In the News Another London Attack, England Hit Again.

Their oil is not infinite. it will probably deplete soon.

Theres even people DEFENDING them with the argument "its their culture"

 

At these rate, we'll run out of oil in 52 years. That's 52 years of damage done to the world through human rights, terrorism and war.

 

I don't buy at all to cultural relativism; I believe certain cultures are inferior to ours in the west, however.
How do you propose we fix this cultural difference ?

 

1. make a cult
2. indoctrinate everyone we can into the cult
3. Kill anyone who opposes us

...hey wait a minute...

 

lol they all support terrorism now? Qatar doesn't really support terrorism despite what Saudi Arabia said, more like Qatar said "Iran is actually alright", and in the eyes of Saudi Iran are terrorist funders (Which Iran kinda is as they support Hezbollah, who despite being a legitimate party are terrorists in military, but they fight ISIS so it's all cool and good). Also you do realise the current PM of Iraq is supported by the US and they're fighting to reclaim land from ISIS not supporting it. Christ if you're going to be bigoted at least be well informed.

What the fuck do you mean ban them if you don't mean "tourists/etc". Just end foreign relations with one of the countries (Saudi) with the most well funded military in terms of % of GDP in the world? Not to mention trade you'd miss out on.

You do realize most oil imports to the UK are actually from Norway? At 21,206,000 metric tons of crude oil from Norway imported in 2015, compared to 1,465,000 tons from Saudi, which is behind imports from Algeria, Nigeria, and Angola How about m o n e y. Because y'know, they have one of the highest expenditures on military at 13.5% of it's GDP in 2015, so there's a big demand from them for military equipment, which the UK is more than glad to supply for p r o f i t.

And get your facts straight, they don't use guns to kill innocent people, t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶n̶e̶s̶. Real talk though they don't just go killing people willy nilly, because humans rights and such, you only have to be Muslim to be a citizen, you don't have to be a Muslim to visit and do your stuff, nobody's going to threaten you for that, source: been there. If you're being openly homosexual in Saudia Arabia you're doing it wrong, in the same way you wouldn't be openly homosexual in deep redneck south US or wherever the heavily Christian people are.

Yeah gays being bad is part of the Islamic culture, in much the same way it was part of Christianity, all society's advance eventually past religion, it's only reallllly recently that Saudi Arabia became one of the big boys, give em a chance, because y'know, oil, and suddenly it's a super power within 100 years. Countries like the UK have taken a few hundred years to move past being a barbaric monarchy, I expect that in this more modern world Saudi will advance to fit more with modern moral standards much more quickly b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶e̶r̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶u̶r̶e̶.

The government ain't the religious nutjobs really, they just brought in religious reforms to satisfy some religious nutjobs when they seized the grand mosque. The government is quite better equipped to deal with such and event now and the religious police and such are becoming more relaxed. The rich religious nutjobs in Saudi government are the ones funding terrorism, not necessarily the government as a whole.

If you were speaking more generally about oil, that's a pretty edgy statement to make. bcuz yknow, its cool and hipster to denounce dirty fossil fuels, despite how they have fueled rapid economic growth in many countries. Capitalism damages ya human rights, not oil, blame the bourgeoisie. And oil isn't the root cause of war, it's countries being stupid. In a nutshell, the USSR invades Afghanistan because oil, the US supports rebels in Afghanistan because they can't let USSR have precious oil, whoops religious extremist rebels have become a terrorist organisation, guess we'll send in some people of our own to fight them, rather convenient there's oil there too as well.

Edgy. DAE all religion is a cult!!!11!11!! Ecks DEE. (/s). Who knows what you're talking about. Maybe you refer to pretty much the entire history of monarchy in England, whereby speaking out against God would get you hung drawn and quartered and you were taught that the King was the one true leader appointed by God? Or maybe how "communist" rule was established in the USSR, by having a revolution, making it super appealing by industrializing, then secretly getting rid of the people who realize their national living standard is pretty shit actually?

Every ideology goes through this, but that is simply how some people interpret an ideology. Jesus certainly didn't preach slicing anybody who speaks out against God into 4 quarters, and nor did Karl Marx say that the government best represents the proletariat's wishes. These cases don't devalue the entire ideology, it just shows that some people are pretty stupid. As with any ideology, Islam teaches good morals for the most part, and as with any ideology, it has been taken too far in some cases, and again as is often the case with religion, needs some updating in it's policies.

