Religion of peace wants death for French first lady

[Frigidus]

You are the one who is insisting, against all logic and reason that all religion, any possible religion, every religion that has existed, currently exists, and may yet exist is bad. This blanket assertion simply defies all logic, but since you have never given a reason for your assertion, apparently didn’t need any.

he doesn't need proof, the burden of proof lies on you

That you are saying this sarcastically is funny.

[tzor]

he doesn't need proof, the burden of proof lies on you

If he is arguing that all religions are bad the burden of proof lies with him.

If I am arguing that there exists one religion that is true then the burden of proof lies with me.

But these questions have nothing to do with each other. Not true does not imply "bad."

Absent of faith, the logical consequence is not atheism, but agnosticism. Proving that something cannot exist is impossible, but insisting that without proof one way or another we cannot make a conclusion one way or another is not only logical, but is demanded by logic.

[heavycola]

he doesn't need proof, the burden of proof lies on you

If he is arguing that all religions are bad the burden of proof lies with him.

If I am arguing that there exists one religion that is true then the burden of proof lies with me.

But these questions have nothing to do with each other. Not true does not imply "bad."

Absent of faith, the logical consequence is not atheism, but agnosticism. Proving that something cannot exist is impossible, but insisting that without proof one way or another we cannot make a conclusion one way or another is not only logical, but is demanded by logic.

You like to think atheists are fundamentalists. It gives you something to point at. But really, most atheists couldn't give a shit. They look at the evidence, realise there isn't any and that they don't believe in god, and then they get on with their lives. And have much more fun on sundays.

'the logical consequence is agnosticism'. Yeah, whatever. So we are all logically agnostic about Russell's celestial teapot, and about fairies living at the bottom of our gardens, and about trolls living under bridges, and about some old dude who lives in the sky and reads our minds. The burden of proof, inasmuch as anyone really cares, defintely lies with you. The atheism/agnosticism distinction, as you phrase it, is meaningless.

[Metsfanmax]

'the logical consequence is agnosticism'. Yeah, whatever. So we are all logically agnostic about Russell's celestial teapot, and about fairies living at the bottom of our gardens, and about trolls living under bridges, and about some old dude who lives in the sky and reads our minds. The burden of proof, inasmuch as anyone really cares, defintely lies with you. The atheism/agnosticism distinction, as you phrase it, is meaningless.

It's only meaningless to people who have no philosophical interest in the question. But if you don't have such interest, then you have no place in a debate like this, because the difference is of fundamental importance. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but if you can't be bothered to understand why the two are different, you shouldn't alienate those of us who do believe that the difference is important.

Theism and atheism are both beliefs. Agnosticism is a lack of a belief. To conflate atheism with agnosticism would be unfortunate, because agnosticism is the only logical choice, whereas atheism is just as illogical as religion.

[tzor]

The basic problem is that these people confuse the specific and the general. It is easy (relatively speaking) to disprove a specific. It is impossible to disprove a general. It is likewise impossible to disprove an unobservable event. (You can, for example, prove that you have never seen a fairy at the bottom of your garden. You can prove that people who believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens do not fare better or worse than those who do not. But like proving that the yeti does not exist, it’s really hard to prove they do not exist. In that sense their very vagueness makes them a general, not a specific.) This is the biggest problem with the strong atheists; argument by mockery is just the false argument of the elitist. Yes, if theists want to insist that they are right they have to prove their argument, but the lack of such a proof is only a lack of proof.

In the early 20th century there was a major physics problem; far worse than the Greek “secret” of the fact that PI could not be properly expressed as a ratio of two numbers. Electro-magnetic theory demanded (literally demanded) that atoms could not exist. Electrons “orbiting” protons experience a change in angular momentum and that is by the laws of physics “acceleration.” Any accelerating charged particle emits radiation and thus is constantly lowering its energy state. All atoms must collapse into neutrons. But this proof did not prove atoms cannot exist (as they obviously did) only that they cannot exist as understood at the time. (Quantum mechanics has electrons statically existing in an uncertain location around the nucleus; thus they technically do not “orbit.”) In religion, like physics, the invalidation of proof leads to not knowing, not in proof of non existence.

