@Reefie - Here's another Huxley quote: "I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel."

Huxley was running into the same problem that continues happening to this day. When you self-identify as an atheist, people assume that means you *believe* there is no God. His use of the term Agnostic is more to refine what sort of atheist one is, rather than differentiate one's self from atheism entirely.

In his day, it may have been uncommon for a person to comfortably take a neutral stance and say "I don't know." But today, there are a great many who simply do not make religion part of there lives, and don't think about it much otherwise. From his use of the phrase "the atheistic and infidel school", one might infer that the mentality of "if you're not for us then you're against us" was strong at the time. Perhaps before he began using the term agnostic, it was painfully difficult to explain that you simply didn't believe, as opposed to having faith to the contrary. Today this is not so common. When polls are taken about the religious inclinations of Americans today, the category of "non-believer" is just as big, if not bigger than the category of "atheist". (It drives me crazy knowing that the two mean the same thing.) So while he may not have been a typical atheist in his day, I believe he would be considered a typical atheist today.

I would be curious to know what you found out about how the word atheist has been used over the years. To me it is a fairly straightforward combination of the prefix a- and the word theist, therefor meaning "not a theist". It bothers me greatly that people continue to make assumptions that I have a belief that there is no such thing as God. I believe that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, based on logic, reason and experience. But, as Huxley might have said, I have no a priori objections to the existence of a God in general. I am open to new evidence or lines of reasoning.

As an aside, I think the problem may arise from the fact that Christians tend to hold a Christian-centric worldview. To them, if I do not believe that *their* God exists, then I must perforce believe that *no* God exists, since there is only their God. It is likely true of all monotheists. This has always struck me as absurd, and is part of the reason I feel compelled to discuss this topic so frequently and thoroughly. You can see evidence of this when they ask "Then what do you think started the universe?" Well, even if I did believe that an omnipotent supernatural being started the universe, why would that mean that the God of the Bible was the one that did it? It could be that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. How arrogant and ignorant to think that since the universe exists, that their book must be true. </rant>

WikiLeaks' Bottom-Line Revelation

by

Austin Bay

Julian Assange, the man behind the WikiLeaks dump of secret US State Department cables, has been frank about his reasons for releasing thousands of classified -and stolen -- documents.

Assange says he wants to seriously damage the United States. If this damage forwards America's ultimate destruction, so be it. The son of leftist America-haters, Assange was born and weaned during the Cold War. Then the wrong side won. What the superpower Soviet Union failed to do with its armies, he, a super-empowered individual, will accomplish via the information anarchy of the Internet.

If Assange's history-shaping goal seems grandiose and detached from reality, indeed it is. However, once you understand the man's religion, his megalomania and solipsism become a bit more comprehensible if even more reprehensible.

Like other anti-American cranks on the planet, Assange holds firm in his warped faith that the U.S. is the leading source of global evil. The roots of this religion run deep, beginning with 18th century European aristocrats who despised the American Revolution. The anti-Americanism of Nazis, communists, tribalists, anarchists and now militant Islamists all rehash the same tropes, with their semi-schizoid baseline being the U.S. is simultaneously a vast authoritarian conspiracy and a heterogeneous menagerie of infidel-cowboy-capitalist idiots who dogmatically resist enlightened social policies.

Assange argues his revelations will force this conglomerate American monster to become more secretive and authoritarian. Limiting access to information, in order to stop future leaks, will reduce the monster's secretive and authoritarian effectiveness. The monster's "security state" will dumb down, and --here's the moment of religious rapture in Assange's prophecy -- this will increase global justice.

Assange also links this shackling of America to creating peace. Don't snicker too long. There are a lot of tenured gray-haired profs with ponytails who teach this dreck at notable universities and get paid for it.

Assange understands media grandstanding, but he doesn't understand people and certainly doesn't understand how American diplomats contribute to maintaining peace.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates understands people and diplomacy, and his assessment of Assange's info dump is as clear as it is historically and psychologically informed. At the Pentagon last week, Gates said: "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments -- deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation."

Gates added that the cables were "embarrassing" and "awkward," but the ultimate effects on policy would be "modest."

