Eat one, bitch.

Yeah, crazy is crazy,

but it's a little disconcerting to have the Same Bunch Of Nuts that all belong to the same "religion" performing the same hideous acts of violence for the same reasons.

Jeffery Dahmer was a "isolated incident;"

a Muslim man going berserk and killing everyone within reach of his weapon is just Ho Hum ~ another act of Terrorism.  What a shock.


On the Up-Side,

it's going to come down to a major war between Muslims and the Chinese, hopefully riding the world of most of both.



(Does ^ThaT^ cover  This?

...

 a forum that's supposed to be about "brainy-like things" and politics.

Oh I was just saying that neither religion nor bigotry were really part of the prescription for this forum so it's sad that that's what this forum is devolving into.

The whole "oh look I'm noticing a trend where all Muslims are terrorists. We should eliminate them all with extreme prejudice" line is a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Maybe it's easier to see the blatant bigotry if we use an example that receives more mainstream attention.
Imagine if we'd instead said "oh look I'm noticing a trend where all criminals doing time for drug offenses are Black. We should eliminate them all with extreme prejudice."
Or even "oh look I'm noticing a trend where all avaricious moneylenders holding our country back are Jews. We should eliminate them all with extreme prejudice."

Sounds kinda off, doesn't it?

To you or me, sure.

Everything old is new again.

KILL NIGGERS.

Hey, if YOU're a-skared of calling a Spade,

a Spade,

rest assured ~

i'm not.

Take your Political Correctness and put it where your mouth is ~

go tell these lovely Muslims how much you respect their rights,

and how all of the rest of us are just fuktards.

If they're "honorable" Muslim men?  They'll spit on you BEFORE they kill you.

When I was an infant, my parents both had to work full-time in order to put food on the table. I was taken care of during the days by a loving and extremely devout Muslim woman from Iran. She and her husband treated me as if I were one of their own children, and in gratitude a friendship developed between my parents and these kindly neighbors. Although I left the city when I was only 5, my parents took me back to visit them several more times throughout my grade school career. These people are strongly Islamic. The father of the family prayed five times a day, and although she didn't wear one around me when I was an infant, I can't picture the mother of the family any more without her hijab. Eating dinner with them was done at a low table, and if I remember correctly I think the father brought his son with him to Hajj in the late 90s. When the terrorist attacks came on 9/11, they were among some of the first people my parents called in New York. Like all New Yorkers these people were dumbstruck and appalled by the incident.

I haven't shared that before because I didn't want people to think that's the secret reason I'm not joining the joyous chorus of "Let's destroy someone else's religion!" Being called out to square my claims with reality, though, I felt compelled. The real reason I've been defending Islam is not because I think the religion is so wonderful or even that I think Muslim people are all so great. I just think that the recently-popular unequal treatment of Islam as compared to other religions is disgusting, and I hate to see hardline hypocrisy raising its tawdry spectre here. Ultimately I don't think Islam is any better than any religion. I think they all cause people to do irrational and silly or even dangerous and despicable things. I think religion is a total elevation of form over substance, an embracement of the status quo, and a rejection of independent thought. I recognize that it is a comfort for people, and there are positive effects it can have also. It's an interesting topic, but one in which I will almost never chose favorites.

I understand the main issues here, I think.
Both Krsna and Balor are extremely hung up on the literalist fundamentalist mindset. They can't seem to fathom a religion that could allow for deviance from the rigid literal text. Yes, there are words in the Quran that recommend bad acts. Yes, there are bad people and idiots who use those lines as justification to do the bad acts. But no, all followers of the religion don't take those lines as much to heart as the TV likes to scare us into believing. There are insane portions of most if not all major religious texts. If we can't break from the literalist interpretation then we're no better than the unthinking soldiers of god who do things like blowing up the WTC. I've said it over and over, but once again: the religion itself is not the problem - it's the literalist fundamentalist approach used to interpret it that causes all of the problems.
I'm not really sure what your deal is, Fyre, but considering that you're a proud birther I would suspect your mind has been poisoned by Fox News and the fringe Right and this is probably some sadly misguided attempt at patriotism.