[Metsfanmax]

But this proof did not prove atoms cannot exist (as they obviously did) only that they cannot exist as understood at the time. (Quantum mechanics has electrons statically existing in an uncertain location around the nucleus; thus they technically do not “orbit.”) In religion, like physics, the invalidation of proof leads to not knowing, not in proof of non existence.

This is a false analogy. In physics, the only thing we know is what we can measure. We cannot measure the location of an electron in such a way that we could prove the Schrodinger equation to be absolutely correct (although this is an effect of the uncertainty principle). Thus we do not know now, any more than we did in 1924, how an electron orbits a nucleus. All we know is that the Schrodinger equation makes predictions that have thus far not been violated, at least so far as classical quantum mechanics is concerned. This does not mean we know things that which have not been observed - there could be some other theory which makes all the predictions the SE makes, but with different implications for experiments we have not done yet.

The series of events that led to the formulation of quantum mechanics was principally based on experiments, not on theory (after all, if you look at the events of 1925-26, you see how ad hoc the mathematical formulation was). Our theories may have been wrong, but that had nothing to do with the amount of knowledge we had about the universe.

[PLAYER57832]

That's right! Death to Carla Bruni-Sarkozy! Iranian newspaper says French first lady deserves to die

Kayhan, a newspaper headed by a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reiterated those statements Tuesday, writing that, "this woman with a bad history supports an Iranian woman who has committed adultery during marriage and is an accomplice to the murder of her husband who is sentenced to death, and in fact she [Bruni-Sarkozy] also deserves death."

If this isn't proof that Islam is a religion stuck in the stoning ages, I don't know what is!

Here are a few more examples of "stone age religions":

Christianity
Judaism
Hinduism
Buddhism
ATHEISM
Naturalism
ETC.

See, if you decide to judge religion by its most radical and idiotic members, then you pretty much eliminate all thought.

[heavycola]

'the logical consequence is agnosticism'. Yeah, whatever. So we are all logically agnostic about Russell's celestial teapot, and about fairies living at the bottom of our gardens, and about trolls living under bridges, and about some old dude who lives in the sky and reads our minds. The burden of proof, inasmuch as anyone really cares, defintely lies with you. The atheism/agnosticism distinction, as you phrase it, is meaningless.

It's only meaningless to people who have no philosophical interest in the question. But if you don't have such interest, then you have no place in a debate like this, because the difference is of fundamental importance. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but if you can't be bothered to understand why the two are different, you shouldn't alienate those of us who do believe that the difference is important.

??? The distinction, practically speaking, is zero. You can label me an atheist or an agnostic if you want - it doesn't matter in the slightest. Even Richard Dawkins - the closest thing, probably, to a 'fundamentalist atheist' (what a ridiculous label) - admits agnosticism is the only logical position. So what? If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'? The difference is not of fundamental importance at all to anyone who describes themselves as an atheist. As I said, i'm sure most of us couldn't give a monkeys - leave the philosophical nitpicking to people for whom this faith stuff is important.

Theism and atheism are both beliefs. Agnosticism is a lack of a belief. To conflate atheism with agnosticism would be unfortunate, because agnosticism is the only logical choice, whereas atheism is just as illogical as religion.

Is it really? Is it just as illogical to believe in jewish zombies, virgin births, omniscient beings who live in space and read our minds, etc etc etc... or to dismiss all of that as extremely unlikely, as fairies in gardens or trolls under bridges are unlikely?

[john9blue]

If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'?

The basic problem is that these people confuse the specific and the general. It is easy (relatively speaking) to disprove a specific. It is impossible to disprove a general. It is likewise impossible to disprove an unobservable event. (You can, for example, prove that you have never seen a fairy at the bottom of your garden. You can prove that people who believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens do not fare better or worse than those who do not. But like proving that the yeti does not exist, it’s really hard to prove they do not exist. In that sense their very vagueness makes them a general, not a specific.) This is the biggest problem with the strong atheists; argument by mockery is just the false argument of the elitist. Yes, if theists want to insist that they are right they have to prove their argument, but the lack of such a proof is only a lack of proof.

also, there is potential evidence for God, many many arguments have been made for His existence. you would need to disprove all of those before logically becoming an atheist.

amazing how every thread can turn into a religion thread. i guess we're overdue for one now, aren't we?

