Slashdot Mirror
Detention Threat for Malaysian blogger
Malaysian Patriot writes "The Malaysian blogosphere is currently in uproar as one of their most famous bloggers, a political observer named Jeff Ooi, has been threatened with action under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security". The whole problem started with a comment made by a reader of the blog. The comment is alleged to have been insulting of Islam. A national newspaper (whose editor has frequently been a target of Ooi's blog) took up the story and accused the blogger of insulting Islam, while Ooi in his defence states he warned (and later deleted) the offending commenter when he was alerted to it. Malaysian bloggers meanwhile are outraged that a blogger should be held responsible for comments made by readers. In the case of Ooi's blog, which attracts thousands of hits per day, it is logistically impossible for Ooi to read and moderate every comment made. The whole saga can be followed in Jeff Ooi's Screenshots blog."
Why should people be allowed to insult Islam, a sincerely held belief that hundreds of millions of people agree with? We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity.
The First Ammendmend (in the US at least)
Hell, we don't even let people burn our flag!
Yes, we do. Flag-burning is protected speech, and the ammendment proposed to change that fact was shot down.
When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?
Heh.. Freedom of speech. If you don't like us, speak your mind. If you speak your mind, don't be surprised if we speak right back.
I suppose I'll get shot down in flames for pointing this out,
Yes.
but the levels of Islamophobia and general religious intolerance at slashdot are staggering.
Hmph.. So there's a vague coorelation between technological savy and intolerance of religion? Fancy that.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Does anyone else favor the death penalty for anyone who uses the word (if you can call such an abomination by that name) "blogosphere"?
Personally I think the Rack is a suitible punishment. Alternately, hot irons under the fingernails, or forced repeated viewings of "Star Trek V".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Why should people be allowed to insult Islam
Because we should be free to insult anything and anyone. I for one don't find that fact that hundreds of millions of people adhere to a religion that is philosophically stuck in the eighth century (minus all the scientific and cultural progress they were making back then), all that compelling a reason for its merit.
We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity
What planet are you from?
When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?
On this we agree.
I suppose I'll get shot down in flames for pointing this out, but the levels of Islamophobia and general religious intolerance at slashdot are staggering.
Perhaps, but I do not need to be afraid that I or my children will be nuked, poisoned or infected by militant Buddhists, or Presbyterofascists, or Mormon suicide bombers, because they don't exist. There are no rabbis, or bishops issuing death warrants.
While there certainly have been Christian, et al, terrorists, they pale in significance by orders of magnitude to those of Islam. No bigotry in this statement, just facts.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?
Refusing to believe in something until evidence is submitted is a matter of reason, not religion or faith.
I don't believe in God.
I don't believe in unicorns.
I don't believe in Santa Claus.
I don't believe in leprechauns.
I don't believe in Brahma.
I don't believe in alien abductions.
Chances are that you and I agree on all of those but the first. You probably also agree that the fact that you don't believe in unicorns is not a religious belief. Doesn't take a religious, faith-based belief to not believe in a stupid fairy tale, does it?
Now, please explain to me how the fact that I don't believe in unicorns is not a religious belief, but the fact that I don't believe in God is. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
That, dear sir, brings a tear to my eye. I was walking forlornly through the rain last week, throughly depressed at the evident truth that nobody knows how to troll anymore. And today, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and you have shown me that there is at least one person who still practices the ancient art. Thank you.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I may have left out some positions in the flame war. Feel free to add any that I missed.
-- $SIGNATURE
Christian terrorists have been big in the past (Crusade was one example; Inquisition another - there are tons), and they still exist today, though, as you said, not as big.
...under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security"...
They have the Patroit Act too?
I find it disconcerting that all of the above comments focus on the "insulting Islam" part of the story, and not the "national security" preserving "Internal Security Act" being leveled at a political observer. With a focus like that, and the possibilty of the administration resposible for the Patriot Act being re-elected, don't be too surprised if it's an American blogger in 4 years time. Islam. Islam. Islam. Expose yourself to the word ten times daily until it ceases to trigger alarm bells, and images of turban-clad, gun-toting loonies.
