Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh
posted on December 11th, 2008, 11:07 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on December 11th, 2008, 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
read my last post . that should sum it up.
to repeat***
Oh dom.
your girl may be an astronomer.. ok.. the i ask her.. Indeed I am a nincompoop.
Please explain why the galaxy is expanding, and what exactly is the role of the hubble constant and redshift.. Im a finance grd so may be I may benefit from it..
Maybe when she contributes on teh financial issues we discussed we can call her a nincompoop too.
As regards Laz - prove your point about the Quran. You merely quote once more from preconception notjhing more.. answer the quotes i posted, and disprove it.
Neither you nor Dom have actually prove one verse false... all you;ve done is dance from one topic to another. and then patehtic still fall back on your Girlfriends to give your arguments credence.. ROFL
When in all - at the end of the entire set of posts.. you have PROVEN not one word.
all youhave done is cited theory x, theory y.. which you have subscribed to...
theories like the one which called the sun static for 50+years in the 20th century, or the one that for all empirical purposes called the universe infinite...
But not one of you - not even Dom;s girlfriend can conclusively demonstrate your points.
I am a nincompoop.. ok. granted... but in the end when all 3 of the so called intelligencia here, end up proving nothing and demonstrating nothing against nincompoop.... not even one post ....
kinda makes all 3 want to hang their heads in shame... ROFL
In the end.. quoting theories that are accepted in the frameowrk of today;s science that are still morphing and will morph still onec string theory is fully elucidated, to proclaim oneself a physicist when your physics cant even reconcile general relativity and quantum dynamics is amusingly arrogant...
If arrogance is all you have.. there is no point in taking thios discussion further.
but rest assured you have proven absolutely nothing... and for people who claim empiricity vs fairy tale... it;s the most damning and saddening aspect of your arguments.
LOL
********
You can disprove a verse just by reading it Serpicus. Unless it explicitly says what you want it to say, then it was written by a sheep herder on magic mushrooms who happened to looking up at the sky at the time. As an occupant of the 21st century who tried to match it up to real science, this just made you a dumbass.
See- this is what i said about you - Superficial and ignorant - deliberately wanting to refuse to get the underlying meaning. now that's a shame... scientist my arse...lol
As regards my interpretation of planetary expansion in the verse.. for argument;s sake, I digress and accept that the verse did not deal with expansion and instead deals with gravity and centrifugal force in movement. Can you now disprove the verse in the context it is used - as we've quoted earlier .. @ Laz and Dom.
In effect your entire hooplah was centered more around an introduction from me - and not still on the relevance of the verse and the description in it..
So, where do you prove anything against the verse:lol:
If I read anymore long-discredited crap from you, I think the bloodvessel in my eye might explode. You just go round and round in a circle. Your strategy is to leave it six months since I refuted something, and then start again. Unfortunately for you I remember refuting the point.
lol.. if this makes you happy.. ok you refuted me... happy..LOL
But the purpose of any discussion is to understand.. The fact that you still cannot disprove any of the religious books, and end up having to resort to deliberate twists and misquotes to substantiate the points defeats teh very premise of empiricity you were trying to build with your pretense of atheism.
In the end you have unequivocally demonstrated we each have our faith. Some place it in God, and some place it in what they perceive... yet both have FAITH -- regardless of whether they accept or deny it. Arguments then claiming empiricity based on ever fluctuating bodies of fact and theories are mere exercises in grand-standing... neither here nor there
to repeat***
Oh dom.
your girl may be an astronomer.. ok.. the i ask her.. Indeed I am a nincompoop.
Please explain why the galaxy is expanding, and what exactly is the role of the hubble constant and redshift.. Im a finance grd so may be I may benefit from it..
Maybe when she contributes on teh financial issues we discussed we can call her a nincompoop too.
As regards Laz - prove your point about the Quran. You merely quote once more from preconception notjhing more.. answer the quotes i posted, and disprove it.
Neither you nor Dom have actually prove one verse false... all you;ve done is dance from one topic to another. and then patehtic still fall back on your Girlfriends to give your arguments credence.. ROFL
When in all - at the end of the entire set of posts.. you have PROVEN not one word.
all youhave done is cited theory x, theory y.. which you have subscribed to...
theories like the one which called the sun static for 50+years in the 20th century, or the one that for all empirical purposes called the universe infinite...
But not one of you - not even Dom;s girlfriend can conclusively demonstrate your points.
I am a nincompoop.. ok. granted... but in the end when all 3 of the so called intelligencia here, end up proving nothing and demonstrating nothing against nincompoop.... not even one post ....
kinda makes all 3 want to hang their heads in shame... ROFL
In the end.. quoting theories that are accepted in the frameowrk of today;s science that are still morphing and will morph still onec string theory is fully elucidated, to proclaim oneself a physicist when your physics cant even reconcile general relativity and quantum dynamics is amusingly arrogant...
If arrogance is all you have.. there is no point in taking thios discussion further.
but rest assured you have proven absolutely nothing... and for people who claim empiricity vs fairy tale... it;s the most damning and saddening aspect of your arguments.
LOL
********
You can disprove a verse just by reading it Serpicus. Unless it explicitly says what you want it to say, then it was written by a sheep herder on magic mushrooms who happened to looking up at the sky at the time. As an occupant of the 21st century who tried to match it up to real science, this just made you a dumbass.
See- this is what i said about you - Superficial and ignorant - deliberately wanting to refuse to get the underlying meaning. now that's a shame... scientist my arse...lol
As regards my interpretation of planetary expansion in the verse.. for argument;s sake, I digress and accept that the verse did not deal with expansion and instead deals with gravity and centrifugal force in movement. Can you now disprove the verse in the context it is used - as we've quoted earlier .. @ Laz and Dom.
In effect your entire hooplah was centered more around an introduction from me - and not still on the relevance of the verse and the description in it..
So, where do you prove anything against the verse:lol:
If I read anymore long-discredited crap from you, I think the bloodvessel in my eye might explode. You just go round and round in a circle. Your strategy is to leave it six months since I refuted something, and then start again. Unfortunately for you I remember refuting the point.
lol.. if this makes you happy.. ok you refuted me... happy..LOL
But the purpose of any discussion is to understand.. The fact that you still cannot disprove any of the religious books, and end up having to resort to deliberate twists and misquotes to substantiate the points defeats teh very premise of empiricity you were trying to build with your pretense of atheism.
In the end you have unequivocally demonstrated we each have our faith. Some place it in God, and some place it in what they perceive... yet both have FAITH -- regardless of whether they accept or deny it. Arguments then claiming empiricity based on ever fluctuating bodies of fact and theories are mere exercises in grand-standing... neither here nor there
Dr. Lazarus
posted on December 11th, 2008, 11:41 pm
posted on December 12th, 2008, 12:16 am
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 12th, 2008, 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on December 12th, 2008, 12:23 am
Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 12th, 2008, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
posted on December 12th, 2008, 1:19 am
Last edited by Anonymous on December 12th, 2008, 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Excellent.
