Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Your going outside on Tuesdays is quite different from a building being erected as an inciteful landmark of sorts. One impacts only you, the other impacts many others.

But the question was about the Tenth Amendment and its impact on this particular freedom. The Muslims paid the fees, and got the permit. Now you show me where the Constitution gives you the right to stop it.

Excuse me, but please show me the Amendment protecting everyone's rights to build whatever they want wherever they want...

Ninth Amendment. James Madison specifically wanted that one to protect any right that he forgot to list in the first Ten. People have a right to do anything they want, as long as they don't break the law or harm other people's right to do the same. If McDonalds can build a building there then so can the Muslims. Equal protection under the law, it's called.

By your definition zoning itself is a violation of the 10th, yet SCOTUS has already said it is not. Except that my comment had a basis in reality (someone Bush-hating with little grasp of the actual issue). Yours made no sense.

My definition? When did I give a definition?

Actually Safe-Keeper's original statement slamming Bush had some validity, since he only accused Bush of not upholding the Constitution where it didn't suit him. Argue that all you like, but your reply had nothing to do with it. You instead upheld a time-honored tradition of accusing someone of holding his opinion due to preconcieved beliefs, whether you have evidence of that or not. My comment asked if you weren't doing the same? Wrong I may be, because I don't know you any more than you know Safe-Keeper, but within the context my retort to you made every bit as much sense as yours to him.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

....SNIP....
Read on previous page

Well said, I agree with almost everything you said and could not have worded it better myself.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I didn't say that.

[razark]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I didn't say that.

He snipped out your post so as not to spam the forum.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think a few pole dancer establishments should be built across the street and on either side of the new mosque. Should not really offend anyone or disrupt anything on moral grounds. Perfect ok in my book. Got the permit and paid the fees. Why not? Sounds like fun!!!! Ha ha.....

[Skybird]

Edit: sorry for the many typos due to my extreme speed-typing. but I'm tired, and lazy anyway (as always), and it is late over here, so I do not take a second read now. and if I would not type typos anymore, some people maybe even would wonder what is wrong with me.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

You might as well describe human nature, Sky.

No, I am not talking on human nature in this disucssion, and I refuse to do s, for in the context of this discussion'S topic it is not needed, therefore, I completely ignore it. I focus on: ideologies, not individuals, not human natures, ideologies are not all the same, some are more aggressively pushing than others, some ore more for the benefit of the many, some are more for the profit of the few, and some propagate more positive things, and others more negative things.

[/quote]
People are notoriously vulnerable to ideologies, both religious and secular.[/quote]

Again, there are differences. For example I have quoted in the past an essay by Bonhoeffer, who examined the nature of human stupidity in nthat text and mentioned that it is more a sociological (group) than psychological (individual) phenomenen and issue. He expresses the observation nthat in groups people tend to be more vulnerable to fall for the tendency the crowd is heading at, while isolated individuals seem to be more likely to withstand stupid mass phenomenons. I would say, no, I am convinced that it is the same with ideologies (as well as popular media culture).

They're also notoriously vulnerable to stereotyping and prejudice. It's not the fault of any particular group (though some are more predisposed than others), it's simple human nature. Evidence for this claim comes from the behavior of other apes in the natural world; they follow leaders, they fight, they form groups, and they make war. Chimps are infamous for such behavior. The human mind evolved from such as these, and we display these tendencies today.....

Ouh, let's leave this dangerous simplification of what a scientific evidence is out of here. The scientific working standard is a bit more strictly, and i also must point out that eye-witness reports of random chance witnesses or professional observers never have the status of a scientific theory, necessarily.

.....which is exactly what you are doing here. Islam is, in many cases, a bad religion. It is a bad ideology, but that doesn't mean it needs to be singled out for extermination.

No? Why is that, when it is a bigger threat to mnakind than any other ideology we know of, and when it claims global domination and extinction or subjugation of everything else as it's oltimate goal? BTW, extenrination is a word that I have NEVER used in any of these debates. I want to bring its spreading to a halt in hour home societies, and push it back. where it stays, it needs to be replaced, for I rule out the possibility that this ideology can be "modernised", "reformed", "tamed" or whatever.

More importantly, it doesn't mean that the people who practice it need to be singled out or exterminated.

When they support Islam as islam defines itself by its own scripture and self-understanding, than I do single them out for sure, and hold them respnsible for their belief, becasue thanks to the presence of every single individual, Islam is one head stronger in our home societies, and has one voice more to claim its goals. The same is true for fake-Muslims or apostates who just are to afraid to realsie that theay ar4e apostates, both groups may not be in active support of real islam, but nevertheless they help its cause by talking it nice and not standing up against it and giving it a big silent anonymous background that serves as a retreat area for the radical islamic claims. In German we call such people "Mitläufer", I am not sure I know the exact translation for that, I think my earli8er attempts were wrong, so I leave it to the german word. Mitlöufer are respnsible as well, becasue their passivity and silent support creates the space and opporutnity where the active idea can unfold. for example, only a minority of Germans were active Nazis, but very many were Mitläufer. Without these mitläufer, the Nazis would not have been able to rise.

Actually, Islam is very much like other religions used to be. Hinduism Judaism, and Catholocism exhibited very similar tendencies when they were primitive religions. The problem with Islam is that it has not been forced to evolve in its home regions. Rather than being included in the global community it has been persecuted and excluded. We can debate that point forever, but what matters is the Islam sees it that way.

Wrong. Islam pretty much saw itself as the climax oh human civilisation - until Napoleon löanded in Egyp and all that scientific and civilisational and military superirioty of the Europeans was revealed to the Muhammeddan world. Since then it tends to claim special rights for itself and wants to claim that the Wetsern acchievements in science and technoloy and so forth owe it to the muslim world to be given them for free, although the Muslim world did little, and often: nothing to gain and deserve them them, and it thinks the West owes it to them for the offence of being so superior that it has to submit to islam - so that Islam'S claim to be the peak of civilisational evolution would be correct again. but societies must be ready for technolgical and scientific modernisations, they must be ripe, or they get crushed or paralysed by the new. In case of islam, you have a medieval, primtive mind-world, depending on superstititon and submissive, fatalistic obedience, colliding head-on with the modern West and all the items and qualities that brings. even more, they got hit by a seocnd desaster, they found out that they had oil. It served as a wonderful excuse why they would not have to chnage and adapt to the nodern time at all. why should they, if they could become rich and simply buy all the wonderful foreign items, and the operators could be leased? for the muslim world, oil is as much a curse as it is for us. for us it is, because they have it but not us, for them it is, becasue it has prevented the realisation that the reason for their medieval, stagnating, porimtive society is not a conspiracy by the West, but islams own anti-intellectual nature, its inherent stagnation that seeks not creative modenrisation and developement, but a fundamentlaist, totalitarian fixiation on a far away past that dictates rules and habits that are no longer adequate for the creative flexibility of the modern world. the clash of civilisation - in reality is more a clash of times, more than anything else. Reason for it is the islamic ideology and the way it has educated the thinking patterns and cultural developement and social role-modelling islam is handicapped by so much - and terrorises peopole with nevertheless, especially women, and infidels. but of course it psychologically castrates muslim males as well. relations between family fathers and sons are a very critical conflict in the West, giving birth to more and more social explosives. Social workers ofteh describe family structures as "crippled", seriously ill, and "pathologic". In Germany we have two turkish female Islam critics, who time and again bring it to the formula that more than anything else the uslim world needa a global sexual revolution. Both women are right, an they get plenty of fire for that. And the Germans themselves? Have nothing better to do for attacking them as well, becaseu especially Frau Kelec is a very detemrined defender of Wetsern values and the western underatabding of freedom. Germans ask instead why this freedom could be claimed to be so precious, and that it remindsa of the Nazis claimed superiority to defend this freedom. when hearing such sick comments, I realise in what a hopeless mental asylum i am already living.

Islam is "tameable", as are all ideologies and religions. All it takes is a little mutually beneficial interaction and acceptance.

That is naivety resulting from total lack of understanding islam. You also seem to make the big, big mistake to think that what has worked in America necessarily works in all other cultures as well. You should know that better - you have seen your share of the mess created by this flawed assumption.