 

actually the joke here was that that's basically what ISIS does; there was no intentional religious commentary besides that. Was that not obvious? We ARE talking about the london terrorist attacks...

 

Eh I was on a bit of a rant there after those other fucks making massive generalisations about middle eastern states, my bad, sorry

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword."
-Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
-Luke 19:27

And I will kill her children with death...
-Revelation 2:23

Reference to my point that religion is a useless tool to one's pursuit of morals that have reasonning behind them.
Metaphors to teach about moral isn't specific to religion nor is religion necessary to evaluate what is good or bad.

However, if Religion isn't necessary to obtain your moral compass, it's certainly a tool for people to do terrible deeds, put oppressive regimes in place, bully others into submission, and justify all of that with vague sacred texts.

There is so many ways you can interpret this :

Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447

Before the explicitness of that statement crashes down on your face. In fact, I'd argue that the most honest believers are the jihadis dying for their virgins in heaven and cunts like the Westboro Baptist Church.

If your sacred text which is selling itself as a guide for this life and the next is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean everything and its opposite, then it should be discarded for that scam that it is.

You're comparing a US state that is embroiled in conservative gospels with relative freedom to a Middle Eastern state that will actually throw you in a cell and execute you for being gay, all with the support of the executive branch.
Nice way to shift the blame to the victim as well, all with minizing the humans rights violations of the Saudi Regime by comparing it to a lesser evil. I don't think even I could have pulled this off.

 

And Jesus also told one of his disciples to lay down his sword when the romans came to arrest him. He also taught to "love your enemy" and to "turn the other cheek" to any agression. Big surpise, with so many books lots of it is contradictory.

And that's a rather self centered view on religion, you're not afraid of incurring the wrath of some omnipotent deity? Good for you! But most people (very reasnobly) do fear that. It's a pretty good deal to belive really.

You go on about religion not being needed for good morals, and thus rather useless, yet somehow it's also a key tool for putting oppresive regimes in place. Hmmm. If people who are inherently good don't need religion, why should an aspiring dictator need it? I'm not saying it can't be used for that purpouse effectively, but it's hypocritical to call it useless for good things yet very useful for bad things.

In my opinion religious books are something you pick and choose from using modern consensus and evidence on certain "issues" such as homosexuals, so long as your belief remains. I'm not a fan of religion by any means, but it's important to respect it. Yes, these religious texts are awfully contradictory, but at it's heart it's all about believing in God in order to secure a good life after death. It's easy to twist these religions to your favour, if God created all humans and modern evidence suggests homosexuality is inherited, then they must be a creation of God that God loves equally to others. The "most honest believers" are stupid, they could easily twist the bible to support homosexuality, but they are bigoted enough to not do so. These texts are entirely outdated is the most important thing to realise, accepted morals have changed, but the key point of believing in God hasn't changed.

That final point about that comparison is fair enough. But I still hold strongly the belief that it will advance as all nations do.

 

One of your statement is still wrong by your admission :

Which I just responded to. Your point had nothing to do with consistency, thus, pointing out other verses won't negate the factual error.
He was both pro and anti violence according to the sacred texts. Claiming he only held one position is wrong.

Pascal was wrong. Explanations :

Pascal's Wager

Proposition 1
God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

1 is true, either what he calls God exists, or it doesn't. One is however reasonnable in asking what God Pascal is referencing to, as he left this to assumption.

Proposition 2
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

2 is misleading and false. Pascal compares the two propositions to a heads or tails game with an equal chance each (he reasserts the 50/50 odds in P5 as well), however he cannot prove what the probability for both claims are.

The metaphor fails when you also consider that humanity came up with at least thousands of different Gods that cannot both be true at the same time, as most have their own genesis. The game is more like playing the lottery with thousands of claims that one ignores the probabilities for each one to be either true or false.

Proposition 3
You must wager (it is not optional).

3 assumes that people care about the existence of Pascal's God. Not false, however.

Proposition 4
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Proposition 5
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Proposition 6
But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

4 and 5 are the crux of the matter and the problems that came into 2 will become crystal clear here : After determining that the wager ressembles more a lottery than a coin toss with a 50/50 chance, we understand how certain claims dont add up in these propositions :

If Allah is real, then all the Christians and unbelievers will go to Hell.
If Yahweh is real, then everybody but Jews will go to Hell.
If Protestants were right, then everybody who didn't accept Jesus will go to Hell.
If Buddhists were right, then your soul will live on in a different body depending on your actions.
And I'm not even going to argue for all the different denominations of each of them.

