If they are whaling in another nations waters, then by all means, that government should step in and raise hell. Are these anti whalers members of the navy? Are they official representatives of the government in question?

I did make a bit of an assumption while stating my opinion, in with that assumption, I did technically commit a logical fallacy. Since this seems to upset KnivesOut, I will attempt to correct the wording of said opinion.

Ahem:

"While I can not see the future, nor accurately predict the reactions of my fellow man, I propose the following: Had these anti whaling activists been of a different skin color,and nationality, and had they been harassing American fishing vessels, I believe the American government would consider them to be committing acts of terrorism and would take action accordingly."

I know I had a bit of a run-on sentence there, but I figure I can always correct my grammar later.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^LordOderus:
I'm glad their ship got rammed. I don't care one way or the other if the Japanese kill whales. It is not my place to tell the Japanese what they can and can not hunt. That is a decision to be made by the Japanese government. The only reason I side with the Japanese in this case, is because what the folks from Whale Wars are doing would be considered terrorism if it were done to us.
Imagine if the crew of that ship wasn't white, and was harassing American crab fishermen or something of that nature. They would all be locked up in one of our lovely maximum security hotels and interrogated for information on their terror cell connections. It is a ridiculous double standard. If groups of Hindus (to whom cows are sacred) started racing around American cattle ranches on 1.5 million dollar ATVs and harassing farm hands, we would have a whole bunch of arrested (and probably dead) Hindu activists on our hands.
The crew of that little ship should consider themselves lucky that the Japanese aren't as trigger happy as we are in the "civilized west".

They're whaling in waters where they're not supposed to be. It's not up to the Japanese government because they're outside their legal jurisdiction. They're poaching animals in international waters, or in US waters.
Does that change your ridiculous logical fallacy at all?

>> ^LordOderus:
I'm glad their ship got rammed. I don't care one way or the other if the Japanese kill whales. It is not my place to tell the Japanese what they can and can not hunt. That is a decision to be made by the Japanese government. The only reason I side with the Japanese in this case, is because what the folks from Whale Wars are doing would be considered terrorism if it were done to us.
Imagine if the crew of that ship wasn't white, and was harassing American crab fishermen or something of that nature. They would all be locked up in one of our lovely maximum security hotels and interrogated for information on their terror cell connections. It is a ridiculous double standard. If groups of Hindus (to whom cows are sacred) started racing around American cattle ranches on 1.5 million dollar ATVs and harassing farm hands, we would have a whole bunch of arrested (and probably dead) Hindu activists on our hands.
The crew of that little ship should consider themselves lucky that the Japanese aren't as trigger happy as we are in the "civilized west".


They're whaling in waters where they're not supposed to be. It's not up to the Japanese government because they're outside their legal jurisdiction. They're poaching animals in international waters, or in US waters.

Does that change your ridiculous logical fallacy at all?

I'm glad their ship got rammed. I don't care one way or the other if the Japanese kill whales. It is not my place to tell the Japanese what they can and can not hunt. That is a decision to be made by the Japanese government. The only reason I side with the Japanese in this case, is because what the folks from Whale Wars are doing would be considered terrorism if it were done to us.

Imagine if the crew of that ship wasn't white, and was harassing American crab fishermen or something of that nature. They would all be locked up in one of our lovely maximum security hotels and interrogated for information on their terror cell connections. It is a ridiculous double standard. If groups of Hindus (to whom cows are sacred) started racing around American cattle ranches on 1.5 million dollar ATVs and harassing farm hands, we would have a whole bunch of arrested (and probably dead) Hindu activists on our hands.

The crew of that little ship should consider themselves lucky that the Japanese aren't as trigger happy as we are in the "civilized west".

> ^bobknight33:
Only a fool can believe that GOD does not exist. In this day of age there are a lot of fools walking around.



Agreed. Thor does not approve of non-believers.


> ^Lodurr:
Where atheism dips into dogma isn't at its core belief, but in how atheists prejudge and reject ideas that come from religions.

You don't have to practice or believe any of these things, but just don't deny them all and claim science on your side.




There is a difference in believing something may exist and believing that it does exist. Gods may exist, but we have no idea what they would be like, or how many there are. Believing any particular god does exist is based on emotion, not evidence.

Personal reflection, community, and relationships are all wonderful things, but they are not bound to religion. You don't have to be a Christian or Hindu to help others and learn more about yourself. Superstition is not required for interpersonal relationships.

Many atheists do have a definite belief that no god(s) exist. Such a belief is also a logical fallacy because, as you stated, science cannot prove such a statement. Any definite belief for or against something that cannot be observed is basically "faith". One could rightly state that there is no evidence for the presence of gods, but it is incorrect to say that there is evidence disproving their existence.

It occurs to me that the question "Do you believe in any deities" as a kind of catchall question to determine the religious beliefs of a person is ridiculous - usually it seems to be used to put a person on one side or the other of an issue: is there, or is there not, a supernatural explanation for the universe? In making such a division, it is implied that not believing in any deities is somehow fundamentally different to believing in any deity, whatever it may be. However, if you look at the issue in the light of the question "how do you explain the universe?", the division is absurd.

Belief in one religion's teachings excludes belief in other teachings (unless you're Baha'i or similar) just as much as a lack of belief in any of those teachings excludes belief in all of them. The beliefs about the universe of a Christian and a Hindu are no more intercompatible than are those of a Christian and an atheist. You can't lump different beliefs together as somehow related ways of explaining the universe while still firmly subscribing to one religion.

And speaking of "firmly subscribing", don't get me started on the way everyone seems to have a slightly different interpretation of the particular religion they subscribe to, and what that does to these categories of belief...

