Another terrorist attack

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

I was!

But after the Santa fallacy, I was careful what to believe

the what!!???

please no....

he is real...

right??

(im sure i dont have to express in any detail the irony of the praying smily!)

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by pencil shavings

the what!!???

please no....

he is real...

right??

(im sure i dont have to express in any detail the irony of the praying smily!)

He's real alright - but its not all good news.

Ever noticed how Santa and Satan both know if you have been good or bad.

Or that they both are frequently depicted wearing red.

That they are never seen in the same place at the same time.

That they have VERY similar names?

Now you know what he does the OTHER 11 months of the year.......

Soulkiss, Born-again Santaist

Originally Posted by pencil shavings

the what!!???

please no....

he is real...

right??

(im sure i dont have to express in any detail the irony of the praying smily!)

Well I can't disprove his existence...

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

The original post was about religion being the founder and supporter of terrorism, yet nobody can find a terrorist group who are operating under the guidance of a god.

Not really. The original post was more about the attack that happened, and the reasoning the media has given. IMO anyway. But you're right, terrorist groups aren't motivated by religon - they're motivated by money.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Both logical points. However, the only reason we don't believe ourselves is because we weren't indocrinated at a young age. There's nothing inherantly smart about people who question religion, as much as I often like to think there is

I pretty much was, but rebelled from it at a relatively young age. I've also been clear with my kids that it's a possibility some form of 'God' exists (we can't disprove it) but also that I personally don't believe they do exist.

I don't see how you can think there's nothing smart about questioning religion. Surely that is part of the quest for knowledge (to either prove or disprove) - so long as it's done thoroughly, it's fine.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

The middle east would be a desert if they didn't have oil.

Err... They wouldn't be as rich, but the middle east has been populated and wealthy for millenia, and is one of the places considered the cradle of humankind. I don't think they'd discovered oil then.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Well I can't disprove his existence...

haha, I like that answer alot

Originally Posted by northwind

Err... They wouldn't be as rich, but the middle east has been populated and wealthy for millenia, and is one of the places considered the cradle of humankind. I don't think they'd discovered oil then.

Without the oil, they'd be ignored. I can't think of a single other reason they would have the wealth they have today.

[northwind]

Yes, as I say, they wouldn't be AS rich. But it wasn't just a desert before they discovered oil, it wouldn't be just a desert now.

Originally Posted by northwind

Yes, as I say, they wouldn't be AS rich. But it wasn't just a desert before they discovered oil, it wouldn't be just a desert now.

Hence the expression ;
getting their just desserts.


Seriously. What do the Middle East offer otherwise?

[northwind]

Fertile lands, large populations, fairly strong industry, large export markets, culturally enormously significant.

It seems like when you say "Middle east" you actually mean "persian gulf", since that's where the concentration of oil is- Turkey isn't an oil economy, Egypt has a strong non-oil economy, Iran's would be sustainable without oil, Israel has next to no mineral resources, Pakistan isn't an oil economy. It's oil that makes them so important but it's not all they have.