Now that you have said all that I needed to be said.
1. In regards to the atheistic accusation of religion being violent:
In each of the quotations you postulated, I clearly and lucidly provided the whole verse to you. In each of the complete verses you saw as well as the entire audience that the verses were in a specific context and the premise of a war was only defense.
The Ridda War which was cited below, was a war akin to the American civil war. Unless one then accepts that Lincoln should have simply sat back and let the country fall apart and have been complicit in even more animosity reminiscent of Pakistan and India, the criticism of the Ridda ends here.
In effect not one postulation was successful in proving the violence accusation.
Ironically nor was the respondent able to demonstrate that atheism is not equally if not more violent - when confronted about pol pot, stalin, atila the hun, all confessed atheists.
2. The second accusation levied by atheists in regards to religion pertains to its inaccuracy and its association in their minds as a symbol of the irrational versus the empirical observations of nature which symbolize the rational.
This was demonstrated in 2 parts:
a. Accuracy: In our case study, the respondents went out of their way to answer my initial call to cite the inaccuracy in the religious books. He chose to focus on what was assumed to be an easy target - the Quran.
The 2 verses cited were - "the heavens and the earth were as a single point/unit and we drove them asunder"
- "I swear by the planets that recede"
In the first case, although an irrelevant argument was attempted, the respondent did not pursue the matter as the verse is pretty plain when compared to the basic premise of the big bang.
In the second case we went a little further, and the over the entire discussion, the respondent - although initially citing a stretch in interpretation, did not pursue the matter after it was clarified again lucidly that the sentence structure with planet as the subject was made grammatical sense in the original language and fitted in with the overall context of the verse as referring to gravity and centrifugal force.
The respondent confirmed this when he unwittingly lost track of the premise and tried to harangue me on why I was incorrect in assuming this verse referred to cosmic expansion, when the gravity and centrifugal force referred to therein were not in conformity with modern scientific views on expansion.
Inadvertantly the respondent proved that I was incorrect in my assumption, for my hypothesis did not fit in with the verse as the verse referred - for the respondent as well - to gravity and centifugal force, and while making complete scientific sense in regards to planetary movement, did not substantiate my claim of expansion.
I agree readily.
There was no response to my citation of Amenhotep III, as this is what is currently proven.
We are still then waiting on a proof that religion is inaccurate and fallacious.
b)Factuality: In the same case study where the respondents cited religion as being based on flawed rationale and incomplete facts, we cited examples of the very science they clung to 10 years ago, being called garbage and irrelevant drivel today by their own tongues.
We also cited examples of how science is forever morphing with atoms being shunted over for vibrations as the basic components of all matter, and how a universe that science postulated as inifinte is today accepted as finite... another criticism which was initially levied at religion;s claim that only God is infinite in this universe with everything having a limited albeit lengthy scope.
It was also postulated that science is based on observation.
Yet the very theories extrapolated from observation of the set of facts that initially corroborated them such as Newtonian and Kantian theories of cenrifugal force being the cause of galactic expansion, additional revelations of more wholistic facts ended up disproving them.
In effect what science is today holding as theory proven by matehmatic calculations and specific observations and/or hypotheses drawn out from ideas of sometimes delusional minds, are also simply based on the faith of the observer in the absoluteness of the facts at his present disposal. If there were no faith involved, it would imply a full set of facts - but the fact that Newtonian expansion fell flat showed yet again that its facts were based on the premise of faith that nothing existed that would contradict them
Atheism when attempting to find justification in the minds of an atheist, unfortunately seeks association with such "empiricals"... demonstrating solipsistic empiricals as premise result in solipsistic extrapolations
This caters directly to what I mentioned at the outset of atheism being rooted in perceptive solipsism.
In effect what facts are truly present in atheism to substantiate its premise that there is no God.
Not one iota of conclusively demonstrated evidence.
Where then are the facts upon which one claims to have laid the foundation of atheism.
3. Rationale:
Atheists claim to have a profound rationale upon which they refute religion.
Yet in our entire discussion throughout the entire the only rationale that was actually brought to the fore was the atheist's repeated desire to gratify himself.
When the atheist is not able to empirically prove the fallacies he claims to find in religion, even after quoting and being answered, and then stubbornly repeats his cyclical argument without further demonstrating himself or even refuting the "apologetic" - yet only hiding behind complete vagaries such as "my interpretation is better than yours" which is more accurately "my interpretation suits my argument so I don't recognize anything else" even if that "else" is more complete and accurate in the entire context of what is being quoted - proves an absence of any substantial rationale.
In the end our entire discussion has demonstrated that atheists see fault in religion in order to justify a life of convenience without any "baggage".... this is the very essence of the animal in human nature - the desire to be free to indulge one's desires. This is not rationale but convenience.
Can an atheist then with a straight face actually disparage religion after reflecting on the inconsistencies and unsustainability of own premises?
4. In effect when the atheist claims to cite the ignorance in everyone like Palin, and yet fails to see the ignorance and contradictions upon which his atheism is based, he is most apt for what I stated in my early posts in this thread:
"he who sees ignorance around him without perceiving the ignorance in himself, is truly the most ignorant of all."
*before you try to apply it to me - Im a nincompoop remember.. I accepted that
for the record - I do not subscribe to centrifugal force as being the root cause of the entire framework of galactic expansion. In fact I do not know.. for not one theory today actually can explain it conclusively.
A testament to where humility and arrogance split, and where one who is arrogant will not see that which is outside his personal scope, and more so will never accept the possibility that there would be such, resorting instead to arguments that use the support and draw as support the same cyclical premise.
So much for atheism and the rhetoric around it. A mere cradle for those who seek mere convenience in life and do not wish the botheration of mind over matter. A contradiction in their own lives for which they try to compensate through false arguments claiming fact and rationale, while in reality selectively focusing only in those aspects of fact which pander to their delusions of convenience; trying desperate to prove to themselves that their minds, which are unable to master the urges of their bodies (the convenience for which they choose atheism), are in fact grounded in facts. A testament to one's power of suggestion applied to the self.
This thread has demonstrated just that.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Now that you have said all that I needed to be said.
1. In regards to the atheistic accusation of religion being violent:
In each of the quotations you postulated, I clearly and lucidly provided the whole verse to you. In each of the complete verses you saw as well as the entire audience that the verses were in a specific context and the premise of a war was only defense.
The Ridda War which was cited below, was a war akin to the American civil war. Unless one then accepts that Lincoln should have simply sat back and let the country fall apart and have been complicit in even more animosity reminiscent of Pakistan and India, the criticism of the Ridda ends here.
In effect not one postulation was successful in proving the violence accusation.
Ironically nor was the respondent able to demonstrate that atheism is not equally if not more violent - when confronted about pol pot, stalin, atila the hun, all confessed atheists.
