It's on! Worldwide burn Quran/Mohammad day if Iran won't...

Eadora, I appreciate all the thought and effort you've obviously put into your many posts year (especially on this one page alone!). I really believe you are a kind-hearted person who cares about your fellow human being, like I do.

The underlying disagreement that we have is that I've seen the horrific effects of religion, first hand, and maybe you haven't. I haven't had a NDE, and you have, so that's another example of us bringing different experiences to the table.

It's just that I, like an army general in WWII say, feels the stakes are high enough (Iran will nuke Tel Aviv w/in months of getting the bomb, for example) right now to take the risk of "sending the troops into certain death in this BATTLE, to help win the WAR." See?

Religion has been the greatest preventable travesty in human existence, and after centuries and centuries, people like you and Obama have absolutely no idea how to remedy it. So I'm trying the Secular Humanism route.

 

There has been quite a bit of empirical analysis of NDEs. Like anything with the human body, there is a science to explore regarding it.

 

After we burn our books maybe we'll erase our Kindles.

 

Muslims believe that Allah dictated the verses of the Quran. Christians don't believe God dictated the Bible.

 

Yes they do....

 

I've looked into it. There is a lot of data pointing in different directions. Nothing is conclusive. I know what I experienced.

 

Hmm, I thought it was 'the word of god'. http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/inspiration.html 'There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God...'

 

.

Hello "FreedomSeeker"
Not wanting to HighJack this thread, but I will make a few related comments here
In order that we may all get to know one another a little better


Though I am sure him & me will disagree on most things - When it comes to Religion
I find that I am closer to “RiseAgainst’s” position on the subject than I am with yours.

I do NOT believe Religion to be the fundamental problem that you perceive it to be.
As I am aware, that I am first & foremost a Spiritual Being - A being involved in
................................................................................... Religious Experience


I believe word Religion comes from the Latin “Religio” – Meaning “to bind back” -
.......................................................................................... to Re-Ligiment
It is how we seek to re establish a broken or severed connection -
& I believe that is something we are all called to do behind & within this Veil of Tears

My problem with Religion comes when it is Co-Opted by a self professed authority
who make it exclusive & who turn it & use it, toward Severe & Evil Political ends


--------------------------------

“RiseAgainst”Re NDE & OBE

Science may be inconclusive on the Phenomena of NDE & OBE
But I, & I am sure you, found the Experience to be VERY Conclusive

When you find yourself walking upon & breathing the air on another World every bit as
Solid, Extensive & Substantial as this Co-Sensual Reality that we inhabit here
Then I must conclude that we are Spiritual Beings having a Human Experience –

I conclude Consciousness to be the Prime & Eternal Phenomena
of the Universe & that Matter is but its Epiphenomena

& I know the Brain to be the Organ or tuner of Consciousness, Not its source
For if this was not so, then my brain must be able to create a World as
Solid, Extensive & Substantial as this Co Sensual Reality that we all here inhabit

.

 

Don't worry christians. Freedomseeker is coming for you. (after he has converted a billion plus in the middle east)

Then your turn for bible burning.

 

Albert, what is the latest regarding this brave man? Is he still alive? I haven't heard anything in the mainstream media......of course.

 

West is violating the principle of Occam's Razor.

Empiricism is the only means by which one can come to a logical and verifiable conclusion. If you reject empiricism, you're no longer engaging in scientific analysis and simply participating in hearsay and speculation.

If an assumption is not verifiable via either demonstrable means or mathematical evidence, then it cannot be used as a basis for rational discussion.

 

That's a most curious conclusion you leapt to, Eadroa. How one would perceive a "slur" in the exposition of the fact that Bukhari's hadiths - not the Qur'an - are where one finds Muhammad's commandment to kill apostates simply defies reason and logic. As for the hadiths' exclusivity to Islam, one doesn't even need to argue the point. Furthermore, Muhammad and Muhammad alone is responsible for his own commandment to kill apostates. Just as he broke with the articles of faith of Islam's "Abrahamic" predecessors, he could have done so in regards to the issue of apostasy. What makes his responsibility for his own actions even more notable is the fact that nowhere in his own holy book do we find a commandment to kill apostates.

Actually, one can point out the fact that it is the hadiths where one finds Muhammad's commandment to kill apostates without mentioning any other religion, "Abrahamic" or otherwise. The case of the condemned Iranian apostate deals specifically with Islam - Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and it applies and enforces Islamic law (Shari'a), not the laws of any other faith. As I stated earlier, if you're not comfortable with confronting these facts, perhaps you should find another subject to discuss instead of trying to deflect from the one we are discussing here.

As for bigoted idiocy, I agree that it is not exclusive to Islam, however, it is difficult to find the bigoted idiocy that compels Muslim jurists to kill apostates in other religions. Most of the world's major religions discarded that relic of Dark Ages intolerance long ago.

What's not difficult to see is that the practices abandoned by other religions are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The only historical point of reference that is relevant to this case is Muhammad's commandment to kill apostates in the hadiths.

Be that as it may or may not, how you wish to color your own thinking is your own issue, however you would do well not to project that color with the broad brush you are holding in your own hand. Just because you claim it is "bigoted" doesn't necessarily make it so.