Very soon, you would see an Islam, that is, a religion, that is so interdependent upon outsiders that it can't be fundamental or militaristic. It simply doesn't have the option anymore. Religions are made of people and they will behave like people.

I'm sorry to say, but you will leanr better by painful experience. the question is not if, but when. Until then I only can recommend you get half a dozen of books on islamic scritpure (academic anaylsis, else you are lost), and history. for the world it will probably not make a difference. But maybe for yourself.

Let me put it this way: I'm a follower of Christ. I believe in peace, tolerance, and forgiveness. I honsetly think that a man who existed 2000 years ago was the Son of the One True God and that he performed miracles and died for our sins. I believe that no man is closer to God than any other. My religion has survived and prospered because it is one of acceptance. But where it was persecuted, it fought back. If you came here today and told me that I couldn't practice my religion, I'd fight you, too. So is it any wonder that a primitive religion fights?

Chriszinaity and Islam do not comlpare. I have compained so oftenm now why that is so, and i am in very good acadmeic comnpany with that opinion, that I will not do it once again, since it would be a waste of time anyway. Just realsie one thing, at least. you talked of self-defence of Christinaity (while it could be argued that in the past oit was very much in the offence, and today doesnot dare to defend itself, but that just as a side remark). Islam's understanding does not know a peace of mutual coexistence as you outlined it. the homo islamicus is the goal of evolution, it is ther will of allah that all and everything mist follow his law, that ois the direction at which natural evolution is developing anyway, and not acepting that, standing against iodslam, refusing it is thus an ogfence against Allah, and an attack omn nature and man himself. Therefore you have this strict divbison between the house of war and the house of Islam. Peace in islam means the absence of any potential challenger who could disturb the "peace" of Muslim monoculture and uniformity (uniformity=strength by being united), thus there cannot be peace as löong as the hopuse of war is not brought down. islam is not in self-defence, James. Like the russians after WWII, it only knows "forward-defense", attack, not preempti9vely, but to neutrlaise the offence that is given by the other, the non-muslim qulaity, simply existing. the concept of tolerance and coesitence that you just fantasised about, thus does not work with Islam. Islam only was brought to temporrary halts, where it wasx confronted by resistence that was stronger than it's own forces. but Islam prohibits to cement such a situation in peace treaties, but the Quran demand that only temporary seizefires get agree to, which should not last for longe rthan i think two years (Quran), so that the muslim army can regain strength , but on the other hand is not exposed to the risk of getting infested and blotted by the infidel's thoughts and habits. 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.

daresay that you allow your general disdain for religion to be focused upon Islam as a whipping-boy. I'd even go so far as to say that you may allow your disdain for societal views that are not your own to be impressed upon religion, and from there to Islam. I could be wrong, and it is not my place to judge, but it is a question worth asking yourself.

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

Fundamentalist Christians, IMO, are just the evolved version of fundamentalist Muslims. Some still commit horrific acts, just not on such a broad scale and not so indiscriminately. Many are just blatantly stupid, and I have a hard time calling them fellows. As time passes, they, too, are being phased out.

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

As long as you can say that and as long as there are politicians, I reserve my right to present Jesus' teachings to any willing to listen. If you don't want to listen, that's fine, we'll pray for you anyway,

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.

If poeplöe 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.

It is in this point that we have another fundamental difference, Sky. I believe that society is best advanced by the spontaneous experimentation that freedom generates, while you seem to think there is some system by which it is best accomplished.

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 releatedly now.

I would no more readily condemn Islam, or religion in general, or Newtonian Physics, or Quantum mechanics to the dustbin of history any more readily than I would condemn you or myself.

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

You don't know whether or not there is a God, and neither do I. Neither one of us could even define such an entity; and where you see short-sightedness on my part for assuming that there is a higher intelligence, I see short-sightedness on yours for assuming there isn't Nobody knows what is out there.

I again refer to the ancient Greek trsdition of scientific methodlogy that is beeing sued until today. It has brought us much more relief from misery and disease, than any religion ever has. 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. 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. 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 no prve anything, James. 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.

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.

I see an inevitable system of little biological machines generated by an unimaginably vast array of laboratories that inevitably create ever more complex biological machines that all have the goal of producing greater order from leser order or disorder. I see divinity in life itself, and I see the divinity in the message of life that Jesus preached. I do not violate your freedom by telling you that, as you have the choice whether or not to believe it, or anything else that I say. At most you could arrogantly dismiss me as being annoying.

However, I see something else, as well. I see a perfectly good and large segment of the human population being labeled as worthy of destruction (in belief, if not in person) for the sole reason that someone sees it as a shortcut. Why not afford Islam the chances that have been given to us? Trade with them freely, let them integrate, and the destructive nature of their ideology will disappear. I guarantee you that.

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think a few pole dancer establishments should be built across the street and on either side of the new mosque. Should not really offend anyone or disrupt anything on moral grounds. Perfect ok in my book. Got the permit and paid the fees. Why not? Sounds like fun!!!! Ha ha.....

In holland or germany, some years ago, a church gave property to a muslim community, right on the other side of the street, directly opposite to the church. The mosque was build. The Muslims then complained and said the church had to got, it would be an offence to Islam and a discmrination of devout muslims if they go to the mosque and mist watch the chruch while on their way.

A German brothel during the football championship four years ago had an advertising that showed all international flags and a football. First they got intimidating letters. Wheh that did not work, several men described as being looking arabic, started to visit them and intimidating, bullying and threatening girls and guests and the owner, demanding that the Saudi flag had to be removed . the police recommended to comply - in order to not provokate. That there was a serious breaching of he law and threats of violence going on, was totally ignored.

I do not take it for granted that your idea would work, warhawk. Things are worse in Europe, but in america you will be in some years where we already have been some years ago then. In america islam sees that advancing slowly and on the lath of smallest resistence is the best way to spread islam and lulling the natives. that's why things are a bit different in ameica and europe. But the relaxed impression in merica, is misleading. the nature of the group pushing the mosque at GZ-project should ring alarm bells. The project is a wanted, cooly calculated confrontation, nothing else.

By your definition zoning itself is a violation of the 10th, yet SCOTUS has already said it is not.

Aramike is still stuck.
Conditions on zoning have to be generally applicable, banning only mosques without banning all places of religious worship fail that so are unconstitutional on the basis that it is discriminating against a religion.
Its why his comparison with restrictions on strip joints is bogus as those conditions which apply to strip joints apply to all strip joints which means they pass the test of general application.

As for the memorials you mention, of course I would stand dead square against them, but in the case of Pearl Harbor, it's America, and if the local zoning commission approved it and it passed muster with the higher authorities, I would support it, on LEGAL grounds.

As for Pearl Harbour Steve I think you are missing something, in fact several things.
Funnily enough they are things which are the main basis for most of this website.
So what exactly is the legal status of the japanese boats in Hawaii and isn't the body responsible for these the same body that does the USS Arizona and USS Utah

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 releatedly now.

Sky still doesn't realise that he is exactlty what was warned against

[mookiemookie]

Lower Manhattan isn't some holy sanctified ground either. Has anyone actually been there? It's filthy, grungy, dirty water hot dogs sold by a swarthy vaguely middle eastern guy, street vendors hawking Twin Towers garbage, plain ol' New York City. There's fast food joints, sushi restaurants, bodegas and crap just like any other downtown. I have no idea why people are trying to turn this into some kind of holy shrine. Build the damn mosque already, just like the million others in NYC.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Edit: sorry for the many typos due to my extreme speed-typing. but I'm tired, and lazy anyway (as always), and it is late over here, so I do not take a second read now. and if I would not type typos anymore, some people maybe even would wonder what is wrong with me.

Acceptable, of course.

No, I am not talking on human nature in this disucssion, and I refuse to do s, for in the context of this discussion'S topic it is not needed, therefore, I completely ignore it. I focus on: ideologies, not individuals, not human natures, ideologies are not all the same, some are more aggressively pushing than others, some ore more for the benefit of the many, some are more for the profit of the few, and some propagate more positive things, and others more negative things.