[heavycola]

If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'?

The basic problem is that these people confuse the specific and the general. It is easy (relatively speaking) to disprove a specific. It is impossible to disprove a general. It is likewise impossible to disprove an unobservable event. (You can, for example, prove that you have never seen a fairy at the bottom of your garden. You can prove that people who believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens do not fare better or worse than those who do not. But like proving that the yeti does not exist, it’s really hard to prove they do not exist. In that sense their very vagueness makes them a general, not a specific.) This is the biggest problem with the strong atheists; argument by mockery is just the false argument of the elitist. Yes, if theists want to insist that they are right they have to prove their argument, but the lack of such a proof is only a lack of proof.

also, there is potential evidence for God, many many arguments have been made for His existence. you would need to disprove all of those before logically becoming an atheist.

Please - never quote tzor's posts back at me as some sort of response. I was agreeing that agnosticism is the only logical position, but the fact that logic demands 'downgrading' all atheists to agnostics doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything. Presumably all believers are agnostics too.

[MeDeFe]

If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'?

The basic problem is that these people confuse the specific and the general. It is easy (relatively speaking) to disprove a specific. It is impossible to disprove a general. It is likewise impossible to disprove an unobservable event. (You can, for example, prove that you have never seen a fairy at the bottom of your garden. You can prove that people who believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens do not fare better or worse than those who do not. But like proving that the yeti does not exist, it’s really hard to prove they do not exist. In that sense their very vagueness makes them a general, not a specific.) This is the biggest problem with the strong atheists; argument by mockery is just the false argument of the elitist. Yes, if theists want to insist that they are right they have to prove their argument, but the lack of such a proof is only a lack of proof.

also, there is potential evidence for God, many many arguments have been made for His existence. you would need to disprove all of those before logically becoming an atheist.

Please - never quote tzor's posts back at me as some sort of response. I was agreeing that agnosticism is the only logical position, but the fact that logic demands 'downgrading' all atheists to agnostics doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything. Presumably all believers are agnostics too.

hmm... Agnosticism, the new world religion. No need to join, you're already in.

[john9blue]

Please - never quote tzor's posts back at me as some sort of response. I was agreeing that agnosticism is the only logical position, but the fact that logic demands 'downgrading' all atheists to agnostics doesn't make a blind bit of difference to anything. Presumably all believers are agnostics too.

think of it as an "upgrade"

and all believers ARE agnostics, just not completely. atheists are included under the "believers" category. to not be an agnostic you would have to know the answer, and therefore not be a believer.

[MeDeFe]

and all believers ARE agnostics, just not completely. atheists are included under the "believers" category. to not be an agnostic you would have to know the answer, and therefore not be a believer.

I believe your categorisation is poppycock.

[john9blue]

and all believers ARE agnostics, just not completely. atheists are included under the "believers" category. to not be an agnostic you would have to know the answer, and therefore not be a believer.

I believe your categorisation is poppycock.

but are you sure?

[BigBallinStalin]

and all believers ARE agnostics, just not completely. atheists are included under the "believers" category. to not be an agnostic you would have to know the answer, and therefore not be a believer.

I believe your categorisation is poppycock.

but are you sure?

Good question. I'll just fall back on the Agnostic view on that one.

[tzor]

Meanwhile, back to the subject at hand. (BOO TZOR FOR WANTING TO GET BACK ON TOPIC.)

Vatican: stoning in Iran adultery case 'brutal'

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican raised the possibility Sunday of using behind-the-scenes diplomacy to try to save the life of an Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery.

In its first public statement on the case, which has attracted worldwide attention, the Vatican decried stoning as a particularly brutal form of capital punishment.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Catholic church opposes the death penalty in general.

It is unclear what chances any Vatican bid would have to persuade the Muslim nation to spare the woman's life. Brazil, which has friendly relations with Iran, was rebuffed when it offered her asylum.

