Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure. I just think certain things would be in VERY poor taste.
If he wanted to build a giant dick scupture corn-holing a nun, I agree. But a Mosque is just another place of worship; no more offensive than a Mormon church.
Taking into account the nut-jobs in NYC, he should keep his insurance on the building in order.
Originally posted by Robtard
If he wanted to build a giant dick scupture corn-holing a nun, I agree. But a Mosque is just another place of worship; no more offensive than a Mormon church.Taking into account the nut-jobs in NYC, he should keep his insurance on the building in order.
Originally posted by King Kandy
How soon we have forgotten the Oklahoma bombing and others. The 2nd most brutal terrorist act in US history and was carried out by a christian.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Look up the christian identity movement. Mcveigh and other nuts, I would say they are as dangerous as radical muslims.
inimalist and I argued about that, for several posts. Tim said he was closer to agnostic or atheist, but his actions, associations, and literature were all Christian Identity movement type shit.
So, it depends on which side of the hair you'd like to split. Technically, the OKC bombing was not a Christian terrorist attack. But, IMO, it's no worse than a 3rd party siding with the Montagues and then killing a Capulet. Sure, they weren't a Montague...but they still sided with them...and even idolized their Anti-Capulet Treatise.
Originally posted by King Kandy
A church, in and of itself is just a building. If we want to totally ignore the message it would send, he should build the giant dick. However if we care about the message, building a church is pretty much like saying muslims aren't welcome in the US.
😆
How about skipping the dick and make it a big ol' boobie, instead? How doesn't like boobies?
Originally posted by King Kandy
A church, in and of itself is just a building. If we want to totally ignore the message it would send, he should build the giant dick. However if we care about the message, building a church is pretty much like saying muslims aren't welcome in the US.
Bit of a stretch, don't you think? The Church = No Muslims.
Originally posted by Robtard
Bit of a stretch, don't you think? The Church = No Muslims.
Its not a not stretch because that would be the implication. Until the 20th century most churches around the world didn't allow Muslims to step foot in them. Bush even used the word "Crusade" to refer to the invasion of Iraq. A church at Ground Zero would be reinforcing an Us-against-Them mentality, and would be like saying "You lost, but we're still here".
Watch, if a church is erected by Ground Zero I'm sure unhappy American Muslims would be on the news. And they would have a legit beef too. Just like the Hindus in Sri Lanka who hate the name of the country because it implies its a Buddhist state and that the Tamils aint welcome.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its not a not stretch because that would be the implication. Until the 20th century most churches around the world didn't allow Muslims to step foot in them. Bush even used the word "Crusade" to refer to the invasion of Iraq. A church at Ground Zero would be reinforcing an Us-against-Them mentality, and would be like saying "You lost, but we're still here".Watch, if a church is erected by Ground Zero I'm sure unhappy American Muslims would be on the news. And they would have a legit beef too. Just like the Hindus in Sri Lanka who hate the name of the country because it implies its a Buddhist state and that the Tamils aint welcome.
20th century kicked off over a hundred years ago. Last I heard, mainstream churches are open to anyone. Bush's use of words is what it is, propaganda; he's gone now.
Oh, I'm sure there would be a bunch of jabbering Muslims complaining, just like the non-Muslims who would get upset at a Mosque going up; their complaints would be stupid too.
I'd hate the landowner to not be able to build what he wishes, but considering the retards in America, the city should just deny the permit to construct any house of worship. Maybe build a donut-shop, everybody likes those.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
They'll regret it soon since suicide pretty much has people thrown down into the fiery pits of you-know-where. That whole "kill yourself and be surrounded by virgin women in Heaven" is just a label to make people want to kill themselves without having a second thought. Funny where lust can get you.
They have as much chance as being right as you do.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
They have as much chance as being right as you do.
Not really, many more religions and philosophical thoughts claim that the punishment for suicide and murder is hell, or an equivalent form of punishment, than the one strand of Islam that preaches suicide bombing in the 9/11 instance.
So really, the Islamic "extremists" are taking a big risk in a manner of speaking!
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavMore people believing in something doesn't increase the chance of it being right.
Not really, many more religions and philosophical thoughts claim that the punishment for suicide and murder is hell, or an equivalent form of punishment, than the one strand of Islam that preaches suicide bombing in the 9/11 instance.So really, the Islamic "extremists" are taking a big risk in a manner of speaking!
As an Athiest I believe both scenarios are equally unlikely.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
More people believing in something doesn't increase the chance of it being right.As an Athiest I believe both scenarios are equally unlikely.
So how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is 50/50? If we look at it in terms of options, the Buddhists are right, the Christians are right, the Sikhs are right, the majority of Muslims are right or the single stand of Suicide supporting Muslims are right.
There are many possible eventualities which await the Muslim suicide bomber, many of which might end up in some form of hell but only one would end up with him in Heaven...
