Bonfire of the Pieties

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: ntdz
So it's not ok for other people to make fun of Islam, but they can make fun of Judaism all they want? What a bunch of hypocrites.

That's what it says in the Quran, so they don't stand it.
Maybe if it said that in the old testament jews would get pissed off.

I'm not defending, i'm explaining.

I'm just using the Jews as an example...I'm just saying they believe it's not right to make fun of their religion, so in retaliation they make fun of another religion. Isn't there a contradiction there?

Nope, they are testing the west, and making them to by hypocrites

"Freedomg of speech freedom of speech!!!" <--- West 2 weeks ago

"OMG!!@!@!@! you cant have cartoons of jews!!@!@@@@! thats evil!!!@!@" <-- this week


They are showing the west, that yes there are limitations on free speech, and the west is playing right into there hands. I personally could give 2 sh1ts what a cartoon is about.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord
Is it OK to point-out that God doesn't exist, and that all organizations based on devinity are irrational?

Sure, please provide a source for proof of this so far mere conjecture. I will be curious to know how you will disprove the existence of God to those who have extinguished the barriers that separate them form Him. It wouldn't be that different from me telling you you're not you but a lot less accurate.

And no, of course you don't understand.

I don't have to dissprove the existance of God. Asking me to do so, is the typical and usual obfuscation de rigeur of those throwing smoke-screens.

It is those that either claim, or profess, or invoke a God that need to prove said existance.

I am not the one claiming a whole story based on any omniscient beings. The burden of proof does not fall on me.

I am simply stating the fact that there is no evidence (note: evidence--I'm not even going to the level of proof) that such a being or force or whatever exists.


There is no objective evidence that God exists (God-- meaning a creator/creative force). This is so far, incontrovertible. No objective evidence at all. Never has been--so far.

I don't state this to offend anyone--but clearly any argument that hinges its premise on deity--is 100% irrational.

There is nothing incorrect about the statement that all religions based on an invocation of a devine being are fundamentaly irrational.

Excuse me? I don't understand. I didn't try to say that God exists. I asked you where you come off saying that He doesn't exist or that belief in Him is irrational to somebody who actually KNOWS HIM. Again, it would be like me telling you that you aren't you only more inaccurate as you really aren't you. I am just not going to try to convince you of that since you can't know what you don't know. You may as well argue there is no air to people who breathe air every day. You are just harmlessly full of crap, but full of crap none the less.

You may as well say that electricity and magnetism aren't the same thing. You probably believe that they are but you take that belief on faith since you haven't done the experiment. Same with the science of religion. Real religion is a bridge that has taken countless individuals to God and only he who does the experiment knows. In a room full of sleeping people the awake know who is asleep and who's not. You have been deluded by pretenders to faith who intellectually think there's a God. But God isn't know with the mind. God is known with the Heart of those who have died to themselves. Religion is the science of suicide, the science that destroys ego. If you are full of ego, religious or not, you know nothing of God.

That's just how science is. You verify by experiment. In your arrogance and assumptions you thought you had all the cards, that the science you do is the only science there is or that phony faith is all there is in religion.

 

[kage69]

I certainly don't feel odd about it when we see what has occurred around the World and the fact that as the article specifically points out there is nothing in the religion itself that calls for death, violence, burnings and rioting over these cartoons. I think it is one thing to say oh well, I see these types of things happen all the time at sporting events, but yet that really doesn?t provide any amount of justification either.

People taking creative license with a religious text is hardly new, and both examples of this behavior are far from rational (I'm not providing justification either). The bible doesn't advocate assassinating abortion clinic doctors, yet that doesn't bother a fringe element of Christianity. We can get nit-picky about the Koran until the cows come home, but the reality of this all is that the Middle East is still largely under the influence of a 15th century religion which hasn't changed all that much since the violent times of it's inception. Things like this are going to happen when you expose sacrosanct parts of a rather stern religion to comparitively liberal Western mediums of humor. I can understand that. The West has been used to provocative political humor for sometime now, and we have a cultural that accepts bringing religious figures into the fray. There is no analogous climate in the Middle East, save maybe a few places but even they have their limits. What I can't understand is the violence, theft, arson, sexuall assault, and sometimes death that can follow a simple basketball game, right here in the USA. I just think we as Americans look a little silly pointing fingers at a people who get fired up over something that is religious blasphemy (even if it seems selective), when we can exhibit the same behavior over something as trivial as as basketball or football.
That some Muslims are being hypocritical doesn't concern me, being around hypocritical Christians my whole life has really dulled my caring about it I guess.


I don't know of too many conflicts started by sports rivalries, but the list explodes off the paper if we're talking about conflicts rooted in religious tensions or doctrine. I know that may sound rather off on a tangent, but I think it hits what I'm eluding to.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord
Is it OK to point-out that God doesn't exist, and that all organizations based on devinity are irrational?

Sure, please provide a source for proof of this so far mere conjecture. I will be curious to know how you will disprove the existence of God to those who have extinguished the barriers that separate them form Him. It wouldn't be that different from me telling you you're not you but a lot less accurate.

And no, of course you don't understand.

