To enforce, yes. I meant it as only needing greed to be inspired.

Casual_Otaku, you're missing the point. I'm glad you interpret these verses within context and in a way which leads to a more rational theology. Of course they can be interpreted differently. If you would read my previous posts, you would know this already. The problem is that Muslims in the middle east do not interpret it this way; the vast majority of them are fundamentalists. When you say a verse needs to be put in context, they can simply say context is unimportant because it limits the verses, and that non-Muslims are trying to deceive you. Of course, this isn't the case. However, it is their mindset, and it's very easy for them to use the verses I posted to rationalize their violence through the Koran.

Ah, and then we come to Bradylama. I almost thought you left from being so pissed off at me. I'm glad this isn't the case. For the sake of the thread, I'm not responding to any personal insults. But suffice it to say, labeling me a neo-conservative because of my opposition to a fundamental sect of a religion which supports violence is ludicrous. I’ll gladly take the title of a realist instead.

Firstly, let’s cover my argument concerning Germany. I will reword it so it’s a hypothetical question for the sake of understanding your perspective, not for the sake of understanding the war: If you claim no country or person should intervene with another culture, in an attempt to convert, etc etc, however you want to define it, isn’t this a hidden universal truth you’re trying to spout out? That every nation, everywhere in the world, has no right to infringe on other cultures? And pray tell, since you don’t believe in universal truths of any sort, why do you get the justification for your belief?

Since you believe there are no universal truths, the idea that no culture should be infringed upon is merely a product of your upbringing, and is no more legitimate than the claims of a fundamental Islam suicide bomber shouting that all non-Muslims should be murdered. You just made your ideas as worthless as theirs.

And to take it a step further, you believe we can never know reality directly, that it’s all subjective. But this in itself is a direct claim on reality: "humans will never be able to know reality directly."

Thus, your claims both on cultural infringement and subjectivity are paradoxical in that they cling to universal truths as their foundation.

Hardly true. If an extremist sneaks into a country with a nuclear bomb and detonates it, and no extreme Muslim sect willingly takes credit for it, who can we blame? Nobody, because everything will be blown the fuck up leaving no witnesses. Nuclear weapons to nations are extensions of national pride, but to rogue operatives fighting for a religious cause it's much different.

Then you're ignoring the way the human mind works. We don't like thinking we're guilty of anything because it makes us feel bad. I'd bet you that Columbus and his crew talked a lot more about how primitive and stupid and unrighteous the culture was then about how rich the culture was. People don't like discussing their greed or discussing their murder of innocent people, but they do like discussing how those they steal from are unworthy, and how those they kill are unrighteous.

Stupid, when applied to a group based on skin color, nationality, ethnicity, etc, is a faith-based label. Columbus convinced himself that they were stupid because of their skin color, convinced himself to the degree that he took back previous statements. It was his deeply strong, newfound faith in the irrationality of racism that led him to be able to honestly make these statements and honestly murderer and steal from them. You still seem to be missing my point, though.

Faith-based Columbus: These natives are stupid so we stole their gold and killed them.

Rational-based Columbus: These natives are not as advanced as we are in technology so we stole their gold and killed them.

You see how a rational-based Columbus comes off as much more ruthless and corrupt to the public than a faith-based one if this is what he had written in his journal? This is why people who carry out wrongdoings depend upon faith based justification. It lets them carry out immoral deeds under the guise of goodwill, to themselves as well as the community.

If a man rapes a women in a street, he justifies it thinking men are superior to women and deserve to be fucked. He doesn't think "even though this woman has equal right as I do, I'm going to fuck her anyway."

If a man steals from his neighbor, well fuck, his neighbor is an idiot anyway so it doesn't matter. He doesn't think "I'm going to steal property from someone who equally deserves to keep what they buy."

If a man thinks slavery is OK, it is because people of a different skin color are inferior. He doesn't think "I'm going to deny these people any similar life to my own, even though they're equally capable of learning and becoming as educated as I am."

Why don't people think these things? Because they don't like the rationality. And what can replace truth? Faith-based irrationality.

As for your priest who claimed slavery was immoral, he probably did use scripture to try to prove his case, but the reason he changed his opinion in the first place was most likely due to his rationality in seeing that all humans are created equal. Then he had to wrap it into a blanket of faith-based justification in order to convince himself he wasn't a heretic, and for others to believe it to be true. Don't think the Bible or God magically spoke out to him telling him to go against the crowd. Personally witnessing the abuse of slaves, and realizing its irrationality is what I'm sure led him to his radical ideas.