I don't think your religious stance is really relevant. I would say, that assuming there is an after life, the chance of him going to heaven with virgins is more unlikely than him ending up in hell. Since the muslim's scenario is so specific whereas hell could be involved in countless possible eventualities.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavMy point is that to me both ideas seem to be very unlikely... So unlikely they are basically negligible (Hence the Atheism).
So how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is 50/50? If we look at it in terms of options, the Buddhists are right, the Christians are right, the Sikhs are right, the majority of Muslims are right or the single stand of Suicide supporting Muslims are right.There are many possible eventualities which await the Muslim suicide bomber, many of which might end up in some form of hell but only one would end up with him in Heaven...
I don't think your religious stance is really relevant. I would say, that assuming there is an after life, the chance of him going to heaven with virgins is more unlikely than him ending up in hell. Since the muslim's scenario is so specific whereas hell could be involved in countless possible eventualities.
Therefor they are as likely as eachother....
And as an additonal point: More people believing in something doesn't increase the chance of it being correct. If 99% of people believed that humans didn't need to breathe... humans would still need to breathe.
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
That's the problem 😛 Because America stands for freedom and respect for diversity it can easily be taken advantage of. And I believe that's exactly what's going on here.
yeah god forbid we should actually uphold our own values and respect people of all different faiths. don't you people realize that freedom and diversity are supposed to be reserved for AMERICANS (christians, jews, and atheists who celebrate christmas). We can't have muslims taking advantage of how nice and respectful we are (because obviously americans are so respectful of minorities as evidenced by Admiral Akbar)
ok, so the sarcasm ends here.
The whole problem with this situation is the type of response that i just quoted. Whether or not a mosque is built doesn't matter. On the one hand, I somehow feel opposed to any religious building being built there. As we are not a religious nation (supposedly) we should not have a religious building commemorating a national tragedy. However, I feel that the reason there has been so much backlash against the building of a mosque is caused by people's specific dislike and fear of the islamic community. If there had been plans to build a church instead, we would not be having this discussion. While i believe that there never should have been any plans to build a mosque in the first place, to oppose it now would clearly demonstrate a hatred and fear of muslims and create (or i should say reinforce) a religious hierarchy in the united states in which the judeo christian faiths are placed above others.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
My point is that to me both ideas seem to be very unlikely... So unlikely they are basically negligible (Hence the Atheism).Therefor they are as likely as eachother....
And as an additonal point: More people believing in something doesn't increase the chance of it being correct. If 99% of people believed that humans didn't need to breathe... humans would still need to breathe.
We're not talking about what people believe we are talking about potential eventualities after death. Whether anyone believes in it or not doesn't really matter.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
We're not talking about what people believe we are talking about potential eventualities after death. Whether anyone believes in it or not doesn't really matter.
The likelihood that after your death you will be greeted in some sort of heaven by a bunch of virgins if you behave a specific way, happens to be the exact same likelihood that after your death you will be thrown into a pit of fire if you behave a specific way.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The likelihood that after your death you will be greeted in some sort of heaven by a bunch of virgins if you behave a specific way, happens to be the exact same likelihood that after your death you will be thrown into a pit of fire if you behave a specific way.
Well, it is possible that he will get to heaven with the virgins because of his suicide bombing. However it is also possible he will go to hell for his suicide and murder. It is also possible he will be reincarnated as a slug for his actions. It is possible nothing will happen. It is possible he will go to heaven but not because of his actions.
All are equally likely, but for the 1 possible eventuality the Muslim suicide bomber hopes for there are hundreds of other equally likely possibility...therefore the odds are against him getting what he wants.
If I'm totally wrong and am missing out some basic mathematical principle then I of course retract what I'm saying. But i think it makes sense. For example, if I get on a plane, it is equally likely that I will land in France as it is I will land in Peru. However, there is a very high probability that I will arrive in a country that is not France.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, it is possible that he will get to heaven with the virgins because of his suicide bombing. However it is also possible he will go to hell for his suicide and murder. It is also possible he will be reincarnated as a slug for his actions. It is possible nothing will happen. It is possible he will go to heaven but not because of his actions.All are equally likely, but for the 1 possible eventuality the Muslim suicide bomber hopes for there are hundreds of other equally likely possibility...therefore the odds are against him getting what he wants.
If I'm totally wrong and am missing out some basic mathematical principle then I of course retract what I'm saying. But i think it makes sense. For example, if I get on a plane, it is equally likely that I will land in France as it is I will land in Peru. However, there is a very high probability that I will arrive in a country that is not France.
Oh you are right that the odds of him getting what he wants are likely much slimmer than not getting what he wants.
However initially you were talking about the odds of him going to hell vs. the odds of him getting what he wants, which are pretty similar, really.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh you are right that the odds of him getting what he wants are likely much slimmer than not getting what he wants.However initially you were talking about the odds of him going to hell vs. the odds of him getting what he wants, which are pretty similar, really.
Well if we consider there are more possible eventualities that would lead him to hell than there are to Heaven with Virgins....