quote:

Originally posted by Krypton All I hear is the same anti-religion rheteric.

Because conservative religious views are as diametrically opposite to moderate democratic values as a fascism is.
You will do this, you will behave in this manner because we tell you, your opinion does not matter, your right to choose a lifestyle based on your own preferences is not allowed.

If you do not do these things that our scripture mandates, you will go to hell. With Fascism, just replace hell with jail and scripture with federal law.

That in a very concise nutshell is why there is a lot of anti-religious rhetoric here, it is the very antithesis of moderate, western democratic practice and a lot of the people on this particular forum are from that background.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Yeah and how soo they forget that Mohamed had a 9year old wife and had sex with her when he was like 58+ or something....... Sick silly wabbits

to be fair to Mo, back in those days, it wasn't unusual for girls to be betrothed at baby (esp. nobility) and married off at 12.

though 9 is a bit too young for fucking

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree to be fair to Mo, back in those days, it wasn't unusual for girls to be betrothed at baby (esp. nobility) and married off at 12. though 9 is a bit too young for fucking

Yeah, I know this..... but in today's times.....this is seen as sick and perverted by almost every civilizedculture... it is wrong... and its just not the Mohamed, but as well can be found in the Jewish history as well..... Lot and his daughters, the jubilee after adam and eve and even King David's children........

but lets turn the focus back to the sickness known as Radical Islam that has taken hold of Iran and its good honorable people:

quote:

The first Charter of Human Rights written 2500 years ago I am Kourosh (Cyrus), great king,…Now that I put the crown of the kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of Ahura, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them while I am alive. …I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I never resolve on war to reign. While I am the king…I will never let anyone oppress others,… I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. While I am alive, I will prevent unpaid, forced labour. Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion.…No one could be penalised for his or her relatives' faults… Cyrus the Great:

then this religious fockwad comes into power and it goes down hill from there:

quote:

Khomeini's speech on the day of celebration of the birth of Muhammad: 1981 The real Day of God is the day that Amir al mo’menin (1) drew his sword and slaughtered all the khavarej (2) and killed them from the first to the last. The Days of God are when Allah, the gracious, the almighty, causes an earthquake. It is when He slaps on the face. It is when he causes a hurricane. He whips this people to become humans. If the Amir al mo’menin (1) wanted to be tolerant, he would not have drawn his sword killing 700 people in one go In our prisons we have more of the same kind of people who are corrupt. If we do not kill them, each one of them that gets out, will become a murderer! They don’t become humans. ... Why do you Mullahs only go after the ordinances of prayer and fasting? Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing? Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. Mehrab (3) means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, Just as all the wars of Islam used to proceeded out of the mehrabs. The prophet has [had] sword to kill people.. Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people In the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people. In the same way that he massacred the Jews of Bani Qurayza (4) because they were a bunch of discontent people. If the Prophet used to order to burn a house or exterminate a tribe that was justice. The lives of people must be secured through punishment. Because, the protection of the masses lies beneath these very punitive executions. With just a few years of imprisonment things don’t get fixed. You must put aside these childish sentimentalism. We believe that the accused essentially does not have to be tried. He or she must just be killed. Only their identity is to be established and then they should be killed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Amir al mo’menin: The Commander of the Faithful. Title of Ali the fourth Caliph and the first Imam of the Shiites. (2) khavarej: A group of dissidents that rejected the leadership of Ali and when 4000 of them gathered in the mosque to protest, Ali sent his armed men and massacred them all. (3) hraab : Prayer niche of a Mosque, in front of which the Imam stands when leading the congregational prayers. It literally means the place of war, derived from harb (war) (4) Bani Qurayza: A tribe of the Jews of Medina whose quarter Muhammad besieged, cut the water to them and when they surrendered, he ordered his cousin Ali and his uncle Hamza to massacre them while their hands were tide from behind to their necks and their bodies were thrown in a ditch. Boys were inspected and if they had pubic hair they were counted as men and executed. The number of men massacred in that day is reported to be between 600 to 900. All their belongings went to Muhammad alone (because Muslims did not have to fight this war the prophet kept all the booty for himself) The children and wives of these Jews were sold as slaves. Muhammad kept the 17-year-old beautiful Rayhanah for himself. Rayhana, whose father, brothers and husband, Muhammad had killed, did not accept Islam and did not agree to marry the prophet. She remained in his household as a sex slave until he died and forbidden to remarry after that.

Sad ... what are the poor Iranians going to do to satisfy themselves when that special someone is not there ... hopefully I put it nicely. I must say its not a nice law, not at all. Very stupid, actually.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Yeah, I know this..... but in today's times.....this is seen as sick and perverted by almost every civilizedculture... it is wrong... and its just not the Mohamed, but as well can be found in the Jewish history as well..... Lot and his daughters, the jubilee after adam and eve and even King David's children........

