Ever wondered who would win the American elections if the wh

posted on December 4th, 2008, 11:41 pm

I was so disappointed with mccain how changed his values to get elected I mite have voted for him well seeing how good obama is probably not, I would have had favorable views of him but haw artificial he was and the mud was too much the cr*p slinging that went on both side but especially his side actually brow out actual HATE witch was disgusting  like kill him being yield at his rallies was scary and pitfall.

I mean relay the not that I like the republican party be for this but I was real disgusted by what happened in that campaign.

O and that so called domestic terrorist bill ayers witch obioma so call met with was real large meeting with democrats and republicans. That was sold to make it seem like he had a privet meeting that seemed dark and scary.

Obama is a American if there was a question at all......

here we go:

Attachments

posted on December 5th, 2008, 12:27 am

To follow on a bit from Dom, I think Serpicus that (for some reason) you react emotionally to certain words, such as science, and since you can't dismiss its methods, you try to by-pass its methods altogether by inventing the idea of "extra-universal" things, which are basically meaningless things. In movies, we call this a plot device, designed to allow you to do (believe) whatever you want. This is clear in my mind and I have expressed it clearly, but you didn't get it; you also decided that this was "waffling" on my part.

Dom summed it up well. Your anti-"western" view is actually quite common, and is a feature of history -  all major powers are resented. And if anything your monologues (using many ego-massaging words) represent waffling. I can't better Dom's 2nd paragraph and I think you should re-read it. I'm tired of responding to the constant "you have a western bias" because I'm tired of a false dichotomy created by you into west and east. The only real division is between clarity and nonesense. That clarity of thought led to the enlightenment, which led to all the things which you broadly associate with the western world. In a parallel universe where the East learned how to think clearly, you would oppose them.

No doubt you enjoy a certain amount of comfort as a result of the technologies brought about by "western" science. It amazes me when people are willing to use technology created by their perceived enemies against them - hypocrisy at its worst. You may think that Europe stole ideas, but if you were a real student of history you would discover that the roots of the knowledge you make use of everyday comes from ancient greece - Europe. Neither is it a coincidence that Athens was the home of democracy.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 6th, 2008, 1:39 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 6th, 2008, 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dom kind of likes jumping in when you are at a loss. It's interesting when he jumps in half way, and comes up with absolutely irrlevant arguments that stem from  his incomplete gleaning.
Dom,  Laz and I were discussing this. If you find it to be bellicose then I suggest you turn the other way.
In any case to answer your points:

1. whether she mentioned Paris of Libya, I don't care. Let's see how well you do in describing Irgun's relation to Likud or the history of SternGang and its geopolitical importance. What I was driving at was that she is not knowledgeable about everything - so what nor are you.

2. Your second para is rather incoherent. You;ve tried to express your indignation, but frankly can cite no facts to counter what I said. If indeed you speak without pre-imbibed prejudice, then please cite concrete facts. It is interesting that you found my tone scornful, since I did try my best to emulate Laz's tone when he spoke, in order to drive home just that point. Thank you for corroborating what I was saying lol

As regards the Anti-western accusation.. it isnt anti-western to state simple historical facts. If you can demonstrate a western civilization and not barbarian tribes when Sumeria, Egypt, India, and the rest of the world were developing civilization, math, science, and language I'll tip my hat to you. Otherwise you're merely upset cos the sobering historical facts burst your modern bubble of self-declared superiority

No one points to the West and yells Satan except a few radicals- and they do so more due to their skewed opinion on specific instances of Western Foreign policy like helping the Baath party come to power in the 60s and 70s, and supporting an autocratic Shah, etc.
That does not mean that everyone who doesn't consider the West to be Kingdom of the master race points westward and screams Satan.
But most people do look upon the West and see a legacy of Genocidal Landgrabs against the natives, the Trail of Tears, Imperialism, Colonialism, and of course the fact that Western economies were built on slavery and imperialist plundering. These aren't Anti-Western rants, merely unfortunate truths of Western history. You may flinch at hearing that, particularly since you are used to bloating yourself on fantasies of how noble you think you are... lol.. but look once more at your own history, and your modern use of agent orange, hiroshima, Iraq, guantanamo, and the post WWII mass rapes in Japan and Germany and you'll find that your defensiveness is unwarranted.
These are facts of Western history, and I was merely answering Laz's claim of Western "civilization".

I was stating the same to him as part of our discussion - OUR discussion, and if you suddenly decided to drop in, please do so - this is an open forum... but please get the RTC before sounding off with irrelevant half-cocked rants.

3. I was referring to perceptive solipsism and the Copernicus instance was cited as an example. It would do you good to look into the definition of solipsism before claiming "everyone had theories at that time".. yes the greeks did and so did the Indians and Egyptians... but they didn't send communiques to the Papacy. So from the papacy's point of view - as so many atheists - from what they saw and knew the world was flat... and a person who spoke of that which they didn't see and couldn't prove with the technology and science at their disposal was deemed mad or delusional and following a fairy tale -- if you can't see the analogy then truly this discussion isn't for you.

