Slashdot Mirror

This may come across as a troll, but I promise it's not. I'm looking for a genuine discussion on something.

From the small amount of reading I've done, it seems that the Koran is pretty clear: Islam requires non-Muslims to convert or pay tax or be killed:

http://infidelsarecool.com/200...

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religio...

So it seems to me like all fully observant Muslims are required to engage in, or at least approve of, this behavior.

If that's true, then:

(1) Why do so many Muslims renounce such violence? Is it that they can't stomach what appears to be this straight-forward interpretation of the Koran?

(2) If there is some alternative, justifiable interpretation of the Koran, why aren't governments fighting that propaganda war? Does the fact that they're not doing so indicate that no such justifiable interpretation exist?

Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day?

Not to belittle the contribution the US makes to the world, or the generosity of individual US citizens (which I'm sure is pretty similar to the generosity of individuals everywhere), but I think you'd be surprised how little the US gives, as a proportion of it's overall economy, compared to the rest of the developed world.

Have a look at the following link:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html#Aid

As you can see, as a proportion of GDP, the US gives less aid than Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Portugal, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, the UK, Finland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Greece and Japan. That's based on figures from 2005, and includes government, private and corporate donations. The site also criticizes the US for tying nearly 90% of aid given to products produced in the US- compare to other countries that do the same trick with less than 10% of aid given.

That site also ranks countries on a variety of other factors, from economic competitiveness, environmental cleanliness, gender equality and quality of life. It makes for interesting reading. It should be noted that the US doesn't exactly dominate many of these categories.

Well... we, in the UK, have faith-based schools - sorry "Academies" - that are basic paid out of the public coffers that gives - with a relatively nominal contribution - private individuals unprecedented control over the running of the school - sorry "Academy".

Take a look at http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/faithschools.html section 6.1.

Don't worry my Trans-Atlantic friend! As usual where America leads we shall follow!

It took 2 minutes with Google to find these:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/intelligence.html

I didn't see anything supporting the opposite conclusion.

Stop doing your research in Christian publications (yes, most dictionaries meet that standard... especially English dictionaries.) Do your research in the atheist community. The definitions of Christians applied to atheists are inherently invalid and biased.

Now, instead of the little "sound bites" you get from these dictionaries, do some real work: A good starting point would be if you read George H. Smith's scholarly "Atheism - The case against God", 340 plus-pages of actual research, exposition and background. And of course, this work includes the correct definition of atheism (on page 7.)

Or here, or here, or here (though as usual, in Wikipedia, this article is badly tainted by the opinions and errors of non-atheists... it still lays out the idea and a close approximation of the boundaries), or here, or here, or here, or here, or here. And in tons more, just go google it. On the one hand, you will find the atheist community, repeatedly explaining what the situation actually is. On the other, you will find religionists (and many agnostics), trying to apply a set of outlooks to a set of people who do not agree that they hold said outlook.

You'll note that these sources pretty much all treat the subject in some detail, explaining not only what is, but why. These sources come from the atheist community, and when an atheist tells you what they stand for, you're a lot better off taking them at their word and intent than you are trying to fit some religionist's preconceptions on top of what they actually think. But it is, after all, your call. You certainly won't be alone; religionists (and again, many "agnostics") try really hard to misconstrue the atheist position. it is pretty obvious why they do so. In the case of the religionists, they want to apply the idea of faith to the entire set of atheists, when this only applies to the hard atheist subset. They do this in order to try and demonstrate that "faith" is "required" to take the atheist view, when the actual situation is that this argument only applies to the hard athiests — of whom, by the way, I have met very few. In the case of agnostics, they do this so as to try to stake out an imaginary middle ground between belief and lack of belief. There is no such middle ground, and agnostics are upset by this idea because, I think, they're trying to avoid the issue. This can always be resolved by a simple question: Do you believe in a god or gods, or not? The answer is "I do" or "I don't", and the answer clearly defines one who embraces theism (theist) and one who does not embrace theism (atheist.)

