101. For the glory of God

Comment #89086 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm

"A ..and you accuse me of painting a doomsday scenario?
Yep.
:) "

a painting portraying reality...
The talk of destroying irans nuclear sites via "tactical" nukes, the incident where some US bomber flew "accidentally" laden with nuclear warheads across the US and where called back before they could continue to somewhere...the attacks by israel of "sites" in syria, pakistan, israel, india and china with nuclear weapons..what is comforting about this picture - no smilies...and no religious motives in sight

102. For the glory of God

Comment #89082 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 4:47 pm

"Well, next time, don't jump to self righteous conclusions."

Your conclusion that pointing to something else then religion as the prime motive is self righteaous? Or how do I understand your replies? Anybody who doesn't believe your take on 9/11 and the mess the bush gang created is tin foil conspiracy?
Only uninformed atheism creating religious non existent motives is the TRUE answer.

To that I can only say, that other than supporting scepticism on all levels, atheism has truly become a antireligion - a religion nonetheless because it has abandoned a necessary sceptical stance to look for other than religious explanations. Sleep well and dream of antigod.

103. For the glory of God

Comment #89078 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 4:39 pm

"Perhaps I spoke too soon.
You seem to be (hope I'm wrong) one those 9/11 conspiracy types."

where is your evidence that all or even most of the perpetrators were "religious nut cases?"
Financing of the perpetrators by the ISI just before the final attacks on 9/11 to the tune of a last payment of 100 000$ is no conspiracy, it is actraceable fact. The visit to the US by the ISI handler of Atta is also a traceable fact.

The evidence that those guys did it - that's pretty strong. But the reasons behind it - and the financing/support traces to pakistan, not saudi arabia or any other country.
And there is no reason to believe that the motives where religious at all.
Musharraf is not a religious person, he plays a power game - very ineptly as his latest move shows. And he draws on every and anybody who is willing to play along - for money or a share in power.
And the US supports the most unstable regime in the far east and permitted them to develop and then possess atomic weapons - and you accuse me of painting a doomsday scenario?

104. For the glory of God

Comment #89071 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm

"Shhhh, simmer down, little buckaroo."

Sorry, blatant ignorance as exhibited by some here does that to me.

And the implied accusations that about a million dead iraquis, 4 million displaced irquis and about 3000 dead american soldiers, the waste of over a trillion dollars without achieving anything but plunging a country back to before the middle ages
is somehow a tin foil conspiracy not made possible by a lying, torturing and brutal government that holds its own with Russia - before perestryoka.

105. For the glory of God

Comment #89068 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm

"PS Kraut - you make assumptions that people don't see or talk about anything except religion on this site. You are incorrect in this. We are not mono-dimensional."

That might be the case - but to assume that 9/11 was caused by religious fanatics is not necessarily borne out by the facts. The fact that the ISI had its hand in the game points to other then religious interests.

The taliban, as before them the mujahaddin, where funded not because of religion - but because of a power game - the great game as kipling once called it - on the indian subcontinent and the surroundin countries. Religion plays a role - but a role exploitet by those playing the game, today it is not so much Russia, it is the US, China and India.

106. For the glory of God

Comment #89065 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"Oh, and Kraut, lose the chicken little/tinfoil hat stuff, wouldya?"

What do you mean by tinfoil? he kindly asks? That the US government has implemented torture, secret detention, rendition, lying to start a war, support of muslim extremist in past and present is a conspiracy? That the use of kurdish terrorists inside Iran is a conspiracy? The plans for an American Empire as envisioned by the like of wolfowitz and cheney is conspiracy - yes, by those who wrote this paper. I have a copy at home, since 2002. Your accusation is like accusing the jews of talking about a nazi conspiracy to eliminate them - with a copy of "mein kampf" in your hand.