2. The second accusation levied by atheists in regards to religion pertains to its inaccuracy and its association in their minds as a symbol of the irrational versus the empirical observations of nature which symbolize the rational.
This was demonstrated in 2 parts:
a. Accuracy: In our case study, the respondents went out of their way to answer my initial call to cite the inaccuracy in the religious books. He chose to focus on what was assumed to be an easy target - the Quran.
The 2 verses cited were - "the heavens and the earth were as a single point/unit and we drove them asunder"
- "I swear by the planets that recede"
In the first case, although an irrelevant argument was attempted, the respondent did not pursue the matter as the verse is pretty plain when compared to the basic premise of the big bang.
In the second case we went a little further, and the over the entire discussion, the respondent - although initially citing a stretch in interpretation, did not pursue the matter after it was clarified again lucidly that the sentence structure with planet as the subject was made grammatical sense in the original language and fitted in with the overall context of the verse as referring to gravity and centrifugal force.
The respondent confirmed this when he unwittingly lost track of the premise and tried to harangue me on why I was incorrect in assuming this verse referred to cosmic expansion, when the gravity and centrifugal force referred to therein were not in conformity with modern scientific views on expansion.
Inadvertantly the respondent proved that I was incorrect in my assumption, for my hypothesis did not fit in with the verse as the verse referred - for the respondent as well - to gravity and centifugal force, and while making complete scientific sense in regards to planetary movement, did not substantiate my claim of expansion.
I agree readily.
There was no response to my citation of Amenhotep III, as this is what is currently proven.
We are still then waiting on a proof that religion is inaccurate and fallacious.
b)Factuality: In the same case study where the respondents cited religion as being based on flawed rationale and incomplete facts, we cited examples of the very science they clung to 10 years ago, being called garbage and irrelevant drivel today by their own tongues.
We also cited examples of how science is forever morphing with atoms being shunted over for vibrations as the basic components of all matter, and how a universe that science postulated as inifinte is today accepted as finite... another criticism which was initially levied at religion;s claim that only God is infinite in this universe with everything having a limited albeit lengthy scope.
It was also postulated that science is based on observation.
Yet the very theories extrapolated from observation of the set of facts that initially corroborated them such as Newtonian and Kantian theories of cenrifugal force being the cause of galactic expansion, additional revelations of more wholistic facts ended up disproving them.
In effect what science is today holding as theory proven by matehmatic calculations and specific observations and/or hypotheses drawn out from ideas of sometimes delusional minds, are also simply based on the faith of the observer in the absoluteness of the facts at his present disposal. If there were no faith involved, it would imply a full set of facts - but the fact that Newtonian expansion fell flat showed yet again that its facts were based on the premise of faith that nothing existed that would contradict them
Atheism when attempting to find justification in the minds of an atheist, unfortunately seeks association with such "empiricals"... demonstrating solipsistic empiricals as premise result in solipsistic extrapolations
This caters directly to what I mentioned at the outset of atheism being rooted in perceptive solipsism.
In effect what facts are truly present in atheism to substantiate its premise that there is no God.
Not one iota of conclusively demonstrated evidence.
Where then are the facts upon which one claims to have laid the foundation of atheism.
3. Rationale:
Atheists claim to have a profound rationale upon which they refute religion.
Yet in our entire discussion throughout the entire the only rationale that was actually brought to the fore was the atheist's repeated desire to gratify himself.
When the atheist is not able to empirically prove the fallacies he claims to find in religion, even after quoting and being answered, and then stubbornly repeats his cyclical argument without further demonstrating himself or even refuting the "apologetic" - yet only hiding behind complete vagaries such as "my interpretation is better than yours" which is more accurately "my interpretation suits my argument so I don't recognize anything else" even if that "else" is more complete and accurate in the entire context of what is being quoted - proves an absence of any substantial rationale.
In the end our entire discussion has demonstrated that atheists see fault in religion in order to justify a life of convenience without any "baggage".... this is the very essence of the animal in human nature - the desire to be free to indulge one's desires. This is not rationale but convenience.
Can an atheist then with a straight face actually disparage religion after reflecting on the inconsistencies and unsustainability of own premises?
4. In effect when the atheist claims to cite the ignorance in everyone like Palin, and yet fails to see the ignorance and contradictions upon which his atheism is based, he is most apt for what I stated in my early posts in this thread:
"he who sees ignorance around him without perceiving the ignorance in himself, is truly the most ignorant of all."
*before you try to apply it to me - Im a nincompoop remember.. I accepted that
for the record - I do not subscribe to centrifugal force as being the root cause of the entire framework of galactic expansion. In fact I do not know.. for not one theory today actually can explain it conclusively.
A testament to where humility and arrogance split, and where one who is arrogant will not see that which is outside his personal scope, and more so will never accept the possibility that there would be such, resorting instead to arguments that use the support and draw as support the same cyclical premise.
So much for atheism and the rhetoric around it. A mere cradle for those who seek mere convenience in life and do not wish the botheration of mind over matter. A contradiction in their own lives for which they try to compensate through false arguments claiming fact and rationale, while in reality selectively focusing only in those aspects of fact which pander to their delusions of convenience; trying desperate to prove to themselves that their minds, which are unable to master the urges of their bodies (the convenience for which they choose atheism), are in fact grounded in facts. A testament to one's power of suggestion applied to the self.
This thread has demonstrated just that.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
posted on December 12th, 2008, 1:50 am
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 12th, 2008, 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
posted on December 12th, 2008, 2:43 am
Last edited by Anonymous on December 12th, 2008, 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
See, you demonstrate once more what I have been saying
I thank you.
Now to elucidate how:
--The Ridda Wars (also known as the Wars of Apostasy) were when several tribes revolted against the rule of Abu Bakr following Muhammad’s death. Arabia was not even one country at this time—heck, it hadn’t even been united (and most of the region wouldn’t be for several hundred more years)—and it was not a set of wars akin to the American civil war; unless you are trying to argue that a teeny tiny minority of Muslims was trying to bring under control a large area of mostly pagan nomads who had sworn fealty to Muhammad. Your apologetic statement is equivalent to the 1066 Norman invasion, the resolution of the Warring States Period of China, or really any war waged in the cause of “unity” as you put it. The way you portray war, no war is ever an offensive one, because they must all be defensive wars. Yes, even the Iraqi War, and the Afghanistani War that are taking place now are defensive… and so was the Iran-Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Blah-Blah War, you name it. Heck, using your definition, not only were they defensive from the winning sides’ point of view, but the losing side was also fighting a defensive war. The violence accusation has obviously been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You have yourself stated that the violence was acceptable (when put in a context you deem appropriate). I am curious however as to why you only cite the Qu'ran or Hadith when trying to state context, instead of actual historical evidence. There are, after all, quite a few historical "inacuarcies" within the Qu'ran (which itself had only begun to be collected 30 or so years after Muhammad's death... and what was re-edited and "fixed" several times), and undoubtedly many in the Hadith (having been compiled at least 150 years later); such as the sheer number of forces on battlefields (seriously, 200,000 vs 300? Please.). What is this “atheistic accusation” you speak of?
