The Vatican says it's outrageous.

Of course their problem with the Danish cartoons was not the violent response, but rather that someone had committed sacrilege.

Morons.

Bottom line is that if it incites any Muslims to violence, that says something about those Muslims, not a handful of crackpots burning a fairy tale.

Tater, you keep on repeating your fallacy about the cartoons.
You have been invited before on several occasions, you are invited again.
Can you balance your fairy tale with factual events?
If not then put it on the back burner with the global 9/11 celebrations and saddams nukes:doh:

I was thinking of joining in the debate, but I think Platapus sums it up:

carry on...

I saw the video, live, of people dancing in the streets on that day, as I was glued to the news all day. I never said global celebrations, quote me, please. It was just in "Palestine."

What is my cartoon fallacy, exactly?

The Western response was PC self-censorship. It was reported in the US, without actually showing the cartoons (unless you looked on the 'net). The PC nonsense continues—witness Cartoon network's failure to air uncensored South Park episodes (nevermind that Muhammad is in the opening credits, LOL). I could not care less about any Muslim response—ginned up or not, they still managed to convince Muslims to kill people over this. How many got suborned to commit murder over the cross in piss "art," or the virgin mary made out of porno crotch shots? That's right, ZERO. Had anyone tried to convince people to murder over this, it still would have been zero. It says something that people tried WRT the cartoons, and managed to suborn violence. Ditto Theo van Gogh's murder.

The Vatican did and does always denounce people being disrespectful of religion. I'd be more concerned about their own problems with years, decades, (centuries?) of raping children, and hiding that fact.

I'm constantly baffled how so-called "progressives" almost invariably leap to the defense of the very worst of the major fairy tales of the world (I think they are all silly, but Islam is clearly the least "modern" of all of them, the typical Muslim sects (the vast majority of them being in 2 major sects) has doctrine akin to the most "backwards" Christian fundies. I can see why the Catholic Church does it—they have to defend "faith," and allowing (by them) attacks on other faiths leaves themselves open to similar attacks on their silly beliefs.

Obama Calls Plan to Burn Korans a 'Stunt,' Urges Pastor to Call It Off
 

An update will surely have occurred to anyone else here....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews


Note:Published September 09, 2010

I respectfully would not dare to assume what kind of problems you may or may not have. I have also stated exactly how lucky and priviledged I consider myself to be. I fail to see any reason why anyone would 'need' to care about the (non)existence of a God (in a religious sense) under any circumstance. I stand ready to be corrected.:06:

My question was wether or not my explanation of the described event was possible and plausible of which I believe it to be both and again I stand ready to be corrected.

If most people on this earth truly thought like me, (and yes I am a self confirmed Atheist, we are no where near as common as you seem to think) then it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion and roughly one third of all schools in the UK would not be faith schools of one form or another, in which scientific facts are set alongside contradictory religious writings and impressionable youngsters are encouraged to 'keep the faith' also I'm sure I would one day recieve a flyer through my letterbox inviting me to some kind of atheist rally. I do not know how this is in America but I assume (perhaps wrongly) it is much the same :06:

It would please me if more religious people were encouraged to question their beliefs from time to time unfortunately, faith denies the importance of evidence and proof (or even questioning the validity of such beliefs) and effectively encourages people to shut their eyes and trust in 'God'

I have already stated in a previous post how much I value the 'holy' texts for their literature and how I find the destruction of literature distressing. I currently own english copies of the Bible and the Tao Te Ching. I do think that modern organised religions can be seen as harmful, manipulative and damaging to human development in general of course this is only my opinion. I do have the ability to change my mind however and would welcome any reasonable arguments against this statement.

There are many reasons these books exist but I fail to see how teaching unsubstantiated myths as truth is helping to make better people. Education, tolerance and understanding is AFAIK the best way to do that. I agree with your second point here though but only if they discarded the harmful stuff, but then again who's to say which bits are to be followed and which bits aren't?

No I don't believe anyone is able to do this which is prescisely why I question its validity. Yes there are many fables of great moral value in the 'holy' texts as there are in 'Lord of the Rings' and many other fantastical works (The quadrilogy of 'The Wizard of Earthsea' by Ursula K. Le Guin is my long term favorite) unfortunately there are also fables of harmful moral value, I.E. homosexuality being a sin :nope: and the general status of women as lesser creatures :nope: within those same stories.

Aha right, I just saw Darkfishes location, very good :haha:
Yes some people do drink or worse in order to forget their problems, one of my ex girlfriends was an alcohlic and that's one of the hardest experiences I have ever endured. She was a believer though like her mother and to my mind, 'God' NEVER helped either of them. Substance addiction is a very tough subject but I believe people can with a lot of help recover and they may even believe if it is fed to them while they are ill that it was Jesus or God that gave them the strength. Fine. But, what's wrong with the idea that the strength came from themselves?

