Does Religion Make You A Better Person?
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
The USA is one of the most religious countries in the world. Does that make it the best country in the world? Is it the most moral country in the world? Logically the most religious country in the world would also be the most moral. Logically the least religious country in the world would also be the most immoral.
How do we determine the morality of a country? Crime rate? Sexual behavior? The least religious large country is Japan. 80% of japanese accept evolution and only 10% believe there is a god. This is out of 100 million people. Japan has one of the lowest crime rates and teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. Next in line as the most moral countries are Norway, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Approximately 60% of the population of these countries accept evolution as a fact. Fewer than one in three believe in a deity. They have very little teen pregnancy and the homocide rates are approximately 1-2 per 100,000.
How does the USA stack up against these godless countries? Approximately 82% believe in god and 13% accept evolution. The USA is the most religious developed country in the world. It should be the most moral country in the developed world. Is it? It is just the opposite. The USA is the most religious and the most immoral country in the developed world. The USA has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. The USA has the highest homocide rate in the developed world. It is five times greater than these godless countries and 10 times greater than Japan.
The correlation is very clear, the more religious a country is, the more immoral it is. Religion does more harm than good. Religion tends to weaken rather than strengthen people's ability to participate in society. Religion makes it less likely that they will respect social customs and laws. Does religion make you a better person? Religion absolves them of all other responsibilities.
Those who are "born again" have dimished respect for others who do not share their belief. Convinced that only the bible has "the truth", they lose their intellectual curiousity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in, but themselves.
The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes. As for sex, religion encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In these godless countries (Japan, Norway, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands) sex education includes contraception reducing the risk of unwated pregnancies.
Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions which benefit them and society as a whole. In America, faith-based abstinence programs deny them that right. The results are soaring rates of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.
Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unpredjudiced analysis. Reasoning is subverted to rationalization that supports rather than questions assumptions. The result is a self contained system that mantains an internal logic no matter how absurd. Despite all its fine words, religion has brought in its wake violence, prejudice and sexual disease.
Families that pray together stay together. No! Divorce rates are significantly higher amongst christians than other groups. Approximately 90% of divorces among "born agains" occur after they have been "saved." Atheists and agnostics have a much lower divorce rate than christians.
US Prison Populations:
Believers - 99.791%
Christians - 79.99%
Non-believers (16% of the US population) - only .208% of the prison population.
Does religion make you a better person? No! Does religion make our country better? No! Be a patriotic american. Give up your superstitions.
"Tut, tut, child," said the Duchess. "Everything's got a moral if only you can find it." - Lewis Carroll 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland'
youtube , religion , morality , crime rate , atheist , christian , agnostic , USA , teen pregnancy , abstinence , faith based
posted by beepbeepitsme | 8:12 pm
57 Comments:
Religion has certainly made me much better.
Since I became a SEVEN DAY A WEEK BIKE RIDER people have noticed a real difference in me. "You are positively glowing," they say, their eyes wide.
"I've discovered the answer," I say modestly and ride off into the sunset.
RE daniel:
AAhhh.. the "religion of bike riding" ;)
My bike and I can but agree with Daniel...:-)
Thought you might like this Beep. It's the Journal of Religion and Society's complete study on this very problem. Excellent reading...
I agree with alot of what your saying about "christian" America. Here are a few quite shocking stats concerning CHURCH teens:
63% of teens don't believe Jesus is the Son of the one true God.
58% believe that all faiths teach equally valid truths.
65% don't believe Satan is a real spiritual entity.
Yes, this "christian" generation is not really christian.
Just as a few points:
Germany has a 83% "christian" population (not exactly 40%)
"Those who are "born again" have dimished respect for others who do not share their belief. Convinced that only the bible has "the truth", they lose their intellectual curiousity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in, but themselves."
Lose of intellectual curiousity? Lost of ability to reason?
Funny how many christian/evolution debates there are. Our priority is NOT ourselves, but our God.
RE ted: Yes, I have seen that article. Very interesting it is too.
RE: under
RE: %s
There is hope for the US according to the statistics. If 63% of teens don't believe Jesus is the Son of the one true God, they may actually be using their cognitive abilities.
If 58% believe that all faiths teach equally valid truths, they may also be using their cognitive abilities.
If 65% don't believe Satan is a real spiritual entity, they are also exercising their cognitive abilities. So, basically, I am relieved.
RE: "Germany has a 83% "christian" population (not exactly 40%)"
I don't recall Germany mentioned in the transcript as having a christian population of 40%?
Perhaps you can point that out for me. It says that fewer than 1 in 3 believe in a deity. One in 3 is about 33.3 %. If nationmaster is correct, approximately 68% of germans are christians.
Of that 68%, 34% are catholic, so are you going to count them as christian or not? I suppose you will in this instance as it would make the christian % seem higher, even though under MOST other circumstances, you would not consider catholics and many of the protestants to be "real christians."
But I suppose you will count them as "real christians" if it suits your purpose.
Just remember that YOU are the one who says that you do not consider people to be christians just because they say they are.
Under those circumstances, you could not count the majority of people in Germany as christians.
Based on your personal belief, only a few people that you have met can be considered "real christians."
And I am guessing that the people you consider to be "real christians" according to your subjective evaluation of what constitutes a christian, are those who belong to the same religious cult as you; or who agree with you on some religious issues.
Fortunately, you don't get to set yourself up as Grand Inquisitor and thereby ascertain and test everyone to see if they are. by YOUR subjective standards, a "real christian."
RE: christian/evolution debates
Christian/evolution debates do not demonstrate that born again christians have respect for those who do not share their belief.
Christian/evolution debates are based in entertainment. They are entertaining for those who are not christians as they show how illogical those of faith are.
And there is a "superiority quotient" associated with anyone who tries to pummel their religious beliefs onto other people.
Afterall, they believe they have the truth concerning life, the universe and everything and that it all can be found in their "talking snake book."
Does their belief that they have the absolute truth make them feel and act at least a little superior? You bet your sweet bippy it does.
The way to see by faith, is to shut the eye of reason. Religion has been successful in shutting the eye of reason for a long, long time.
I checked up at "Religionfacts.com" for a quick cross reference:
Germany: Religions: Protestant 34%, Roman Catholic 34%, Muslim 3.7%, unaffiliated or other 28.3%
re: under_the_mercy
"Our priority is NOT ourselves, but our God."
