Got Faith?

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

How about opening a couple of books and actually moving to the 20th century?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The way you use the word theory is typical of Late Medieval thought.
To make Popper it immensely simple: Evolution is true until proven wrong.

I am always amazed by how in an advanced country like the US not only some people still believe in things like creationism (basically only country in the world) but also remain anchored to Aristotelean/Medieval logics to avoid direct confrontation with the truth... and get away with it!

Don't they teach 20th century philosophy in high schools here?

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

It is pretty pathetic to see those numbers in 2007. What really gets me is the people who believe this planet is only 6000 years old and that early people lived for hundreds of years.

I really want to know what made science the enemy of christianity.. was it when the world was found to not be flat? or was it when they figured out Earth was not the cneter of the universe they all said "okay this science and rational thinking has to stop!".

Good poll and good comments but im sure some people will say this - I dont think some really understand the theory of evolution. On another note i would think it would be extreme to NOW say that Chrisitanity is the enemy of Science.
Note: The bible states that the earth is round.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

I find it curious that these people aren't more precise in the age of the Earth. Genesis and I Chronicles aren't exactly fuzzy about the geneaology of Adam and Eve. So if they were 'created' around 4174BC that means the Earth is under 6200 years old.

I wonder if they asked these people if the Bible both condones and condemns incest?

 

[Jaskalas]

I suppose I should count myself lucky to have a faith outside of religious institutions. Any religion declaring more than the desire for peace on earth is a false prophet. There?s no reason, outside man-made fictional novels, for there to be a conflict with evolution.

I for one believe in evolution, being the most plausible explanation.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

"Just a theory" doesn't cut it. I suspect your understanding of the meaning of the word, "theory" is a bit weak. Let's start with a real definition of the word:

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e)
n., pl. the·o·ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The last definition appears to be what you have in mind and is common in less demanding conversation, but in science, a theory is only acceptable if it has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Furthermore, it takes only one exception to disprove a theory.

Creationism, "creation science" and other so-called "theories" of divine causation simply do not meet the criteria for a valid theory. They can't be tested, and they can't be used to describe or to make repeated, accurate predictions about natural phenomena in any meaningful way.

Unless you can disprove evolution, or at least provide an alternative that can be tested in the real world, it's the only explanation that fits the criteria to be accepted as a scientifically valid theory.

By your own measure Evolution is not a valid theory either unless we can test it and repeat it if necessary.

Both theories of life on earth are possible although obviously the theories can't be literally interpreted. If we take literal interpretations on Creationism we hear stupid stuff about the bible and if we take literal interpretations of Evolution theory then every puddle of pond scum has the ability to evolve into a human which is obviously not correct either.

Life exists on this planet but no one can say for sure exactly how it got here because the fossil record has more than a couple of holes in it. I'm not saying that Creationism or Evolution is the answer only that the answer may lie somewhere between. Nothing is ever black and white and nobody has all the answers except some of the guys around here.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Conky
Both theories of life on earth are possible although obviously the theories can't be literally interpreted. If we take literal interpretations on Creationism we hear stupid stuff about the bible and if we take literal interpretations of Evolution theory then every puddle of pond scum has the ability to evolve into a human which is obviously not correct either.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with how life was first created.

Originally posted by: Conky
Life exists on this planet but no one can say for sure exactly how it got here because the fossil record has more than a couple of holes in it. I'm not saying that Creationism or Evolution is the answer only that the answer may lie somewhere between. Nothing is ever black and white and nobody has all the answers except some of the guys around here.

The fossil record is actually quite extensive in many areas and strongly supports evolution.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

Both are indoctrinated, one for peace loving in following Jesus, the other to convert or kill in following Mohamed. Only one is at war against us, but both believe in fighting to defend yourself from a threat.

The difference is clear.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

"Just a theory" doesn't cut it. I suspect your understanding of the meaning of the word, "theory" is a bit weak. Let's start with a real definition of the word:

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e)
n., pl. the·o·ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The last definition appears to be what you have in mind and is common in less demanding conversation, but in science, a theory is only acceptable if it has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Furthermore, it takes only one exception to disprove a theory.

Creationism, "creation science" and other so-called "theories" of divine causation simply do not meet the criteria for a valid theory. They can't be tested, and they can't be used to describe or to make repeated, accurate predictions about natural phenomena in any meaningful way.

