Islam can murder buddhists too

[yavoon]

incase anyone was thinking that this is some reaction to evil bush or evil west or whatever else. islam is perfectly happy killing atheists, hindus, christians, other muslims, or buddhists. afterall, why play favorites?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_as/thailand_southern_violence

"More than 2,000 people have died in the provinces bordering Malaysia since the insurgency erupted in 2004"

shoot they are catching up to dead americans in iraq!

[Bronco Bob]

What's your point? A lot of Buddhists in Viet Nam were killed by Christians
from America back in the 60's and 70's. It's a war, what's the difference
what religion the combatants are?

[Swedish Extrovert]

Islamic leader "I hate Atheists too!"

From Richard Dawkins "God Delusion: The Root of all Evil" documentary -
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&Mytoken=3F397744-AB88-460B-AFE0445C4266A10A7411674
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nZgX4lSy-Mg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nZgX4lSy-Mg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

For more info, Richard Dawkins can help you out -
<a href="http://richarddawkins.net/foundation" target="_blank"><img src="http://richarddawkins.net/banners/468x60_RDFbanner.jpg" width="468" height="60" border="0" alt="RichardDawkins.net"></a>

[Cito Pelon]

Mohammedans are the most intolerant group of people. Everybody else is beneath them, and rightfully should be slaughtered or enslaved.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Mohammedans are the most intolerant group of people. Everybody else is beneath them, and rightfully should be slaughtered or enslaved.

I agree... the same holds true for those hateful Christians and Jews though...

[Bronco Bob]

I agree... the same holds true for those hateful Christians and Jews though...

When you come down to it, all religions have been perverted, because
they are all constructs of man, and men have their own agendas.
So to say Islam is any more evil than Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism,
Hinduism, Taoism, etc. is ludicrous. Is what al-Quada is doing right
now that much more evil than what the Ku Klux Klan was doing
last century?

[Swedish Extrovert]

Thats what Richard Dawkins said...

In his book, the God Delusion, Dawkins blasts the producers of his documentery for using the words "The Root of all Evil?" in the title, because he thinks that it is people who have perverted religion.

He still opposes religion, however, as he claims that it is ultimately the motivation for all the wars and bombings etc. in the world. He says that religion has been good, even necessary, in the past, for the progression of society. However, religion now is nothing but an excuse to use ridiculous dogma to justify apocalyptic acts.

To tell you the truth, I don't think American Christians realize how genocidal their 'fatih' actually is in *other* countries.

[Cito Pelon]

When you come down to it, all religions have been perverted, because
they are all constructs of man, and men have their own agendas.
So to say Islam is any more evil than Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism,
Hinduism, Taoism, etc. is ludicrous. Is what al-Quada is doing right
now that much more evil than what the Ku Klux Klan was doing
last century?

What happens I think is humans tend to get behind the most aggressive voices. There is always some turmoil that a charismatic person can exploit, and they do so. Sometimes it gets to be like a tidal wave. Then you see the established power-structure go into a "keeping the lid on to prevent the pot from boiling over" mode. And then who knows what will happen. There's so many dynamics on this crazy planet, and always some divisions to exploit for the megalomaniacs.

Here's little tidbit from Voltaire's "Candide" (AD 1759) and something that has stuck with me: "Do you think", said Candide, "that men have always massacred each other as they do today, always been liars, cheats, faithbreakers, ingrates, brigands, weaklings, rovers, cowards, enviers, gluttons, drunkards, misers, self-seekers, carnivores, calumniators, debauchers, fanatics, hypocrites, and fools?" Candide's mentor, Martin, says yes, that is the human character. So the point is to keep a level head throughout the ridiculous extremes we humans go to and marginalize the nuts at both ends of the spectrum. The conclusion of Voltaire's "Candide" is to cultivate your own garden. I'm a gardener, and we're the best people around, easily.

[yavoon]

What's your point? A lot of Buddhists in Viet Nam were killed by Christians
from America back in the 60's and 70's. It's a war, what's the difference
what religion the combatants are?

are we now practicing moral equivalance between war and terroristic assasinations of civilians? this is an interesting supposition. would u please write an essay on how bombing a military position in a declared war is equivalent to murdering an ice cream vendor or burning a teacher alive in his car(both of which happened in thailand).

k thanks.

[yavoon]

When you come down to it, all religions have been perverted, because
they are all constructs of man, and men have their own agendas.
So to say Islam is any more evil than Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism,
Hinduism, Taoism, etc. is ludicrous. Is what al-Quada is doing right
now that much more evil than what the Ku Klux Klan was doing
last century?

yes its ludicrous to take several ideologies w/ written holy books and hudnreds of years of theological practice and dare claim that u are in anyway capable of discerning between them.

its like when religion is concerned ppl take every logical procedure they've ever learned in their entire life and throw it away. I dont need to think or understand! thats for bigots and racists!

[yavoon]

Thats what Richard Dawkins said...

In his book, the God Delusion, Dawkins blasts the producers of his documentery for using the words "The Root of all Evil?" in the title, because he thinks that it is people who have perverted religion.

He still opposes religion, however, as he claims that it is ultimately the motivation for all the wars and bombings etc. in the world. He says that religion has been good, even necessary, in the past, for the progression of society. However, religion now is nothing but an excuse to use ridiculous dogma to justify apocalyptic acts.

To tell you the truth, I don't think American Christians realize how genocidal their 'fatih' actually is in *other* countries.

the most violent and oppressive christian country is probably cuba. and its communist. if u run a list of countries on basis of freedom of religion and freedom of speech the christian ones are all at the top and the muslim ones are all at the bottom(with the communist ones, and the normal number of exceptions).

its like the first person to apply the least amount of brainpower to the problem wins. whoever makes the least discerning most generalized politically correct statement faster is the best man.

[yavoon]

one thing the relativists like to use as immaculate proof of their "allreligionlooksame" argument is the IRA. even though this doesn't really hold up to any comparative analysis, the failure of the IRA thing is actually even worse. here is what the pope said about the IRA:

"On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and return to the ways of peace."

He continued: "To Catholics, to Protestants, my message is peace and love. May no Irish Protestant think the Pope is an enemy, a danger or a threat."

He also called on Ireland's youth not to engage in violence: "I appeal to young people who may have become caught up in organisations engaged in violence.

"I say to you, with all the love I have for you, with all the trust I have in young people: Do not listen to voices which speak the language of hatred, revenge, retaliation."

now islam doesn't have a highest figure. but lets look at sunni orthodoxy(about 90% of muslims are sunni).

The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared:

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328)
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 )
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…

[Swedish Extrovert]

the most violent and oppressive christian country is probably cuba. and its communist. if u run a list of countries on basis of freedom of religion and freedom of speech the christian ones are all at the top and the muslim ones are all at the bottom(with the communist ones, and the normal number of exceptions).

its like the first person to apply the least amount of brainpower to the problem wins. whoever makes the least discerning most generalized politically correct statement faster is the best man.