Incorrect. The other group exists as a competitive "other" which seeks to gain prosperity at their own expense. This is not how that group of people is presented, though.

You need to justify why your group of people is more worthy than other groups of people, and the only way to do this without exposing the group's injustice, which would rally up opposition, is to make the other group of people seem (unjustly) inferior. And the way we make a group of people look unjustly inferior is by depending on irrational beliefs, whether created by the government or a religion or the people themselves.

The Boss didn't starve millions of Ukrainians so much as the people who had power to overthrow/kill him starved millions, whether it be his guards or his political cabinet. They had faith that what he was doing was the right thing, and they were a-OK with his plan and carried it out despite reports they received of millions dying. My argument against faith-based rationality is pinpointed against oppressors, not those who are subjugated.

So now that you realize I don't support a forced change, I assume you take back all your ignorant statements claiming I'm shouting out a rallying cry for war? Why, thank you. And yes, the change needs to come from within, which is why we should probably fund money into moderate Arab institutions which are growing in number in places like Egypt, and support them to such a degree where it makes a significant impact on the region. I'm sure this could be done in a way without it reaching news papers. And you may claim it's not in America's interest to support a religion, but in this case it's the only non-violent solution to the middle-east problem and the rogue nuclear problem. And it's safer than doing nothing.

It's true many women opposed Women's suffrage. You say that it's possible to make rational judgments in favor of restricted rights? I beg to differ. Women protested because they had faith that they were inferior in some way to men, whether it was Bible verses or saying women didn't have the "brains" to judge who should be president. It isn't provable, therefore it's irrational. Women accepted gender roles out of faith-based irrationality that their society instilled them with. The same goes for Islam. Hitting or beating is never acceptable in our culture now unless it's in self defense. Why? Because we've reached the rational conclusion that beatings cause physical pain, and since we're all equals none of us are deserving of physical pain. Muslim irrationality is that Allah gets angry. What is deserving of hitting or beating is determined either by rationality or irrationality, the provable or the unprovable. And the unprovable can kiss my ass concerning morality. It has no meaning because it has no place in observable life.

Whether you like it or not, the only thing humans are capable of judging is the observable; therefore the only means to justify judgment is within the observable.

Do you think people who beat the shit out of gay people are thinking "these people deserve to be beaten to death because of their genetic unproductivity"? No, because this would be a rational reason for that hatred, and the rational reason looks a WHOLE lot uglier than the "God hates them and will burn them and they corrupt our families and our nation" line.

I completely agree. HOLY FUCKING SHIT. :) Massive ignorance is the equivalent of fundamentalism, since all fundamentalist have a bad habit of ignoring context.

I think cowardice and bravery are connected. To use your example, if your friend would go up to you and start shit talking you to your face, it would be bravery not honor, because there's nothing "honorable" about shit talking in the first place. Perhaps you can give me a different example, though.

Objective conclusions can't be reached through the application of reason at this moment. My case is that in the event of a rational world, there will be no consensus or majorities because rationality will prevail over faith-based concepts of justice, and thus morality will take on the form of an objective truth.

Religion should have no place in reason to being with, because it can be neither proven true nor false. The legitimacy of religious claims in our observable world is a sham because the only way we can justly judge our observable world is through observation, simply because that is the one basic premise of our existence that all will agree to - that we live in an observable world. Whether or not certain groups believe in unobservable worlds or not is of little relevance unless it's self-destructive in context of the observable world. The unobservable should always play second fiddle to the observable one because the observable one is our human condition.

Here's Sam Harris' take on it:

Many of us consider human fetuses in the first trimester to be more or less like rabbits: having imputed to them a range of happiness and suffering that does not grant them full status in our moral community. At present, this seems rather unreasonable. Only future scientific insights could refute this intuition.
The problem of specifying the criteria for inclusion in our moral community is one for which I do not have a detailed answer - other than to say that whatever answer we give should reflect our sense of the possible subjectivity of the creatures in question. Some answers are clearly wrong. We cannot merely say, for instance, that all human beings are in, and all animals are out. What will be our criterion for humanness? DNA? Shall a single human cell take precedence over a herd of elephants? The problem is that whatever attribute we use to differentiate between human and animals - intelligence, language use, moral sentiments, and so on - will equally differentiate between human beings themselves. If people are more important to us than orangutans because they can articulate their interests, why aren't more articulate people more important still? And what about those poor men and women with aphasia? It would seem that we have just excluded them from our moral community. Find an orangutan that can complain about his family in Borneo, and he may well displace a person or two from our lifeboat.