4.In your rant about NASA - well before hand let's be clear most scientists and researchers with NASA are Indian and Chinese.. so dont get too carried away with that... But more importantly you're emphasizing a supposition?? "NASA is the only spaceagency which openly shares most of its data, and that is most likely because it is more technologically advanced."
I was merely responding to Laz's statement of the US being the most scientifically advanced - and I was citing that there are others just as advanced if not more. If you see something wrong in that, and can clearly demonstrate that the US is at the scientific acme in medicine, physics or research then please do so... but getting defensive because I committed the blasphemy of posting in public forum, which an American read, that America isnt at the top of everything, does not say much.
btw - where was the fruit fly research again - Paris France .. did someone think of Pasir Idaho when for some reason they mentioned the US as the most scientifically advanced - touche

Seems your entire post was the result of some bruised nationalistic and patriotic sentiment - proving again that Patriotism is the virtue of the truly vicious.

I know you;re going to try to retort but please don't unnecessarily escalate a discussion that was flowing in reference to the context with which Laz and I are familiar.
It'll save you the rising blood pressure, and me the waste of time of having to amply silence your emotional rants with enumerated logic and factual citations.

I understand that you may think I am anti-western. But I am also half Irish/Welsh, and am not anti-half myself.

But I am being practical and citing the facts as they are. If we all overcame nationalistic/regionalistic dogma and actually paid attention to the facts with more introspection than self-aggrandization we would be more tolerant and forgiving than nitpicking and eager to shoot off against what we see as "ignorance" in another human being....
If you are unable to control emotion when the cited facts burst your bubble, then all the rhetoric about science isn't worth all that much.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 6th, 2008, 1:45 am

Last edited by Anonymous on December 6th, 2008, 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

@ Laz

Why do you need to use Dom as a walking stick. Each time we discuss you end up at an argumental cul-de-sac unable to cite any contradictory facts, and instead simply fall back upon Dom trying to lose yourself in a cyclical argument - you propounding and Dom ratifying, with the facts no where in sight.

But in any case- the point I drove home was your acceptance of superhuman and supernatural.
A point you are not answering.
Nor are you answering the point that I raised that you cannot prove atheism, and accept such primarily out of a desire to assuage your own materialistic and animal desires.
You have however now deviated to extra-universal as being implausible - why? when science itself propounds a multiverse structure. The universe when shown as finite, what exactly are you claiming rationale in.. you dont seem to be answering the points that I am raising, albeit I have taken on all your points directly.
It is not your mention of science but this dodge that I find ridiculous.. and what gets me is that you quote science and claim absolute rationale without being able to use that rationale to provide straightforward answers.
That is why I repeat - The most ignorant is he who sees ignorance in everyone else but himself.

Don't then complain about Palin - you are of the same cloth as she in this case

btw - Mr Palin of history, Greece was not the "home" of Democracy. The world's first Republic existed in northeast India 2000 years before ancient Greece. Ancient Mycenae was the seat of a Democratic prototype b4 Greece's city states even emerged from the Mycenean dark age.
It is interesting still that Greec's Zeus is a morphological relative of the Hindu Indra Dyayus. There is much to be seen in archaeology for exchange of ideas in ancient civilizations and the idea of Proto-Indo-European Civilization. So, your statement is quintessentially Palinesque... kinda exemplifying what I was saying.



As I said- neither you nor I know what lies beyond. Sticking to perceptive solipsism without any introspection with the pure intention of self-gratification will lead no where. Sophist arguments are irrelevant.
In the end you will realize that we are all mortal, and the finality of this existence is all that is truly real.
Whether atheist or theist, time is the fire in which we all burn; time is the school in which we all learn (delmore schwartz 1929).
Do we then discuss to point ourselves towards the truth, or do we engage in blatant sophism with the intention of gratifying an already weak standpoint that is more nestled in self-indulgence and convenience than any remotely accurate or substantiated fact?

Each of us knows the answer, all we need to realize it is a little HONEST introspection.......

I think I'll leave it at that.

posted on December 6th, 2008, 8:33 am

Hit a nerve did I? Well, unlike you, I read every last word everyone writes before posting. I “jump in” when I have time, and when I adequately feel that need to express my sentiments. If you find this interesting, good for you, but don’t tell me “Dom, Laz and I were discussing this. If you find it to be bellicose then I suggest you turn the other way,” as this is a public forum (as you mention later). Don’t be so contradictory. Additionally, these sort of statements add nothing to your cause, as they simply detract from any reasonable debate. Now:

“1. whether she mentioned Paris of Libya, I don't care. Let's see how well you do in describing Irgun's relation to Likud or the history of SternGang and its geopolitical importance. What I was driving at was that she is not knowledgeable about everything - so what nor are you.”