I am atheist. I hold absolutely no belief in a god or gods, nor do I ever expect to, nor do I ever expect to run into any evidence to the contrary that would cause me to embrace the idea that the idea of a god or gods rises above the standard of any other fairy tale. Given the complete and utter lack of evidence made available to me to date, my confidence that the idea of a god or gods is a completely human construct is extremely high. None of this is disbelief. It is lack of belief. I find the cup of evidence to be empty. Like any assertion for which no evidence can be found, asking for belief is asking far too much. Is the idea interesting? Certainly. Is it entertaining? Yes, that too. Is it woven throughout history? Yes. Has it affected the course of human lives? Sure. Should I therefore pay attention to it? Indubitably. Might it affect my own life? Yes indeed. Does any of this make t

USA is the source of 1/4 of the worlds pollution... If the US changed paths, they could probably make the other countries follow.

USA: 24%
EU: 14%
China: 13%

Total: 51%

source

The US is already investing trillions in foreign aid. Why the fuck should we be required to pay more?

The US is supposed to pay UN dues, just like everyone else. Pity they don't. You could always try paying your dues before complaining.

How much of the UN's work is created by the US's interventions in other sovereign nations? I'd say that you are getting a hell of a lot more than you are paying for, and certainly more than you deserve. Shame on you people!

The US is supposed to pay UN dues, just like everyone else. Pity they don't. You could always try paying your dues before complaining.

How much of the UN's work is created by the US's interventions in other sovereign nations? I'd say that you are getting a hell of a lot more than you are paying for, and certainly more than you deserve. Shame on you people!

New Missing Link found! http://www.vexen.co.uk/holyshit/mudskipper.html

Dogma sucks. Always. Regardless of who is eating or regurgitating it.

Going by from what I have found in my own research...

Evolution by itself *is* just a theory (a hypothesis with support). We have observed evolution: that is a fact. We have observed speciation by evolution: that is also a fact. We have oodles of historical information which suggests evolution occured, and which would allow for speciation to have occured: that is a fact, too. There is not an overwhelming amount of historical evidence that speciation by evolution *was* the dominant means for the creation of new species; in other words, there aren't colossal numbers of near-identical fossils with only very tiny intermediate changes. We have very few direct observations of any kind of rapid, sudden, severe evolutionm, which might explain historical speciation. It is quite likely that many, many fossils are lost; only a scant numbers of fossils will stay preserved this long. It is also quite likely that evolution happens much more quickly from severe natural disasters (if we see a few new species with much better adaptation of water from the recent tsunami, I will not be surprised).

Creationism by itself is *just* a hypothesis (a suggestion which would become a theory with adequate support). There is historical evidence of many things in the bible being true; however, that does not imply that the biblical story of creationism carries any weight. If someone could come up with data that would suggest that the immediate results of such a creation process are clearly present within the history of the early universe, creationism could qualify as a theory.

You have to be careful with calling something a "fact." There are very few general facts about evolution. One is, "We have observed evolution and speciation by evolution in controlled environments." Another is, "There is overwhelming historical evidence to suggest evolution and speciation have occured." Theories are never facts (except in pure mathematics), but facts can support theories, and theories can be used to design new experiments which will create more relevant facts.

I do not know, off of the top of my head, if the formal definition of evolution is worded like, "Small changes in organisms lead to adaptation to their environment" (implying always), or, "Small changes in organisms could lead to adaptation in their environment" (implying that this is a possibility, but not a requirement). The first is a theory stated as a law, the second is a theory stated as a possible explanation. I'm assuming that, when most people refer to evolution, they refer to the suggestion that evolution, as an explanation, ought to be taken as a law, based on the Wikipedia entry for Evolution, which states, 'The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.'

Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable. An all-powerful God could, of course, spontaneously create a Universe, complete with a history of dinosaurs, and complete with planets shooting away from each other as if there had once been a big bang; this suggests that, if the Universe is really only a few thousand years old, God has a great sense of humor.

