In your opinion, how many Muslims want America destroyed?

I wonder how people come up with the idea that God supported Totalitarianism or
Communism? Maybe that's what they were told. They certainly didn't learn it from
the Bible.

 

The one thing I will comment on that issue you raised (abortion) is that since the magic "soul" has not been proven scientifically AT ALL (it was just invented to explain the absurdity of a dead body magically surviving and getting to "heaven" some how), that an 8-cell zygote (supposedly has a "soul") is at that point clearly not the same as a fully developed human. An 8-MONTH old fetus certainly is very similar to a fully developed human, however, I believe. There is a difference.

There is no "soul". I have no soul. [Wait, that doesn't quite sound the way I intended it ]
[Modern Secular Humanists have no soul.....THERE, I beat you to it, since I knew you'd say that! ]

 

I'm glad that the United States isn't a democracy. I don't wish a democracy upon
anybody.

 

The "Kingdom" of god, and god supported monarchies/kings, and he was also too stupid to advocate democracy. Uh, that's because it's clearly NOT from an all-knowing entity, but rather from barbarians who thought killing gays was a pretty good idea (the bible says so), and who didn't know where the sun went at night. Contrast those idiots to the Nobel Prize winners in science that MSH looks up to....huge difference.

- - - Updated - - -

How would you define the US form of gov't, then?

 

Correct, I don't understand an entity so incredibly stupid that they would wipe out virtually all humans, and even virtually all innocent baby animals (the savage!), because THEY made a mistake (an all-knowing god would KNOW how it would turn out!) in "designing" the world so poorly as to need to kill virtually everybody. Just come down and tell everbody to behave, and don't kill them all even if they didn't! God/Jesus makes Aabott/Costello look like Nobel Prize winners. (This is if the "flood" were true, as is claimed, that is.)

 

Interestingly, that's the same way people believe in absurd religions - they were just TOLD that by their parents, as impressionable young children, so it's hard for them to eventually see that the world doesn't work the way their Bible says it does (the earth is not flat, nor does the sun revolve around the earth, etc.)

If you were in Jesus' shoes, would you have taken a mere 15 seconds out of your 33 year life and simply said "write this down, the Torah got it wrong, the sun does not revolve around the earth". Would you have, Prunepicker? Dawkins not only would have done that, but would have probably gone down the old texts verse by verse and told them how terrible wrong parts of it were. Would you?
Jesus doesn't sound too bright, when you look at it that way.

 

Good Grief talk about:
here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/terrorism-security/2015/0113/How-many-Muslim-extremists-are-there-Just-the-facts-please

Maybe you will believe them?

 

Apparently he doesn't see the overall, over-arching moral problem with the defense of the Bible that he wrote in that reply.

 

"Brigitte Gabriel claims the 15-25 percent of the world's Muslims are plotting attacks in the West." She's wrong, and you and I both agree on that.

However, Harris' 20% figure (which is virtually the same as Garbriel's figure), is talking about Jihadists and Jihadist sympathizers (but not Muslims actively plotting attacks), so it's a much more accurate statement than Gabriel's statement. Yes, 20% of Muslims are Jihadist sympathizers.

You are mistaken in your belief that Islam is a peaceful religion: 36 per cent of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death. [DEATH! Talk about extremists!] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/16/religion.anglicanism

 

No argument with you on that thought. I was merely going with the flow to see where the stream was going to.

 

You're being elusive. So let me ask you directly, When does Freedom Seeker believe an unborn human, fetus, zygote or whatever you label it become "human enough" to have the same rights as a typical human being that is alive and out of the womb?

Is there a exact time, say 10 weeks, or 6 months, or when it starts to develop a brain, or are their rights only based upon what the mother thinks?

 

Well, looking at the definitions and specifically #'s 4 and 5, one will see a conflict. One talks about "4. Majority rule." which outweighs the rights of the individual and the other talks about "
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community." It is IMHO a big sick joke.

 

Yes, because no "soul" exists, it's not the easiest question to answer, so I say let the people in that democracy decide on this issue...that's my policy decision regarding abortion. When it's old enough to survive on its own if it was removed from the womb, so it is not 100% dependent upon the mother, might be a starting point, a compromise point, in that discussion.

 

Excuse me, but give me even ONE nation, tribe or indigenous group that didn't have slavery or some system of servants/masters back before 1,000 years ago.

And again, please give me ONE nation, tribe or indigenous group that was more free and had greater individual rights before America did in 1776?

So what people held the moral high ground before 1776?

 

Since aborted fetuses allegedly go directly to the "good" invisible magic place in the sky (as opposed to the "bad" one, you know, the one that god is too immoral to eliminate), shouldn't we just abort lots and lots of babies to GUARANTEE that they get to the good place, since if they survive and lead a normal life there is absolutely no guarantee they'll get to the good place, and might end up being burned alive in the bad place (until Jesus finds his compassion and decides to change to a no-torture policy)?

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly - so why use a book written by those barbarians for moral guidance TODAY!?

 

Too bad Jesus was too stupid to simply tell us about democracy or it wouldn't have taken a whopping 1776 years after his death to achieve that milestone! PAUL would have been the first George Washington, if he'd done that. Talk about a missed opportunity!

 

Explain why Hawking is so stupid that he has found himself confined to a wheelchair? Not as smart as he would like to think himself to be huh? Is the scientific community so stupid that they cannot remedy the problem Hawking has? Hawking is not representing any democracy.

 

Wow. Just....wow.

 

I'll make you a deal, when "god" stops caring for geckos, starfish, etc. more than for humans (he refuses to regrow limbs of human amputees, but of course has the ability to do so as evidence by those animals he obviously cares for more) THEN we'll talk about how much science folks care about people versus how much "god" cares about people, okay?

 

The real question should be: why is the "all-knowing, all-powerful" JESUS steadfastly refusing to give us the cure for ALS!? Does he just enjoy watching people get doused with water?

Let me ask you: if you were all-knowing and all-caring, would YOU give us the cure for ALS, and thereby cure Hawking? Would you? I would, and I bet Richard Dawkins would give his right you-know-what to get the cure out if he had it.

 

You would be better served in asking Him (Jesus), I might give a wrong answer. Hypothetical questions can only achieve a finding of hypothetical answers. So, my hypothetical answer would be: it depends on the belief of the individual. I could hypothetically care less what Richard Dawkins would do. You are merely speculating on what he would do. So in order to accurately ascertain what Dawkins would do, perhaps you should send him an e-mail or snail mail or even give him a phone call and get the answer straight from his mouth as opposed to you or me speculating on what he would do?

 

I'm not the one who brought up the subject of Jesus being "so stupid"... so place the blame where the blame should be placed. All I did was create a similar scenario as the other poster did. Did my questions impose on some sentimental attachments?

- - - Updated - - -

Those are expressions of emotional movement and have nothing to do with the topic of this thread or about democracy or about Jesus or about Hawking.

 

I see (?).

Anyway, say you were a man and your "seed", your unborn child that was 3 months old---was hit with a bat and killed by a thug during an assault on the mother. Assuming you had some positive emotional ties with the mother and unborn pre-human fetus---would you demand the thug be guilty of some crime for killing your seed?

 

I think a small percent, groups like ISIS are 100%

but I think many would not care, like many Christians would not care if Muslims were destroyed and they were the only religion left standing

.

 

I would make the punishment for forced abortion against the mothers will the same as murder, which is what that would be....

.