As above, you obviously misread (or didn’t read/comprehend) my previous statement. It absolutely does matter that she mentioned the “research in Paris”. Palin was trying to state that this particular research was completely useless and a waste of spending, even though (and I put this in all caps to get your wandering attention) IT WAS ABOUT AUTISM. Again, let me rephrase: Palin, who was giving a talk about how we need to do more for autism, was decrying the research of autism, because it was wasting money that could go to autism research. Is that clear to you now? If you argue this further, you need *insert various medical professions*. So, to sum that up (as I obviously need to be redundant), one needs to research the background of a topic, if one is to debate that topic in the first place. Finally, to put this in context of your own statement: I am not debating “Irgun's relation to Likud,” but if I were, I would surely put in the effort to understand what I was debating. You are simply trying to protect ignorance by saying essentially that anyone can debate anything without any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, which makes you appear downright silly. This was never a discussion about being knowledgeable about everything, this was a discussion about knowing what you are pointing your finger at, before you do so ignorantly.

“2. Your second para is rather incoherent. You;ve tried to express your indignation, but frankly can cite no facts to counter what I said. If indeed you speak without pre-imbibed prejudice, then please cite concrete facts. It is interesting, since I did try my best to emulate Laz's tone when he spoke.  The fact that you find something scornful kinda corroborates what I was saying..lol
As regards the Anti-western accusation.. it isnt anti-western to state simple historical facts. If you can demonstrate a western civilization and not barbarian tribes when Sumeria, Egypt, India, and the rest of the world were developing civilization, math, science, and language I'll tip my hat to you. Otherwise you're merely upset cos the sobering historical facts burst your modern bubble of self-declared superiority”

When you say facts, I cite your own statements. Likewise, try putting your paragraphs into Word, and then ctrl F, type in “west” and count the number of times you mention that word. You have never mentioned a single “achievement” of this tyranic “west” that you speak of. After all, you were the one who brought up “the west”, and I still ask, what the hell does that mean? At one point you describe “the west” as being the U.S. and at another point, the “west” is Europe. Still, I guess you are blind to your own biases, as we all are to a degree. Why don’t you demonstrate that the “west” didn’t have any “civilization, math, science, and language etc,” as the historical evidence just doesn’t bear you out. Don’t kid yourself, you wouldn’t tip your hat to me if your divinity told you to. To continue on, you conveniently place in your sentence “rest of the world” despite not clarifying what that means, and thus, once again, showing that you are rather biased (not to mention increasingly ignorant).

“No one points to the West and yells Satan except a few radicals- and they do so more due to their skewed opinion on specific instances of Western Foreign policy like helping the Baath party come to power in the 60s and 70s, and supporting an autocratic Shah, etc.
That does not mean that everyone who doesn't consider the West to be Kingdom of the master race points westward and screams Satan.
But most people do look upon the West and see a legacy of Genocidal Landgrabs against the natives, the Trail of Tears, Imperialism, Colonialism, and of course the fact that Western economies were built on slavery and imperialist plundering. These aren't Anti-Western rants, merely unfortunate truths of Western history. You may flinch at hearing that, particularly since you are used to bloating yourself on fantasies of how noble you think you are... lol.. but look once more at your own history, and your modern use of agent orange, hiroshima, Iraq, guantanamo, and the post WWII mass rapes in Japan and Germany and you'll find that your defensiveness is unwarranted.
These are facts of Western history, and I was merely answering Laz's claim of Western "civilization".”

Now you are making the mistake that you know who I am, where I am from, and what “team I root for”, all from twisting my words. I never said “people” said the “west” was evil, I said you do. Stop putting words in my mouth. Shall I say it again? You constantly attribute the world’s evils and ignorance to this “west,” and clearly you think of yourself as different from “me,” (I guess you think I’m “western” and you are not) what with your continual use of the word “you”. Get over yourself and get your facts straight. Every culture commits horrible acts, with no exception, and although it doesn’t make it right, it still does make it unacceptable to vilify any one group for all of eternity. Again, what is this “western foreign policy” you speak of? You conveniently (and quite ridiculously) make everything a monolith. Have you been to Taiwan or Japan? China is what “the west” is to you. Everything evil and ignorant under the sun is caused by China (in the opinion of a large amount of people), and yet you still talk of “my own history” (whatever that means). I think you also messed up the phrase “mass rapes in Japan” instead meaning to say “Japan mass raped China”. I am also curious as to where you came up with the mass rape in Germany idea as well. Your “facts” as you call them, are out of context , ill-researched, and not compared to non “west facts” (refer to out of context). I thought you were referring to my statement, now you tell me you are answering Laz’s claims? Let me get this straight: a non-civilization (your “west”) manages to rape and pillage the known world causing wanton destruction, genocide and murder, and the rest of the agrarian world stands by and is helpless? Not to mention “the west” does this to itself also? Geez, must not be so monolithic then. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound so far? This is why we arrive at your so-called cul-de sac (where you dance around the subject, never admitting your mistakes etc… SETI anyone?)

“3. I was referring to perceptive solipsism and the Copernicus instance was cited as an example. It would do you good to look into the definition of solipsism before claiming "everyone had theories at that time".. yes the greeks did and so did the Indians and Egyptians... but they didn't send communiques to the Papacy. So from the papacy's point of view - as so many atheists - from what they saw and knew the world was flat... and a person who spoke of that which they didn't see and couldn't prove with the technology and science at their disposal was deemed mad or delusional and following a fairy tale -- if you can't see the analogy then truly this discussion isn't for you.”