I agree with you that these kinds of practices aren't acceptable in today's society, but they were acceptable back in those days. You don't have to like it, but you have to understand that these people thought it was okay to do so back their days, so you have to see from their perspective. It is not correct to these practices against them.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh please. first off, hitler's religious views are still out to lunch, so dont state them as fact. secondly, please indicate exactly how atheism has ever involved anything? arguing that mao or stalin were atheists and trying to link them to their regimes is a total fallacy. as dawkins likes to say, hitler and stalin both had moustaches. are moustached men inherently evil? religion, in this case islam, is THE creator various problems. people adhere to religious belief in the public sphere like no other belief system. they justify their positions and activities (in this case laws) by referening an untouchable holy book. appealing to religious doctrine is, and has always been, a nice method of circumventing common sense. there has never been (or will be) any war fought for atheism. equating past regimes with atheism isn't logically sound. if there is a rebuttal to the god delusion i would very much like to read it.

1. Hitler was a mystical atheist. His nazi ideology says it all. MASTER RACE. Did you forget about that? Did you forget about the Nazi doctrine of the inferior races need to be euthanized? Did you know that Hitler consulted astrologers? Seems a lot like social natural selection. And all this IS fact, whether you choose to know it or not.

2. Communists...hhmmmmmm...ARE OFFICIALLY ATHEISTS!! Between our three atheistic subjects, Moa, Hitler, and Stalin, more people died between them than all religious wars of inquisition, witch hunts, jihads, revolutions, and any other conflicts COMBINED! Take a closer look at the historical FACTS that make it plain and clear. You CANNOT separate their ideology from their actions, as much as your beloved Dawkins tries to do. Otherwise, he would be completely wrong in his assumptions that theistic religion causes wars and conflict, when in reality, it isn't about the religion, it's about the WORLDVIEW, WORLDVIEW!!!

3. Holy books are NOT untouchable, as any can be opened, studied, criticized and reinforced. Contrary to the rosy picture that humans are rational, common sense really is not that common. How many times has common sense been wrong? I'm surprised you have such faith in such an unreliable concept. Common sense can never make sense of why the universe is, niether can naturalistic science. I'm continually surprised to be told, "You're close-minded", when in fact, many scientists themselves are close-minded to the implications of a symphonic universe. Simply put, physics in my opinion is the music sheet of symphony of the universe. Who is the composer? You're totally entitled to believe there is no composer, but many many others believe it so and not just because some holy book tells them to, though I'm not denying it doesn't happen. For those who really seek out the answers do not limit themselves to the tangible because as we know, our reality is not tangible, no matter how much we try to make it so.

4. Wars may not be fought over atheism, but what are the social systems that such a belief would entail? Communism has been fought over many times. The Nazis began a program of extermination of "inferior races". Sounds pretty natural (artifical actually) selection to me. Social darwinism in practice.

quote:

if there is a rebuttal to the god delusion i would very much like to read it.

Most certainly...

The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The Dawkins Delusion? is a non-fiction book by the biochemist and Christian theologian Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, written as a critical response to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

My interest has been very sparked by these delusional books. I might join you in reading both of them.

Last edited by Krypton on Jun-15-2007 at 15:29

Some countries carry the death penalty for treason!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. Hitler was a mystical atheist. His nazi ideology says it all. MASTER RACE. Did you forget about that? Did you forget about the Nazi doctrine of the inferior races need to be euthanized? Did you know that Hitler consulted astrologers? Seems a lot like social natural selection. And all this IS fact, whether you choose to know it or not.

You keep on using the phrase "natural selection" with regards to Hitler and I keep on calling you on it. When will you learn?

Natural selection is a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one. The idea that those organisms best suited to their environment are most likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation is almost tautologically true, and I'd be interested to hear you argue against it. By confusing this description of morality with a moral imperative, you are committing Hume's "Naturalistic Fallacy", which I want you to read and understand why this argument of yours is so stupid.

quote:

2. Communists...hhmmmmmm...ARE OFFICIALLY ATHEISTS!! Between our three atheistic subjects, Moa, Hitler, and Stalin, more people died between them than all religious wars of inquisition, witch hunts, jihads, revolutions, and any other conflicts COMBINED! Take a closer look at the historical FACTS that make it plain and clear. You CANNOT separate their ideology from their actions, as much as your beloved Dawkins tries to do. Otherwise, he would be completely wrong in his assumptions that theistic religion causes wars and conflict, when in reality, it isn't about the religion, it's about the WORLDVIEW, WORLDVIEW!!!

Find me one public speech in which any of those leaders even mention their theological position (or lack there of), let alone link it to any of the terrible decisions they made when in power. Like pkc and Dawkins have said, trying to link the attrocities committed under communism to atheism is like trying to link them to facial hair. Correlation does not equal causation.

