This is by Joanne Mariner, a Justia columnist, is the director of Hunter College's Human Rights Program. She is an expert on human rights, counterterrorism, and international humanitarian law.
Her conclusion is that you are WRONG and the provision 1021 of NDAA MUST BE REPEALED.
The former head of the Israeli secret service said Thursday during an army boarding school reunion that while Iran should be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, its capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel." "The growing haredi radicalization poses a bigger risk than Ahmadinejad," Halevy said, adding that "the ultra-Orthodox extremism has darkened our lives."
The material parts the body is made of are recycled into the environment somehow, overtime, or are petrified for a long time, but eventually become part of the surrounding environment.
However that's not what rebirth is about, rebirth is about having a moral/psychic/mental/subconscious/maybe even conscious connection from a past to a future existence, and this means transition of some form of meaningful information of the whole or at least a meaningful part of conscious/subconscious from one existence into another, which is what I am calling BS.
If I close one of the tabs in the browser, the others don't close, and if I close all tabs, the browser is still open, so they are not all the same.
Your dimensions example is convoluted, the simple example is of-course to say that god is a variable X, and it must satisfy equation where 3X=X, which means X=0. But then why should the constant even be there and more importantly, doesn't it mean that god=0, so what is it, an empty set or nothing at all?
Again, none of it is going to make sense because it wasn't supposed to be proven.
Thus it is a confidence issue, since if the god really existed, then he would be judging everybody on their own merits, not as groups of people.
--
Of-course this is all nonsense, the reality is that religion was always intended to be the law, and the best kind of law - a kind of law that people themselves believe they must follow, they don't even need police in many cases to follow it. The law is of-course used by those in power (government) in order to control the crowd.
Once again - ACLU, directors of FBI, CIA and National Intelligence are explaining that NDAA strips US citizens of their rights and puts martial law in place, allowing the POTUS to use military against civilians, US citizens, on US soil to place them into indefinite detention without access to lawyers. This bill is structured to allow the POTUS to use martial law and to have concentration camps, and it's going to be used eventually against US citizens, and it's likely the system's response to the wave of movements around the world, including USA, that are on the rise.
Obama is the tool of the elite who gave themselves these powers in order to use military against US citizens when they see such a need arise. You can pretend that this bill does not give such powers to the POTUS, but ACLU and FBI, CIA, National Intelligence directors disagree. The exact rules on how this will be done are not in the bill, they are left open ended for the executive branches to fill in, and that's how all bills work that give legislative powers to the executive branches (that's how EPA, FDA etc., write the laws without passing them through Congress and Senate.)
This is an instance of government reinforcing the positions of the majority.
- it's using the inherent evil that a government is to force a majority opinion onto minority.
This same thing happened in USA of-course, thus SS and Medicare and minimum wage laws were passed as an example. That's how income taxes are justified. That's how slave-ownership was once legal by law of the land.
A majority uses the evil that the government is to crash the minority.
"Old testament vs new testament" - a vengeful god vs. a loving god, simple enough for you?
And the NDAA is same as it ever was, not to mention completely off topic. I find it funny that you say that the CIA and FBI directors have said that Obama "pushed for it all singlehandedly" when the article you link says absolutely nothing of the sort.
- you are right, that article doesn't say it. That article says:
this bill is so dangerous not only to our rights but to our country's security that it was criticized by the Directors of the FBI, the CIA, the National Intelligence Director and the U.S. Defense Secretary! For the first time in our history, if this Act is not vetoed, American citizens may not be guaranteed their Article III right to trial.
it also says:
The NDAA is deliberately confusing for political purposes but much is at stake. Obama's determination as to whether or not he will veto the problematic 2012 war funding bill will determine how Benjamin Franklin's glib response to the woman waiting outside the Constitutional Convention is ultimately answered. Franklin and other founding fathers had created "a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it". But a lawless Military Empire could now await where U.S. "emergency war powers" trump the Constitution, where the Commander in Chief becomes king for a term(s), the military enters into police state actions in violation of 130 years of Posse Comitatus law, and the Constitution becomes as quaint as the Geneva Conventions were for Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush Administration.
But that it was Obama, who singlehandedly pushed for those provisions in that bill is also a fact.
You can continue with your nonsense, on NDAA not being what it is, but when the CIA and FBI and National Intelligence directors come out with statements on citizens losing their rights, then you look like a shill.
but why? To keep him quiet so that they are not threatened by some non-believer in their own weak faith or are they trying to force atheists into becoming believers?
You are the one who went off-topic with the anti-religion flamebait, by asking "When was the last time that religious followers needed a self-consistent, non-contradictory, logical message?"
- yeah, that's not an opinion, that's a fact as shown by the comment to which your replied.
Maybe you should follow the links in the comment (there are further links), but the point is not to abolish government, the point is to set the law above government in a way that it could not be circumvented.