How about a little perspective? Cut the drama and self-pity for a minute and think about what "Rights Online" really are.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Maybe these Malaysians should be helping me build up metanet. They can't arrest you if they don't know who you are...
I am so tired of religious people saying that atheism is just another religion. Atheism is simply the absence of belief, not a belief that there is no God. To claim that atheism is a religion is like saying that silence is just another sound or that darkness is some kind of light.
I think some people simply can't grasp that someone might simply not believe in any kind of God and they try to paint this stance as being just as irrational as any other religion. Doing so allows them to use the 'everybody has a right to his own opinion' argument to legitimize their way of thinking. Underlying that, of course, is the assumption that all opinions are equally valid, wich is, simply put: bullshit.
Somehow most people seem to understand that irrational beliefs should be discarded, except in the case of religion. If I started saying there was a banana floating mid-air in front of me, people would ask for proof before they believed it. Without proof, they would not pay much respect to my claims, and they'd be right to. I could go on claiming I have the power to make bananas float forever, but as long as I can't demonstrate it, people would say: bullshit.
Yet somehow, when religion is concerned, that simple test is thrown out the window. Not only people don't expect to be called up on their claims and beliefs, but they expect that their opinions should be respected as being as valid as any other. Anyway, I just wish that religious people would simply understand that not believing in (to atheists) fairy tales does not mean atheism is some other kind of irrational belief. It's just the same as not believing that some guy can make bananas float. That's not religion, it's just rational, critical thinking.
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
I believe CmdrTaco subscribes to the same theological view: "Yes, God, people may have blasphemed against You on my website but anything posted in the IT or Games section shouldn't count."
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
...on two counts. One, that negative comments about Islam (or Christianity, or Republicans, or Democrats) could be considered a crime, and two, that they arrested someone who didn't actually make them. I don't know whether to hope they find the person who made the comments or not. I suppose that putting into law the idea that you are responsible for users' actions might be worse than suppressing free speech.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
You're absolutely right. The difference between us Christians and those Muslims, is that we Christians moved past that stage.
Sure there are nutcases who bomb abortion clinics or shoot doctors... there is no lack of denouncement of these deluded and evil acts in any church I've been in.
No one is perfect, but there is a huge cultural difference here. Some of us are moving into the third millennium, making progress despite being imperfect, while others are mired in the first.
The hugest irony is that a thousand years ago, the Muslim world was the source of much (even most) scientific and philisophical advancement at the time. The Dark Ages in Europe were never as dark as many believe, but the Middle East was a huge source of artistic creativity and intellectual advancement.
Wha' hoppen?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
A matter of reason surveys the current state of a question and seeks to generate a testable hypothesis. Whether there is or is not a God, is entirely a domain of faith for a religion where the will of a supremely powerful being is to not be directly observable. The conjecture of whether there is or is not a Judeo-Christian God is unprovable.
Everything is "unprovable" in the strictest sense of the word. For all you know, you're currently locked in a padded cell in an insane asylum, having a vivid delusion that you are reading this comment. You might not even be human -- what if you're a Baltaxian from the Zogar nebula having a bizarre dream about being a hairless ape? All you can prove is that you exist, via the famous conclusion "I think, therefore I am".
So, sure, you can say that the matter of God's existence is "unprovable", and I won't argue with that. Everything is unprovable.
However, in the real world, God's existence is every bit as questionable as the unicorns and leprechauns I mentioned earlier. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence of his existence -- which is itself sufficient to disbelieve in him -- not to mention a tremendous number of reasons to not believe.
When you propose the existence of an invisible, incorporeal, undetectable-to-all-known-devices-and-creatures, all-powerful, all-knowing, laws-of-physics-defying creature who is smart enough to have created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE but is stupid enough to care about all the stupid little things (like whether or not you get a tattoo) that the Bible says he cares about, the burden of evidence is very much on you.
I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Atheism is simply the absence of belief
What you're describing is generally known as "agnosticism".