There is also an infinite scope of possibilities out of the God claims; What if everything is inside a computer ? What if we are in an alien's dream ? The problems keep piling on.

His proposition that believing in a certain God will yield you a guaranteed peaceful afterlife is wrong.
He also assumes that God wouldn't be able to tell who believes in Him for a selfish reason and who is sincere.

His claim that you "have nothing to lose if you believe" is also wrong; since most denominations of the Abrahamic faiths come with rules on how to live to be eligible for Heaven. You will lose time and freedom this way.
​

Pascal was wrong and misleading, QED.

I see no hypocrisy : You don't need religion to do good but you can use it to do evil. Let's ask yourself this :

• Do you need Religion to be a good person ? No.
• Can you use Religion to justify monstruous acts ? Yes.

Both my propositions are true. Seems like you confused how I used necessity and possibility in my argument : Religion isnt necessary to be good, but it's a possibility for it to be used in evil acts.

"It is hypocritical to say a knife is useful for cutting butter but useless for eating soup."
An object can be useful for some usage and useless for others. Your proposition is false.

Why would you cherrypick from a book of alleged divine inspirations ?
What if your beliefs contradicts with what reality is known to be, like creationnism ?

What if my religion claims that gay people were tempted by Satan ? In that case wouldn't you be the one who appears to be twisting religion in his favour ?

edit : typing this on phone wasnt fun

 

cba
YALL NEED THE LORD IN YOUR LIFE

FOR GOD SAID IN GENISIS 42;69 TO LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR EXCEPT FOR WHEN HE LIKES TAKING BIG DICKS UP THE ASS

FUCK YUR RULES YOU DON’T MAKE THE RULES GOD MAKES THE RULES AND THE ONLY RULES THAT I LISTEN TO ARE THE ONES I HAVE CHERRY PICKED FROM THE BIBLE AND THE ART OF THE DEAL

DON’T TREAD ON ME

Pasta aside that is one ugly shade of orange

 

Is it a bit self-centred to assume that you would have any idea what a potential omnipotent deity wants? Religious scriptures are hardly proof, there's been no recent verification of any of them and there are so many, especially when one considers dead religions and religions nobody's thought of yet as well. An omnipotent deity could want anything at all from us, or simply not care. I do not fear any Gods, because there's no point - there's nothing I can do if there are any, and with no clue what to do to avoid whatever fate such a deity has prepared, it's better just to live under the assumption that there are no gods, or that they don't care.

Good point. Get back to it, there's been another one.

 

Why wouldn't you fear not getting presents from Santa ? You hate Santa just because you don't like presents. Checkmate non-santa believer

 

I don't get your argument. If you look at the rest of the sentence you quoted, I explained what I mean. It's not that I don't want to go to Heaven/other-good-afterlife, it's that I've got no idea how to get there, it could literally be anything, so there's no point trying. It's more you're trying to explain to Santa that you want presents, but you don't know what languages he understands, what will make him get you presents, what he's capable of, where to send it to or if he even reads your letter. There's no point trying. It's almost certainly not going to have the desired effect, and there are plenty of bad consequences possible. So there's no point taking the time to write the letter.

 

That's always the response I get to the extension of other peoples' metaphors....

....


...

..

.

Sort of.

 

What the fuck did you just say about me, you little heretic? I'll have you know I graduated top of my Order, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on the Saracens, and I have over CCC confirmed kills.

I am trained in religious warfare, and I'm the top knight in the Pope's army. You are nothing to me but just another heathen. I will wipe you the fuck out with religious fury the likes of which has never been seen before in this Holy Land, mark my fucking deus vult.

You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over carrier pigeons? Think again, infidel. As we speak I am contacting my secret Order of crusaders across the Holy Land and Jerusalem is being conquered right now so you better prepare for the saving of Jerusalem, heretic. The saving that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your faith. You're fucking dead, squire. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over DCC ways, and that's just with my sword sheathed.

Not only am I extensively trained in religious combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Christian army, and I will use it to its fullest extent to wipe your miserable asinus off the face of the Eastern Mediterranean, you little stercore. If only you could have known what holy retribution your little "clever" religion was about to bring down on you, maybe you would have converted to Christianity.

But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn heathen. I will enact holy fury all over you and you will drown in it.

You're fucking dead, heretic.

 

Santa claus is your parents!

 

Now that's what Santa would have you believe. Makes his job a lot easier if you don't have children staying up because they think it's actually their parents giving them gifts.

 

...
my life is a lie