Anyway I'm done defending Islam. Nothing changes. The more I try to lay things out clearly, the more tangled things become. And the more I discuss and rediscuss things like this, the more I feel the self-loathing creeping in.

Apparently Islamophobia is yet another topic like evolution and agnosticism that I'm better off staying well away from. This will be my last post on the topic. Probably.

Most scientists belive in god.

Doormouse,

I think that's the best post you've made on this topic.

I understand your point about fundamentalism and literalism, but in my eyes you seem to be ignoring the fact that for a very significant portion of the Muslim population that that literal fundamentalism is all there is.

Really, those are the only guys I worry about.

and it's why you need to support the moderate Muslim population... which is the majority.

When I was an infant, my parents both had to work full-time in order to put food on the table. I was taken care of during the days by a loving and extremely devout Muslim woman from Iran.

So, you're saying you were infliuenced by Islam at a young age, and now you're an apologizer for the religion?

I love logical fallacies!

Most scientists belive in god.

Really? I thought it was the opposite.

Really.

I would love to link to a decent study on it, but the google results are full of christians screaming that they dont. Go figure.  I've personal lost count of the number phd people I have meet who either believe in god or are agnostic. Sure they are ones who think god does not and can not exists... and there's alot,  just not a majority.

When I was an infant, my parents both had to work full-time in order to put food on the table. I was taken care of during the days by a loving and extremely devout Muslim woman from Iran.

So, you're saying you were infliuenced by Islam at a young age, and now you're an apologizer for the religion?

I love logical fallacies!

You evil bastard. I see what you're trying to make me do here, and it won't work. I'm on hiatus from this topic.

@Krsna - Thank you. I know you're an intelligent all-around good guy in the end. I understand your point and agree with it to an extent although I think you overemphasize it somewhat. Anyway I'm spent on this issue for a while.

@Krsna - Thank you. I know you're an intelligent all-around good guy in the end.

How can a man how makes ribs that good be anything but?

My personal experience with scientists is that there are a lot of agnostics.  I've known a lot of agnostic theists too among scientists (I guess that's the proper terminology).  People who profess not to know one way or another about god, but participate in church because it has cultural and social value, their wife does, or some other similar reason.

Here's a survey out of Rice University: http://www.ehecklund.rice.edu/publications/Ecklund_Contexts_7_1.pdf

Depending on how your regard the categories that don't state anything outright, it's roughly a third in each category of belief based on that survey.  I've seen other surveys with similar results - sometimes a little higher in the atheism category, sometimes a little lower.  It would probably be fair to say that no broad category of belief holds a majority among scientists, whereas a majority of the American public professes to belief.

----

Of course, the belief of scientists with respect to religion is irrelevant.  I think the beliefs of philosophers are probably slightly more relevant, but still not really applicable except insofar as you're willing to accept any particular school of thought.  If you're trying to develop a rational argument about belief, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I personally think that proving the existence of God, assuming that one existed, is not scientifically possible.  We exist within this system.  To me, any attempt to truly describe and prove the existence of a deity would be like a molecule of refrigerant in my refrigerator's piping trying to explain the color of my kitchen tile.  Or if you were drugged and sealed in a crate - you might hear some muffled sounds, maybe you'd pick up some scent of something, but you're never be able to see me masturbating furiously over the crate or prove that I was out there!

And the reality is that if I called either of these laryngeal polyps "nigger-hating honkies" they'd be upset at the accusation. But they have no problem lumping another group of people into a stereotype themselves.

Look, it isn't that i have anything against Muslim folks ~ i, too, was cared for by a fatimah, and lived on the economy in a Muslim community in french Morocco.

i'm a Christian, but if i had been around for the Crusades, i would have been every bit as concerned about the cult that promoted THAT!

And that's what the terrorist segment seems to be ~ a cultish offshoot from the main religion.

Unfortunately, i have neither the time, inclination nor resources to try to figure out who the good guys and who the bad guys ARE,

so i have to stereotype them, and think it would be the height of stupidity NOT to be a little suspicious.

THAT's what calling a spade, a spade is all about, imho.

Really.

