Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/9/10 05:26 PM, lapis wrote: Put out the barbecues, no Qur'ans are going to get burned on saturday, or at least not by the Dove Outreach people. Crisis averted or victory for terrorists worlwide?

Neither. It means a small group of people changed their mind on burning Qurans. Yup, pretty much nothing to talk about, now...

...until next year, when they plan on burning a Muslim on 9/11.

At 9/9/10 05:58 PM, Drakim wrote:
Really? You think that the street protest in Muslim nations that happens every odd month is Al-Qaeda? I just need to clear this up before I respond.

Street protests is not the equivalent of flying a plane into a tower or two. You can go ahead and create the slippery slope and say it can lead to it, but that's a... slippery slope. Again, that's going to be the natural reaction from anybody - given the same situation (the day set aside for Quran burning, in particular) most people, given an analogous situation, would respond similarly.

Again, stop overgeneralizing the situation.

Islamic people are offended by the Quran burnings, and a small, extreme portion are really, really offended by it, to the point where they want to inflict harm on the people responsible? Wow, that's a surprise. Wait, no it isn't - if I called your mother a hooker I'm pretty sure you'd be offended, as well, even if I am just one person out of over six billion saying it. That's a perfectly reasonable response to something like that.

(I don't know your mother, so obviously I can't make any such claim.)

That's how many/most religions respond to publicized sacrilege - get a group of people (however small you want - size doesn't matter) to dedicate a day to pissing on the Eucharist and you'll likely find some extremely upset Catholics on the issue demanding retribution (or simply doing everything they can to prevent the event from happening). Most don't kill people, granted, but then again most religions are not being brandished by the terrorists in the Middle East, either. Perhaps the terrorists are the people we should be admonishing, not the Muslims in general - I've heard of Muslims getting upset over something and even protesting against something, but I've only actually heard of extremists/terrorists actually killing people over it.

Now, if you were saying the terrorists should really change their ways I'd completely agree with you, but... well, that's not what you're saying. Applying the actions of a subgroup to the entirety and you'll be committing what most people would call 'over-generalization'.

Why are there three links to the same page? One is enough.

From the way people were posting in here, I thought there were calls to riots and a jihad against the cute puppy, or something. So far, what I can gather is that the Muslims involved told the chief of police that they were offended by the picture and explained why. The police chief is now more educated in the matter. That's about as civil as one can get. The words 'sparked outrage' are very likely a bias from the editor and not a representation of the truth, so I'm taking that part in with a grain of salt.

Most Christians are offended whenever, say, the female body isn't covered properly (excessive cleavage, risque exposure of thighs), and they have expressed their concern on the matter. They have every right to express their concern on the matter, and the person that is now aware of it may now dress differently as a response to the appeal or ignore it (which is their right to do). This scenario is no different from the scenario presented by the Muslims.

Move on people, there's nothing to see.

At 9/9/10 12:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Whoops. Forgot to explain...

At 9/4/10 07:15 PM, Gario wrote: As for the Relativist fallacy, I never saw that as a theist-atheist issue, so I never would've guessed it'd pop up here. It is fun to rip someone apart when they use relativism to it's extreme like that, though.

A lot of people classify their belief as a 'personal belief,' akin to an opinion (albeit a strong one), and sometimes go as far as explicitly saying that it's subjective. They of course, then use this to deflect any and all criticism on the basis that opinions are exempt from such a thing.

Ah, I see. Please tell me that anyone and everyone that uses this logic is ripped apart by the very fact that it contradicts the meaning of 'belief', in a religious context (you believe that your God is real/true, but at the same time you think it's 'just an opinion' to get yourself out of an argument... wait, what?). Alright, now I know what you're talking about.

At 9/6/10 12:57 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: What are you talking about Gario? He was merely proving the existence of faith.

I'm using my inner powers of projecting the future to explain where the argument is going to end up before it gets there, based on how I've seen this argument go down before.

IF he was just proving that faith exists then... well, that's not technically a point that needs to be argued. It's much easier to just get a sample of Christians and ask them 'Do you have faith?'. When they answer 'Yes', you've undeniably proven that faith exists.