- Yes, the entire Arabian peninsula was not muslim, but you yourself said the groups had pledged themselves to Mohummad. The Ridda was wages against 2 groups - not the majority of the peninsula as you again in typical fashion selectively misquoted.
Instead they were a group of pagans who were rallying behind another self-declared prophet., and the other was against splinter groups whose leaders were attempting to break away, which would yield pockets of separate fragments in the peninsula.
All the groups had signed treaties declaring they belonged to the newly formed caliphate.
The fact that you're still not citing facts to support your claim of "it hadn’t even been united (and most of the region wouldn’t be for several hundred more years)" is another selective example of your Palinisms.
In effect your association with the norman invasion is ignoratio elenchi -there was no invasion here.
As regards the analogy of Chinese Warring states, it is indeed apt but not as you;re using it. If the Ridda were not successful, the region would indeed have splintered into years of warring states easily exploited by imperialists - kinda like what the US did in the Iran-Iraq conflict you sighted, or the Enlgish did to India and Pakistan... So yes, the Ridda did prevent a similar situation.. and if you then look at the OT, can you please clarify what the OT or the Vedas say about secession? So our attempt to malign Islam alone is frankly another quintessential atheist approach trying to attack what it hasnt fully understood or studied...
The Ridda involved political challenges by the seceding tribes. Mecca and Medina were the religious centers, and for the seceding tribes to gain control they would eventually have to attack the capitals.
In effect your analysis, although a clear to try to come off as someone noble critiquing what he views as violence...lacks a basic understanding of the aftermath and repercussions of inaction. A repeat of the wars which tore the peninsula to warring pieces.
Moreover, the tribes had signed treaties and agreements declaring themselves as parts of he whole islamic caliphate- not as external members but as those within the state. The reason for desiring secession was the desire of those specific tribe leaders to be the rulers of the state themselves.
So your attempt to disassociate this with the American Civil War is another clear example of how people like you actually selectively choose and ignore details to concoct a picture that suits your argument.. btw what treaty and actual agrement did the south sign with Lincoln? so whose unity was firmer still... abstract social contracts vs agreements and signed pledges... Get real!
In effect our statement above associates the American Civil War with the Iraq and Vietnam wars? Are you sure? Was Iraq a part of the US, was Vietnam? so please avoid these ignoratio elenchi analogies.
However you do prove one more point - The Iraq war, the Vietnam war etc were sold to the American and British public as wars of self-defense and therefore needed.
In effect you do not disagree that a war of defense or the american civil war were wars of plain violence.
Ironically the Iraq and Vienam wars were clearly wars of hegemony, while the Ridda was localized within the confines of the seceding Arab tribes (by your own tongue) - an internal Arab affair.
In Afghanistan how many civilians have been bombed by the coalition. How many wedding parties - moments of supposed joy - reduced to pure sorrow.. is this self defense?
Yet your accuse Islam of being inherently violent lol... shall we chalk this one too up to your so evident prejudice.
Again what I mentioedn above
And btw - what is the Atheistic approach or logic of how to deal with seceding states the outcome of which would be centuries of war....
Get real.. I understadn you are a sceince major.... but does your knowledge have to really be good at current theories or book knowledge and so poor at basic evaluation of geo-political ramifications.
Religion is supposed to be practical. It is unfortunate your failed attempt at sanctimony is absolutely NOT. So much for rationale of the atheist Again - didnt i already say that?
So much for your skill - and confirmation - on what you and I discussed in regards to Palin
And you have still not been able to prove that Islam in fact justified or called for the Ridda....you need to quote a verse from the Quran.. otherwise you're lying again...
So dont pat yourself on the back just yet thinking you've demonstrated any viable link proving violence being justified in the Quran.
Lastly in regards to this Paragraph - again you just seem to fart out another unsubstantiated allegation.. my god man.. are you actually going to start presenting your proof or accuse and lie yet again...lol
You now merely voice opinion and disbelief. Your statement of 2000 vs 300 please .. kinda proves what i said about those dumbed down by their own arrogance being unable to see past their own opinions.LOL
You didn't say anything else to rest of my sections - guess you are still working to pull stuff together to refute... lol
as regards -
“for the record - I do not subscribe to centrifugal force as being the root cause of the entire framework of galactic expansion. In fact I do not know.. for not one theory today actually can explain it conclusively.”
I guess you just proved that you are your dearest Sarah Palin, given that you have just admitted you are arguing physics, when you have not the faintest clue what is going on: which is exactly the thing we were berating Palin for (talking about autism research while decrying research on D. melanogaster used to research autism). If you don’t understand something, research it before spewing the first thing you find on google as “proof” and holy “citation” as you put it.
I do not know what caused galactic expansion. But then again neither do you. Simply vomiting theories you have read in school that speak of Hubble constants which are frankly just the same in concept and premise as Kantian and Newtonian models for each is based on its own limited range of observations upon which the math and consequent conclusions are derived, is no testament to your skill, nor to any Palinism..
Palin misquoted a theory completely. I merely stated one that you consider outdated... there;s a difference.
To clarify the difference you need only refer to your misquotes on Indian civilization, and Islamic concepts and the asinine conclusions you pull out of amusingly unobjective sources.
I think we all can see who pulls the Palin around here.
In conclusion this post of yours served to reinforce my initial post on this page 8. The only way you are able to keep your posts going is to intentionally and grossly misquote and skew the facts!!!
It proves unequivocally exactly what intentions you have and how you speak more from bigotry and hate with the intention of demonizing a religion - ironically just as Stalin and Hitler did to their jewish communities..
Kinda resonates exactly what you atheists truly represent, and they hypocritical forked quintessentially yours
Thank you again for corroborating what I said above.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum
I thank you.
Now to elucidate how:
--The Ridda Wars (also known as the Wars of Apostasy) were when several tribes revolted against the rule of Abu Bakr following Muhammad’s death. Arabia was not even one country at this time—heck, it hadn’t even been united (and most of the region wouldn’t be for several hundred more years)—and it was not a set of wars akin to the American civil war; unless you are trying to argue that a teeny tiny minority of Muslims was trying to bring under control a large area of mostly pagan nomads who had sworn fealty to Muhammad. Your apologetic statement is equivalent to the 1066 Norman invasion, the resolution of the Warring States Period of China, or really any war waged in the cause of “unity” as you put it. The way you portray war, no war is ever an offensive one, because they must all be defensive wars. Yes, even the Iraqi War, and the Afghanistani War that are taking place now are defensive… and so was the Iran-Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Blah-Blah War, you name it. Heck, using your definition, not only were they defensive from the winning sides’ point of view, but the losing side was also fighting a defensive war. The violence accusation has obviously been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You have yourself stated that the violence was acceptable (when put in a context you deem appropriate). I am curious however as to why you only cite the Qu'ran or Hadith when trying to state context, instead of actual historical evidence. There are, after all, quite a few historical "inacuarcies" within the Qu'ran (which itself had only begun to be collected 30 or so years after Muhammad's death... and what was re-edited and "fixed" several times), and undoubtedly many in the Hadith (having been compiled at least 150 years later); such as the sheer number of forces on battlefields (seriously, 200,000 vs 300? Please.). What is this “atheistic accusation” you speak of?