Perhaps, but you cannot ignore the role human nature plays in the creation and sustenance of ideologies. If you want to talk about science, let's do so in a format to which science is accustomed. You can't simply skip the human nature part of the equation and go straight to ideologies.

You tell me what I already know by saying that ideologies are different. Societies of lesser primates are also different depending upon their environment and the societies around them. My point is that they all work around the same basic principles. Every human society is formed by a collection of human minds, Sky, as are the ideologies they form. I think you're skipping a very important step in the understanding of human sociology; you can't fix a machine by knowing what it does, you must know how it works.

Again, there are differences. For example I have quoted in the past an essay by Bonhoeffer, who examined the nature of human stupidity in nthat text and mentioned that it is more a sociological (group) than psychological (individual) phenomenen and issue. He expresses the observation nthat in groups people tend to be more vulnerable to fall for the tendency the crowd is heading at, while isolated individuals seem to be more likely to withstand stupid mass phenomenons. I would say, no, I am convinced that it is the same with ideologies (as well as popular media culture).

I see no difference between Bonhoeffer's observations and studies of social primates by the likes of Goodall, Hrdy, and Short. You yourself have mentioned on many occassions where we disputed economics and social structure that "no man is an island" while I was defending individualism. So what is this, now? I don't understand what you intend to prove by this argument.

Ouh, let's leave this dangerous simplification of what a scientific evidence is out of here. The scientific working standard is a bit more strictly, and i also must point out that eye-witness reports of random chance witnesses or professional observers never have the status of a scientific theory, necessarily.

It's not a simplification, it's just observation by scientific minds. For every one source you can produce that says humans don't behave in a way similar to their primate ancestors, I'll give you five more credible sources with complete citations that support each other. In fact, I'll bet I can do that using only ten books.

I don't think you're looking deeply enough into the issue Sky, if you don't mind my saying so.

No? Why is that, when it is a bigger threat to mnakind than any other ideology we know of, and when it claims global domination and extinction or subjugation of everything else as it's oltimate goal? BTW, extenrination is a word that I have NEVER used in any of these debates. I want to bring its spreading to a halt in hour home societies, and push it back. where it stays, it needs to be replaced, for I rule out the possibility that this ideology can be "modernised", "reformed", "tamed" or whatever.

Now you make my case for me. You may not use the word "extermination" and i did not accuse you of doing so (though I see where it was implied, sorry), but look at the words you use; "halt", "replaced", "rule out the possibility that it can be modernized". What you are saying is that you believe Islam, and the people who follow it, cannot be redeemed other than conversion to a different set of beliefs. Do I need to tell you how much that sounds like a fundamentalist Islamic perspective?

When they support Islam as islam defines itself by its own scripture and self-understanding, than I do single them out for sure, and hold them respnsible for their belief, becasue thanks to the presence of every single individual, Islam is one head stronger in our home societies, and has one voice more to claim its goals.

I bet Mohammed would approve, if only you were a Muslim. Do you not see what you are saying?

The same is true for fake-Muslims or apostates who just are to afraid to realsie that theay ar4e apostates, both groups may not be in active support of real islam, but nevertheless they help its cause by talking it nice and not standing up against it and giving it a big silent anonymous background that serves as a retreat area for the radical islamic claims. In German we call such people "Mitläufer", I am not sure I know the exact translation for that, I think my earli8er attempts were wrong, so I leave it to the german word. Mitlöufer are respnsible as well, becasue their passivity and silent support creates the space and opporutnity where the active idea can unfold. for example, only a minority of Germans were active Nazis, but very many were Mitläufer. Without these mitläufer, the Nazis would not have been able to rise.

Mitlaufer means someone who is a follower or a hanger-on in English. I think it literally means "with loafers", or in English: silent consenters or somesuch. In any case, it means someone who does not form their own opinions.

Even so, I see a flaw in your logic. Most Christians, even Catholics, would not support the hegemony of the Pope. Most Muslims in developed countries would not support Islamic theocracy, either. They are not willing to go back to that life. That is why they have fled thei home nations.

Furthermore, there is little comparison between post-WW1 Germans and the Nazis. The Germans that fled the Nazi regime didn't go back. We should welcome the refugees of Islam. You're exacerbating the difficulty of assimilating them by attacking them. I see the Mitlaufer in Germany as being roughly analagous to the citizens of Iran or Syria today, they have nowhere else to go because they are poor and other countries refuse them.

Wrong. Islam pretty much saw itself as the climax oh human civilisation - until Napoleon löanded in Egyp and all that scientific and civilisational and military superirioty of the Europeans was revealed to the Muhammeddan world.

Strange they didn't realize that when the Macedonians and Romans conquered them.

Since then it tends to claim special rights for itself and wants to claim that the Wetsern acchievements in science and technoloy and so forth owe it to the muslim world to be given them for free, although the Muslim world did little, and often: nothing to gain and deserve them them, and it thinks the West owes it to them for the offence of being so superior that it has to submit to islam - so that Islam'S claim to be the peak of civilisational evolution would be correct again. but societies must be ready for technolgical and scientific modernisations, they must be ripe, or they get crushed or paralysed by the new.

I think you're making a big leap in logic, my friend, and if I may say so, a huge error in strategic thinking. Most of Islam does want to have what we have, that much is true, but you are willfully ignoring the human factor in the equation, not to mention the economic factor.

In fundamentalist Islam, the general rule has been that Sheiks and Caliphs control most of the wealth and have huge harems. That's human nature. That's what happens in primitive totalitarian societies. Need I cite examples?
The only reason the common people go along with this is because they know nothing else; but if we introduce the fruits of Western civilization to them, they will begin to leave the hardcore tenets of their faith, which is based entirely upon the baser elements of human nature. That much I will agree with you upon.

Persecuting them is not the answer. That will only generate more violence and more discord. We have better ways to undermine totalitarian ideologies. Use your head.

In case of islam, you have a medieval, primtive mind-world, depending on superstititon and submissive, fatalistic obedience, colliding head-on with the modern West and all the items and qualities that brings. even more, they got hit by a seocnd desaster, they found out that they had oil. It served as a wonderful excuse why they would not have to chnage and adapt to the nodern time at all. why should they, if they could become rich and simply buy all the wonderful foreign items, and the operators could be leased? for the muslim world, oil is as much a curse as it is for us. for us it is, because they have it but not us, for them it is, becasue it has prevented the realisation that the reason for their medieval, stagnating, porimtive society is not a conspiracy by the West, but islams own anti-intellectual nature, its inherent stagnation that seeks not creative modenrisation and developement, but a fundamentlaist, totalitarian fixiation on a far away past that dictates rules and habits that are no longer adequate for the creative flexibility of the modern world. the clash of civilisation - in reality is more a clash of times, more than anything else. Reason for it is the islamic ideology and the way it has educated the thinking patterns and cultural developement and social role-modelling islam is handicapped by so much - and terrorises peopole with nevertheless, especially women, and infidels. but of course it psychologically castrates muslim males as well. relations between family fathers and sons are a very critical conflict in the West, giving birth to more and more social explosives. Social workers ofteh describe family structures as "crippled", seriously ill, and "pathologic". In Germany we have two turkish female Islam critics, who time and again bring it to the formula that more than anything else the uslim world needa a global sexual revolution. Both women are right, an they get plenty of fire for that. And the Germans themselves? Have nothing better to do for attacking them as well, becaseu especially Frau Kelec is a very detemrined defender of Wetsern values and the western underatabding of freedom. Germans ask instead why this freedom could be claimed to be so precious, and that it remindsa of the Nazis claimed superiority to defend this freedom. when hearing such sick comments, I realise in what a hopeless mental asylum i am already living.

Longest. Paragraph. Ever.

Good economic analysis in the first part. You are quite right about oil being as much of a curse to Islam as it is to us, but oil is only as good as what it can buy, and the non-muslim world has goods of every type imaginable in great abundance.

You take the argument to a new level by mentioning social workers. Yes, social workers often describe problems as being more severe than they really are, and they often prescribe social entitlements as the remedy, but then again, what would you expect them to do? They're social workers; like any workers, their entire livliehood depends upon identifying and solving problems to an acceptable degree within a society. What would you expect them to do? Do you realize that you're doing the exact same thing? You see a problem where there isn't one. You prescribe medications for the symptomns without recognizing the disease.