Unless you can disprove evolution, or at least provide an alternative that can be tested in the real world, it's the only explanation that fits the criteria to be accepted as a scientifically valid theory.

By your own measure Evolution is not a valid theory either unless we can test it and repeat it if necessary.

Both theories of life on earth are possible although obviously the theories can't be literally interpreted. If we take literal interpretations on Creationism we hear stupid stuff about the bible and if we take literal interpretations of Evolution theory then every puddle of pond scum has the ability to evolve into a human which is obviously not correct either.

Life exists on this planet but no one can say for sure exactly how it got here because the fossil record has more than a couple of holes in it. I'm not saying that Creationism or Evolution is the answer only that the answer may lie somewhere between. Nothing is ever black and white and nobody has all the answers except some of the guys around here.

Why go from the condition in which you express the idea that nobody knows to expounding truths. Your statement that nothing is ever black and white, for example is certainly incorrect about black or white and the truth may be red instead of some shade of gray. Just stop thinking because you are suggesting answers that nobody has. You are engaged not in rational thought but self comfort.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

They're not. Religious indoctrination is the same no matter what the flavor of the religion. Once indoctrinated, they'll believe anything they're told to believe.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

They're not. Religious indoctrination is the same no matter what the flavor of the religion. Once indoctrinated, they'll believe anything they're told to believe.

Only one has made sworn vows to kill you. You take that very lightly, probably don't believe it at all.

 

[piasabird]

March 31, 2007: Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

This Poll is very Absurd.

First they ask about religion then they ask about who is dissappointed with the War or with Bush. Then later they ask if you would bote for Al Gore if he ran for President.

Some outfit associated with or located near Princeton in New Jersey ran this poll. This would seem to indicate that it is first politically motivated, and second run by or paid for someone wanting to back Democrats, and Al Gore for the President of the United States of America.

The reason this poll is so absurd is its reason for its commission. They want to know who is religious and who is aithiest and then of those groups who would support Al Gore if he runs for President. Then they take this information to try to mold a campaign based on the Poll Results. When this is done it is hard to tell what the person really is like that is running and what the candidate really believes. You cant because the candidate beleives in nothing but what his campaign manger told him he should tell us what he believes in.

Then there is a very interesting question. Why would someone want the results of this poll to be made public?

I think it is a way to test the waters of running for office while not spending very much money.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

Both are indoctrinated, one for peace loving in following Jesus, the other to convert or kill in following Mohamed. Only one is at war against us, but both believe in fighting to defend yourself from a threat.

The difference is clear.

You really don't know anything about Islam.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
As i understand it many species have specific chromosome counts which determine that species. Also I understand that an animal cannot successfully breed with another animal of a different chromosome count.

Its possible, just rare. Horses and donkeys have different chromosome counts yet can breed to create mules which are occasionally fertile.

Also, I think its important to understand that the exact mechanisms behind speciation are not entirely understood. There is still debate on issues such as punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism vs. various hybrids between the two. This is not, however, a weakness in the theory of evolution because there is extensive evidence supporting macroevolution.

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
Also, i saw a diagram in the smithsonian a while ago of the evolutionary history of elephants. There where dozens of radically different species in that tree. So why in our hundreds of years of natural history of thousands of different species have we not seen similar radical changes? Or have we?

Generally species take tens to hundreds of thousands of years to evolve so we shouldn't expect to see such evolution during the short period that humans have been recording history. We have actually seen fairly rapid changes from animals such as wolves and wild cats to the hundreds of different types of domesticated dogs and cats that we have today, however these changes occured rapidly because of human intervention.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

< sarcasm >

If it weren't for the tragic collateral damage jihadists cause when they blow themselves up, at least, their chosen method of self expression improves the gene pool on their way out.

< /sarcasm >

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

They're not. Religious indoctrination is the same no matter what the flavor of the religion. Once indoctrinated, they'll believe anything they're told to believe.

If you can see no difference in a mother teresa and a Abu Usamah then you have major issues.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

How are they any different than those who think if they blow themselves up in some fancy Jihad they will wind up with 72 virgins?

They're not. Religious indoctrination is the same no matter what the flavor of the religion. Once indoctrinated, they'll believe anything they're told to believe.

If you can see no difference in a mother teresa and a Abu Usamah then you have major issues.

What is the difference? I have issues with people who claim differences but never define what they are. They just point here and there and spout words like, it's obvious. If it's so obvious what is the core difference?