--------------------------------------------

So in other words he doesn't give an answer in his book. But, in my opinion the legitimacy of abortion would become dependent on the legitimacy of observable claims. Claims like, the fetus feels pain. This is dependent upon when it's aborted, and we don't have the necessary technology to really measure things like pain yet. Etc, etc, only observable facts can be made in the case of abortion. Hopefully the technology will catch up by the time we’re a rational society to clearly state the facts on abortion and what the fetus actually feels, if anything.

Fuck, this is a long ass post. Sorry.

Additional Spam:
Sorry, I forgot you StarmanDX.

I'm not going to debate the legitimacy of the Bible anymore. This is not the thrust of my argument, therefore I'm not going to spend my time defending my point for you. If you want me to, start your own thread.

My claim is that it is invalid is due to it being unprovable. And specifically, my claim is that it is invalid concerning human justice and injustice because it is unobservable. If you want to see my argument for this, look at my previous post to brady.

Faith doesn't generate oppression, but it gives oppression legs to stand on.

Wrong. Oppression is always given legs to stand with faith-based rationality. Whether or not god or religion is involved is unimportant. And I make the case that the notion of reasoning being subjective is a fallacy because it's a absolute claim in and of itself. Reference my post to brady.

It isn't opposition to a fundamental sect of a religion that makes you a neoconservative. Rather, it's the fact that you think you know what should be done to make a perfect world, and that you think it is someone's duty (presumably ours) to do what it takes to make the perfect world a reality, regardless of what that is, or what anybody else feels about it.

This is precisely the mindset the Jacobins had in exporting the French Revolution to the rest of Europe, the mindset of the Bolsheviks in exporting Communism to the world, and the mindset that fuels the neoconservatives in exporting democracy today.

And, ironically, it's all based on the faith that your idea is the right idea.

Furthermore, you mentioned earlier a poll of people in the Middle East who feel it is alright to attack civilian targets to defend Islam. This is interesting, since your opening post singles out Islam as a religion that needs to be eliminated. Not any particular sect, mind you, but Islam itself. You further go on to say that we should subvert Islam to serve the ends of making your utopia. Understandibly, this isn't something Muslims would take kindly to, moderate or radical, and they would be expected to respond violently, especially considering how radical Muslims have reacted to many smaller cultural intrusions.

Yet you want to inflame the Muslim world by attacking Islam directly and attempting to destroy it.

Of course, it would ultimately serve to bolster your argument that Islam is ignorant and warlike, that we need to destroy it, and liberate the Muslim peoples' minds from their irrational beliefs.

My perfect world doesn't hinge on faith based principles, only factually supported evidence, so it's of little consequence that my claims are my claims because I would not be determining universal morality, the rational world would.

Yes, it singles out Islam due to Islam being the most violent mass religion existing in the world today. This is brought up as a product of my argument. If they were all Christian, I would be blasting Christianity. And I've related many times now that the majority of Muslims in the middle east are fundamentalists, as the survey goes to show, and that fundamentalists are who I have the biggest beef with. Those in the survey who were OK with suicide bombing civilian targets all go into my fundamentalist category, and those who don't go into the moderate category, in general.

And yes, I call for subverting Islam, but from within by supporting moderate Islam so there's no visible American influence. What's your point?


I've specifically said I directed my arguments for Islamic revolution towards fundamental Islam many times in my post. I don't know how you're coming to the conclusion that I'm attacking the entire religion. I'm attacking fundamental Islam as something that needs done soon, and I'm attacking faith as something that needs done whenever it can possibly be accomplished.

However, you consider the idea of faith to be an impediment to the creation of your perfect world. Therefore, faith must be eliminated.

Just like the Ancien Régime and the Bourgeoisie did.

Perhaps you need to understand just how important the Islamic faith is to Muslims. Many Muslims who are otherwise moderate would become violent if their faith itself were to come under attack, and would use any means necessary to defend it.

Much like how the United States would, without a flinch, incinerate many millions of people in nuclear fire if we were seriously threatened with annihilation.

This will, of course, let you twist the results of your cited poll as much as you like to paint the Muslims of the Middle East as a stupid and warlike bunch, and their religion as one we need to destroy for their own good as well as ours.