Precisely. Intellectual curiosity, unless it concerns the nature of god, is not required because God knows and you don't need to or he'll let you know if you do need to. Reasoning is not required because if you can't find an answer in the bible, then you are likely to say the answer doesn't exist.
I'll get to your article in a little while, but why are you accusing under_the_mercy of saying things that I said? You are assuming that he agrees with everything that I have been saying.
Daniel
And that, sweetheart, is why I stay the hell away from it and those who take cover in it and under it.
RE: beep:
Concerning the %:
Please stay on topic here, hope for the U.S.A. is totally off topic. My point was that saying that:
1. the U.S.A. is a christian nation
2. it is very immoral
3. christian nation = immoral
is not valid as this "christian" nation is not all that christian.
RE: "I don't recall Germany mentioned in the transcript as having a christian population of 40%? Perhaps you can point that out for me."
Here it is:
"Next in line as the most moral countries are Norway, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Approximately 60% of the population of these countries accept evolution as a fact."
If 60% accept evolution as a fact then christians are 40% or below (below would strengthen my point).
RE: "you would not consider catholics and many of the protestants to be "real christians." "
Actually I believe that most, if not all, catholics and protestants are "real" christians. That is they will go to heaven. Christians, Catholics, and Protestants all agree that through Christ can one be saved. If one believes in Christ as his savior then he is saved, and thus a christian.
RE: "Fortunately, you don't get to set yourself up as Grand Inquisitor and thereby ascertain and test everyone to see if they are."
Where did I present such a desire, or is this simply another piece of ridicule?
RE: "Christian/evolution debates do not demonstrate that born again christians have respect for those who do not share their belief."
I never said that they did, I said that if christians really did "lose their intellectual curiousity and their ability to reason." then there would not be so many creation/evolution debates.
RE: "talking snake book."
Really, can you please lay off with the pointless ridicule, it's quite immature. If the bible can be referred to as the "talking snake book" then evolution can be referred to as the "spontaneous generation theory". Both are pointless and inaccurate, so lets just be civil here.
RE: ted:
I would disagree, the bible says in Proverbs 18:15 “The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; And the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.”
One is clearly suppose to seek after knowledge, can you point out a verse in the bible that says that Christians are not to have intellectual curiosity?
RE: “Reasoning is not required because if you can't find an answer in the bible, then you are likely to say the answer doesn't exist.”
I totally disagree. The bible does not, for example, address quantum physics yet answers concerning it do exist. Without reason, man is simply another animal. Man cannot help but reason, it is in his nature.
Great clip.
I added it to my "Educational video clips" list.
Yes, this "christian" generation is not really christian.
No true Scotsman etc.
RE: beep:
RE: Concerning the % and the USA. The USA IS part of the topic as the video refers to it quite often.
RE: I didn't claim that a christian nation is automatically a moral nation or an immoral one. The evidence suggest that religious belief is NO guarantee for morality, nor is non-belief a guarantee for immorality.
Christianity is a belief system.
Christianity: 1. a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history.
As it is a belief system, people who believe in the monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior - CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS.
If your claim is that they are NOT christians, you deny that christianity is a belief system.
A person gets to call themselves a christian even if they are incapable of following all the teachings of jesus.
In other words, they are still christians, just imperfect christians who have sinned.
One does NOT have to be able to follow perfectly anything in the bible to be able to call themselves a christian, because it is a system of belief, where sin is recognised, and where sinful christians can hope for salvation REGARDLESS OF THE THE FACT THAT THEY MAY HAVE SINNED.
Sin does not exclude someone from calling themselves a christian.
Sin does not exclude someone from believing they are a christian.
Sin does not exclude someone from being a christian.
RE: ""Next in line as the most moral countries are Norway, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Approximately 60% of the population of these countries accept evolution as a fact."
Because 60% of germans may accept evolution as fact, does not automatically mean that they are NOT god believers. Many people who believe in a god also accept evolution.
You seem to have massive gaps in your knowledge concerning statistical analysis.
RE: "Fortunately, you don't get to set yourself up as Grand Inquisitor and thereby ascertain and test everyone to see if they are."
You don't understand this basic premise. You, as an individual, cannot decide who is christian and who is not. The concept of christianity is one which embraces many different sects. Each sect believes that they are the one true cult.
The only thing you can do, as a christian, is choose the cult which you agree with more. Every other christian does the same thing; they choose a christian cult which they agree with more than the others.
RE: The christian idea of debate is to cast doubt on other religions and not their own.
Each religion is guilty of this. The religious idea of debate and reason is to attack anything which doesn't agree with their preconceived belief system.
It doesn't openly enquire about the substance of its own beliefs, so any system which fails to do this is using only prejudicial rationalization, not reason.
So, it is not reason which religious people use, but a process to rationalize the supposed authenticity of their own belief/religion.
RE: "talking snake book."
The truth hurts doesn't it.
Evolution does NOT claim to be a spontaneous generation theory. You, like anonymous daniel, have some serious misconceptions concerning these terms : evolution, natural selection, eugenics, and abiogenesis.
A book which claims to be the authoritative last word on the universe which has at its core, a talking snake, deserves ridicule.
RE arthur:
Unfortunately, he won't understand the "no true scotsman fallacy" either.
"I didn't claim that a christian nation is automatically a moral nation or an immoral one. The evidence suggest that religious belief is NO guarantee for morality, nor is non-belief a guarantee for immorality."
Funny then how you said
"The correlation is very clear, the more religious a country is, the more immoral it is."
"Sin does not exclude someone from being a christian."
obviously, but the bible says that you will know a christian by his works.
"Talking sanke book"
Yes, truth sometimes does hurt, but pointless immature ridicule does not.
"Evolution does NOT claim to be a spontaneous generation theory."
I never claimed that it did, in fact I said concernig it and the talking snake book "Both are pointless and inaccurate"
However, you must concide that most evolutionists dont believe that life has always existed.
RE: arthur:
Yes I do understand the "no true scotsman fallacy" and it does not apply as my deffinitions remain the same. There are simply two different deffinitions:
1. The godly christian man who seeks after God.
2. The "christian" who has no works to show.
RE: under:
RE: "Funny then how you said : The correlation is very clear, the more religious a country is, the more immoral it is.