It would do YOU good to read what I write. I never said “"everyone had theories at that time"” . EVER. Again, stop putting words in my mouth and then rhetorically answering them to make yourself feel good. Likewise, stop using analogies, because you absolutely stink at making them. Can’t you ever say what you mean, and cut the crap? Yet I digress… most of the Papacy probably believed what they stated to be true (although they were well aware of the opposing views Serpicus; as they did have to excommunicate people for a reason), just as certain people on this planet today believe that we lived alongside dinosaurs. However, the general populace does think that these few are crazy. Consequently, we are perfectly justified to castigate the papacy, and we often do. Lastly, Copernicus did not claim that the Earth was round. That had already been determined long before. His claim was of heliocentrism: that the Earth revolved around the Sun (among many other things). Really, get your facts straight (this is starting to become a bad pattern). Still, you are missing the point here as well. Even though you state that for “for their facts it was [blank],” “those” were never considered scientific facts (having never been tested and proved), but were bandied as being such. So yes, we can disapprove. After all, we disapprove of the Bohr model of the atom, and that HAD been tested (yet the equipment was not yet precise enough). I guess I should just ignore your “as so many atheists” statement. What does being an atheist have to do with being ignorant or not and following the scientific method?

“4.In your rant about NASA - well before hand let's be clear most scientists and researchers with NASA are Indian and Chinese.. so dont get too carried away with that... But more importantly you're emphasizing a supposition?? "NASA is the only spaceagency which openly shares most of its data, and that is most likely because it is more technologically advanced."
I was merely responding to Laz's statement of the US being the most scientifically advanced - and I was citing that there are others just as advanced if not more. If you see something wrong in that, and can clearly demonstrate that the US is at the scientific acme in medicine, physics or research then please do so... but getting defensive because I committed the blasphemy of posting in public forum, which an American read, that America isnt at the top of everything, does not say much….”

So wait, now you are bringing ethnicity into a discussion about research (and you are still going to convince me that you aren’t biased)? Laz NEVER EVER claimed that the U.S. was the most technologically advanced country. Ever. Do I have to repeat that again? You are once again putting words in other people’s mouths. So yes, I absolutely “find something wrong in that”. To once again say the same thing, I was merely responding to you stating that it is possible to argue technological achievements on the basis of countries. Even you seem to admit this, when you brazenly (and stupidly) state that “most scientists and researchers with NASA are Indian and Chinese”. Seriously, where do you come up with all this crap? You are also claiming that I emphasize a supposition: at least I don’t tell outright lies like you do (refer to atheist statement in above paragraph, or any of the other archaeological “mistakes” you have committed). NASA is the most advanced space agency, with the most advanced gadgetry and technical expertise, and I assume that in some way because of this, they can afford to share data more openly. Does that clarify enough for you? Lastly, how do you know I am an American? Why do you assume so much, when you know so little? That little ditty about being half Irish/Welsh is quite pointless (just look at any poll of American views of themselves), given that you could care less what group I am part of (you assume I am “west” and patriotically pro-American clearly), not to mention that you constantly mention this evil and uneducated legacy of “the west”. Where are these “cited facts” you constantly speak of? All I have seen so far has been comprised of false statements attributed to Laz or myself or impressively weak historical knowledge. I am a sucker for these kinds of arguments, even though I know I will not get you to budge. All I can hope is to show other people how irrational you are.

I’m sure Lazarus can walk quite well without me, so while we are on that… are you trying to be cute by putting in emoticons, or typing “lol”?

“btw - Mr Palin of history, Greece was not the "home" of Democracy. The world's first Republic existed in northeast India 2000 years before ancient Greece. Ancient Mycenae was the seat of a Democratic prototype b4 Greece's city states even emerged from the Mycenean dark age.
It is interesting still that Greec's Zeus is a morphological relative of the Hindu Indra Dyayus. There is much to be seen in archaeology for exchange of ideas in ancient civilizations and the idea of Proto-Indo-European Civilization. So, your statement is quintessentially Palinesque... kinda exemplifying what I was saying.”

You may consider researching your “points” before posting garbage (and name-calling). As anthropologists and archaeologists have known, for quite some time, Mycenae was not a democracy: it was first a monarchy (with megarons in palaces at its heyday), which later became oligarchal in nature. Historical evidence from India at that point in time is quite scant at best. I presume you are speaking of the Indus River Valley Civilization? (The Harrapan) Essentially, we know that Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were probable capitals, there was a lot of public architecture, including plumbing and granaries (we also know what was eaten etc). We know absolutely nothing about the government (other than there were palace-like structures), because there is no surviving literature nor any oral tradition (there are 400 symbols noted, but none have been deciphered). So spare me the crap (again) that you have some great insider knowledge, as all you have is pure speculation.