 

[daniel49]

well its hard to believe that one would have to spell it out for you moonie.
Mother Teresa basically spent her life loving and careing for the unloved.
Teresa received Vatican permission on October 7, 1950 to start the diocesan congregation which would become the Missionaries of Charity.[14] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine
Text

whereas the other desires only to spread hate and murder.

Radical Preachings
In January 2007, Usamah was filmed by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches in their investigation titled Undercover Mosque. Some of his preaching that was secretly filmed included a number of anti-Western, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, and other controversial sentiments.[1][2]

Abu Usamah has told worshippers Osama Bin Laden is "better than a million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" and that non-Muslims are "pathological liars."[1]

Abu Usamah stated that Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state. He says that apostates of islam should be killed.[3]

Regarding women, he said, "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."[1]

Abu Usamah said, "No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar. We hate the kuffaar."[1]

Abu Usamah stated in defense that the documentary had quoted him "out of context."[4]

Text

they were/are both "RELIGIOUS" but stand for 2 very opposite things

 

[BrownTown]

The thing I always like is the strange inconsistanceis you get. Like some of the evangelical christians believing in evolution, or the atheists believing God made the world the way it is today. Also, the fact that 6% don't believe in God, and yet only 3% consider themselves atheists (wtf do the other 3% call themselves?). It is kinda funny though, when I meet people and have to base an assumption on their beliefes my default is to expect them to be atheists. I honestly have a struggle to think of people I know who are actually religious. Maybe many of them say they believe in God on a poll or something, but if you never go to church, or read the bible or pray than how much can you really believe? I mean if you really did believe you would think you were gonna burn in hell for that, so clearly you wouldn't be doing bad stuff if that was your thoughts.

Personally, in my life religion pretty much never even comes up. The only time I can think of recently was this one girl in my logic class who tries to argue with the professor that studying logic is flawed becasue pretty much everything religion has taught her would be contradicted by logical thought (wow, imagine that ).

As for evolution, the thing people need to understand about that is that it isn't just some wild untestable theory, it happens every year and is easily observable. Ya know why you need a new flu shot every years?, because the flu EVOLVED a different structure that you are on longer immune to. Even heard of drug resistant bacteria, think God made those? NO, it was evolution. In fact people are developing new ways to produce drugs by promoting bacteria to evolve into drug producing bacteria. The only problem is that bacteria are to small to see and therefore people tend to discount them, and of course the larger animals need thousands of years to go through as many generation as bacteria go through to evolve drug resitance and such, so in the lifetime of a person, or even several centuries there is not really enouhg visible change that can actually be SEEN. So you have to use the fossil record, or DNA evidence. But of course all this stuff like drug resitant bacteria, DNA testing, fossil comparison requires a considerable sceintifc base to understand, so if you don't have that then nobody can really prove to you the relationships, so it really is a matter of FAITH, who do you believe more, the scientists who say evolution is real, or the bible that says it isn't. IF you are a religious person than you will choose the bible and disregard evolution (or nowadays try to mesh the two together into "intellegent design" which honestly I hate even more than creationism for its pseudoscience cr@p).

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
As for evolution, the thing people need to understand about that is that it isn't just some wild untestable theory, it happens every year and is easily observable.

Yes, but the portion of the theory of evolution that is debated is not observed... that is, the creation of new genetic information by natural processes.

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Ya know why you need a new flu shot every years?, because the flu EVOLVED a different structure that you are on longer immune to. Even heard of drug resistant bacteria, think God made those? NO, it was evolution.

You should read into the details of why we need new flu shots every year, or why bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. I think it would surprise you to learn that most of the time, this "evolutionary step" results in the loss of a function in the organism.

You see, it really is not the type of biological change that can be employed to explain evolution, at least not in this observed case.

Here is a simplified summary of what I'm saying: "As a group, the mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was reduced or eliminated, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was reduced or eliminated, etc. (Table I). These are not mutations that can account for the origin of those cellular systems and activities. While these mutations would certainly be ?beneficial? for bacterial survival when an antibiotic is present in the environment, this benefit is at the expense of a previously existing function."

So you see, this is a word game. If you define evolution as such, then no one will disagree with the "fact of evolution." But in reality, the term "evolution" means much more than just change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time... it is a specific kind of change, the kind that can create organs, fashion limbs, develop consciousness, etc.