I would love to link to a decent study on it, but the google results are full of christians screaming that they dont. Go figure.  I've personal lost count of the number phd people I have meet who either believe in god or are agnostic. Sure they are ones who think god does not and can not exists... and there's alot,  just not a majority.

You've got to consider what people really believe, and not what they project out of a sense of what's supposed to be considered "right" at the moment.

Most of them were drunk when the topic came up...

[me = drunk]the problem I've always had with the definition of "agnostic" vs "atheist" is that they're too clear cut. An agnostic says they don't know but they don't discount the possibility of a deity. An atheist absolutely discounts the possibility of a god. I fall in between the two. If something can be scientifically proven, I'll believe in it. As of now, there's no scientific proof of a god. So I tend to feel like more of an atheist. But as someone who wants to follow proof, rather than belief or "faith", if I say that I don't discount the possibility of a deity, but I highly doubt its existence, people often flip out on me. And I'm realizing that I'm too drunk to keep "talking".

Really.

I would love to link to a decent study on it, but the google results are full of christians screaming that they dont. Go figure.  I've personal lost count of the number phd people I have meet who either believe in god or are agnostic. Sure they are ones who think god does not and can not exists... and there's alot,  just not a majority.

So what info you can find suggests that most scientists don't believe in god, but your personal experiences suggest otherwise?

I cant find the info i think i remember. Emp posted some somewhere that come close to it. and yeah, my personal ex strongly leans towards it.

and for your drunk stuff... that would make you sorta like me... if im reading you right. agnostic with a science bias ? which is usually how I describe myself when im not trolling.

so i have to stereotype them, and think it would be the height of stupidity NOT to be a little suspicious.

THAT's what calling a spade, a spade is all about, imho.

OK. Let's use your logic. Texas, though having a relatively low per capita murder rate, does seem to have a high rate of execution for capital murder cases. So all Texans should lose the right to keep and bear arms because they're just not safe to be around. Sasha, Luke, Kyle, Wendy, let's have them. One of you go find Rev and get his shit, too. If you don't give them up, we're going to send in federal troops because you obviously have caches of weapons hidden in the mountains of NE TX and out in the caves in W TX. And since Texas seems to execute a disproportionate number of blacks (hey, the facts don't matter, right? We have to stereotype you...) we're going to take away your rights, nullify your legal elections and we're going to put the people you've been executing in charge.

This strategy worked quite well in Iraq and it will protect Americans from the cheap beer-swilling, mechanical bull-riding white trailer trash of Texas (i.e. all of you)... right?

In case you didn't get it...

Throwing a demographic into a big pot and slapping a label on them makes you look incredibly stupid. It's not 1950 anymore. Well, except at Sasha's house where her daddy says she needs a man to validate her...

Nigger lovers...

[me = drunk]the problem I've always had with the definition of "agnostic" vs "atheist" is that they're too clear cut. An agnostic says they don't know but they don't discount the possibility of a deity. An atheist absolutely discounts the possibility of a god. I fall in between the two. If something can be scientifically proven, I'll believe in it. As of now, there's no scientific proof of a god. So I tend to feel like more of an atheist. But as someone who wants to follow proof, rather than belief or "faith", if I say that I don't discount the possibility of a deity, but I highly doubt its existence, people often flip out on me. And I'm realizing that I'm too drunk to keep "talking".

I understand this view. It's very fair and even-handed, but it's also a bit naive I think. I like to think I'm open to all new ideas, and that if scientific proof came that God existed then I would accept it and "believe" it. The thing about God, though, is that the concept is defined by its disconnection from nature. God (like all deities) is a supernatural concept. So by definition God is incompatible with nature thus with science.

To put it differently, God can be described as an entity to which the laws of nature do not apply and which is a morally and spiritually perfect entity. Now the moral and spiritual aspects of it are so vague and purely human-thought-related that they cause no problems, but I rankle at the notion that that there is anything that sits in a privileged position outside of the laws of nature unless it is also understood to be purely human-thought-related. So to me God can only be a concept. I think part of embracing the scientific method as the tool by which to investigate nature is to reject the notion that there are some things that are simply outside of the laws of nature (i.e. are extra-, sub-, or super-natural). I'd be open to the idea that if science proved his existence then he's real, but if science were to prove his existence, it would simultaneously subject him to the laws of science and thus perform clinical deicide. Science could only prove god by disproving his supernature and thus by disproving him.