Excerpt from the press conference prior to the demo:

Doubter: I hear those things are awfully loud.
Biker: It floats as gently as a cloud.


Apu: Is there a chance the wheel could bend?
Biker: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

Fuck you and your controversy category... I'll rape your Cherokee grandfather in front of your wife with my daughter's baby rattle while I force you to listen to Ludwig Von, then combine your tears with my girlfriend's tears, who I just punched in the cunt (because she didn't wear her Islam face thingy); then, I'll mix it with poo and agent orange, and sell it as anti-AIDS medicine in Africa. All proceeds, that aren't converted to carbon credits and WoW gold, will go to the Catholic church and Fred Phelps' God Hates Fags site. I'll write about it prison and dedicate it to the memory of Hitler, weapons of mass destruction, and all the fans of the Twilight series. P.S. Before I have sex with your grandfather, I will tear out the foetus of a pregnant Hindu priestess, fuck that foetus, then use its stim cells to increase the length of my cock -- which will be ramming into a cow after this all happens. Then I'll eat the cow. Then I'll accept JESUS CHRIST as my personal savious, kill myself and have my remains fed to Pepperridge Farm chickens.

See ya in Heaven, bitch nigga.

>> ^ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.
As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.


There are two major problems here.

First, it's not possible to say that all religions are something that "some guy" made up. For a great many religions--Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto are good examples--there is not one single individual one can trace the religion to. Rather, they seem to have arisen organically, on the basis of the agreement and common practice of communities and tribes. If they arose to control people, it was not the action of a single autocrat, but the same kind norm creation that goes on in any community.

Second, not all religions make onerous demands on belief. Again, Hinduism and Shinto are good examples. While particular schools of Hinduism may demand assent to certain beliefs, one may hold nearly any set of beliefs and be a good Hindu, so long as one meets a baseline set of behavioral norms. There are even atheist schools of thought. (There is even a patron god of atheism, strangely enough. Attributed to it by other schools of thought, of course.) Much the same is true of Shinto, though it is less philosophically sophisticated--atheism may not be as acceptable, but there is room for a great diversity of opinion.

Before Christianity and Islam, in fact, this non-belief-centric approach to religion was the norm everywhere Judea and a few Zoroastrian communities. The notion that religion demands belief is not the norm in human society--only in Christian and Muslim society.

>> ^raverman:
Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.
Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.
Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.
You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.


How does Separation of Church and State have anything to do with me (hypothetically) being against gay marriage? I am neither Church nor State; I can have the opinion that gays should not be married all I want.

A homophobe who says they're not a homophobe is still a homophobe. PHJF's comment is a perfect example of someone being against gay marriage without a drop of hatred for gays. People seem to be getting hung up on the argument that an opinion like the one proposed by PHJF is unreasonable. Whether it is or not is beside the point. The point is that someone can be against gay marriage without being a homophobe and attempting to drown them out by calling them such is a disservice to everyone.

I am very much in support of people who are gay, but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which I believe wholeheartedly in, but which is not an explicit part of the Constitution. Jefferson suggested that the doctrine is an inherent part of the Constitution, and nobody "sw[ears] to" it, but they misunderstand it on a regular basis.

People shouldn't vote on issues that they consider moral based on their religious beliefs? Well, maybe their religious beliefs are wrong, but it is completely unreasonable to suggest that they shouldn't vote based on their beliefs, and it is even more unreasonable to suggest that this is somehow a violation of the separation of church and state. It isn't. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. All laws are enforcements of someone's concept of right and wrong. Granted, this particular issue is based less on ethics and more on faith that almost any other. Although the decisions themselves may be unconstitutional, there is nothing unconstitutional about making them based on religious beliefs. The separation of church and state is irrelevant.

>> ^raverman:
>>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.


I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

christianity can be broke down in three subsets:
1.liberal=roman catholic,episcopalian etc etc.
2.evangelical= baptist,pentacostal etc etc.
3.fundamentalist=southern baptist,church of the nazarene etc etc.

there are a myriad of christian sects based on calvinism,ecclastiastical and davidian teachings.add to that a ton more and you may get the picture.christianity is as diverse as islam or hindu (ok,not hindu.those guys throw nothing away).
there are many in the evangelical sect that conflate their nationalism with their religion.this has been subtley coerced since the late 70's by evangelical preachers and has been reinforced by the political party (republican).
now you may not conflate your religion with your sense of nationalism,but a third of america does.this is what reza is speaking about.

Unfortunately this is not confined to Muslim communities. Honor killings are also committed in the Sikh and Hindu cultures, in some Latin communities in fact in any culture that has a tradition of arranged marriage.

>> ^tedbater:
>> ^nanrod:
I wonder if it ever occurs to Kirk that maybe there's a correlation between higher IQ's and lack of religious belief.

I'm a doctor and have strong faith in Christ.


I think non educated people are easy to convince of something (and most or ALL of the times is for the benefit of who ever is trying to convice them)
BUT! most of the time non educated religios people are willing to help you out more that the so call non religious "Intelligent ones"

I do belive in GOD but not on ANY religion

and I do have a bachelor degree in computer science

>> ^Sagemind:
What I have issues with is when someone starts to force their belief system on other people. Like they are doing a favour for someone who just doesn't know it yet. Saving them even! I'd sit and listen to a Muslim story because there's knowledge in knowing what's out there. I'd do the same for any Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or any other religion. Just don't tell me that your way is the only way. And definitely NEVER tell me that my way is the WRONG way. Don't infiltrate what I believe and I will respect what you believe. I may not believe it, but I will respect it.

And that's exacly the problem now with the atheists, instead of "going to hell" if you dont belive has they , "you are stupid"