And, with the exception of communism the Atheistic ones would be on top of the Christian ones.

Communism sucks.

The most free countries in America are all Atheistic... so are the most philanthropic... and healthiest.

The four most atheistic countries in the world are Sweden, Holland, Czech Republic, and Denmark.

The four most free countries in the world are Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and Belgium.

[yavoon]

And, with the exception of communism the Atheistic ones would be on top of the Christian ones.

Communism sucks.

The most free countries in America are all Atheistic... so are the most philanthropic... and healthiest.

The four most atheistic countries in the world are Sweden, Holland, Czech Republic, and Denmark.

The four most free countries in the world are Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and Belgium.

not that atheism is a belief system, but I'm an atheist:). go atheism!

[Swedish Extrovert]

Jeez I hate when people refer to atheism as a 'belief system'

It's a lack of belief.

Most atheist intelectuals always tell insiders to look at religion from and outside perspective.

From a Christian perspective, Islam is just utterly ridiculous. From a Muslim perspective, Christianity is ridiculous.

Atheists simply don't persue blind faith as they take an objective look at religion and find that they're ALL utter ridiculous.

Atheism is part of who I am, not a belief system.

I'm an Atheist, I'm a secular humanist, I'm an environmentalist, I'm a vegan, and I'm a libertarian that identifies with the Democrats. Thats who I am.

Humans have a moral compass built into them. Thats why atheists tend to be more humanitarian and less judging (and for the most part, more moral) than Christians or Muslims.

[yavoon]

Jeez I hate when people refer to atheism as a 'belief system'

It's a lack of belief.

Most atheist intelectuals always tell insiders to look at religion from and outside perspective.

From a Christian perspective, Islam is just utterly ridiculous. From a Muslim perspective, Christianity is ridiculous.

Atheists simply don't persue blind faith as they take an objective look at religion and find that they're ALL utter ridiculous.

Atheism is part of who I am, not a belief system.

I'm an Atheist, I'm a secular humanist, I'm an environmentalist, I'm a vegan, and I'm a libertarian that identifies with the Democrats. Thats who I am.

Humans have a moral compass built into them. Thats why atheists tend to be more humanitarian and less judging (and for the most part, more moral) than Christians or Muslims.

well commies are atheists. there are pitfalls in both secular and religious ideologies.

I love me atheist quotes though:

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear"
-Thomas Jefferson

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

"Primates often have trouble imagining a universe not run by an angry alpha male"

[yavoon]

thomas jefferson is one of my favorite ppl, and even he had to take **** form the "kill them wherever they are" jihadists.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

[alkemical]

are we now practicing moral equivalance between war and terroristic assasinations of civilians? this is an interesting supposition. would u please write an essay on how bombing a military position in a declared war is equivalent to murdering an ice cream vendor or burning a teacher alive in his car(both of which happened in thailand).

k thanks.

When an explosion blows up a market stand and 50 people die, does it matter if it came from a missile killing "terrorists", or a suicide bomber?

[alkemical]

Jeez I hate when people refer to atheism as a 'belief system'

It's a lack of belief.

Most atheist intelectuals always tell insiders to look at religion from and outside perspective.

From a Christian perspective, Islam is just utterly ridiculous. From a Muslim perspective, Christianity is ridiculous.

Atheists simply don't persue blind faith as they take an objective look at religion and find that they're ALL utter ridiculous.

Atheism is part of who I am, not a belief system.



I'm an Atheist, I'm a secular humanist, I'm an environmentalist, I'm a vegan, and I'm a libertarian that identifies with the Democrats. Thats who I am.

Humans have a moral compass built into them. Thats why atheists tend to be more humanitarian and less judging (and for the most part, more moral) than Christians or Muslims.




Atheism is a belief system. You still have a system that defines what you believe. (Unbeliefs are still beliefs. Instead of believing "god" exists, you just believe god doesn't exist). Failure to recognize that is the downfall of anyone that thinks other wise. Sorry to break the news to ya! It's not my fault the ego clouds the view of all might reason and logic, when of course you are tricked by your own reason and logic.

Even by your own example that one religion finds the others invalid, yours does. No difference, and your approach to such is just the same as any fundamentalist of any other religion trying to discredit another....

(Ps you can't be a libertarian and a Democrat as the party stands now, it's an oxymoron..)

[yavoon]

When an explosion blows up a market stand and 50 people die, does it matter if it came from a missile killing "terrorists", or a suicide bomber?

are u suggesting it does not? the question was asking him to support his moral relativism. since its always fun watching relativists flounder around.

[alkemical]

are u suggesting it does not? the question was asking him to support his moral relativism. since its always fun watching relativists flounder around.

I know, i enjoy watching you out of water myself.

[Swedish Extrovert]

thomas jefferson is one of my favorite ppl, and even he had to take **** form the "kill them wherever they are" jihadists.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador’s response was reported to the Continental Congress:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

ahhhh Thomas Jefferson, one of my longstanding theoretical and political heroes

[yavoon]

Atheism is a belief system. You still have a system that defines what you believe. (Unbeliefs are still beliefs. Instead of believing "god" exists, you just believe god doesn't exist). Failure to recognize that is the downfall of anyone that thinks other wise. Sorry to break the news to ya! It's not my fault the ego clouds the view of all might reason and logic, when of course you are tricked by your own reason and logic.

Even by your own example that one religion finds the others invalid, yours does. No difference, and your approach to such is just the same as any fundamentalist of any other religion trying to discredit another....

(Ps you can't be a libertarian and a Democrat as the party stands now, it's an oxymoron..)

negation does not constitute a belief system. do u have a belief system based upon ur unbelief of the greek gods, the spaghetti monster and invisible pink titanium elephants orbitting the sun at a great distance?

like I said prior, if we were to use ur version of a "belief system" everyone would have an infinite number of belief systems, because we can imagine an infinite number of unprovable things to not believe in. but thats absurd, and intellectually useless.

[alkemical]

negation does not constitute a belief system. do u have a belief system based upon ur unbelief of the greek gods, the spaghetti monster and invisible pink titanium elephants orbitting the sun at a great distance?

like I said prior, if we were to use ur version of a "belief system" everyone would have an infinite number of belief systems, because we can imagine an infinite number of unprovable things to not believe in. but thats absurd, and intellectually useless.


Doesn't everyone have a number of different belief systems that may or may not be true? Not even just religion based, but perception based as well.
How we believe our interaction with the world is, is a belief on that.

You still have a belief there is no god. Uhmm, last i checked - THAT's a belief. :)

(Not to mention, what POV i have of god - is NOT that of the major religions - I do believe in some sort of Intelligent Design - but only through observation that everything is perfect in design)

[TailgateNut]

Humans have a moral compass built into them. Thats why atheists tend to be more humanitarian and less judging (and for the most part, more moral) than Christians or Muslims.


That comment will get you "stoned" faster than admitting you're a closet Raider Fan!

[fatcard]

An Agnostic:

one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive. (agnosticism)

Its the best we can hope for surely... let every person find their own god.

