What are you talking about? This post is yet an other example of hysterical over reaction, which barely suppresses an irrational anger, and is littered with fallacies and misrepresentation. For example:
FALLACY No. 1) "You are purposely misrepresenting his point to suit your own argument.[/COLOR] LT said ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism so it's downright silly just to focus on those two to discredit him."
FACTS: I am quite certain that LT is intelligent enough to answer for himself, and to know that I have made no attempt to "discredit" him. I responded civilly and intelligently to his post with valid points based strictly upon what he said.
His "we shut down churches and mosques" can mean nothing other than Christianity and Islam because ONLY Christianity has churches and ONLY Islam has Mosques. Therefore, by including these two in the same sentence, LT was "mentioning them in the same breath". THEREFORE, WHEN I WROTE:
"Why mention Christianity in the same breath as Islam anyway? And why close churches?"
My response and the question in it, are perfectly reasonable and not "silly" as you falsely claim.
So, NEXT:
FALLACY No.2: "LT said
ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism".
FACTS: LT most certainly did NOT say
ALL religion; he actually said;
" Perhaps the way forward is to realise that
any religion based on a fictitious and expansive book will always be open to any interpretation you care to apply"
And 'ALL RELIGION', and "ANY RELIGION BASED ON A FICTITIOUS" book are completely different in intent, meaning and implication, because the former means ALL religion, whilst the latter specifically means ONLY religion based upon a Holy Book, which, given the FACT that LT includes only CHURCHES and MOSQUES in the latter part of his statement, can ONLY MEAN that "ANY religion based on a fictitious book" is CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM, and CAN ONLY MEAN that the Holy Books referred to are The Judeo Christian HOLY BIBLE, and the Islamic QURAN.
So, NEXT:
FALLACY No. 3: "It's not just about war",
FACTS:
In the context of this thread IT IS ALL ABOUT WAR. In their own words and by their own declaration, a war started against the rest of humanity by Islamic Fundamentalist demons inspired by both their religion and the un-corrupted words of Allah directly received by their Holy Prophet Muhammad from the Arch Angel Gabriel.
So we can hypothesise all we want, but it is redundant and ridiculous to do so when we have the Jihadist's own repeated testimony that is that this is indeed a war.
So, NEXT:
FALLACY No.4: "Organised Religion is the root of most of the evil in this world."
FACTS: There are no facts to corroborate your statement but plenty which refute it:
From R. J. Rummel’s work ‘Lethal Politics and Death by Government’:.
Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost
• Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
• Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”
What of Non-State murders?
Abul Djabar killed 65 men and boys in Afghanistan by strangling them with turbans while raping them and was suspected of over 300 murders.
Javad Iqbal Mughal killed 100 boys Lahore, Pakistan.
Luis Garavo killed 172 children in Colombia but suspected of over 400 murders.
The historical list totals many thousands and include many more familiar names, from Americans such as Gary Ridgeway (90 victims) and Jeffrey Dahmer, to home-grown monsters such as Harold Shipman (up to 297 victims) and Peter Sutcliffe and Fred and Rose West, and all with not a religious motive in sight.
But hey, let’s not stop here; perhaps our streets and homes would be safer if we rid the world of all religion?
Let’s just look at a couple of statistics from The Office of National Statistics for 2014:
• Latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that, for the offences it covers, there were an estimated 7.0 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 16 and over) in England and Wales
• The numbers of rapes (24,043) and other sexual offences (48,934) are the highest recorded by the police since 2002/03.
7 Million Incidents of crime in one year, and this is just ‘reported’ crime AND NOT ONE RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED CRIME IN SIGHT.
So, NEXT:
FALLACY No. 5: "Isis weren't created by Islam, they were created by our actions in Iraq and Syria".
FACTS: As I - and others - have already stated many times; the West's interference in Libya, Syria and Iraq, did create a 'power vacuum' which aided ISIS's growth, but it is totally ridiculous and dangerous, to claim that WE CREATED ISIS. Islam did not even create ISIS - rather that ISIS claimed Islam to excuse its barbaric and demonic war on the rest of humanity - including Muslims.
So, NEXT:
FALLACY No. 6: "It's not the Muslims either, just an extreme minority of them."
FACTS: Extreme or not, ISIS ARE MUSLIM.
So NEXT:
FALLACY No. 7: "so why are you trying to tar them all with the same brush?"
FACTS: Please stop accusing me of this ridiculous CLICHED crap that I am "tarring all Muslims with the same brush" It is thoroughly dishonest and unfair and - once again - I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME AND OTHER READERS OF THIS THREAD JUST WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID THIS OR DONE THIS, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT. THEREFORE IT IS DISGRACEFUL TO KEEP REPEATING THIS SAME LIE.
So NEXT:
FALLACY No. 8: "Yes, if you don't think that the Bible isn't as brutal as the Qu'ran then you must not have read it very well. Any religion has the potential to be used to justify radical and terrorist actions."
FACTS: I have read the BIBLE and the QURAN, own my own copies of both, and still read both almost daily.
The Old Testament of The Judeo Christian Bible does contain violence, but I have posted very detail FACTUAL posts on this subject on other threads which you have subscribed to, so why do you persist in trotting out this same fallacy? Ah well; an excerpt:
"
NOWHERE in the New Testament is there any incitement for followers to go out and maim, kill, or subjugate other races, creeds or non-believers and I defy anyone on here to provide evidence to the contrary.
Even the violence within the Old Testament is solely bound by historical context and specific only to the era in which the text was written, as distinct from the open-ended commands throughout the Quran which compel faithful Muslims to to go out and maim, kill, or subjugate other races, creeds or non-believers. These commands are not era specific, and have no predetermined time limit, so are as relevant and applicable for faithful Muslims today as they were to faithful Muslims in Muhammad's time. Which explains the demonic atrocities still being perpetrated in Allah's name after 1500 years."
Big difference uh?
Threaded Mode