So personally, I have reasons to not accept the theory of evolution, both religious and scientific. And I do not consider myself ignorant or unintelligent because of this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daniel49
well its hard to believe that one would have to spell it out for you moonie.
Mother Teresa basically spent her life loving and careing for the unloved.
Teresa received Vatican permission on October 7, 1950 to start the diocesan congregation which would become the Missionaries of Charity.[14] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine
Text

whereas the other desires only to spread hate and murder.

Radical Preachings
In January 2007, Usamah was filmed by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches in their investigation titled Undercover Mosque. Some of his preaching that was secretly filmed included a number of anti-Western, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, and other controversial sentiments.[1][2]

Abu Usamah has told worshippers Osama Bin Laden is "better than a million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" and that non-Muslims are "pathological liars."[1]

Abu Usamah stated that Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state. He says that apostates of islam should be killed.[3]

Regarding women, he said, "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."[1]

Abu Usamah said, "No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar. We hate the kuffaar."[1]

Abu Usamah stated in defense that the documentary had quoted him "out of context."[4]

Text

they were/are both "RELIGIOUS" but stand for 2 very opposite things

How are they opposite when each believes their individual interpretations are right? Both are dedicated to the God of their understanding.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Here is a simplified summary of what I'm saying: "As a group, the mutations associated with antibiotic resistance involve the loss or reduction of a pre-existing cellular function/activity, i.e., the target molecule lost an affinity for the antibiotic, the antibiotic transport system was reduced or eliminated, a regulatory system or enzyme activity was reduced or eliminated, etc. (Table I). These are not mutations that can account for the origin of those cellular systems and activities. While these mutations would certainly be ?beneficial? for bacterial survival when an antibiotic is present in the environment, this benefit is at the expense of a previously existing function.

This is not a rule by any means, sometimes the resistance is built up by removing the part that was attacted by teh antibiotic, but other times new structures are developed. For example one of the primary modes of resistance is the development of chemical pumps in the cell membrane which selectively remove the antibiotic, this requries the ADDITION of a new structure and function to the bacteria. Saying that all observable mutations result in the removal of information is simply not true.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: screech
how do you have 13% of agnostics/atheists saying god created humans in their current form?

As far as quesiton 15.....sheesh. Some people (ie, 48% of respondents) need to get out more....

An Atheist denies the possibility of there being a god.

An Agnost says it is possible, maybe even plausible that there is a god, but that the proof is still lacking, or that it is still unclear as to what religion would be the correct one.

Therefor an Agnost can say it is quite likely a god exists and created a lot of things, although it does not speak positively about the intelligence of such a person if they actually dismiss evolution and claim it was created in present form.

Unfortunately most Americans (or humans in general for that matter) are too stupid to understand the difference.

I would not vote for an Atheist, as I see them as being as stupid as religious freaks who believe in Creationism. I would vote for an Agnost, or if none is available for a moderately religious person. Therefor that voting question is flawed too.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I prefer the direction Pew has taken on their religion/god polls. They're being much more thorough in the questions they ask on their surveys and it's interesting how that changes the results.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: daniel49
well its hard to believe that one would have to spell it out for you moonie.
Mother Teresa basically spent her life loving and careing for the unloved.
Teresa received Vatican permission on October 7, 1950 to start the diocesan congregation which would become the Missionaries of Charity.[14] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine
Text

whereas the other desires only to spread hate and murder.

Radical Preachings
In January 2007, Usamah was filmed by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches in their investigation titled Undercover Mosque. Some of his preaching that was secretly filmed included a number of anti-Western, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, and other controversial sentiments.[1][2]

Abu Usamah has told worshippers Osama Bin Laden is "better than a million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" and that non-Muslims are "pathological liars."[1]

Abu Usamah stated that Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state. He says that apostates of islam should be killed.[3]

Regarding women, he said, "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."[1]

Abu Usamah said, "No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar. We hate the kuffaar."[1]

Abu Usamah stated in defense that the documentary had quoted him "out of context."[4]

Text

they were/are both "RELIGIOUS" but stand for 2 very opposite things

How are they opposite when each believes their individual interpretations are right? Both are dedicated to the God of their understanding.

your just being obtuse now.
If there are no absolutes or laws in the universe, no right no wrong, no good no evil, no truth no lies,no up no down, no in no out if everything is relative to your own understanding then civilization itself would dissapear.

If I believe your an hallucination of someones drunken stupor and that you will go away to never post on andantech again does my relative understanding make it truth?