Religion itself is not absurd, for people want to believe in some greater power, but one person teaching another what to believe is unconsionable.

[alkemical]

An Agnostic:

one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive. (agnosticism)

Its the best we can hope for surely... let every person find their own god.

Religion itself is not absurd, for people want to believe in some greater power, but one person teaching another what to believe is unconsionable.


Thats what i'm about. I don't care if your belief system is whatever - just don't tell me what to believe.

[Swedish Extrovert]

That comment will get you "stoned" faster than admitting you're a closet Raider Fan!

But it's allthewhile true. A great injustice.

**** the Raiders.

[Swedish Extrovert]

An Agnostic:

one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive. (agnosticism)

Its the best we can hope for surely... let every person find their own god.

Religion itself is not absurd, for people want to believe in some greater power, but one person teaching another what to believe is unconsionable.

In that sense, I'm an agnostic.

The actual definition of an agnostic is someone who believes that the existance of God is neither provable or unprovable, and therefor irelevant to the existance of life. You can be both an Atheist and Agnostic at the same time.

However, I don't believe in God therefore I'm an atheist. If someone can prove me wrong, I would be the first to convert. At the end of this life, when I die, if I go to heaven/hell all I can do is ask God 'why' as I tremble in fear of his mighty ways.

Somehow I dont think it will come to that.

I'd like to add that yes, religion is absurd. Every religious text in the history of man has an author and it isn't God. Don't forget about 9/11, Don't forget about suicide bombings, the holocaust, the crusades...

A friend once tried to change me and my Secular Humanist ways. He said, "You know who the most famous vegan atheist is?.... Hitler." I was offended because in Mein Kampf, Hitler credits much of what he did to the Luthern Church - clearly a fallacy - and he never became vegitarian untill WWII was almost over.


Speaking of.... I just thought I would share a quote that I saw by Ann Coulter - about my intellectual hero, Richard Dawkins -

"I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell." - Ann Coulter in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

[alkemical]

In that sense, I'm an agnostic.

The actual definition of an agnostic is someone who believes that the existance of God is neither provable or unprovable, and therefor irelevant to the existance of life. You can be both an Atheist and Agnostic at the same time.
However, I don't believe in God therefore I'm an atheist. If someone can prove me wrong, I would be the first to convert. At the end of this life, when I die, if I go to heaven/hell all I can do is ask God 'why' as I tremble in fear of his mighty ways.

Somehow I dont think it will come to that.



If you don't believe in god, you can't be agnostic. It sets a dogma loose.

[Swedish Extrovert]

If you don't believe in god, you can't be agnostic. It sets a dogma loose.

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To
say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to
say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels,
no soul. I cannot reason otherwise .. . without plunging
into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am
satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which
are, without tormenting or troubling myself about
those which may indeed be, but of which I have no
evidence.

-- Thomas Jefferson

(after his presidency, a close advisor to Jefferson said, Jefferson was simply an Atheist, a Godless Atheist).

[Bronco Bob]

Anyone ever heard of something called a "cargo cult"?

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

Pretty silly, huh? Until you stop and think about where other so-called mainstream religions might have gotten their ideas from.

[TailgateNut]

But it's allthewhile true. A great injustice.

**** the Raiders.

Wasn't disagreeing.

[TailgateNut]

Anyone ever heard of something called a "cargo cult"?

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

Pretty silly, huh? Until you stop and think about where other so-called mainstream religions might have gotten their ideas from.

At first I thought you were talking about the Reverent from Co. Springs and his beliefs., you know the one with alot of "baggage". ROFL!

[alkemical]

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To
say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to
say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels,
no soul. I cannot reason otherwise .. . without plunging
into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am
satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which
are, without tormenting or troubling myself about
those which may indeed be, but of which I have no
evidence.

-- Thomas Jefferson

(after his presidency, a close advisor to Jefferson said, Jefferson was simply an Atheist, a Godless Atheist).



Wrong-O - He was a diest. He believed in a god, just not one nec. defined by any set religion. Which is why he rejected organized religion. I'd suggest you do some work yourself, instead of just using what authority tells ya.

[Swedish Extrovert]

You're right, maybe I should form my own opinion... wait I have one.

I disagree with Dawkins on many things...

The research I've done on Jefferson, by those close to him, have revealed that he was in fact an Atheist.

Think about the house of representitives... 435 congressmen and 100 senators. Not one Atheist - yet they are all (at least some what) reasonbale and they are all college educated. Are we to believe that of 535 college educated, reason-oriented people, not one is an atheist? That is a complete fallacy, as I would suspect that the majority of the Democratic party is, at the very least agnostic. This holds true - to a lesser extent - to the republican party as well. Just ask yourself, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

I gotta go get a haircut now.

[alkemical]

You're right, maybe I should form my own opinion... wait I have one.

I disagree with Dawkins on many things...

The research I've done on Jefferson, by those close to him, have revealed that he was in fact an Atheist.

Think about the house of representitives... 435 congressmen and 100 senators. Not one Atheist - yet they are all (at least some what) reasonbale and they are all college educated. Are we to believe that of 535 college educated, reason-oriented people, not one is an atheist? That is a complete fallacy, as I would suspect that the majority of the Democratic party is, at the very least agnostic. This holds true - to a lesser extent - to the republican party as well. Just ask yourself, "Who would Jesus bomb?"

I gotta go get a haircut now.



"Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm)

http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm


If you understand Deism, then you understand WHY jefferson was against the organized religious groups of people. It has nothing to do nec. with education.

So by all accounts - every bit of info i found was he was a diest. Because he "railed" against organized religion does not make him an atheist. Hell i rail against organized religion, but i believe there is a "creator".





For the rest of it, you got off point....

[Swedish Extrovert]

I'm pointing out how Jefferson lied about faith in god to the publix so he could get elected.

[alkemical]

I'm pointing out how Jefferson lied about faith in god to the publix so he could get elected.

You didn't cite that. You cited he was an atheist. Which he wasn't, so i'm going to derail your deflection. Jefferson never lied about his faith in God, he just didn't classify it in the way that most people deemed it. So he let them take "god" at their own liberty and context. The press railed against him when he was president about being an atheist, in which he stated his beliefs in a creator.

Now mind you, Deism has been put in a category of "positive atheism" - but i'm not sure how relevant that is - since well - as a deist - he believed in God - so it seems like "positive atheism" is just a form of doublethink.

[yavoon]

You didn't cite that. You cited he was an atheist. Which he wasn't, so i'm going to derail your deflection. Jefferson never lied about his faith in God, he just didn't classify it in the way that most people deemed it. So he let them take "god" at their own liberty and context. The press railed against him when he was president about being an atheist, in which he stated his beliefs in a creator.

Now mind you, Deism has been put in a category of "positive atheism" - but i'm not sure how relevant that is - since well - as a deist - he believed in God - so it seems like "positive atheism" is just a form of doublethink.

most deists and atheists are indistinguishable from one another in any practical way. most deists believe in an irrelevant god, atheists believe in no god. there really isnt a difference.

now ppl like u who believe absurdities about how not believing in pink elephants constitutes a belief system. well there will always be ppl who are logically challenged.