“As I said- neither you nor I know what lies beyond. Sticking to perceptive solipsism without any introspection with the pure intention of self-gratification will lead no where. Sophist arguments are irrelevant.
In the end you will realize that we are all mortal, and the finality of this existence is all that is truly real.
Whether atheist or theist, time is the fire in which we all burn; time is the school in which we all learn (delmore schwartz 1929).
Do we then discuss to point ourselves towards the truth, or do we engage in blatant sophism with the intention of gratifying an already weak standpoint that is more nestled in self-indulgence and convenience than any remotely accurate or substantiated fact?
Each of us knows the answer, all we need to realize it is a little HONEST introspection.......
I think I'll leave it at that.”

After all, you were the one who first lit the fire with your incendiary “atheist” statement, not Laz. If sophist arguments are irrelevant, why are you utilizing one? (I refer to you very next statement: In the end you will realize that we are all mortal, and the finality of this existence is all that is truly real). In that same line of thought, a sophist thought is one that is by its nature illogical, so you are merely being redundant. You are clearly the one that is guilty of your new pet word “solopsism” (which you have used on numerous occasions incorrectly within the last few posts), as you seem to reiterate that “how can we know?” as well as saying “each of us knows the answer”. You constantly contradict yourself… and before accusing me of ranting, take a deep breath and read at least a third of your petty statements about how this is “mine and Laz’s discussion”.

posted on December 7th, 2008, 2:03 am

Well, this thread's become incredibly TL:DR since I last saw it...

posted on December 7th, 2008, 6:20 am

Lol, I enjoy the read and wish I had something to contribute.

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on December 7th, 2008, 1:50 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 7th, 2008, 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And as far as I can tell, Serpicus actually agreed with me that Palin was an ignorant hypocrite. This was enough to activate his hair-trigger device for criticising science and the West. Can you imagine the level of hostility if he had disagreed? All I can say is... Jesus. Christ. Almighty. 

Then again why should I be surprised. Anyone who thinks the big bang was predicted by the Koran is either dishonest or dull-minded or both. This indicates that Serpicus is a big fan of a hateful book, which calls Jews and "infidels" pigs and apes, and tells us that when Allah burns them to bits, he will create a new skin for them so he can burn fire unto them once more. Is it any wonder Serpicus hates western things and western people if he feeds his mind on this stuff?

Of course we know that the "context" is critical!!! This is because the words and sentences to the left and right impact on the verse inbetween. For example, the above verses are surrounded by *ignore what comes next* and *ignore what preceded this*, as we all well know.

Of course also, we know that the original Arabic is perfect, eloquent and beautiful, and alters the tone of the verse somewhat. For example, the verse about Allah creating new skins to burn goes something like this in the original Arabic:

"And Allah the merciful, the beneficient, will create new cotton socks for the infidels as an expression of his tender mercy. And then cometh little fairies of the form of Julia Roberts from the heights of heaven, who will proceed to remove their soft socks and kiss their feet as they delicately slumber. Such is the mercy of the Great Allah that even his enemies partaketh of his love".

Of this I have no doubt, since Serpicus expended great energy in the past to expound these ideas, and he (very generously) is willing to repeat them again and again. *Sarcasm over*. I'm glad I'm not a science hating fundamentalist. In fact, Serpicus, never underestimate just how pleased I am about this fact. I just wish I had more time to neutralise your pathetic and whiny apologetics, but unfortunately (fortunately?) my time is occupied doing a far more worthy and interesting task, which is studying for a theoretical physics PhD.

posted on December 7th, 2008, 9:34 pm

I would have left things as is, but since you wish to site fantasy once more, I am compelled to respond.

1. The Quran verse in the first chapter itself says - the heavens and the earth were as a single point and we drove them asunder.
If that does not sum up a big bang I do not know what does.

2. The book does not in any place call Jews apes or pigs. That's Saudi propaganda as broadcast on their news channels and a quote by Pat Robertson.

3. Not evenone verse in the Quran cites burning anyone to bits. In fact the only verse that mentions "kill the infidel whre you see them", is the verse which was revealed on the battlefield, and indicates how one has to deal with the opponent on the field. The subsequent verse goes further to mention once they are disarmed how they are to be dealt with mercy and compassion, calling to account the accountability of a victor before the One.
Not quite Guantanamo or Abu Ghaib

4. War itself has been plainly sanctioned ONLY as one of self-defense. Compare thatto Hinduism;s rig veda which openly calls for the destruction of those who do not worship Vishnu, the OT's treatment of the Amalek, and the NT's Matthew 18:35: I bring not peace but the sword.
And before an atheist tries to grandstand, the fact that an atheist does not have theguidelines of when and when not - atheists can proudly venerate Stalin, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, and the rest of the despots.

5. Saddam hussein and the other despots of the 20th century - if u endup studing a little more ull see were plainly backed by material motivations of an atheist style thinking of geo-political advantage.

So much for your accusation about the book.