Ahhh. If you look at the top of the page, you will see that this - "The correlation is very clear, the more religious a country is, the more immoral it is." is part of the VIDEO TRANSCRIPT.
I did not make the video, nor did I write the words to the video.
I merely included the words to the video in case people do not have cable as it takes too long to load a youtube production on dial-up.
RE: "Sin does not exclude someone from being a christian." Your reply: "obviously, but the bible says that you will know a christian by his works."
And what those works will be are quite subjective, in the "eye of the believer"
RE: "talking snake book"
So, the snake doesn't talk? It doesn't tempt eve into sin which then leads to the fall of man?
The fall of man didn't happen? Mankind didn't need a saviour to save them from the sin of adam and eve who were tempted into sin by a TALKING SNAKE? Let's face it, the bible rests on the belief that a snake TALKED.
RE: "However, you must concide that most evolutionists dont believe that life has always existed."
Evolution doesn't claim that life has always existed. So it is completely redundant to make that comment.
Mercy:
The bible does not, for example, address quantum physics yet answers concerning it do exist. Without reason, man is simply another animal. Man cannot help but reason, it is in his nature.
It doesn't discuss evolution or the beginnings/origins of the universe either and as you say, answers concerning these things exist as well, so I must concede the point...:)
I am finding myself in a continual state of wonder when I see how theists argue. Even when name calling is absent the theist cannot see the basic premis, or he/she simply ignores it and cites some minor aspect ie., Germany.
There are a couple of xians at NGB who simply reply with a kind of, ya but.... and of we go onto some minor part of a big question.
I am also tired of bible quotes which I and many atheists know better than most xians.
Anyway, thanks for the post Beep. It seems so factual yet it's difficult for some to see through their belief.
RE: ted:
Genesis 1 gives a clear account of the orgin and beginning of the universe.
"I did not make the video, nor did I write the words to the video."
Yes, you just posted it on your site...
"talking snake book"
lol, talk about citing some minor aspect (remy).
"Evolution doesn't claim that life has always existed."
Exactly my point. They must either believe that life always existed, or they must believe in spontanious generation. (most pick spontanious generation)
This has been addressed: without the talking snake you can't have your genesis; hardly a minor aspect. But you are right to laugh at the notion.
Presumably the snake was able to walk before being cursed to crawl. So it was a walking, talking snake who convinced Eve to eat some fruit thereby making me a sinner.
RE: under_the_mercy
RE: "I did not make the video, nor did I write the words to the video." Your reply - Yes, you just posted it on your site...
You need to realize where your argument lies. If I post the transcript of a video, or a news source or any other source which is not my own words, you argue against or for the source.
I post many things on my blog. Some of them I don't agree with, some of them I do. But to pull words from a transcript and argue to them as if they are mine, either shows ignorance, or a deliberate case of misconstruing the typed word.
I post all of your comments. It doesn't mean that I agree with any of them, all of them, or some of them. You should admit that you made a mistake by assuming that those words were mine, but I doubt you have the integrity to do so.
RE: "talking snake book" Your reply - lol, talk about citing some minor aspect (remy).
The account of the talking snake in Genesis is a crucial factor upon which the rest of the bible including the new testament rests. There is no need for the bible to attempt to explain jesus, the crucifixion, the ressurection and salvation, if people do NOT believe in the fall of man BECAUSE of a talking snake.
I don't believe in "talking snakes" and I consider this part and the rest of the bible to be an amalgamation of ancient myths, legends, and fable interspersed with droplets of fact.
It is a bit like readng "Alice In Wonderland." Yes, little girls called Alice exist. Yes, white rabbits exist. Yes, holes in the ground exist. But talking white rabbits don't, and a hole in the ground isn't the entrance to a world where there is a Queen and King who play croquet with live flamingos.
Or where SNAKES TALK!
RE: "Evolution doesn't claim that life has always existed." - Your reply - "Exactly my point. They must either believe that life always existed, or they must believe in spontanious generation. (most pick spontanious generation)
No. You are as illogical as kingdom advancer. I replied to him many times concerning this issue, and he was also unable to recognize the false dichotomy he created.
You also seem to have a huge problem being able to discern the differences between evolution and abiogenesis. I have already asked you to do some reading on the matter so that you would not refer to them as the same thing.
There are many choices available concerning the origin of the universe. Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe.
If you are asking if I claim to know the origin of the universe, I don't. But a supernatural power creating life from dirt with his breath, seems highly implausible, undemonstratable and requires belief. Needless to say, I don't believe in eve being created from adam's rib either.
The reason many, if not most of the claims in the bible are implausible to me, is this.
In order for there to be knowledge, according to epistimology, at least three crtieria must be fulfilled. A thought must be justified, true and believed.
I don't think it is justified to believe in talking snakes.
I don't think it is true that snakes talk.
And I don't find it believable that snakes talk.
How do you "justify"a concept, a claim, an abstraction, a theory? You attempt to justify something by providing evidence which demonstrates the concept or claim.
This is what science does. Religion attempts to justify itself by special pleading and the use of circular argument.
Mercy:
So does Steven Hawking...:)
A God deviod of any supernatural abilities is no God at all. Thus improbability arguments dont prove anything at all, would you follow a God without power?
RE: sources:
Yes you are correct, you did not personally say it. However, if you look at the biginning of this discussion you will see that I was mearly pointing out an innacuracy in the post.
Really though, if you post (not a comment by someone else) on your blog and dont say otherwise, it is accepted that you are agreeing with what you posted.
RE under:
RE: "Yes you are correct, you did not personally say it. However, if you look at the biginning of this discussion you will see that I was mearly pointing out an innacuracy in the post."
You did not say, "I disagree with this part of the video, or this part of the transcript". You claimed that the words were mine.
Secondly, it isn't an inaccuracy just because you call it one. You don't agree with it, but you have yet to show how it is inaccurate.
RE: "Really though, if you post (not a comment by someone else) on your blog and dont say otherwise, it is accepted that you are agreeing with what you posted."
Rubbish.
I have posted MANY things on my blog that I don't agree with. Just recently I posted a whole series of quotes by Adolf Hitler. I would be hard pressed to say I agreed with ANY of them.
All sorts of things are posted here. You can agree or disagree with whatever you come across, but don't try and claim that I agree with everything that is posted to this blog.
If you scroll down the page you will see the disclaimer.