Who build up Osama Bin Laden? Who supported Musharraff when he funneled moneys to build up the taliban, in order to establish a force against India in Kashmir and on its northern border? Who helped the taliban to establish training camps and left 2000 madrassas to teach islamic hatred for everything non islamic? Musharraf as supported by the US.
And moneys to Atta v ia the ISI is a tin foil conspiracy - man(woman), read asian times on line for once, read the nation, mother jones, the New Yorker and then compare their analysis with reality and you will find who is on the right track and who isn't. Just read what Pablo Escobar wrote about the future of Iraq in 2003 only weeks after the illegal invasion, and compare that with the analysis of everything from Fox to CNN and you know who is out to lunch.
Its as in science - you create a hypothesis and you follow the evidence. And the evidence so far supports those who warned in the beginning where the US was heading - in the direction of empire with very undemocratic consequences for the poulation.
You accuse me of tinfoil conspiracy - ever read one word of homeland security act one and two, the law to disposess anybody who supports "terrorism" by word, financially or in any other way.
Man, your ignorance and the accusations springing from this ignorance tell me one thing only: you are like your president. Read what a Canadian Parlamentarian called him and got penalized for.

107. For the glory of God

Comment #89012 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 1:33 pm

EDIT- Kraut, please don't call people stupid.


Ok, I then call their postings based on insufficient information, prejudice and a general lack of reflection on the topic.

It's nice to skim the surface and find whom to blame - when it should be your own government and its efforts to encourage extremism worldwide that you should blame.
But I guess - it is easier to find others at fault then to investigate the real reasons and blame your collective drowsiness that elected something like GWB not once - which is excusable, but twice - which proved to be deadly for quite a few.

108. For the glory of God

Comment #88933 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 7:34 am

"EDIT- Kraut, please don't call people stupid."

I will call their analysis, their worries and them blaming the tool stupid, uninformed and misguided.
OK?

109. For the glory of God

Comment #88767 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 12:47 am

"Or do I fight to try to stop this maniacal theological bullshit from coming to its imagined (and desired) fruition?"

IT IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION, STUPID.
It is about who wields POWER. Dont you get it? Religion is a fucking front, follow the money trail.

Why do you think american presidents helped muslim radicals over the last twenty or so years - if things go fine - everything is fine. If it goes wrong - blame it on religion, the muslims.

Sure, their religion is nasty - as is the christian, deep to the core. But religion is a tool.
Who do you think wields the power, when less than one percent of the population own over 60% of a countries wealth? Sure - conspiracy, proclaims the atheist idiot. If you are going to be atheist, be sceptical - and especially towards those who wield the power and are in the process of gaining all.

Muslims are a front, to do away with democracy - or did you hear any of the democratic contenders in the US talk about recinding homeland security one and two, the law to rob everybody of any assets who can be accused of supporting a "terrosist organization", the terrorism as defined by the homeland security office or any other government department, or to do away with any of the laws permitting secret detention?

How stupid really is this assembly of so called atheists - or is it that atheists are by nature are only sceptical towards the red cloth of religion, but are completely trusting a government that had lied over and over again? How stupid, dense and blind, really?

110. For the glory of God

Comment #88762 by kraut on November 19, 2007 at 12:23 am

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

If you do not believe, that for a long time muslim radicals have been financed - and still are, just look at saudi arabia - for reasons of power politics, check with this ottawa resident.

No, there is no conspiracy to aid and abbett 9/11 by the US government - directly. But those who did it were trained, financed by Pakistan, financed by the CIA, in camps originally established with the help of the US.
And now in Kosovo: the US again supports the establishment, against any UN rules by cutting away a part of an independent and sovereign country, Serbia, of an in essence muslim state.

Is it willful ignorance, stupidity or deep cunning?

111. For the glory of God

Comment #88758 by kraut on November 18, 2007 at 11:59 pm

"We did it all for the glooooory of Gaaawwwwd!!"