Marxism doesn't contain a philosophical objection to theism, it contains moral objection to theism. When you read Marx's thoughts on religion (and, by extension, his followers'), it's clear that he isn't interested in whether God exists or not, he's only intersted in how religious organisations might affect his vision of the world. He saw churches and religion as dulling the proletariat to their exploitation, hence the "religion is the opiate of the masses" line. Why do you think, for instance, that Buddhism - a notionally atheistic religion - was outlawed in China under chairman Mao, if his primary concern was spreading atheism?

quote:

3. Holy books are NOT untouchable, as any can be opened, studied, criticized and reinforced.

They can also be rewritten, added-to, subtracted-from and censored, hence why the Koran (in this particular case) or any other "holy" book should be given no more credence as a moral authority than any other book. The fact that an entire country basis its legal code on the moral philosophy of a small, isolated band of 7th century nomads is so fucking insane it makes my head spin.

quote:

Contrary to the rosy picture that humans are rational, common sense really is not that common. How many times has common sense been wrong? I'm surprised you have such faith in such an unreliable concept. Common sense can never make sense of why the universe is

Agree with you entirely up till this point...

quote:

niether can naturalistic science.

What? Where did that come from? What does science have to do with "common sense"? Much scientific knowledge is distinctly counter-intuitive and really tests the boundaries of what we call "common sense". Common sense told us that the Earth was flat, that the sun orbited round the Earth and that a giant man in the sky created everything by clicking his fingers - what does any of that have to do with science?

Science concerns itself with empirical fact, the artefacts of reality. It is the theists who mistakenly assume that just because something "makes sense" that it must be true, as I tried to explain to you in this thread.

quote:

I'm continually surprised to be told, "You're close-minded", when in fact, many scientists themselves are close-minded to the implications of a symphonic universe. Simply put, physics in my opinion is the music sheet of symphony of the universe. Who is the composer? You're totally entitled to believe there is no composer, but many many others believe it so and not just because some holy book tells them to, though I'm not denying it doesn't happen. For those who really seek out the answers do not limit themselves to the tangible because as we know, our reality is not tangible, no matter how much we try to make it so.

You're starting to sound like a Zen Buddhist. :-/

Firstly, physicists do use the analogy of a "cosmic symphony", but at the same time they recognise it as just that: an analogy. Giving something a name does not give it an objective reality. Saying that the "cosmic symphony" of the universe must have a conductor makes as much sense as saying that New York - i.e. "The Big Apple" - must have fallen from a giant tree.

Secondly, I don't accept all this mealy-mouthed nonsense about any two competing views necessarily being inherently equal. One view here has basis in reality, the other does not. Given the language you use, however, this seems to be something that you've already come to accept?

quote:

4. Wars may not be fought over atheism, but what are the social systems that such a belief would entail? Communism has been fought over many times. The Nazis began a program of extermination of "inferior races". Sounds pretty natural (artifical actually) selection to me. Social darwinism in practice.

Aaaaand we're already resorting to repeating ourselves.

quote:

Most certainly... The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The Dawkins Delusion? is a non-fiction book by the biochemist and Christian theologian Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, written as a critical response to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. My interest has been very sparked by these delusional books. I might join you in reading both of them.

Sounds like a pretty convincing read:

quote:

McGrath attempts to destroy Dawkin's arguments. I think he is saying: - Many more scientists believe in God than Dawkin's claims. Therefore, there is a God. - We are here, however improbable, so the improbable is not impossible. Therefore, there is a God. - Dawkin's fails to prove the nonexistence of God. Therefore, there is a God. - Believing in God is good for society. Therefore, there is a God. [...] Bottom line... if you are waiting for a critical dissection of The God Delusion, no matter what your beliefs, this is not it.

http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delus...81978178&sr=8-1

And a more comprehensive review:

http://aloadofbright.wordpress.com/...lister-mcgrath/

Sounds like the same old apologetics rehashed, to be honest. Oh, and I haven't listened to it yet, but here's a debate between Dawkins and McGrath earlier this year:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,8...Richard-Dawkins

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

You keep on using the phrase "natural selection" with regards to Hitler and I keep on calling you on it. When will you learn? Natural selection is a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one. The idea that those organisms best suited to their environment are most likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation is almost tautologically true, and I'd be interested to hear you argue against it. By confusing this description of morality with a moral imperative, you are committing Hume's "Naturalistic Fallacy", which I want you to read and understand why this argument of yours is so stupid.

I'm not argueing for or against natural selection. I have never denied natural selection as untrue. I also said social natural selection, which was meant to describe Nazi programs to subjigate inferior races.