[me = drunk]the problem I've always had with the definition of "agnostic" vs "atheist" is that they're too clear cut. An agnostic says they don't know but they don't discount the possibility of a deity. An atheist absolutely discounts the possibility of a god. I fall in between the two. If something can be scientifically proven, I'll believe in it. As of now, there's no scientific proof of a god. So I tend to feel like more of an atheist. But as someone who wants to follow proof, rather than belief or "faith", if I say that I don't discount the possibility of a deity, but I highly doubt its existence, people often flip out on me. And I'm realizing that I'm too drunk to keep "talking".

I understand this view. It's very fair and even-handed, but it's also a bit naive I think. I like to think I'm open to all new ideas, and that if scientific proof came that God existed then I would accept it and "believe" it. The thing about God, though, is that the concept is defined by its disconnection from nature. God (like all deities) is a supernatural concept. So by definition God is incompatible with nature thus with science.

To put it differently, God can be described as an entity to which the laws of nature do not apply and which is a morally and spiritually perfect entity. Now the moral and spiritual aspects of it are so vague and purely human-thought-related that they cause no problems, but I rankle at the notion that that there is anything that sits in a privileged position outside of the laws of nature unless it is also understood to be purely human-thought-related. So to me God can only be a concept. I think part of embracing the scientific method as the tool by which to investigate nature is to reject the notion that there are some things that are simply outside of the laws of nature (i.e. are extra-, sub-, or super-natural). I'd be open to the idea that if science proved his existence then he's real, but if science were to prove his existence, it would simultaneously subject him to the laws of science and thus perform clinical deicide. Science could only prove god by disproving his supernature and thus by disproving him.

I think it's possible that something exists outside of the system which we define.  Of course, that thing probably couldn't interact with this system without upending the balance of things.

It's a good point, but I think if we were to accept god and science then we would be expanding science to bring god under its laws rather than loosening the restriction that science applies to nature.

Maybe it all boils down to how you define God. If you think of God as all that exists naturally but that is unexplained by science then sure he could exist.
If on the other hand you define him as a being to which the laws of science cannot apply then I can't subscribe to your newsletter.

Ironic that we're discussing this in the year of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of his work being published. Even the C of E acknowledged his work as valid. Too bad many of the American protestant sects are unable to see the light.

It's a good point, but I think if we were to accept god and science then we would be expanding science to bring god under its laws rather than loosening the restriction that science applies to nature.

Maybe it all boils down to how you define God. If you think of God as all that exists naturally but that is unexplained by science then sure he could exist.
If on the other hand you define him as a being to which the laws of science cannot apply then I can't subscribe to your newsletter.

I think of it in a lot of ways and maybe don't really believe in any of it as anything more than a thought experiment.  Or maybe I do.  I'm not always sure one way or the other.

Anyway.  My point about systems: draw a circle around the universe.  That's where the laws we have defined apply.  Things or beings could exist beyond that.  You can't necessarily extend the information we've derived from within the circle to things that exist outside of it, though I also think that something that exists outside said system could not interact inside of it without wrecking it.  It would be sort of akin to how we define a closed system where certain rules apply that don't generally hold true.  Or imagine that you're a sentient molecule of water flowing in a pipe.  You might be able to come up with a set of laws that describe the system as you experience it, but I would be that you would never be able to derive the Navier-Stokes equations.  (Which is incidentally why I think we will never solve some of the questions we have in science, deities or not.  Our perspective is within the system with a limited tool set of perception & measurement)

I also wasn't joking when I posted a while ago about thinking about sentient galaxies.  If human consciousness is a product the organization of a bunch of cells firing off electric signals, I think there certainly could be other sorts of consciousness out there (or maybe I've just watched way too much Star Trek).  Or the totality of the universe could be sentient being.

And there are countless other ideas that could be explored as thought experiments or games.  I knew one professor of physics who believed in some convoluted idea that sounded an awful lot like Stargate.  Ultimately, though, whether any of the ideas are true or not also doesn't really matter to me (much as what scientists or anyone else believes).