[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

When I looked up the word atheist, it said it was a word to describe a person who denies or does not believe in the existence of supreme or godly beings. So how can you be an atheist and religious?

To reject to simply, arbitrarily "believe" in a given idol is prerequisite for me for true religion (religion cannot be defined to be religion only when it is a theistic religion, a view that is especially popular with religious fundamentaliosts from all camps), that always means: mystical experience. A god that is thought or believed only, will die the moment the believer that thinks of him will die. The immediate experience of the present, and believing some hear-say, some old scriptures, some old sages - both are totally different things. Theism is about idols whose fundament is stuff that has been thiught out by people who are long since dead. God, Jawhe, Allah, the thousand gods in hinduism, Vayrajana, etc etc: words in old books only, dust and sound.

Well, you say without conflict the Nazis would still be here, the german people voted in an extreme right wing party with strong military tendancies and then they were surprised when Hitler went to war? No disrespects for any German past or present, but had they not voted in Hitler and his Nazi buddies in the first place, then quite possibly things would have been fine. We will never know for sure.

That election was accompanied by massive intimidation and manipulation, and soemtimes it is even argued by historians that Hitler repeatedly violated the constitution. And no, many Germans were not unaware of the evil that Hitler was to set loose. but in 1939, Germany already was ruled by fear and intimidation. If there would have been no war, there also would have been no truly free elections, only alibi elections like in the GDR. The Nazis would have stayed in power, for violance was the only thing that was able to make them go. You only need five guys taking on their black gloves - to make a parade of hundreds turn around.

I understand full well that sometimes conflict is unavoidable and often people are forced into it. But the crux of the matter is Chamberlain did his best to prevent an outbreak of hostilities, Avon Lady snarls at him for that, but I personally think at the time he was doing the right thing. Nobody wanted another all out war especially after the Great War, he was trying to find a peaceful solution. Not only that Britain was not in a position to fight the Third Reich, lots say had Hitler waited a while longer before the war started it would have turned out better for him, my real question is why didn't America do something? Or better still, Germany's next door neighbour, the French? America was not interested in the least, and France had their own agenda with the Germans. It was left in the British Lap. To sort out, and despite the Empire and such forth, the British were just not ready. That appeasement bought the UK valuable time to prepare.

that argument of buying time that was needed, and premature attack on Germany would have caused defeat in war, is interesting. However, after the attack on Poland, Britain did declare war due to earlier treaty obligations - and did not attack. Which is somehow contradicting to the wish of buying more time. that declaration of war was not needed for that purpose.

As Antony Hopkins in Mask of Zorro said, "you would have fought very bravely, and died very quickly" Had Germany beaten the UK, then what? They would have been unstoppable.

Do not understimate hitler's obsession with mysticism, and national thanatos. He was driven by an obession to destroy - even himself, finally. A sick pervertion of last-man-standing-heroism.

I don't agree with postive discrimination any more than I do negative discrimination. In the UK Sikhs are exempt from wearing a crash helment due to their religious requirements to wear a turban. That kind of thing is unfair. I don't agree with it, EVERYBODY should wear a helmet. I can't say I hate the muslim religion or anything, I do understand they have a war doctrine and such, but I remember that its only a handful that use their religion as a shield to carry out criminal acts. Therefore I avoid trying to tar them all with the same brush.

You simplify it, I think, and there is more to islam than like you see it, but okay, I have been there in so many words before, I will not repeat all what I wrote over the last couple of years - that would fill a whole book, probably. Please understand. If you are fluid in German language, eventually, I recommend the writings by Hans Peter Raddatz for a start. Difficult reading, though.

The simple truth of it all is, I am a coward. I admit that. Freely. I am afraid of my own shadow. Which is why I approve fully of non-violent solutions to problems in as many areas as is possible. I don't criticise them that fight, they do what I am afraid to do, simple as that.

.

Fear often is a reasonable and logic reaction. It can save your life. There is nothing bad in that fear exists. Also, civilization has changed man's psyche, most normal people need to learn to overcome natural inhibitions to use physical force (psychological preparation for that is what separates good from bad security and self defense-trainers, and much military drill is only about this).
However, only few people are born with high levels of courage. But: courage can be learned. I would even say most people need to learn it, are not given it in form of a free gift.
One only needs to wish to learn it - then first parts of fear have already gone.

I wouldn't know. I would hope that people wouldn't want to do such things to me. Maybe its wrong for me to hope. But it really makes me sad to think that so many people would just walk all over me with no regard for me to get what they want. I cannot be aggressive and nasty, its just not who I am.

Hope is not a strategy.

When I was a young schoolboy, I was shy, and weak, and lonely. After having got a pretty beating one afternoon, I felt so ashamed that I wished never to be weak again, so I started in martial arts and sword fighting, and I had a wonderful private master, and later, another very good one. My former interest in meditation and buddhism helped me in that decision, and to bring up the needed endurance. Shyness turned into natural restraint that simply is part of my character, I can'T escape it, and why should i want anyway. Physical weakness became strength, but I still hate to fight and avoid it if possible - what is not always the case, I learned. But I know that I CAN fight, if I see a reason that is worth it. Weakness is not a virtue, but weakness. Strength must not be a virtue, but it can be - when you learn the responsebility it comes with. Weakness leaves you with no option. Strength opens you additonal options. If you are strong enough, you win even without needing to fight, if the others are only clever enough.

That shy and weak little boy that I once were - later started to travel the oriental world by feet for almost one and a half year and kind of all by himself, came through several dangerous situations and fights and did two adventurous jobs in the middle east for which he got a pretty payment Some scars, yes, but I am still there. Most people seeing me today nevertheless describe me as a shy, unobtrusive guy. Which leaves me the tactical advantage of surprise, if needed.

So you see: courage can be learned, and it's worth it. And when you have understood that you are fearsome right now - this excuse no longer is available to you from thnat time on. Mean!

So, do you see me as a parrot and not knwoing what I am on about or are you saying that generally?

Hell, generally, of course. Although, as I said, I think your view of Islam tells your good intentions, but is flawed. Unfortunetyl, this wetsern well-meaning is what Isdlam makes maximum use of to push it's agenda. That's why I said you should study it more carefully. Good intentions are one thing. Reality is something different, sometimes.