Islam's War On Freedom - Pat Condell Tells It Like It Is

jambot wrote:… I've no idea about parallel universes...

Must not the scientific method prove what caused the Big Bang? How can you not care?

jambot wrote:… you belong to a minority cult and yet this doesn't seem to trouble you. No inherent contradiction I suppose in God's manifest truth being not all that manifest and so many people getting it, crucially, not quite right…

No need to cast aspersions… and since when was the majority opinion the right one?

jambot wrote:… I had to look that up, what with it being a C15th expression…And doesn't that still seem a little disproportionate - like the whole everlasting damnation thing? …

What! YOU with the history degree?

Disproportionate? I don’t know – I think that the appropriate response to sin is the eternal destruction of sin and sinners. No burning forever, though.

jambot wrote:… I didn't know you didn't believe in hell. You believe in Satan, right? What about Revelation - all literally true?

Satan – check. Revelation – NOT literally… but not metaphysically or metaphorically, either. I believe the book of Revelation to be a symbolical prophecy.

Skarjo wrote:… The whole point of this exercise is that you can't lump all atheists together… the crux of the whole argument...

But I’m certain that all of you lot here DO have something in common – perhaps the term ‘Militant Atheist’ (meaning an atheist that desires to make the rest of the world atheist too, as opposed to a normal atheist that really doesn’t care) would be more appropriate?

Now, a Militant Atheist would HAVE to believe in ev-bio - how else would he convince the world? Ditto the big-bang - or how else did it get started... you see where I'm going with this?

Skarjo wrote:…If you say you are a Christian, I can, both logically and therefore legitimately, deduce that there is a chance that you believe that the physically impossible genocidal murder of every living thing on the planet (bar a magically built zoo-boat) by drowning (arguably one of the most horrific ways to die) not only happened, but was justified, righteous and glorious.

Not nowadays! Like jambot said, I’m a member of a ‘minority-cult’.

mic wrote:

Skarjo wrote:… The whole point of this exercise is that you can't lump all atheists together… the crux of the whole argument...

But I’m certain that all of you lot here DO have something in common – perhaps the term ‘Militant Atheist’ (meaning an atheist that desires to make the rest of the world atheist too, as opposed to a normal atheist that really doesn’t care) would be more appropriate?

Now, a Militant Atheist would HAVE to believe in ev-bio - how else would he convince the world? Ditto the big-bang - or how else did it get started... you see where I'm going with this?

I see what you're getting at but you're still missing the point.

Even if this militant atheist was to exist, he would no more HAVE to be an ev-bio than anyone else would. He may very well be an ev-bio, he may even use ev-bio as support for atheism, but as atheism is an idea, not a belief system with rules, laws and the like inherent to it, the two are still completely distinct. The only consequence of being an atheist in terms of explaining the world is that you cannot logically subscribe to any belief or explanation that is dependant on there being a God without conflict.

So long as what ever belief regarding the start of life/existence/whatever you hold is not dependant on God then you can believe whatever you want. This goes for the militant atheist; his little atheism sales-pitch can be littered with whatever nonsense he wants so long as God isn't necessary to it.

jambot wrote:

high and exhausted

Exalted? Dimwit.

ah strawberry float.

Also I thought of an example were Joe everyman could get in trouble for practising a religion under atheist rule, the banning of Christmas in Cuba from 1967 to 1999.

It's not exactly the Spanish Inquisition is it?

People could still be sent to jail, and I don't know about you but I somehow doubt that Cuban jails are the nicest place in the world to be.

skarjo wrote:So far, no example brought up has been done in the name of atheism, simply done by atheists in the name of some other cause like communism. They have been done because one set of doctrines (religious or otherwise) could potentially upset the ruling doctrine (communist, socialist or whatever).

Albania became an officially Atheist state, if that isn't evidence for you then the only other way to convince you would be finding video evidence of Enver Hoxha punching people in the face while screaming "I'm doing this because I'm an atheist, and you're not!"

Rightey wrote:...the only other way to convince you would be finding video evidence of Enver Hoxha punching people in the face while screaming "I'm doing this because I'm an atheist, and you're not!"

(although it was more of a chortle, really...) Quite.

Skarjo wrote:I see what you're getting at but you're still missing the point...

Oh no, I'm sure I get it now - Atheists don't all have to believe the same thing.

All right then, what's YOUR take on the big bang? Same question to His High and Exhausted-ness. You already know mine, so what do YOU think started it all? Or don't you care (not that you have to) ?

mic wrote:

Skarjo wrote:I see what you're getting at but you're still missing the point...

Oh no, I'm sure I get it now - Atheists don't all have to believe the same thing.

All right then, what's YOUR take on the big bang? Same question to His High and Exhausted-ness. You already know mine, so what do YOU think started it all? Or don't you care (not that you have to) ?

I don't know.

We don't know.

Not knowing something is not evidence for God.

Rightey wrote:

skarjo wrote:So far, no example brought up has been done in the name of atheism, simply done by atheists in the name of some other cause like communism. They have been done because one set of doctrines (religious or otherwise) could potentially upset the ruling doctrine (communist, socialist or whatever).

