So we can't criticise Islam unless we live under a theocratic regime that doesn't allow us to criticise Islam?

Let me very clear. I believe that the vast majority of muslims (any figure would be a guess, but I'll go with at least 90%) are decent people who, deep down, are probably kinda embarrassed at some of the bullshit inherent in their religion (much as the majority of catholics are truly disgusted at their churchs handling of child rape cases).

But that does not stop me from criticising the ideology within the religion. This is not some hypothetical internet argument; the WHO estimates that 140 million girls have their genitals mutilated annually, most in the name of Islam. (I'm not even going to start on the socially accepted genital mutilation of males).

Finally, I take issue with the term "islamophobia", not because it's an *irrational* fear, but because it's a *fear*. I am not afraid of Islam. I object to parts of it on moral grounds.

So yeah, call me an "internet atheist" if you want. Unless you have some evidence to back up your specious little rant, I'm not interested.

You have no idea how scary freedom is boy. Who's going to stop me from slicing you up and using you as fertilizer? I'll take your head and feet as trophies and use the rest of you as sausage for my dogs.

Oh... I see, you'll ask a government to do that for ya, will ya? Good luck with that. You might not get caught in my traps, so long as that government is interested in you, which it's not. Com'on down my way son... we'll show ya what gummin't is all about.

Thanks for the warning. Stopped me from hitting play.

@renatojj
A government enforcing property rights and contracts and punishing fraud is a government intervening in the economy. Perhaps your pithy original comment wasn't meant to imply you actually wanted the government all the way out of the economy, but there was nothing there to stop me from reading it that way.

I don't think government is the whole society, but I also don't ascribe to your view of what government does. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Must have been Marx who said that.

The two main pillars of socialism are social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy. I'm sure you don't agree with the first one, but if you want to remove government from the economy, wouldn't that require 'cooperative management of the economy'? So, can I assume you are at least a half-socialist?

Having CNN cameras around is a great time to charge into your own house to go find your brother because no one else is. And when they stop you, you yell out "if you can stop me, then you can help".

There must be more to the story. Asking what the brother was like doesn't help.

I always ran from the cops when they tried to stop me at night when I was riding.

Tickets=0
riding through a treed trail in the moonlight=8

Breakfast at McDonald's looks more disgusting to me than anything I've ever dropped on the floor. Screw any 2/3/5/10-second-rule. Just wipe off any dirt you see and eat it already.

As kids, we used to eat fistfuls of sand, kiss our slobbering pets and lick some of the most disgusting surfaces, yet a spec of dirt is supposed to stop me from eating my sandvich? And how are we ever going to survive the robot apocalpyse if not for our system of mighty organs?

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

What we know is that she was declared dead, and became conscious when Jesus returned her to the light. It's possible that the staff made a mistake, and it's also possible that she was clinically dead. You are weighing this heavily on the mistake side because of your naturalistic presuppositions, yet there is no actual evidence backing it up. This is exactly how your naturalistic presuppositions will always distort the evidence you're looking at in favor of naturalistic conclusions. If you had evidence of the supernatural in front of you, you would never actually recognize it. It's what I mean when I say your worldview is like a pair of glasses you wear to interpret reality.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

This isn't a good analogy because it doesn't match the circumstances. It's the circumstances which give the testimony weight.

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

Is the truth important to you? IE, if the truth was contrary to all of your preconceived notions about reality, would you want to know it?

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything passed the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to.

What does it mean to be spiritual, to you? Would you be willing to pray to a non-existent God to help you with your unbelief?

My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

What is the solid foundation that your reality is resting on?

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable purely for the reason of faith that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, and person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled my far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

I don't expect you to believe something without any evidence; my point is that neither do you have any basis for doing the opposite. My earlier question was, how do you know you haven't been indoctrinated into your beliefs by the secular culture? For instance, if you believe that truth is determined by what we can sense, ie empiricism, how do you reconcile that with the problem of induction?

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.

I'm curious at what you mean by play at fantasy? Do you have an active imagination?

>> ^Sagemind:

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. (And nothing you can say will change that statement.) Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything past the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to. My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable, purely for the reason of faith, that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, any person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled me far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.