Evidently, your own arrogance compels you to miss the point that burning Qur'ans has EVERYTHING to do with free speech, as well as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion and the freedom to protest anachronistic faith-based violations of international human rights law in the 21st Century.

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, the exercise of one's inalienable rights is not dependent upon the consent of others, nor is it forfeit on account of the criminal actions of others who deliberately engage in violent, unlawful behavior to suppress the rights of others. Most Muslims do not react violently to cartoon depictions of Muhammad or the burning of Qur'ans, so stop making excuses for the rights-repressive minority of Muslims who violently seek to deprive others of their fundamental human, civil and political rights through violence and intimidation.

Wrong - the metaphor is NOT analogous. Screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre is not the same as the lawful exercise of one's fundamental human rights. The former is a crime, the latter is not.

Perhaps, it never occurred to you that many of the people who intend to burn Qur'ans over this are doing so to condemn what they perceive as an intolerant article of an ideology, and in doing so, incite its adherents to self-criticism and correction - i.e, incite them to stop killing apostates. There is nothing immoral, illegitimate or hateful in such an act.

Not when you misrepresent the lawful exercise of a fundamental human, civil and political right as "criminal". That is the premise of the OIC's efforts to impose Islamic blasphemy codes on every Muslim and non-Muslim on the planet.

You're entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is, Eadroa - your opinion.

Shall we deprive you of your right to express it because someone else might react violently to it? Of course not...

 

Or we can take Voltaire's enlightened position that while one might disagree with what someone else has to say, they will still defend their right to say it. There's nothing noble, moral or courageous in advocating the forfeiture of people's fundamental rights to appease the intolerance of violent mobs who seek to suppress the rights of others.

Things are as they should be -not as the OIC thinks they should be - that we have the freedom to exercise our freedom of choice, and choose whether or not to engage in this gesture. I choose not to do so, but I support the rights of others to do so, just as I will support your right to criticism for choosing to do so.

Those who perceive better and more constructive avenues of opposition don't need my unsolicited advice - they're capable of thinking and acting on their own.

I reject your hyperbole. No one is throwing incendiaries into a theatre, and as I stated earlier, the mobs that choose to act violently choose to do so on their own, and they are solely responsible for their own actions.

Since I reject the premise of your proposition - that burning a Qur'an is necessarily an act of hate - I reject that it necessarily has nothing to do with the legitimate defense of another human being's fundamental rights (in this case, the right to freely choose your own faith). I will continue to defend people's right to express themselves in a lawful manner in defense of the rights of others.

That's precisely what you're proposing and I reject it. No apologies are in order, nor will they be forthcoming, Eadroa.

Translation: You advocate that people should refrain from certain behavior because your perceive and label it a certain way yourself. Well, you have the right to think and advocate such, but that's where it ends.

Maybe you should stop making excuses for the violent behavior of a minority of Muslims who are responsible for the blood on their own hands. Perhaps, we should also label you a "bigot' for insisting that burning a Qur'an necessarily amounts to an act of bigotry.

That's precisely what I call attempting to shift the blame for one's own criminal behavior onto another person, particularly when that blame-shifting is deliberately intended to suppress the fundamental rights of others. I'll repeat it again, if necessary...

Tell it Fred Phelps and the United States Supreme Court, sport. You'll find that the courts in this country will still defend your right to exercise your fundamental human rights, regardless of how provocative that speech might be.

And I'll remind you that anyone that responds to someone like Fred Phelps in a violent manner is responsible for their own actions and will face the consequences accordingly. I don't have a right to kill someone from Westboro Baptist Church, burn down their church or act in any other unlawful manner just because I consider Phelps' words and deeds provocative.

Are you catching on yet?

I can't believe I need to spell this out for you: The blame that is being shifted here is the blame for one's own criminal behavior. People are responsible for their own actions - they are responsible for restraining themselves when provoked and responding in a lawful manner.

Perhaps, you should contemplate why our countries have independent judiciaries.

I feed myself, Eadroa - no government or corporation does that for me, so spare your vapid anti-corporate drivel for another person and another discussion...

 

Cat,

The last anyone has heard, Yousef Nadarkhani is still alive, however, he could be executed any moment...

 

True - Empiricism is the way to reach Scientificly Verifiable Conclusions
.....I do NOT reject the Empirical approach to Scientific knowledge


Yet at the same time, Real Subjective Experience is hardly mere hearsay & specultaion

.

 

Philosophically, I understand what they're getting at, but in practical terms, it doesn't change anything.

NDE's are simply a matter of neurochemical reactions. As euphoric as they might seem, they simply are a matter of neural activity.

 

....so get those matches ready. If religious people won't listen to the voice of reason, then more (legal, ethical) measures (that are legal, ethical) must be taken, that are, uh, say, legal and ethical.

 

How about this, instead of burning books. Why go to all that trouble. Simply burn dollar bills, as already throwing your money away.

If really want to show off, light a cigar with a $50 note.

 

But religion must end if humankind is to achieve it's full potential, so we need to work to that end.

 

More fun lighting a cuban cigar with a $50 than banging your head against the brick wall of 6+ billion religious believers.

 

Thank you for that Talon. Glad to hear it.

 

More pastors getting in on this Holy War!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l4vXsmR1gU"]End Of Days R Here episode 12 - YouTube[/ame]