Now - compare all that you quoted about Quranic violence - even that which you either deliberately or out of your ignorance misquoted - with Western history such as Inquisitions, Colonialism, Imperialism, slavery, 2 World Wars, Iraq today, the genocide of an entire hemisphere, and the accusations against the quran stillcome up short ..LOL

so if u find that book abhorrent, you would want to commit suicide.. LOL

Pathetically enough you just proved my point - you absolutely need to misquote and misrepresent to stand by your points, because you just can't bear to behumbled.
That said, the fact that you actually stand b misinformation with the perfect and implacable idea of misquoting and not reading to understand proves unequivocally the entire gist of my entire post.

Thanks LAz.. lol


5. the quotation was irrelevant. as you knwo as well as I that you do not know arabic, and are not in a position to speak one way or the other about it.
But if indeed the verses were so simple and ridiculous, it is either pure western inferiority or there is indeed something deeper, that no one in spite of trying on all your Christian and atheist sites can actually answer the challenge in regards to the linguistic content of the book.

If indeed this is from anyone other thna the one GOD, then create one verse like unto it. Even orientalist linguists like Puin and Warraq's Syriac crapper tat was discounted by western scholars thmselves can counter one verse....lol pathetic.

Lastly, if indeed this book were from Mohummad, theree are several verses that directly counter his opinion or requests - one plainly addressing him that if he were to falsify one word he would be ceased and his aorta openedup, and another whre he requested never to see the one who killed his uncle in Paradise, and was castigated with the verse telling him that his job is to deliver the message nothing more..with admittance and judgement left for the ONE.

Indeed if your accusations are answered plainly without any dodge byme, and you have to resort to dodges and twists and plain misquotes and lies, it kinda demonstrates whose material indeed is true and who indeed speaks with a deliberate dodge.

So much for the foundations of your atheism.. kinda demonstrates what kind of a human being ppl lie you truly are --
lol

[Anonymous]

posted on December 7th, 2008, 10:04 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 7th, 2008, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Now for you Dom - seems you and LAz can only get a word in by double teaming.. lol.. I do confess however,it is a boost to kcik 2 ppl's asses at teh same time

but jokes aside

1.If indeed you claim to be interested in paying attention to what you are debating, then wy not start in this thread. lol. Iwas driving at the fact that regardless of how pathetic Palin;s misinformation appears to be, you too are misinformed about other facts - my citation of Irgun and Likud was an example.
Repeating your argument on the same point about Palin's fallacy still misses the point. She messed up with Autism ok. Your mess up with Mohinjodaro and Harappa being capitalist, when clear archaeological evidence shows a purely Egalitarian society kinda drives home what Im saying.
LOL

2. You're still incoherent. Nothing in your statement actually can refute what I said. Defensive tone yes. Mere vociferation of indignation yes. Facts to refute. No. Thank you. lol
I rest my case on this point then.lol

3. I said that everyone had theories at the time, not U. I was telling you to understadn the meaning of solipsism efore trying to answer my analogy between copernicus and the Papacy through which I was trying to drive home a point.
So may be you've been arguing at cross purposes with me since you kinda missed the analogy. No worries, step back a little and get back to me

4. Please read Laz's post. He stated plainly "the most scientifically advanced nation" referring to the US. to which I responded militaristically yes not scientifically, which is from where we went further.
This is what happens when you jump in half way due to a bruised sense of national pride.
oh well., onwards and upwards.
Dom Dom. calm down. All I was saying is statistically the US needs foreign minds to develop. If the US did not have immigrants from India and China and Germany and Austria, E=Mc2 would be in Europe, Nasa would be a distant relic still stuck tring to get its shuttles to stop falling apart on reentry

5. I did not light the atheist statement. I got irritated at Laz's continued hypocrisy about how scientific he is. his posts kinda demonstrate that he is not scientific. He uses science as a springboard to gradnstand. Maybe to assuage a low self image or some other pschological problem. But no one who comes off as abrasive and condescending as he - prompting me to react - would be running on all thrusters

6.I understand you're trying to get a point across. But before telling me to read up on something, what exactly were you trying to refute - that Harappa and Mohinjodaro, were not the first democracy..ok
lol
I never said they were. Another Palinesque remark on you part lol. So much for you criticising her.
To clarify - he republic I am referring to is from the a period slightly later not 5500 BC, but 3500 BC approx n the north east section in what is todays Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. This region with stone remnants has indications of being amongst the world's first republics.
Harappa and Mohinjodaro are near Pakistan's border - i.e western front.
So it is kinda presumptuous then for you to tell me to get my facts straight in that regard.

LOL


At at the end of all this, what exactly did you try to refute, and what did you actually succeed at.. LOL ROFL.

posted on December 7th, 2008, 10:10 pm

You go round and round like a broken record repeating discredited arguments about atheists, such as the stuff about Stalin, Pol Pot etc. YAWN. Powerfully discredited in a thousand places in the internet. (Hitler was a devout christian, people are evil, "in spite of rather than because of fallacy", etc etc etc YAWN - I won't repeat something which can be easily found). It just proves that religious people only read their own stuff. I refuse to engage you further since you are clearly a moron, and the tape is stuck in your head and just keeps repeating.