Let me compress your argument, dillongunter, to it's inevitable conclusion, and you'll see why there isn't any point in arguing further.

'You all have faith that some things exist without 100% proof that anything exists outside of the existence of oneself (according to Descarte). Thus, it's not illogical to take that faith one step further and say there is a supreme being, either.'

That's a non sequitur statement. Everyone has faith that what they can sense and measure exists. Christians have faith that God exists. This does not logically reach the conclusion that everyone should have faith that God exists, since it's based on the assumption that if one has faith in one matter there is no harm to have faith in another (which isn't true).

After this, you'll respond:

'This doesn't prove that there's anything wrong with Christians believing that there is a God.'

Which sensible atheists should agree on (some don't, but they're as logically flawed as any radical fundamentalist theist argument, so I don't even consider them). This leads to this conclusion:

'I (and other Christians) have faith in God, and there's nothing wrong with that.'

The response will be:

'Fine; atheists do not have faith in God, and there's nothing wrong with that.'

This is also known as the 'Status Quo'. People can argue day and night on this, but ultimately the FSM argument proves that this is a pointless endeavor - the argument will never logically cave completely for Christians, and the logic will never cave completely for atheists (without solid proof, which most agree there isn't any). Hence why I said earlier that this is a pointless argument.

It makes me wish that they'd present more interesting topics in here that didn't involve the question of God's existence - then I might be interested in arguing theism to y'all. I doubt that'll happen, though - some people cannot get past the fact that some perfectly rational people will believe in a God without a logical reason (like me).

Warforger, there is an easier way to prove that Pascal's Wager is invalid without going through the lengths you're going. It's simple - the wager begs the question.

The four premises are presented neutral, but the costs assume that eternity exist. If God exists then the best case scenario is to believe, obviously, but if God doesn't exist and you live your life conforming to His will anyway then you have restricted your only existence, which is really quite a consequence. The original wager assumed that,in comparison to eternity, this was but a little cost, which is fallacious.

That wager is unfortunately terribly flawed, from a strictly logical point of view.

At 9/4/10 11:00 AM, Ganon-Dorf wrote: I will concede to you that Gario but I guess I wasn't really specific enough when I said that. What I meant was that everyone should be treated the same regardless of ethnicity or social standing.

'Equal-opportunity' is something that I respect quite a bit. 'Equal-distribution' is something that's quite a bit more questionable (and is what you're asking, here). If the individual, give the exact same circumstance as another, is outperforming his colleagues, why wouldn't you give him random rewards for their good performance? This has been proven to encourage good behavior without the person becoming dependent on the rewards for their particular behavior, so productivity is increased. More productivity from the high functioning individuals = more output into the society that the person is providing for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_
wager

As for the Relativist fallacy, I never saw that as a theist-atheist issue, so I never would've guessed it'd pop up here. It is fun to rip someone apart when they use relativism to it's extreme like that, though.

At 9/4/10 01:32 AM, dillongunter wrote: hola! Thought this would be a cool place to post seeing as religion is one of my interests. Do any other theists post here?

Probably, but no sensible theist would argue religion with the atheists in here. Read the topic name and try to post an argument that doesn't end in 'Well, we simply have faith in God/Bible/Tradition!'... hence why I'm not arguing God's existence here (which is all atheists seem to be interested in... alas, how limited).

For shits and giggles, I'll summarize the thread, where I'm sure it's been and where I'm sure it'll go.

1.) Do you believe in God and why/why not?
Answer:
Yes, I do. There is no evidence, but I have faith in it.
-or-
No, I don't. There is no evidence, and I don't have faith in it.
IF a Christian (or whatever theist) tries to argue that there is evidence for Him, they will be shot down by the fact that there are other explanations to explain a particular phenomena.

2.) Why do you believe in God?
Answer:
That's a redundant question. The desired (and correct) answer is simple - the person has simple faith in Him. It's a redundant question because, by definition, 'faith' means you believe without a reason... so what's really being asked is 'What is the reason you believe without a reason?', which is stupid. The sooner people can get over that fact, the sooner people will stop asking that pointless question.

