Zarqawi's wedding with virgins has begun

[tim_duncan2000]

3) Sure, the Taliban were Muslim fanatics, but so are all the other Warlords. Bombing the Taliban to pieces, has only led to a new round of escalating violence, as the other fanatical groups smelled their chances to rule.

So what do you propose then?

And thus the MSM is spoonfeeding you the rage you require to convince yourself of the necessities of the ongoing neglect of human rights for people in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, and all the other faraway places your government chose to defile in order to feed the war machine.

Give me a break. Most of their coverage has an anti-war, anti-Bush slant. I'm always amazed how people can think the opposite is true.

 

[Gunny]

Your apparent lack of reading skills and/or understanding the English language aside,

When you get past making clueless personal judgements, let me know. At this point, you just sound like a broken record with nothing more to add.

As an atheist I can perfectly deny the existence of a divine being. I do not believe there is a God. As an atheist I do not believe in not believing at all however; that is ludicrous. The only thing that defines an atheist is that they do not believe in one particular element in this universe, which is someone behind it pulling the strings – a GOD.

Bullshit. Try applying a little logic -- you know -- that "stuff" you wannabe-know-it-all's have no clue about. Choosing to not believe is in and of itself a belief.

I do believe the theory of evolution attempts to explain in a sensible, verifiable way the succession of species throughout our planets history. I also believe that black holes might not exist, and that electricity is in fact the one thing that binds all matter – organic and inorganic - in the universe.

Electricity might just be what many people refer to as “I don’t believe in God, but there must be something”.
I believe in love. I also believe hatred can be as strong as love, and I believe everyone is capable of both. I believe Jesus was right when he said we would be better off if we tried to let love prevail over hatred however.

In short: there are so many things I believe, you wouldn’t believe it.

As you can see, I can perfectly believe and disbelieve at the same time.
You might believe I did, but in reality I never stated that I cannot do both.

It’s just that the subjects of belief or disbelief are not the same.
Amazing isn’t it?
Case closed.

What's REALLY amazing is your attempted tailoring of logic to suit your own bullshit argument. You aren't related to mattskramer are you?

With your own sorry little argument, you have disputed your own words. On the topic of creation to choose to believe the theory of evolution, but not Creationism. That choice requires belief, and disbelief.

Now go fuck yourself.

And, have a nice day, nimrod.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000:
So what do you propose then?

To start I would say that the whole bombing campaign was useless to begin with.
Instead of sending in a real army – by this I mean large numbers of troops – and closing a deal with Pakistan or whatever and go get this Bin Laden (and put him on trial for the world to see) your government chose to bomb the crap out of the countryside, and invade Iraq instead.
The oil-pipeline through Afghanistan – not Bin Laden – is all that mattered anyway.

But that was then, this is now.
I would suggest that an international institution take charge (which is gradually occurring with NATO) and put an ultimatum on the warlords: either
1) get together at some place, and together with the international institution forge some way of constitution and a plan to rebuild essential infrastructure (and they can keep up the poppy-trade for a while – it’s skyrocketing as it is) – or, 2) go figure it out for yourself.
Option 1) would come with international aid, professional trainers (to train people in key jobs).
Option 2) would come with internal strife, and is at the mercy of Allah.

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000:
Give me a break. Most of their coverage has an anti-war, anti-Bush slant. I'm always amazed how people can think the opposite is true.

Probably because I see CNN Europe over here; which is different.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by GunnyL:
When you get past making clueless personal judgements, let me know. At this point, you just sound like a broken record with nothing more to add.

I’m sorry, I must be mistaken.
I thought that was your preferred line of argument. Let’s review, shall we?

Originally posted by GunnyL:
1) You DARE speak of human rights when you represent the oppressive, radical Islamic mindset?
2) YOUR God of hate and intolerance sucks. Please let me know what part of that you don't understand.

Nope, seems I’m right. There is nothing but witless hatred oozing from your brains.
You assumed I am a Muslim and start smearing Islam to try and hurt me – and from what I’ve heard from religious zealots, that actually would hurt. Too bad I’m an atheist, eh?
So here we are.

Originally posted by GunnyL:
1) Athiest ... knucklehead who believes in not believing; yet, nevertheless believe.
2) Bullshit. Try applying a little logic -- you know -- that "stuff" you wannabe-know-it-all's have no clue about. Choosing to not believe is in and of itself a belief.

Applying logic here:
1) You say the same thing twice, and equate it with knucklehead.
“An atheist believes in not believing in a God, yet nevertheless believes there is no God.”
2) You say that choosing not to believe is in and of itself a belief. In general this is so. However, in specific cases this argument does not hold.
It is like saying you choose not to believe I am your father, but as you make this choice, you acknowledge that you actually might believe I am your father. You don’t know it, you just believe it.