That is naivety resulting from total lack of understanding islam. You also seem to make the big, big mistake to think that what has worked in America necessarily works in all other cultures as well. You should know that better - you have seen your share of the mess created by this flawed assumption.

I make no mistake. I've seen economic freedom (as they jokingly call what Iraq has now) work first-hand. Even in that limited context, it works. It works brilliantly. Have you seen the lines of Shiite and Sunni Muslims and even Kurds who are willing to put aside their differences to make an honest dollar doing even menial work? I have. These people have been oppressed and impoverished and have lived under Islam all their lives, but they cooperated to provide for their families and themselves. I worked alongside them. I talked with them. They listened to my stories about the Bible and I listened to their stories about the Koran. I helped their children and they thanked me for it. We even fought together. There is a deeper meaning to human nature than simple ideology as you define it, Sky.

I'm sorry to say, but you will leanr better by painful experience. the question is not if, but when. Until then I only can recommend you get half a dozen of books on islamic scritpure (academic anaylsis, else you are lost), and history. for the world it will probably not make a difference. But maybe for yourself.

I've had my share of painful experience, and I believe these people are worth the effort.

Chriszinaity and Islam do not comlpare. I have compained so oftenm now why that is so, and i am in very good acadmeic comnpany with that opinion, that I will not do it once again, since it would be a waste of time anyway. Just realsie one thing, at least. you talked of self-defence of Christinaity (while it could be argued that in the past oit was very much in the offence, and today doesnot dare to defend itself, but that just as a side remark).

Not a side remark, but the mark of a religion that has evolved.

Islam's understanding does not know a peace of mutual coexistence as you outlined it....

Sorry for cutting your response short, but my point still stands in the face of it. Islam is a religion of people, and you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by assuming it to be otherwise.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll continue after work and a quick check f the boards.

[SteamWake]

Wholy smokes... wall of text

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I didn't say that.

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

[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.

[Skybird]

My point is that they all work around the same basic principles. Every human society is formed by a collection of human minds, Sky, as are the ideologies they form. I think you're skipping a very important step in the understanding of human sociology; you can't fix a machine by knowing what it does, you must know how it works.

That is not true, the Nazi's ideology was basing on very different foci than the ideology of a democratic/humanistic state order. Also, the Nazis got fought against and overturned not by philosophical but military means. If all ideologies would base on the same human traits, then every man would show the same vulnerability for the same ideologies, and then we probably should talk in singular on ideolgoies, not in plural, because then there would be only one ideology - one size fits all. - I say different than you, that is that ideologies form their own climate in which people get influenced and manipulated and educated that way that they form a general preference for this culture and its ideologies, while refusing others. that is why you have the american way of life and value order in america, natural belief system of simple structure with naturalistic primitives in the jungle, and a conquering desert ideology in the desert with battling Arabs (muhammad's time). If then the ideology persists, it can disconnect itself from the additional influence of living environment and nature, enabling it's carriers to move into different surroundings that lack this basis - where they still stick to their ideology, not changing/losing it.

I see no difference between Bonhoeffer's observations and studies of social primates by the likes of Goodall, Hrdy, and Short. You yourself have mentioned on many occassions where we disputed economics and social structure that "no man is an island" while I was defending individualism. So what is this, now? I don't understand what you intend to prove by this argument.

There I was about what I just said again. You made a generalisation about all humans showing the same vulnerability for the same ideologies (I formulate it different than you said it, but that is the implication) and I here and there say why I do not buy this generalisation. Neither are all humans the same, nor are all ideology basing on the same human traits. And where they are not, I think it is better thinking to see that groups effect the indvidual in it'S attitude and opinion forming, the anonymous authority of the masses, so to speak. For Bonhoeffer this results in the phenomenon of stupidity. In the context of this discussion it results in the general acceptance of the same ideology by the many, no matter whether it is a good or bad one. Social interaction patterns amongstprimates, have little to do with this. It does not matter whether you have a tribe of chimps hunting other animals, some do, others dont, or if you refer to observations showing chimps behaving in a helpful, altruistic way because by altruism they receive a generally higher social benefit payback. That simply are things that do not touch this debate here.(Not to mention that there are also some chimps that show more and others that show less and finally chimps that show no altruistic behavior. but this just as a side remark.)

Strange they didn't realize that when the Macedonians and Romans conquered them.

Loosing track now of whom you mean by "they" - the Romans and Macedonians, the Europeans of the Romans' times, the Europeans of Napoleons time, Islam at Napoleon's time?

I think you're making a big leap in logic, my friend, and if I may say so, a huge error in strategic thinking. Most of Islam does want to have what we have, that much is true, but you are willfully ignoring the human factor in the equation, not to mention the economic factor.
In fundamentalist Islam, the general rule has been that Sheiks and Caliphs control most of the wealth and have huge harems.That's human nature.

No, that is result of a fatalism that is founded in islamic teaching. Quoting an old essay of mine from some years ago: "An interesting position Islam is holding on the question of material wealth. Earthly goods are not considered to be of evil, but their possession only can lead to any spiritual worth if it is understood as that man has to use them to do good deeds in the name of the Umma, and help it’s weaker members. Not possession of material wealth is sinful, but the sticking to it. The different distribution of wealth amongst rich and poor people is understood to be a „testing“ grade for man, so that the poor are challenged not to allow themselves to fall victim to greed and envy, and the rich shall not allow to get possessed by their possessions. The existence of material goods that way could lead to a behavior that is pleasing to God and will help for a more positive judgement of the individual life at the end of it’s days. " - Add this to the fatalism that results when all and everything happening is attributed to the will of Allah, and you have the reason why Muslim societies are so accepting and tolerant on brutal opressors ruling them: it is God's will, and as long as the tyrant at the top claims and acts as if he is doing his way for the sake of islamic interests, from a theological point of view his behavior is pretty much acceptable. Note that the islmic world has no tradition to run ffree,liberal, democratic societies, but has a tradition to be run by dictators (some being more, some being less brutal). Note that the socalled radicals and fundamentalists do not attack the Saudis, for example, for their wealth, but because they do not engage with their wealth enough in the propagating and spreading of Islam, and jihad, and allow social issues not being taken care of (! the Saudis, mind you: Wahabatism and all that). Terror organisations like Hamas understand this, and thus serve as terror brigades on the one hand, but anchor themselves in society by maintaining huge social aid networks as well (of course also to deceive the West and to gain ideological influence).

In 2005, i think I also wrote ": It needs not to be mentioned that the excessive waste of material wealth in the West, it’s almost pathologic level of materialism by which it is already destroying itself, as well as the financial corruption of most if not all Arab governments, namely Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, is a major target for critizism by fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden because of Islam‘s concept of spiritual value of material wealth. Basically saying, one should not stick to material goods, for they are not lasting, and use their possession to acchieve something good, it is one of the few things in traditional Islam I feel sympathy for. That Muslim governments, especially the oil-rich nations, also show a very bad record in helping each other genorously whenever a Muslim place is hit by a natural desaster, and leave the financial aid mostly to the West while keeping their petrodollars for themselves (and jihad) mostly, is another major point of ideological attack for fundamentalists. The West should realize that these fundamentalists are absolutely in congruency with Islam in major parts of their critizism of contemporary Islam and muslim nations and governments. That way fundamentalists are giving the West a much more relastic picture of what Islam is, than the corrupted Muslim nations of today themselves. We are in real need to learn that not all what Osama is saying about Islam is nonsens. Much, but not all, of it is representative, and this is another reason for his popularity with the crowds and why they admire him for his „truthfulness“ . Since this partly true, but fundamentalistic understanding of Islam is creating the image of Islam beeing hostile to Western values, it is usually rejected, or supressed in the medias. Only the tolerant, peaceful face of Islam is the acceptable face of Islam the West wants to see. If we ignore the monsters under our beds, they surely are not there. But truth is – the space just gets increasingly crowded."

That's what happens in primitive totalitarian societies

And modern capitalistic ones as well.

