[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by antikreuske

Sorry bout that, I didnt mean to imply uou said that, rather that I had sniped your post, I edited for clarity.

No worries. I was just confused for a minute, there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, on to part two. Sky, if you're still reading, thanks for your patience. Please forgive me if I re-iterate some points by accident.

Chriszinaity and Islam do not comlpare........ but on the other hand is not exposed to the risk of getting infested and blotted by the infidel's thoughts and habits.

Sorry for cutting that whole paragraph down. I understand your point; Islam is offensive and pre-emptive in nature. Needless to say, I still think that is because it is a primitive religion that needs to be modernized, and the only way to modernize it is by throwing it into the modern world.

islam is the most successful military conquest operation of all uman history, it aism at nothing less than global rulership an thiknks that is a natural direction at which evolutuon is drifting anyway. One could realyl say that Muslim aggression is just an attempt to help nature to unfold in the way Allah has already decided anyway, you see.

That's an interesting way of putting it. Thought-provoking to be sure, and I think you are right to some degree. If Islam had its way, it probably would conquer the whole world. In fact, I think you'd enjoy Richard Bloom's book, The Lucifer Principle ( http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Princi...2021845&sr=1-1) ; it makes a good case for the same that includes an in-depth study of human nature and societal superorganisms.

However, fundamentalist Islam will not have its way because its anachronistic nature makes it incompatible with the modern world. It simply cannot survive and be militarily or societally successful without integration, and integration, as you mentioned, is anathema to fundamentalist Islam. The logistics just aren't there. Islamic countries that are not oil-rich are poor countries. Even the countries that are oil-rich are generally poor countries. Poor countries can't wage successful offensive wars, and they certainly can't maintain empires.

Even if fundamentalist Islam wasn't self-defeating, there are legions of Christians, non-Christians, and non-religious people who would utterly destroy an Islamo-fascist world state. You are correct in your indictment of religion as breeding fanaticism, but it works both ways, not just for Islam. I must admit, as a Christian and a soldier I half-wish they would try something, just so I could smite them for it; having an understanding (to some degree) of human nature does not make me immune to it.

Since years I am saying that Islam is not just any relgion, but that it is more politics and social control than anything else.

There you go lumping all Islam into one Islam again. They really aren't all like that, and they can be swayed.

My disdain for relgion comes due to it's anti-intzellectualism, the rejection of the human mind and dignity, and its lack of reason and logic. the method I prefer to deal with the world is that of our ancient greek heritage: Ratio, logic, the scientific methodology.

What makes you think that science is incompatible with religion? Most of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known have been subscribers to one religion or another. Even Einstein believed in a higher power. I'm religious, but I study science and reason. Once again, you lump everyone who is religious into one of a few big groups, all of which are bad.

Allm this can be targetted as an argument against islam, too, yes, but if you still have not understood that islam stands out from the crowd of religions, and that is does not know fundamentlistic lineages, but is fundamentalistic in its most original, natural form and essence, then I do not know how i could make that any more clearer to you or anybody else. As I see it our situation comopares to the era of Rome's fall, caused by the barabars by its gates, but also by econimic patterns and misdevelopements that are disturbingly similar to patterns we observe - if we want to see them - in the present as well. the parallels are stunning. For further info olin that I recommend the formidable anaylsis in Herfried Münkler's "Empires" http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Domina...4&sr=8-2-spell. Over the years I had several books on the rise and fall of empires, but this is by far the best that I have ever read.

I'll read "Empires" if you read The Lucifer Principle. I suspect the two books have much in common. TLP consistently makes a strong case for how empires have been toppled by the most unlikely source, barbarians, and it equates fundamentalist Islam with barbarism. It also makes a good case for the relationship between human nature and religion, the relationship between I would like you to see. Nonetheless, I think it is flawed. As Adam Smith observed, capitalist society is an inexorable force, driving civilization forward as surely as evolution. Notables such as Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins have made the same observation.

Simply wrong you are. I have explained, why. In this thread, any many times before.

Then explain it again, because the message didn't stick, or I didn't get a chance to read it.

I love this bigot arrogance and haughtiness behind this remark that I hear time and again. what you say in reality, is this: "You may not believe in my god, but my god nevertheless is so right and so winderful that he even can love you still." Shove it.

What's to shove? Why so cynical? What is wrong with forgiveness and acceptance? It's not about haughtiness or bigotry; a dyed-in-the-wool Christian like myself knows that my invisible phantasm spaghetti-monster God would see right through that. You can hate my religion if you want to, I'd just like to know why. I mean really why, not because you think it is incompatible with science; not because religion consolidates power, which you don't seem to mind when done under different, and IMO, less favorable auspices.

If people approach and ask you aboiut it, it is okay you answer their questions. But oif oyu enter the npoublic sühere where I have the same right to be like oyu have, then we both have to behave in a way that the other must not bother our presence. That emasn, you keep yopur radio so silent that you do not interfere with the radion listenin of other people, and then the other people will do the same for you, and cointrol their radios. But when you seriously expect that just beasue you think the place is yours anybody not wanting tom loisten to aour radio needs to leave and shall not use this public sopace, then I'll set up a fight.

You said as much before, and I heard you, but my point still stands. If people are to be allowed to share any messages or thoughts or cares or desires, why not religious ones.....?