3.) Creationism or Evolution...?
Answer:
Evolution. (for both Theists and Atheists)
For the Christians that chose Creationism, that's simply incorrect, even for Christians. It has been shown not to disprove the existence of God in any way, so why are people still getting their pants wet over it?

Everything else can be reduced to point 1.) and point 2.), given enough time in the arguments. That's why no sensible theist should post in here.

I wish I could start a new topic about this. However, rules are rules, so for the people that check out new music on here...

HURRY! A Final Fantasy X Impossible Remix Album

This is an unofficial remix project from OCRemix. org, dedicated to a single track on FFX. Details on the project (history, purpose, bios, etc.) are on the page.

It's free. It's FFX music. I see no reason not to download it.

CURSE YOU, LACK OF EDIT BUTTON! It seems the 'doublepost' is the only way to respond to a ninja, so here I go...

At 9/3/10 12:00 PM, MrFlopz wrote:
If someone claims to know that there is no God, you can say that person doesn't believe in God.

"I believe there is no God" implies "I do not believe in God"

but

"I do not believe in God" does not imply "I believe there is no God"

I see it as one being a subcategory of the other. It's just that some people define atheism as the small subcategory that only a few fall under.

You can see it as such, but that doesn't help that it over-complicates the definition when you were trying to make it as simple as possible. Since you agree that 'I believe there is no god' is NOT the same as 'I don't believe in a god', classifying each under the same definition will cause understandable confusion.

Again...
"This would only serve to complicate the matter further. These are very much different statements that are the very crutch of this entire debate."

At 9/3/10 11:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/3/10 11:22 AM, Gario wrote: 'There is no god' has no place within the State, while 'I don't believe in a god' fits in very well within the concept of separation of Church and State.

I would disagree. They both have no place in the separation of church and state.

If the state were either to say: There is no god, or I do not believe in God, it is taking a stance. The whole idea of secularism is that the state exists in a position where it makes no stance. A secular body exists in a sphere where religion is of no consequence, not where religion does not exist. It doesn't "not believe" it just doesn't think of religion at all. Instead of saying "I don't believe in a god" it wouldn't say anything. That's the difference between atheism and secularism. Our government is supposed to be secular, not atheist.

Hmm... perhaps you're right - I've gotten lost in all the semantic argument, here, and lost sight of the OP. The OP was talking about the separation of a non-religious stance and the state (which, you'd agree, doesn't make a lick of sense), and I've simplified it by saying 'atheist' (non-theist). The argument from the atheists seem to support that atheism isn't actually a stance more than it being a lack of a stance (because they don't care enough to form an opinion, or whatever), in which case it isn't wrong to claim that the very purpose of 'separation' is an 'atheistic' one. If 'Secularism' is a better word for that, then I'm all for using that instead. It does, at the very least, lack that dual meaning that everyone is getting tangled on.

I could try to argue that 'atheism' has a very similar meaning, but instead I'll vouch we just use the word 'Secular' and be done with it; it just seems to be a more concise word, in the end. It doesn't have the implications of believing there is no god, either.

Didn't think I'd post in here, seeing as anyone who believes in any 'theism' must accept that it's an illogical position to hold, and thus no meaningful debate can form from it.

"There isn't any logical reason to believe in a god."
"I know that."
"Why do you, then?"
"I accept that there isn't a logical reason, but I have faith that it's right (which, by definition, means the person accepts that there isn't any proof for it, yet believes anyway)."
"But there isn't any proof!"
"But I have faith!"
"But..."
etc. ad nauseum. It's pointless rabble from both sides.