Atheism by sheer virtue of its etymology means a belief that God does not exist.
I think some people simply can't grasp that someone might simply not believe in any kind of God and they try to paint this stance as being just as irrational as any other religion.
I think that some people cannot grasp the idea that a belief in God and practice of religion can be as rational as any empiricist.
I just wish that religious people would simply understand that not believing in (to atheists) fairy tales does not mean atheism is some other kind of irrational belief.
Atheism, by definition, is far less rational because of the greater logical difficulty of proving a negative. But I don't mean to get bogged down in semantics. They are two different flavors of faith.
Agnosticism, which is what you seem to call by the name "atheism" is simply choosing not to decide, which at best is a cop out, and at worst is cowardice. Faith in things unseen is a sine qua non of our existence. I have never seen India, yet there is no doubt in my mind it exists. I have never seen atoms, yet there is no doubt in my mind they exist. I have never seen Abraham Lincoln, yet there is no doubt in my mind he existed. This idea reaches its apex in the Holographic Principle in physics (and rooted in philosophical tradition since the days of Plato), which says, essentially (IANAP), there's no way to know anything is real, so we have to go on what we can perceive, which can be reduced to a quantity of information dictated by the space through with we perceive. Yet without this belief, we cannot really function. Reality is subjective until you smack your face into a wall.
It is quite reasonable and rational to consider that there are things we cannot perceive or understand but that do exist. Similarly, it is reasonable and rational to consider that these things do not exist. We must judge the logic of these ideas based on the evidence available to us, whether it is empirical proof, or less concrete things such as stories, traditions or moral codes, but in the end you have to trust your gut because ultimately you can't completely trust any other perception. That's faith, whether you decide one way or the other, but it's also rational, critical thinking.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
While there certainly have been Christian, et al, terrorists, they pale in significance by orders of magnitude to those of Islam. No bigotry in this statement, just facts.
Islam is a much younger religion than most, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Islam's current state and that of most other religions cannot be compared accurately; the others have had time to streamline themselves in a way that Islam has not yet. i.e. it's heading into an age of reform that happened several hundred years ago in Christianity and a millenia ago in Judaism.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
The Big Bang is a testable hypothesis, and quite frankly we can reasonably discuss what form it took, but not if it was. The if of it is no longer in doubt. Not believing in the big bang isn't much different than not believing in the light coming from your computer monitor at this point.
This of course does not preclude the existance of God, there's something to be said for the Bible as a metaphore. While Maxwell's equations are, no doubt, more useful and precise than "Let there be light" they do lack a certain something when it comes to telling people where they came from.
This, my friend, is probably the best description ever, and I fully agree.
A fellow atheist
I liked my next sig a lot better
The refusal to take sides without -any- good evidence from either side is a cop out or cowardice? You make a good point that true atheism is logically impossible to prove. However, belief without any evidence and no way of testing for truth seems to me to be less a thing to be proud of and more a thing to hide away and never speak of. Yes, I believe India exists, but there's an easy test: I can go there. Now give me an equally simple test for the existance of god.
ever heard of a little spot called northern ireland? 2 christian sects have blowing each other up there for years.
I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.
Well, it's obvious that the most fundamental questions about the universe remain unanswered to some people's satisfaction, mine included. The big bang may describe the first split second, but doesn't really explain anything other than there was nothing, and then all of the sudden there is something. And in the vaguest sense, it is somewhat hard to deny that it certainly seems like there may be a creator of some sort. So, in the most general sense, a religionist isn't all that crazy, imo.
I don't fault the christians for thinking anything along this line of thought. What I do fault them for, is co-opting it. It's possible that the creator I am hypothesizing is their Satan... as possible as any other identity. But whenever science says something that might support such, even the slightest little tidbit, they jump all over it, claiming it as proof that their YWHW/Jehovah/Hallelujah is the creator being implied. Which is ridiculous.
Even if I can, for the sake of the argument, accept that *a* god might exist, what makes them think that it is their own? Isn't more reasonable to suppose that if something like that exists, that there are many, rather than one? A universe that only has a single star, anywhere, is much more bizarre than our own with quadrillions of suns. And this is only a single issue.