- Yes, the entire Arabian peninsula was not muslim, but you yourself said the groups had pledged themselves to Mohummad. The Ridda was wages against 2 groups - not the majority of the peninsula as you again in typical fashion selectively misquoted.
Instead they were a group of pagans who were rallying behind another self-declared prophet., and the other was against splinter groups whose leaders were attempting to break away, which would yield pockets of separate fragments in the peninsula.
All the groups had signed treaties declaring they belonged to the newly formed caliphate.
The fact that you're still not citing facts to support your claim of "it hadn’t even been united (and most of the region wouldn’t be for several hundred more years)" is another selective example of your Palinisms.
In effect your association with the norman invasion is ignoratio elenchi -there was no invasion here.
As regards the analogy of Chinese Warring states, it is indeed apt but not as you;re using it. If the Ridda were not successful, the region would indeed have splintered into years of warring states easily exploited by imperialists - kinda like what the US did in the Iran-Iraq conflict you sighted, or the Enlgish did to India and Pakistan... So yes, the Ridda did prevent a similar situation.. and if you then look at the OT, can you please clarify what the OT or the Vedas say about secession? So our attempt to malign Islam alone is frankly another quintessential atheist approach trying to attack what it hasnt fully understood or studied...
The Ridda involved political challenges by the seceding tribes. Mecca and Medina were the religious centers, and for the seceding tribes to gain control they would eventually have to attack the capitals.
In effect your analysis, although a clear to try to come off as someone noble critiquing what he views as violence...lacks a basic understanding of the aftermath and repercussions of inaction. A repeat of the wars which tore the peninsula to warring pieces.
Moreover, the tribes had signed treaties and agreements declaring themselves as parts of he whole islamic caliphate- not as external members but as those within the state. The reason for desiring secession was the desire of those specific tribe leaders to be the rulers of the state themselves.
So your attempt to disassociate this with the American Civil War is another clear example of how people like you actually selectively choose and ignore details to concoct a picture that suits your argument.. btw what treaty and actual agrement did the south sign with Lincoln? so whose unity was firmer still... abstract social contracts vs agreements and signed pledges... Get real!
In effect our statement above associates the American Civil War with the Iraq and Vietnam wars? Are you sure? Was Iraq a part of the US, was Vietnam? so please avoid these ignoratio elenchi analogies.
However you do prove one more point - The Iraq war, the Vietnam war etc were sold to the American and British public as wars of self-defense and therefore needed.
In effect you do not disagree that a war of defense or the american civil war were wars of plain violence.
Ironically the Iraq and Vienam wars were clearly wars of hegemony, while the Ridda was localized within the confines of the seceding Arab tribes (by your own tongue) - an internal Arab affair.
In Afghanistan how many civilians have been bombed by the coalition. How many wedding parties - moments of supposed joy - reduced to pure sorrow.. is this self defense?
Yet your accuse Islam of being inherently violent lol... shall we chalk this one too up to your so evident prejudice.
Again what I mentioedn above
And btw - what is the Atheistic approach or logic of how to deal with seceding states the outcome of which would be centuries of war....
Get real.. I understadn you are a sceince major.... but does your knowledge have to really be good at current theories or book knowledge and so poor at basic evaluation of geo-political ramifications.
Religion is supposed to be practical. It is unfortunate your failed attempt at sanctimony is absolutely NOT. So much for rationale of the atheist
Again - didnt i already say that?So much for your skill - and confirmation - on what you and I discussed in regards to Palin
And you have still not been able to prove that Islam in fact justified or called for the Ridda....you need to quote a verse from the Quran.. otherwise you're lying again...
So dont pat yourself on the back just yet thinking you've demonstrated any viable link proving violence being justified in the Quran.
Lastly in regards to this Paragraph - again you just seem to fart out another unsubstantiated allegation.. my god man.. are you actually going to start presenting your proof or accuse and lie yet again...lol
You now merely voice opinion and disbelief. Your statement of 2000 vs 300 please .. kinda proves what i said about those dumbed down by their own arrogance being unable to see past their own opinions.LOL
You didn't say anything else to rest of my sections - guess you are still working to pull stuff together to refute... lol
as regards -
“for the record - I do not subscribe to centrifugal force as being the root cause of the entire framework of galactic expansion. In fact I do not know.. for not one theory today actually can explain it conclusively.”
I guess you just proved that you are your dearest Sarah Palin, given that you have just admitted you are arguing physics, when you have not the faintest clue what is going on: which is exactly the thing we were berating Palin for (talking about autism research while decrying research on D. melanogaster used to research autism). If you don’t understand something, research it before spewing the first thing you find on google as “proof” and holy “citation” as you put it.
I do not know what caused galactic expansion. But then again neither do you. Simply vomiting theories you have read in school that speak of Hubble constants which are frankly just the same in concept and premise as Kantian and Newtonian models for each is based on its own limited range of observations upon which the math and consequent conclusions are derived, is no testament to your skill, nor to any Palinism..Palin misquoted a theory completely. I merely stated one that you consider outdated... there;s a difference.
To clarify the difference you need only refer to your misquotes on Indian civilization, and Islamic concepts and the asinine conclusions you pull out of amusingly unobjective sources.
I think we all can see who pulls the Palin around here.
In conclusion this post of yours served to reinforce my initial post on this page 8. The only way you are able to keep your posts going is to intentionally and grossly misquote and skew the facts!!!
It proves unequivocally exactly what intentions you have and how you speak more from bigotry and hate with the intention of demonizing a religion - ironically just as Stalin and Hitler did to their jewish communities..
Kinda resonates exactly what you atheists truly represent, and they hypocritical forked quintessentially yours
Thank you again for corroborating what I said above.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum
posted on December 12th, 2008, 3:10 am
After actually reading some of these posts, it's clear he's just dredging up the same old tired arguements... "atheism is a religion", "science is faith", "Stalin did what he did because of atheism", "you can't disprove jack shit", "science is not absolute" and so on... He's also seems to be contradicting himself... Earlier, he said this...
...but then a few posts later said this...
So which is it? As for his arguements, I'll adress each one in it's abridged form:
"Atheism is a religion"
YouTube - Refuting Theist Arguments - Why Atheism is Not a Religion
"science is faith"
Not so... Science is based of evidence (that is, what we can observe and what we can test)... If a hypothesis does not agree with the evidence, it will be disregarded, that' just how science works...
