If religion isn't a motivator for violence...

Is this what atheist rationalism and pacifism looks like?
lol.
say anything you like, I'm not showing my boobs again.

unlike the pacifist atheists, no doubt.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -- GK Chesterton

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you show me your boobs, I promise I will convert to your faith.

That doesn't make sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's non-serquitus.

Most theist have to look it up!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The same parts never under theists influence - there aren't any.

" If they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith."

And the language says, "kill them" - and we are to assume those who are angry and without hope can discern when someone is fighting them. Of course, they can't.

No, it means people like you who sit idly by defending their actions on science forums rather than doing something about it.

These conflicts have gone on for generations, back when there were no oil contracts.

So, the footage released by terrorists is manipulated by the media?

Religion creates the thought and decision making processes in which theists abide and which rule their lives. Of course, like all theists, they only glean that which serves their purposes.

 

I already showed them once.

Too bad you missed it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just that those who play the religion and violence card (apropos Dawkins) lack-

1. an understanding of human nature
2. a knowledge of theology
3. an understanding of the reason for conflicts in society
4. an understanding of the role of religion in shaping morality

Here's another one of my favorites:
"Everything, however men may deem it assured and evident, proves, when it is brought under discussion to be no less doubtful than are extravagant and absurd beliefs".Giordano Bruno

 

Do you mean non-sequiturs?

Or is this a word from the atheists dictionary?

 

So your assertion that of the relationship between religion and violence is based on correlation between the presence of theism and the presence of violence?

Hmm

Homer: "There's not a single bear in sight -- the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm."

Lisa: "That's specious reasoning."

Homer: "Thanks, honey."

Lisa: "According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away."

Homer: "Hmmm. How does it work?"

Lisa: "It doesn't."

Homer: "How so?"

Lisa: "It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Makes as much “rational” sense as your assertion.

Is that all it says?

Don’t presume to know what I do or do not do.

Yes right back to the neoliths

There is the truth and there is the WHOLE truth.

Unlike atheists who never select for what suits their rhetoric?

 

Yea! that one...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW I type 60wpm, a typo is comon!

Did you have to look it up?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(absurdism)

Sounds just like religion don't it?


Godless

 

let's see logical=rational
fallacy=A misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.

Sounds like atheism to me.

 

The reasoning behind atheism is lack of proof to believe otherwise. Can you get around that one samcdkey? All you have is self-generated.

 

Oh I'm all for freedom of choice. Believing in God is not a given.

There is a verse in the Rig Ved-

ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti
Truth is One, but sages call it by many names

and everyone has the right to define the truth as they see fit.


However, claiming that your (non)belief is superior to someone else's faith, when you cannot prove it either way, only indicates to me intolerance and arrogance.

 

(non)belief is superior because that's where the evidence has led us. If there was a mobile phone video clip of mohammaed flying to heaven on a winged horse of fire (or whatever it was) then I might just believe in it.

Call it being intolerant or arrogant, but religious beliefs are stupid. And just because I can not disprove them, or disprove the flying spaghetti monster, does not mean their possible existence is equal to their possible non-existence. It's not 50/50.

 

OJ was known to exist. A crime was known to take place.

At least there are two things to work with there. But religion makes hundreds of far-fetched claims that are based from nothing. And you believe it? Why? Are you that gullible?

 

Ad hominem, Kenny

And truly, its none of your business

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I know it's none of my business. If only everyone was so secrative of their religion.

 

Its not secretive, just unnecessary.

 

Now all you have to do is show us why theism is "logical & rational"

Good luck!

Fallacy:

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.

The atheist according to the above descriptune is not in fallacy. Unless of course an atheist were to assert that: (A god does not exist!) In that occasion, the atheist assumes the burden of proof. However to my knowledge, atheism means "lack of belief in god" thus what this emplies is since there's no "evidence" that you can show otherwise, we lack belief in theistic assertions!. Atheism is without religion Sam, don't get confused.

The Premises of Atheism

I think most atheist would agree with the above.

Godless

 

Where did you get the genetic fallacy?
lol

Non Sequitur
Noun
A reply that has no relevance to what preceded it.(i.e. a logical fallacy)

Just in case:

Premise
Noun
A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn

and

Belief
Noun
A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

and

Atheism
A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Premise: there is no evidence of God
Conclusion: lack of belief in existence of God
Logical fallacy: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

i.e. non sequitur

PS I don't have to "prove" anything (see definition of belief)
lol

 

sammy:
"Premise: there is no evidence of God"( correct)
"Conclusion: lack of belief in existence of God"( yes lack of believe, not absolutely no belief, it is infantile to say there is no god, we can not possibly be sure, but it is irrational to say there is one, without corroborating evidence.
therefore there cannot be any logical fallacy,)
Logical fallacy: absence of evidence is evidence of absence."(wrong: absence of evidence, is simple absence of evidence.)