[Swedish Extrovert]

We'll leave it hate "Thomas Jefferson hated organized religion"

Pink Elephants exist... look at Mary Cheney

[alkemical]

most deists and atheists are indistinguishable from one another in any practical way. most deists believe in an irrelevant god, atheists believe in no god. there really isnt a difference.

now ppl like u who believe absurdities about how not believing in pink elephants constitutes a belief system. well there will always be ppl who are logically challenged.

Of course there are people who are logically challenged. We could make you a case study out of it.

So let me get this straight. Deists believe in a God, Athiests do not.... So how is that not a difference? (Logic failing here). But since you don't believe in god, explain to me how that's not a belief.

See this is where you fail Noooovay - because you believe in something (even if it's nothing) - you still are using belief as a tool.

I just find it hilarious that the ego of most atheists allows trip over this all the time. Which of course, comes into not only the failings of logic - but it also shows how similar any fundamentalist belief is in dogmatic execution.

[yavoon]

Of course there are people who are logically challenged. We could make you a case study out of it.

So let me get this straight. Deists believe in a God, Athiests do not.... So how is that not a difference? (Logic failing here). But since you don't believe in god, explain to me how that's not a belief.

See this is where you fail Noooovay - because you believe in something (even if it's nothing) - you still are using belief as a tool.

I just find it hilarious that the ego of most atheists allows trip over this all the time. Which of course, comes into not only the failings of logic - but it also shows how similar any fundamentalist belief is in dogmatic execution.

disbelief is not a belief system. I've already posted to u about this twice. its absurd to say that u can invent things that are unrpovable, then when I dont believe in them u say I'm just following a different belief system. that would indicate that everyone has an infinite number of belief systems. which is stupid, and par for the course on ur thinking.

as for deists and atheists u obviously need reading comprehension lessons. here it is again:

"most deists and atheists are indistinguishable from one another in any practical way. most deists believe in an irrelevant god, atheists believe in no god. there really isnt a difference."

[alkemical]

We'll leave it hate "Thomas Jefferson hated organized religion"

Pink Elephants exist... look at Mary Cheney



LOL @ The pink elephants comment.


Jefferson hated the corruption that organized religion could extract upon people. He found it dangerous that fundamentalist behaviour can be used to impose a minorities will upon a majority and vice versa.

It's why for him "god" wasn't Christian-God - but just "god" whom he had his own "relationship" with.

[alkemical]

disbelief is not a belief system. I've already posted to u about this twice. its absurd to say that u can invent things that are unrpovable, then when I dont believe in them u say I'm just following a different belief system. that would indicate that everyone has an infinite number of belief systems. which is stupid, and par for the course on ur thinking.

as for deists and atheists u obviously need reading comprehension lessons. here it is again:

"most deists and atheists are indistinguishable from one another in any practical way. most deists believe in an irrelevant god, atheists believe in no god. there really isnt a difference."


Hey i'll try this again since logic was missing on your chromosome set:

If you don't believe god exists, you are still believing in the fact god doesn't exist.

Also prove god doesn't exist in the Diest nature, since you know they believe in God - and last time i checked atheism believed in no god. (Again you are a contradicktion.......)

[yavoon]

Hey i'll try this again since logic was missing on your chromosome set:

If you don't believe god exists, you are still believing in the fact god doesn't exist.

thats stil an absurd statement, even if u bold it.


"disbelief is not a belief system. I've already posted to u about this twice. its absurd to say that u can invent things that are unrpovable, then when I dont believe in them u say I'm just following a different belief system. that would indicate that everyone has an infinite number of belief systems. which is stupid, and par for the course on ur thinking."

ur not becoming more correct just because ur getting belligerent. ur only stringing out the sillyness of ur logic.

[alkemical]

thats stil an absurd statement, even if u bold it.


"disbelief is not a belief system. I've already posted to u about this twice. its absurd to say that u can invent things that are unrpovable, then when I dont believe in them u say I'm just following a different belief system. that would indicate that everyone has an infinite number of belief systems. which is stupid, and par for the course on ur thinking."

ur not becoming more correct just because ur getting belligerent. ur only stringing out the sillyness of ur logic.

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis
Hey i'll try this again since logic was missing on your chromosome set:

If you don't believe god exists, you are still believing in the fact god doesn't exist.

Also prove god doesn't exist in the Diest nature, since you know they believe in God - and last time i checked atheism believed in no god. (Again you are a contradicktion.......)

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis
Hey i'll try this again since logic was missing on your chromosome set:

If you don't believe god exists, you are still believing in the fact god doesn't exist.

Also prove god doesn't exist in the Diest nature, since you know they believe in God - and last time i checked atheism believed in no god. (Again you are a contradicktion.......)

prove god doesn't exist, the ultimate stupidity of logic. good to see u actually went there. atleast now everyone can see what kind of ammo u bring to the fight.

"prove god doesn't exist"

hahahahahahahaha.

[alkemical]

prove god doesn't exist, the ultimate stupidity of logic. good to see u actually went there. atleast now everyone can see what kind of ammo u bring to the fight.

"prove god doesn't exist"

hahahahahahahaha.

Then how else would you come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist if you didn't prove god was non-existant? I mean, if you didn't prove that god is non-existant - then you'd be going on a.... belief that god doesn't exist.

Have a good day, maybe read up on some of the dictionary and find out what "belief" means.

[fatcard]

disbelief is not a belief system. I've already posted to u about this twice. its absurd to say that u can invent things that are unrpovable, then when I dont believe in them u say I'm just following a different belief system. that would indicate that everyone has an infinite number of belief systems. which is stupid, and par for the course on ur thinking.

as for deists and atheists u obviously need reading comprehension lessons. here it is again:

"most deists and atheists are indistinguishable from one another in any practical way. most deists believe in an irrelevant god, atheists believe in no god. there really isnt a difference."

craziness.

Whats wrong with an infinite number of belief "systems" anyway?

and

It feels like you're complaining because a believer in the scientific/agnostic sense doesn't match the christian "I see the light" sense of the word.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Its exaclty what I'm saying....

Is your 'disbelief' (I'm assuming) in the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually a belief?

No

Its a proposterous thing to *believe* in much like the judeo-christiand god. Therefore, it isn't a believe no disbelieve it (I can believe I just said that).

[orangenblue2]

Its exaclty what I'm saying....

Is your 'disbelief' (I'm assuming) in the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually a belief?

In Claviculasolomonis' world it is. He is also a "believer" in an infinite number of things that he does or doesn't believe in. I've had this discussion with him and many others for longer than I care to admit. For Claviculasolomonis and others like him, telling an atheist that he has "belief" or "faith" somehow wins them points. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me, but...I'm going to repost something that I think is a wonderful paen to non-belief...



