I'll bet you couldn't type that whole thing with a straight face.

From the standpoint of a theological leader, it makes sense.  Those leaders are responsible not only for their followers' physical well-being, but their spiritual well-being as well.

Come on dude, their rationalizations don't make their actions just, nor their imaginary super-beings real.

Like Si said.

Come on dude, their rationalizations don't make their actions just, nor their imaginary super-beings real.

But THEY believe it's real, and they're operating on their best, gut feeling on what's the just thing to do.

And they're wrong.

Except it's all bullshit.

This is YOU, operating on your best, gut feeling.

OH NO!  SOLIPSISM!  RUN!!
poking some fun at myself, there. 

And they're wrong.

According to your theories, not to theirs.

OH NO!  SUBJECTIVE VIEWPOINTS!  RUN!!!
still poking fun at myself...! 

Hey, you know, we could have this same argument over the kind of beer she was drinking, and make just as much headway.

I think she should've had an amber ale.  Obviously the best beer when refuting religions.

But, that opinion is entirely based on my own ignorance, suspicion, and prejudice.

Hey I have no idea either...

heaven and hell, without tomfoolery in between.

not a valid lifestyle.

Except it's all bullshit.

I've made the argument before that religion (all religion) is inherently crippling due not so much to its potential to inspire evil actions, but rather due to its prohibition of scrutiny of itself in its believers. Anything where you are required to accept something is slavery.

I've made the argument before that religion (all religion) is inherently crippling due not so much to its potential to inspire evil actions, but rather due to its prohibition of scrutiny of itself in its believers. Anything where you are required to accept something is slavery.

Even with atheism you are accepting there is no God.

Not so. Atheism is experience-based. With atheism I'm failing to accept those things that go beyond nature (i.e. are supernatural).
So I'm not so much accepting the nothingness of God as I am failing to accept the reality of the non-natural.

I've made the argument before that religion (all religion) is inherently crippling due not so much to its potential to inspire evil actions, but rather due to its prohibition of scrutiny of itself in its believers. Anything where you are required to accept something is slavery.

Even with atheism you are accepting there is no God.

Not really. I don't assert that there's no god, I just have yet to see any proof that there is.

Exactly. Unlike religion, scientific-method-based atheism is a passive system.
Should proof of god emerge, then the scientific-method-based atheist would be logically required to believe in him (if you can call that "belief in").
Granted the atheist would probably avoid the terminology "God" as it's so suggestive of the "other-worldly."

EDIT: This is a point I've made many times before, but there's a fundamental problem with the language here. The word "believe" is far too vague.
Religious belief is intangible - it's like your belief that your mother loves you. Or the belief that aggression is wicked.
Scientific belief is concrete - it's like believing that the apple you are holding is real. More complex concepts and mechanisms are built up on smaller proven units and bound together with logic. In many ways, the term "scientific belief" is more similar to "understanding" than belief.
In this way, scientific theories are almost like religious beliefs. The only difference is that scientific theories are extrapolations grounded in the concrete whereas religious beliefs are further intangible items grounded in other religious beliefs or not grounded in anything at all.

You fuckers DARE to have a theological debate when I'm either working or having a nap???

OK fine, I'm pulling a Tricky. I an soooo DONE with you.

You fuckers DARE to have a theological debate when I'm either working or having a nap???

OK fine, I'm pulling a Tricky. I an soooo DONE with you.

You must've been working, since you wouldn't be grumpy if you'd just come up from a nap.

Scientific belief is concrete - it's like believing that the apple you are holding is real.

Sakhi's hindu, she doesn't believe anything is real, it's all illusion created by various vibrational frequencies. Your analogy is lost on her.

Sakhi's hindu, she doesn't believe anything is real, it's all illusion created by various vibrational frequencies. Your analogy is lost on her.

That's what Quantum Physicists believe, too! 

They stole it cause they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Duh.

In that statement, which group is represented by "They"...?

I'm partial to zen as far as things go.  I'm not good about regularly practicing zazen, though.

I think the problem with Islam vs. other religions is that their text was outright written by people in power.  Even if you accept that it was all uttered by Muhammad, he was a political and military leader in addition to a spiritual one.  There's no separation.