NONETHELESS, I have a question, for all you atheists here (and I don't think I can post it elsewhere without debunking a topic). I've seen the term 'Atheism' being tossed around as meaning 'One who doesn't believe in god'. That's perfectly acceptable. However, some people (I heard it from Imperator and Poxpower, so far, but I'm sure others hold this understanding, as well) take this definition to mean 'One who doesn't believe in a particular god', which doesn't make any sense to me. Why even make a word for it, at all? There are other words that imply this same thing, namely 'Monotheism' (the belief in a single god) & Polytheism (the believe in more than one god), and there is already a name for one who believes in every god, namely 'Universalism' (which would be the name of a 'Polytheist' who believes in every god, so there would be no need to define a 'Polytheist' that was 'atheistic' towards other gods).

Claiming that every person that believes in a religion (say, Christians, for example) and is atheistic towards others is the equivalent to saying someone who is Monotheistic (believes in one God) is also atheistic (doesn't believe in any god, OR doesn't believe in a particular god, which is a redundant point, so I'm not normally going to use that definition). Why are you guys bothering defining 'atheism' as such when it's a redundancy at best (and a nonsensical statement, at worst)?

At 9/2/10 07:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/2/10 07:15 PM, Gario wrote: By the way, Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know if an ultimate creator exists, and therefore do not believe on that account.

Not necessarily. You took that definition a step too far.

Oops. You're right - Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know if an ultimate creator exists, but that does not necessarily mean the person believes or doesn't believe. Ironic that I still got it wrong, after all that, lol.

MrFlopz, don't bother. It's been mulled over again and again, and it seems people (read: jlwelch) don't quite get it. Note that you ARE combining two separate definitions in your description when you say...

"An atheist may either say that "there is no God" or "I do not believe in God"."

This would only serve to complicate the matter further. These are very much different statements that are the very crutch of this entire debate. 'There is no god' has no place within the State, while 'I don't believe in a god' fits in very well within the concept of separation of Church and State.

At 9/3/10 12:48 AM, Ganon-Dorf wrote: I don't feel that I'm any more or less of a person that an Ethiopian villager is, they don't have the same opportunities that we have and their society is completely different...

'Nature vs Nurture'
Despite common belief, 'Nature' turns out to be a far more significant factor in the abilities of a person than 'Nurture', according to studies made in the last two or three decades.

What does that have to do with your comment? You're arguing that given the exact same circumstances, the Ethiopian villager would prove to be equally successful as you may or may not be, while you'd fair equally to the Ethiopian if you were in his/her shoes. According to science, though, given that you can function better than the Ethiopian as of now, you would most likely rise above what the Ethiopian would achieve, given the exact same circumstances... Of course, the Ethiopian may actually be a pretty high functioning individual (you didn't really specify), so you could also perform worse than that person, given the circumstances.

In short, no - people are not equal, even when given the exact same circumstances. Does that make you (or the Ethiopian) any less of a person? Not when it comes to a raw definition of the term 'person', but that does not make you 'equal' to the Ethiopian, either (or vice versa).

Instead of assuming you know what you're talking about, let's ask Warforger if what you're saying is true.

Hey Warforger! Clear this up for us - are you talking about people that believe there is no god, people that don't believe there is a god, or people that believe you cannot know if there is a god or not?

:Not believing IS the same as believing there isn't unless you are saying you don't believe one way or the other, which is what an agnostic does.

In 1960, no one believed in the existence of black holes, but no one believed that black holes didn't exist, either. In the 70's, the concept of black holes were introduced, and now there were people that believed they existed. While there were still people that didn't believe that black holes existed, there were now people that believed that black holes didn't exist due to impossibilities in the formulas involving light and such, strange occurrences that were implied by their existence, etc., and they actively resisted those that believed that they did exist. There are three groups of people that are involved in this theory - those that believe in their existence, those that don't believe in their existence, and those that believe in their non-existence. Only two of them have any active part in this - those that believe in their existence and those that believe in their non-existence. Those that don't believe that they exist have absolutely nothing to do with it, and thus ignore the situation entirely. I don't think anyone can make the point any clearer that not believing and believing that something is not are two very different things - if you don't get it, then you just can't handle it.

By the way, Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know if an ultimate creator exists, and therefore do not believe on that account. It is not the same as simply 'not believing' that a creator exists (and is certainly not the same as 'believing it doesn't exist').

It'd be nice if you could even get that definition right. Minute differences are significant.