"I believe that there is no god. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in god. Not believing in god is easy - you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You cant prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in god and then look for evidence of god. She needs to search for some obejective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no god."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to be the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no god means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no god stops me from being solopsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without god, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith."That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do."So, believing there is no god lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no god means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future.No god means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no god gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O[and all the other things I can prove...and that make this life the best life I will ever have."



Beautiful words (to me at least), and I couldn't have said it better myself. The above words are from Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame). The bolding is mine....:peace:

[yavoon]

Then how else would you come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist if you didn't prove god was non-existant? I mean, if you didn't prove that god is non-existant - then you'd be going on a.... belief that god doesn't exist.

Have a good day, maybe read up on some of the dictionary and find out what "belief" means.

"Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."


"appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence."

"proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."

[ant1999e]

Jeez I hate when people refer to atheism as a 'belief system'

It's a lack of belief.

Most atheist intelectuals always tell insiders to look at religion from and outside perspective.

From a Christian perspective, Islam is just utterly ridiculous. From a Muslim perspective, Christianity is ridiculous.

Atheists simply don't persue blind faith as they take an objective look at religion and find that they're ALL utter ridiculous.

Atheism is part of who I am, not a belief system.

I'm an Atheist, I'm a secular humanist, I'm an environmentalist, I'm a vegan, and I'm a libertarian that identifies with the Democrats. Thats who I am.

Humans have a moral compass built into them. Thats why atheists tend to be more humanitarian and less judging (and for the most part, more moral) than Christians or Muslims.

LOL You are very judgemental of us god fearing people.

[alkemical]

"Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."


"appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence."

"proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."



Still copping out eh?

LOL. Guess you didn't look up what "belief" means in the dictionary yet.

[yavoon]

Still copping out eh?

LOL. Guess you didn't look up what "belief" means in the dictionary yet.

yes, pointing out gross logical fallacies and absurd theories is obviously copping out. I mean lets look past the complete absurdity of ur statement or the logical fallacies that u use to defend it. afterall, we could take ur argument on faith!

[alkemical]

In Claviculasolomonis' world it is. He is also a "believer" in an infinite number of things that he does or doesn't believe in. I've had this discussion with him and many others for longer than I care to admit. For Claviculasolomonis and others like him, telling an atheist that he has "belief" or "faith" somehow wins them points. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me, but...I'm going to repost something that I think is a wonderful paen to non-belief...



"I believe that there is no god. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in god. Not believing in god is easy - you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You cant prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in god and then look for evidence of god. She needs to search for some obejective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no god."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to be the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no god means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no god stops me from being solopsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without god, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith."That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do."So, believing there is no god lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no god means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future.No god means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no god gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O[and all the other things I can prove...and that make this life the best life I will ever have."



Beautiful words (to me at least), and I couldn't have said it better myself. The above words are from Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame). The bolding is mine....:peace:



But what you fail to realize is... That i don't care what you believe in, even if you believe in no god. It's not about winning points, it just easy logical psychology. Also - you want to talk about winning points type of stuck up attitude, i'd look in the mirror on this nose-in-the-air/my-****-don't-stink attitude these so called atheists present upon anyone who believes in any sort of faith. So, really - if you want to play that game - your judgment is exactly the same root principle of the contempt you carry for judgmental religious types.

You have a belief system if you believe in soul mates, you have a belief system if you believe that women/men are untrust worthy. You have a belief system if you feel all muslims are going to kill all non-muslims. Hell even time is a belief. Belief that the money in your wallet is worth something is a belief. Everything is a belief. (yes even you who is reading this and believes nickleback is the greatest band ever.)

Everything that you use to explain the world in accordance to your interaction with it - is a belief.

Don't get upset at me because when you say: "I don't believe god exists" - and i point out, that ugh - it's a belief. Neither any more true or provable that god doesn't exist, than what my own interpretation of god is (which isn't some eye-in-the-sky Aiken to the majors).

So please don't mis-represent me when it's not my fault you don't understand that even not believing in something is still part of a belief system you build for your own reality.

[fontaine]

In that sense, I'm an agnostic.

The actual definition of an agnostic is someone who believes that the existance of God is neither provable or unprovable, and therefor irelevant to the existance of life. You can be both an Atheist and Agnostic at the same time.

However, I don't believe in God therefore I'm an atheist. If someone can prove me wrong, I would be the first to convert. At the end of this life, when I die, if I go to heaven/hell all I can do is ask God 'why' as I tremble in fear of his mighty ways.

Somehow I dont think it will come to that.



You've just validated the belief system of a religious believer. "Your" perception is your reality. How can anyone change your perception? You have to be willing to do that on your own.

For example: In the history of Christianity how many times has anyone "proved" to someone that God existed? Very rarely. In other words the odds of someone proving to you God exists is infinitesmal and therefore you are playing the odds (consciously or subconsciously) to suit your perception/predisposition that God doesn't exist. Short of a miraculous reveleation/epiphany you aren't going to believe in God and that occurance itself is very rare so it's dictating your belief or lack of beliefs (atheism). No problem, nothing wrong with living by numbers/odds.

I have PROVEN to myself God exists because that is my perception. And yes, my "proof" is also based on odds/high percentage that the proof was accurate. Someone else might view that proof the same way or not.

Let me give you another example following what you just posted:

Assume there is a GOD and upon your death, God thinks:

"MightySmurf is a good guy. He doesn't believe in me but that's cool. He is a decent, good person at heart so instead of destroying his atheism/mind set, I'm going to let him choose his destiny. Since MightySmurf doesn't believe in me then he won't go to heaven or hell and cease to exist."

So in your perception, even in your afterlife you would be proved right to yourself and you would cease to exist fully believing in your perceptions.

So again, how is proving God exists to you a burden of proof on me or any other Christian or even God/Jesus?

There's a parable about this very concept in the Bible. Spread the word does not mean prove to other people. Some will believe, some won't. IT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO DECIDE. I know I'm paraphrasing but isn't that what Jesus said in the Bible?

I'd like to add that yes, religion is absurd. Every religious text in the history of man has an author and it isn't God. Don't forget about 9/11, Don't forget about suicide bombings, the holocaust, the crusades...

A friend once tried to change me and my Secular Humanist ways. He said, "You know who the most famous vegan atheist is?.... Hitler." I was offended because in Mein Kampf, Hitler credits much of what he did to the Luthern Church - clearly a fallacy - and he never became vegitarian untill WWII was almost over.


Come on, don't be so naive. In one breath you're quoting the suicide bombings, crusades, the freakin holocaust as a basis of daming religion and in another breath you are rejecting the same logic by getting offended when a friend did the same thing to you by suggesting Hitler was a vegan?

:rofl:

[alkemical]

yes, pointing out gross logical fallacies and absurd theories is obviously copping out. I mean lets look past the complete absurdity of ur statement or the logical fallacies that u use to defend it. afterall, we could take ur argument on faith!


Back to personal attacks, without even answering my questions.

Checkmate, mate.

Have a good day!