That is exactly what a government wants you to believe - obfuscation to hide the big game behind. Which is: getting hold of power, eliminating democracy because in a future world where severe climate disruption, oil and foodshortage will reign, drought will be commonplace in the at present agricultural productive regions - they can only effectively (in their mind) govern if such niceties as public participation has been done away with.
Remember - the plans to attack iraq,the homelandsecurity act, the dream of the New American Millenium as outlined by pearl, wolvowitz and cheney in 1998 - where there before the attacks. They happened just at an extremely convenient time, to give the president and his gang enough time for implementation before he finally had to leave the office.

Atheists fall into the same: its all the fault of religion stuff, when it is in reality about who wields what power.
Get excited about religion, but do not forget - its just a front, and you participate in the fraud by doing so.

112. For the glory of God

Comment #88753 by kraut on November 18, 2007 at 11:05 pm

(for those of you who don't believe Canada is America's 51st State, over 85% of the Canadian economy is directly dependent upon the US)

I guess being an atheist doesn't prevent one from making idotic statements.
Just because the US does rely on a greater extend than ever on the products of our oilsands (less so on timber, since the US govt. so nicely helped to create the subprime crisis by deregulation) doesn't mean we support all their stupidities. We did support one - follow them to afghanistan, that one was bad enough.


And to remind one: the mujahaddin which morphed into the taliban were not supported by the US government because of religious reasons - oh no, they thought - wrong again - that those guys would play nice after having kicked the russians out, a purely secular decision.

And one should also remember that a clear money trail from the pakistan secret service (ISI) exists to Mr. Atta. So, now it is pakistan, playing nice - for how long? And that a clear link to another partner, not for religious reasons exist, where over 90% of the "suicide bombers" hailed from. And that - for no religious reasons, a certain Mr. Bin Laden of a very influential Saudi family was supported by the US for a very long time.
And that in the end I doubt very much that religion had anything to do with those bombings - none at all actually, when you watch the evidence as to especially Mr. Atta (the bomber in chief) in a long documentary by the CBC several yaers ago, who wasn't very religious at all.

What I find most disconcerting about atheists: In their fervour to fault religions with all the worlds sins, they overlook that the majority of the conflicts only have religious connotations - for public consumption, that in reality it is power politices that are behind - the best example: the thirty year war in europe, which was a conflict between the power of the kaiser and the cravings of the kurfuersten to run their own show.

They also claim that "conspiracy theorists" are deluded, when the biggest conspiracy stares them right in the face: the de-democratization of the USA following the so called religious attacks on 9/11, and the BIG LIE which massaged the american public to approve the invasion and occupation of iraq, still 100% supported by the war mongerer Mr. Hitchens - who would have made an excellent propaganda minister instead of Goebbels. Oh no - the gevernment tell no lies, those are claims by nutcases. Oh no, the government doesn't want to erode civil liberties with the homeland security act, those are claims by nut cases, oh no, there is no torture administered by americans - we only counsel syria, azerbeijan et al how to do it properly.

113. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87304 by kraut on November 11, 2007 at 6:15 pm

"I say obstacles to acheiving these goals should be reduced for them and anyone else, regardless of issues related to their belief."

I say make it easier for them to leave their religion. Punish hard those who threaten those leaving the muslim faith.
What is it that enamoures britons with the democracy endangering freedoms of muslims to express themselves through word and deed, who have nothing but scorn for our western society?

If they want to be scornful - let them do it from the distance of their homeland.

I still remember the mullah who could preach hate in english mosques for years, without ever being investigated.

If they immigrate - let them take an oath to uphold the constitution, the democratic values - and kick them out if it can be proven they violated this oath. What is so hard to understand about this concept? That does not prevent them at all to participate in the political process, but participation und british rules.

If they want to flourish in your society - that is fine, but under british law, not under sharia or any other nonsecular law - and get rid of the supremacy of the anglican church in the process. Sets a bad example.


PS - If I remember correctly: according to a latest poll almost 40% of young muslims in britain condone violent action, and over 30% still agree with the fatwa against rushdie.

114. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87277 by kraut on November 11, 2007 at 4:19 pm

"Muslims as much as anybody else and I don't think that should be conditional on their abandoning faith."