Also, I was talking to Poxpower with that last comment, not you. Of course your definition is valid, considering that I've agreed that it was earlier - that was never my concern with you. Read the posts before you intervene with your ignorance, please.

At 9/2/10 03:26 PM, jlwelch wrote:
"someone who denies the existence of god"

Warforger's definition of it, not yours.

"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

Includes both your definition AND Warforger's.

"A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods; A person who believes that no gods or deities exist"
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

Again, both your definition AND Warforger's.

"atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Your definition.

"atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Warforger's definition.

"An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove".
jewishscientist.wordpress.com/definition s/

Warforger's definition.

"atheism - A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]"
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

Your definition.

"atheism - Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God".
www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm

Warforger's definition.

This is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of you being uneducated on this topic. An atheist is one who believes there is no god.

There are TWO definitions being tossed in there that you're completely ignoring. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but seriously - you are talking about the BELIEF that there is no god, in which case it IS a religion that is as unbased and unprovable as any other religion (and therefore should be separated from the state). Warforger is talking about not believing in any god, or in anything at all (that includes the belief that there is no god), so it can hardly count as a religion, as you're describing it (and, in fact, pushes the philosophy behind the Separation of Church and State).

You're right, we're not arguing semantics, since that would actually imply that you knew the meaning of what the other person was talking about. You don't have a chance at this argument - I recommend you leave it alone now before you dig yourself into a deeper ditch.

Really? What about Websters. What about Princeton. Dumbass.

They've defined it in both ways. Good job at making yourself look even more like an ass.

"All that being an Atheist entails is not believing in any gods". RIGHT! Atheists believe there is no god! That is the point! And since this belief cannot be proven more than any other religion, it too is a religion.

You're both wrong. Being an atheist can entail either a non-belief in a god or a belief that there is no god. The word is used interchangeably.

Claiming that 'not believing' is the same as 'believe there isn't' is asinine, though. Stop that, if you can help it.

At 9/2/10 04:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Ok then, does that mean that not believing in mermaids is a religion?
Does that mean not believing Babe Ruth was an alien is a religion?

No, that's crazy talk. Atheist isn't even a useful word, all it does is desribe what someone DOESN'T think and DOESN'T believe. The only reason it exists is because of the prevalence of religion, otherwise there wouldn't be a word for it just like there's no word for people who don't believe penguins can really fly but they just do it when no one's looking.

Yeah, if religion wasn't prevalent then it wouldn't be useful, much like if atomic theory wasn't prevalent the 'proton' wouldn't be a useful word, either. Most people believe in their illogical religions, though, so the (relatively) few that don't believe in any religion do need a special label to identify themselves as such.

You're right that not believing in something is different that believing that something isn't true. You're wrong to assume that the meaning of the term can be extracted to mean individual deities. Atheist implies that you don't believe in any god; I've honestly never seen it used in the manner you're using it (except, of course, on Newgrounds) actually meaning you don't believe in any single god (I've heard the argument that 'everyone is a little bit atheist' being tossed around on here, which... doesn't make much sense, according to simple dictionary terms and the common use of the word). If someone believed in at least one deity, they'd be classified completely differently - monotheistic or polytheistic. It makes no sense to say the person believes in no gods and believes in one/many gods (which is precisely what you're saying when you claim that a Christian is 'atheistic' towards all other gods but one) - they're mutually exclusive terms, as I understand it.

Unless you can provide somewhere that defines the term as such (other than other Newgrounds members), you're making as little sense as the person that proclaims that atheism exclusively means the belief that there is no god. I am curious where you get your definition, around here, since this is the first place where I've heard it defined as such.

I think there is more confusion about the term floating around than we all suspect. I can't even say if I'm right on it or not, anymore, which is why I'm continuing this 'semantics' discussion :|

At 9/2/10 09:48 AM, satanbrain wrote:
yes. jews who hate atheists are not any better.

Hmm... if this was an answer that made any sense I'd continue the discussion. However...