I don't have to dissprove the existance of God. Asking me to do so, is the typical and usual obfuscation de rigeur of those throwing smoke-screens.

It is those that either claim, or profess, or invoke a God that need to prove said existance.

I am not the one claiming a whole story based on any omniscient beings. The burden of proof does not fall on me.

I am simply stating the fact that there is no evidence (note: evidence--I'm not even going to the level of proof) that such a being or force or whatever exists.


There is no objective evidence that God exists (God-- meaning a creator/creative force). This is so far, incontrovertible. No objective evidence at all. Never has been--so far.

I don't state this to offend anyone--but clearly any argument that hinges its premise on deity--is 100% irrational.

There is nothing incorrect about the statement that all religions based on an invocation of a devine being are fundamentaly irrational.

Excuse me? I don't understand. I didn't try to say that God exists. I asked you where you come off saying that He doesn't exist or that belief in Him is irrational to somebody who actually KNOWS HIM. Again, it would be like me telling you that you aren't you only more inaccurate as you really aren't you. I am just not going to try to convince you of that since you can't know what you don't know. You may as well argue there is no air to people who breathe air every day. You are just harmlessly full of crap, but full of crap none the less.

You may as well say that electricity and magnetism aren't the same thing. You probably believe that they are but you take that belief on faith since you haven't done the experiment. Same with the science of religion. Real religion is a bridge that has taken countless individuals to God and only he who does the experiment knows. In a room full of sleeping people the awake know who is asleep and who's not. You have been deluded by pretenders to faith who intellectually think there's a God. But God isn't know with the mind. God is known with the Heart of those who have died to themselves. Religion is the science of suicide, the science that destroys ego. If you are full of ego, religious or not, you know nothing of God.

That's just how science is. You verify by experiment. In your arrogance and assumptions you thought you had all the cards, that the science you do is the only science there is or that phony faith is all there is in religion.

Wether you assert the existance of God or the opposite is inconsequential to the facts. And I did not intimate that you did or didn't, by the way.

It remains incontroverted that there is no objective evidence that any God exists. Further, for anyone to assert (anyone= not just you) that a God exists is by the absence of any evidence, defined as irrational.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: fjord
Is it OK to point-out that God doesn't exist, and that all organizations based on devinity are irrational?

Sure, please provide a source for proof of this so far mere conjecture. I will be curious to know how you will disprove the existence of God to those who have extinguished the barriers that separate them form Him. It wouldn't be that different from me telling you you're not you but a lot less accurate.

And no, of course you don't understand.

I don't have to dissprove the existance of God. Asking me to do so, is the typical and usual obfuscation de rigeur of those throwing smoke-screens.

It is those that either claim, or profess, or invoke a God that need to prove said existance.

I am not the one claiming a whole story based on any omniscient beings. The burden of proof does not fall on me.

I am simply stating the fact that there is no evidence (note: evidence--I'm not even going to the level of proof) that such a being or force or whatever exists.


There is no objective evidence that God exists (God-- meaning a creator/creative force). This is so far, incontrovertible. No objective evidence at all. Never has been--so far.

I don't state this to offend anyone--but clearly any argument that hinges its premise on deity--is 100% irrational.

There is nothing incorrect about the statement that all religions based on an invocation of a devine being are fundamentaly irrational.

Excuse me? I don't understand. I didn't try to say that God exists. I asked you where you come off saying that He doesn't exist or that belief in Him is irrational to somebody who actually KNOWS HIM. Again, it would be like me telling you that you aren't you only more inaccurate as you really aren't you. I am just not going to try to convince you of that since you can't know what you don't know. You may as well argue there is no air to people who breathe air every day. You are just harmlessly full of crap, but full of crap none the less.

You may as well say that electricity and magnetism aren't the same thing. You probably believe that they are but you take that belief on faith since you haven't done the experiment. Same with the science of religion. Real religion is a bridge that has taken countless individuals to God and only he who does the experiment knows. In a room full of sleeping people the awake know who is asleep and who's not. You have been deluded by pretenders to faith who intellectually think there's a God. But God isn't know with the mind. God is known with the Heart of those who have died to themselves. Religion is the science of suicide, the science that destroys ego. If you are full of ego, religious or not, you know nothing of God.

That's just how science is. You verify by experiment. In your arrogance and assumptions you thought you had all the cards, that the science you do is the only science there is or that phony faith is all there is in religion.

Wether you assert the existance of God or the opposite is inconsequential to the facts. And I did not intimate that you did or didn't, by the way.

It remains incontroverted that there is no objective evidence that any God exists. Further, for anyone to assert (anyone= not just you) that a God exists is by the absence of any evidence, defined as irrational.

But I bet you choose to believe in all sorts of scientific laws just as irrationally because for you there is no objective truth. You have not done the experiments it takes to really know so you are a person of irrational faith. I have no problem with that as long as you see it is so. As long as you are as irrational as the next guy I got no problem. It's your choice.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: fjord
Is it OK to point-out that God doesn't exist, and that all organizations based on devinity are irrational?

Yes. It is also OK for them to point out that they don't believe you, and it gives them purpose and order in their lives. It's not OK for them to lynch you for being a blasphemer .