If you do not understand that the muslim faith does not recognize any secular government, but only recognizes a faith based government, you will be feeling a lot more uncomfortable in the future.
Luckily the christian churches had to abandon their almost exclusive influence on government hundreds of years ago (starting with the reformation and the 30 year war) - and to think what a bloody struggle that was.

Do you want to go through the same with an ever increasing number of "unwilling to accept secular democracy" immigrants?
Funny to observe an atheist "apologist for faith" in action.

115. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87240 by kraut on November 11, 2007 at 2:51 pm

"There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us," he says. "The air is thick with suspicion and unease. It is not good for the Muslim community, it is not good for society."

Maybe, just maybe there is a reason for this.
Midstream christian churches have learned to stay - most of the time - outside politics, for the muslim there is no separation between church and state. And that is what makes the muslim creed incompatable with a modern, secular society - as well as fundamentalist christian belief.

The solution is simple - democratic western society cannot condone muslims, whose ultimate goal is the subjugation of the body politics to their belief system. This tension will lead to further unavoidable clashes.
Since muslims think it is their right to further this process of subverting what is left of democracy after 9/11, and by their threatening stance further the deterioration of our democratic institutions - the only solution is to stop any more immigration of believers in this faith and either extract a pledge by those who are already in the country to protect and live within the democratic constitution, or deportation following violations of this pledge.

"His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures - he says integration must go both ways."

I am sorry, you came willingly to a country with established traditions, rules of law and a constitution.
You have the right to work for changes, as long as the basic tenets of this society are not threatened -i.e. equality before the law, gender equality, sexual preferences etc. But this society you entered into has no obligation at all to bow before the demands of immigrants.
I am speaking as an immigrant, and what really irks me more than anything else is the demand for special treatment by muslims and here in canada, the sikh society. Either join in or get the hell out.

116. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #86976 by kraut on November 10, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Has it already been adressed?

There are no stupid questions..the "why" question nevertheless falls under this catagory.
Religion doesn't have an answer, religion just lies about it.

117. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #86030 by kraut on November 7, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Too much staggering - that what this intellectual diarrhea does to one...

118. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #86008 by kraut on November 7, 2007 at 8:11 pm

WTF - the amount of brainpower absolutely wasted on a hypothetical entity is just staggering. Just postulate god does not exist, nor is he necessary to explain existence, and there is no conundrum any more. The world is just like no creator existed.

I am just staggered by the fact that people actually seem to NEED a creator being.

119. Creating controversy

Comment #83999 by kraut on November 1, 2007 at 1:17 am

"Most people have managed to accept the evidence,"

which is about 20% in the USA, 45% believe in craetion as per god outright, no evolution possible, the rest at least believe he took corrective measures every time some species didn't turn out the way he planned it.

120. Creating controversy

Comment #83997 by kraut on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 am

121. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #83994 by kraut on November 1, 2007 at 1:13 am

"In all but exceptional cases, today's secularists are biblically illiterate."

What an inan statement - most atheists i know/of have been religiously indoctrinated at one time.

They are sacred because someone believes them to be so - why should I have more respect for the "main stream" sacred texts than i.e. Harry Potter or Peter Pan? They are human inventions, made out to be the word of god and therefore all the more dangerous in their use by the believers.

Before they accuse someone not respecting any religious "sacred text", test it to the extend it preaches intolerance, genocide, murder etc. - all found as a prescription how to treat the unbeliever/apostate in any number of sacred texts.
Respect - give me a break, throw those emanations of a sick tribal mind onto the dustheap.

122. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83634 by kraut on October 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm

"Catholic Church would be unpleasant but nothing like the nastiness of living under someone like the Taliban."

If you refer to "modern" catholizism you might be right - that ended even before the present representative of christ on earth.
The present representative would enjoy going back before the time of the thirty year war - and remember - taliban at least didn 't burn witches, or enslaved native populations in the name of "the lord". The catholic church unleashed and unrestraint would not be different from any other fundamentalism.

123. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83628 by kraut on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 pm

"A key theme of the books was a "strident sectarianism" which told Muslims that they should remain separate from other faiths and resist integration."

This is an often repeated theme in the koran, part of the basic creed.

"Some religions are much worse than the others, not because necessarily what was written on the books, but because the way the religions are actually practiced. Christianity has been tamed by secularism, but not Islam. Falwell would a liberal next to mainstream Islamic clerics."

It is naive to believe fundamental christians are basically different from fundamental muslims.
Just listen to Dobson et.al.

124. Face to faith

Comment #82939 by kraut on October 28, 2007 at 10:02 am

"This must be what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow. The worry is that it leaves nothing sacred."

It always astgonishes me that people look for meaning and sacredness outside of themselves, looking for a guiding "hand" that tells them what to do.
The sacredness of things: protection of those who evolved with us on this planet, protection of an ecosphere that permits the existence of every creature evolved as companions with us - that is where I see the sacredness. And that is where science can actually enforce this sacredness, by understanding that we are all part of one system, all related. That is where my "wonder and contemplation of it" happens. It is a rational wonder, even stronger because, backed by knowledge than some fuzzy notion of a higher power.

And in living my life the way it consciously and unconsciously evolved, by decisions made and stresses endured - that is where meaning lies for me.

This author is a weak husk who fears knowledge and cannot see that knowledge and wonder are not exclusive, but demand each other.

Wonder without knowledge - or the seeking thereof - is the sign of an incurious mind, easily manipulated by those who need wonder to defend their positions of power. A prime candidate for the post of "victim of the system".

125. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82594 by kraut on October 26, 2007 at 9:02 pm

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

just a reminder about societal health and religion...

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-24.html

more source material as mentioned by shermer re: morality/ family values and religion.

" In 1934, Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty. As religiosity increased, honesty decreased.

In 1950, Murray Ross conducted a survey among 2,000 associates of the YMCA and discovered that agnostics and atheists were more likely to express their willingness to aid the poor than those who rated themselves as deeply religious.

In 1969, sociologists Travis Hirschi and Rodney Stark reported no difference in the self-reported likelihood to commit crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.

In 1975, Ronald Smith, Gregory Wheeler, and Edward Diener discovered that college-aged students in religious schools were no less likely to cheat on a test than their atheist and agnostic counterparts in nonreligious schools.

In 1996 George Barna, a born-again Evangelical Christian, in his Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators, based on interviews with nearly 4,000 adult Americans, revealed: "Born again Christians continue to have a higher likelihood of getting divorced than do non-Christians." And: "Atheists are less likely to get divorced than are born-again Christians." Barna found that the current divorce rate for born-again Christians is 27 percent, while it is only 24 percent for non-Christians. In addition, the Baby Boomers — that generation often criticized for sexual indulgence and moral relativism — has a lower rate of divorce (34 percent) than the preceding generation (portrayed in popular culture as the idealized 1950's Ozzie and Harriet family), who hover at 37 percent.

Five years later, in a 2001 survey, Barna found that "33 percent of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce"

126. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81791 by kraut on October 25, 2007 at 7:27 am

"All a woman needs to do is carry a gun. Then shoot the next fanatic who assaults her."

The perfect american solution - works every time, in vietnam, panama, iraq...
The idea of a society based on the rule of law that makes such behaviour impossible to conduct has never entered the mind of the participant?

127. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81460 by kraut on October 24, 2007 at 7:04 pm

The supression of religion by atheist rulers was the only deed that can be attributed to their "non belief" in a supreme being.

That equals nicely the supression of any other belief than the one holding sway in most societies where religion was part of the state ideology.

Everything else that was done by rulers that did not adhere to any religion was informed not by their being atheists, but by them following or developing a certain ideology that was principly concerned with the overthrow of existing societal and economic structures.

The "class" struggle was the driving force in so called communist societies, and the elimination and supression of anybody that was of the former economic leading class had very little to do with atheism.