[alkemical]

Its exaclty what I'm saying....

Is your 'disbelief' (I'm assuming) in the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually a belief?

No

Its a proposterous thing to *believe* in much like the judeo-christiand god. Therefore, it isn't a believe no disbelieve it (I can believe I just said that).


I don't believe the flying spaghetti monster exists. But i have no proof otherwise.

But can you explain to me how the golden mean spiral seems to be so prevelant in nature, or why everything seems ordered in the ways it should be (ecosystems, etc, etc)? Can you explain to me how a little tiny piece of code dictates more or less whom you are (DNA)?

Even if you come to the belief that it's all randomness and things just happened, that's still a belief that explains it to you.

[Bronco Bob]

I don't believe the flying spaghetti monster exists. But i have no proof otherwise.

But can you explain to me how the golden mean spiral seems to be so prevelant in nature, or why everything seems ordered in the ways it should be (ecosystems, etc, etc)? Can you explain to me how a little tiny piece of code dictates more or less whom you are (DNA)?

Even if you come to the belief that it's all randomness and things just happened, that's still a belief that explains it to you.

One theory is there is an infinite number of parallel universes with different
sets of laws and conditions. We are in one such that the laws and
conditions are just right for there to be us and to be aware of it.
In others perhaps there is no nuclear fusion so the whole universe
is just filled with hydrogen. In others perhaps silicon is a better
organic framework than carbon. In others gravity is stronger
so the whole thing collapsed upon itself seconds after its Big Bang.

DNA is an interesting stuff. It seems its whole purpose is to make
more DNA. So in our DNA there are sections to do something useful.
But most of it seems to have no purpose, it doesn't do anything,
it is just junk DNA. But it keeps on being replicated along with
the parts that do serve a purpose. One could ask if an intelligent
designer designed life, why did the designer do such a poor job
of it, if simple humans can spot all the flaws and cite improvements.

[yavoon]

I don't believe the flying spaghetti monster exists. But i have no proof otherwise.

But can you explain to me how the golden mean spiral seems to be so prevelant in nature, or why everything seems ordered in the ways it should be (ecosystems, etc, etc)? Can you explain to me how a little tiny piece of code dictates more or less whom you are (DNA)?

Even if you come to the belief that it's all randomness and things just happened, that's still a belief that explains it to you.

if humanity was water in a bowl we would marvel at how we are miraculously the exact size of the bowl, and probably invent a god that did it for us.

[Bronco Bob]

if humanity was water in a bowl we would marvel at how we are miraculously the exact size of the bowl, and probably invent a god that did it for us.

I often wonder if the fish in my aquarium think of me as a god. I appear
from nowhere, provide them food, and then disappear again. They seem
to be quite joyous at my arrival, swimming up to me and splashing about
in anticipation of me feeding them. It almost seems like a form of worship.

[yavoon]

I often wonder if the fish in my aquarium think of me as a god. I appear
from nowhere, provide them food, and then disappear again. They seem
to be quite joyous at my arrival, swimming up to me and splashing about
in anticipation of me feeding them. It almost seems like a form of worship.

haha cute:). there have been studies on mice/rats/whatever where they feed them using different methods. one of the methods is to feed completely at random, because the subjects have no idea what causes the food to come they will develop rituals to try and make it come. spinning around, getting up on hind legs, etc. its like a religion to explain why food comes, then to get more of it to come.

[Bronco Bob]

haha cute:). there have been studies on mice/rats/whatever where they feed them using different methods. one of the methods is to feed completely at random, because the subjects have no idea what causes the food to come they will develop rituals to try and make it come. spinning around, getting up on hind legs, etc. its like a religion to explain why food comes, then to get more of it to come.

Sounds like a rat version of a cargo cult.

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

[alkemical]

One theory is there is an infinite number of parallel universes with different
sets of laws and conditions. We are in one such that the laws and
conditions are just right for there to be us and to be aware of it.
In others perhaps there is no nuclear fusion so the whole universe
is just filled with hydrogen. In others perhaps silicon is a better
organic framework than carbon. In others gravity is stronger
so the whole thing collapsed upon itself seconds after its Big Bang.

DNA is an interesting stuff. It seems its whole purpose is to make
more DNA. So in our DNA there are sections to do something useful.
But most of it seems to have no purpose, it doesn't do anything,
it is just junk DNA. But it keeps on being replicated along with
the parts that do serve a purpose. One could ask if an intelligent
designer designed life, why did the designer do such a poor job
of it, if simple humans can spot all the flaws and cite improvements.


DNA:

If it's junk DNA - it means we labled it as junk because we don't know what it's used for. Maybe that's the "coding" for our "soul".... or maybe that's what causes me to like Cherry Coke over say Dr. Pepper. ;) If all living things have DNA (more or less) - maybe we are all acting in according to our programming so to speak - and well - we are just automated. Then...God would be DNA!!! (cue orchestra music!) -

Multiverse/Quantum Theories:

Until it's proven, it's just a belief. (If you know the sort of wierdness with QM you know that what you are looking for, you sort of find, hence the joke) ;) I don't like beliefs. But i do like to wonder.

[alkemical]

if humanity was water in a bowl we would marvel at how we are miraculously the exact size of the bowl, and probably invent a god that did it for us.


Well - wouldn't someone have to make the water bowl? As well - maybe fish do sort of think that way. I mean they see in a 2D format - and with the eyes on the side of their head, they can't see up/down. So if you pick a fish up, and show him the world outside of the water - he'd go back and tell his fish friends of his amazing out of water expierence.

[alkemical]

Sounds like a rat version of a cargo cult.

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



Do atheists have superstitions? Like for good luck, don't use white lighters?

Just curious. (honestly)

[orangenblue2]

But what you fail to realize is... That i don't care what you believe in, even if you believe in no god. It's not about winning points, it just easy logical psychology. Also - you want to talk about winning points type of stuck up attitude, i'd look in the mirror on this nose-in-the-air/my-****-don't-stink attitude these so called atheists present upon anyone who believes in any sort of faith. So, really - if you want to play that game - your judgment is exactly the same root principle of the contempt you carry for judgmental religious types.

Take it easy, man. Did you even read the essay? It is titled, "This I Believe". I've conceded your point on nonbelief being a "belief". I don't care what you believe in either, even if you call yourself "key of solomon" and choose to immerse yourself in esoteric mumbo-jumbo. Machts nichts...

You have a belief system if you believe in soul mates, you have a belief system if you believe that women/men are untrust worthy. You have a belief system if you feel all muslims are going to kill all non-muslims. Hell even time is a belief. Belief that the money in your wallet is worth something is a belief. Everything is a belief. (yes even you who is reading this and believes nickleback is the greatest band ever.)

Everything that you use to explain the world in accordance to your interaction with it - is a belief.

Already addressed this. Reread the Penn essay...It explains much of what I "believe".

Don't get upset at me because when you say: "I don't believe god exists" - and i point out, that ugh - it's a belief. Neither any more true or provable that god doesn't exist, than what my own interpretation of god is (which isn't some eye-in-the-sky Aiken to the majors).

