Muslim uproar - (Merged)

[Oberon]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I read that one the other day, that website is really good!


Right...where's Avon and Skybird...can't believe I got a post in before them

[Skybird]

:rotfl: it will get that TV station being bombed into a deep crater, but still :rotfl:

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by joea

This just might be the answer.

*Sits and awaits a 2000 word post by Skybird, and numerous links from Jihadwatch by Avon Lady as well as sundry miltary solutions from US posters*

*decides to buck the grain*

I think we need to endow a university research program to fully understand the the moslem grivances. If we really understood and addressed their grivances, then we would all be able to live in harmony with each other. Everything comes down to understanding. And love. The moslems really just want love and understanding. If you were poor, and everyone else around you was rich, you would want people to help you. You would want kind, understanding, caring, nurturing people to accept you for who you really are, and just give you the help you need to get ahead.

*plays Bett Midler's "From a Distance" on the iPod*

[Oberon]

*stone is thrown at tycho.*
"WHO THREW THAT?!!"
"No-one, and I mean NO-ONE, is to throw anything until I blow this whistle, even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say Muslim in a positive light!"

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Oberon

*stone is thrown at tycho.*
"WHO THREW THAT?!!"
"No-one, and I mean NO-ONE, is to throw anything until I blow this whistle, even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say Muslim in a positive light!"

Are there any women here?

[NEON DEON]

The Pope describes early Islamic expansion as violent and present day Muslims threaten violence.


I see not much has changed in a thousand years.

[AG124]

What does everyone think of this article? Although it's primary purpose is to criticize fundamentalist Atheism, it also defends muslims' actions. That's a very, very brief and somewhat inaccurate summary on my part but it is late at night and I am tired. I don't really like the article though, although I understand why the author believes some of the things that he does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk...-_b_29749.html

EDIT - Also, an article defending the West's freedom of speech and condemning muslim actions. Not sure if it has been posted here already.

http://www.nysun.com/article/39939?page_no=1

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by RJ Eskow

How can atheists work with people of faith to create a better society if they won't even read and learn about their fellow human beings? Yet some still refuse, because knowledge might interfere with their own cherished beliefs - not to mention their sales pitch.

Well, reading that part, I can see he lives in a bubble, and I stopped reading there.

No other comments!

[moose1am]

Religion can't be seperated from Politics. Religous leaders have used their religous power to control their followers for centuries. The Pope use the King and the King used the Pope in 1307 to get rid of the Templar Knights.

Religion and Politics are both used to control people and to benefit those in power. Power give them access to material wealth and it allows them to use others to get what they want done.

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Yes it does teach indeed. Firstly it strengthens my hypothesis that war is waged and won on monetary gains, not religion. AS you see, religion is conveniently put in front when it serves your purpose for conquest, and just as conveniently put aside when it stands in your way. Blood and iron, my friend, is how the world is crafted, not by religious flim flam.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Perilscope

Well, reading that part, I can see he lives in a bubble, and I stopped reading there.

Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols. I am atheist myself - and consider myself to be a very religious person. Buddhism is atheistic, too. I would even argue that the new God-concept that was introduced and taught by Jesus, and that stands separate from the God of the old testament, in a way can be understood to be atheistic, non-theistic, in the way that Jesus' "God" is no personalised god, no idol, no theistic entity. I think a religion is the more theistic, the more it is interpreted word-by-word, literally. The more the "believer" understands that words are symbols only and do not necessarily describe a "real reality", the more he turns into an atheist, nevertheless he can remain to be a highly spriitual person.

take the four Gosples, and take them literally word-by-word: and you end up with some Christian fundamentalists who wants to live by biblic rules from a thoisuand years ago and in post-medieval (or pre-medieval!) living conditions. Take the fours gospels and go beyond the word, refuse to understand the word "God" or "Father" as an idol, and you end up with Meister Eckehard or Jakob Böhme.

Me thinks, where there is theism, there may be dwelling emotions and superficial rapture, but there is no true religious experience. Religion needs atheism.

"Die Schrift is Schrift, sonst nichts,
Mein Trost ist Wesenheit,
Und daß Gott in mir spricht
das Wort der Ewigkeit."
(Angelus Silesius, 17th cent.)

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols.

Exactly my thought's!

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Strange what misunderstandings there are about atheism, seem to be more an annoyance that there is somebody who refuses in believing one's own idols. I am atheist myself - and consider myself to be a very religious person.

You cannot be both a "very religious person" and an atheist at the same time. That's more of an oxymoron than "military intelligence". Religion is not just a belief in some form of "higher power", but also a prescribed set of beliefs within an organized body of dogma and usually laid down through a hierarchal structure (Catholicism offering the best example, where you have the Pope at the top, nearly divine, then the arch bishops, bishops, priests, brothers, and then followers in that order from top to bottom). If you are Atheist, then you reject completely any type of God figure and naturally all organized religion attached to it. Agnosticism isn't quite so extreme, it allows you to reject organized religion but remain open to a God figure.

You confuse religion with spirituality. You can be a very spiritual person yet belong to no organized religion or attend any religious ceremonies or subscribe to any of its dogma - or you can be both spiritual and religious (they are not mutually exclusive).

FYI, from the Buddhist material I've read (top of the list is "Buddhism without beliefs" by Stephen Bachelor) I've come to think of it as less of a religion and more of an applied philosophy. But that's just my opinion, I'm still new to this eastern "religion" but I like what I've read of it so far and identify with its philosophy much more so than I do with the Catholic teachings I was raised with.

[Happy Times]

Wake up people.

[Happy Times]

:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

I'm sorry. I couldn't make out the last frame of the comic. It's chopped off.

Oh............................

More here.

For some amusing pics, look here and especially the sign on the right. :p