As to hitler - 'nough said, he was not an atheist, he was a member of the catholic church and was not even excommunicated after his suicide, not to mention by reason of all the atrocities he instigated.

What about the other side: the atrocities committed in south america by dictators that - at least on the surface - adhered to catholizism, the death squad leader that went to church on any given sunday, the msulim warriors of all stripes blowing themselves up and others, the roman generals who prayed on altars of many gods - remember ceasar, who in gaul slaughtered about a million of its inhabitants, the deeds of alexander the not so great, the atrocities committed through the policies of george w. bush...all of them believe/d in their gods and sacrificed to them.

And the thirty year war in europe? Surely not only a war for and about religion - but definetly based on differences to which religious authority to refer to - the pope or the independent "fuerst" of the small states.

Overall - to attribute misdeeds by any ruler to his perceived or existing "a" or "theism" is leading nowhere and totally beside the point. Both theist and atheist leaders wallowed in the expression of their powers through military might.

The point that is hidden by those accusations is the old: only religious persons can base their behaviour in ethics and morality, as those can ONLY spring from a creator god implanted in us. Even if that were true - which god did it spring from - take your pick.

128. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80968 by kraut on October 23, 2007 at 6:25 pm

"bluebird, should pharmacists be required to dispense birth control? Should doctors be required to perform abortions? Circumcisions? Should people be required to perform military service?"

The answer was given many times before: If your conscience interferes with your job description, get out of the job. Nobody forces you, but if it is your job, you only have two options - do your duty, or leave it. Has absolutely nothing to do with protection from the collective. Has to do with protectng the collective from professionals letting their conscience getting in the way of expected duty.

Military service is an entirely different matter if the army is based on national service model.
In a democratic state - you have alternattives to the draft.

129. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80213 by kraut on October 20, 2007 at 7:01 pm

"General relativity is counter-intuitive too, and how many people (even fundamentalists) don't accept GR?"

But GR is so counterintuitiv (not really) that a lot just switch off, and therefore it is just not discussed by the general public. Evolution on the other hand is part of the biological "network" around us, so everybody thinks he/she can have an "opinion" about biological processes without ever lookin deeper than the skin of an animal.

130. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78699 by kraut on October 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

"Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder."

The belive in an entity without any hint of evidence whatsoever justifies genocide.

I think nothing can be added to this idiocy, except the question he pose himself at the end: which god?
Since there are lots ro choose from, and no evidence for any of them exists except in the minds of the various believers, this shows a moral ambivalence that is truly frightening, as any god might command any misdeed - as such judged by the non believer who has to rely on something like the
categorical imperativ or the golden rule - and never a quiver of doubt is allowed by the participants of the atrocities. A loving god indeed.
This "Craig" is an abomination, but completely consistent with a certain religious code when it comes to perpetrating atrocities.

BTW - stalin might or might not have been an atheist, his deeds did not spring from his "non believe" which informed his moral judgement, but from believe in a special branch of "communism", called bolshevizm. The morality developed by this social/societal theory firmly avowed the elimination of the class enemy by all means possible. The absence of god had nothing to do with the justification of violence. The justification was found in the feudal state of the russia at the time.

One should clearly seperate between violence informed by religion or the lack thereof, or violence in the name of religion or its lack.
Hitler was a catholic, but the justification for his moral stance was only - if at all - at the margins informed by remnants of his catholizism. It would be wrong to assume catholizism was the driving force behind hitler's policies, as it is wrong that atheism was the driving force behind stalins policies.

But to get back to mr. craig. By positing that morality exists only as a "function" of an existing god, but also asking (to his mind clearly only rhetorically) which god, he puts himself in a position that the command of any god to do mischief in the name of the same is clearly justified notwithstanding the resolution of the question.
He therefore clearly defends any outrage done in the name of any religion. He therefor defends the perpetrators of 911. Nice job, Mr. Craig.

131. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78083 by kraut on October 11, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I have made a small effort to read through some of the quran. Like a red threat intolerance to "unbelievers" winds thorugh this book. Unbelievers cannot be friends, cannot be trusted, can be lied to, can be cheated, treaties can be broken.

If part of that is true for the christian bible and new testament, it is to a far greater extend so in the "unholy" muslim book.
The god of allah reigns with utter violencene, threatening unbelievers and apostates at every turn with hellfire, condemnation and death by allah or the believers.

No wonder the adherents to such a religion are deeply indoctrinated with violence a modus operandi in the dealing with non believers.
Forgiveness - a ready topic in christianity - is not even considered towards an enemy. I find it a vulgar, insensitive and bloody religion.

Muslim is imo a far greater threat - and a real one - to secularism and democracy than any other of the world religions, and looking at the doctrinal content a peaceful coexistence with muslimism is not possible - the defeat and destruction of anything "unbelieve" is a declared goal in this book.

132. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #76120 by kraut on October 4, 2007 at 7:16 pm

"This cycle will continue until 100% of the grasshopper population is resistant. The grasshopper population has evolved to meet the demands of it's poisonous environment. Simple."

Sorry, not quite as simple, as many creationists will concede variations within a species, but then will point out the "mistake" made by assuming one species will develop from another.
They do not realize that the concept of "species" is a convenient invention to seperate animals according to their phenotype, but is not a hard and fast barrier.
The proof of this fluidity is in the genes, and it just drives me nuts that those "idiots"(as in "simple minded") from the creationist bench try to deny findings - or simply do not acknowledge them - at the molecular level that clearly show an evolutionary path and a relationship in the dna of even now very distant species.

As I learned it once - mutations are the basis of evolution, selection gets the results.
Mutation without selection means nothing, the same as selection without a mutation to select from.

133. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75516 by kraut on October 2, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Transcendence without snorting - whats wrong with that? Not that I am actively engaged, but I have spent month in the wilderness of BC with just my wife, myself and some horses and I found an apppreciation of nature, a feeling as part of the natural world, a sharpening of senses that is simply incomparable to any other experience we as a couple ever had.

I find the pursuit of happiness very much overrated, I prefer a feeling of contentment, of living in the present as much as possible, of appreciating my being alive.

You might call this transcendental or not, it is an experience not to be found in the regular 9 -5 world, and lead you back to dealing with essentials, between you and your partner, you and nature.
I have to agree - we cannot throw the experiences of a solitary meditating mind out by just labelling them religious. It is just another way to experience yourself - and your surroundings - without the disturbance of the ordinary.

Otherwise - yes, I agree with Sam, and that why I always felt reluctant to use the "term" for myself, although I have for myself abandondend the believe in anything "supernatural" since my 16th year.
A label flattens the discussion, makes you identifiable and boxes you in. Why point out that I as a reasonable being have to be "against" theos?
I am not against god - I just do not see a shred of evidence for his existence.
What I am against, are the idiocies contemplated and actively persued in the name of religion.

134. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73047 by kraut on September 24, 2007 at 12:59 am

"This is probably the reason I could never succeed at politics. I'd too readily listen to evidence and change my mind if necessary."

You should have read the article more carefully, but you have fallen into the trap of your preconceived assumptions.
Scientists are as likely to ignore new evidence as certain or the majority of politicians. At least - a politician coined the phrase: what do I care about my opinions from yesterday".
There are still scientists out there who cannot overvome their own notion that the "only" way the NA continent was populated was through the ice free corridor of the behring strait. They will not even concede the possibility that other and similar viable means can be discussed, although the evidence for the presently agreed upon scenario is as weak or strong as any of the other.

There is - especially in medicine - a mountain of examples: medical doctors clinging to the believe in the effacacy of homoeopathy is one of the more infamous ones.

135. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71102 by kraut on September 17, 2007 at 8:29 pm

"Don't have the energy for the atheistic schisms that seem prevalent on this site at the moment."

How can there be schisms, when we are clearly (at least for me) dealing with a philosophical attitude that sofar luckily seems to have eluded any attempts for "orginization" or a formulaic development?