"The views expressed here sometimes reflect my views. Sometimes they reflect someone else's views. And sometimes I can't tell the difference.
Rarely do they reflect everyone's views. And I would be shocked if they did."
By the way, I have read many books in my lifetome that I disagree with. You are not one of these idiot people who claim that if a person has read "Mein Kampf" that they are a nazi are you?
under_the_mercy:
They must either believe that life always existed, or they must believe in spontanious generation. (most pick spontanious generation)
Oh, please.
It's called abiogenesis. Aristotle was the 1st to come up w/'spontaneous generation'. It was common coin LONG before evolution came along.
Evolution addresses the ascent of life, not the beginnings.
Do try to keep up.
& no, there's no 'conclusive' evidence as of yet.
I might suggest you read up on it sometime soon. Another suggestion: skip reading the bible for a week, & read up on the current theories.
RE: "but you have yet to show how it is inaccurate."
Here is a part of my first post.
"Germany has a 83% "christian" population (not exactly 40%)"
I already explained where the transcript said it was 40% or below in a previous post.
RE: "Just recently I posted a whole series of quotes by Adolf Hitler."
Thats where the brain comes in.
RE: "By the way, I have read many books in my lifetome that I disagree with. You are not one of these idiot people who claim that if a person has read "Mein Kampf" that they are a nazi are you?"
Strange idea, where did you get it?
RE: ka:
Abiogenesis:
"Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, THE GENERATION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATTER. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis)."
Its just a fancy term evolutionists gave spontanious generation so they wouldn't sound like idiots.
RE under
RE:"I already explained where the transcript said it was 40% or below in a previous post."
The transcript doesn't state that the christian population of germany is 40% or under. It states that those who do not accept evolution are 40% of the population.
1. 40% of people do not accept evolution
2. 60% of people accept evolution
There is no correlation in those %s between who is a christian and accepts evolution.
There is no correlation in those %s between who is a deist and accepts evolution.
There is no correlation in those %s between who is a pantheist and accepts evolution.
There is no correlation in those %s between who is a muslim and accepts evolution.
And so on. The percentages ONLY indicate what % of the population accepts or rejects evolution.
You are making the illogical leap that all those who accept evolution can't be god believers of some kind.
Then you make a further illogical leap in belieivng that the people who do NOT accept evolution, must all be christians, or more specifically, a christian like you.
RE: %:
No true christian believes in evolution, genesis is clear. The idea of it being allagorical is quite ridiculous.
RE: "Then you make a further illogical leap in belieivng that the people who do NOT accept evolution, must all be christians, or more specifically, a christian like you."
Notice I said "or lower".
Re under:
The word is "allegorical" and yes, I know you believe in the "talking snake book."
It is your favourite presupposition
1. A talking snake convinced eve to eat an apple and the fall of man ensued.
This is why religious presuppositions are not self evident truths and they are NOT axiomatic.
RE under:
RE: "Thats where the brain comes in." << This is the rebuttal of an argument?
RE: "If 60% accept evolution as a fact then christians are 40% or below."
As I explained to you previously, there is no correlation with those figures which shows how many christians accept evolution and how many christians do NOT accept evolution.
Are you being deliberately obfuscative or don't you understand the percentages?
I will try to explain it to you once more.
In order to find out how many christians either accept evolution or how many don't, this would need to occur.
1. Ask the 60% who accept evolution if they are christian.
2. Ask the 40% who don't accept evolution, if they are christian.
Then you would have the figures of christians who accept evolution and christians who don't accept evolution.
If you seriously don't understand this, you need to say so. Otherwise, I will be led to believe that you are being deliberately disengenuous.
RE: "This is why religious presuppositions are not self evident truths and they are NOT axiomatic."
You've been beat, so now you're changing the topic. Just admit it, Math is based on the unprovable and assumed.
I will say this one more time.
No true christian believes in evolution.
RE: Spelling:
Yes, I put an "a" instead of an "e", so nice of you to point it out.
RE: "You've been beat, so now you're changing the topic. Just admit it, Math is based on the unprovable and assumed."
Show me a peer-reviewed source where it states this - "Math is based on the unprovable and assumed."
If you are trying to say that nothing can be "proveable", then that also includes your argument that math is based on the unproveable and assumed. Hung by his own petard.
This would mean that as far as you are concerned, there is no point to any of your arguments at all. It also means that there is no point in any of your posts on this blog either in the past, present or future.
Read this again and read it carefully. : -
"In logic and mathematics, an axiom is not necessarily a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in a deduction to yield further results." (The source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom )
Now, if a self-evident truth is something unproveable and assumed, then a mathematical axiom is not necessarily that. (as above)
I will leave you with some homework.
Please answer the questions and provide detailed reasons for each answer.
1. Is this a presupposition.
God exists.
2. Is this a supposition.
God exists.
3. Is this an assumption.
God exists.
4. Is this a self-evident truth
God exists.
5. Is this an axiom
God exists.
RE: "No true christian believes in evolution."
AHHH.. the "no true scotsman fallacy". Luckily for the rest of the christians in the world, your opinion as to whether they are "real christians" or not, counts for nothing.
Religious belief in the US is greatly exagerated. About 70% of Americans say they go to church every Sunday, but that's nonsense. Some researchers cross tabulated that poll with television viewing diaries, and found that a high number of Americans claimed to be in church while they were simultaneously home watching the tellie. The fact is, Americans like to tell pollsters that they go to church.
RE: "If you are trying to say that nothing can be "proveable", then that also includes your argument that math is based on the unproveable and assumed. Hung by his own petard."
Talk about circular logic...
RE: "no true scotsman fallacy"
Or maybe its just a fact.
RE: Axoims:
Just look up the definition beep.
RE: heraldblog:
Very true.
RE: under :
"If you are trying to say that nothing can be "provable", then that also includes your argument that math is based on the unproveable and assumed. Hung by his own petard."
This deonstrates that it is your logic which is circular.
RE: "no true scotsman fallacy"
If you use a fallacy, your argument is without value.
RE: "Axoims: Just look up the definition beep."
I have, many times.
1. In certain epistemological theories, an axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge MUST rest, and from which other knowledge is built up.
2. In logic and mathematics, an axiom is NOT necessarily a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in a deduction to yield further results.
RE: "heraldblog" and your reply "Very true."