"you can't disprove jack shit"
Continuing from the above, you cannot prove a negative, 'nor is science supposed to... You can't prove there aren't flying spaghetti monsters, china teapots orbiting Mars or monkeys at the core of Neptune, but these concepts would be disregarded by science as there is no evidence in favour of any of them and it's the same thing with Gods... Unless there's evidence for their existance, the concept of God can be dismissed just as readily as the concept of flying spaghetti monsters...
"science is not absolute"
...'nor is it supposed to be... Science cannot provide absolute certainty, it can only provide probabilities... Scientists will always leave open the possibility that any given theroy (gravity, atomic, germ theroy, etc.) is incorrect, in case new evidence shows it to be so, at which point the theroy will adjusted so it no longer contradicts the data avaliable, or it will be scrapped entirely if the theroy proves to be entirely unworkable in light of the added data and new hypotheses tested to see if they can explain all the evidence and if one proves to be viable in this way, it could well rise to the vaunted status of scientific theroy (quite different from what the public consider a "theroy" to be, mind you)... In the case of, say, gravity, what science essentially says about this (or indeed any other generally accepted theroy) is along the lines of, "Based on the evidence we have, the probability of this theroy being correct is very high." This is basically how it works...
"Stalin did what he did because of atheism"
Do you have any evidence of this?
YouTube - Stalin was an Atheist, but his ideology was like religion
The thing is that atheism doesn't give one an excuse for doing anything... You can say, "I killed him in the name of God", as some have in the past (the Crusaders, for example, believed they were killing in God's name), but you can't say, "I killed him because there is no God", can you? No, that's absurd and neither Stalin, 'nor Pol Pot or any other infamous atheist ever said anything along those lines... They each had an ideology (aryianism in Hitler's case, for example) which they used to justify what they did, but atheism was not it and you can't just say that atheism caused them to do what they did unless you can cite evidence...
I think that about covers it...
Religious texts are not ambiguous
...but then a few posts later said this...
The ambiguousness of religious books is found in verse like the one I am discussing with Dom.
Ambiguousness does not mean incomprehensibility.
So which is it? As for his arguements, I'll adress each one in it's abridged form:
"Atheism is a religion"
YouTube - Refuting Theist Arguments - Why Atheism is Not a Religion
"science is faith"
Not so... Science is based of evidence (that is, what we can observe and what we can test)... If a hypothesis does not agree with the evidence, it will be disregarded, that' just how science works...
"you can't disprove jack shit"
Continuing from the above, you cannot prove a negative, 'nor is science supposed to... You can't prove there aren't flying spaghetti monsters, china teapots orbiting Mars or monkeys at the core of Neptune, but these concepts would be disregarded by science as there is no evidence in favour of any of them and it's the same thing with Gods... Unless there's evidence for their existance, the concept of God can be dismissed just as readily as the concept of flying spaghetti monsters...
"science is not absolute"
...'nor is it supposed to be... Science cannot provide absolute certainty, it can only provide probabilities... Scientists will always leave open the possibility that any given theroy (gravity, atomic, germ theroy, etc.) is incorrect, in case new evidence shows it to be so, at which point the theroy will adjusted so it no longer contradicts the data avaliable, or it will be scrapped entirely if the theroy proves to be entirely unworkable in light of the added data and new hypotheses tested to see if they can explain all the evidence and if one proves to be viable in this way, it could well rise to the vaunted status of scientific theroy (quite different from what the public consider a "theroy" to be, mind you)... In the case of, say, gravity, what science essentially says about this (or indeed any other generally accepted theroy) is along the lines of, "Based on the evidence we have, the probability of this theroy being correct is very high." This is basically how it works...
"Stalin did what he did because of atheism"
Do you have any evidence of this?
YouTube - Stalin was an Atheist, but his ideology was like religion
The thing is that atheism doesn't give one an excuse for doing anything... You can say, "I killed him in the name of God", as some have in the past (the Crusaders, for example, believed they were killing in God's name), but you can't say, "I killed him because there is no God", can you? No, that's absurd and neither Stalin, 'nor Pol Pot or any other infamous atheist ever said anything along those lines... They each had an ideology (aryianism in Hitler's case, for example) which they used to justify what they did, but atheism was not it and you can't just say that atheism caused them to do what they did unless you can cite evidence...
I think that about covers it...
posted on December 12th, 2008, 4:12 am
Last edited by Anonymous on December 12th, 2008, 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Apparently, although you;re extracting what I said, you apparently are missing what was explained.
1. As regards the same arguments.. I dont see the atheists with anything different. Religion is fantasy - bu
t we cant prove it. Atheism is factual - but we dont know what a fact is.
lol
so yeah we do see the same arguments on the forum cos even after i have stated and explained some schmck comes back with not having understood the Englsh word and still,argues the same thing again - not knowing it was answered already.
to elucidate:
religious texts are not ambiguous... ask yourself when reading in what context this was mentioned. I explained in detail in the same post from where you quoted:
The ambiguousness of religious books is found in verse like the one I am discussing with Dom.
Ambiguousness does not mean incomprehensibility.
and now again you drudge the same thing up... Dont complain then when points are recycled.
2. No one here said atheism is a religion. Again- you seem to have scanned over something and are now posting completely irrelevant material.
Atheism is however a leap of faith. A belief. A belief in the non-existence of a deity, just as religion is a belief in the existence of the same.
Atheists do not get this nuance, because they are unaware of the concept of "subjectivity", and hence think of what they see as being real and what they do not see as irrelevant. That manifests in the opinion that the norm is disbelief - without understanding that disbelief is the belief there is nothing to believe in.
But many a times, from what I have seen of atheists, they really lack the capacity to evaluate in that manner... which is what ultimately explains their absolutist approach and outlook.
3.
"science is faith"
Not so... Science is based of evidence (that is, what we can observe and what we can test)... If a hypothesis does not agree with the evidence, it will be disregarded, that' just how science works..
Fair enough. admitted. Now demonstrate what you mean by evidence. Science considered the universe infinite we have .. now we discover more facts and it isnt.
If you paid attention to my discussion with Dom, we were mentioning a newtonian approach and inclusion of cenrifugal force as contributory to galactic expansion. In 1998 it was accepted and part of thescientifc circles.. it was "known" to be true. Today with hubble constant and redshift it is outdated slag..
Today each time we look back we see how new evidence which has deprecated old hypotheses AND theories.
So today - are you really able to discern which hypotheses and/or theories will be discarded as false tomorrow?
If not, your acceptance of it today at face value as true/correct such as in the cases above- is it more faith or knowledge on YOUR part ?? ??
4.
