by the hijackers that show it was religious based.
First, I would like to know why you feel they were so mad at us? I think it is due to our intrusion onto their ways. And the belief of Islam is, all of their ways and traditions are of and for their god. Thus when they feel any intrusion, they are seeing it as an attack on their faith based ways. This is why they use the term 'infidels' to refer to America.
One reason Bin Laden gave for the attack was due to the first gulf war in Iraq. But likely not the way you would think. You see, Bin Laden petitioned Saudi Arabia to allow his(Bin Laden) troops to fight against Saddam for invading Kuwait. Saudi Arabia pushed for the US to invade over Bin Laden. Not sure of all the details on this. Evidently Bin Laden was upset Saddam invaded a sovereign Islamic nation, thus Bin Laden considered him an infidel.
So Bin Laden was Pissed America fought any Muslims in Iraq.
You see, Bin Laden was not upset Saddam was attacked, he was upset due to it being Christians who did it. Thus all about religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O sama_bin_Laden

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

— Osama bin Laden, 2004

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29834 Dec 6, 2012
emlu wrote:
Someone sent me this today in reference to Christmas feasts, I like it....
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather
to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand and wine in the other,
body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"
If you use your body in a healthy way, one can use it longer before the grave comes. And one can likely stay fit enough to do what he wishes even into old age. Long term enjoyment is the option I shoot for. You see, hedonism can come in healthy, moral ways.

Seeing as how I feel this is the only life I will get, I try to make it long and enjoyable. One can enjoy some chocolate and wine in moderation for the best of both worlds.

“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#29835 Dec 6, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> Hate always finds a way there seven....free flow of information is the biggest enemy for muslims....their women are saying hmmmm....why can't I GO TO SCHOOL? WHY CAN'T I DRIVE? Why can't I be a DOCTOR?
exact point of my hatred towards religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29836 Dec 6, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
— Osama bin Laden, 2004
And "our people" likely means "Islamic people" as we can see from so much Bin Laden has said. Trying to separate the two is to ignore so many of his statements.

“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#29837 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Work two more years and you may learn the difference in grammar and spelling. I questioned your spelling, not your grammar.
spelling is a part of grammar, please i was a honors student in literature.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_spelling_conside...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29838 Dec 6, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."
— Osama bin Laden, 2004
Also from the same site.

According to former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[48] condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are."
Bin Laden also said only the restoration of Sharia law would "set things right" in the Muslim world, and that alternatives such as "pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy" must be opposed.[49] This belief, in conjunction with violent jihad, has sometimes been called Qutbism after being promoted by Sayyid Qutb.[50] Bin Laden believed that Afghanistan, under the rule of Mullah Omar's Taliban, was "the only Islamic country" in the Muslim world.[51] Bin Laden consistently dwelt on the need for violent jihad to right what he believed were injustices against Muslims perpetrated by the United States and sometimes by other non-Muslim states,[52] the need to eliminate the state of Israel, and the necessity of forcing the United States to withdraw from the Middle East. He also called on Americans to "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury", in an October 2002 letter.[53]

So it looks as if Bin Laden felt America was attacking Islamic people and thus retaliated. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. Thus religious based.

Of course, religious or not, one in this region may have seen a need to attack America, but it was all so easy to do when people of blind faith feel it is about an attack of their god, and one would be rewarded in heaven for attacking.