The law above the government is Constitution (in USA at least), and it is completely abandoned. Suggesting that the choices are: what you have in USA and feudalism is stupid. How about: what you have in USA now and what you should have in USA - government that follows the law that is set above it exactly to protect individuals from being crashed by the government that becomes too powerful as it keeps taking away your liberties against the law that the Constitution is?
What do you mean? Like the messages in the bibles are somehow self-consistent? The old and the new testaments? What are abominations? The entire creation mythology? Noah's arc? Miracles? Bizarre ideas on what is salvation and why it's needed? Is salvation really about Jesus or is it about moral codes? Is it about doing something or just believing in something?
How about the entire idea of confessions and getting forgiveness from church workers for pretty much any transgression, including murder? Mass murder?
Virgin birth. Resurrection. Incarnation. ONE god or three? Believing in things that don't have any actual proof of any kind, believing in things that are shown false by science, justifying continuation of believing even when proven false.
Faith does not require logic and it does not require consistency, it certainly does not require understanding falsifiability or requiring it.
Faith in fact requires complete abandonment of principles by which we make discoveries and by which we change our circumstance, and that's what faith is SUPPOSED to be, because if it was possible to PROVE a god, it wouldn't require faith.
And if god requires faith without any proof, and if somehow proof can be obtained, then isn't the purpose of having faith defeated then? And doesn't it mean in religion that in fact proof can never exist (and in science we know it cannot exist, because goalposts can never be reached, and proving a negative is not exactly what we can do).
Anyway, I am not trying to convince anybody in anything in terms of believing or not believing here, that's not the purpose of the story though it's easy to degenerate this story into that kind of a discussion.
I suggest you don't do that, stay on topic, and the topic is: government is evil and government mixing up with religion is even more evil and individual will be crashed by government that takes away power of choices from individual.
Of-course in all societies there are orthodox believers, and some of them in this story came to beat up this poor shmuck, who actually worked for the government apparently, but didn't understand the law there.
However Buddhism is not just a philosophy, like a guide to a healthy life-style, because it has teachings about 'soul' and such, which again, make no sense to me.
Obviously I can accept somebody practising Buddhism because they find it useful for themselves somehow, but I see it as a religion, not just as some form of exercise that's simply good for one's health. I mean souls and karma?:) In real life, not on/. ?
OK, so you see somebody proclaiming that they don't believe in any god being dangerous to other 'believers', so that they would stop believing if one person says he doesn't believe?
Gov't is inherently evil because (as you'd find in the linked comments, that have other links to other comments), government has legitimacy under the law, so what it does is perceived as legitimate and lawful, which is why whatever it does is so final and detrimental to an individual.
So if government sets a law that contradicts individual liberty (like freedom of religion or in this case of not having a religion and needing actual proof of some deity's existence), then the evil here is the power that the government has over the individual, regardless of what exactly that power is taking away form individual. Just the mere fact that the collective can trump the individual is the evil part of any government. In this case the religion is part of what government represents, and so the evil is combined from what normally the evil secular government would contain plus what evil religions bring to the table, and they bring quite a bag full of evil with them.
31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting âoeGod does not existâ on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault.
The posting was made on a Facebook Page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist), which Aan created. At the time of writing, it had over 1,700 Likes. Aanâ(TM)s posting has been removed, but supporters on the Page are urging police to release him.
I wonder if they were trying to make a believer out of him or just needed to re-assure themselves that they are right and he is wrong. Theirs must be a merciful god, a god of great compassion.
Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the worldâ(TM)s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal. According to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tries to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in jail for blasphemy.
Slashdot Mirror
I've shown you repeatedly that the bill does no such thing.
- you have never shown me anything, you have said it every time, but that means zilch.
You never provide sources, and when you do post links they don't say what you claim they say.
- links and quotes and more links.
The President cannot round people up into concentration camps. That's simply not true.
- ACLU and directors of CIA, FBI and National Intelligence say you are wrong and he can.
--
I have MORE information, this time
Part 1
Part 2
This is by Joanne Mariner, a Justia columnist, is the director of Hunter College's Human Rights Program. She is an expert on human rights, counterterrorism, and international humanitarian law.
Her conclusion is that you are WRONG and the provision 1021 of NDAA MUST BE REPEALED.
Of-course Ron Paul introduced a bill to repeal that section of NDAA, we'll see how that goes.
As I said: there can be no 'rebirth' in any meaningful sense of the word without 'soul'.
I am not going to generalise, but I can point at something specific: Former Mossad Head Says Haredim Biggger Threat To Israel Than Iran
The former head of the Israeli secret service said Thursday during an army boarding school reunion that while Iran should be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, its capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel." "The growing haredi radicalization poses a bigger risk than Ahmadinejad," Halevy said, adding that "the ultra-Orthodox extremism has darkened our lives."