"you can't disprove jack shit"
Continuing from the above, you cannot prove a negative, 'nor is science supposed to... You can't prove there aren't flying spaghetti monsters, china teapots orbiting Mars or monkeys at the core of Neptune, but these concepts would be disregarded by science as there is no evidence in favour of any of them and it's the same thing with Gods... Unless there's evidence for their existance, the concept of God can be dismissed just as readily as the concept of flying spaghetti monsters...
Agreed. So if you do not have to disprove something, merely it has to exist to be plausible...
Fair enough. Please reconcile this concept with the newly discovered Black hole at the centre of the Galaxy. We didnt see it b4. It didnt exist b4. If I were to tell you it were revealed as existing to me, you would still tell me you cant see it, and therefore it does not exist.. but voila here it is.
So what is this solipsistic nonsense supposed to demonstrate?
Religion isnt like spaghetti monsters. the failed attempts in earlier posts to attack one such book seems failed miserably, with the attackers eating crow... some spaghetti monster heh
5.cience is not absolute"
...'nor is it supposed to be... Science cannot provide absolute certainty, it can only provide probabilities... Scientists will always leave open the possibility that any given theroy (gravity, atomic, germ theroy, etc.) is incorrect, in case new evidence shows it to be so, at which point the theroy will adjusted so it no longer contradicts the data avaliable, or it will be scrapped entirely if the theroy proves to be entirely unworkable in light of the added data and new hypotheses tested to see if they can explain all the evidence and if one proves to be viable in this way, it could well rise to the vaunted status of scientific theroy (quite different from what the public consider a "theroy" to be, mind you)... In the case of, say, gravity, what science essentially says about this (or indeed any other generally accepted theroy) is along the lines of, "Based on the evidence we have, the probability of this theroy being correct is very high." This is basically how it works...
Agreed so why fall back on something that is so fluid and fickle in certainty to ratify atheism or condemn religion???
6.
"Stalin did what he did because of atheism"
Do you have any evidence of this?
YouTube - Stalin was an Atheist, but his ideology was like religion
The thing is that atheism doesn't give one an excuse for doing anything... You can say, "I killed him in the name of God", as some have in the past (the Crusaders, for example, believed they were killing in God's name), but you can't say, "I killed him because there is no God", can you? No, that's absurd and neither Stalin, 'nor Pol Pot or any other infamous atheist ever said anything along those lines... They each had an ideology (aryianism in Hitler's case, for example) which they used to justify what they did, but atheism was not it and you can't just say that atheism caused them to do what they did unless you can cite evidence...
I think that about covers it...
Was Stalin an Atheist or a theist? Did he follow any specific religious edict from the Bible itself? Now if we want to get conspiratorial we can say the Orthodox church signed a pact with him and it was in line with Christian values to establish ti Goulag. We can also claim that Pol Pot was a hdden religious man, and he did wat he did because he was subtley brainwashed as child with religious flimflam... but otherwise his atheism would have saved him.
LOL
get real.
Bottom line - no where in religion do you see Russification pogroms justified. No where do you see ghoulag.
You do see them in the - as you put it - mind of a man who has no moral obligations or responsibility.
thnik of it - This world is the be all and end all... would an atheist then really be compelled to curb his desires if this existence is all there is.... should one then not embezzle (if he can evade the law), would he then as dictator not fight to the death to defend his autocratic rule.. if the joys of this world are all there are, why would anyone be compelled to deprive himself of the same when he has an option to do so... look at Wall Street are they then to be criticized if the CEO hoards millions at the expense of the middle class guy. and tell the rest to go fuck themselves...
Would George Bush - who then got away with a bullshit war of family vendetta - be guilty for Iraq. Hey he could do it. he felt he got someting out of it...he did it. Fuck the rest.... Can you then blame him... why? why would he in any way feel compelled to care of anyone other than himself if this life is all you get to do what you want.... should be feel hindered in some way becaues your sensibilities expect him to... if you say so, you end up casting yourself in the shoes of a self-styled Prophet - expecting the world to then subscribe to your sense of right and wrong... get real!?
The point I was making is atheism in allowign the individual to set his "baggage" down throws the door open to a myrad of behavioural permutations and combinations.
Religion on the other hand has a context and a framework.
As an atheist - you follow the philosophy which appeals to your outlook. If it were eye for an eye, or if it were turning the other cheek etc, you still end up pursuing an outlook which suits what you feel appealing and best suited to your own convenience and motivations.
It is here that we find Stalin's actions.. as an atheist he adopted whatever suited his ends, with no concern of whether it was actually permitted in Christianity or wasnt.
Certainly not all atheists will do so... but then again not all religious people are going to wage crusades
Which is what SisQ was trying to express to you.
Again - we are constrained to rpeating the samething once more... cna you truly complain that we are repeating the points when you are the ones raising them again and again
7. You can say, "I killed him in the name of God", as some have in the past (the Crusaders, for example, believed they were killing in God's name), but you can't say, "I killed him because there is no God", can you? No, that's absurd and neither Stalin, 'nor Pol Pot or any other infamous atheist ever said anything along those lines... They each had an ideology (aryianism in Hitler's case, for example) which they used to justify what they did, but atheism was not it and you can't just say that atheism caused them to do what they did unless you can cite evidence...
which is where the myriad of people can actually come up and declare - not in my name, and actually cite the book to show the killing was bullshit.
Yet, Stalin didnt have to say i killed him because there is no God. Instead he just kills him because he believes he can get away with it, and does not feel any god exists to eventually hold him accountable.
How many serial killers or armed robbers are doing so for God, and how many are doing so because they do not thnk of God, instead of thinking of the pure material considerations. Is that religious or materialistically atheistic??
Be honest now
1. As regards the same arguments.. I dont see the atheists with anything different. Religion is fantasy - bu
t we cant prove it. Atheism is factual - but we dont know what a fact is.
lol
so yeah we do see the same arguments on the forum cos even after i have stated and explained some schmck comes back with not having understood the Englsh word and still,argues the same thing again - not knowing it was answered already.
to elucidate:
religious texts are not ambiguous... ask yourself when reading in what context this was mentioned. I explained in detail in the same post from where you quoted:
The ambiguousness of religious books is found in verse like the one I am discussing with Dom.
Ambiguousness does not mean incomprehensibility.
and now again you drudge the same thing up... Dont complain then when points are recycled.
2. No one here said atheism is a religion. Again- you seem to have scanned over something and are now posting completely irrelevant material.
Atheism is however a leap of faith. A belief. A belief in the non-existence of a deity, just as religion is a belief in the existence of the same.
Atheists do not get this nuance, because they are unaware of the concept of "subjectivity", and hence think of what they see as being real and what they do not see as irrelevant. That manifests in the opinion that the norm is disbelief - without understanding that disbelief is the belief there is nothing to believe in.
But many a times, from what I have seen of atheists, they really lack the capacity to evaluate in that manner... which is what ultimately explains their absolutist approach and outlook.
3.