I do not dispute the fact that many people find comfort in believing in God or reading any of the holy books, I am glad for them if a little sorry they can not see how strong they really are and have not the courage to stand alone in the universe. I feel only a duty to defend my viewpoint which sometimes it seems few others share and is regularly attacked by people of 'faith' and I shall continue to do so.

And what did it turn out to be?

Where was the violence when the cartoons were published?
Where was the violence when they were republished?
Oh you mean different violence later don't you:rotfl2:

So to take one of your favourite falacies. Under age sex.
Going from a non progressive approach do you feel that women should be adults at a set age before their teens or should it be determined by the date of their first peiod?
With your "child rape" thing about muslims can you show that their prophet fella consumated his marriage at a date when his wife was below the age?
Even better can you show at what age the contract of marriage was fulfilled.
If by some miracle you are able to show how your sensibilities on the matter are outraged can youget on a high horse and condemn the civilised christians and non christians who were still marrying two year olds as business contracts hundeds of years later?

I don't get offended by the fact Europeans married kids. They are not god's prophet, standards are lower for us mortals. Claims of devinity require divine action and particularly convincing proof. It's funny that religions that claim ultimate power over everything are allowed levels of proof that would not satisfy a High School lab project or term paper.

(was hard to type on my phone)

Anyway, the footage is claimed by some to be faked. Some claim 9-11 was not AQ, too.

Surely they cannot have been kids as kids can't get maried can they.

So marrying very very young is OK for normal folk in a non progressive traditionalist conservative sense.
So what is the lower age limit for prophets getting married then?
There must be one after all as you said the standard must be set higher than normal folk marrying two year olds.


Did I say it was faked? I asked you what it turned out to be.

Interpol issues global alert ahead of Quran burning,
 

This means that the event is now a "problem" not just in U.S. but also in the EU area,and this may be more far-reaching consequences, more jobs to prevent any conflicts,

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/eu...ex.html?hpt=T2



Note:September 9, 2010 Updated 1633 GMT

If the nutty pastor would be smart, he would now cancel the actual koran burning because he has already achieved a lot and probably more than he had dreamed of before he began his political protest: he has initiated a world-wide public debate about some important public issues.

That is quite a success.
For example it is interesting to see how people who argued for or against the “Ground Zero Mosque” now respond to the Koran burning issue. Some people may even rethink their position.

I am of course talking about the majority of people, those who are still standing on the middle ground and not about the extremists. There is no point in debating with extremists. They won’t change their opinion anyway because they are unable to listen.

Good point Dan D :up:

Correct answer!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366

Koran/Qu'ran burning is now off. I'm afraid it's back to boring old firewood. :damn:

"not the time" he says,
 

which suggests an initially poor understanding, or was he trying to market to bring their Christian service,which he has partially succeeded, but when he plans next "promotion" for his services.

Btw thanks for posting Oberon!

No probs Vendor, I just noticed it whilst checking the 'Latest Headlines' on Firefox. It doesn't surprise me, it was a fifty/fifty whether he would go through with it and all the controversy that would arise or whether he'd brinkmanship it.

@ Sammi : as we are mainly talking about religious belief and consequently are a bit off-topic currently, I suggest we switch to PM now.

BTW, you have one. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a75.../smileys/4.gif

Some are saying he simply said it is off the the center moves. ******* trump moved in offering to pay mega bucks for the site.

That version of terrorism will have won if that center moves at this point. That 50 member church will get bolder and bolder. For putting our troops at such direct risk they ought to be shot by the FBI as a "clear and present danger" not given what they want.

Well it appears that idiot-boy canceled his stunt. Too bad, I was looking forward to him being arrested for having a fire without a permit.

What a tool. :nope:

A 50 person bankrupt church.... Why did the media give his jerk any airtime?

Oh bullpucky. You know and I know they had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. You have to realize stupid speech is still protected speech. We would be less of a nation if we trumped up some kind of false premise to raid or arrest them on.

You take the good with the bad, the smart with the stupid in allowing Free Speech. Let's focus on the bigger problems to our troops safety, like saying the end of combat has arrived, except we're keeping 50,000 combatants there.

There is a BIG BIG BIG difference here.

Burning the Koran has NO positive effect. No political purpose. It is simply hate mongering. It has a DIRECT effect of putting our troops in danger they know this. They do not care therefore they are directly and willfully putting US Troops in danger.

That is Terrorism