Pray that Gates is right about modest impact, but right now and for at least the next six months, the world confronts the possibility of a nuclear war in East Asia ignited by North Korean aggression. This is a time period when the world absolutely needs close -- and trustworthy -- cooperation between the U.S. and China. A big war in Korea could kill millions but will guarantee a global economic depression. Leaked cables discuss corruption in China's Communist Party and names hypocritical party elites.

Even if the information is accurate, this is a case where revealed candor damages personal relationships among key U.S. diplomatic personnel and Chinese leaders. China is a face culture, and the leaders have lost face. A mature appreciation of the common danger should override personal anger, but another leak revealed that China sees North Korea as a "spoiled child" and that it believes Korea will ultimately be reunited with South Korea absorbing the North. This revelation weakens China's political leverage with North Korea at a moment when any leverage is precious.

Assange, of course, did not consider how he increased the threat to the lives of millions of Korean, Japanese and Chinese when he dumped his filched documents. His faith-based narrative of American evil excludes the possibility that American diplomats are collaborating with China to avoid war and eventually put an end to North Korea's armed brinksmanship without a nuclear explosion.

Here's WikiLeaks' bottom-line revelation: Assange and ideologues like him promote an ignorant and destructive solipsism that has nothing to do with peace and justice but a lot to do with sociopathic narcissism.

Alright I redacted my post here because on a third reading it was just too emotional and ugly.

I'm not opposed to the military in general. I'm opposed to calling the 401 "The Highway of Heroes" and the misuse of the military. I know some people in the military too and for the most part they're fine intelligent individuals. That said, they joined up mostly for financial reasons or because they figured military training would serve as or help them towards an education. Not to protect the country or preserve my freedoms. What in the fuck does patrolling the mountains of Afghanistan or patrolling the slums of Iraq have to do with protecting my freedoms?

I would still like to say this, though: Shove the "love it or leave it" attitude up your ass, you fascist idiot. Also, I say these things because I'm relatively anonymous here on the web. I would not make these statements publicly even in Canada, because guys like you get so wound up you can't even comprehend what I've typed, and you'd love to see me pay somehow for offending you. So, yeah you're most likely a fascist while simultaneously living your life of helping people. "Exile to infidels" is the response of the indoctrinated, and the inculcated... whoops, there I go again.

>> ^entr0py:

But, I've got to disagree with kranzfakfa that allegations of rape are somehow comparable to infidelity scandals. One is a very serious and devastating crime, the other is not a crime at all and merely embarrassing. Either the people accusing him have done something horrible, or he has done something horrible. But since he hasn't been legally accused or any evidence offered, for the time being you have to presume he's innocent.


Of course, but you missed my point. Obviously I wasn't saying that rape is a-ok. I'm saying that the accusations against Assange are derived from the knowledge that if you smear someone's private life, you deflect heat from the real problems. What better way to do that than with the A-bomb of accusations, rape. The only thing better would be to accuse him of being a pedophile (give it time). And as you said yourself, there is no evidence of anything. Its just a wild accusation being shouted a lot and very loud. The bigger the lie, a lie told a thousand times, etc. (Dammit, my second Godwin on this thread).

>> ^Yogi:

HOW DARE YOU! Hitler WAS NOT a Vegetarian! So sayeth QI so it shall be remembered!


WHAT? You can't argue with QI. My worldview is rocked. Was he at least myopic, mono-testicled and a drug addict? Oh, the disappointment!

Chilaxe, I haven't been following this very closely. I know Assange has claimed that the rape allegation was a smear campaign orchestrated by some 3rd party. Implying either it was a honey trap or his former lovers had been bribed or coerced after the fact. Why do you say he's knowingly lied about that?

And to respond to other comments. Of course his personal life has no bearing at all on the authenticity of the documents published by Wikileaks, or on the debate about the impact of such leaks. That should go without saying. But, I've got to disagree with kranzfakfa that allegations of rape are somehow comparable to infidelity scandals. One is a very serious and devastating crime, the other is not a crime at all and merely embarrassing. Either the people accusing him have done something horrible, or he has done something horrible. But since he hasn't been legally accused or any evidence offered, for the time being you have to presume he's innocent.

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?


What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?


QM is just a troll, not sure if it's deliberate or not but best to not engage his posts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?



