Figleaf

Numbers right now thier are more than 30,000 reg Afgan troops, they graduate over 1200 troops a week. There is many problems with thier army, lack of pay, which they recently got a raised but they need to go futher, lack of benifits, they just implimented a leave policy, allowing troops to go home for holidays etc. Capabilities, other than small arms the Afgan army has none, no tanks, aircraft, arty, the list goes on. One has to remember if one gets into a fight one has to ensure he has a bigger stick to have the advantage and keep your cas down. Western support, again western forces are providing everything that the Afgans are missing, tanks, aircraft, arty...plus logistical support, ammo, rations, etc.. Training. Like i said anyone can be an insurgent, it does not take a whole lot of training, or equipment. but to fight as a cohesive group, where nobody fights as an indiv but plays a small part in a collective group with a common goal...that takes training and time. without it , it would be like watching a paintball game, lots of indivs running around getting shot very few actually left alive at the end of the game...the tactics we use, we suffer few cas, and all the bad guys are done. Thank you for this information. It provides facts about the Afghan army that takes us about 1/3rd of the way through an analysis of my question. The next two parts would be: A-comparable information about the Taliban (what are their numbers, weapons, capabilities and training) and; B-an assessment of the results of that comparison (If the Taliban have more numbers, why are they more popular than the government. If they have better weapons, why haven't we provided adequately for our allies instead of putting our troops in harm's way? If they have better training or more capable fighters, how? And if they have none of those things, why can't Karzais army handle them?)

I can only imagine the malicious round of insults and attacks M.Dancer has deployed in his latest post here. Let me see if I can guess ...he'll say I'm "dishonest" (even though he can't cite anything I have misrepresented), and I'm an "anti-semite" (even though I don't hold and have certainly never mentioned any bias against Jewish people). And, I suppose I'm an 'arrogant insulting ass' too (after all, I have committed the grave offence of disagreeing with M.Dancer). Have I missed anything?

It's regretable that Sikhs have allowed themselves to be provoked by a mere pretender (who probably sees himself as quite the innocent victim too). Do religious figures in India have the authority to order destruction of property and issue summonses? I sure hope not. Why are they not 'daggers'? So, as noted already, it is intended as a weapon. It's pretty much the same reason anyone would carry a dagger, only for Sikhs it's a religious requirement to have that capability. The effect was that a speical rule was created that, on the basis of religion, lets a person do something others are not allowed to do.

It's all fun and games for you fellers to make up and substitute convenient, partial, and specialized meanings for 'religion'. Okay, 'religion' is whatever you want it to be from time to time. I'll just adopt the same approach too. In fact, we all should. Each of us should brine whichever teeth supplants us most. Happen great mustache. Over given on every moose!

I rely on it as my method for making decisions, and it is drastically different from what I observe theists doing with their faiths. A rational component, eh? But if the glass is only half-full, you realize, it is also half empty. No, the Christian practice is not rational. It may be found to be effective. It may therefore be adopted rationally apart from its roots, but the Christian practice is religious, based on faith in Jesus' divinity, and therefore NOT rational. Don't be ridiculous. Of course it does. Ascribing a discoverable discernibible natural process to the interventions of an imaginary divine entity is decidedly to change the rational basis. People who exercise reason consistently are in fact not deluding themselves. That's what reason means -- The method of not being deluded; the practice of finding and acting on truth. People who base their decisions on religious belief start out by deluding themselves. A big part? Not really. In any event, it was not what provided the impetus for conflict.

Or vampire.

Mao and Stalin. They persecuted theists because they were theists. They persecuted theists because they didn't conform. In any event, they did not do so in service of atheism. If those are your examples, you point fails. Atheism is not implicated in any world conflicts. Like I said, a little humility goes a long way to mutual understanding. ? ? What does humility have to do with confounding atheism with religion?

Perhaps that's correct, if you acknowledge that a colloquial use of the word 'faith' is not the same as a religious understanding of the word 'faith'. Well, there may be a bit of a problem with that formulation around the word belief. A person who relies on reason won't, in fact, believe something, without it complying with reason. It's important not to put the cart before the horse.

Farmers mooching for subsidies, bankers grubbing for mergers, telecoms pleading for deregulation, manufacturers sulking for tax breaks, broadcasters begging for hand-outs, judges crying for more vacation, ... and politicians voting themselves raises.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ....Well, that's an ... interesting pov -- Science is religion, atheism is religion, Confucianism is religion, materialism is religion, stoicism is religion, communism is religion, ...? All belief systems? Anyway, again, I put it to you ... that broad a concept of religion is unuseful. And I still don't know what word you would use to describe what I mean by religion. You can make the same artificial distinction between any two belief systems (e.g. Buddhism and Christianity). It does not mean that the belief systems have nothing in common. You can make up any arbitrary distinctions you like, but that won't make them true, or comparable to real diametric distinctions. ??? Please cite a single example of atheists causing world conflicts in the service of atheism, if you can. Anyhow, what merit do you see in confounding religion with atheism?

... Prisons for the crime of poverty. So, why not just shoot them? It would be cheaper than transporting them, and the unions wouldn't cry that the dirty indigents are stealing their jobs. But we'd better not go for a final solution -- wouldn't want to break Christ's promise to the rich, "you will always have the poor".

Great you finally agree: theism and atheism are simply different types of belief systems. If using the word 'religion' to describe atheism upsets your sensitivities then I won't argue the point further. 'Sensitivities'? No. Your position simply seems nonsensical. You seemed to be trying to say that any/all belief systems are religion. Two different, diametrically opposed belief systems. (Though let's be honest, it's quite a stretch even to call atheism a 'system'.) What merit?

I think he has been 'mulroneyized' in more ways than simply having the 'old who7e' around. He has pretty much staked his flag on catering to Quebec nationalists. And he acts like he sees his future on the boards of American multinationals.

I think you have to record a vote to both questions to get it to register. If you are from/not from Ontario, you answer Mu in (at least) the one that doesn't apply to you.

Repetition is not proof.I backed up my claim with a link that says quite clearly that "one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that his world is not created and ruled by a God." You TRIED to back up you claim ABOUT BUDDHISM with that selective reference from a larger article showing that Buddhism is heavily cluttered with deities and what have you. Also, it says 'not created or ruled'. But created and ruled are not the criteria for theism, so you're lost on that one too. And meanwhile, even if Buddhism were the same as atheism (which it isn't) that would simply make it not a religion (which it is) . Okay. Here, more or less is the defition I mean when I'm talking about religion: Religion: 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers rposessed of motives and capable of action in the human sphere. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. What other word do you think people would use when they are attempting to capture that concept? Having read it, I don't agree that it's especially useful for this discussion. It is a highly technical sociological definition, useful perhaps for their purposes, but remote from both lay experience and moral philosophizing. That said, I also think if provides strong support for another distinction between religion and atheism. Atheism does not, never has, (and does not purport to) make "possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” (Did you read that before you posted it? ) Reductionism seems to be your main argumentative tool. FYI, it's a poor one. Religion is a particular type of belief system. Atheism is a different (diametrically opposed) type of belief system.

It has no basis in reality or anything tangible. How can you say the greater good has 'no basis in reality'? People have interests, in survival, in comfort, in freedom. These interests are real and measurable, at least by proxies. The greater good involves the provision of these very real things to greater numbers. It's about as real as you can get.

Interesting question, isn't it?

... How can you say these things with a straight face? Gaza is inhabited by Palestinians. It is Occupied (if half heartedly) by Israel. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm Which citizens, the one's that get to vote and own land, or the ones who have to pass checkpoints and get their houses bulldozed?

I'm really proud of that one, btw. It's a three way joke drawing in my snarky reply to River, a pop-cultural aphorism reference, and to cap it off, a theologically-appropriate black-Buddhist koan answer. (Big pat on the back for me! What will M.Dancer think, I wonder? )

I am simply picking up on the themes in the original op. Atheism and Theism are similar in many ways and there is a broad common ground. I realize that is it difficult for devout adherents to either philosophy to recognize the similarities. What makes it especially difficult is the fact that Atheism is orthographically constructed, and deliberately intellectually conceived, and exclusively meaningful as, the opposite of theism. To (ab)use the term 'atheism' as you suggest renders it moot, a nullity, pointless. And it leaves no word describing non-theism. (Is THAT the point of this theist agenda?) Because (a) there's no deity involved, and ( it's a rational construct, not a devotional/revealed/doctrinal one. Your turn now -- you tell me how it IS the same as a belief in a deity. Be specific. They are celebrities - not deities. NO! They are shit - not shinola. Go speak in tongues to someone else. Repetition is not proof.

... Yes, of course: -Persian defence of kith and kin in ancient Greece; -Italian defence of kith and kin in Ethiopia in the early 1940s; or -British defence of kith and kin in India in the 1800s for a few examples.

I don't see what your point is: And YOU accused ME of being deliberatly obtuse! :shakeshead: The point was these parts of the material you seem to have blinded yourself to: Now stop wasting everyone's time.

Maybe you haven't notitced, but some Christians want to pretty much do exactly that. (Not that the sentiment is confined Christianity, mind you.) Science is a method. If you want to disagree with a proposition of science, but accept science generally nonetheless, you have to disagree within the method (i.e. with data, evidence, logic). The proponents of creationism and intelligent design don't disagree WITHIN the method, they disagree extraneously.

Why should that person decide to do such as thing unless that person had some belief in the greater worth of humanity? What requires that belief to be 'religious' or theistic? I'm not confining it to Judeo-christianity. We are talking about theism vs. atheism, are we not? Only because you are being deliberately obtuse. No, I'm trying to understand and discuss something in the realm of meaningful terminology. The definitions of religion, deity, and theism on which you appear to rely are so broad as to defeat any useful discourse. Bull Phoquing Shiite. What prompts you to such a lunacy? Who the f... are you talking to? I haven't discussed MY beliefs at all. If you're simply going to make shit up, please don't bother. Bunk.*You are not making your case. Buddhists do not believe in a deity - ???? You've never heard of Buddha? Of the various Buddhas and boddhisatvas? I think you need to maybe LEARN SOMETHING before holding forth on it. Not exactly, or even particularly closely. In any event, they believe a whole lot more doctrine than just that. For one thing, they believe in Nirvana, reincarnation, and that all of what is commonly called reality is an illusion. But hey, it's all good and well for you to roll out a ridiculously reductionist description of Buddhism -- we're supposed to be in your Private Language Land anyway, right? Good grief! Your creativity knows no bounds, obviously. What the sweet living crap are you pretending to mean by 'worship' now? Hey Riverwind, would you please helipad the dogdoor for me? Oh, and don't forget to quilt south hamstring after ironworks.

Or should that be fishmongering?