About the Naturalistic Fallacy...I somewhat understand it, but I never made a statement to the effect, "If evolution is right, then murder should not be wrong."

quote:

Find me one public speech in which any of those leaders even mention their theological position (or lack there of), let alone link it to any of the terrible decisions they made when in power. Like pkc and Dawkins have said, trying to link the attrocities committed under communism to atheism is like trying to link them to facial hair. Correlation does not equal causation. Marxism doesn't contain a philosophical objection to theism, it contains moral objection to theism. When you read Marx's thoughts on religion (and, by extension, his followers'), it's clear that he isn't interested in whether God exists or not, he's only intersted in how religious organisations might affect his vision of the world. He saw churches and religion as dulling the proletariat to their exploitation, hence the "religion is the opiate of the masses" line. Why do you think, for instance, that Buddhism - a notionally atheistic religion - was outlawed in China under chairman Mao, if his primary concern was spreading atheism?

Atheism is not in particular trying to spread its message as theistic religion does. I am also going to say that being an atheist does not mean you cannot be morally person consious person. Though being atheist in rationale no doubt has the possibility to open the door to any belief system one wants to believe in. With no supreme judge to be held accountable towards, one can justify just about anything. If man is god, who is to judge man? Cambodian Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot is one example. Though he wasn't trying to spread atheism as theistic religion does, he justified his brutal acts through the window of communism and establishing a utopian state. The philosophies of Moa, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. were of course communist, and all were atheists. Their governments were officially atheist. I'm not saying all atheists are brutal murderers. But you cannot separate their belief systems from their brutal acts. So the notion that atheistic regimes of the 20th century killed more people than all other wars of history combined still stands.

quote:

They can also be rewritten, added-to, subtracted-from and censored, hence why the Koran (in this particular case) or any other "holy" book should be given no more credence as a moral authority than any other book. The fact that an entire country basis its legal code on the moral philosophy of a small, isolated band of 7th century nomads is so fucking insane it makes my head spin.

You're exactly right, and as such, national laws should be based on the needs and rights of the people.

quote:

What? Where did that come from? What does science have to do with "common sense"? Much scientific knowledge is distinctly counter-intuitive and really tests the boundaries of what we call "common sense". Common sense told us that the Earth was flat, that the sun orbited round the Earth and that a giant man in the sky created everything by clicking his fingers - what does any of that have to do with science? Science concerns itself with empirical fact, the artefacts of reality. It is the theists who mistakenly assume that just because something "makes sense" that it must be true, as I tried to explain to you in this thread.

As I said, NATURALISTIC science, or scientists of the philosophy that the cosmos is all there is, can never explain why the universe is. Science is nuetral here. There is no theists vs. science debate here. It is a naturalist vs. theist debate. I'de like you to stop seeing my arguements as arguements against science, because inquiring about "why the universe is" is a question of the implications of what we have discovered and what it really means. That is outside empiracal science.

quote:

You're starting to sound like a Zen Buddhist. :-/ Firstly, physicists do use the analogy of a "cosmic symphony", but at the same time they recognise it as just that: an analogy. Giving something a name does not give it an objective reality. Saying that the "cosmic symphony" of the universe must have a conductor makes as much sense as saying that New York - i.e. "The Big Apple" - must have fallen from a giant tree. Secondly, I don't accept all this mealy-mouthed nonsense about any two competing views necessarily being inherently equal. One view here has basis in reality, the other does not. Given the language you use, however, this seems to be something that you've already come to accept?

I never denied that physicists see a cosmic symphony. But the difference here is that some choose to inquire about the implications of this notion and other do not, such as yourself. It is a proper analogy, because it is true. The universe is like a symphony or machine. Do you honestly believe you know what reality is all about or any other scientists/human for that matter? You cannot possibly say this reality we percieve is the only reality.

As for your Big Apple example, New York City is not described by scientists to be a big apple. So there is no implication of it falling from a tree. Whereas, the universe is viewed as symphonic, and so there would be an implication for a symphony composer.

quote:

Aaaaand we're already resorting to repeating ourselves.

Again, you assume I'm debasing natural selection. I'm referring to socially controlled natural selection.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 2. Communists...hhmmmmmm...ARE OFFICIALLY ATHEISTS!! Between our three atheistic subjects, Moa, Hitler, and Stalin, more people died between them than all religious wars of inquisition, witch hunts, jihads, revolutions, and any other conflicts COMBINED! Take a closer look at the historical FACTS that make it plain and clear. You CANNOT separate their ideology from their actions, as much as your beloved Dawkins tries to do. Otherwise, he would be completely wrong in his assumptions that theistic religion causes wars and conflict, when in reality, it isn't about the religion, it's about the WORLDVIEW, WORLDVIEW!!!

don't forget our modern Stalin, Kim Jong Il.

he's offed about 3,000,000.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo don't forget our modern Stalin, Kim Jong Il. he's offed about 3,000,000.

When man becomes the ultimate moral authority, things go wrong. As with North Korea, Kim Jong Il is god, and Juche philosophy is the religion.

yay, cult of personality! barf