Alright, I will. Besides, I said pretty sure, in a not-being-sarcastic way.

それは、 現実を超えたクルマ体験。!!!

They're called radicals, and frankly, true Muslims are radicals, Mohammad was a radical, other Muslims just toned it down a lot

It boils down to a point in history where the Muslims split resulting in the two main Shiite and Sunni sects. I believe it has something to do with a certain Muslim warrior. I forget who.

You act as if the sole cause was religion. That is not entirely true, infact religion is the secondary cause and is generally used as a facade.
Generally, its other reasons. Like economical preservation, Imperialism, territorial expansion, etc.
There are extremists in every group not just in religous ones alone.

Make up your damn mind

He said that is not entirely true, you edited his post

I forgot to add not.
I thought I put not.

Oh...

It didn't say his post was edited in my defense

Sorry

But I agree with Deux. There are all sorts of reasons, forward defence, oil, they spat on my sister, they blah blah blah all the way to #32902, they believe this

Of course anything will look bad when you only count the negatives. As a counter-example, during WW II the Dutch resistance movement consisted for a large part of orthodox religious people. In fact, probably only the communists were more active.

Aside that, religion never is the cause of strife, it is always merely a means to attract followers for one side, which often many will follow blindly. In Kant's moral philosophy, religion would be a means of war, not an end. The end is usually more material in nature. So it would definately intensify a conflict, but not cause it.

Anyway that would be regarded an effect of total depravity.



To be frank, if beliefs are to be rejected because of deathhs caused by them, atheism would probably be one of the first to be rejected. Mao and Stalin managed to outdo centuries of "religious" persecution with their "atheist" persecution.

However, I think it is folly to denounce beliefs because of their historical context. I think the same applies to atheism as to religion, regarding what I said in response to Hakker.



I think it had to do with religious authority, with one side supporting a nephew of Muhammed and the other side supporting some kaliphs. (I am obviously quite ignorant about this. )



I very much agree with this post.

Hmmm... In order to resurrect this topic, a question.

Where do you get a sense of right and wrong and how can you justify it?

I don't believe there's any one place to get a sense of right and wrong, otherwise alot of people would have the EXACT same idea of it.

Well some people get their views of right and wrong from their experiences, others from religion and others still from an idol or hero like figure.

I'm one of them.

Hmm.... isn't it interesting that most people get there set of morals from their experiences. With everybody having different experiences, there would be millions of different sets of morals, and each person thinks they've got it