But since you love to read that strange book, read some of this as my final goodbye. And most of all (and I mean most of all), get it into that skull of yours that the verse about the heavens being "torn asunder" says nothing (NOTHING) even remotely like a decription of the big bang. Read the rest of the book and you'll soon realise that the verse is just one of much dribble to come from the authors, who clearly understood nothing much at all, except for hatred. Pick up your Koran. Enjoy!!

First, proof that you're a bare-faced liar:

Surah 2:39, 90 - Disbelievers will be burned with fire.

2:217 - Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire.

3:10 - Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire.

3:116 - Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire.

3:151 - We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire

4: 56 - Unbelievers will be tormented forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided.

... and there are many, many more. It's a big book.

Now for hate and prejudice.

2:99 - Only evil people are disbelievers

7:166 - Mocking the "evil-livers" and calling them apes.

7:176 - Those who deny Muhammad's revelations are like dogs.

62:5 - Those who deny the revelations of Allah are ugly.

32:20 - Those who used to deny the Fire will be tormented in it forever.

37:127 - Only the "single-minded slaves of Allah" will be saved from the doom.

Etc. Etc. Way too many to list for a person who doesn't read their own book.

Don't you dare - and I really mean this - don't even try to repeat the argument in your most recent post about misquoting, Saudi progaganda etc. I'm sick of such pathetic excuses for a violent and intolerant book. The verses say what they say. Burning hell does not translate to bed of flowers in either Arabic or "Saudi propaganda". THE END. This is why muslims kill so many people each year, and the most upsetting fact of all is that the vast majority of the victims are muslims. The payback they get for a life of service to an unworthy cause is a violent death at the hands of people who read the Koran properly.... ooh sorry I meant to say "religious extremists". Politically correct crap. If "moderate" muslims took the above cited verses to heart, they would be just like the so-called extremists.

Serpicus (listen to this because I may not ever give your enormous ego time again) - *you are a slimy apologist.* You try to dress up your arguments with words you found in the Oxford dictionary, but in reality you're as dull as all the others who repeat the same arguments (but you misquoted it!!! And what about the context, the context!!!). Weak stuff. You apologise for some of the most viscious sentences ever written down, and for that you disgust me. The only consolation I get from this feeling of disgust is that it shows that my moral faculties must be working, which is more than can be said for you.

posted on December 7th, 2008, 10:34 pm

all the big books have their flaws. and it depends on how you look at it. take christianity as an example with the "witches-problem" or the "spanish inquisition" or the "crusades".. so basicly, nowadays muslim extremism can be pretty easy compared to things in history like that if you take the age of the religions into consideration.

and on the other hand, all these books can act as a "guide" for ppl who need a stable base in their life, cause all of them got lines like "take care of yourself and respect others", "be a rightous man" etc.
it all comes down to interpretation.

so, dont blame ppl for their believe. no matter who you are, or what you might believe in. that goes for everyone.

PS: and im not a hippie nor religious. 

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on December 7th, 2008, 11:16 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 7th, 2008, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kl0K, those morals are just common sense, and are built into (most) of us. If the bible/whatever book were stripped down thus, it would be a small leaflet of very basic common sense. If someone can't follow the leaflet without being told or threatened with fire, then they've got a screw loose. Such people often hurt others and end up in prison.

And remember, it is a form of consdecension to imply that some people "need" stability, hope etc. I don't need to be threatened into helping others, and those that do need reminding constantly or threatened with hellfire probably belong in prison. Many indeed are in prison.

And since many books in the bookstores have far fewer flaws than the bible and Koran, why not choose one of those as a guide? Why do over 2 billion people follow books which are seasoned with hateful words, with a spattering of good verses here and there? It doesn't make sense and nor should it. Such as mindset is not deserving of any respect.

I actually feel no frustration with your view though KL0K. What gets to me is when people try to defend the nasty stuff even after it has been pointed out. Such a person is probably too far gone and may be capable of hurting someone one day if they think such stuff is acceptable. I became an atheist for many reasons, but suffice it to say, I could not remain a christian for long after reading the bible, properly, for the first time. For someone to read the details, and still defend it, I find disgusting, and somewhat sinister. Sorry but this is my firm stand. We can find (much) better life guides on some dudes blog post, if you want advice about being a good person. Except without all the rape, hate and genocide inbetween.

[Anonymous]

posted on December 7th, 2008, 11:56 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on December 8th, 2008, 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

I dont have to go round and round Laz.
To be succinct, answering your statements demonstrates exactly what kind of premise you base you atheism on.
Not science. not logic. Just plain misconception mixed with prejudice, with a heaping spoon of plain animal arrogance.

now to deal with your points directly - at least one of us has to deal with points directly instead of your style of drifting farther and farther off topic. Your focus on 1 religion when you had no tangible and response to my initial arguments kinda says it all.

1. Surah 2:39, 90 - Disbelievers will be burned with fire - this statement is taken from the verse revealing the fate of disbelievers. Disbelievers as judged and dealt with by God. Not by the person or human.
You incorrectly quoted it in your earlier post intentionally implying islam tells muslims to do it.
This verse is no different from the Vedas, or the Bible or the OT or even Buddhism referring to the fate of wrong doers in the afterlife, with disbelief being one of the biggies.