Dude, I'm not upset...and we all know that you don't hew to the major religions...You have reminded everyone many a time...

So please don't mis-represent me when it's not my fault you don't understand that even not believing in something is still part of a belief system you build for your own reality.

I apologize if I've "mis-represented" you. My beliefs are grounded in reality, so I hardly need a lecture about what my own "reality" is. Just because you may believe in any combination of religion, esoteric magic, demonology, etc. doesn't make you "deep" or a "philosopher". It means you are searching, and I wish you well on your journey. As for me, I'll deal with "reality" and "belief" that everyone can agree with...provable, verifiable, and real...

For everyone's edification:www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol.htm

[Bronco Bob]

Do atheists have superstitions? Like for good luck, don't use white lighters?

Just curious. (honestly)

Don't know, I'm not an atheist. I'm waiting for the white man to bring me some
cargo now that I've built me a straw radio so that I can contact them.

:captain:

[alkemical]

Take it easy, man. Did you even read the essay? It is titled, "This I Believe". I've conceded your point on nonbelief being a "belief". I don't care what you believe in either, even if you call yourself "key of solomon" and choose to immerse yourself in esoteric mumbo-jumbo. Machts nichts...



Already addressed this. Reread the Penn essay...It explains much of what I "believe".



Dude, I'm not upset...and we all know that you don't hew to the major religions...You have reminded everyone many a time...



I apologize if I've "mis-represented" you. My beliefs are grounded in reality, so I hardly need a lecture about what my own "reality" is. Just because you may believe in any combination of religion, esoteric magic, demonology, etc. doesn't make you "deep" or a "philosopher". It means you are searching, and I wish you well on your journey. As for me, I'll deal with "reality" and "belief" that everyone can agree with...provable, verifiable, and real...

For everyone's edification:www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol.htm

Alchemy is a psychology - not some mumbojumbo.

What's the most funny is that people want a scientific method to do something and have reproducible effects of the unknown. Yet, they fail to understand that the world around them is built by themselves. So where your world has no god. Mine has no identifiable god. Just the fact that everything is perfect in how it is.

Don't worry, we need atheists and i don't have a problem with atheism. Besides - someone has to work on the holidays. ;)

PS - good work on digging up what my username is. ;) Not to many gave it much thought. If you want to know if magic works, try it. I can't tell you if it's really "real" (an external force), or if it's just use of true will and belief to cause a projection of the mind. But i guess in the end if the experience is real - what's wrong with it?

When i've really needed work - i've done a mediation/prayer and used all of my will and focus and offered a sacrifice and viola - i got a job. What's wrong with that?

I mean, if i use a belief - to net a positive change - where's the negative gain?

See what you define as reality is still only your perception. Trust me on this - coming from someone that learned how to build 'reality tunnels' and live my life according to "that" reality - it's completly different on how your interaction with the world changes.

I'd suggest prometheus rising to explain and give excersize to quantum reality selection. I know you won't read it - but it is using psychology with "games" to teach you how to "at will" change your world.

I don't believe anything is "supernatural" - i think everything would have an answer as to how it happens.

[yavoon]

"Sonthi is the first Muslim to head the army in mainly Buddhist Thailand. After he seized power in a coup in September, he installed a government that promptly unveiled a raft of peace measures for the region.

But the violence has escalated, and the government remains uncertain who exactly is behind the attacks. No one has claimed responsibility for them or made any specific demands of the government."

the wonders of appeasement

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/thai-buddhist-woman-killed-and-burned/2007/04/11/1175971159708.html

of course its all the evil imperialist buddhist pig dogs fault.

[fontaine]

"Sonthi is the first Muslim to head the army in mainly Buddhist Thailand. After he seized power in a coup in September, he installed a government that promptly unveiled a raft of peace measures for the region.

But the violence has escalated, and the government remains uncertain who exactly is behind the attacks. No one has claimed responsibility for them or made any specific demands of the government."

the wonders of appeasement

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/thai-buddhist-woman-killed-and-burned/2007/04/11/1175971159708.html

of course its all the evil imperialist buddhist pig dogs fault.

So tell me this (since you seem so interested in this subject).

Is it the religion Islam that creates intolerance, violence and hatred in it's believers or the other way around?

[Rohirrim]

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." [Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.]

[yavoon]

So tell me this (since you seem so interested in this subject).

Is it the religion Islam that creates intolerance, violence and hatred in it's believers or the other way around?

islam is just an enabler. there will always be violent ppl in a population. religion is not 100% of life, there is still greed and nationalism and ambition and all sorts of ****.

but when u can read the one true word of god and its the koran, its a lot easier to become violent, intolerant, and bigoted. pious bigotry is practically a fundamental human right in most of the planet.

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."

[yavoon]

I've been to thailand, really nice ppl. I feel horrible that they have to deal w/ this too. plus the fact that its hyper active.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070412/wl_asia_afp/thailandsouthunresttoll_070412032105

[fontaine]

islam is just an enabler. there will always be violent ppl in a population. religion is not 100% of life, there is still greed and nationalism and ambition and all sorts of ****.

but when u can read the one true word of god and its the koran, its a lot easier to become violent, intolerant, and bigoted. pious bigotry is practically a fundamental human right in most of the planet.

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."


Perhaps, but I disagree with that last quote. Religion can have a great influence, but it has a duality to it.

I think society (or the state of a society) has a greater impact on how a particular religion is practiced. There are vast numbers of muslims in first world countries that have been vocal about practicing their faith without extremist/bigoted ways. There are nutjobs in all parts of faith/society but by and large I don't see vast numbers of suicide bombers from European/North American Isamic populations.

Even though I find a lot of Islam's teachings tasteless and abhorrent, I understand that it takes individuals to interpret those teachings in their own fashion to suit their own personal agendas.

Whereas in areas where society is fubar because of economic, political etc reasons then people are far more inclined to use their religion (Islam) as a tool for violence and hatred.

[yavoon]

Perhaps, but I disagree with that last quote. Religion can have a great influence, but it has a duality to it.

I think society (or the state of a society) has a greater impact on how a particular religion is practiced. There are vast numbers of muslims in first world countries that have been vocal about practicing their faith without extremist/bigoted ways. There are nutjobs in all parts of faith/society but by and large I don't see vast numbers of suicide bombers from European/North American Isamic populations.

Even though I find a lot of Islam's teachings tasteless and abhorrent, I understand that it takes individuals to interpret those teachings in their own fashion to suit their own personal agendas.