That subversion of Islam, particularly in the context that you've talked of what needs to be done with faith generally in this thread, can only mean in the destruction of Islam.

Contrary to your apparent belief otherwise, Muslims aren't stupid, and they'd see it for exactly what it is. And would fight it. To the death.

You're attacking the entire religion by saying it in particular needs to be removed, preferably by subverting it from within, but I don't think you'll much object to how its done. You're attacking the entire religion by saying that all faiths need to be eliminated. One way or another, if you had your way, the Islamic faith would cease to exist, whether the people who follow it want it to cease to be or not.

Don't try to bullshit me, you wannabe revolutionary.

Sounds like FallDragon basically wants to start a religious war - those who have it and those who don't.

FallDragon (et. al.) is the reason why recent South Park episodes are so much better than previous seasons.

The truth is you know as well as everyone in here that taking away a persons faith is not positive in anyway. If you are going to strip their reason to live then you might as well kill them yourself. Also a rational world is ridiculous, yeah I said it. This is just me but in a "rational" world their will be no passion, no art, and so on because pure "rationality" cannot fuel such imaginations to do so. I may be wrong but I see the world as a balance. You cant have the good without the bad, the math and science with out art and literature. Even by thinking of ridding the world of religious faith or "irrationality", you will be thinking of breaking that balance and turning it all to one side. That can't and wont happen. Someone living in the streets has a better chance of becoming another bill gates based on faith. I don't know about you but I would rather have stupid media with a chance of something good every once in a while, over a completely boring world of your "rationality".

Hit it right on the nail.

On another note, there is a big discrepancy when it comes to "Eastern" and "Western" faith in that Eastern religions teach acceptance of everything and even allow a person to be a member of multiple faiths. Western religion however encourages exclusivity and this leads to conflict.

No offense to Christians, as I am Catholic myself, but Mahatma Gandhi put it best when he said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

All of this quote war shit has reached critical mass, so instead of arguing history and subjectivity, I'd like to address two points:

My views on cultural infringement are based on a value of self-determination, and the subjective nature of reality is not necessarily a universal truth. That's the rub, essentially, that we don't really know if there can be a universal reality, and that we'll ever know anything without any uncertainty.

Yet there are only so many people we can blame. The former Soviets, for instance, have supposedly had unsecured nuclear material for ages, yet there has yet to be any city that's been engulfed in nuclear fire. At the present, the only country which could possibly supply anybody with nuclear weapons would be Iran, in the future. There are very few choices in the matter, and hard diplomacy is the easiest way to get Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions. There's already a moderate element in Iranian politics who feel that Ahmadinejad is pushing us too far, and if we just started pushing back a little we might be able to reach an agreement before we really give them a reason to nuke us.

I see you continually overgeneralize my opinions so I'm not going to bother to argue with you anymore.

The subjective nature of realty becomes a universal truth when you apply it to all humans being unable to reach beyond it, which is your argument. You're limiting human cognitive function in a realistic, universal way by claiming to know and describe the limitations of human cognition. You can never know anything without uncertainty, thus you can never know that we are unable to produce universal truths. Your theory self-destructs because of this contradiction, you can't just ignore it.

Only so many people, yes. I'm sure we would have a list of possible countries and/or factions that could've done it, but in the end we'd have no evidence to point a finger. Soviets haven't engulfed a city with fire because they don't think they're fighting a religious war. They've come to the rationality that they need other nations for support. Fundamental Muslim sects want to destroy not for rational reasons, but for religious ones, and to think that reason will prevail over faith naturally in that area is a mistake. Why do you think there's a never ending supply of young extremists?

No, what I'm saying is that subjective reality is the present truth, but may not be the truth at some point in the future. Besides, I never really argued that it was impossible for there to be a universal truth, but a universal morality. I suppose to clarify, it would be practically impossible to establish a universal morality without going to measures which I find distasteful.

I don't think you understand the concept of "unsecured nuclear material." Former Soviet Republics have no reason to nuke anybody, yet the nuclear materials they possessed aren't all accounted for. This has been the leading cause of fears concerning nuclear terrorism prior to North Korea's atomic bomb. Supposedly, if this material was unsecured it would be on a market somewhere, and whether it was sold as cheap fuel, or to potential terrorists we really wouldn't know, yet there hasn't been a single incidence of nuclear terrorism since the fall of the Soviet Union, and I think that's long enough to declare the former Soviets an unlikely source of nuclear material.

