DoctorDoom #fundie

DoctorDoom #fundie libertydwells.com

Anecdotal evidence is useless except to liberals, who rely on it because they have zero acquaintance with facts and empirical evidence. I am not even slightly impressed by liberals who intone that THEY know of a person who is this, that or the other who does not think or do such and such and therefore it disproves the long-established norm.

The fact that you know a few Muslims who have not (yet) killed infidels in the name of Allah and his insane pedophile "prophet" does NOT negate the cold, hard, indisputable fact that the vast majority of terrorism around the world is carried out by Muslims.

There are no Christian terrorists or Jewish terrorists or Buddhist terrorists or Hindu terrorists or Confucian terrorists. Why is that, little boy? Could it be because Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism and Hinduism and Confucianism don't have violence, torture and murder as central tenets of their doctrines?

65 comments

old comment by Swede

If Muhammed was a pedophile, then so is your God. Mary was barely more than a child when she was impregnated by him, ya know.
Isn't there something in that Bible of yours about motes and beams? Maybe you should look into that...

Ah, I see; you have never even opened the Bible! No wonder you don't know about motes and beams, if you don't even know that the Bible is full of violence, torture and murder.

There are terrorists of all kinds of faiths and non-faiths too, but they are rather fewer, as you need a strong conviction, a burning belief that you are right and that others are wrong, to become a terrorist.

We have a current example of an anti-Islamic terrorist in the country next to Sweden. Ever hear about Anders Behring Breivik? He says he acted in self defence, protecting himself against the multicultural liberal society, killing 77 people in one day, many of them teenagers.

old comment by Dr. Razark

"There are no Christian terrorists..."

Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller (among many others) would probably disagree with you.

"...since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers."

"...since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")."

"...there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers."

And, just to show it's not just anti-abortion, you might want to look into Catholic/Protestant relations in a place called Northern Ireland.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

Accusing liberals, rather than conservatives, of using anecdotal evidence is one thing (despite anecdotal evidence being a staple of fundamentalist rhetoric everywhere) but to deny the existence of non-Muslims terrorists takes denialism to a whole new level. The twentieth century was probably the golden age of terrorism (in much the same way as the seventeenth was the golden age of piracy) yet I can't think of a single terrorist group which was Muslim then. Let's see, in roughly chronological order. Bomb-throwing anarchists? Nope. The Black Hand? Nope. Pancho Villa's gang? Nope. The Mau-Mau rebellion? Nope. All communist groups before coming to power? Nope. The Unabomber? Nope. The Red Army Faction? Nope. The Weather Underground? Nope. Carlos the Jackal? Nope. The IRA? Nope. The Tamil Tigers? Nope. Timothy McVeigh? Nope. Sure, in the twenty-first century al-Qaeda and its wannabes are the only real terrorists and they're all Muslim, but I was never doubting that Muslim terrorists exist. I was denying Doctor Doom's denial of non-Muslim terrorists. Even here, you don't have to look that hard to find more of them in the twenty-first century. What religion is Anders Behring Breivik again? Or the Lord's Resistance Army, for that matter?

Of course, none of this actually matters. Liberals condemn Muslim terrorists as much as any other terrorists.

And one last thing. How many fundie Christians claim with no evidence except their own word to have once been atheists/Muslims/liberals/Satanists/Illuminati members/vampires/whatever? I've lost count.

old comment by JesusFacepalms

"There are no Christian terrorists or Jewish terrorists or Buddhist terrorists or Hindu terrorists or Confucian terrorists."

Uh, bullshit, bullshit, never heard of any but they probably exist, bullshit, Confucianism is not a religion. To be fair, most fun dies that mention Buddhism and Hinduism list them off as evil false religions, so you get a point for listing them alongside yours. Even so, you are wrong.

"Why is that, little boy? Could it be because Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism and Hinduism and Confucianism don't have violence, torture and murder as central tenets of their doctrines?"

Neither does Islam by your standard. The Koran and the Old Testament (which is part of Jewish and Christian scripture) both contain some pretty murderous things, and even the New Testament has some of that crap too. While I don't know about Hindu scripture, I do know that in India before Pakistan was created, Hindus and Muslims had a lot of religious conflict against each other, so that probably counts. Buddhism has the best track record of nonviolence, probably because the Buddha advocated nonviolence and Buddhists focus on the actual moral messages of their main figure's teachings, rather than the figure himself as a deity. (Take notes, Christians) Buddhism (and Hinduism and Judaism I guess) also have the advantage of not being as popular a religion as Christianity and Islam. Less followers = less potential for violence. Though there are probably a couple oddballs, and it was either them or the Shintos who oppressed Japanese Christians. (probably both) Again, Confucianism is not a religion so I cannot count it.

old comment by farpadokly

What about if the vast majority of Muslims haven't killed infidels? As is in fact the case.
As for "the vast majority of terrorism", depends how you define it. Actually, state terrorism is a much more serious problem, and tends to produce much more casualties.
I don't understand this blind spot some people have for seeing the similarities between the Abrahamic religions, and not noticing how criticism of one also applies to the others, to a greater or lesser extent. Where else does Islam get its violence and misogyny than from the same Abrahamic root as Judaism and Christianity? @Hasher etc: Bit of a disingenuous point. These groups weren't committing violence in the name of, or because of, religion, but in the name of nationalism. They just happened to be a particular religion, and in fact, the IRA for example definitely included atheists and secularists.
It's a bit like the obverse of the bogus Bill O'Reilly argument that because Stalin was an atheist, his atheism necessarily affected his use of violence.

old comment by

Anecdotal evidence, like in the Bible, you mean?

I don't know a single Muslim who have killed anyone in the name of God. (Allah is just God in Arabic, ya know.) If Muhammed was an insane pedophile, then so is your god. How old was Mary when God raped her?

There are a lot of Christian terrorists, stupid. Religion is the key, not one religion or the other. Religion says you'll get your reward in Heaven for your actions down here. Atheism says you have to reap on Earth what you sow on Earth, because this is all we get.

Christianity doesn't have violence? If you believe that, you have clearly not read your Bible thoroughly, or even opened the book yourself. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are more similar than any of the other religions. Looking at them from the outside, they seem like three different interpretations of the same story.

DoctorDoom #fundie libertydwells.com

65 comments

Confused?