Islam and depictions of Muhammad

[LosOjos]

Nah, there's another war storming its way towards us, I can feel it. Japan and China are at each other's throats over some rocks. The Middle East is basically constantly at war, and Syria is heading towards being a catalyst to a more serious conflict including Russia and the USA/Europe, Iran and Israel are on a knife's edge.

 

I can seriously see another world war in my lifetime. Horrible thought.

 

See above. Won't be an issue in a few decades time...

 

Unfortunately, I think you're right about a war brewing. As you say, the whole of the Middle East is one big war zone, they just haven't started fighting each other on a massive scale [yet].

 

Whilst there are parts of this video I don't believe (lots of parts take this idea to a degree I find preposterous), it's certainly interesting viewing if you have a couple of hours to spare: Wake Up Call - Remastered Edition - Full Movie - YouTube

 

In a nutshell, it provides convincing evidence supporting the idea that the super-rich have been sat behind the scenes for years pulling the strings on our society in a bid to eventually have total control over the planet. Sounds very far fetched I know but honestly, it is worth watching even if you're a complete sceptic.

 

EDIT: just to bring it back to topic a little, there's some very interesting footage of some high level US politicians taking part in a secret religious cult and performing a fake human sacrifice to a giant owl (I kid you not!), with a follow up interview with one of the said politicians that goes quite awry...

Edited September 20, 2012 by LosOjos

[pcstru]

Look, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I'm having a discussion. I won't be drawn in to your "define every single point you make to the letter", because I don't have to. I'm not looking for followers.

 

You claimed that "extreme atheists" were making some demands on "believers" - which you backed away from when called on it. While you might not define every point to the letter (not that I have asked you to do any such thing), a 'discussion' has to take place around some mutually agreed definition. If you just want to shoot off specious rhetorical jibes though, do carry on.

[LosOjos]

You claimed that "extreme atheists" were making some demands on "believers" - which you backed away from when called on it. While you might not define every point to the letter (not that I have asked you to do any such thing), a 'discussion' has to take place around some mutually agreed definition. If you just want to shoot off specious rhetorical jibes though, do carry on.

 

My exact words were: "I also disagree with the "extreme atheists" (granted, no atrocities have been committed by them yet!) who believe that everybody with religious beliefs is a damn fool and should be shook until they denounce all faith."

 

Clearly, it was not meant literally, I don't really believe there are atheists out there shaking religious folk 'til they're blue in the face (though there may well be!), I was obviously using an analogy to paint a caricature of the kind of person I was referring to, as most people seem to have understood.

 

This is the last time I'm responding to you now, as I don't have time to hold your hand and painstakingly explain exactly what I mean by every statement I make, nor do I care to.

[pcstru]

The implication seemed to be, sans shaking, that these "extreme atheists" want more than simply to state that all such belief is foolish. Either that or it's not a problem of meaning it literally (and I didn't think you meant shaking them), you didn't actually mean ANYTHING.

 

You don't have to hold my hand, no, but to blame someone else for misinterpreting your lack of clarity is ... a bit rich. Do carry on though.

[kernewek-sam]

Several thousand years of human history says........apparently not.

 

There's always a time to start.

[nicholab]

That film is so fun it got to be a mickey take they need to get in on the joke. It a bit like the life of Brain but with Muhammad as the focus.

[Earthling]

There's always a time to start.

 

Absolutely, completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take an evolutionary step forward to a higher form of human being. Homo Superior or something of that name.

 

While following it avidly, I'm staying largely out of this discussion. Religious extremity disturbs me deeply, as do the the people who indulge in it.

 

In fact, religious belief disturbs me, it doesn't have to be very extreme at all.

[jinnantonnixx]

Absolutely, completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take an evolutionary step forward to a higher form of human being. Homo Superior or something of that name.

 

While following it avidly, I'm staying largely out of this discussion. Religious extremity disturbs me deeply, as do the the people who indulge in it.

 

In fact, religious belief disturbs me, it doesn't have to be very extreme at all.

 

I violently agree.

[jinnantonnixx]

I see France is gearing up for trouble as a French magazine published some more of "those" cartoons.

[tmcd35]

Absolutely, completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take an evolutionary step forward to a higher form of human being. Homo Superior or something of that name.

 

I think the next stage in human evolution (a bit terminator-sh) is some kind of android/robotic lifeform. Our bodies are far too weak and short to make proper exploration of just a few nearby star systems practical without it, let alone our galaxy. Without that kind evolutionary/technological advance one day our sun will greatly expand and take us with it. Any arguments about religion will be a little unimportant when that happens. (assuming we don't other wise annihilate ourselves/the panet in the millions of years before then).

 

While following it avidly, I'm staying largely out of this discussion. Religious extremity disturbs me deeply, as do the the people who indulge in it.

So, are you implying that by having this discussion we are religious fanatics?

[LiamH]

Just listen to the way Richard Dawkins, for example, speaks to and about religious people; he clearly sees them as total idiots. Of course I'm not suggesting he literally wants to shake them in to submission, don't be so literal!

 

To be fair hes dragged on TV to debate facts against some very idiotic people (Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example) trying to use logic against someone that defies logic. Its like talking to a brick wall and the most patent of people would get angry at that at some point.

 

Christianity committed atrocious war crimes in its earlier years and the majority of those were against Muslim country's, its no wonder they don't exactly see eye to eye, Would be better off without organised religion imho.

[Disease]

Israel will have attacked Iran by the end of next month, starting things off.

[jinnantonnixx]

To be fair hes dragged on TV to debate facts against some very idiotic people (Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example) trying to use logic against someone that defies logic. ....

