Ah, ya caught me, I'm undone... X D

Doesn't actually change anything though, does it? Your established "facts" (ie. made up stuff) do not require any significant research to debunk. You've provided no supporting evidence other than your own beliefs anyway (what, a google search too hard for you? =)

I punched in "Islam is homogenous" and surprise surprise, the entire front page were articles saying it's not. And the next page. And the next... Professors, clerics, scholars, philosophers, random comments, books, absolutely nothing to support your contentions. Hell, I couldn't even turn up one of those classy Euro-white power type pages.

How embarrassing. Even the open and unashamed bigots don't seem to support you...

But it doesn't actually matter if the evidence comes from a simple google search looking for articles, or from noted and lauded professors who have spent their lives researching the issue. You are a classic fundamentalist, as bad as any Muslim or Christian extremist. Your world view is uncompromising, based on belief and completely resistant to alteration when factual information is presented that undermines your propaganda.

I loved this line though...

It's tedious to have to continually restate the case against islam in every discussion where the lazy and dishonest leap to the defence of an ideology they've failed to adequately research.

Oh ya poor bloody princess, do you need a lie down?

What I'm opposing is rampant bigotry dressed up as intellectualism. As an atheist, as long as they do no harm, they can believe whatever the hell they want to, it doesn't bother me. You can also believe whatever you want to, but actively promoting the idea of Muslims as one big group who share responsibility for the acts of the minority can do harm. It makes innocents a target for reprisal, and ironically drives moderates towards extremism.

That's not what he's saying at all.

The bible, or the Quran, or many other texts, just like historical events as they were, or works of literature, or other even historical texts as complex as this often have contradictory ideas. The US constitution is founded on a set of beliefs and ideas that almost all of us subscribe to, yet there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, pragmatists, etc. all deriving very different ideas from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and more. The reason this is true is because those values often come into conflict, and can outright contradict each other. Freedom vs security, equality vs prosperity, I could go on and on.

With the Bible, you have Catholics, Protestants, subdivided into a plethora of different religions in their own right under the umbrella of Christianity. You have the running joke even within Catholicism that American Catholics aren't really Catholics at all. Not only do different Christians interpret the bible differently, the amount they count on the bible varies between fundamentalists like Jehovah's Witnesses who take the bible extremely literally to extremely secular Christians who have absolutely no problem discarding any part of Christian doctrines when scientific evidence proves otherwise.

You have Christians who act as saintly as Mother Theresa to mobsters.

That's just Christianity. There are extremist Islamic groups that sound more like the Westboro Baptist Church than other Muslims.

But within Christianity, there's "honor thy mother and thy father" and "thou shall not kill". What if your parents are murderers?

That's a crude, and obvious example of conflicting values, but the 10 commandments are simple rules that don't completely resolve every situation.

What's stupid is to believe that you can know about a person's specific ideology just by their religion. Does their religion play a role in their ideology? Absolutely, but how it impacted their ideology has much more to do with their experiences, their natural tendancies, etc. than necessarily their religion. If you grew up in a mob family, honor thy mother and father was more likely the lesson you took from the Bible than thou shall not kill.

And if you look around you, this is plainly obvious. Even look within yourself. We're all a melting pot of lessons and ideas we've learned from school, personal life experiences, our religious beliefs, our parents, our socio-economic backgrounds, our friends, etc. That's why you are different from everyone of your religion, your friends, who you went to school with, your socioeconomic class, etc.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

Agreed, if the 'word of god' is debatable, it can't be infallible, can it?
Once you think for yourself, you have suddenly become philosophic, not religious, in my eyes. For some, many don't realize the transition happened and continue on with the trappings of religion while not really 'following' it.
It's those (and they are many) that look to religion for their moral compass that bother me. Since it is interpretable to mean near anything, it can't be a moral compass (or it's the kind of compass that Jack Sparrow had, that just points to whatever you want at the time).
I find it funny that many are called 'fundamentalist Christians' yet I haven't heard of a Christian stoning for a while now, and it is the clearly prescribed treatment for infidels. Clearly even the fundies pick and choose what to follow.