This is the case in many wars. As I noted, the bible has many stories of Moses and his men attacking nations for similar ideals.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#29839 Dec 6, 2012
As your clarified perspective is not denial but based on your estimation of probability, I agree that is acceptable logic in terms of scientific thinking. Incidentally, Galileo and Newton were very religious persons but disconnected from the church dogma. My perception of religion is belief in and connection with God. I regard dogma as the representation of laws and ordinances imposed upon others by church organizations for the purpose of protecting the organization and forcing the assimilation of membership. The remarkable thing about humans is the widespread belief in God, whether that God would be Budda, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus , etc. That tells me that billions of human persons feel a connection to a God, and that connection is what I regard as religion. That connection is what I think St Thomas Aquinas was talking about when he said believers need no explaination and that no explaination is possible for non believers. An example would be the story of non believer Paul on the road to Damascus
when he was blinded for three days by a flash of perception. Afterwards, no explaination was necessary to him. Its kind of like studying fruitlessly for days to understand a complex mathematical theorum and being on the verge of giving up continuing to try, when suddenly, you understand and realize that it was actually simple to begin with. I am not trying to change your mind about God. I am just relating to you kind of what to expect when/if it happens to you.
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Just so you know, I have never denied the possibility of a god existing. I base my view on the likelihood of a god existing. I withhold belief due to the lack of likelihood.
When I say a specific god is a myth, it is more due to the knowns about the god and evidence against the claims of said god.
For example, the god of the bible is said to have created all "kinds" (as in all species) in one day. Science can show massive amounts of evidence that the different kinds of animals came to be in stages of time, not even close to what the bible claims.
This is why literalist believers claim evolution is false. Now if you wish to claim the bible is of metaphor and not literal, your god is not the god I might be talking about.
Now when you speak of understanding the mind of god, I think it is only human to project what the god may be thinking. Any all powerful god would surely understand this human instinct.
The bible describes what god wants, and thus man will project what the god may think. Just as when you try to understand the mind of your mate.
If you cannot comprehend the mind of your god, then just what are you thinking of your god? What is it you think your god does or wants? I am asking, what is the point of belief in your god, if you do not know what he wants or thinks?
If the bible is of metaphor, then would that not mean it is a guide to how god thinks and thus wants you to act?
BTW, most scientists are agnostic. It is the "open minded" way.
I think technically most atheists are agnostic. Most would be open to the idea a god exist, they just withhold belief until evidence or some better reasoning is produced to show likelihood.
I also think many agnostics are also atheist, as they do not believe in a theistic god, they just remain open to the idea a bit more.
Even prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, when penned down on this, says he is technically agnostic, because he leaves open a .01% chance a god could exist.
So they problem is, the English language is not sufficient in categorizing us to well. I have seen countless debates of the definitions of these terms.
Note, there is no term for the non belief in unicorns. And if one does not see a likelihood they exist, he need not withhold disbelief.
You note scripture, so does that mean you think one source of scripture is more accurate than any others?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29840 Dec 6, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, Wiki gives differing reasons than you and maybe that's why I'm confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...
With that being said, I always thought the attacks were the result of the U.S. not releasing the Blind Sheik, the man that orchestrated the WTC. It's not mind blowing to me that after the attack on the WTC that I would find a correlation between the 9/11 attack and repeated demands for his release because Bin Laden spoke frequently about it.
Wiki states their were various reasons given, and experts postulate on them.
This is also from the site you posted.

..On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim..."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

Some middle-east scholars like Michael Scott Doran and Peter Bergen have argued that 9/11 was a strategic way to provoke America into a war that incites a pan-Islamist revolution.
Michael Scott Doran argued that the attacks are best understood as being part of a religious conflict within the Muslim world. In an essay, Doran argued that Bin Laden's followers: "consider themselves an island of true believers surrounded by a sea of iniquity".[17] Doran further argued that bin Laden hoped U.S. retaliation would unite the faithful against the West, sparking revolutions in Arab nations and elsewhere; and that the Osama bin Laden videos were attempting to provoke a visceral reaction in the Middle East aimed at a violent reaction by Muslim citizens to increased U.S. involvement in their region.[18]
Correspondent Peter Bergen argued that the attacks were part of a plan to cause the United States to increase its military and cultural presence in the Middle East, thereby forcing Muslims to confront the idea of a non-Muslim government and establish conservative Islamic governments in the region.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_...

As you likely know, wiki does not go to great depths on many things. Something this large is complex. To summarize it into a wiki page would leave out massive amounts of the story.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Warne Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cracker barrel 1 hr Wake up 13
Poll Do you think women with hairy armpits are ok (Jan '09) Aug 28 NemO 545
How long before mafia controls Cherokee Co? Aug 28 NemO 7
Help wanted. Sales in Charlotte Aug 28 NemO 2
Location questions. Aug 27 Abc 1
Is it reasonable for a trained officer ........ Aug 26 Nemo 4
Why are Southerners rude in action, but pretend... (Jan '13) Aug 26 Nemo 250
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Warne Mortgages