Religious belief in not measured by the number of people who attend church. It is measured by the number of people who state they believe in the tenets of a religion.
now read the definition.
RE under:
Some homework for you.
Is the statement "I exist" a presupposition?
Is the statement "I exist" axiomatic?
"I exist" presupposition? It can be. Axiom? the term axiom deals with math, not philosophy.
RE: no true scotsman fallacy:
Almost any statement can be called some form of propaganda, for instance lets take mine to begin with.
"No true christian believes in evolution"
Ahh, a classic case of victory by definition or no true scotsman and is therefore void, right?
Now let me change it around a bit. Say, for instance it ran like this:
"no true naturalist believes in Buddha"
Now is this victory by definition, no true scotsman, or is it just a fact.
Axioms:
The definition says:
"Unlike theorems, axioms are neither derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs. Instead, an axiom is taken for granted as valid, and serves as a necessary starting point for deducing and inferencing logically consistent propositions."
This says axioms are unprovable and assumed, its a simple fact.
RE: "I exist" presupposition? It can be. Axiom? the term axiom deals with math, not philosophy."
Axioms exist in philosophy (epistemology), mathematics and logic. They are not the exclusive domain of mathematics.
It also goes on to say that in logic and mathematics, an axiom is not necessarily a self-evident truth. If something is not a self-evident truth, it is considered provable and not assumed.
RE: " no true scotsman fallacy - Almost any statement can be called some form of propaganda, for instance lets take mine to begin with. -
No true christian believes in evolution."
I think you have missed the point. If you make a a comment like that you have committed a logical fallacy.
If I say, "No true australian supports Bush" the statement is a logical fallacy. I lose the argument if it employs a logical fallacy. In the same way, if you say "no true christian believes in evolution", you also lose.
Example: -
Argument: "No christian accepts evolution."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus is christian and he accepts evolution."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true christian accepts evolution."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("accepting evolution") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("christian"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
"If something is not a self-evident truth, it is considered provable and not assumed."
Hmm, the definition says otherwise.
RE: propaganda:
It is contradictory.
Just as a naturalist cannot believe in buddha, so a christian cannot believe in evolution.
RE under
Explain in detail why a naturalist cannot believe in buddha.
Also, you still seem to persist in using the "no true scotman fallacy" even after it has been demonstrated to you that it IS a fallacy.
If it is a fallacious argument, you are not doing yourself any favours by using it.
1. Naturalism: "Any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses"
The naturalist does not believe in Enlightenment, the buddhist does.
The naturalist does not believe in reincarnation, the buddhist does.
RE under:
Not believing and not knowing are not synonymous.
For instance, I don't believe that any gods exist, in a traditional sense. I think that the concept of a supernatural world is really a basketful of things which do not, as yet, have a natural explanation.
This basket of "supernatural explanations" is slowly shrinking as mankind is able to interpret the world by understanding natural processes.
For example, I don't believe that a supernatural world doesn't exist, that whatever exists exists within a natural context, but that we don't have the means as yet, to know of it.
We don't have the means partly because people are emotionally and psychologically attached to supernatural explanations, and they tend to kick and scream a bit when a natural explanation is suggested.
For example, something like viruses thousands of years ago would probably have been associated with an "evil spirit". They were not known of in the natural world, so therefore the deliterious effects of these viruses were probably put down to "supernatural forces."
Two thousand years ago, a virus (though not called a virus as it was an unknown), would have been a "supernatural demon" which invaded a person's soul because that person didn't pray to the right god, or they didn't pay enough tax to the right king, or something like that.
Now we know that when someone comes down with the flu, that it isn't some nasty demon playing havoc with the material body, but a virus.
And each time that science provides a natural explanation for previously unknown situations, the "supernaturalists" change the goal posts.
So, some supernaturalists accept that the virus isn't a demon but instead claim that the virus is CAUSED by some demon or the devil/satan or is some sort of retribution associated with a vengeful god.
Human beings, I suppose are addicted to supernatural explanations partly because they provide an explanation which doesn't require a lot of work.
It's easier to believe that the volcano god is angry with you for using the land close to its mountain, rather than to understand the geophysics associated with plate tectonics etc.
Supernatural belief, or "god of the gaps", is the path of least resistance so it remains popular. Popularity isn't a reliable gauge to determine reality. (Appeal to numbers fallacy)
Example: I don't know what that sound was late at night outside the front door, but for supernaturalists it is easily explained as great aunt martha's spirit coming to say hello.
Now back to evolution and christianity and naturalism and buddhism.
I see you want to conflate the terms "evolution" and "naturalism" in order to support your supernaturalism.
Evolution doesn't deal with supernatural claims because it cannot test for religious claims. But, evolution doesn't, by default, have the position that the supernatural doesn't exist, just that it can't test, observe or measure it.
Consequently, many supernaturalists accept evolution. Some supernaturalists do not accept it because it conflicts with a specific part of their religious dogma. (Example: young earth creationists and bible or quran literalists)
Hence, many buddhists also accept evolution as it doesn't conflict with their philosophical world view either.
under_the_mercy:
The naturalist does not believe in Enlightenment, the buddhist does.
Wait, do you have any clue what you're talking about?
Enlightenment is, in the Buddhist mindset, a descent (or ascent, choose) into a state of alpha wavelengths. This is actually an altered state that is effected in a physiological way.
You're putting a Western spin on something decidedly Eastern.
It's also contingent on either Theraveda/Hinayana doctrine (Lesser vs. Greater).
The Japanese term is satori.
It concerns a release from the external world & ego, & targets the individual & his/her release of the concept of Maya, the illusion of the world.
Please, do some research 1st.
"many supernaturalists accept evolution."
Supernaturalists yes, Christians no.
"many buddhists also accept evolution"
evolution yes, naturalism no.
You have changed the terms beep, lets stick to the topic in the future.
The fact is that the naturalist does not believe in the eternal soul or spirit of man, nature is all there is. Man is born, he lives, he dies. That is it. This is in direct contrast to buddhism.
RE: ka:
You seem to agree with me that the naturalist does not believe in Enlightenment but the buddhist does, yet you ask me to do research first. please explain.
RE under:
1.If you are a christian you believe in the existence of a supernatural being and a supernatural world. (heaven) Hence, you are a supernaturalist.
I am going to call all theists supernaturalists from now on.
Hello, you little supernaturalist, you.