The only reason the common people go along with this is because they know nothing else; but if we introduce the fruits of Western civilization to them, they will begin to leave the hardcore tenets of their faith, which is based entirely upon the baser elements of human nature. That much I will agree with you upon.

Where do we agree here? I also remind you that Islam is not only so strong due to itself, but also is strong - because we are so weak now; old, aging, dying societies that have deeply corrupted their once democratic order, founded on noble hopes and utopias, exchanging that for a tyranny of bureaucrats and money-obsessed oligarchs and plutocratic elites trying their best to erode society from within to prevent the electorate from waking up and trying to gain even more profit-tailroed control for themselves. We do not have enough babies by our own, and we are lacking the dynamic of a young age structure in society. both are extremely relevant factors. I point, amongst others, at the work of Gunnar Heihnsohn, I have referred to him before, he is doing research on not much else than the influence of demographic factors on cultures and societies. His findings are empirically solid, and they are alarming.

Or: what happened with China - giving them our superior machines and technology, seeing them copying it, then producing it themselves, and then turning our market philosophies against us - all that happens with our values and ideals that our justice systems base upon, and Muslim subcultures as well. they get massive support from their home countries, in motivation and cultural indoctrination. they use the freedoms you grant them, and abuse them to work for destroying them. Some do it by active deed, others create the opportunity for it to happen by doing nothing. Only a very small minority stands up against the others doing so. And these minorities then get bashed - by the western islamophiles!

By historic example, I summarise it all by just this: Islamic societies have a much longer breath in running an oppressive tyranny, than hectic, shortminded western nations have to convert the (resisting!) world to the benefit of capitalistic corruption. Already in the medieval, islam was superior in patience and long breath, and fighting spirit and martyrdom, compared to the technically superior Christians knights. I add this to the consequences of the theologic influence of islam. and then I conclude that it is a bad idea trying to outsit Islam - in that kind of game, Islam is a master, and the West is an amateur.

Yes, social workers often describe problems as being more severe than they really are, and they often prescribe social entitlements as the remedy

That cleansweeping claim you would have to prove. I read more of your own unreflected ideologic preassumptions in this, than solid knowledge of social realities. Probably different to you, I know social workers in real life, due to my past, even if i'm am loosing contact to them. You probably neither had a realistic impression of workload and numerical pressure social workers often work under, nor do you realistically assess the motivation of such people, even more so when they work as streetworkers. I also smell the implied accusation of "they are all socialist nannies" in the air.

Let me tell you one thing: streetworkers tend to be among the most brutal realists I have ever learned to know. Because they are going right into the middle of the mess, and that is a job that many would not bear, or would not like to do at all. As an arrogant lecturer I once had put it in an especially nasty moment of his: "Before I work in the streets, i would prefer to clean the toilets, that is less depressing." Great statement by the man. We loved him very much... Some of such workers are chaotics, yes. Some are disconnected future academics that float over the dirt like Jesus lavitated over water, but many have a psychological stamina and a sense of reality you do not find in many people. and that is not by chance, becasue otherwise they would not be able to be efficient in what they try to do.

I make no mistake. I've seen economic freedom (as they jokingly call what Iraq has now) work first-hand. Even in that limited context, it works. It works brilliantly. Have you seen the lines of Shiite and Sunni Muslims and even Kurds who are willing to put aside their differences to make an honest dollar doing even menial work? I have. These people have been oppressed and impoverished and have lived under Islam all their lives, but they cooperated to provide for their families and themselves. I worked alongside them. I talked with them. They listened to my stories about the Bible and I listened to their stories about the Koran. I helped their children and they thanked me for it. We even fought together. There is a deeper meaning to human nature than simple ideology as you define it, Sky.

I just waited that you would come with your most favourite theme of free market again. I stayed a longer time in iran, amongst other nations. There I sometimes had the opportunity, when by boss was busy with interviews, to talk with aids of the person of interest, which often was a politician or a cleric. Of course I also learned private people as well, especially on a later trip when I was private. Sometimes I was asked what my faith was. In the beginning I was honest and replied with hinting to a mix of atheist and buddhist concepts. that gave me mixed reactions. Non-theistic relgions are suspisicous, and atheism even more. the imam of one mosque in Southern Teheran was very friendly and did not the smallest attempt to missionise me, although I was not only no muslim, but even no follower of the book (Jews, Christians). So, such things are possible. But they are just one of many impressions.

On other occasions I immediately was dealt with as if I had turned into the devil himself. This especially often happened in central and east-Turkish areas with rural populations. Compared to Turkey I prefer Iran any time.

I would not generalise the one or the other experience, not yours, not mine. After all, I just met SOME people, and you did meet just SOME people. The general influence of an ideology that runs a whole culture - that is still something very different, and in history you often have the pattern in Muslim countries that moderate tendencies seem to have been tolerated, and then all of a sudden they suddenly turned "radical" (true Islamic, that is). that has a simple reason, that I mentioned yesterday. Islam stands still when it cannot overcome opposing resistence, but it does not just sit and does nothing, but it collects additional power/forces. that were armies in the past, or higher birth rates that resulted in said new armies sooner or later, in this case here that was growing influence by the radicals/true muslims. When the critical mass has been reached, all that and humanism and coexistence suddenly becomes meaningless again. And strange enoiuzgh, you can also see the masses often cheering at that. Islamic crowds are used to be run by strong tyrants at the top. Like russians - many embrace the reviving of the stalin cult. Stalin is POPULAR again. Who cares for some dozen million people that died due to him? Nobody does. They run musicals, TV series gloryfying him, now, in the present. Putin uses him to install his own power, too. Saddam adressed old heroic myths, and do not be mistaken - he was quite popular with not only members of the Baath party (that he was feared, too, is true, but not in every case is that a contradiction).

Islam is a religion of people.

No, it is an idelogy that was tailored by just one man to serve his own political interest of self-justification for his own power-craving. This was casted into the Quran, and later distorted a bit by local and super-regional leaders to gain legitimation through the Quran for their own power interests. But even before the outbreak of the Isamic civil war and the shism, the quran already had been led back into just one form and format - and that is the one that is valid until today.

You see it too much through american glasses, trying to talk the problem into a format so that the tools in your american toolbox can "manage" it. But your tools are not sharp enough, because while lacking a hammer you try to bring that nail into the wall by using a saw, saying it is no nail but a piece of wood, cutting it would do the job. but the nail still would not be in that wall afterwards. Two pieces of wood do not change that. So - you better start looking where to get that damn hammer.

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.

the Eurocrats position that is: forming an "Euro-Islam. there have been threads before where i explained why I do not believe in that idea, but that the inner resistance of Islam to be changed and modernised and tamed is stronger than any western influence on it. It has to do with the way Quran and the tradition of Sharia are interwoven and linked to every aspect of human life: the individual's life, the family'S life, the communal life, the nation'S life. You cannot just delete passages in the Quran and abandon Sharia in parts and then think what is left would be a modern islam, Islam is not as modular as would be needed for doing so, it is pretty much monolithic indeed. Either you manage to scratch it and see the whole thing turning into sand, or you cannot - and then will not break a single bit out of it. that'S why I have said in said past threads that islam in europe must not be modernised (I have support for my position especially by apostates and Muslim critics of Islam, btw), but must be replaced. But for that a mental evolution is needed first, there are no shortcuts to such things, if the readiness to embrace such a radical chnage is not there, then you can offer whatever you want on the silverplate, it will be in vein at best, or gets abused at worst. the question is if a deeply corrupted, decadent society like what our democracies have degenerated into, has something to offer that could serve as such a powerful incentive when at the same time we time and again see that our democracies do not function anymore and our cultural value system partly is breaking down, party gets deconstructed by intention), and question also is if we have the needed ammount of time to try this strategy - my reply is a clear, sounding NO to that, we do not have that time. In order to convince the other by your own example, your position must be strong, your incentive must be convincing. But we are not that. what we are being seen as, is this: we are the prey, that finally has become so tired that it falls like a ripe fruit into the lap of islam, withoiut war, wiothiut need for conquest, after a thiusand years of cnstant confrontation. We have tried to convince by our example and liberties for almost 50 years now, since the early 60s, results: none. Effect on the integration level of islamic subcultures int he West: none, even more, the hope for effect is not only dissapointed, it even seems to work at the opposite direction: we see muslim communities in Germany, England and holland and Sweden becoming more radical and more orthodox and even more religious, basing on the real Islam, not this hallucination of a desired euro-islam that censors part of its identity. Since half a century, strong Muslim populations are present in the West, thousands of mosques have been build, billions of dollars have been invested by us and by them, most of these people enjoy greater freedoms in our countries than they ever learned to know in the muslim global sphere. The effect we acchieved by doing so, is thin, to put it very, very optimistic. We have invested enough time and resources to test the hypothesis. It's time to abandon the hpyothesis. It does not work, it never has worked, and there is nothing that indicates that it ever could work.