>> ^shinyblurry:

You're leaving at a few key details in your analysis here. Number one, according to her testimony she was declared dead at the hospital. You're saying this was all the result of a subconscious mind on guilt overload, but she didn't know that she was dead until after she experienced the NDE. When she got hit by the car, she was killed instantaneously. She believed that she was dead because, at the moment of impact, she was flung out of her body into a dark tunnel with demons gnashing at her. For her to be influenced by guilt would necessitate that she already knew what was going on, but she didn't until after the experience had already began. It wasn't as if she was laying there for a time, knowing she was about to die. It all happened in a moments time.
Second, she came back to life at the moment that Jesus saved her. When she called upon His name, He came and lifted her back into the light, and it was then that she regained consciousness in the hospital. Do you believe this is a coincidence?
Your explanation is plausible if your underlying presupposition is correct, that Jesus Christ is not alive, but you have no way of confirming that. There is no instrumentation which is going to confirm your explanation either. You really have no basis for ruling out the possibility that her testimony is true, in actuality. So why do you? Have you never experienced anything in all your life which tells you there could be a God out there?
To note, we're both looking at the same evidence, but we're interpreting it different. The reason we interpret it differently is because we both have certain presuppositions about reality, which you could call a worldview. A worldview is like a pair of glasses that you look through to view reality. Your presuppositions are like the prescription for those glasses, and if your presuppositions are faulty, your interpretation of what you see will lead you to faulty conclusions.
The main presupposition of atheists is that of atheistic naturalism. To an atheist, the things of the spirit are ruled out apriori, so therefore there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything. So, an atheist will completely miss any explanation which doesn't fit into naturalistic assumptions, because they are interpreting every evidence through a naturalistic lens. Your explanation here is that this woman is simply a victim of her own lifelong conditioning, which as I pointed out doesn't quite line up with the facts. If what she described is 100 percent true, you would never once reach that conclusion, because of those presuppositions. How do you know you're not simply the victim of lifelong conditioning towards naturalistic assumptions about reality? This is after all what we are taught in school, and which is reinforced in the culture, popular media, books, music, and the like.
>> ^Sagemind:
This sounds like a person who believed in God but didn't stand by the principles of religion. Then she had a close call/ near death experience which forced her to have a guilt overload.
During that overload, she experienced everything she knew in her sub-conscience, everything she had been taught about heaven and hell as she focused on her fears and guilt over the life she had lead.
I'll guarantee she she was brought up in a religious home and religion was a large part of her life, so that when this experience came, her fear of death, caused her to remember everything she had been indoctrinated with. Everything she is saying is true for her and is a sentimental retelling of her experience but this just shows you how fragile and influential the human brain is to ideas if the ideologies are ingrained enough.
I believe she saw and felt what she did, but I also believe what she experienced was a manifestation of indoctrination and fear influenced by guilt which had been ingrained into her during her years of upbringing.
This is why religion is a dangerous tool. It's very powerful and influential and can be used to as a tool to over-power a person's natural abilities to discern the differences between reality and fantasy.

>> ^braindonut:

Seriously? Mystery Spot blew your mind?
A coworker told me to go to Mystery Spot. So I did. I was completely unimpressed. Not a single illusion was actually impressive.
I will forever be labeled a humbug, I suppose. Fine! Humbug it is. But I will cast judgement down from my humbug tower. You can't stop me.

I'm with you on this. Tilted rooms and such simply look and feel tilted. I don't perceive any sort of cool illusion from them.

If they could make the room not feel tilted while being tilted, that would be something, but being in room that really is tilted simply doesn't do that for me.

>> ^braindonut:

Seriously? Mystery Spot blew your mind?
A coworker told me to go to Mystery Spot. So I did. I was completely unimpressed. Not a single illusion was actually impressive.
I will forever be labeled a humbug, I suppose. Fine! Humbug it is. But I will cast judgement down from my humbug tower. You can't stop me.


When I was a kid, my elementary school had a field trip to the Mystery Spot and I remember it blowing my mind too.

Looking back on it, I really think my teacher should have told us it was just a trick.

Seriously? Mystery Spot blew your mind?

A coworker told me to go to Mystery Spot. So I did. I was completely unimpressed. Not a single illusion was actually impressive.

I will forever be labeled a humbug, I suppose. Fine! Humbug it is. But I will cast judgement down from my humbug tower. You can't stop me.

Always loved how Brit use two syllables for the word "squirrel." While hosting a couple of cross-ponders on holiday in San Francisco, I was telling a story about a "squerl" ...The Brit stopped stopped me and asked, "A WHAT??!....OHHH, you mean "Squi-roooolll!"

Good job at attacking me and not my actual statement BTW.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

The police is more likely to be a threat so if you don't want citizens to carry guns then we have to get rid of armed officers too. I don't want anyone to have a gun but if you read what I said you might have noticed that I specified that gun rights are important in the situation we are in where known criminals in the police like the officer doing the detaining in this video are allowed to carry guns.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.