Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

There are no atheist suicide bombers.

I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.

To borrow from a different ongoing forum thread: DEMO OR STFU.

BTW, I'm primarily referring to suicide bombers against civilian targets.

If you want to bring up Kamikaze pilots or the Tamil Tigers, I'm ready for that.  (Both have beliefs about martyrdom and the afterlife, for ex., which we could go into in more detail...)


Regards,

[Whirlingdervish]

 

[QuakeDuke]

  

[quadz]

 

Really?   Alrighty then... please permit me to rephrase...

There are no atheist suicide bombers.

I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.

To borrow from a different ongoing forum thread: DEMO OR STFU.

What I'd hoped would be apparent, is that I was using the phrase "DEMO OR STFU" as a curt but hopefully at least slightly humorous reminder/admonishment/request to back up claims made about the nature of the world with some sort of evidence.

Specifically:

REAPER: I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.

QUADZ: Based on what?  Evidence, please.


(In other words, in the local vernacular, DEMO OR STFU. )


Is that really so deserving of multiple frowny-faces?


Regards,

[deft]

So dumb.

[playboy]

To borrow from a different ongoing forum thread: DEMO OR STFU.

such a great quote

[QuakeDuke]

 

Really?   Alrighty then... please permit me to rephrase...

There are no atheist suicide bombers.

I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.

To borrow from a different ongoing forum thread: DEMO OR STFU.

What I'd hoped would be apparent, is that I was using the phrase "DEMO OR STFU" as a curt but hopefully at least slightly humorous reminder/admonishment/request to back up claims made about the nature of the world with some sort of evidence.

Specifically:

REAPER: I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.

QUADZ: Based on what?  Evidence, please.


(In other words, in the local vernacular, DEMO OR STFU. )


Is that really so deserving of multiple frowny-faces?


Regards,

But they're not frowny faces? At least that's not what the mouse over said...... Hmmmm.... Is this forum on an evil winders machine? GDR --- >

I understood what you were saying...  the faces weren't in response to your post...

QD

[quadz]

reminder/admonishment/request to back up claims made about the nature of the world with some sort of evidence.

It occurs to me it may have appeared that I skipped this step myself with regard to the "There are no atheist suicide bombers" claim.

However, I did, as it happens, do at least a bit of research on what is known about the motivations of various suicide bombing factions historically, before posting that claim.

I debated, before the initial post, whether to include some footnotes about what I had read about the supernatural beliefs of the Kamikaze pilots, and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka.  (There were some additional complications with the Kamikazes such as coersion: A pilot who returned from his ninth Kamikaze mission alive, was summarily shot...)  But anyway, I decided to forgo the footnotes and just post "There are no atheist suicide bombers" and see what sort of response(s) it might get.

I admit to being dismayed that the response I did get appeared to be based on not the slightest bit of evidence or research of any kind... thus my curt reply.   But anyway....

I understood what you were saying...  the faces weren't in response to your post...

Oh.

That's different.

[reaper]

There are no atheist suicide bombers.

I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.  But of course there are some athiests in foxholes : )

If it's more accurate, then you are saying that there are some atheist suicide bombers, and this proportion is greater than that of atheists in foxholes.

I have a strange feeling the response to this observation will be unsatisfactory.

I think an attempt should be made to seperate the two quotes. 

"there are no athiest's in foxholes"

meaning - athiests have acted less to put their life on the line to push the purpose of human existence further and to achieve order at the stake of themselves

"there are no athiest suicide bombers"

meaning - athiests aren't commiting crimes in the name of religion

The former quote is trying to highlight the lack of doing positive in the face of cost.  While the latter is not committing negative acts. 

Since there are such differences between the quotes, I think you are leaving out the important meaning behind the original quote.  The second doesn't necessarily negate the first quote, since they are  different actions.  Usually people saying that quote would be religious.  So they would be talking in reference to a point similar to:
"if you take god out of the hood, what would you be left with"

[deft]

So dumb.

[DaHanG]

There are no atheist suicide bombers.

I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it.  But of course there are some athiests in foxholes : )

If it's more accurate, then you are saying that there are some atheist suicide bombers, and this proportion is greater than that of atheists in foxholes.
I have a strange feeling the response to this observation will be unsatisfactory.

I think an attempt should be made to seperate the two quotes. 

"there are no athiest's in foxholes"

meaning - athiests have acted less to put their life on the line to push the purpose of human existence further and to achieve order at the stake of themselves

"there are no athiest suicide bombers"

meaning - athiests aren't commiting crimes in the name of religion

The former quote is trying to highlight the lack of doing positive in the face of cost.  While the latter is not committing negative acts. 

Since there are such differences between the quotes, I think you are leaving out the important meaning behind the original quote.  The second doesn't necessarily negate the first quote, since they are  different actions.  Usually people saying that quote would be religious.  So they would be talking in reference to a point similar to:
"if you take god out of the hood, what would you be left with"

I am leaving out important meaning behind the original quote? It's not even relevant. This has nothing to do with negative/positive acts. All I said was I think it's silly to say there's MORE truth to atheist/foxholes over atheist suicide bombers. That's a huge claim. You haven't actually addressed this still.

[deft]

That's because he's dumb.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

"there are no athiest's in foxholes"

There is only one meaning this statement has.
It's only sayed because people in those dire situations and being scared for their lives alot of athiests have been witnessed praying to God for their lived. Thats it, nothing more.

It has zero to do with patriotism or any willingness to sacrifice one's self for their country.

[|iR|Focalor]

"there are no athiest's in foxholes"

If I've learned anything at all from Christianity, it's the fact that with God all things are possible.

Because of this faith I have in Yahweh, I can tell you: There ARE atheists in foxholes!

BTW, the official Tastyspleen "Satanists for Christ" support group is having a luncheon tomorrow starting at 11:30am in the fellowship hall. Everyone is welcome.

We're having... spagetti-O's and sardines.

[quadz]

"there are no athiest's in foxholes"

There is only one meaning this statement has.
It's only sayed because people in those dire situations and being scared for their lives alot of athiests have been witnessed praying to God for their lived. Thats it, nothing more.

From my point of view, "that's it, nothing more" doesn't quite cut it.

For example:

"There are no terminally ill atheists who won't convert to Christianity their deathbed."	It's only said because people who claimed to not believe in god have been witnessed on their deathbed praying to God for their life. That's it, nothing more.
"There are no priests who aren't child molesters."	It's only said because priests have been witnessed to be child molesters. That's it, nothing more.
"There are no Christians who wouldn't kill employees at an abortion clinic."	It's only said because Christians have been witnessed to kill staff at abortion clinics. That's it, nothing more.

...Riiiiight? 


I've never been in a foxhole, thankfully.  But consider the testimony of the atheists who have.  Can you imagine yourself in a dire situation suddenly pleading for the Easter Bunny to save you?  Try as hard as you can to imagine yourself actually imploring the most Great and Holy Easter Bunny to deliver you safe from harm.  Could you do it?