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.

First, islam IS fundamentalist in general. fundamentalism is not just one school lineage in it, it is the basis and fundament of Quran AND sHARIA. Second, as I see it, islam, this fundamentalist, orthodox islam is spreading, rapidly. You say it must fail because it is not compatible with the modern world. The observation is correct, but the conclusion is premature at best: because islam can also make the modern time failing (and indeed that is what is happening wherever it gains in influence). That is part of it's intention. Modern times are not what Allah wants. Allah wants sharia, and Sharia hates modern times. I do not have the link anymore, but one and a half year ago, roughly estimated, there was paper published that examined the going of democracies and tyrant or opressive regimes in the world. It showed quite convincingly, that on all continents, the principles of democracy are in decline, either by democracy getting pushed back by force, or by being eroded from within, while tyrannic regimes and dictatorships are blossoming and spreading worldwide in number and influence. I also remind of the fact that Rome fell to inferior barbars, who just had two advantages over the romans and their superior civilisation: they were more brutal and ruthless than the ro,mans of that time, and they were determined to use that ruthlessness of theirs for best effect. An inferior civilisational grade can very well topple a society of a higher civilisational grade, in fact that has happened quite often. the more complex something is, the more depending it is, the more vulnerable it is. Deconstruction of hierarchic structure happens at the reversed sequences of building them. That is true in physics. That is true in biology. That is true in human value system and forms of structuring communal living-together.

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

Yes, they are not all like that, like not all Christians are real christians. But where they follow islamic teaching for sure, they are pretty much uniform in the way they are - that is the intention of islamci education, that was the intention by muhammad, and that is what you see reflected in Quran and Hadith and that is why sharia is so unforgiving on straying off from the only, the one, the single, the true path. that is what you see in the global behavior and effect of the Ummah - the ummah is not divided into sects and schools and different lineages - it is one anonmous mass of uniform people who all support the cause of islam. When will you finally stop to make this very big mistake to judge somethign that is not western by western ideas and value systems? you have to take the ideology for what it is. when you read the quran with its suras rearranged so that they reflect the original historic sequence of their creation, and when you keep in mind the abrogation principle that legitimately decides that contradicting passages are decided by using the younger statement of the two in conflict, a principle on which the Islamic world has consensus since the 9th century, then you see that "being islamic" leaves you much, much lesser degrees of freedom for interpretation and variation than all you wellmeaning, kind-hearted, reasonable western "useful idiots" (Lenin's term that I borrow) constantly try to see in it, read into it, interpret into it. yes, there are socalled muslims not sticking to it word for word. they are not Muslims. they are in principle apostates who do not know how far their apostacy already has led them. In a really muslim society, they would risk their lives. but many of them nevertheless do nothing and stay passive, and by that allow the opportunity for true Islam speaking in their name (the overwhelming majority of Muslim organisations interacting with our politicians in our countries are "radical" by nature, if you examine them closely and look behind their facade). The apostates that deny their apostacy may not be true muslims, but they are still Mitläufer. and for that I nevertheless hold them responsible, and I confront them over this.

Isklamic communities will never change if they are constantly saved from any confrontaiton and from any need to chanage. If they must not change, and see that we instead adapt to them, why should they want to chnage then...??? It is easier for them not to chnage - and still they get what they want, so...

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.

Not before 1992 the Catholic church was willing to reestablish Galilei.

Religion and science do not compare, it is an offence to claim that. I have indicated that science is basing on a procedure that must be followed in order to make it a scientific one. the basis of this way of thinking reasonably leads back into our western history, 2500 years. In principle it is the old thing of trial and error, run in a specially formalised manner that must be strictly obeyed. It decides what is accepted in science as a theory, and what not. and since the ancient Greek, to be able to explain observations one has made without refering to any supernatural cause has been an inevitable characteristic of this tradition. You observe something, you build a hypothesis. the hpyothesis still is not verified and falsified, it is just a hypthesis. You make a prediction on basis of this hypothesis, and you examine whether your prediction is true, or not. If it is true, you make more predictions, and if they are true, you start to turn your hypohtesis into a model, a theory. If you cannot verifiy your hypothesis in experiment and observation, you need to change or abandon your hypothesis. Your results must be reproducable, in principle by everybody. - This are the criterions for what differs science from non-science or pseudo-science. Miss just one criterion, and you are already disqualified.

This and not more and not less is the essence of scientific methodology. I have learned it almost 20 years ago at university. I have read about it in books, and just days ago I once again read on it - in one of the best summaries of scientifc methodology i have have read - in the astronomy coursebook I have embarked on.

This methodology has implications. First, science never does and never claims to give final, absolute, ultimate, eternal answers. It does not and it cannot and it wishes not to do so. all what science does is trying to explain our observations of the perceived world in the way and manner that makes the most sense for us in the light of the knowledge currently available to us, causes the smallest friction between different theories, is of the most use for us in asking new questions and forming new hypothesis. Science constantly questions itself, and constantly tests its models and theories. It is empirical, and lives by strong self-doubt. Sometimes a theory gets so much confirmation, that it raises to the level of a paradigm, which has greater influence on future theory-building, and tends to have a longer life-span than just a theory. A paradigm could be thought of as a meta-theory, maybe.

The principle of simplicity in explanation, and criterion of testable, repeatable observation and experiments, and objectivity, are three inevitable ingredients of the scientific process.

Mere believing, mere claiming something, mere assuming, mere imagining something, has nothing to do with it. nor has believing, hear-say, wishful thinking, tradition. Imagination can be helpful in forming new hypothesis, but the hypothesis must be tested and proven nevertheless.

Religions are not like this. Religions do not question their dogmas (that would make you a heretic), they do not provide evidence or coinfirmation, and the deny the need for these. Nevertheless they claim that what they say is the ultimate, the final, the absolute truth. ironically religious zealots, also in this forum, occasionally accuse science of doing right this: claiming that it's theories are the ultimate, the final, the last word, and how arrogant science is when doing so. That is what psychologists call "projection" - accusing others to be guilty of what one does oneself. That also is a spectacular lack of understanding of the scientific process and methodology.

Einstein mocked about people believeing in god, i remind you. that famous last leter by him leaves no doubt on that.

In a former thread, I think talking to Frau Kaleun, I explained why science and spirituality is no contradiction to me, but that i see religion and spirituality as totally incompatabile antagonists. religion and science are also incompatible. either you see that in my explanations now, or you dont. If you want I can set up four pages where Astronomy and Astrology are compared, explaining why Astrology is no science at all although in the past it was seen as that. You could replace Astrology with religion, and the chapter still would be valid. the nature of science gets explained there, too, what i summarised here is given in just a bit more detail there, but in principal any book on scientific methodology and it's basis in Greek philosophy will do. Religion does not provide any supporting hints or evidence for its claims, and it does not obey the rule of scientific methodology, it just makes claims, and leaves it to that - that is what makes both incompatible, and that also is why religion itself must not be taken serious. All it does is this: it makes claims that are just that: claims. You ask why science and religion must be seen as different things. You could as well question that science and a glass of beer are not compatible.

when Ratzinger became Pope, I was dumb enough to buy his book on the life of Jesus, until then I thought of Ratzinger as a pointy thinker and well-educated intellectual. But on one of the very first pages he wrote black on white that for him the bible and the stories of wonders and about Jesus are to be taken literal. that spoiled it all from the beginning on. Reason and intellect and ratio, that from the begining on base on superstition and unproven hear-say, just corrupt their own instruments and necessarily can create only results that - base right on superstition and unproven hear-say. the basis from which these tools of mind started, was porked from the beginning on. because religion's claims only would be an option if scientific procedure would create evidence for it'S claims being true. but that so far has not been the case. All what science has created, when wishing to go for a mystic perspective, is the insight that the more answers we find, the more of the universe we understand - the more questions raise and the more we realise how small the part of the universe we live in really is. That can be a motivation for a spiritual reflection, in my understanding of spirituality: reflecting about one's own life and death, the nature of life and the universe, and why it all even is. since we are mortal, we ask such questions. Death makes us afraid. Asking these questions, is spiritual, and thus we are spiritual beings by definition (we cannot evade these questin from the day on we first realise that one day we will die). But religion is different. religion does not ask questions. It claims to give the final, the penultimate answers: unchecked, unquestioned, unproven, not even providing hints for its claims. It just: claims.