For me, it's not that there might be a supernatural/supreme being of some sort, but all the politicalesque propaganda that they insist go along with it. There might be only one "good" god, or one god that I should want anything to do with, but only one god, period? Sounds more like a football fanatic claiming his team is the only one.
The Big Bang is a scientific model of the start of the universe. I could point out that it's a scientific theory that was created to explain observable facts, whereas God creating the universe doesn't explain anything. And if you start asking what created Big Bang, I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times there. The current conception just has space, and the space 'tilts' sideways and turns into time. (I don't pretend to understand how things can 'tilt' in no time, but the math works.)
However, that's not really the point at all, you're trying to trick people, even if you don't realize it. It doesn't matter if the Big Bang is wrong...in fact, even since the Big Bang was proposed, serious professional scientists have claimed that theory is inaccurate and/or meaningless.
It's not some end-all and be-all of science, it's nowhere near the level of General Relativity as a 'theory'. (Strictly speaking, there's not one theory there anyway, there are several.) Pretending it's some sort of religion for scientists is ignoring the fact a lot of them don't believe it, they just don't have anything better at the moment.
But that's still not the point. The point is that the people claiming the Big Bang theory is correct are doing so because that's what the evidence looks like. They say 'It looks like the entire universe used to be in the same place...what the heck could that have looked liked, and what happened to it to make it go everywhere?' Whereas the people saying 'God did it' are just being lazy.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Why this distinction between beliefs based on "faith" and based on "reason"? Faith is not always blind. I have faith in my wife. Why? Because she has demonstrated to me in many ways that she is a faithful woman who loves me. Though we're not together during the business day, don't you think it is reasonable for me to trust her fidelity during the day, far less reasonable for me to suspect her of betraying me (at least in the absence of very serious evidence)?
The word "faith" has a number of different definitions; you are confusing the argument by using a different one than I am. You have evidence of your wife's faithfulness -- she has always been faithful to you in your presence, has professed her love to you on many occasions, and has done many other things to give you reason to believe in her faithfulness. There is no such evidence of the existence of God, so any belief in him must be a different sort of faith than what you describe.
I hope you can see that faith can be reasonable.
If it's reasonable (based on rational fact and evidence), it's not "faith" as generally defined in religious discussions.
Secondly, you wanted some evidence to be submitted about God. There are two kinds of evidence recognised by Christians: what can be seen in nature; and what has been specifically revealed by God in history.
I submit that there is nothing in nature which indicates the existence of God, nor has God at any point revealed his existence. I challenge you to submit evidence to the contrary.
Have you ever asked the questions that Science can't answer?
Of course. No one is claiming that science has all the answers.
Empiricism can observe the material world, and it can even propose laws which seem to describe the way the universe works. But it cannot say where these laws come from, or why they are so.
True. However, God doesn't make the situation any better.
Science: Question: Why does [system A] behave in [behavior B] fashion? Answer: We don't know.
Religion: Question: Why does [system A] behave in [behavior B] fashion? Answer: God wants it to work that way. Question: Why? Answer: We don't know.
All you've done is introduced one more unknowable thing and abstracted the answer one more step away.
Isn't it beautiful and elegant that such simple laws can describe such complexity? Isn't it still so unlikely, even given such laws, that they would produce you?
First, nobody has any idea how likely or unlikely it is -- we don't understand the processes that gave rise to life (and when we do, it will have been science, not religion, that answered the question). Second, even if it's fantastically unlikely, what does that have to do with anything? In a universe with fifty billion stars in each of a hundred trillion galaxies, the fact that something is "unlikely" still leaves room for it to happen trillions of times. And all we need is for it to have happened once -- and it obviously did, since here we are.
Have you ever investigated the historical man Jesus Christ, and assessed his claims and the claims of his followers? Reading the new testament of the bible is a good start: it's not very long, and you can't claim lack of evidence without having read it. It's also worth looking at historical analyses of it.