It doesn't really matter if we have concrete proof of somebody's involvement or not, because we're going to nuke somebody anyways. The bloodlust initiated by an act of nuclear terrorism would be insatiable, and the most likely targets at this point would be Iran and North Korea. North Korea's program, of course, is purely for reasons of national pride, so it's unlikely they'd ever consider selling their biggest insurance against Amero-Asian interference.

So, essentially your argument is that Iran would have to use its own nuclear weapons on somebody becuase Ahmadinejad is just that crazy. The problem with this assumtion, though, is that Iran would need enough weapons to ensure the destruction of their target, otherwise they would be completely annihilated. As Styphon pointed out, Muslims aren't stupid, even the radical ones, and their ultimate goal is the global hegemony of Islam, not its destruction in thermonuclear fire. If there were nuclear weapons or materials circulating on the black market, that's the most probable cause for their reluctance to use them, because it would spark a war which no Islamic country could possibly win.

At the present, the United States has a dominating nuclear weapons gap with every nation on the planet with the exception of Russia. The concept of any country attempting to threaten the United States with nuclear weapons is laughable, because all it takes is for American leadership to establish a willingness to use our weapons in order to eradicate any nuclear upstarts. Even Israel could do essentially the same thing if they admitted to their weapons stockpile, and they have a much greater willingness to act tough when it comes to nuclear diplomacy.

my last argument, rather you like to believe it or not, is based on many posts like these that you have posted your self. So ask yourself is that really my fault? I have read the entire forum as you so instructed me too and all I see is you going in spirals around outside subjects and loosing the idea behind your very first post or idea. To tell you the truth I tried but I guess I can't see WTF you are really trying to say so forgive me for looking stupid and I will no longer burden you with my lost posts.

The premise is hardly similar considering my fight is leveled against faith-based, irrational, unobservable claims.

And what rational would they use to become violent? That their religion all of us a sudden supports violence in this case? This demonstrates the degree to which religion can say whatever the hell it wants and get away with it under the guise of being substantiated by higher powers. And just the same, I didn't call for an attack on moderate Islam, I called for the revolutionizing of fundamental Islam into moderate Islam, which would hardly be considered an attack on moderate Islam

Attacking the idea of faith is hardly equivalent of attacking people themselves.

I call for the subversion of fundamental Islam and then the destruction of faith itself. However, the destruction of faith itself needs to be a concept of much grander scale beyond destroying Islam, because otherwise Islam will see it as an attack directly on them instead of directly on faith.

I said fundamental islam needs to be removed, and then all faith-based concepts, which includes religion, should be removed. In this sense I am attack Islam, but not directly since it falls under a broader category. And as for "I don't think you'll much object to how its done," don't start putting words in my mouth K THX.

But religion is their justification, not simply oppression. Others groups who were oppressed in the past didn't go out and explode themselves in bombs to fight oppression.

The opposite of a subjective reality is one where you can make statements that are either true or false. Here are the definitions of our two ideologies:

Pragmatist: All statements about the world are "true" only by virtue of being justified in a sphere of discourse.

Realist: Certain statements about the world are true, whether or not they can be justified - and many justified statements happen to be false.

You admit that your pragmatist viewpoint is pragmatist in itself, so what reason do you have to defend it as being a present truth? What exactly do you mean by that? That currently it is a universal truth, but that one day it might not be? Whether or not you think pragmatism is a universal truth or not is determined by whether you think other people should accept it as truth as well. And if you think other people should accept it, you immediately make claims on it being a truth regardless of subjectivity. if you don't think other people should accept, the truth of the idea dies as soon as all of it's adherents die. So really, what is the purpose of such an outlook?

In fact, there's a statement about the world that only a realist can make: "If a belief is true, it would be true even if no one believed it." An example: A group of primitives incapable of understanding planetary rotation says the sun revolves around the earth. Just because they all believe this to be true and have no means of proving otherwise doesn't mean it's a reality.

Now I'm going to attempt to explain how we can come to a rational moral universality in detail by paraphrasing the argument Sam Harris makes, since that is your biggest objection.

We know that a consensus among a culture may be the final arbiter of truth concerning morals, but it can't constitute it. What can constitute it, as a first step, is human intuition. Secondly, we can use human happiness, since ethics are created in the first place for human happiness.