Whereas in areas where society is fubar because of economic, political etc reasons then people are far more inclined to use their religion (Islam) as a tool for violence and hatred.

no there havent. infact there have been numerous shows and articles about how muslims in the first world have been shouted down, beat up, and ostracized for expressing views like support of free speech and support of freedom of religion(notably towards criticizing islam and apostasy).

in britain an apostate might have to go underground(similar to the underground railroad for slaves) just to not get killed. its like that in many places in europe, in europe mosques across the continent are being taken over by younger generations coming from saudi arabia, because the old imams in them can't defend the peaceful version of their religion against the arguments eminating from the saudi's. in northern europe the taxi drivers act as informants to stop the women from going to places like rape shelters.

there was an article in the US about a muslim who got thrown out of his mosque for criticizing osama bin laden. in canada ppl are getting beatan up and ostracized for similar notions.

infact PBS just recently cancelled a show highlighting the fight between the true moderates(not what the moron media calls moderates) and the...ummm...traditional? muslims who silence them.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070411-123042-7035r.htm

[yavoon]

or like this, from norway.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1734869.ece

Norwegian-Somalian Kadra, who became famous in Norway for exposing imam support of female circumcision, was beaten unconscious on Thursday.

[fontaine]

no there havent. infact there have been numerous shows and articles about how muslims in the first world have been shouted down, beat up, and ostracized for expressing views like support of free speech and support of freedom of religion(notably towards criticizing islam and apostasy).

in britain an apostate might have to go underground(similar to the underground railroad for slaves) just to not get killed. its like that in many places in europe, in europe mosques across the continent are being taken over by younger generations coming from saudi arabia, because the old imams in them can't defend the peaceful version of their religion against the arguments eminating from the saudi's. in northern europe the taxi drivers act as informants to stop the women from going to places like rape shelters.

there was an article in the US about a muslim who got thrown out of his mosque for criticizing osama bin laden. in canada ppl are getting beatan up and ostracized for similar notions.

infact PBS just recently cancelled a show highlighting the fight between the true moderates(not what the moron media calls moderates) and the...ummm...traditional? muslims who silence them.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070411-123042-7035r.htm

I think you just proved my point.

I don't know if there is a new wave of radicalism sweeping across first world countries to beat down moderate practitioners or whether they are isolated incidents. I find it curious though that you are ignoring the parts in your post which are show the moderate practice of Islam in those places.

I mean the specific examples you pointed out, who were they fighting against? Moderates right.

Specific religious differences and arguements are not indicative of nation wide practice and use of religion as a tool for violence and hatred (whether in war or terrorism), like it is the common norm among third world nations or places where a religious state dictates the way of life.

And seriously, I think we both know that the discussion we are having was about Islam being practiced to incite hate against other nations/religions, not infighting on how to practice the religion among Muslims in Europe.

Irrelevant.

[fontaine]

or like this, from norway.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1734869.ece

Norwegian-Somalian Kadra, who became famous in Norway for exposing imam support of female circumcision, was beaten unconscious on Thursday.

that's awful and disgusting but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[yavoon]

I think you just proved my point.

I don't know if there is a new wave of radicalism sweeping across first world countries to beat down moderate practitioners or whether they are isolated incidents. I find it curious though that you are ignoring the parts in your post which are show the moderate practice of Islam in those places.

I mean the specific examples you pointed out, who were they fighting against? Moderates right.

Specific religious differences and arguements are not indicative of nation wide practice and use of religion as a tool for violence and hatred (whether in war or terrorism), like it is the common norm among third world nations or places where a religious state dictates the way of life.

And seriously, I think we both know that the discussion we are having was about Islam being practiced to incite hate against other nations/religions, not infighting on how to practice the religion among Muslims in Europe.

Irrelevant.

what do u want? u want polls? u want theology? u want news? its easy to play a shell game where I am wholly incapable of turning u away from the answer u want to be true.

[yavoon]

that's awful and disgusting but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

it is very relevant.

[fontaine]

what do u want? u want polls? u want theology? u want news? its easy to play a shell game where I am wholly incapable of turning u away from the answer u want to be true.

No really I'm not playing that game. I just think we may be discussing slightly different aspects of the main discussion.

You started this thread ( and my post followed up ) on how Muslims are using Islam to attack other faiths/cultures/societies. That's where my last couple of posts are coming from (when I say extremism I mean it from the sense of Islam against outsiders).

My comments are specific to that. What you responded to in your last couple of posts was the internal infighting over how to interpret Islam among it's followers and the battle among moderates and extremists within the religion, which is why I said irrelevant.

If you want raise issues specifically about the internal power struggles on Islamic law etc, go ahead, have at it. It's not something I'm interested in. And not something that was the obvious intention when you created this thread (Islam vs Buddhism).

[fontaine]

it is very relevant.

see my above post.

[yavoon]

No really I'm not playing that game. I just think we may be discussing slightly different aspects of the main discussion.

You started this thread ( and my post followed up ) on how Muslims are using Islam to attack other faiths/cultures/societies. That's where my last couple of posts are coming from (when I say extremism I mean it from the sense of Islam against outsiders).

My comments are specific to that. What you responded to in your last couple of posts was the internal infighting over how to interpret Islam among it's followers and the battle among moderates and extremists within the religion, which is why I said irrelevant.

If you want raise issues specifically about the internal power struggles on Islamic law etc, go ahead, have at it. It's not something I'm interested in. And not something that was the obvious intention when you created this thread (Islam vs Buddhism).

the internal fight is important to the external fight. its because the islamists are winning the internal fight that they are able to project their ideology outwards. if the "moderates" as u say, were able to win the internal fight then sharia law and a lot of the other nasty illiberal things that islam brings will be bogged down.

though certainly I did create this thread to point out that islam is perfectly happy killing buddhist infidels. a lot of americans think we get some kind of special exemption where we did something especially wrong and now islam is mad at us.

btw there is a new school teacher/ice cream maker being burned/be headed about every week in thailand, sometimes more often. so its an incredibly active "insurgency."

[fontaine]

the internal fight is important to the external fight. its because the islamists are winning the internal fight that they are able to project their ideology outwards. if the "moderates" as u say, were able to win the internal fight then sharia law and a lot of the other nasty illiberal things that islam brings will be bogged down.

though certainly I did create this thread to point out that islam is perfectly happy killing buddhist infidels. a lot of americans think we get some kind of special exemption where we did something especially wrong and now islam is mad at us.

Fair enough. Although I don't know how you can correlate internal arguments and infighting over interpretations of Islam to a general movement that will spill over and threaten other religions cultures.

Historically I've always viewed Islam as one of the religions that does threaten other cultures/religions. I'm not sure how scattered incidents around the world are somehow indicative of a change from that historical modus operandi.

[yavoon]

Fair enough. Although I don't know how you can correlate internal arguments and infighting over interpretations of Islam to a general movement that will spill over and threaten other religions cultures.

Historically I've always viewed Islam as one of the religions that does threaten other cultures/religions. I'm not sure how scattered incidents around the world are somehow indicative of a change from that historical modus operandi.

well if islam had a healthy moderate movement it would be a lot harder to do what they are doing across the world. even if the various islamists beat each others head in, that might help some, but not enough.

remember the muslims are fighting the russians, thai, filipinos, americans, most countries in europe, lots of countries in africa, india. its hard to find ppl they aren't trying to kill(perhaps south america).