The historical man Jesus Christ is known from exactly four documents: the four Gospels. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other known documents claiming first-hand knowledge of the man.
Tell me something: if I and three of my friends wrote stories claiming that we had seen a man perform great miracles, claim to be the son of Allah, and endorse Islam as the one true path, would you instantly trust me, discard all other religions, and follow Islam?
That is exactly what you done. Replace "Allah" with "God" and "Islam" with "Christianity" and you ha
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Given the regularity with which copyrighted articles are posted as comments on slashdot, it's surely only a matter of time before someone takes an action against the editors. Should slashdot editors be held responsible for their users' comments in the manner of this blogger?
It is their own weak belief, that some 'humans' think needs defending through coersion.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
by Tarek Heggy
Here's the complete series:
The man who founded Wahhabism was not a theologian but a proselyter who was determined to convert the faithful to his harsh brand of Islam. Intellectually close to the dialectical Islamic theologians who asserted the primacy of tradition (naql) over reason (aql), Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab was a disciple of ibn-Taymiyah, a strict traditionalist who allowed little scope for reason or independent thinking. He was also a product of his geographical environment, a remote outpost of history.
Unlike Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, where ancient civilizations had flourished and made their mark on human history, or places like Dubai and Hijaz, which lay on trade routes and dealt extensively with the outside world, the desert of Najd in the Eastern Province of what is now Saudi Arabia had no civilization to speak of before Islam. Nor did it ever become a cultural centre like the capitals of the Caliphate, Medina, Damascus and Baghdad. Thanks to its arid, barren landscape, Najd remained a cultural backwater, its sole contribution to the arts a traditional form of poetry that spoke of narrow tribal matters.
The harsh and unforgiving environment in which the Najdis lived explains why Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab found a receptive audience for the equally harsh and unforgiving brand of Islam he preached. The same environment that produced the founder of Wahhabism later produced the radical Ikhwan movement which challenged the authority of King Abdul Aziz ibn-Saud. In the nineteen twenties, the king took on the Ikhwan, who were openly accusing him of deviating from the true faith. When he returned to Riyadh after joining Hijaz to his kingdom, the Ikhwan said he had left on a camel and come back in an American car!
This was just one of many clashes between the movement and the king over such issues as whether the radio was sinful or the telephone an invention of the devil, in short, over any of the fruits of modernity which threatened their fundamentalist vision of the world. It is a vision that can only be understood by studying what is known as the secret sects of Islam (radical fringe movements that never became part of mainstream Islam), as well as the message of Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab, the product of many factors, including the sociological and geopolitical environment of the deserts of Najd.
These factors allowed the Wahhabis, after they invaded Hijaz, to impose their austere understanding of religion throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Among other things, they banned headstones and any structures identifying burial sites, insisting on unmarked graves flush with the land. They combated Sufism in Mecca and elsewhere as contrary to the teachings of Islam. They even entered into an armed clash with the Egyptian mahmil, a splendidly decorated litter on which the Egyptians sent a new cover for the Ka'bah every year. The mahmil ceremony was a merry occasion celebrated by the Egyptians with their traditional love of music, dancing and revelry. For the Najdis, who had launched their puritanical revival movement to purge Islam of what they saw as deviations from the straight and true path of orthodoxy, such unseemly displays of levity could not be tolerated.
What I want to cast light on here i
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
it's both political and religious, kind of like the original story.
here in the real world, it's hard to separate the two.
Well, it's obvious that the most fundamental questions about the universe remain unanswered to some people's satisfaction, mine included. The big bang may describe the first split second, but doesn't really explain anything other than there was nothing, and then all of the sudden there is something. And in the vaguest sense, it is somewhat hard to deny that it certainly seems like there may be a creator of some sort. So, in the most general sense, a religionist isn't all that crazy, imo.
Yes, it is crazy. There are two main reasons:
A) It doesn't answer the question. How did the universe get here? God created it. Well, how did God get here? Ummm... well... he's just always been here. So what was he doing for the infinity of time before he decided to create the universe? Ummm... well... hrm.