At 9/2/10 11:25 AM, jlwelch wrote:
THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF SEMANTICS OR OPINION! THIS IS A MATTER OF FACTS! The definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in god. This is not an issue of terminology, it is an issue of fact. Stop trying to defend someone who is clearly not educated enough to be talking here, you're smarter than that.

...

Semantics:
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

By definition, you are arguing semantics, as much as you don't want to be. It's glaringly obvious that there is more tha one definition of atheism being used, here, considering every atheist I've seen on this forum has defined it as Warforger and Poxpower have. I have seen it appropriately used the way you define it as well, jlwelch, so you're not 100% incorrect in your usage, either.

The problem is that you are assuming everyone will use the term exactly as you are using it and trying to debunk an argument based on that fact. That is called the Psychologist's Fallacy, and is a logical hole in your argument. Oddly enough, the fact that Warforger is doing the same thing to you means his argument is just as invalid against you, but you're the one who responded to me, so... yeah. If one side could swallow their pride for the sake of this argument and just agree to define it one way or another we might run into some intelligent discourse...

Again, stop... arguing... semantics...

Poxpower, I have seen it defined as jlwelch is defining it elsewhere by atheists, so it isn't solely religious people that use it as such. In the context of this forum it seems that your definition is the one that's accepted, but don't forget that the world is a pretty big place - other atheists outside your circle of acquaintances accept that definition without a problem.

At 9/1/10 08:06 PM, jlwelch wrote:
There are NOT two definitions, dictionary.com is incorrect. An AGNOSTIC is one who simply believes "There may be a god and there may not be". THAT is what definition b) is, certainly not an atheist. I challenge you to find an atheist in real life that believes in a god. It would be like finding a vegetarian who loves veal.

I understand your position, seeing as that's how I've defined these terms for years (and continue to do so). However, you're arguing with Warforger when it's obvious that he's using your definition of 'Agnosticism' as the one for atheism, so ignoring that fact and arguing as if he's defining 'atheism' like you are is pointless garbage. Again, you both are playing the ambiguity card to prolong the pointless argument.

Also, technically you'd be very hard pressed to find an 'agnostic' that believes in any god, too, considering that they all do not believe in any god by definition. Gnostics hold the same philosophy and believe in some sort of supreme being... you compressed the two beliefs in your definition.

As for dictionary.com... well, perhaps that's not the best source on the planet, but it SHOULD be obvious from the people that have been posting in here that 'atheism' is holding more than one meaning. I was reprimanded by Imperator for using 'atheism' like you are a few pages ago, so it's obvious that at least a few atheists are using the term differently than you.

This isn't a matter of semantics, but of knowing the definition of the very terms being discussed. Perhaps I was mistaken to assume my debate opponent was aware of what he was talking about before he started talking.

Perhaps you should just accept that people are using the terminology differently before you enter an argument. It's pointless to drag over the very minor details of proper word definition, in terms of an actual argument. Again, stop arguing over semantics, please.

At 9/1/10 05:27 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 9/1/10 12:24 AM, Warforger wrote:

How does the "You can't disprove it!" argument make any logical sense? You can't tear down a house that doesn't exist yet, because you don't need too, same here, you haven't proved a god exists so why should atheists be expected to disprove something that will never be proven?

The you cannot disprove it argument makes PERFECT sense exactly as written. Atheism directly states that there is no creator, no god. Since they cannot prove it, it is something a multitude of people take on faith, just like any other religion's belief system. Therefore, atheism is a religion. Separation of Church and state therefore MEANS separation of atheism and state by its very definition. Use your head!

I think I mentioned before that there are two definitions of 'Atheism' at least in dictionary.com (and, presumably, in other dictionaries as well). It is defined as either a.) The belief that there is no god, or b.) The non-belief that there is a god. jlwelch is arguing point a.) while being refuted by point b.), when in fact neither points share anything in common except the name.