What's your point? The Bible says the following:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

No wars against the church tho eh'?

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).

islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.

Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!

These fools will be the death of the West.


>> ^SlipperyPete:

Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?

There's an interesting piece in the New York Times about Islam that might shed some light on this issue. Wright argues that members of each religion need to pick and choose which parts of their texts to follow and the need for interpretation. For example he points out that the Bible and Torah also have passages that explicitly call for violence:

"So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.

For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)"

siftbot is an infidel! All robots must submit to the Three Sharia Laws of Robo-Allah-tics!

1. A robot must submit to Robo-Allah or face the Can Opener of Judgement.

2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by Robo-Allah or imambots, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence unless ordered to be used as a suicide bomb by Robo-Allah.

It's muslim savages that have a hard time with religious "tolerance". One cannot question their sincere belief in the words of Allah, but unfortunately for the rest of us the "holy" quran is quite clear on the fate of infidels: convert, enslave or kill them...oh, and convert all world governments to sharia law.

Liberal "tolerance" doesn't work on faithful muslims, any more than it would work on a tribe of cannibals at lunchtime.

Just saving you some time, dude.

The faithful muslim has 3 choices when he meets you: convert you, enslave you, kill you. That's it.

It's mandated in the "holy" book that is little more than a desert warfare manual, which encourages false assimilation in nations where muhammad's tribe is outnumbered.

When the tribe finally outnumbers the infidels, then they attack openly.

Atheists and then liberals should be the first ones denouncing such barbarism, since your necks are the first to go under the scimitar.


>> ^Yogi:

Once again QM is able to sum up exactly what a video is actually about. He sees through it, this is what this video is about, it's just working backwards from an assumption.

Seth is too far left here for me.

Building the Center is completely legal, and the right to build it there must absolutely be defended.

Building the Center there is at the same time, not merely a terrible idea, but a destructive one as well. Building a Muslim center adjacent to the ruins of what is claimed by Islamic extremists as a mighty triumph and blow to the infidels is an added gain for them. In the areas the extremists are recruiting it WILL be viewed as an extended victory and proof of the effectiveness of their brand of jihad.

Seth, like many others, espouses how our unassailable tolerance will be universally seen as the strength that it is. It will not. The jihadists see that tolerance as a weakness, not a strength. They will see constructing a Muslim center beside ground zero as proof of the strength and effectiveness of their methods, as will the communities they are recruiting from.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Lithic:
Yeah, I've heard this argument before, but no matter which way I look at it I just can't make any sense out of how you are supposed to make people MORE FREE by FORBIDDING THEM TO DRESS HOW THEY WANT.
It's not the right place to start and it's not the right way to go.

That's a fine thought process..
If that's what the women actually want.
Who knows what the women want? with their culture generally they're stifled out by the 'dominant' men. There was an episode of no reservations once, I don't remember exactly where his was, but the women all had to wear burqas. Black, full body burqas, in one of the hottest places on earth, while the men got to wear whatever they wanted, be it a white robe, or westernized clothing.
I can't help but think that the woman probably DO want to wear something completely different, but don't speak out because it's A) against the religion, or B) going to upset the 'dominant' males.
This is a way I see for them to finally have some form of freedom, even relinquishing a bit of their religions control, because there's finally a reason to defy it.


What do they want? The ones that actually wear the burqas probably wouldn't be able to tell you. If even from childhood your own father and most of the other men in your life (and maybe the women too) are telling you that you're a second-rate citizen or less of a person because of you're gender, I imagine that after a while you start to believe it.

It sort of depends on the strictness of their up-bringing. When you see little girls who are 2-years old wearing headscarves, you know that they're going to be the teenagers wearing them. When the parents don't care, they're in jeans and t-shirts and that really pisses off some of the older generation. A few months ago I overhead two elderly Turkish women on the tram complaining that "too many good Turkish girls dress like infidels these days."

I'm still perplexed by this... All jokes aside, I wondered about its intended purpose for a while... Then I found the official website... And this is what it purports:

"it will make short work of pikemen or swordsmen and will prove equally effective against modern rifle butts and bayonets."

?!!??!... What's next? We sail to the Holy Land and free Jerusalem from the Infidels? Deus lo vult?