That's why i sometime describe myself as a "spiritual atheist". to me you cannot be spiritual and religious at the same time. For being the one, you necessarily must give up the other. If you accept the religious dogma, you stop asking questions. If you ask questions, you violate the dogma and become a heretic.

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 do not hate your religion. Not yours or any other. Not even islam. I just hate followers of religions who think they may claim the right to constantly make others paying attention to their confessions and beliefs and that they can expect others to leave the place if they start to spill their sermon. Inside the four walls of your house you can do whatever you want. believe this, or believe that, drink tea or coffee - as long as I must not take note of you doing this or that or I do not get adressed by religious missionising. It is like with that radio volume. The analogy i love very much. It hits the nail on top, that's why I use it so often. keep the volumet such as that you do not bother your neighbours and they must not listen your program, and they will leave you peacefully alone and you can wallow in whatever your beliefs, your musical preferences are. Pump up the volume and start limiting the freedom of the others by claiming more than is yours, and be not surprised if angry people start to slam at your door.

That simple it is. With Christians. With Muslims. With atheists. Freedom is the word to watch out for - not missionising. Doesn't happen often anymore these days, but missionaries showing up on my doorstep I either have talked into a mocking experience, or I gave them the boot (to make sure they do not distgrub me again). I hate missionaries, as much as I hate moralists.

So pray for me as much as you want, or let it be, for me it makes no difference and makes no effect, and i could not bother less. Just spare me to bother me with your choice, whatever it is. You should have understood now at the latest that I take it very queer if I need to withness yolur relgious practices. Like oyu would take it queer if you need to witness me taking a showe, suing the toilet or cleaning my teeth - these are activities that better are undertaken alone, in private. I warned in threads before of my reaction to people who take it upon them to pray for my poor lost soul. To me it is pure arrogance and bigotery and haughtiness. Even when it comes from you.

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.....?

Radio volume. If somebody asks you or visits you, okay, talk whatever you want. But just when you think you must carry it all into the public sphere without being asked, and bother others who have the same right to be there - but unobstructed by your radio noise - then it is your duty (because you are causing the noise) to reduce volume so much that others do not get limited in their freedom to enjoy the public space. your rights and freedoms are not greater than theirs, you have no right to make theirs smaller just to make yours bigger than theirs. Conflicts like you have with me right now are the result of bubbles whose outer spheres started to crank against each other. And in this case here i say it is not because I am here, but because you sat down on the bank I already sit on, and put your feet on my lap. If you just would have sit and keep your legs to yourself, it would have been fine with me - the whole bank is not mine alone.

......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.

See above. With a grocery store offering choco drinks I have little problems. If they invite me to buy one and ignore me when saying No, then i have. And when it starts getting thrown after me, then i start giving them a problem.

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

I compare the developement of science, medicine, technology and culture in this and in that society. In other words: I start counting. BTW, many of those religious scientists you refer to, stated partially or completely wrong models and theories, because what the found violated their beliefs so much that they could not accept their findings, or were unable to intellectually understand them in full, since they were basing on religiously troubled preassumptions. If a scientist would be able to keep strictly separate his beliefs, and the scientific procedure, it would not be a problem. But that hardly is the way the human mind works in. And that causes conflicts that we must not want and must not tolerate in science. Said preassumptions are a problem, able to hinder full comprehension of a new discovery or theory ,leading into long time of dead ends.

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

No, what you mention here is scientific results getting instrumentalised by other interests. But the scientific theory has not been tried to be spread by war. Nobody has launched an aggression because he wanted to bring the natives the the Cartesian paradigm. no war was lauched in order to spread quantum physics. I do not know a military mission that tried to fight for the establishing of Newton physics, and hardly has there been a conquest started to make the enemy converting to the superstring hypothesis. Wars were launched for economic and politic and religious motives. In all three cases, the effort made use of the results of scientific research, often via engineering. But that is not the same like waging a war in the name of scientific theory. Due to religious dogmas: yes: For economic claims: yes. Over personal political ambitions: yes. Becasue of interhuman relation between one man and one woman, love: yes. But in order to bring others a scientific paradigm? No, not that I know of.

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?

"Machines"...? Aristoteles and Descartes are dead.

Does being "created in His image" mean nothing to you at all?

No, but the phrase opens a nasty question, if we are created in His image - why are we being held responsible then for our design's behavioural results? When we only reflect his erratic nature when we fail, why do we get the spanking, but not him? And if we fail and deserve penalty - what does this tell us bout His infallibility when he created us in His image, then? He must be the same kind of poor sucker than we are, then. So why kneeling in front of this imperfect little fella?

I suppose it wouldn't. I've already admitted that I don't know for sure, but neither do you.

science readily admits that the more it learns, the more questions arise. Yes, we do not know much, but we know more than before - at the price of realising that now there is even more that we do not know, too. But that we do not know many things cannot be an excuse to fantasize about just anything and then label that as hypothesis that just has not been proven and thus compares to scientific hypothesis as well. The two important details here are to note that a scientific hypothesis ALWAYS necessarily is not proven (else it would not be a hypothesis, but a theory, or it would have been given up when it could not be confirmed), and second: that even a hypothesis is basing on an initial objective observation of a phenomenon. if there is no phneomenen observed, there is not only no hypotheis, but also nothin that could be examined. That's why you argue yourself deep into a dead end when saying that although god is not being proven, it is also not proven that he does not exist. As far as I am concerned, you could as well claim the existence of flying invisible pink elephants, and that their non-existence is not being proven either. You cannot even say why they should be pink, because since they are invisible you never have seen them. So please, save me. - A mere claim or an imagination is not a hypothesis. Also, a claimed witnesses observation report is no evidence, not at court, not in science. Never. that's why religion already fails at the very first hurdle of the scientific process.

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?

Why should I?

I see a tendedency in the universe we perceive, that forms arise from a void and have the potential to unfold an inherent structure that is constantly changing and is of limited time span, and that in a meaning of chaos theory is inside of them, but still not pre-determined. Such forms that arise from the void we call matter. I "believe" in the concept of matter's self-organisation, and that the phenomenons are of a hierarchical basic structure of increasing complexity when they form up, while doing the whole procedure in reverse order when they fall apart again. I "believe" that everything that is from beginning on holds the seed of its antithesis and own destruction inside its heart, and that thus it is fruitless to try to make just one set of wanted qualities everlasting: things, history moves in cycles, and what goes up, must come down when the wheel of time is turning - what we can do, though, is trying to make it move slowly, but it may come at a oprice that other, good things get delayed that way. I "believe" that in this understanding nothing comes for free and everything has its price. I "believe" that mathematics and science can explain - and are the only tool that could explain - any observed phenomenon sooner or later, even if it may take long time to do so, even if it may take the rise and fall of whole civilisations on planet Earth to form a society that finally has accumaulated the knowledge to explain it ( at the price of creating new questions by that). I "believe" that the price for gaining knowledge is accepting new uncertainty. I do "believe" there are no absolute, total, ultimate, final answers, I do "believe" the often sought-for "world formula" is a "blue flower" only, an utopic ideal that serves as a drive, but could never be found. I do "believe" that what is, is not by random chance, but that chaos theory means that degrees of complexity decide over the realisation of inherent potentials that are so hige (said degrees of complexity) that they necessarily must appear to our limited knowledge as being random chance. I know that the Big Bang is no ultimate answer, but just a theory in the very best meaning of this term. I know that the real question is not why we and the universe do exist, but that the question is: why is not simply nothing? I know that we do not know the answers, like we also do not know if and what there is beyond the border of the observable universe, whether there is an "antiverse", a void that is so much not even a void that a real "nothing" it is for sure, or if there are multiverses. Here is where science has to accept its limits. It probably will never be able to answer these last questions.