Oddly enough, both of you are RIGHT. IF we're talking about the belief that there is no god then yes, separation of Church and State applies to atheism, and that 'atheism' could arguably be considered a religion since it is the belief that there is no god. IF we're talking about the non-belief in a god then the whole concept of separation of Church and State is purely an atheistic one, and thus it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about 'separation of atheism and state'. Also, atheists (as defined by point b) are not about proving the non-existence of a god, since they see the burden of proof to be on the shoulders of people that are actually taking a stand on a belief, not upon the people that don't give a shit.

Arguing solely on the base of semantics is stupid. Let's try to understand what each person is talking about and form our debates around the material rather than equivocate the arguments because of the words being used.

At 9/1/10 01:25 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 9/1/10 12:00 PM, Gario wrote: As for the original topic of debate, even IF the Quran was a compilation of bigotry, hatred and belligerence, what gives you the right to take away their freedom to practice their religion wherever they chose? It's not like there aren't other religions that preach the exact same message, right?

that is why it should be taken from them.

AHA!! Now we've reached the core of your argument! If you or the majority of America doesn't like the way one practices his/her religion we should take their right to practice it away, correct?

The majority of Americans don't like how Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or Pastafarians practice their religions, either... for the sake of the argument, should America revoke their right to practice their religion, as well? If not, then explain why.

When you're done with that, you'll either show that you're at least consistent (even if extremely radical and asinine) in your opinion and thus have a place to continue our discussion from, or we'll have an argument to present against you're desire to take the rights away from the Muslim people. Of course, you could just leave the argument entirely, realizing it was a stupid argument to make in the first place and admit you were wrong, but I don't see you doing that.

Your move, satanbrain.

At 9/1/10 01:25 PM, satanbrain wrote:
so jews are liars, perverse people? that is intolerance? reaching to heaven is through punishing jews?

It never talked about Jews, or even Christians. Ever. What are you even talking about, at this point?

And no, I'm not going to read an entire holy text just for the sake of proving you wrong. I have better things to do with my time, surprisingly.

You're so funny, satanbrain. Anyone could rip quotes out of any religious text to make the religion sound intolerant of everyone else.

Hmm... just a quick glance over the text provided in your link, here...

Alright, so the beginning of the second chapter (2:1-15, possibly more than that) is all about people who are liars and perverse people, so Allah is explaining how their lies won't go unpunished. The link you provided extracts every angry response of Allah to these people without the context that these people were evil, from the start. That... isn't intolerance. The text more or less explains the result of people that try to lie their way into 'Heaven' (or whatever it is for Islam).

Alright, so if that's intolerant then, supposedly, if someone is going to touch a hotplate and an observer tells him that he'll be burned that observer is intolerant of the moron that's going to touch the hotplate? No, most people would call that a warning, which is what much of the second chapter in the Quran was giving out to those that don't believe. I'm not going to read the entire Quran to point out the terrible out-of-context nature of the link you've provided, but I feel safe to assume that most (if not all) of it is equally misrepresented.

As for the original topic of debate, even IF the Quran was a compilation of bigotry, hatred and belligerence, what gives you the right to take away their freedom to practice their religion wherever they chose? It's not like there aren't other religions that preach the exact same message, right?

I wonder if there would even be a debate if these guys were setting up their church/community building in that exact same place...

At 8/28/10 10:13 AM, Gunner-D wrote:
How did you disprove that people who believe in conspiracies are not idiots?
When did I announce that anyone who does not believe in conspiracy theories are idiots?

You're misunderstanding the entire point of the thread. You're going on tangents that people have already defined as tangents (and not on topic). I'm just pointing to your often gross misuse of the English language to further prove that there is at least one person who believes in conspiracy theories and is an idiot.

Also...

:No. Don't be a dumbass American.

That's when you called non-Conspiracy theorists idiots, specifically, in response to this...

:Seriously, don't. Do not lower the IQ of this thread by bringing up assinine 9/11 conspiracies. There are tons of these threads already in existence. Please post this gibberish there.

Hope that jogs your memory.

No. I didn't fly down to insult people. I was actually bringing up a valid point about the growing REASONABLE DOUBT in condemning the terrorist hijackers for all of the destruction during 9-11-01. That happens to be the central issue of this debate... condemning militant Islam.