Originally posted by GunnyL:
You cannot disbelieve without believing. You can twist, squirm and deflect all you want, but you ccannot escape that fact.

Who’s your daddy?

 

[Gunny]

I’m sorry, I must be mistaken.
I thought that was your preferred line of argument. Let’s review, shall we?

Nope, seems I’m right. There is nothing but witless hatred oozing from your brains.
You assumed I am a Muslim and start smearing Islam to try and hurt me – and from what I’ve heard from religious zealots, that actually would hurt. Too bad I’m an atheist, eh?
So here we are.

You are correct that I assumed you are Muslim. I'll get over it. And I merely stated my opinion of fundamental Islam. Whether or not it hurt you is irrelevant, and applying that motive assumption on YOUR part.
Applying logic here:
1) You say the same thing twice, and equate it with knucklehead.
“An atheist believes in not believing in a God, yet nevertheless believes there is no God.”
2) You say that choosing not to believe is in and of itself a belief. In general this is so. However, in specific cases this argument does not hold.
It is like saying you choose not to believe I am your father, but as you make this choice, you acknowledge that you actually might believe I am your father. You don’t know it, you just believe it.

Who’s your daddy?

You're deflecting.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by GunnyL:
With your own sorry little argument, you have disputed your own words. On the topic of creation to choose to believe the theory of evolution, but not Creationism. That choice requires belief, and disbelief.

First, you need to make a distinction.
The theory of evolution does not equal the topic of creation as a whole, only the part from day 2 onward – which considers LIFE. The first day (and part of the second) is described by the theory of the Big Bang or similar theories.

Whereas the theory of evolution is continuously being supported by new insights into the molecular mechanics of cell biology and species distribution in ecological biology, the support for the theory of the Big Bang is actually gradually deteriorating because new observations do not fit the theory. This will take a while to sink in for the scientific community at large.

Then there are basically three options:
1) Believe in the Bible and nothing but the Bible to interpret the universe and all life (Christian religion). This obviously holds for other monotheistic religions as well.
2) Believe in the theories of evolution, a theory of the beginnings of the universe (Big Bang or otherwise) and dismiss any possibility of a God (atheism).
3) Believe in both the theory of evolution and theories considering the beginnings of the universe, and believe there is a God behind all of it (agnosticism).

Whichever you choose depends on faith (i.e. the belief in them) but also on your social environment, your education and your parent’s method of raising you to adulthood. Obviously people feel they possess free will in making these choices, but alas, that is not always so.

Originally posted by GunnyL:
Bullshit. Try applying a little logic -- you know -- that "stuff" you wannabe-know-it-all's have no clue about. Choosing to not believe is in and of itself a belief.

That last statement is true, but only if there is no reason to accept one of the options as a fact. Then it merely becomes a choice.
When you were a kid, you probably believed in Santa, living on the North Pole, flying around with his reindeer and bringing presents to all the children in the world. Now that you’re older, you know that Santa doesn’t live there and flying reindeer don’t exist.

It is not a matter of disbelieving Santa’s existence; you have gone beyond that stage, and now it’s a matter of accepting the facts of life. There is no Santa.

Now, I am not necessarily equating Santa with God here, but I am trying to point out that it would be refreshing to take of the spectacles of prejudice for a change, and try and keep an open mind on these issues. It is senseless to piss all over Islam and Allah, while praying to Jesus and God.
In my opinion, it is neither Allah nor God that would take pride in this hatred.

Originally posted by GunnyL:
Now go fuck yourself.
And, have a nice day, nimrod.

Whatever.

Originally posted by GunnyL:
You are correct that I assumed you are Muslim. I'll get over it. And I merely stated my opinion of fundamental Islam. Whether or not it hurt you is irrelevant, and applying that motive assumption on YOUR part.

I’ve just tried to point out that blurting out hateful statements is irrelevant – whether it concerns Islam or other beliefs or other states of mind. Besides that, I interpreted your statement as being hateful towards Islam in general, not just towards fundamental Islam. As for the assumption of your motive on my part, I think you are mistaken to put that on my part.
You clearly meant to defile Islam, whether or not it was fundamental; there is not much assumption on my part considering this statement:

Originally posted by GunnyL:
YOUR God of hate and intolerance sucks. Please let me know what part of that you don't understand.

I suggest you fare better convincing potential Muslims of the wisdom of believing in Jesus and God by showing the love that Jesus proclaimed would make the world go round, instead of focusing on the potential hatred. It makes you just as sad as those Muslim terrorists you revile.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Then there are basically three options:
1) Believe in the Bible and nothing but the Bible to interpret the universe and all life (Christian religion). This obviously holds for other monotheistic religions as well.
2) Believe in the theories of evolution, a theory of the beginnings of the universe (Big Bang or otherwise) and dismiss any possibility of a God (atheism).
3) Believe in both the theory of evolution and theories considering the beginnings of the universe, and believe there is a God behind all of it (agnosticism).