2. "Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
That, my little supernaturalist, is the primary definition of naturalism.
Notice that it says that supernatural claims are either:
1. false
2. unknowable
3. or not inherently different from natural phenomena hypotheses.
It does not claim this at all - "The fact is that the naturalist does not believe in the eternal soul or spirit of man, nature is all there is. Man is born, he lives, he dies."
And when he dies he either burns for ever in Hell, or screws 72 nubile virgins and 24 pretty pre-pubescent boys for all eternity.
What sort of religion has a pimp for a prophet and a brothel keeper for G_d ?
Twenty facts about Islam that every infidel should know:
Islam ...
1) Is a mind-control and information-control cult founded by a murderer, torturer, brigand, rapist and pedophile called Mohammed. The mind-control and information-control aspects require that all criticism be silenced.
- Mind and information control:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/cultorreligion.htm ,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixhome.html ,
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1102/154.html ,
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-questions.htm ,
- Mohammed's criminality:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm , http://www.angelfire.com/de/knowledgeoftruth/muhammed.html , http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/playboy.html , http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/libido.html ,
- Mohammed’s pedophilia:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27975,
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/aishahage.htm ,
- Mohammed’s incestuous lust for his daughter-in-law:
http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/soc-culture-arabic/msg13471.html ,
http://www.balaams-ass.com/alhaj/page20.htm ,
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/playboy.html ,
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/zeinab.htm ,
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/28108
- Silencing criticism:
http://www.domini.org/openbook/australia200309012.htm ,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058502,00.html ,
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/321 ,
2) Is Mohammed's personality cult. Has no foundations other than Mo's murderous rantings (Koran and Hadith). The Koran consists of two conflicting parts - Meccan and Medinan (peaceful and violent respectively). The Medinan stuff supersedes ('abrogates') the Meccan stuff. Muslims act Medinan, but quote Meccan verses to the gullible infidels.
- Mohammed as a cult leader:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50218.htm ,
http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/67.htm ,
http://www.humanists.net/alisina/cult_or_religion.htm ,
- Meccan and Medinan verses:
http://jimball.com.au/features/Myth-of-moderate-Islam.htm , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/madinasuras.shtml ,
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-10/essay31-10.htm ,
3) Claims to worship the same God as Christians and Jews, but in fact worships Allah - a demonic channelling through Mohammed's psychopathic ego. The Death Cult mixes garbled travesties of Christian and Jewish scriptures with pagan practices such as moon and meteorite-worship, and cut-throat blood sacrifice of animals and non-believers.
- Allah and God:
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/islam/faqs/a0029179.cfm , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nothingincommon.shtml ,
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/founders.htm , http://www.blessedcause.org/Quran.htm ,
- Origins of the koran :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001202.php , http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20020211/review.htm , http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter.aspx?g=401&i=41003 , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/inventionofislam.shtml ,
- Allah's pagan daughters:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-allahs-daughters.htm , http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/fem4.htm ,
- Meteorite worship:
http://www.meteorite.fr/en/basics/history.htm ,
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Vol1/7d.html ,
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-meteorite-worship.htm ,
http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/Islam.html, http://www.haberer-meteorite.de/english/Culture%20and%20religion.htm ,
- Animal sacrifice to Allah:
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/JanIslamiShari12y5.htm ,
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/skm60117.htm ,
- Human sacrifice to Allah:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371 , http://diodon349.com/Attacking_USA/see_islamic_terrorists_for_the_satanic_etc_they_are.htm ,
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013978.php ,
http://www.slate.com/id/2103261/ ,
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/pearl.html , http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-121737-2912r.htm , http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1501 ,
http://difficultimages.blogspot.com/2006/11/beheading-of-christian-children-in.html ,
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2004-07-14&hidType=OPT&hidRecord=0000000000000000014248 ,
4) Has no rational, philosophical nor theological basis, and the whole belief-system is contradicted by science, philosophy, commonsense, human decency and internal inconsistency.
- Flat earth:
http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/flatearth.html ,
http://www.fixedearth.com/koran.html
- Contradictions in the koran:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ , http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html , http://www.geocities.com/lone_wolf_gc/earth_shape.html , http://www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm ,
http://www.lwbc.co.uk/koran.htm ,
5) Cannot withstand rational criticism. Can only spread and maintain itself by ignorance, illiteracy, war, terrorism, and intimidation. Islam has bloody borders and cannot co-exist peacefully with other belief systems. Winston Churchill said that Islam in a man is as dangerous as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog.
- Irrationalism:
http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371 ,
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bc48fb82-d9f0-43d5-b28d-68a1a7e1c804 ,
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5901 ,
- Islamic intellectual achievements:
http://www.masada2000.org/nobel.html ,
http://www.meforum.org/article/306 ,
- Intimidation against criticism and apostasy:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2218 ,
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamapostasy.shtml ,
- Bloody borders:
http://chromatism.net/bloodyborders/ ,
- Intrinsically violent:
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/al-quaedaterrorismus10012.html , http://www.bibletranslation.ws/islam.html ,
http://radicalacademy.com/gegeorgeirbe12b.htm ,
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1172035.html , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/jihadholywarversesinthekoran.shtml , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/poorislamists.shtml , http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm , http://www.citizensoldier.org/winthewar.html ,
- Churchill:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read_churchill_islam.html ,
6) Has a superstitious dread of images of pigs, crosses, Buddhas, Saint George (and his flag) and of course Motoons.
- Buddhas, crosses and teddy bears: http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1109291,00.html , http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=663,
- Pigs:
http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/arbor.htm ,
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Piggy-banks-offend-UK-Muslims/2005/10/24/1130006056771.html , http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,939398,00.html , http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=32749 , http://www.masada2000.org/bacon.html , http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/08/20/suicide.bombers/ , http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24691 ,
- Toonophobia:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000783.html http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/2006/01/portrait-of-prophet-muhammad.html ,
- Saint George:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/index.html , http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011163.php ,
7) Regards Islamic women as semihuman. Wife-beating, incest and child abuse (including mufa’khathat or 'thighing' - the ritual abuse of infants) are encouraged.