If the universe is so complex that it can't exist without a creator, then God is also so complex that he can't exist without a creator. If God could come into existence without help, then so could the universe.
B) We've seen this before, and every other case has been wrong. How do volcanoes work? God (Hephaestus) makes them erupt. What is the sun? It's God (Ra). How does lightning work? They're God (Zeus) throwing lightning bolts that Hephaestus forged. Why do we get sick? God (Heiséi) makes us sick. Why does it rain? God (Mama Cocha) makes it rain.
How was the universe made? God (Yahweh) made it.
So, we've managed to prove that every other thing God supposedly does has a rational explanation. The only thing you have left is the origins of life and the universe, which I admit we don't have a rock-solid explanation for.
So, which is more likely: that you're finally right for once and God did it (nevermind where God himself came from), or this will once again fall to the forces of reason?
Furthermore, if you still think you're not crazy for believing it, I'd like you to do the following. Come up with a definition for the word "delusion" that includes all mental-illness-type-delusions but doesn't include religious beliefs.
Amazingly enough, thousands of psychologists have tried to do just that, and there still isn't any such definition.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
What you're describing is generally known as "agnosticism".
And generally incorrectly known as agnosticism. Agnosticism is the philosophy that the existence of gods is unknowable.
One can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.
Atheism and agnosticsm are orthogonal.
I think that some people cannot grasp the idea that a belief in God and practice of religion can be as rational as any empiricist.
As an agnostic atheist, I hold that belief in God and practice of religion can not be rational. Belief without evidence is not rational belief. There is no evidence for the existence of gods. Therefore belief in gods is irrational.
Atheism, by definition, is far less rational because of the greater logical difficulty of proving a negative.
Atheism, by definition, is minimally the lack of belief in gods (the "weak atheist" position). The "strong atheist" point of view, which holds that there are no gods, is also not irrational, due to the positivist axiom that no thing can rationally be said to exist without evidence for its existence; it is therefore rational to deny the existence of anything X for which there is no evidence.
Shrug. To each their own.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
I can, but you have to die. ;-)
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Amazingly enough, alot of what you say can also be used against the big bang theory. Is it now also a religious delusion?
No modern religion claims that god makes it rain. That religion was once used to explain things that could otherwise have been explained better only says something about how unwilling primitive people were to explore reasoning.
But, if you insist on using that line of reasoning, isn't it only fair to subject science to the same thing? I mean, if Zeus is going to be responsible for lightning bolts (incorrect), then shouldn't we dig up all the early paleontological reconstructions and ridicule them? Oops, that dead guy thought that animals evolved simply because they decided mutate? And the other one thought that random mutations could possibly explain such rapid evolution?
There is something more to the universe, than the cold lifeless mechanisms that some insist is all thats there. Even I can agree to that much.
But you really shouldn't jump to conclusions. I'm not christian, muslim, or anything else. I'm wavering between atheist and agnostic. But I didn't forfeit any intuition, flexibility, or just plain common sense to be able to claim membership in those two clubs.
Oh, btw. If you're definition of mental illness would include my previous post as a sympton, you're really wound too tight. Did Father Callahan molest you or something?
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
If you're Malaysian and are aware of the facts of the matter, please take 1 min to sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/jeffooi/petition.htm l
It tells the hypothetical story of a puddle of water that franctically clings on to the idea of how well the world around it (namely the hole in the ground that it inhabited by it) is made by God to fit it exactly, even as the sun slowly evaporates and shrinks it.
Oh heck...who am I kidding...believers discount rationality anyway, might as well save my breath.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
The "funny" part is that it is a hangover from British rule.
The fierce Malaysian freedom fighters did not deem necessary to get rid of it once independence was attained.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I didn't say it doesn't happen, but Northern Ireland isn't on the scale of World War.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Personally, I think the worst mistake religious people make is trying to rationalize their religious convictions. Christianity is a religion of a personal relationship with God...so unless God reveals himself to a person no amount of shouting and Bible thumping or rational argument is going to convert an unbeliever. And usually, it just ends up making the Christian look rude or foolish.