Unselfish human happiness is created out of actions based on our love for one another. However, when acts are carried out based on ideas not related to love for each other, it becomes irrational and immoral. For example, beating your wife for showing skin is not an act of love for your wife, it is an act of love for an invisible being. Concerning their wife, if they saw a man beat a women for no justifiable reason, they would claim it's abusive. Thus, instead of admitting that they are abusive to their wives, they instead consider themselves carrying out an act of love for God. Regardless of the rationality, they are not carrying out an act of love for their wife.

We can then say that a persons happiness will be improved by becoming more loving and more compassionate towards them. Further, we need to define love in order for everything else to work. An example would be how a man may kill his daughter because she was raped, and it will bring shame to the family. We might say that their society perceives this act as an act of love towards his daughter, but why? Is it because of intuitive human notions? If so, why don't all cultures do this? It is because it is based within the context of faith, where faith based rules define how you should love another person instead of human intuition. Intuitively, one does not want to kill their daughter who's just been raped out of love. One rationalizes it through the use of the idea of shame, which consequently links back together with the irrational notion of honor. Love for an invisible, unobservable entity, a love which has the power to veil cruelty to your own family, has no place in human intuition and thus no place in morality.

The idea of MAD doesn't matter to begin with when dealing with Islamic fundamentalists due to their belief that if they die, they're going to heaven as heroes. And since this war on "terror" has only started fairly recently, especially with our invasion of Iraq, I wouldn't be so optimistic just because nothing has been nuked yet.

What if Iran suddenly reported an crazy Muslim sect stole a few nuclear device of theirs, and for countries to secure their borders even though the rogue operative has already infiltrated a country? They then agree to hand over all nuclear equipment to the US and stop all nuclear operations. And then a year later, three major cities blow up in a nuclear blast? Are we going to nuke Iran? Hard to say. My point is that it's completely feasible for terrorists to be able to nuke countries without necessarily causing immediate retaliation against Iran or N. Korea. I'm sure there are many other plausible arguments that can be made for my case as well. You seem to be claiming you know another absolute truth, oddly enough.

Oh, and is this why they're so willing to sacrifice themselves in suicide bombs? Because it leads to global hegemony of Islam? I think not. They're fine with it because they're A) Killing infidels and B) Going to see Allah in heaven.

Uhm, yeah. Vietcong.
Given supplies, and enough negative motivation, people will.
The removal of one justification does not mean the removal of all possible justifications.

If I said that all beliefs that are not Buddhist must be destroyed, would you find your Atheism under what would appear to be direct attack?
Or, alternatively, if I said that all people from the Southern U.S. should die in a fire, would you think that Bradylama would consider this a direct threat?
Of course this is a useless side argument. >_>

It doesn't matter what your fight is against; what matters is that you are, like the Jacobins, Bolsheviks and Neoconservatives before you, championing a revolutionary ideology and seeking to export it to the world. Like them, the impartation of this ideology requires the destruction of something else to work, in this case the idea of faith.

You don't get it, do you?

You are trying to tell people what to believe, and that their beliefs are irrational and must be swept aside. People have been fighting to protect what is important to them, whether that is their homes, their homeland, their ideology, or their faith.

Why would moderate Islam become violent in the face of your attempt to subvert it into something you deem more "rational"? The answer is simple; their faith is important to them, and you're trying to take it away from them.

Your attack goes beyond merely attacking the idea of faith; you also seek to attack the institutions of faith.

I already told you once about trying to bullshit me.

OK let be more clear since I was to vague. What the Vietcong were doing was out of self-preservation, not out of a holy war. They made no qualms that when America left, they didn't chase after us and continue to wage a war. Islam on the other hand views American not as simply an oppressor but as an evil that fights against their religion, and this is even when we have yet to make any claims against their religion. The Vietcong didn't kill because you were of a different sect of religion, they killed because of oppression. If we jump out of Iraq right now you can be sure the jihad will continue their war on us.

I never said I was an Atheist, though I've made arguments for an atheist position due to how the thread took it's course. There may very well be a god floating around somewhere, but that has little to do with my argument. My premise is not based on the belief or non belief in a god, it's based on the premise that it is irrational for justice to be based upon unprovable, unintuitive rules.

Allow me to take a step back from the abyss and note how this thread has given us nothing productive, and is degenerating fast.

For the good of everyone, this is closed. Pointlessly bickering about religion and FallDragon's evangelizing for his new Cult of Reason is to take place somewhere else where I don't have to deal with it.