My argument on freedom is that freedom ends where freedom is used to destroy freedom. This implies, in this context, that I reject the idea of unlimited freedom - with regard to this implication. See my exchange with Steve some days ago. I once again refer to Poppers tolerance paradoxon and freedom paradoxon as well, that I have quoted repeatedly now.

......Oh, that's why. Well, in that case you have no reason to speak out against my religion, since it infringes upon noone's freedom. You might as well protest the idea of chocolate milk in the grocery store freezer. In fact, you might as well oppose every scientific, cultural, societal, or artistic development ever made. There is no reason why I should be silenced, and there is no reason why you should listen unless you are interested in discussion.

do not compare scientiifc theory-building and religious dogmas. and betetr do not even comolare islam and other relgions. It is absurd, it simply does not compare.

I can, I will, and I will continue to do so, using the 99.9% of genetic code and the hundreds of millions of years of evolution and ten-thousand years of societal development behind it as the basis of my argument. People, whatever their beliefs, are people, Sky; and like people, they are never beyond redemption.

I again refer to the ancient Greek trsdition of scientific methodlogy that is beeing pursued until today. It has brought us much more relief from misery and disease, than any religion ever has.

Notwithstanding religious scientists, including Islamic ones, how can you quantify that?

It has given us a billion times more insight into the universe, than and relgious dogma ever has. And scientific methodlogy hardly has ever been the reason for cimmititing the worst atrocities and the biggest bloodblaths known in human history.

I disagree. Economics has been a major reason for every modern conflict, and it was brought about by scientific methodology. Science and reason are not seperable when it comes to men killing other men, both are excuses.

You want to increase that status of relgion by trying to see equal the assumnption of God existing being the same like the assumption that God doies not exist. but you have one problem there. you are not even basing on an observation that god exists.

Didn't I do that with my observation of billions of nanomachines that exist solely to create order, which just happens to be the fundamental concept of every religion and society on the planet, and a fundamental concept of every human society ever? Does being "created in His image" mean nothing to you at all? I suppose it wouldn't. I've already admitted that I don't know for sure, but neither do you. Even you, however, have to admit that there is some divinity in the essence of life and order, even if it isn't from a God; otherwise, why do you bother doing anything at all? Why reject the message of Jesus? Why not just die and put an end to this ridiculous charade?

If you want to know why, I'll tell you. It's because you can't. You can't destroy yourself any more than a healthy cell or bacterium can destroy itself. It's not in your programming. It's not what you were designed to do, whether by natural evolution or evolution designed by a God. Your genes won't allow you to self-terminate because they built you for the sole purpose of reproducing themselves. Consider that, and the inevitability of such a system being randomly created amongst billions of worlds, and tell me that there is no God and/or that there is no supreme Order. Even if there is no God, there is a divinity within life itself. Better yet, define the goals of a God that would create such a system.

How is it that you appreciate nature as much as you do and yet see no divinity in it? Non-biological nature is entropy, destruction, and disorder. The cosmos itself is no exception. Planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies swirl about in a dance of ultimate destruction, and you see no divinity in life and its capacity to escape that destruction?

Thus you cannot form a hypothesis oin any grounds.Thus no theory. And since you cannot form a theory in a scientific, nobody has any need to prove oyur theory wrong in orer to propve that God does not exist. Becasue you have no theory. I'm sorry, but your belief already disqualifies at the very first hurlde or scientifc, and i also would say: rational thinking. I must not prove anything, James.

Well, now you have my theory, as insubstantive as it is. Even if it is wrong, you still can't argue against Christianity and Jesus' message. You can't argue against the divinity of order, or mankind; the greatest order-creating agent known to, well, mankind.

you are the one claimning that God exists. The burden of evidence is up to you, completely. I have not made any observation that there is a god or not. You make the claim, so you miust come up with observation, hypothesis, testing it, theory-buiolding and model-building, then using it for poredcitions and then check again if the model predicts correctly or not. You would need to undergo this process in order to be taken serious in your cliam or belief. but you cannot. On the other hand. I would not need to do the same for atheism, because I claim nothing. My obervation is that I observe nothing when looking for God. Since i lack any ohenomenenon to observe, I form no hypthesis on God existing or not exosting, I form no theory of non-God or god, and form no model to predict non-god or God. It simply is something that does not even exist as a question to me. I would only need to show that if you would be able to form a model to predict a phenomenon (and explaining it with god) thati can explain the facts of your theory in a better wy with a model of mine - that of science. And as a matter of fact, science has done that, not with relgion'S scinrtiifxc models (it has none), but with its mere claims.

Then I would say that you have done nothing with what you have been given; or what you naturally obtained through pure happenstance. You might as well be a molecular biologist who does not presuppose the existence of atoms. Or an atomic scientist who does not presuppose the existence of neutrons and protons.

Religion and science do not compare. Science is coinstantly checking temporary models and theories, and if needed, correcting or replacing them. Religion is claming eternal truths that should be lasting forever, unchecked, unquestioned, not rationally analysed, but simply believed.

And I suppose that describes the constantly evolving nature of religions and the debates of theologists? Religion may not be science per se, but it is worth exploring as much as philosophy is.

If you have read until here and indeed understood a bit what I tried to say, you understand why I do not even answer to this nonsense paragraph. You once again see islam as somethign that it simply is not

And you see nothing where something may be. Moreover, you see nothing where a productive philosophy may be.