However, if the creation story is intended to be a metaphor, then who cares? Comparing known scientific data with a literary metaphor means nothing, because a metaphor is just a literary device used to describe the nature of something else. Of course, some could argue that it is an inaccurate metaphor, because of the way we are interpreting our translation of the original Jewish text.

remember , its not just how much energy we need , but how clean is it. For example the United States should follow the protocol of Kyoto . I know other countries are also polluting at a high rate , but the US as 'the world leader' its supposed to be should give the example in this matter.
And about the amount of energy needed , I have no idea about actual trends in consumption , but if the idea is to give every family in this world a microwave ,tv set, dishwasher and bread toaster , I think we still need more energy. ;)

Who would have guessed that China would lead the way in green transportation?

Indeed, how could those stupid, filthy chinese be more civilized than God's Chosen People in any way...??

The United States is notorious for ignoring the actions of global organizations, even ones they fought to create. If they were to receive a third grade report card they'd receive low marks in the "plays well with others" category.

Let's see, there's the invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the U.N.) and withdrawl from the Kyoto Protocol to name a couple.

Intertesting... but...

Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5

-That's true - the US does prop up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Jordan, etc.

also most us aid goes on marketing of cigarettes, fronts for humint staff, scouting of territory for mcdonalds and extorting slave labour for the gap.

--2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

-See above. Not to mention the "military help" we're about to give Iraq!

or the help you gave kosovo, or the people who need it like suharto, pinoche, etc

--3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

-Which people are those? Hell, in the last presidential election, they didn't even bother to count all the votes.

the us is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy.

--4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?

-One of the best things about America, and Europe, and our culture. I think we're way ahead of everyone on this one. Good call.

but is there truly equal pay and equal opportunity for advancement for both men and women?

--5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?

-Well, "get along" might be pushing it. But America is one of the most tolerant and liberal cultures in the world. Now if we can just keep the "conservatives" from destroying it.

most americans are great in person no matter theirt politics. but your leaders are a corrupt gang of thugs and killers who are lining their own pockets with the blood of millions.

--6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

-Bill Gates was a "common" class person? Wasn't he a rich kid that went to Harvard? A few working class folks do win the lottery every year.

people who wil lotteries almost always regret it and end up in a worse position than when they started. steve jobs is a uni dropout who runs one of the coolest companies on earth. who would you rather be?

--7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

-The schools for poor kids in America are horrible, Europe has us well beat on this one. We need to work harder. Let's show those snotty Europeans - let's triple school funding until we catch up.

europe is excellent. so much more depth and feeling of community here than in the us. i am sad for countries like australia that have been wavign the us flag so hard it must hurt, and iraq turned around and cancelled half a billion in wheat orders, pointing out that they can hardly go buing food from a country so beligerantly towing the us line.

--8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

-Like Europe? Thousands of people flee to China every year too. Most people flee poor countries to rich countries, wouldn't you?

and australia, south america, anywhere but the middle east. the us puts their prisoners in cuba, australia puts them in nauru. britian used to put theirs in australia.

--9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

-Our socialist farming system has worked very well. Didn't ADM, supermarket to the world, just get a huge subsidy in the "Farm Bill" this year? Of course, America does not feed the world. Hell, most poor countries are sending us food! (See Haiti, Zimbabwe, (sp?), etc.)

exactly. the us didproduce terminator crops though and some poor farmer got sued for patent infringement because some seeds of some other bastard plant had fallen into his own pastures and contaminated his crops. but the us want fair trade and to give food aid. never mind the food aid given is always non-renewable. a bit like army rations,a nd probably made in manilla along with marks & spencers sandwiches and imac superdrives.

--10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?

-Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes America great. We are well ahead of Europe on this one. Now, let's just keep the "conservatives" from censoring political speech, and we'll be fine.

oh come on. the press has been full of people in the us being lynched for their religion or creed. especially post 11/9

-IMHO, Bill Clinton was a scumbag, but he was loved and cheered all over the world.

-IMHO, Bush is a scumbag, but he is booed and protested all over the world. I guess that's why he stays at his ranch and plays golf all the time.

-The main reason that people around the world hate the US is not envy, its the BOMBS.

-Remember?

there are many reasons why people hate america.

don't get me wrong i think americans are great and their country is beautiful. but your leaders are crazy and in charge of weapons of mass destruction and that scares people. they think about what you did to cambodia - and the fact that rummy was sec of defence then too, and kissinger is still there behind the scenes.