I do have a comment on that
I don't bother myself with the inconsequential much, however I can point out an obvious inconsistency in logic.
X=3X? Well, if X=0.
The material parts the body is made of are recycled into the environment somehow, overtime, or are petrified for a long time, but eventually become part of the surrounding environment.
However that's not what rebirth is about, rebirth is about having a moral/psychic/mental/subconscious/maybe even conscious connection from a past to a future existence, and this means transition of some form of meaningful information of the whole or at least a meaningful part of conscious/subconscious from one existence into another, which is what I am calling BS.
You advocate an appalling tyranny.
-Wrong.
If I close one of the tabs in the browser, the others don't close, and if I close all tabs, the browser is still open, so they are not all the same.
Your dimensions example is convoluted, the simple example is of-course to say that god is a variable X, and it must satisfy equation where 3X=X, which means X=0. But then why should the constant even be there and more importantly, doesn't it mean that god=0, so what is it, an empty set or nothing at all?
Again, none of it is going to make sense because it wasn't supposed to be proven.
Thus it is a confidence issue, since if the god really existed, then he would be judging everybody on their own merits, not as groups of people.
--
Of-course this is all nonsense, the reality is that religion was always intended to be the law, and the best kind of law - a kind of law that people themselves believe they must follow, they don't even need police in many cases to follow it. The law is of-course used by those in power (government) in order to control the crowd.
Once again - ACLU, directors of FBI, CIA and National Intelligence are explaining that NDAA strips US citizens of their rights and puts martial law in place, allowing the POTUS to use military against civilians, US citizens, on US soil to place them into indefinite detention without access to lawyers. This bill is structured to allow the POTUS to use martial law and to have concentration camps, and it's going to be used eventually against US citizens, and it's likely the system's response to the wave of movements around the world, including USA, that are on the rise.
Obama is the tool of the elite who gave themselves these powers in order to use military against US citizens when they see such a need arise. You can pretend that this bill does not give such powers to the POTUS, but ACLU and FBI, CIA, National Intelligence directors disagree. The exact rules on how this will be done are not in the bill, they are left open ended for the executive branches to fill in, and that's how all bills work that give legislative powers to the executive branches (that's how EPA, FDA etc., write the laws without passing them through Congress and Senate.)
touche.
Note the last sentence of that paragraph. The only place he felt safe was *IN GOVERNMENT CUSTODY*.
- by the government law, he'll be 'feeling secure' for another 5 years now.
This is an instance of government reinforcing the positions of the majority.
- it's using the inherent evil that a government is to force a majority opinion onto minority.
This same thing happened in USA of-course, thus SS and Medicare and minimum wage laws were passed as an example. That's how income taxes are justified. That's how slave-ownership was once legal by law of the land.
A majority uses the evil that the government is to crash the minority.
"One god or three?" - simple enough for you?
"Old testament vs new testament" - a vengeful god vs. a loving god, simple enough for you?
And the NDAA is same as it ever was, not to mention completely off topic. I find it funny that you say that the CIA and FBI directors have said that Obama "pushed for it all singlehandedly" when the article you link says absolutely nothing of the sort.
- you are right, that article doesn't say it. That article says:
this bill is so dangerous not only to our rights but to our country's security that it was criticized by the Directors of the FBI, the CIA, the National Intelligence Director and the U.S. Defense Secretary! For the first time in our history, if this Act is not vetoed, American citizens may not be guaranteed their Article III right to trial.
it also says:
The NDAA is deliberately confusing for political purposes but much is at stake. Obama's determination as to whether or not he will veto the problematic 2012 war funding bill will determine how Benjamin Franklin's glib response to the woman waiting outside the Constitutional Convention is ultimately answered. Franklin and other founding fathers had created "a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it". But a lawless Military Empire could now await where U.S. "emergency war powers" trump the Constitution, where the Commander in Chief becomes king for a term(s), the military enters into police state actions in violation of 130 years of Posse Comitatus law, and the Constitution becomes as quaint as the Geneva Conventions were for Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush Administration.
But that it was Obama, who singlehandedly pushed for those provisions in that bill is also a fact.
You can continue with your nonsense, on NDAA not being what it is, but when the CIA and FBI and National Intelligence directors come out with statements on citizens losing their rights, then you look like a shill.
Rebirth.
but why? To keep him quiet so that they are not threatened by some non-believer in their own weak faith or are they trying to force atheists into becoming believers?
You are the one who went off-topic with the anti-religion flamebait, by asking "When was the last time that religious followers needed a self-consistent, non-contradictory, logical message?"
- yeah, that's not an opinion, that's a fact as shown by the comment to which your replied.
