Roger Lambert
- 3 comments
- 0 likes given
- 0 likes received
Bio not provided
@sumwunyumaynotno @Gingerbaker
Read the whole quote? That makes it worse!
This is a Pakistani-American, talking about how he is justified in deliberately killing American children to avenge the deaths of people on the other side of the world. People he is not related to. Not his family. People he did not know personally. People he never met. People whose face he has never seen. People he most likely could not speak to even if they were face to face because they don't share a language. The ONLY thing they have in common is Islam.
They don't even have the experience of enduring an occupation in common. This asshole has never seen a drone, he never suffered a personal loss. He did this because he is a Muslim and in defense of Islam.These are Muslim terrorists blowing up children because they are
solidarity with Muslims. Religion is the only common ground between
these people, it is their motivation, it is their source of murderous justification, it is their way of life.
And THIS is how he justifies blowing up children deliberately. And you, evidently, accept Greenwald's pathetic argument at face value as if religion was not the issue? Unbelievable.
And here you are self-righteously chiding me as if I don't have enough compassion for the "motivation" of this guy. You are disappointed. Well, fuck you.
" It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims"
A Muslim terrorist admits he was deliberately killing innocent children because a Muslim in a different country than the the one he lives in was suffered some ill. And Glenn Greenwald, with this highlighted example, would have us believe that Islamic terrorism is about occupation, not religion?!?
The OP:
<blockquote>"...we’re talking about the unprovable; it is impossible to prove a god exists..."</blockquote>
No, it is easy to prove a god exists - simply show him to us. Simply show us the tiniest wafer-thin incontrovertible evidence that your proposition - that there is, indeed, a god - is defensible. It is, after all, the responsibility of the claimant - in the face of the 10,000+ non existent gods that mankind has imagined - to offer evidence for this positive claim, not the responsibility of the atheist to disprove the proposition.
What is "unprovable" is to show that a god exists <i>without evidence</i>. Without evidence, without a god-shaped hole in our understanding of the universe, without a definition of god which is either coherent or not disproved by the problem of evil, the claim that there is a god is defeated. According to every other standard of logic and scientific method with which we measure our lives, god is disproven.