You may now resume your senseless assaults against Christians and Roman Catholics.

[Metsfanmax]

If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'?

Based on your statements, no, I would not expect that answer. Nevertheless, it is the right answer.

Is it really? Is it just as illogical to believe in jewish zombies, virgin births, omniscient beings who live in space and read our minds, etc etc etc... or to dismiss all of that as extremely unlikely, as fairies in gardens or trolls under bridges are unlikely?

There's a difference between finding the existence of fairies unlikely, and the positive assertion that no God could exist. It is different first because one is a statement of probability and the other a statement of certainty, and second because the fundamental property that makes God unique is that God cannot be observed, according to most classical religions, whereas fairies are not ever purported to be unobservable beings.

[Baron Von PWN]

Meanwhile, back to the subject at hand. (BOO TZOR FOR WANTING TO GET BACK ON TOPIC.)

Vatican: stoning in Iran adultery case 'brutal'

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican raised the possibility Sunday of using behind-the-scenes diplomacy to try to save the life of an Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery.

In its first public statement on the case, which has attracted worldwide attention, the Vatican decried stoning as a particularly brutal form of capital punishment.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Catholic church opposes the death penalty in general.

It is unclear what chances any Vatican bid would have to persuade the Muslim nation to spare the woman's life. Brazil, which has friendly relations with Iran, was rebuffed when it offered her asylum.

You may now resume your senseless assaults against Christians and Roman Catholics.

Yes it would be pretty stupid to attack a whole religion based on the misdeeds of a few assholes.

[heavycola]

Meanwhile, back to the subject at hand. (BOO TZOR FOR WANTING TO GET BACK ON TOPIC.)

Vatican: stoning in Iran adultery case 'brutal'

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican raised the possibility Sunday of using behind-the-scenes diplomacy to try to save the life of an Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery.

In its first public statement on the case, which has attracted worldwide attention, the Vatican decried stoning as a particularly brutal form of capital punishment.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Catholic church opposes the death penalty in general.

It is unclear what chances any Vatican bid would have to persuade the Muslim nation to spare the woman's life. Brazil, which has friendly relations with Iran, was rebuffed when it offered her asylum.

You may now resume your senseless assaults against Christians and Roman Catholics.

Yes it would be pretty stupid to attack a whole religion based on the misdeeds of a few assholes.

*applause*

[HapSmo19]

Religion of peace calls for "Death to America"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100906/tw ... 5ae06.html

Several hundred Afghans chanting "Death to America" rallied outside a mosque in the Afghan capital on Monday to protest against an American church's plan to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
The protesters, mostly students from religious schools, gathered outside Kabul's Milad ul-Nabi mosque to condemn plans by the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Centre to burn copies of the Koran to mark the ninth anniversary of the attacks against the United States.
"We call on America to stop desecrating our Holy Koran," student Wahidullah Nori told Reuters. He said the street protests condemning the church would continue "every day."
U.S. President Barack Obama has made efforts to reach out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims since taking office last year, most recently hosting Muslim leaders at the White House at the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in August.
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul said the "United States government in no way condones such acts of disrespect against the religion of Islam, and is deeply concerned about deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups."
"Americans from all religious and ethnic backgrounds reject this offensive initiative by this small group in Florida, a great number of American voices are protesting the hurtful statements made by this organisation," it said in a statement.
A proposal to build an Islamic centre and mosque two blocks from the site of the worst of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York has stirred heated debate in the United States.
Opponents of the plan say it is insensitive to families of the victims of the September 11 attacks by al Qaeda.
U.S.-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan soon after those attacks for harbouring al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden.
Demonstrations and riots triggered by reported desecration of the Koran are not infrequent in Afghanistan. The most violent protests came after cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2006.
In January this year, Afghan troops shot dead eight demonstrators and wounded 13 in southern Helmand province in a riot triggered by reports that foreign troops had desecrated the Koran during a raid. A spokesman for NATO forces denied the report.

I'm starting to think these guys aren't as tolerant as they'd have us believe.