 

Oh, Bill O'Reilly - this guy gives idiots a bad name. He has his own meme - tides go in, tides go out. He was interviewing* Dave Silverman when he said "Tides go in, tides go out - you can't explain that", as if that was proof of God. Dave Silverman was stunned - you can see his face when the magnitude of O'Reilly's ignorance dawned on him.

 

*O'Reilly doesn't interview people. He asks them a question, interrupts the start of their answer then spouts his own opinion. He interrupted Barak Obama - yes, the president - 48 times during an interview. He's a rude and obnoxious man.

Edited September 21, 2012 by jinnantonnixx

[LiamH]

Oh, Bill O'Reilly - this guy gives idiots a bad name. He has his own meme - tides go in, tides go out. He was interviewing* Dave Silverman when he said "Tides go in, tides go out - you can't explain that", as if that was proof of God. Dave Silverman was stunned - you can see his face when the magnitude of O'Reilly's ignorance dawned on him.

 

*O'Reilly doesn't interview people. He asks them a question, interrupts the start of their answer then spouts his own opinion.

 

He said the same thing to Richard Dawkins, also added the sun goes up the sun goes down for good measure!

 

Bill O'Reilly SCARED by Richard Dawkins - YouTube

[LosOjos]

To be fair hes dragged on TV to debate facts against some very idiotic people (Bill O'Reilly is a perfect example) trying to use logic against someone that defies logic. Its like talking to a brick wall and the most patent of people would get angry at that at some point.

 

Christianity committed atrocious war crimes in its earlier years and the majority of those were against Muslim country's, its no wonder they don't exactly see eye to eye, Would be better off without organised religion imho.

 

As an atheist, I think Richard Dawkins gives the rest of us a bad name. I don't like his aggressive attitude. I understand how infuriating it can be to try to argue scientific fact against religion, but most of us learnt to have an intelligent debate without being rude or disrespectful years ago.

 

He's a very intelligent man and I do enjoy reading his books in spite of the fact I disagree with his black and white outlook on the world and religion in general. I just find the man incredibly disrespectful, he antagonises religious hatred! I understand his points on the world being a better place without organised religion, although I'm not sure it would make much difference, people will always find an excuse to wage war. I understand his disgust at the various vile acts that have been done in the name of religion, but it does not give him a right to treat people with utter disdain just because they're religious; that's exactly what causes extremism in the first place.

Edited September 21, 2012 by LosOjos

[Earthling]

 

So, are you implying that by having this discussion we are religious fanatics?

 

I'm not implying anything. I stated my point of view, that's all.

[LosOjos]

I'm not implying anything. I stated my point of view, that's all.

 

Be careful! Without documentary evidence and sources, that can get you lynched around here!

[pcstru]

As an atheist, I think Richard Dawkins gives the rest of us a bad name. I don't like his aggressive attitude. I understand how infuriating it can be to try to argue scientific fact against religion, but most of us grew out of name calling and bickering when we were teenagers.

 

Where exactly has he "named called" or "bickered"? It's all very well throwing these rhetorical accusations around, but so far your evidence for them is zero. Or hey, perhaps you didn't mean that literally??

 

And how exactly are his views "extreme"? Seems to me people say his views are extreme because he's actually prepared to speak up for what he believes in. He's not as far as I can tell disrespectful, but nothing compels him to respect the views of someone who believes in invisible fairies. That's perhaps too subtle a difference though, so hell, let's just be lazy and label him an extremist.

[Earthling]

@LosOjos

 

Never reveal your sources.

 

My Dad told me that years ago.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Earthling

[LosOjos]

Where exactly has he "named called" or "bickered"? It's all very well throwing these rhetorical accusations around, but so far your evidence for them is zero. Or hey, perhaps you didn't mean that literally??

 

And how exactly are his views "extreme"? Seems to me people say his views are extreme because he's actually prepared to speak up for what he believes in. He's not as far as I can tell disrespectful, but nothing compels him to respect the views of someone who believes in invisible fairies. That's perhaps too subtle a difference though, so hell, let's just be lazy and label him an extremist.

 

I reworded my post as I knew what I said was a bit harsh, and that you'd be along to try to pull my points apart without making any of your own (isn't that the definition of a troll?)

 

Without further ado, I give you evidence of Dawkins' arrogance and disrespect:

 

Granted, that's only one example, but I do wonder whether you've actually read any of his books?

[LosOjos]

@pcstru if you have a point to make, please, make it. Contribute to this debate. But if you're just going to keep trying to antagonise me with your passive-aggressive quotes of my posts, I'm going to ignore you. It's getting old, fast.

[jumpinjamez]

I think the next stage in human evolution (a bit terminator-sh) is some kind of android/robotic lifeform. Our bodies are far too weak and short to make proper exploration of just a few nearby star systems practical without it, let alone our galaxy. Without that kind evolutionary/technological advance one day our sun will greatly expand and take us with it. Any arguments about religion will be a little unimportant when that happens. (assuming we don't other wise annihilate ourselves/the panet in the millions of years before then).

 

 

when i opened this thread i read that this could get messy but i never imagined i would be reading about an android/robotic life form.

 

surely a iOS6/robotic life form would have more people excited?

[LosOjos]

when i opened this thread i read that this could get messy but i never imagined i would be reading about an android/robotic life form.

 

surely a iOS6/robotic life form would have more people excited?

 

There's no way on this Earth I'd let Apple install anything in my body, "evolution" be damned!

[Earthling]

when i opened this thread i read that this could get messy but i never imagined i would be reading about an android/robotic life form.

 

surely a iOS6/robotic life form would have more people excited?

 

Probably, but then every 4th or 5th generation would be completely incompatible with it's forebears.

[SYNACK]

There's no way on this Earth I'd let Apple install anything in my body, "evolution" be damned!

 

likewise, want to talk about extremisum I'd fight to the death not to have apple cack anywhere near me let alone inside me.