How is that NDAA, still don't understand that it's passed because the elites are scared of mass insurrection and need a way to move military onto the streets when/if protests are strengthened and some of it turns violent against the masters helming the banks and the government? Even after the CIA and FBI directors came out with the statements that they didn't need those provisions for any purpose and that Obama pushed for it all singlehandedly?
Actually, the widely accepted (but completely nonsensical) doctrine of "one God in three parts, each of which is equal to the whole"
- I have no idea what that means, but that's part of the bizarre internal inconsistency that the believers just don't see as such.
Maybe you should follow the links in the comment (there are further links), but the point is not to abolish government, the point is to set the law above government in a way that it could not be circumvented.
The law above the government is Constitution (in USA at least), and it is completely abandoned. Suggesting that the choices are: what you have in USA and feudalism is stupid. How about: what you have in USA now and what you should have in USA - government that follows the law that is set above it exactly to protect individuals from being crashed by the government that becomes too powerful as it keeps taking away your liberties against the law that the Constitution is?
What do you mean? Like the messages in the bibles are somehow self-consistent? The old and the new testaments? What are abominations? The entire creation mythology? Noah's arc? Miracles? Bizarre ideas on what is salvation and why it's needed? Is salvation really about Jesus or is it about moral codes? Is it about doing something or just believing in something?
How about the entire idea of confessions and getting forgiveness from church workers for pretty much any transgression, including murder? Mass murder?
Virgin birth. Resurrection. Incarnation. ONE god or three? Believing in things that don't have any actual proof of any kind, believing in things that are shown false by science, justifying continuation of believing even when proven false.
Faith does not require logic and it does not require consistency, it certainly does not require understanding falsifiability or requiring it.
Faith in fact requires complete abandonment of principles by which we make discoveries and by which we change our circumstance, and that's what faith is SUPPOSED to be, because if it was possible to PROVE a god, it wouldn't require faith.
And if god requires faith without any proof, and if somehow proof can be obtained, then isn't the purpose of having faith defeated then? And doesn't it mean in religion that in fact proof can never exist (and in science we know it cannot exist, because goalposts can never be reached, and proving a negative is not exactly what we can do).
Anyway, I am not trying to convince anybody in anything in terms of believing or not believing here, that's not the purpose of the story though it's easy to degenerate this story into that kind of a discussion.
I suggest you don't do that, stay on topic, and the topic is: government is evil and government mixing up with religion is even more evil and individual will be crashed by government that takes away power of choices from individual.
Of-course in all societies there are orthodox believers, and some of them in this story came to beat up this poor shmuck, who actually worked for the government apparently, but didn't understand the law there.
However Buddhism is not just a philosophy, like a guide to a healthy life-style, because it has teachings about 'soul' and such, which again, make no sense to me.
Obviously I can accept somebody practising Buddhism because they find it useful for themselves somehow, but I see it as a religion, not just as some form of exercise that's simply good for one's health. I mean souls and karma? :) In real life, not on /. ?
OK, so you see somebody proclaiming that they don't believe in any god being dangerous to other 'believers', so that they would stop believing if one person says he doesn't believe?
So it's a confidence issue then you think?
Gov't is inherently evil because (as you'd find in the linked comments, that have other links to other comments), government has legitimacy under the law, so what it does is perceived as legitimate and lawful, which is why whatever it does is so final and detrimental to an individual.
So if government sets a law that contradicts individual liberty (like freedom of religion or in this case of not having a religion and needing actual proof of some deity's existence), then the evil here is the power that the government has over the individual, regardless of what exactly that power is taking away form individual. Just the mere fact that the collective can trump the individual is the evil part of any government. In this case the religion is part of what government represents, and so the evil is combined from what normally the evil secular government would contain plus what evil religions bring to the table, and they bring quite a bag full of evil with them.
When was the last time that religious followers needed a self-consistent, non-contradictory, logical message?
Besides, Buddhism does teach bizarre things about rebirth and such, and as an atheist I don't understand how that makes any sense at all.
31-year-old Alexander Aan faces a maximum prison sentence of five years for posting âoeGod does not existâ on Facebook. The civil servant was attacked and beaten by an angry mob of dozens who entered his government office at the Dharmasraya Development Planning Board on Wednesday. The Indonesian man was taken into protective police custody Friday since he was afraid of further physical assault.
The posting was made on a Facebook Page titled Ateis Minang (Minang Atheist), which Aan created. At the time of writing, it had over 1,700 Likes. Aanâ(TM)s posting has been removed, but supporters on the Page are urging police to release him.
I wonder if they were trying to make a believer out of him or just needed to re-assure themselves that they are right and he is wrong. Theirs must be a merciful god, a god of great compassion.
Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia, the worldâ(TM)s most populous Muslim nation, recognises the right to practice six religions in total: Islam, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhism and Confucianism. Atheism is, however, illegal. According to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tries to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in jail for blasphemy.
- further proving that governments are inherently evil.