The word of God is infallible but human beings are fallible. We all struggle with a sinful nature and are subject to futility. There is one truth, and many flawed individuals trying to grasp that truth through their own peculiar biases and weaknesses of character. No scripture is of private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches men to understand the word of God, but since men are imperfect and ignore or suppress the truth, they will not always listen to the Holy Spirit and come to differing interpretations. There is only one true interpretation, but often that in itself has various facets as you examine the text for different contexts, such as spiritual connotations and applications.

In some ways, I find I have sympathy with the fundamentalists. They may be wrong and in some cases even evil, but at least they're honest.

Ever read Terry Pratchett? One of his characters, a witch who is often the authorial voice, has a great line about religion

Now if I’d seen him, really there, really alive, it’d be in me like a fever. If I thought there was some god who really did care two hoots about people, who watched ‘em like a father and cared for ‘em like a mother…well, you wouldn’t catch me sayin’ things like ‘there are two sides to every question’ and ‘we must respect other people’s beliefs.’ You wouldn’t find me just being gen’rally nice in the hope that it’d all turn out right in the end, not if the flame was burning in me like an unforgivin’ sword. And I did say burnin’, Mister Oats, ‘cos that’s what it’d be. You say that you people don’t burn folk and sacrifice people anymore, but that’s what true faith would mean, y’see? Sacrificin’ your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin’ the truth of it, workin’ for it, breathin’ the soul of it. That’s religion. Anything else is just…bein’ nice. And a way of keepin’ in touch with the neighbors.

Agreed, if the 'word of god' is debatable, it can't be infallible, can it?
Once you think for yourself, you have suddenly become philosophic, not religious, in my eyes. For some, many don't realize the transition happened and continue on with the trappings of religion while not really 'following' it.
It's those (and they are many) that look to religion for their moral compass that bother me. Since it is interpretable to mean near anything, it can't be a moral compass (or it's the kind of compass that Jack Sparrow had, that just points to whatever you want at the time).
I find it funny that many are called 'fundamentalist Christians' yet I haven't heard of a Christian stoning for a while now, and it is the clearly prescribed treatment for infidels. Clearly even the fundies pick and choose what to follow.

To be fair, I believe it is a matter of some debate even among theologians.

My fundamental issue with it (and religion in general) is that ultimately you must decide for yourself what is right and wrong, and as soon as you have to do that, then clearly the "word of god" (at least as delivered to humans) is not infallible, and therefore clearly not divine.

Most Christians / Jews / Muslims / Hindus / whatever are good people, but that is in spite of their religion not because of it. Their inner moral compass leads them to ignore the aspects of their faith that are offensive to modern sensibilities (slavery, racism, etc).

Ironically, the people who actually follow their religion to the letter of the law are called fundamentalists and generally shunned by society.

I find this hilarious.

@Trancecoach
you could have commented on the video without quoting me.
but you didnt do that,did you?
care to explain why?

/scratch that..i dont really care,so dont bother.
you have already made it abundantly clear how see/feel/perceive me.

i am familiar with the mises institute and most likely BEFORE it became your religion.
i have also read the PDF you posted (multiple times on multiple threads) and what i really got out of it was where the majority of your arguments arise.

i even recall an incident where you were caught plagiarizing one of the mises institutes contributors.

the reason i mention these things is that i have been witness to you consistently telling people to think for themselves and to make their own arguments,when in fact,it is YOU who have copied others peoples arguments and called them your own,using the same source material for almost every argument you posit.

do you know who else does that? fundamentalist christians.

they too speak with an air a fake authority and arrogance given to them by the written word.they too deride and ridicule anyone who would dare disagree with them.

you ridicule me for liking this video?
and then have the arrogance to suggest i read YOUR bible..*cough*..i mean mises.

this assumes two things:
1.i am not familiar with mises.
2.i am willing to devote that kind of time in regards to economics (which i have already explained to you,i am not).

neither of which have been evidenced by my commentary here.

i would go as far to say that many people are not willing to spend that kind of time on economics and short videos like this,while maybe not as in-depth as you would like,do offer us all a small inclination in regards to simple economics.

now maybe that is not a smart decision.maybe we should all take the time to understand something that affects us all,and maybe your suggestions have merit and are worth pursuing.

but the arrogance.........
and the belittling...
the ridiculing...
hard to listen to possible sage words when they are spoken in the language of the fanatic.

i do not say these words to harm,nor lightly.
i am quite confident you are unaware you come across this way.
but somebody has to say it.
so i said it.

realizing how little you think of me and my opinion,you may dismiss this.
but i beseech you not to ignore my words.
i am not the only one who feels this way.

please consider your tone when engaging in something that you are obviously very passionate about.