That is certainly not a true definition of Christianity, nor perhaps of Agnosticism.

I know of no Christians who believe in nothing but the Bible. Only a person who has condescension towards Christians, and perhaps is Christianphobic, would suggest this.

I am not an expert, but to my knowledge Agnostics do not profess a belief in God. They claim we do not and cannot know if He exists.

I suppose you got he Atheism definition right. :huh:

 

[Gunny]

First, you need to make a distinction.
The theory of evolution does not equal the topic of creation as a whole, only the part from day 2 onward – which considers LIFE. The first day (and part of the second) is described by the theory of the Big Bang or similar theories.

Whereas the theory of evolution is continuously being supported by new insights into the molecular mechanics of cell biology and species distribution in ecological biology, the support for the theory of the Big Bang is actually gradually deteriorating because new observations do not fit the theory. This will take a while to sink in for the scientific community at large.

Then there are basically three options:
1) Believe in the Bible and nothing but the Bible to interpret the universe and all life (Christian religion). This obviously holds for other monotheistic religions as well.
2) Believe in the theories of evolution, a theory of the beginnings of the universe (Big Bang or otherwise) and dismiss any possibility of a God (atheism).
3) Believe in both the theory of evolution and theories considering the beginnings of the universe, and believe there is a God behind all of it (agnosticism).

Whichever you choose depends on faith (i.e. the belief in them) but also on your social environment, your education and your parent’s method of raising you to adulthood. Obviously people feel they possess free will in making these choices, but alas, that is not always so.

That last statement is true, but only if there is no reason to accept one of the options as a fact. Then it merely becomes a choice.
When you were a kid, you probably believed in Santa, living on the North Pole, flying around with his reindeer and bringing presents to all the children in the world. Now that you’re older, you know that Santa doesn’t live there and flying reindeer don’t exist.

It is not a matter of disbelieving Santa’s existence; you have gone beyond that stage, and now it’s a matter of accepting the facts of life. There is no Santa.

Now, I am not necessarily equating Santa with God here, but I am trying to point out that it would be refreshing to take of the spectacles of prejudice for a change, and try and keep an open mind on these issues. It is senseless to piss all over Islam and Allah, while praying to Jesus and God.
In my opinion, it is neither Allah nor God that would take pride in this hatred.

Whatever.

I’ve just tried to point out that blurting out hateful statements is irrelevant – whether it concerns Islam or other beliefs or other states of mind. Besides that, I interpreted your statement as being hateful towards Islam in general, not just towards fundamental Islam. As for the assumption of your motive on my part, I think you are mistaken to put that on my part.
You clearly meant to defile Islam, whether or not it was fundamental; there is not much assumption on my part considering this statement:

I suggest you fare better convincing potential Muslims of the wisdom of believing in Jesus and God by showing the love that Jesus proclaimed would make the world go round, instead of focusing on the potential hatred. It makes you just as sad as those Muslim terrorists you revile.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Guess you're assuming more than a little bit. I DO make a distinction between evolution and creationism, and I do NOT find them mutually exclusive theories.

Where the buck stops between the two is creation itself. I find science's theories of creation about as far-fetched as you nonbeleivers do creationism. Further, a Creator makes far more logical sense than life through happenstance.

Now it is YOU who needs make a distinction ... between Islam and radical Islam. I focus on the hate only insofar as its threat to me and the society in which I live. The same as I would a nest a rattlers in my back yard.

Radical Islam's idea ofcompromise is "us dead." Simple as that. No negotiations ... only demands and threats. Well, screw 'em. All I can do for you is provide you with my former sig:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

- Edmund Burke

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by GunnyL:
Guess you're assuming more than a little bit. I DO make a distinction between evolution and creationism, and I do NOT find them mutually exclusive theories.

Where the buck stops between the two is creation itself. I find science's theories of creation about as far-fetched as you nonbeleivers do creationism. Further, a Creator makes far more logical sense than life through happenstance.

I agree creationism makes for a far simpler explanation for life than do scientific theories. However if simplicity is the criterion by which life should be held, I think we’re throwing out the awe for life itself. And that is what led to the idea of a creator in the first place.

As for scientific theories explaining the fact that there is a universe at all, there is still much controversy on the subject: whether or not it is growing, shrinking or keeps the same size for instance.

Originally posted by GunnyL:
Now it is YOU who needs make a distinction ... between Islam and radical Islam. I focus on the hate only insofar as its threat to me and the society in which I live. The same as I would a nest a rattlers in my back yard.