However, regarding:
"There is no such evidence of the existence of God, so any belief in him must be a different sort of faith than what you describe."
I would like to point out that Christians have seen exactly such evidence, in their personal relationship with God and God's provision for them during their lives...and that's what makes them Christians.
Unless you're omniscient, there are things in the universe that you haven't personally witnessed. It takes some degree of faith to believe in anything. Believing in Antarctica based on the accounts and pictures of those who have been there doesn't take much faith...believing in Christianity based only on the words and deeds of Christians and on the Bible takes a lot of faith...believing in Christianity when God has revealed himself to you personally doesn't take as much faith.
Finally, regarding:
"The historical man Jesus Christ is known from exactly four documents: the four Gospels. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other known documents claiming first-hand knowledge of the man."
Just to use the most common example: How many first hand accounts are there of the Big Bang? I bet it's less than four.... Obviously there was something to it, given that many early Christians died for their beliefs. If you and your three friends wrote your stories, and I arrested you and told you to recant or die, would you die for your story if it was a lie? So, either the majority of early Christians were insane, or they had some real reason to believe what they wrote. Now, has the Bible changed some over time...probably...I've played the human telephone game enough to know we can't keep our stories straight.... People who read the Bible literally, word for word, are as foolish as those who discount it as complete fiction.
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
Amazingly enough, alot of what you say can also be used against the big bang theory. Is it now also a religious delusion?
When did I say that I support the big bang theory? In any case, the big bang theory is not a religion for many reasons, but most notably because it is falsifiable. It makes certain predictions, and you can test those predictions to see whether or not they hold true. You can prove it wrong, and come up with a theory that better explains the observed facts.
None of those traits hold for religious beliefs, which are delusional in nature (not based on observations of the world and persist despite mounds of evidence against them).
No modern religion claims that god makes it rain. That religion was once used to explain things that could otherwise have been explained better only says something about how unwilling primitive people were to explore reasoning.
Wow. You have completely and utterly missed the point. I know that no modern religion claims God makes it rain. That is because we now understand the physical processes behind rain.
My point was that as soon as we fully understand the physical processes behind something, religion is no longer able to claim "God did it". It has happened over and over again throughout history. This particular discussion -- creation -- is just one more example of "God did it" that will, like all the others, fall apart as soon as science manages to figure out exactly what really happened.
But, if you insist on using that line of reasoning, isn't it only fair to subject science to the same thing? I mean, if Zeus is going to be responsible for lightning bolts (incorrect), then shouldn't we dig up all the early paleontological reconstructions and ridicule them? Oops, that dead guy thought that animals evolved simply because they decided mutate? And the other one thought that random mutations could possibly explain such rapid evolution?
Absolutely. If science proposes something incorrect, then hell yes we should discard it and move on as soon as we realize it's incorrect. It has happened over and over again, and I'm sure that a lot of our currently-cherished scientific beliefs will likewise be demolished once we have a better explanation.
See, that's the difference between science and religion. Scientists actively challenge our current understanding of the world, and are quick to propose (and test!) alternative explanations.
Religions, on the other hand, are so damned convinced that they know the whole story that they ignore the last two thousand years of human advancement.
Oh, btw. If you're definition of mental illness would include my previous post as a sympton, you're really wound too tight. Did Father Callahan molest you or something?
My point was that religious beliefs are a delusion. It should be pretty scary to you that not even psychiatrists can find a meaningful distinction between religious delusions (a 'loving' God ruthlessly flooded the entire planet and murdered trillions of innocent animals, crackers turn to flesh in my mouth, you'll spend an eternity burning in hell for inserting your penis into another man) and the delusions of the truly insane (the CIA is controlling my mind via my radio).
The only distinction we've been able to make so far is that the religious delusions are held by large numbers of people. These beliefs are still every bit as irrational and insane as the delusions held by the mentally ill.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
My point was that religious beliefs are a delusion. It should be pretty scary to you that not even psychiatrists can find a meaningful distinction between religious delusions (a 'loving' God ruthlessly flooded the entire planet and murdered trillions of innocent animals, crackers turn to flesh in my mouth, you'll spend an eternity burning in hell for inserting your penis into another man) and the delusions of the truly insane (the CIA is controlling my mind via my radio).