- Treatment of women:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm ,
http://www.nospank.net/demause5.htm ,
- Infant abuse and ‘thighing’:
http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/2005/07/more-on-pedopheliaand-thighing.html , http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/muslim_sexual_perversion/index.html , http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?View=Detail&ContentID=2137352826&TOCID=2083225445 ,
http://www.hinduunity.org/articles/islamexposed/excerptsayatollah.html ,
8) Regards all unbelievers (Kaffirs, Kuffar, Kufrs, Kafirs) as ritually unclean subhumans to be killed, subjugated, enslaved, exploited or parasitised. Kafirs are described by the Arabic word 'najis' - literally 'filth'. That's why Muslim hatred of Kafirs is intrinsic to their 'religion'. A Kafir doesn't need to DO anything to offend a Muslim, his very existence is enough of an affront.
- Najis kafirs:
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/najisthings.html ,
http://cartoonazi.blogspot.com/2006/09/disgusting-filthy-najis-things.html , http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006589.php ,
- Treatment of kafirs:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/kafir.html ,
- Enslavement of kaffirs:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm ,
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/7016 , http://www.islamreview.com/articles/neitherblacknorafrican.shtml ,
9) The ethical system applies only to Muslims. Allah encourages rape, pillage, extortion and enslavement of non-Muslims. Morality does not extend beyond the global gang (ummah). Muslim ethics are the ethics of the Mafia.
- Loyalty to the Ummafia
http://sixthcolumn.blogspot.com/2005/07/how-could-they-our-british-friends-ask.html , http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003123.html ,
- Massacre, rape, pillage and enslavement: http://www.hinduunity.org/articles/islamexposed/prophetterror3.html , http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Cults/Muslims/truth_about_islam_by_dave_hunt.htm ,
10) Allah's followers are motivated by hatred, greed and lust. There is no love, mercy or compassion. Allah is vindictive, unpredictable, capricious and devious - "Allah leads astray whom he pleases".
- Hate cult:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27938 ,
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/3626 , http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003119.php ,
- Women as plunder:
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/news-jerry-falwell-mohammed.html ,
- Barbarism:
http://www.howardbloom.net/islam.htm ,
http://www.coranix.com/beastycult.htm ,
- Allah - Father of Lies:
http://www.bethmessiah.com/david.htm ,
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm ,
11) The only religion NOT founded on The Golden Rule. Morality is based on Mohammed's example. If Mohammed did it then it's OK for all Muslims. Hence the encouragement of rape, pillage, subjugation and murder of non-believers and the institutionalised pedophilia prevalent throughout Muslim society (justified by Mohammed's activities with Ayesha, his child sex-slave - see and listen to http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics1.htm).
- Golden Rule:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005959.php ,
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariap8.htm ,
- Mohammed as the example of ‘the perfect man’: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic04/NewsST091304.html , http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003416.php ,
- Institutionalised pedophilia:
http://www.cathud.com/LINKS/pages_GL/Islam.htm ,
http://www.nospank.net/glazov.htm ,
http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/page20.htm , http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002006.php ,
- Jihadic rape:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1227317/posts ,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20646 ,
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html ,
12) All human relations are defined by Dominance/Subjugation. Muslims have schizoid inferiority/superiority complexes. (A well-balanced Muslim is one with a chip on each shoulder). They respect strength but despise compromise as weakness. Appeasement invites more aggression. The only political system which has been strong enough to subjugate Islam is Stalinism.
- Honor/shame, dominance and subjugation:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/01/warning_shots.html , http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html , http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM ,
- Inferiority complex:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2359800,00.html ,
- Appeasement:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13284 ,
13) Polygamy ensures alpha-males get extra women, leading to a shortage of women for the betas. Beta-males must either jerk off (a sin leading to hell), or form dog-packs and rape or capture kafir women as booty in a razzia, or else self-destruct in the presence of infidels then they can screw 72 mythical virgins in Allah's bordello in the sky (see and listen to http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics3.htm). Beta-males are often encouraged by their relatives to become suicide bombers because of the belief that such murderous 'martyrs' will be able to intercede with Allah to take 70 of their relatives to paradise with them.
- Polygamy and Jihad:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18649/article_detail.asp ,
- Muslim rape:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25226 ,
http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/muslim_rape/index.html ,
http://gandalf-reconquista.blogspot.com/2006/11/have-you-daughter.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2442609,00.html ,
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20720559-2,00.html ,
- Paradise:
http://muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/Terrorist_Mind.htm , http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000079.html ,
- Bomber’s relatives go to paradise:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=128 , http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=palestinian&ID=IA6101 ,
14) Lying and deception of infidels (taqiyya) is encouraged. This may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Kaffir while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. All Muslims need to regard themselves as victims of some group of Kafirs so they can harbor grudges against them and against Kafirs in general. Individuals may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and must be considered potential killers who can flip in an instant (SJS -'Sudden Jihad Syndrome').
- Taqiyya:
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec97/phares.htm ,
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nikah.shtml ,
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/3518 , http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=178 , http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran5.html ,
http://www.ci-ce-ct.com/Feature%20articles/02-12-2002.asp ,
- Muslim victimology
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2438570,00.html , http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Islamic_victimization.htm , http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/March/Victim/index.html , http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/europes_politics_of_victimolog.html ,
- SJS
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21630 , http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJS , http://lostbudgie.blogspot.com/2006/03/sudden-jihad-syndrome.html , http://jihadwatch.org/archives/011114.php ,
15) Muslims are forbidden to befriend Kaffirs except for purposes of deceit or where conversion may be possible.
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/whoareinfidels.shtml , http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/25283 ,
16) The Koran is Allah's final word and cannot be changed or challenged. To do so is punishable by death. Consequently, the Death Cult can never change or be reformed. The instructions to murder and rape infidels are just as valid now as the day they were written. Since Islam cannot be modernised, the Muslims are attempting to Islamise modernity. This requires spreading Islam in the West and simultaneously preventing any criticism of the cult by intimidation and PC legislation to curtail freedom of expression.
- Koran as literal word of Allah:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html ,
- Koranic principles of jihad:
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/Al-Qaeda.html ,
- Intimidation and censorship: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml , http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17523 , http://www.atheists.org/Islam/violenceinbritain.html ,
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3674 ,
17) Treaties and agreements with Kaffirs are made to be broken (Hudna). The word of a Muslim to a Kafir counts for nothing in the eyes of Allah. Allah is The Father Of Lies.