[Snorri1234]

You are the one who is insisting, against all logic and reason that all religion, any possible religion, every religion that has existed, currently exists, and may yet exist is bad.

I wouldn't say it's against all logic and reason, but it's not exactly what I'm saying. Religion has a few redeeming qualities and a fuckton of bad qualities. With the immense amount of bullshit in history I don't think it's much of a logical leap that future religion will suck too.

But feel free to point out an example of a good act by a religious person that couldn't also be done by a nonbeliever. If that is too hard provide an example of good religious acts outweighing the negatives of religion.

You have insisted that the belief in something that cannot be proved appatently corrupts that person.

No I haven't. Though I do think believing something which is blatantly false is a bad thing.

You have insisted that it can make good people do bad but not bad people doing good.

I fail to see how this is unreasonable. Why would bad people do good because of religion? They have nothing to gain and most religions allow you to do bad stuff anyway.

We know that humans have an innate sense of morality, regardless of whatever religion they follow, and we can explain quite easily with evolutionary factors why they believe what they believe. Religion is sometimes used as a post-hoc rationalization but it's not the source.

[heavycola]

plans by the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Centre to burn copies of the Koran to mark the ninth anniversary of the attacks against the United States.

I'm starting to think these guys aren't as tolerant as they'd have us believe.

[Phatscotty]

The whole tolerance thing is a one way argument. Sure, you can find examples for intolerance in America to probably anything. However, in the case of Islam, there are too many examples of 0 tolerance to ever be able to justifiably introducing the issue of tolerance against the American side.

[Snorri1234]

The basic problem is that these people confuse the specific and the general. It is easy (relatively speaking) to disprove a specific. It is impossible to disprove a general. It is likewise impossible to disprove an unobservable event. (You can, for example, prove that you have never seen a fairy at the bottom of your garden. You can prove that people who believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens do not fare better or worse than those who do not. But like proving that the yeti does not exist, it’s really hard to prove they do not exist. In that sense their very vagueness makes them a general, not a specific.) This is the biggest problem with the strong atheists; argument by mockery is just the false argument of the elitist. Yes, if theists want to insist that they are right they have to prove their argument, but the lack of such a proof is only a lack of proof.

Reductio ad absurdem is not mockery, it's logical extension. The impossiblity of proving that faeries at the bottom of your lake don't exist does not stop you from believing they do/do not, futhermore believing that they exist is in no way as rational as believing they don't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure as f*ck gives you a good reason to disbelief in something. Atheism is not about fundamental knowledge, but just the simple likelihood of a particular belief being true.

What is also important is that every belief in god or gods or whatever mythical beast you like at some time makes a prediction that should be observable by us. It simply has to because there would be no point otherwise. A personal God who affects the lives of his people has to have some observable effects, right? Even if God is not observed directly we must be able to see that being a devout believer makes a difference, right?

So why do studies show that prayer has no effect? Why do hurricanes and other natural disasters affect the believers and unbelievers alike?

[Snorri1234]

If you ask me, 'do you believe that hundreds of giant mermaids do battle with sperm whales off the coast of france', would you seriously expect the answer: 'I have to admit that I don't know, because I can't disprove it'?

Based on your statements, no, I would not expect that answer. Nevertheless, it is the right answer.

What makes it the "right" answer?

Is it really? Is it just as illogical to believe in jewish zombies, virgin births, omniscient beings who live in space and read our minds, etc etc etc... or to dismiss all of that as extremely unlikely, as fairies in gardens or trolls under bridges are unlikely?

There's a difference between finding the existence of fairies unlikely, and the positive assertion that no God could exist. It is different first because one is a statement of probability and the other a statement of certainty, and second because the fundamental property that makes God unique is that God cannot be observed, according to most classical religions, whereas fairies are not ever purported to be unobservable beings.

The coloured is false.

Also, fundemental properties of observability aside, your position is useless. We have to make decisions in life and semantic arguments about definitions do f*ck all to help us. Rational choices are not based on the fundamental objective truth of reality but on statistics.


"The only rational stance is agnosticism" argument is irrelevant, boring and simply not true.