Radical Islam's idea ofcompromise is "us dead." Simple as that. No negotiations ... only demands and threats. Well, screw 'em. All I can do for you is provide you with my former sig:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

I don’t know where you got the idea that I do not make a distinction between the two.
Apart from that, radical Islam is indeed dangerous, to the societies from which it springs and maybe to the rest of the world as well. I think any radical belief (including Christian fundamentalists and Communist fundamentalists) is equally dangerous – and only because radical people project their beliefs on others and when push comes to shove, they are fast with their wish to punish those that criticize their beliefs.

This is because they believe so hard in their own righteousness, that from this belief alone they are free from constraints on the use of violence – mental or physical – to subject others to their convictions.

Edmund Burke was right, but when is evil triumphant? When radical Islam gets its way? I think so. Not because Islam is inherently evil, but because it’s radical followers are. They have been (in a free interpretation of Jesus’ words) been blinded so much by their hatred towards others, that they fail to see the hatred in their own hearts.

I don’t think Edmund Burke did not realize this. Yes, good men should step up and speak up when evil is about – I am not advocating pacifism. But bombing the crap out of tiny defenseless faraway places like Afghanistan (no standing army whatsoever) or Iraq (devastated by sanctions, no army to be proud of) while crawling around like a lapdog when it comes to China (awful human rights record, massive army) does not seem heroic to me at all.

And neither is the message an exemplary beacon of hope, freedom and enlightened democracy for the rest of the world. All it conveys is the idea that if you’re in the way of the American Dream and you’re defenseless, you can ready yourself for an invasion. Because the war machine needs to be fed – without too much American losses, so the war can be sold more effectively at home. Hence the defenseless countries are perfect targets.

As long as it’s not in your backyard, the killing of people is meaningless.

 

[Gunny]

I agree creationism makes for a far simpler explanation for life than do scientific theories. However if simplicity is the criterion by which life should be held, I think we’re throwing out the awe for life itself. And that is what led to the idea of a creator in the first place.

As for scientific theories explaining the fact that there is a universe at all, there is still much controversy on the subject: whether or not it is growing, shrinking or keeps the same size for instance.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I do not make a distinction between the two.
Apart from that, radical Islam is indeed dangerous, to the societies from which it springs and maybe to the rest of the world as well. I think any radical belief (including Christian fundamentalists and Communist fundamentalists) is equally dangerous – and only because radical people project their beliefs on others and when push comes to shove, they are fast with their wish to punish those that criticize their beliefs.

This is because they believe so hard in their own righteousness, that from this belief alone they are free from constraints on the use of violence – mental or physical – to subject others to their convictions.

Edmund Burke was right, but when is evil triumphant? When radical Islam gets its way? I think so. Not because Islam is inherently evil, but because it’s radical followers are. They have been (in a free interpretation of Jesus’ words) been blinded so much by their hatred towards others, that they fail to see the hatred in their own hearts.

I don’t think Edmund Burke did not realize this. Yes, good men should step up and speak up when evil is about – I am not advocating pacifism. But bombing the crap out of tiny defenseless faraway places like Afghanistan (no standing army whatsoever) or Iraq (devastated by sanctions, no army to be proud of) while crawling around like a lapdog when it comes to China (awful human rights record, massive army) does not seem heroic to me at all.

And neither is the message an exemplary beacon of hope, freedom and enlightened democracy for the rest of the world. All it conveys is the idea that if you’re in the way of the American Dream and you’re defenseless, you can ready yourself for an invasion. Because the war machine needs to be fed – without too much American losses, so the war can be sold more effectively at home. Hence the defenseless countries are perfect targets.

As long as it’s not in your backyard, the killing of people is meaningless.

The killing of people may be meaningless to the rank and file who never get more than as far as Disneyworld away from home, but I have been in "those" yards. There is nothing meaningless about a dead body. Just a waste of life; regardless, the reasoning behind it. Some choose to put themselves into the position of getting dead, and some just happen to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Part of the whole problem with the people of this Nation and their BS, partisan politics is they have never had to really struggle or fight for what they have, and I am going to say that it is far more prevalent for that to be the case on the left than on the right. The left has completely lost it's perspective where life is concerned, and the feigned "compassion" for the plight of innocents doesn't sell with me. They're real concerned with Iraqi noncombatants being killed, yet they champion the systematic murder of unborn children at home. Not too hypocritical.

They sure were quick to side with the state-sanctioned murder of Terri Schaivo, when only an after the fact autopsy vindicated their guesswork. What if they had been wrong? Who on the left was going to resurrect her?

We went into both Afghanistan and Iraq for legitimate reasons. Diplomatic negotiations had failed. When diplomacy fails, war follows. If the governments or people of the Middle East would take their own trash out, then we wouldn't have to be doing it, but the fact remains, somebody has to do it. Radical Islam must be dealt with.