Nice of you to pick the craziest, most undefendable beliefs as an example. What do they call that, the strawman argument?
Why don't you tell me why it's also just as crazy to forgive, and love one another, or that if we work hard and be good people that there may be a paradise waiting for us all? Those are pretty unrealistic also, are they delusions?
Why is it that you, the smart atheist, have so much trouble discerning metaphor from literal truths, or so much difficulty seeing that rituals and tradition give people comfort, but that it's not the fundamental part of what might make religion a good thing?
Seriously though, someone in early childhood really hurt you, didn't they. Shame, that.
Nice of you to pick the craziest, most undefendable beliefs as an example. What do they call that, the strawman argument?
Not at all. A strawman argument is misrepresenting your opponent's argument in a weaker form, attacking the weakened form, and then claiming that you have defeated the argument.
I admit that few people nowadays really believe in the miracle of transubstantiation, but the other two (the Great Flood and that homosexuality is a sin) are very much active beliefs held by millions of Christians. You may not personally believe either one -- and kudos to you if that is so -- but claiming that it's a straw man is disingenous.
In fact, the homosexuality one in particular is one of the most important political issues on the table right now. I would say that the opposition to gay rights is largely religious in nature, and characterizing my statement as a straw man is very unfair.
Why don't you tell me why it's also just as crazy to forgive, and love one another, or that if we work hard and be good people that there may be a paradise waiting for us all? Those are pretty unrealistic also, are they delusions?
I take issue with the supernatural, illogical, and delusional beliefs specific to religions. The forgiveness and love you mention are not supernatural, illogical, or delusional, nor are they specific to religion. As an atheist, I no less believe in loving and forgiving my fellow man than you do. In fact, I would consider myself more forgiving than most of the Christians I have met. Your mileage may vary.
Why is it that you, the smart atheist, have so much trouble discerning metaphor from literal truths, or so much difficulty seeing that rituals and tradition give people comfort, but that it's not the fundamental part of what might make religion a good thing?
What makes you think I have trouble discerning metaphor? I know perfectly well that "This is my body" wasn't supposed to mean "This cracker is literally my flesh". That doesn't stop that from being the Catholic Church's official teaching, though, does it?
Likewise, I know perfectly well that Leviticus is just a bunch of 2000-year-old rules that nobody should seriously be expected to follow today. And let me tell you, that must be a real comfort to the families of gay men who have been murdered in the name of God.
You don't do these things, fine. I'm not against you, I'm against the entire establishment of religion, which has been responsible for more atrocities, murders, and genocides than any other force in history.
Seriously though, someone in early childhood really hurt you, didn't they. Shame, that.
I strongly oppose belief in the supernatural, so I must be damaged goods? Odd.
No, I actually had a nice, perfectly normal childhood. No abuse, no molestation, no horrible experiences with religious nuts. I am happily married, well-adjusted, and successful. I have no psychological problems. I don't oppose religion because I was hurt, but rather because it is a dangerous delusion that has shamed, hurt, or killed millions of people.
Incidentally, I am just as opposed to belief in alien abductions and unicorns. It's just that there aren't as many true believers of those delusions, so I don't get as much of an opportunity to debate about them.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Religion is at best a crutch, at worst a disease. Islam or Christianity is a sham. Believe in what makes your life worth living, when what you do is worthless, change your belief or die. Force is crude and barbaric. Forcing a religion is cruel and barbaric. Judaism, Islam and Christianity were born of a time when people began to question their own existance and had the leisure to do it. To hell with them all. Good deeds, not good words! Peace and harmony begins with a state of mind, not a state.
Uh, no. By definition, Aethism is the absence of belief, so, the non-existence of something is NOT something (see your Greeks for an explanation of that one). You don't have to actively not-believe in something, and even if you do, it doesn't constitute a religious belief.