As has been pointed out before, that has nothing to do with this thread. Stop talking about it here.

But, as always, entertaining ideas that are not inline with corporate headline news dogma tends to be frightening to some boys in this forum. And then they start to insult my intelligence and begin to start picking apart my English.

"They" as in "I". I think I'm the only one tearing your spelling and grammar apart, here, so don't get them involved, eh?

I'd love to talk about your conspiracy theories, but this is not the thread to do it in. That's why people are getting upset.

Do you ever think that snobs like yourself are the reason why NG political forums are moving so slow these days?

I wouldn't know. I've only been on here for a few days.

Clearly, it was an attempt to surface your habits of temple worship. As a religious church goer in support of the mosque, you may Islam appealing. Calibrating your bias, you know?

... what? I'd point out the grammatical errors in this, but I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say.

At 8/28/10 01:40 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

:You can read. And interpret. Great. The basis of your argument against me is my grammatical errors. Shuv it buddy, I can deal with that from my professors and bosses. I don't need your red pen editing.

I'm poking further holes in your intelligence because you came in here and announced that anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories (read: nearly everyone) are idiots (which implies that someone who does believe these things are not idiots). While poking fun at your intelligence may not disprove that people that don't believe in conspiracy theories are idiots, it'll disprove that people who believe in them are not.

Don't fly down and insult everyone and I won't correct you're grammatical errors. Sound fair?

And what I'm saying has to do with a mosque? Is that really the issue?

Yeah, it pretty much is the issue - why are people denying the Muslims their mosque when they have the right to put one there?

:Or is it the symbol that this mosque supposedly portrays?

You mean freedom of religion? If so then yeah, that too I guess. It doesn't need to be an 'exclusive/or' argument, really.

:Muslims are open game in this country... we can talk shit about them all we want. Islamophobia is not taboo yet.

It is a sign of degeneration in a society, but no, it's not taboo. Using bigotry as an excuse to repeal the 1st amendment is a bit strange, though.

I think all the rational people can agree that the building of the Mosque should not be stopped... unless one believes that Islam as a religion should be opposed. And those people are called bigots.

You're probably right. Unfortunately, that would mean the majority of America are irrational bigots...

...

...yeah, you're probably right.

None of you go to church, now fucking stop talking about religions you have no fucking clue about.

I go to church. Don't overgeneralize too quickly - not all rational people are atheists, believe it or not. Also, this has little to do with this topic... why would something like that even matter?

At 8/28/10 12:55 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

:How many of Muslims do you think follow the preachings and "audio recordings" of Osama bin Laden? My guess is not very many.

Agreed.

Let me ask you this as well, how many Muslims around the world you think believe 9-11 was facilitated by United States government agencies as a false flag attack? My guess is very many.

Um... I think we'll need to see some numbers on that one. Otherwise it's probably an incorrect guess from you. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

:The only way you can win an argument against the tide of growing disbelief in the official U.S. government story of 9-11 events and expanding world opinion that the 9-11 events are not fully explained the '911 Commission" report... is to slander my IQ (which I'm sure you have little idea of the depth of my "intelligence" and have no scale on which to measure the "quotient" you have begun to judge my upon).

No one is arguing for/against the 'growing tide of disbelief' in official U.S. government stories, that's why people are claiming you're being an idiot.

As for 'not having a scale' to measure your intelligence, we always COULD use the Spearman g-factor scale, if you'd like to measure your intelligence... but that's something for you to do in your own time. Also, judge me upon, not judge my upon.

You try to defend the mosque. That is histerical to me. Maybe you should jump on the first amendment bandwagon instead of having a baseless argument against many Americans' emotional outcry against its construction.

Hysterical, not histerical.

Also, what does anything you've said have to do with the mosque? Honestly? I appreciate that it's pretty fresh compared to the recycled arguments that have been tossed around in here, but they also have very little to do with the mosque.

Has anyone noticed that in every poll presented in this thread there isn't a representation of the Muslim opinion, at all? That's a pretty significant number to leave out, considering it's a mosque that they're building, there, but who cares about what they think, I guess...