You know, somewhere which isn't pussy, like the east coast.

Quote from: challengerX on March 09, 2015, 02:45:23 PM

Quote from: gats on March 09, 2015, 02:44:24 PM

is she really that bad, guys?

She's better than any republican.

It's funny that the GOPers think they have a chance at the White House next year.

Quote from: Prime Meridia on March 05, 2015, 09:42:24 PM

Quote from: Luciana on March 05, 2015, 09:22:37 PM

Quote from: Cindy on March 05, 2015, 01:56:25 PM

Satan =/= Lucifer

Really? Explain!

It usually depends on the source. Sometimes they're the same person, sometimes they aren't.

Whichever it is, Satan is referred to as the anointed cherub (guardian of the tree of life) and Lucifer is the morning star (one of the archangels who is rarely mentioned by name in the text itself). It may be the same being at different points of time or not, the Torah and Bible are much more vague about the names of divine beings than people seem to think.

Well that's the gist of it, but that beginning part is...entirely and totally wrong.

"Anointed Cherub" was the term specifically used to describe Lucifer in Ezekial.

Lucifer was the first, most perfect, and most powerful creation of God, but then committed the first sin in an act of rebellion and was banished to hell. Where most places deviate is under the assumption that this act also made him the 'Lord of Hell' and, thus, Satan.

There's really not much more to it. Some denominations say he's the same entity, some don't. It's never really made clear.

Quote from: Maverick on March 05, 2015, 10:31:50 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on March 05, 2015, 02:00:50 AM

Two guys did that. Two.

You don't think that this could be indicative of a larger number, just without solid evidence, such as, for example, Jihadi John?

>larger number
>mentions one dude everybody's obsessed with because he televised shit thousands other of Muslims have done

Can we not give these losers nicknames and mystify them? He's just some fucking serial killer. And no, the Quran does say this shit and these people obey that book. It's a violent religion.

Quote from: Maverick on March 04, 2015, 01:18:17 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on March 04, 2015, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on March 04, 2015, 01:03:08 PM

Nowadays extremism is pretty much exclusively referring to hardline/salafist/wahabbi muslims, as a mark of distinction between them and say Shias or Kurds who (as far as I understand it) don't advocate the wholesale slaughter of anyone who sneezes whilst looking eastward.

I'm not sure how it would be akin to racism though, it's just a way of clarifying what it is you have an issue with. If you have a problem with all muslims/islam as a whole then that's one thing, if you have a problem with ISIS tier psychotics and the branches of islam that breed and ferment these people then that's another.

That being said, it's entirely possible for extremist vegetarians/vegans to apply their views selectively and advocate stuff like killing humans who eat meat.

My problem is that when anyone commits a heinous act in the name of an ideology, it always gets written off as "extremism" as if that's the answer to why they did what they did without factoring in any kind of extraneous variables involved, or the ideology that they based it off of. These people intentionally divert discourse and criticism just to maintain the status quo of being politically correct. Hence my "omg das racis" analogy.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2014/08/what-jihadists-who-bought-islam-dummies-amazon-tell-us-about-radicalisation
Some evidence suggests that the influence of Islamic ideology may have little to do with why some become extremists though.

From the article:
"In 2008, a classified briefing note on radicalisation, prepared by MI5’s behavioural science unit, was leaked to the Guardian."

HMMMMM

I don't deny that there are retards out there who do it just to have some sort of belonging somewhere. However, when you examine the mindset of these people through various interviews and documentaries, they genuinely believe they're doing the will of "Allah" and they will for all intents and purposes, enter paradise after death.

The Nazi campaign, for the most part, wasn't lead by mentally ill psychopaths with a thirst for cooking some Jews. They were lead by completely sane, normal individuals who totally and fervently believed in the toxic ideology they espoused. Ideas are the biggest impetus for human behaviour.

OP, convince me that the core of Germanic paganism isn't right and that there aren't 9 known multiverses tied together by what the unknowing ancient Europeans called the world tree or Yggdrasil.

Quote from: Maverick on March 03, 2015, 11:12:04 PM

Quote from: [Raiden] Snake on March 03, 2015, 10:39:11 PM

Quote from: Maverick on March 03, 2015, 10:34:08 PM

What if I considered myself a theist but did not follow any religion?

I would ask you why you were a theist.

Probably mostly because I was raised to believe in a deity, so it was hard for me to abandon my beliefs. While over the years I've come to the conclusion that organized religion is ridiculous, I've never seen much compelling evidence against the possibility of a deity/deities existing. I suppose I would more accurately be described as an agnostic.

In any case, hypothetically, I think that a deity would be very different than how most people see their God.


Sorry, I thought I would have something more thought-provoking to say but I'm drawing blanks.

You bringing up your childhood clears a lot of things up. I still have to remind myself that there is no evidence for god from time to time because it was programmed into me as a kid.

I don't really think you can identify just as agnostic. You're either a thiestic-agnostic (IE, I don't know whether god exists or not but I'm pretty sure he does because Pascal's wager [and even this is a bit of a stretch. belief isn't a choice, contrary to popular belief]) and atheistic-agnostism (me), that believes that there is no evidence for god, but we can't know for sure.