- Hudna:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/004085.php , http://www.middleeastinfo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8365 ,
18) The world is divided between Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb (the domain of war, the Kufr lands). Muslims living in Dar-al-Harb must work to disrupt their host nations until these can be brought into Dar-al-Islam.
- Dar al Harb and the Umma:
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/hatredinislam.shtml , http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2601 ,
http://www.ucg.org/commentary/madridbombings.htm ,
19) Muslims have no obligation to their host nations and in fact are encouraged to parasitise them. Welfare fraud, identity theft, forgery etc are endemic in Western Muslim populations, and serious crime against Kaffirs is regarded as normal and justified. Extortion rackets against Kafirs are mandated by the Koran ('jizya' is the Arabic term for 'protection money' payable by Jews and Christians to Muslims).
- Subversion and disloyalty:
http://answering-islam.org/Terrorism/agenda.html , http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=13 , http://igst.blogspot.com/2006/02/muslim-leaders-and-subversion-of.html , http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/7681 , http://www.annaqed.com/under/muslims_reaction_to_suicide_bombings.html ,
- Parasitism:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004591199,00.html ,
http://niconoclast.blogspot.com/2006/08/parasitic-islam.html ,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720770/postshttp://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2006/06/parasitic-fifth-column-works-jizya-and.html ,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18399 ,
- Jizya extortion
http://pweb.netcom.com/~us_copts/protection.html ,
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/juancole.htm , http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/looting51122p3.htm , http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008904.php , http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/23932 , http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21082 , http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/muslim_intolerance/index.html ,
- The Muslims as a liability and welfare dependence:
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/westsunmanageable.shtml , http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011958.php , http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/10/migrants_told_t.php ,
20) The attack on the host nation isn't just against its religion and economy, but is aimed at its very cultural identity. Islam is a complete system, including a culture, which Muslims regard as superior (despite all evidence to the contrary) to other cultures. Muslims are therefore required to destroy the symbols of 'Jahiliya' (sometimes sp. Jahiliyya) - non-Muslim culture. In the East this has included destruction of Hindu temples and Christian churches and replacement with mosques, and destruction of Buddhist artwork and universities and replacement with heaps of rubble. This process of cultural replacement is now beginning in the West..
- Destruction of Hindu and Buddhist Culture:
http://hindutva.org/babrimasjid.html ,
http://www.doncroner.com/India/Nalanda/nalanda.html ,
http://www.indiastar.com/wallia15.htm , http://65.18.218.137/genocide/ , http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/LJWalker30916.htm , http://www.hvk.org/specialarts/ichr/articles/0001.html ,
- Attacks on Christian Culture: http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/islam/moslems_firebomb_english_church_during_islam_awareness_week.htm ,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13340 ,
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/10235 ,
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003011.html ,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214195,00.html
lol, just go read up on naturalists if you think that beep. Or better yet, ask someone who knows something about philosophies wheather or not a naturalist can believe in buddhism.
RE under:
Don't forget. You don't believe in impartial information. You admitted yourself that you only have propaganda.
RE: mohammed's catamite
I guess you posted all that information about islam because you assume that I am a muslim.
You probably incorrectly assume that I am a muslim because you have a false dichotomy coursing through your brain of "either christian or muslim."
I am an atheist. I think that all the god claims are delusional fantasies based in some sort of personal existential angst.
Consequently, I consider that you just believe in one more delusional fantasy than I do.
Is that a no, you wont?
RE under:
If you believe that mankind cannot have objective knowledge, then your time here is wasted.
I am certainly not going to waste my time with someone who thinks all information is just propaganda.
As your "god information" using that premise just becomes propaganda as well.
I will try this one more time:
1. Propaganda is not necessaraly unreasonable and illogical.
2. man cannot present objective information in an unbiased form.
2. Just go ask someone who knows something about philosophy "can a naturalist can believe in buddha?"
RE under:
"Propaganda is not necessaraly unreasonable and illogical."
Propaganda is biased information. It is not impartial. As you believe that mankind is incapable of presenting unbiased information, you believe everything is propaganda.
Propaganda ceases to be reasonable (based in the processes of reason), as it is by its very nature, unreasonable.
RE: "man cannot present objective information in an unbiased form."
So mankind has no knowledge if you believe that. That also includes no knowledge of any god.
The observed fact that certain catepillars metamorphose into butterflies. That is just propaganda by your standard?
The observed fact that gravity occurs, that is just propaganda by your standard?
The observed fact that the earth revolves around the sun. That is just propaganda by your definition?
I bet you believe that if you close your eyes that the planet disappears until you will it into existence again when you re-open them.
Just a tip, what is observed by humans and what we call gravity, exists without our perception or description of it.
It exists whether we describe it in russian, english or sudanese. It exists whether we are asleep or whether we are awake.
It exists without our acknowledgement of it.
Ancient tribes did not have a word for "gravity." They did not have a modern description to describe what they observed.
Gravity still existed whether they could describe it scientifically or not.
Ancient people still fell off cliffs and died whether they had a scientific description to explain gravity or not.
Gravity exists whether we call it " pitang pitang" or whether we call it "olio filo filo."
Now to buddhism, naturalism and the supernatural.
"Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
So a naturalist has a few choices when it comes an opinion of the supernatural.
A naturalist can believe that all phenomena considered to be supernatural is false.
They can believe that all phenomena considered to be supernatural is unknowable.
And they can believe that the supernatural is not inherently different from natural phenomena.
A buddhist can claim that supernatural phenomena are essentially no different from natural phenomena.
In this way, he/she can be a naturalist and a buddhist.
RE: "Propaganda is biased information. It is not impartial. As you believe that mankind is incapable of presenting unbiased information, you believe everything is propaganda."
Your proof:
1. Propaganda is biased, partial information.
2. Man can only present biased information.
3. Thus all information presented by man is propaganda.
So...
1. Apples have seeds and a core.
2. All pineapples have a core.
3. Thus pineapples are apples.
Propaganda is always biased, partial information. But biased partial information is not always propaganda.
RE: "Propaganda ceases to be reasonable (based in the processes of reason), as it is by its very nature, unreasonable."
Want to prove that?
RE:
"RE: "man cannot present objective information in an unbiased form."
So mankind has no knowledge if you believe that."
??? Where did you get that conclusion from?
RE: buddhism:
So you wont go ask someone. Are you afraid he/she will tell you I am right?
Post a Comment
<< Home