"science is faith"
Not so... Science is based of evidence (that is, what we can observe and what we can test)... If a hypothesis does not agree with the evidence, it will be disregarded, that' just how science works..
Fair enough. admitted. Now demonstrate what you mean by evidence. Science considered the universe infinite we have .. now we discover more facts and it isnt.
If you paid attention to my discussion with Dom, we were mentioning a newtonian approach and inclusion of cenrifugal force as contributory to galactic expansion. In 1998 it was accepted and part of thescientifc circles.. it was "known" to be true. Today with hubble constant and redshift it is outdated slag..
Today each time we look back we see how new evidence which has deprecated old hypotheses AND theories.
So today - are you really able to discern which hypotheses and/or theories will be discarded as false tomorrow?
If not, your acceptance of it today at face value as true/correct such as in the cases above- is it more faith or knowledge on YOUR part ?? ??
4.
"you can't disprove jack shit"
Continuing from the above, you cannot prove a negative, 'nor is science supposed to... You can't prove there aren't flying spaghetti monsters, china teapots orbiting Mars or monkeys at the core of Neptune, but these concepts would be disregarded by science as there is no evidence in favour of any of them and it's the same thing with Gods... Unless there's evidence for their existance, the concept of God can be dismissed just as readily as the concept of flying spaghetti monsters...
Agreed. So if you do not have to disprove something, merely it has to exist to be plausible...
Fair enough. Please reconcile this concept with the newly discovered Black hole at the centre of the Galaxy. We didnt see it b4. It didnt exist b4. If I were to tell you it were revealed as existing to me, you would still tell me you cant see it, and therefore it does not exist.. but voila here it is.
So what is this solipsistic nonsense supposed to demonstrate?
Religion isnt like spaghetti monsters. the failed attempts in earlier posts to attack one such book seems failed miserably, with the attackers eating crow... some spaghetti monster heh
5.cience is not absolute"
...'nor is it supposed to be... Science cannot provide absolute certainty, it can only provide probabilities... Scientists will always leave open the possibility that any given theroy (gravity, atomic, germ theroy, etc.) is incorrect, in case new evidence shows it to be so, at which point the theroy will adjusted so it no longer contradicts the data avaliable, or it will be scrapped entirely if the theroy proves to be entirely unworkable in light of the added data and new hypotheses tested to see if they can explain all the evidence and if one proves to be viable in this way, it could well rise to the vaunted status of scientific theroy (quite different from what the public consider a "theroy" to be, mind you)... In the case of, say, gravity, what science essentially says about this (or indeed any other generally accepted theroy) is along the lines of, "Based on the evidence we have, the probability of this theroy being correct is very high." This is basically how it works...
Agreed so why fall back on something that is so fluid and fickle in certainty to ratify atheism or condemn religion???
6.
"Stalin did what he did because of atheism"
Do you have any evidence of this?
YouTube - Stalin was an Atheist, but his ideology was like religion
The thing is that atheism doesn't give one an excuse for doing anything... You can say, "I killed him in the name of God", as some have in the past (the Crusaders, for example, believed they were killing in God's name), but you can't say, "I killed him because there is no God", can you? No, that's absurd and neither Stalin, 'nor Pol Pot or any other infamous atheist ever said anything along those lines... They each had an ideology (aryianism in Hitler's case, for example) which they used to justify what they did, but atheism was not it and you can't just say that atheism caused them to do what they did unless you can cite evidence...
I think that about covers it...
Was Stalin an Atheist or a theist? Did he follow any specific religious edict from the Bible itself? Now if we want to get conspiratorial we can say the Orthodox church signed a pact with him and it was in line with Christian values to establish ti Goulag. We can also claim that Pol Pot was a hdden religious man, and he did wat he did because he was subtley brainwashed as child with religious flimflam... but otherwise his atheism would have saved him.LOL
get real.
Bottom line - no where in religion do you see Russification pogroms justified. No where do you see ghoulag.
You do see them in the - as you put it - mind of a man who has no moral obligations or responsibility.
thnik of it - This world is the be all and end all... would an atheist then really be compelled to curb his desires if this existence is all there is.... should one then not embezzle (if he can evade the law), would he then as dictator not fight to the death to defend his autocratic rule.. if the joys of this world are all there are, why would anyone be compelled to deprive himself of the same when he has an option to do so... look at Wall Street are they then to be criticized if the CEO hoards millions at the expense of the middle class guy. and tell the rest to go fuck themselves...
Would George Bush - who then got away with a bullshit war of family vendetta - be guilty for Iraq. Hey he could do it. he felt he got someting out of it...he did it. Fuck the rest.... Can you then blame him... why? why would he in any way feel compelled to care of anyone other than himself if this life is all you get to do what you want.... should be feel hindered in some way becaues your sensibilities expect him to... if you say so, you end up casting yourself in the shoes of a self-styled Prophet - expecting the world to then subscribe to your sense of right and wrong... get real!?
The point I was making is atheism in allowign the individual to set his "baggage" down throws the door open to a myrad of behavioural permutations and combinations.
Religion on the other hand has a context and a framework.
As an atheist - you follow the philosophy which appeals to your outlook. If it were eye for an eye, or if it were turning the other cheek etc, you still end up pursuing an outlook which suits what you feel appealing and best suited to your own convenience and motivations.
It is here that we find Stalin's actions.. as an atheist he adopted whatever suited his ends, with no concern of whether it was actually permitted in Christianity or wasnt.
Certainly not all atheists will do so... but then again not all religious people are going to wage crusades
Which is what SisQ was trying to express to you.
Again - we are constrained to rpeating the samething once more... cna you truly complain that we are repeating the points when you are the ones raising them again and again
7. You can say, "I killed him in the name of God", as some have in the past (the Crusaders, for example, believed they were killing in God's name), but you can't say, "I killed him because there is no God", can you? No, that's absurd and neither Stalin, 'nor Pol Pot or any other infamous atheist ever said anything along those lines... They each had an ideology (aryianism in Hitler's case, for example) which they used to justify what they did, but atheism was not it and you can't just say that atheism caused them to do what they did unless you can cite evidence...
which is where the myriad of people can actually come up and declare - not in my name, and actually cite the book to show the killing was bullshit.Yet, Stalin didnt have to say i killed him because there is no God. Instead he just kills him because he believes he can get away with it, and does not feel any god exists to eventually hold him accountable.
How many serial killers or armed robbers are doing so for God, and how many are doing so because they do not thnk of God, instead of thinking of the pure material considerations. Is that religious or materialistically atheistic??
Be honest now
posted on December 12th, 2008, 4:27 am
posted on December 12th, 2008, 5:04 am
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on December 12th, 2008, 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on December 12th, 2008, 12:13 pm
posted on December 12th, 2008, 8:24 pm
Last edited by Triarii on December 12th, 2008, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. Lazarus
posted on December 12th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 12th, 2008, 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
posted on December 12th, 2008, 9:48 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests