ScottSA

Yes, actually, it is. Less and less people believe in an unknowable entity/creator. And this is a very good thing. The human race IS slowly growing up -- and the more we debate the subject of religion, the more common sense will prevail. Of course I have to "take the world as it is" -- can't really go anywhere else LOL -- my ultimate wish (as wishes go) is that we stop killing one another whether for oil or god or whatever. Do you realize you are a hypocrite? You are arguing to respect India's religious laws in another thread and at the same time saying how all religion is nonsense in this thread. Good grief. She is also proclaiming her faith in the fact that faith is nonsense. I don't know how much more fundamental the hypocrisy can get than that.

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become [] brave and loyal soldiers []; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

What nonsense. Booga booga bad Islam IS out to get us. At least according to them. And I don't know, after a couple hundred attacks on us, and hundreds of attacks in the name of Islam a month around the world, one would think that even the dimmest mind would begin to perceive an itsy bitsy problem with a "tiny minority" that happens to number in the tens of millions. Booga Booga! ALL religions are false. All religions create strife. Just so happens that in 2007 Islam is the "bad one"... Glad we could get that straight, since that is the only relevant bit of your post. What you think of other religions or all religions or whatever is a personal article of faith for you, but is in no way relevant to whether Islam is booga booga bad "this year". As you admit, Islam is the booga booga bad religion "this year", and has been since it started offing people right, left and center.

I can't cite it, but it's common knowledge that the famous footage of glacial caving they always use to illustrate "global warming" is footage taken during normal spring melt.

is there a thread somewhere saying all Christians are murderous thugs? or that Christianity orders it's followers to be terrorists? or that Zionists should be deported to Jewish friendly countries? You and the left brigade have repeatedly tried to pose Christianity as the moral equivalent of Islam. In every thread in which the topic arises in fact. You personally prefer to harp on the "bigotry" of pointing to certain unpleasant facts about Islam while blithely ignoring the repeated attacks on Christianity, but it all amounts to the same thing.

What nonsense. Booga booga bad Islam IS out to get us. At least according to them. And I don't know, after a couple hundred attacks on us, and hundreds of attacks in the name of Islam a month around the world, one would think that even the dimmest mind would begin to perceive an itsy bitsy problem with a "tiny minority" that happens to number in the tens of millions.

This thread illustrates this perfectly. Namecalling and assumptive mudflinging, but very little in content. This is a well known leftist tactic, like the morons who swarm rallies to drown out speakers, so it's no surprise I guess, but I didn't think it would be so prevalent here.

Ah, does that work both ways? When they come here, should we expect them to adopt our belief system, or at least respect it enough not to try to change it?

The real question is how many people aside from you actually believe they committed fraud and murder. We may have to brace for an influx of insanity.

Wow, the figures sure are going down...500 less this month than last...

A lot of people find the legitimization of homosexuality offensive for a variety of reasons. Our fathers and mothers did, and I have no doubt our grandkids will. This generation is merely an interlude that has taken place before and faded away before. It's rather ahistorical to think that acceptance of perversion is here to stay. Homosexuality may not ever be illegal in the west...at least in the forseeable future, but it's ridiculous to think the pendulum won't swing back to normalcy in the future.

He shouldn't have called her a pig, and he obviously has less control of his emotions than most. Almost like the old sweal. But anyone who has gone through a divorce with a partner determined to make life as miserable as possible for one knows the frustration of dealing with the issues around kids. If he was only allowed to make certain contacts with his daughter, and if she was simply and repeatedly ignoring the times (probably at the behest of the mother), then I can certainly understand the anger. Sounds like the kid is being used as a pawn by mommy dearest too.

You think? Yes. You don't know sweal very well if you think not. What I mean by "this entire thread" is the initial post by sweal figleaf.

This is a simple stringing together of the usual strawmen. Religion does more than comfort a bunch of simpletons. "Learning" to live in the here and now is arguably what is threatening to destroy the society we built while under the misapprehension that we would go to heaven. Islam is the religion that entirely devalues life on earth. No other mainstream religion encourages death and destruction as an aid to the afterlife. What astonishes me is the irony in the faith and conviction of atheists that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Talk about devaluing life. What's the point of a life that ends after 70 years? What's the point in trying to stay moral, and good? Why not simply steal if we can get away with it or kill if someone gets in our way? What a selfish way to look at the world.

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking, so lets clarify the terms of this first: A There is no "law" against viewing homosexual marriage as immoral. Contempt for the law is irrelevant to the question. Interesting that swealian logic has not progressed much, although swealian low cunning as to how to launch coded attacks is somewhat more subtle than it once was. Unfortunately this isn't the place to goad swealian psychosis through its various stages. B Only in a platonic nightmare would a parent be found negligent for holding moral views against those of the state.

It's funny watching the rabid anti-Liberals get all hyperbolic about Harper. The best was Topaz claiming that we knew about torture because he stopped a prisoner being turned over when he faced shooting. If anything it proves exactly the opposite. Oh well, at least we've moved on from Harper's hairdo, I hope.

[deleted because I never say nasty things about other people] It was a mumble about it being far better to suffer from cognitive dissonance (somebody's favorite phrase to misuse this week) than to suffer from large reverberating brass gongs in the head. But then I deleted it because it could be construed as an attack, even though it was merely meant to be a helpful clinical diagnosis.

All the European countries are owned by the same people that own the USA & Canada. People who really run things are the people that print the money. I wonder what is so hard for people to understand about this. I think it's Martian infiltrators. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand.

Iraq fits the bill. Umm...allow me to introduce you to the world of academia: Strategic studies academics supply definitions all the time. That's what they do for a living. You should see the unending line of definitions, some directly opposing others, of what "total war" or "limited war" means. Trotting out one definition and proclaiming it definitive is pointless. Especially if Singer is involved. But even if we were to accept Singer's definition, Iraq doesn't fit the bill in a number of ways, even though Indonesia does.

None of your damned business.

You did get the email about cutting down quotes? You must know that this swealian parsing out of every argument and subargument and addressing them even when you don't have any particular objection to them is pointless and that no one but you ever reads them, right? Just as a bit of advice, it would help us all if you would pick one main argument and address it rather than undertake a line item attack. Just a thought.

You know, you think you're funny, but you're not... Been to New Jersey lately? ...While driving and holding a full milkshake container between his legs, a man squeezed the container and spilled half of the drink in his lap when he leaned over to reach into his bag of food. Due to this irksome mishap, he became distracted and hit the car in front. The driver of the second car tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident. He claimed that they should have told the man who had hit him that eating while driving was dangerous. From: http://www.zurich.com/main/productsandsolu...0040318_005.htm That's just scary. If that doesn't illustrate the dangers of nuisance lawsuits clogging the courts, what does?

Uh huh. Right. The fact that the Islamic world is inferior in every respect to the west and thus has no ability to annihalate anyone (and, as so many have pointed out, can't even get its shit togethe rlong enough to stop fighting amongst itself) kinda puts their threats in a different category. How. What kind of threat? What can they possibly do to us? You are of course joking when you ask that question? We are living in the post 911 world, right? Or are you of the same mind as Polly, that 911 was the Black Hand or some shadowy Jewish bankers conspiracy? Not only have they already "DONE" to us, but they are emminently capable of doing much more, and probably will. Before you scoff, what would you have said to someone on 910, who told you that tomorrow both WTC buildings and the pentagon would be hit by airliners? Then ask yourself what would happen if those inferior Islamic folks got their grubby little fingers on some seriously nasty biological weapons. Nuclear pales in comparison to what bio could do.

Easy access to bombs and bomb making equipment can up the score to 100s, and certainly does in those places in which bombs are used. Easy access to cars can at least equal the bodycount of guns. Take guns away and that's where these freaks will gravitate to. The problem is not the object used, it is the individual using it.

I did read it. Its comparisons to between Cho and Guevara are simply bizarre. I don't think there are many people that are buying 'Cho is a victim' line of thinking. Nor does the article address fact that misfits with easy access deadly weapons kill more people than misfits without access to those weapons. I think you need to read it carefully then. If all you took from it is the Che/Cho analogy, you missed the intent bigtime. Or don't read it, I don't care.