I really want to know if the producers of Orphan Black based the fundamentalist eastern european on cristina
http://orphanblack.wikia.com/wiki/Helena

i am personally pro-life.

that being said,i do not feel i have the right to judge another for decisions they make in regards to their own body.

i have personally escorted four women to have this procedure done and though i may have disagreed with their choices,i did,however,understand them.

their decisions weighed heavily on them.they struggled with the morality and consequences and ultimately the inevitable shame/guilt/regret.

i offered to escort these women not as a way to approve of their decision but rather to protect them from the usual throngs of judgmental,rabid fundamentalist christians that congregated at the few clinics that performed this procedure.

they behaved like anything BUT christians and the shame they attempted to project on my escortee (is that even a word?) should have been directed at themselves.

the long term effects of this choice leaves deep and long lasting scars and i have never met a woman who chose this procedure lightly.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
judge not lest ye be judged.

who are we to judge anothers path?
by what right do we reserve such moral authority?

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

@BoneRemake
i am a man of faith.
do you feel as strongly about me as you do @bobknight33.
do you speak about me in the same tone?

everything i do.
everything i say.
every minute of every waking hour is based on my faith.
is born from my faith.

maybe it is because of my faith i read bobs commentary different.
when he states that human morality has moved on from biblical morality..he is correct.

and i thought it very prescient of him to recognize that fact.

in his second commentary i watched him attempt to express how the picture had become so much larger..and grander,which only served to cement his faith even stronger.he was not dismissing science,he was incorporating it into his faith.

which some here viewed as a dodge.
now maybe that is due to a pre-conceived idea of who bob actually is.
if you think bob is a fundamentalist then yes..his commentary may seem a tad...off.

but if you see bob as a man of faith,then his comment revealed a curiosity and desire to understand and an absolute awe at the way of things unfolding before us.

if we look at science as the understanding of the physical universe by way of theory,testing and repeatable applications of said testing.then science is actually the search for god/creator (from a faith viewpoint).

were you aware that 60% of surveyed scientists regarded themselves as people of *gasp* faith?

i see a lot of people making assumptions and presumptions about other sifters here on this thread.

so you need to ask yourself one question:
how did you come to your assumption in regards to anothers:motivations,intent,feelings,faith?

what tool did you use?

was it a crystal ball?
ouija board?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and gain the super power of peering into another humans soul to discern their true intentions?

as humans we all assume to differing degrees,but if you are not a person of faith,then try to avoid those assumptions.

why not just ask bob?
he is usually gracious enough to interact with those he is full aware disagree with him..almost always.

ok.
enough ranting today.
you kids stay awesome,im off to get my pool ready !

Because most fundamentalists will say with 100% certainty that evolution doesn't happen, and everything that exists was created as it exists by Gawd 6000 years ago.
Evolution is not proof that there's no Gawd, it's only proof that the old testament is absolutely ridiculous when viewed as fact.
Most Christian fundamentalists don't see the evolution of Gawd from the old to new testament, as evidenced by the fact that they rail against things forbidden in the old testament and ignore the idea that Jebus erased all sin and re-wrote the "law" to read 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' as the most important and overriding law.

@dag
exactly my man!
thats why i found it ironic.i read this super depressing article and just hours later you post this incredibly positive and hopeful new project you are working on to filter creative ideas to combat the serious enviromental problems we are all facing.

and what i have been dealing with over the past few months i really needed that kind of hopeful message.

wish you had a team to battle ignorant local government officials and fundamentalist church clergy.

anyways..im tickled by this new project of yours.
you are pretty amazing my friend.