The moment i dedect any attempt to do so, I will become an "anti atheist".

136. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71082 by kraut on September 17, 2007 at 7:39 pm

whenever was the catholic church - or a lot of other "churches" - not close to any dictatorship?

137. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71074 by kraut on September 17, 2007 at 6:59 pm

That kind of shit could turn me right off atheism...

or, as groucho said: I would never join an orginization that would accept me as a member...

I have been an atheist for over fifty years now - ever since I was able to make the decision (@ 16) to "unjoin" the catholic church. Never ever again would I consider joining any kind of organization again - be it political, or even anti religious.

138. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69329 by kraut on September 10, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Whosoever supports the hadith in this case is clearly in violation of the european laws of religious freedom and crimes of hate and should be either be dragged before the court or should have to leave the country.

Any immigrant that violates the constitution of the country he settles in by supporting those statements of his/her holy book by deed or word is clearly comitting a criminal act and he should be treated as a criminal.
I am an immigrant myself and would have never dreamt of demanding a special treatment from the country I immigrated to. But it seems that especially those of muslim greed seem to be demanding special excemptions from the laws of the countries they immigrate to - and get away with it.
The last insult here in canada was the attempt to establish sharia law for muslim families in family courts (Ontario, where the nutcase canditate for "president" Mr. Tory tries to establish government funded religious schools and treats creationism as a valid theory). Luckily, despite the idiotic support by some politicians, the attempt went nowhere, after a vocal group of female muslims protested against this move.

139. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68713 by kraut on September 8, 2007 at 8:39 am

"calling a lot of very thoughtful and compassionate people - including me - "washed-out commies" is not a good way to avoid starting a fight."

What does being a "passionate" socialist have to do with the reality that socialism is the bastard child of communism, too cowardly to acknowledge that only the communist revolution will lead to the final rise of the working class as the governor of a "truly democratic" state - given the definition that as truly democratic only a state can be called where the production is in the hands of the producers.

A 'socialist" like NMc.. ragging on someone from a "socialist state" like sweden in a rather impolite way lead me to this response....he made me do it.

140. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68705 by kraut on September 8, 2007 at 8:01 am

"As a socialist, the kind of rubbish expounded by 'JemyM' has the same effect on me as the rubbish that the Wee Flea comes out with has on you."

Not to start a fight, but a socialist is nothing else but a washed out commie. Too cowardly to support the revolution that as marx stipulated is a historical inevitability, he reverts to talking nice to capitalists to convince them giving him a share of the profits.

Socialists are the "agnostics" of communist movement - too cowardly to take a stance when needed, and trying to reform capitalism instead overthrowing it.

141. Pig study sheds new light on the colonisation of Europe by early farmers

Comment #68038 by kraut on September 5, 2007 at 7:22 pm

{and I thought that people from the middle east generally didn't like pork}

that was before someone declared them "unclean"...special status demands sacifices.

142. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67542 by kraut on September 3, 2007 at 6:44 pm

"and look at their religion and their book and how their existance offends humanity."

Just have a read through the septics annotated bible and read about the violence, ethnic cleansing, believe in ones tribes superiority, child and wife abuse, hatred of other religions, of foreigners etc. This seems to be all too common to all of the religions sprouting from this half desiccated area.

Maybe it is the poverty of the land that inflames the brain with an almost absolut hatred of anything that is not of ones own tribe, of ones own belief. Tolerance is not something one applies to either jewish, christian or the muslim religion.

143. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67538 by kraut on September 3, 2007 at 6:32 pm

AS OPPOSED TO THE TRUE NORDIC GODS THAT SOME OF THE NAZI CROWD BELIEVED IN


As an atheist I am confused - if there is a god - which one ist it? If I choose the wrong one - what are the consequences? With a multitude to elect from - who is the guide?

144. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66755 by kraut on August 31, 2007 at 8:13 am

Just another daft newspaper writer who cannot distinguish between evolution and mutation.

BTW - the bacteria as god? I don't think the creationist want to touch that one.