2. the same is said for 2:217 - Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire.

3:10 - Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire.

3:116 - Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire.

3:151 - We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire

4: 56 - Unbelievers will be tormented forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided.





3. The abode of the fire is for adulterers, rapists, sodomists, murderers, hypopcrites, jews because they reject Chirst and Mohummad - BTW Jews say the same thing about those who do not believe in Moses or David, and ironically the Talmud says Christ is burning in boiling shit. This statement itself is blasphemy enough to warrant being considered a sinner... and hence recipient of the fire.

In effect your quoting verses that warn of the fire for specific acts as some form of critique is not only irelevant and ridiculous to your initial claim that the Quran calls ppl to burn or killothers, it also demonstrates your complete lack of common sense.
Are you also going to be outraged cos Hitler is also supposed to burn.

lol.... your argument doesn't mean anything.

If a person is a sinner he is supposed to be reduced to a state which is neither death nor life. Hell being the designation, with heat and fire being ubiquitous, in addition to the other chastisements.

No where in the verses does the book state " fan of a hateful book, which calls Jews and "infidels" pigs and apes, and tells us that when Allah burns them to bits"

SO WHO EXACTLY IS THE LIAR!!!!

4. Your quotation of 7:176
this is the complete verse:
If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.

Compare the complete context and the complete analogy to your skewed extrapolation.


5. in regards to 7:166
again to elucidate context:

7:164 And when a community among them said: Why preach ye to a folk whom Allah is about to destroy or punish with an awful doom, they said: In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and that haply they may ward off (evil).

7:165 And when they forgot that whereof they had been reminded, We rescued those who forbade wrong, and visited those who did wrong with dreadful punishment because they were evil-livers.

AND THEN
7:166 So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed!

SO AGAIN ARE YOU LYING IN YOUR EXTRAPOLATION OR MERELY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING "a community among them"

just as there arer verses that deal with Egyptians and pharaoh.. are you now going to say the book claims to plague all egyptians or just at the time of Moses.

5. I can go on and on with your half-baked extractions, but would end up with one post 2 pges long. lol

I THINK BOTH YOU AND THE REST OF THE READERS GET THE POINT.
YOUR PREMISE OF ATHEISM IS BASED ON MISINFORMATION AND A COMPLETE ABSENCE - NOT EVEN LACK - OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF ANY RELIGION, AND YOUR METHOD AS SHOWN ABOVE IS EPITOME OF NO CONTEXT EXCEPT YOUR OWN PRECONCEIVED IDEA WHICH THIRSTS FOR RATIFICATION.

--- NO LOGIC. NO SCIENCE. NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD. --

In short you have by your own quotes demonstrated that your understanding of religion - be it Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or even Christianity for that matter is in no way grounded in any of the HIGHER UNDERSTANDING YOU CLAIM TO QUOTE, RATHER IS GROUNDED IN A PUERILE AND ALMOST DYSLEXIC COMPREHENSION OF THE WRITTEN WORD.(absolutely no offense in anyway or even remote reference intended to denigrate any true dyslexic, but I am making clear your skills at reading comprehension)


In the end one has to ask, if you are really so daft, or whether your misquotes are intentional to suit your ends.... making you a bold faced LIAR.

*** see I answer your points directly... don;t deviate and play merry go round the mulberry bush like u do Laz ***

Which is why I return to what I was saying in my earlier post, which you have demonstrated.
A person's intention is almost always the TAIL WHICH WAGS THE DOG (I hope you dont think Im calling you a dog directly here as well LOL).
Instead of letting your intentions and preconceptions dictate why you become an atheist, try to understand religions from scratch and ask for help in understanding verses if you truly aren't able to.
I can help you with mine,... Im sure Rhaz or Jan can help you with the Bible... LOL

And maybe then after you've actually understood the material, and then understood the premise of atheism - cos frankyl from the looks of it you're merely throwing a tantrum through atheism - Maybe then you can come back on and take another shot at unnecessary argument.

Otherwise, learn from this discussion and commit to learning and discussing for the sake of knowledge. Not for the sake of trying to aggrandize by putting Palin or anyone with learning or information handicaps down in any way or form.

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on December 8th, 2008, 12:02 am

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on December 8th, 2008, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Did somebody hear that? I could have sworn I just heard a whole steaming pile of further apology making for a bunch of scriptures so vile they never should have been penned. The prejudice and arrogance comes from the Koran, not me.

Do yourself a favour, Serpicus - don't waste time spouting bullsh*t with people who won't buy it. There are plenty of dullards who'll convert to Islam if you search for them. I am not one of them. I'd rather stab my eye with a sharp compass than spend half my week reading about how Allah is going to burn disbelievers. Fortunately I don't believe in any deity at all, never mind the kind and gentle Allah.

By the way, my premise for atheism has nothing to do with any of this - so don't state it as such. My atheism comes from observing the natural world and from basic logic. The absurd "holy" books are just a footnote, another way of discrediting the view that a God watches over us, but still only one of many different ways to show that strong agnosticism/atheism is the best position.