Albania became an officially Atheist state, if that isn't evidence for you then the only other way to convince you would be finding video evidence of Enver Hoxha punching people in the face while screaming "I'm doing this because I'm an atheist, and you're not!"

...Eh?

Seriously, what? What have Albania got to do with it?

Even if I was to punch Enver Hoxha in the face screaming that, there is no atheistic justification for it! It would be no different (and no less idiotic) than me punching a pony in the side and saying 'This is because I'm human and you're not!'. There's no belief set, nor rule-book, that permits an athiest to engage in any kind of action with a non-athiest and deems it right or wrong. It's a freedom you Christians can't being to enjoy.

Skarjo wrote:

Rightey wrote:

skarjo wrote:So far, no example brought up has been done in the name of atheism, simply done by atheists in the name of some other cause like communism. They have been done because one set of doctrines (religious or otherwise) could potentially upset the ruling doctrine (communist, socialist or whatever).

Albania became an officially Atheist state, if that isn't evidence for you then the only other way to convince you would be finding video evidence of Enver Hoxha punching people in the face while screaming "I'm doing this because I'm an atheist, and you're not!"

...Eh?

Seriously, what? What have Albania got to do with it?

Even if I was to punch Enver Hoxha in the face screaming that, there is no atheistic justification for it! It would be no different (and no less idiotic) than me punching a pony in the side and saying 'This is because I'm human and you're not!'. There's no belief set, nor rule-book, that permits an athiest to engage in any kind of action with a non-athiest and deems it right or wrong. It's a freedom you Christians can't being to enjoy.

Spot on yet again. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Just watched that Undercover Mosque documentary. I'm actually frightened that these lunatics have embedded themselves in the moderate Islamic community. I'm really against any form of violence, but it has to be said that it would have been vastly more justifiable to have invaded Saudi Arabia than Iraq. Unfortunately money/oil has a way of convincing politicians to brush any problems with the Saudis under the carpet.

Skarjo wrote:

Rightey wrote:

skarjo wrote:So far, no example brought up has been done in the name of atheism, simply done by atheists in the name of some other cause like communism. They have been done because one set of doctrines (religious or otherwise) could potentially upset the ruling doctrine (communist, socialist or whatever).

Albania became an officially Atheist state, if that isn't evidence for you then the only other way to convince you would be finding video evidence of Enver Hoxha punching people in the face while screaming "I'm doing this because I'm an atheist, and you're not!"

...Eh?

Seriously, what? What have Albania got to do with it?

Even if I was to punch Enver Hoxha in the face screaming that, there is no atheistic justification for it! It would be no different (and no less idiotic) than me punching a pony in the side and saying 'This is because I'm human and you're not!'. There's no belief set, nor rule-book, that permits an athiest to engage in any kind of action with a non-athiest and deems it right or wrong. It's a freedom you Christians can't being to enjoy.

You said that no atheists ever attacked or persecuted a religious group, because of their atheism, but rather it was do to the fact that they were communists and felt threatened by the church.

I am giving you a clear example, Albania, while under the rule of Enver Hoxha became an officially atheist state, banning all religions and closing down all places of worship, going far beyond any other communist state. The other states all wanted to destroy religion, however they had to settle for trying to worm their way into the church by restricting the laws and making sure their agents and supporters came to hold power within it.

I understand your argument perfectly well, and it's valid saying that just because someone is an atheist and then attacks another group, does not mean that they're doing it simply because they hate religion. If that were the case then it could be said that anybody who played video games then commits a crime is a criminal because of the games.

However because of the fact that he made his state officially Atheist, and started to close down all places of worship, the logical conclusion seems to be that he believed that his path was the only right one.

Rightey wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Rightey wrote:

skarjo wrote:So far, no example brought up has been done in the name of atheism, simply done by atheists in the name of some other cause like communism. They have been done because one set of doctrines (religious or otherwise) could potentially upset the ruling doctrine (communist, socialist or whatever).

Albania became an officially Atheist state, if that isn't evidence for you then the only other way to convince you would be finding video evidence of Enver Hoxha punching people in the face while screaming "I'm doing this because I'm an atheist, and you're not!"

...Eh?

Seriously, what? What have Albania got to do with it?

Even if I was to punch Enver Hoxha in the face screaming that, there is no atheistic justification for it! It would be no different (and no less idiotic) than me punching a pony in the side and saying 'This is because I'm human and you're not!'. There's no belief set, nor rule-book, that permits an athiest to engage in any kind of action with a non-athiest and deems it right or wrong. It's a freedom you Christians can't being to enjoy.

You said that no atheists ever attacked or persecuted a religious group, because of their atheism, but rather it was do to the fact that they were communists and felt threatened by the church.

I am giving you a clear example, Albania, while under the rule of Enver Hoxha became an officially atheist state, banning all religions and closing down all places of worship, going far beyond any other communist state. The other states all wanted to destroy religion, however they had to settle for trying to worm their way into the church by restricting the laws and making sure their agents and supporters came to hold power within it.