The point is - religions do not offer answers as well. even worse, where science admits to not know, religion claims to know nevertheless, and fills the space of our lacking knowledge with mere fantasies, labelling them a divine truth, and then demands that we should not ask anymore because if we trust in all this "truth", then we would be saved, no matter how, no matter why, no matter from what.

I think that man does not bear to live in a state of existential uncertainty for too long. scientists some months ago claimed to have found hints that the drive to religiuous belief maybe has a solid material correlate in certain brain areas, that may serve as a protective mechanism against existential despair (that indeed could make people ill, could even kill them). This does neither mean that a deity has made this brain structure so, nor does it mean that it makes us believe in a true thing - the object of a given religion. It only means that people desperately crave for finding a meaning in their life, and I know that it can effect a person's survivablity massively if he/she doe snot have such a meaning. Said brain structure may just make us believe in a folly - but maybe for us, with our limited understanding of the universe, it nevertheless is a necessary folly, even a vital one. If we are to step beyond this evolut9nary fetaure, than we must not take it as a given, but must try understand it and understand the implication it means for our relgions. The meaning of our existence, for some it is a casper in the sky. for others it is materialism and the comfort of material wealth. some find fulfillment in helping others. Others sit down and develope more and more complicated fantasies and hallucinations or esoteric nature. Very popüular in the West and it's youth cult: some try to escape the quesitons by pressuming to be forver young. But death is no salesman, he does not negotiate - he takes whom he wants, and basta. For us humans, just about everything seems to be better than facing this big, wide, empty, unforgiving cold, cruel, grim void that is the lack of an answer to this one question: Why am I here? Why is all this existing?

Book tip on these matters: Ken Wilber: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Not too easy, but rewarding.


to me, my self-studying of astronomy is a deeply satisfying affair. It is an old interest of mine, which never before I have embarked on as systematically as I have started to do now. Why this is so? Simply this. For me, and for almost all eras in human history, astronomy is a deeply spiritual affair, like is theoretic physics as well. Maybe it would be correct to think that all attempt to understand nature, is a spiritual effort. Astreonomy, it makes me ask questions that usually we are to fearful to ask. It confronts me with the big big abyss out there, with the total unimportance of myself. It makes my mind stop thinking but starting to dance when realising that the deeper I look into space, the more I look back in time, until the beginning that current paradigm thinks of as a Big Bang. I realise all that space out there, and I recall my own meditation experiences which were just empty space as well, and I remember that particle physics and subnuclear dimennsions also are about this: just empty space, forms in the void, no lasting substance. And then I wonder what makes the space out there and the space inside that and the space within me different from each other? What is the link between these obvious similiarities? Are these really three different types of a space - or rather just one space? what would it all mean if I, this tiny little human of total and absolute unimportance, would not look out there and look into space and time, and into myself, and into the atom?

Me - I am the link between all these things, I am what gives meaning and relevance to it all. Still microscopically small, still totally unimportant - but still having the grace and greatness to realise all this.

Meaningless? Unimportant? Really...?

Maybe through our eyes the universe looks out at itself, stunned and amazed, smiling and full of joy for all that unlimited potential that it is. Maybe that is the drive of what we call evolution: that the universe increasingly becomes aware of itself. Mind and matter are not different in principle, nor are space and time. Mind is dreaming, mind is dancing with itself. Gary Zukav wrote a very good book on physics back then, called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". Wu Lik, he said, isn the Chinese word for what we call physics. It means something like "structures of organic energy". I like to think of it like this.

Maybe this helps you to understand why i feel no need and no appetite for religions. I have no use for them, I do not need them, they have nothing of value that they could offer me, they cannot calm my fear in the monents when I may be haunted by this existential terror i spoke about. This terror only goes away when I manage to remind myself that the spac eout there and the spoace inside all is just one and the same space. I may scare back at times from all this void out there - the universe still is a hostile, unforgiving place for human forms to live in. there is nothing romantic in the abyss between the stars and galaxies - it simply frightening, nothing else. The lack of interst it has in my fate, is intimidating at times. Nevertheless it is the one thing I came from, and go back into, and all what I see and all that I can learn, is what I once have been, and once will be. "We all are star stuff", said Carl Sagan. Fearing this would mean to be afraid of one's own home. Wouldn't that be stupid?

Well, now you have my theory, as insubstantive as it is.

Theory? I think I have laid out that it is not even that. theism is wild speculation at best, a guessing game, on the grounds of nothing.

Even if it is wrong, you still can't argue against Christianity and Jesus' message.

Oh, of course i can, and I have. Christianity i have ripped apart, and on Jesus i indicated that I think he was a reasonably man teaching ethic principles that remijnd of Buddhism and that could indeed help people to live without unneeded conflicts and start thinking about themselves, and why they are here. But I will not take the bible and stories of miracles and wonder literally, nor do I accept to ignore that Jesus spoke in the language and cultural symbols of his time and place, the cultural context. we all do. That's why the transmission code and the informational content of old books must be understood to be two different things. to me Jesus was like Siddharta maybe, or Platon. Reasonable teachers, reasonably ethical people, in brief: philosophers.

You can't argue against the divinity of order, or mankind; the greatest order-creating agent known to, well, mankind.

I see that for theistic believers, believing into the existence of theistic creators is kind of an obsession. However, it would be appreciated if you stop raising assumptions and speculations on what I can and what I cannot, and what I must and what not. One day i must die - that is all that I must. the rest of these lingual phrases - are serving the purpose of self-reassuring, it seems to me.

And I suppose that describes the constantly evolving nature of religions and the debates of theologists?

Theological debates are worth nothing. It is like two patients in a mental asylum comparing their latest hallucinations with each other. they may imagine rules and orders for sorting them and comparing them - it remains to be about hallucinations. the only thing that is worth being examined is to try to understand how religions have influenced history, and why. that understanding is to be desired, so that we hopefully one day will learn to avoid making the same mistake again and again and again and again.

Religion may not be science per se, but it is worth exploring as much as philosophy is.

Only in so far as a rational approach is used to rip of its mask and reveal its misleading lies and how it enslaves the free thinking of people. Or to reveal in how far the big misgoings of the past were dramatically caused and basing on religion's dogmas. I also must remind you that our understanding of philosphy in the West again is massively influenced and basing on the ancient Greek heritage. thats why it is said that we owe them so much, until today. and when you look at the Greek philosophers, you realise sooner or later that they seem to have based on similiar rules for philosophising than they did for thinking about science. the reason for that is simple. most of their scientists and philosophers were - both in one. there was no strict separation between science and philosphy, and both was conducted pretty much for the purpose of enjoying the anylsis and discussion, to enjoy the thought for the sake of thinking itself. and in the end, philosophy again tries to find a truth understood as something that is not already predetermined and fixed in outcome. religion only is interested in arguing why it must be like it says, and why straying off from that dogma is sinful.

And you see nothing where something may be.

Flying invisible pink elephants, for example.

Also, the Nazis got fougzht against and overturned not by philosophical but military means.

Nazi ideology still exists.

No, it is an idelogy that was tailired by just one man to serve his own poltical interest of self-justification for his own power-craving.

Really?

. This was casted into the Quran, an later distrorted a bit by local and super-regional leaders to gain legitimation thorugh the Quran

So its an ideology tailored by one man for his interests that was changed by other men to serve their own interests.
So that means Sky contradicts his own claims within the same passage

You see it too much through american glasses, trying to talk the problem into a format so that the tools in your american toolbox can "manage" it. But your tools are not sharp enough, because while lacking a hammer you try to bring that nail into the wall by using a saw, saying it is no nail but a piece of wood, cutting it would do the job. but the nail still would not be in that wall afterwards.

Wow , what a crock of.............