Say what you want about Constantine and the Christian Bible, it was at least cobbled together from other sources (and rather poorly, in my opinion, for the explicit purpose of supporting the state) instead of being directly written by a Caliph & their scribes.

I love it when hot Arab bitches down a cold one.

Yeah, there should be a site with hot arab chicks drinking booze and voting and shit.

The world made in the image of Christianity:



The world made in the image of Sikhism:



The world made in the image of Islam:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s&feature=player_embedded



PS- The world made in the image of proselytizing atheist dweebs with tiny imaginations:

iMo Apple

17-year-old girl beaten by holy warriors

But I'd bet money she won't be catching anything from Kyle or Dylan...

Sakhi's hindu, she doesn't believe anything is real, it's all illusion created by various vibrational frequencies. Your analogy is lost on her.

That's what Quantum Physicists believe, too! 

Can I call myself a Quantum Physicist then?

You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America, regardless of what Wozzeck thinks it is.

You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America the Internet, regardless of what Wozzeck every single american on the internet appears to think it is.

That too.

The world made in the image of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpfwuy4v2s#noexternalembed

fixed.

The world made in the image of Christianity Anglicanism/Episcopalianism:

fixed, but of course you're forgetting the most popular cousin of the oldschool gentrified protestants: the Christian fundamentalists!

The world made in the image of Christian Evangelicalism:

PS- The world made in the image of proselytizing atheist dweebs with tiny imaginations:

If Atheists Ruled the World

I think the problem with Islam vs. other religions is that their text was outright written by people in power.  Even if you accept that it was all uttered by Muhammad, he was a political and military leader in addition to a spiritual one.  There's no separation.

Say what you want about Constantine and the Christian Bible, it was at least cobbled together from other sources (and rather poorly, in my opinion, for the explicit purpose of supporting the state) instead of being directly written by a Caliph & their scribes.

I think th problem with Islam is entirely context-based. Look at conditions in the places where major world religions are practiced. Practitioners of Christianity have different cultural values than practitioners of Islam. It's not because of doctrinal differences in the religions. At best you could make a shaky argument that Islam is more easily interpreted to allow for violence, but that's a very hard argument to make given the similarities between the treatment of violence in the Qur'an and in the Hebrew Tanakh, and in many other texts central to many other religions. Religion is interpretation of vague and often self-contradictory scripture. Interpretation is accomplished by man. People who have problems with Islam have problems with the culture of the practitioners of Islam. The culture of the practitioners does not derive from the religion, rather the religious interpretations derive from the culture. The solution is not to expunge the religion, but to work with the practitioners.

You can call yourself anything you like, dear. This is America the Internet, regardless of what Wozzeck every single american on the internet appears to think it is.

Are we American's so impressive that we even completely own being assholes on the Internet?

I doubt that.

I think the problem with Islam vs. other religions is that their text was outright written by people in power.  Even if you accept that it was all uttered by Muhammad, he was a political and military leader in addition to a spiritual one.  There's no separation.

Say what you want about Constantine and the Christian Bible, it was at least cobbled together from other sources (and rather poorly, in my opinion, for the explicit purpose of supporting the state) instead of being directly written by a Caliph & their scribes.

I think th problem with Islam is entirely context-based. Look at conditions in the places where major world religions are practiced. Practitioners of Christianity have different cultural values than practitioners of Islam. It's not because of doctrinal differences in the religions. At best you could make a shaky argument that Islam is more easily interpreted to allow for violence, but that's a very hard argument to make given the similarities between the treatment of violence in the Qur'an and in the Hebrew Tanakh, and in many other texts central to many other religions. Religion is interpretation of vague and often self-contradictory scripture. Interpretation is accomplished by man. People who have problems with Islam have problems with the culture of the practitioners of Islam. The culture of the practitioners does not derive from the religion, rather the religious interpretations derive from the culture. The solution is not to expunge the religion, but to work with the practitioners.

Hey, Mr. Brainiac... You're talking about a religion based on a book that contains actual instructions to go kill everyone who won't "submit" to Islam. It's not the culture's interpretation, it's the religion's explicit instructions. While the Tanakh tells stories of specific instances where the Jews were commanded by God to conquer and destroy specific enemies, nowhere does it command that modern day followers go out and kill everyone who won't convert to Judaism.

In short, STFU.