I understand your argument perfectly well, and it's valid saying that just because someone is an atheist and then attacks another group, does not mean that they're doing it simply because they hate religion. If that were the case then it could be said that anybody who played video games then commits a crime is a criminal because of the games.

However because of the fact that he made his state officially Atheist, and started to close down all places of worship, the logical conclusion seems to be that he believed that his path was the only right one.

But you simply ignored the second half of my post.

There is no centrally held belief system of atheism. There is no atheist bible. Just because some atheists carry out certain actions, even if they claim it is because they are atheist, does not mean it is something that unites all atheists. It is not even something that any other atheist need think about.

There is nothing in the atheist mindset that says that no other belief can be tolerated. There is nothing in athiesm that says that an atheist country must reject religion. All of these things are the whims of the belief holder, not of the belief itself.

I never said that all atheists believed this, I was simply proving a point. Atheists have in the past persecuted people who held religious beliefs. Therefore they have no moral high horse to stand on when preaching about the "horrors" of organized religions, who are talked about as if they're some sort of blight.

Rightey wrote:I never said that all atheists believed this, I was simply proving a point. Atheists have in the past persecuted people who held religious beliefs. Therefore they have no moral high horse to stand on when preaching about the "horrors" of organized religions, who are talked about as if they're some sort of blight.

'Organised' being the operative word.

You cannot blame any atheist for an action carried out by another as atheism lacks the central rulebook of other major religions. However, the horrors of organised religion are so horrific specifically because everyone subscribing to the same religious mindset is just as culpable as those carrying out the attacks.

If that were the case then why is it that right now, there are no fires on my street, and no one is being killed? I live in a very multicultural country, I'm almost certain that there are people that follow every major religious denomination on earth living in the same apartment building as I do. Yet we don't kill each other, why? Because people don't go out and kill just because someone believes something diffrent than another person. They do it because of a variety of physical reasons.

I used to work with a girl who used to live in Northern Ireland, she was a protestant, and when she came here, her family moved into a house that was next to a Catholic school, and she said she couldn't believe it herself, as that would never happen back there.

Rightey wrote:If that were the case then why is it that right now, there are no fires on my street, and no one is being killed? I live in a very multicultural country, I'm almost certain that there are people that follow every major religious denomination on earth living in the same apartment building as I do. Yet we don't kill each other, why? Because people don't go out and kill just because someone believes something diffrent than another person. They do it because of a variety of physical reasons.

I used to work with a girl who used to live in Northern Ireland, she was a protestant, and when she came here, her family moved into a house that was next to a Catholic school, and she said she couldn't believe it herself, as that would never happen back there.

Precisely; you don't. As you are a rational human being. But within your, and, undoubtedly their, belief system is more than enough supernatural justification for you to do so.

What we find is that what makes our society so stable is not how much religion we accept but how much religious doctrine we reject.

Well I don't know about you but I can't claim to be an expert in my own religions doctrines yet alone others, so I can't say if I agree or disagree on that point, and instead will just have to admit that I can't form effective arguments in this area.

Rightey wrote:Well I don't know about you but I can't claim to be an expert in my own religions doctrines yet alone others, so I can't say if I agree or disagree on that point, and instead will just have to admit that I can't form effective arguments in this area.

PRE-FUCKING-CISELY.

I claim to be atheist. I know what this entails.

My friend claims to be Christian but won't accept that, by the content of his own religious book, it is thus OK for him to murder homosexuals.

At least atheists know what their beliefs actually mean.

I'll contest this last point and then I think that will have to be it, but as far as I know the bible states that killing is wrong. God gives life, and he's the only one with a right to take it away.

The Grassy knoll wrote:I agree with most of what he says (not all) especially the part about idiotic european human rights commissioners.Though i do feel he needs to make a distiction between the various forms of Islam that are 'practised' by the states he mentions. I think he needs to get across that Whabism (hope that's spelt right) which the Saudis believe in is a distortion of Islam contrived to controll the population (which could be said for most religions). It's not all about hate and the destruction of the west like he implys.

I'm curious. Did you intentionally paraphrase Dracula at the beginning of Symphony of the Night here?


@2:20 or so

Skarjo wrote:...At least atheists know what their beliefs actually mean.

I think this line of thought is making me very uncomfortable...

Atheists aren't responsible for each other's actions because no atheistic body exists to have told them to do it, but religionsists ARE responsible for each others' actions because it is possible for them to perceive that somebody DID tell them to do it - even if that perception is deemed by other more rational religionists to be wrong?

Is that it?

In a nutshell.

It doesn't matter how rational the religionist might be who criticises the action of another religionist; the lack of any accountability inherent in religion means that the person who reads Leviticus and murders a homosexual cannot be logically criticised by the religionist pointing out the fourth commandment (or whatever 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is). The two passages contradict each other, and which you deem as 'right' is entirely subjective.

Atheism does not have such a body of instructions that any atheist can use to deflect blame or justify action; as such, no other atheist need be troubled by the actions of another.

I love it when Skarjo posts (on anything).