War against terror

[*Pete* 0]

Religion has always been used as a instrument to get people willing to kill, or to die for the "cause", this goes for christians as well as for muslims, it will not change as long we will have religion, but even if im not religios, i would not want to live in a world without it.

removing religion as a whole will not change anything, it will only be replaced with some other idea, patriotism or nationalism for example.

im convinced that people who kill in a "war", do it to either to change the world to the better (better in their opinion), or to revenge other bad deeds done by the enemy nation.

a major part in recruiting suicide bombers is to show them videos that show the barbarism of there enemies, russians slaying checnyans, americans torturing iraqis and so on, but not the other way around, chechnyans killing russians or iraqis cutting heads of innocent people.

its simple propaganda, but it works on some, specially the young, i have noticed that suicide bombers are allways young, 16 to maybe 25...a fragile time in our life, we are easily manipulated in that age, we are actually the "best" cannonfodder as soldiers in any country in that age also.

there is no easy solution, banning religion, or even parets of it will most likely not work...nazism and the symbols for it are banned in many countries, with no effect at all.

[Bernadotte 0]

nazism and the symbols for it are banned in many countries, with no effect at all.

Good point!  

A friend and I once visited what's left of the Dachau concentration camp (north of Munich).  We both lost family there during the Holocaust.  On leaving, she said "we have to keep an eye on these Germans to keep this from happening again."  I told her that by keeping our attention focused on Germans, swastikas and loudmouthed leaders with funny little mustaches, we completely missed it when it did happen again - in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Bosnia, etc..

[red oct 2]

Why don't we have Christian suicide bombers? Because mainstream Christianity today uses its faith in a far more pragmatic and liberal way. Islam is problematic because today its mainstream is dogmatic and fundamentalist.

Mainstream Christian Evangelism in the US is every bit as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the mainstream of Islam that you describe. And it wields a great deal more power.

Religion is overcome by education and a solid quality of life.

Let's forget, for the moment, that Osama bin Laden is well educated and rich and that nearly all of the 9/11 pilots lived comfortable lives and had university educations. Let's look at an American recently convicted for supporting terrorism:

"Ali al-Timimi, 41, a Ph.D. in computational biology and a self-professed Islamic scholar whom prosecutors described as enjoying "rock star" status among his followers in Virginia, was convicted today on all ten counts against him, including soliciting others to levy war against the United States and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law."

My point is, if you cast your net in search of those lacking education and quality of life then the most important fish will slip through.

...if we're repeating the mantra that there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam, that we won't solve anything.

Are you professing a clear enough understanding of mainstream Islam to say it is the primary culprit? And is anyone here professing a clear enough understanding to say "there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam"?

Furthermore, would you have blamed the actions of the Jewish terrorist organisation, LEHI, on mainstream Judaism or was there "nothing wrong" with mainstream Judaism?

With the exception of a small layer of fundamentalists, modern Christians are far more secular than they are religious.

Small layer? I guess you don't have access to American satellite TV. You probably don't recall the position held by fundamentalist evangelical minister Rev. Billy Graham in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Whitehouse. In fact, it was Graham who got George W to give up the bottle for Christ's sake.

But again, my primary concern is when fundamentalist Christians use their clout to push forward a bible prophesy driven agenda in complete disregard of international justice and human rights.

Denoir your mantra is no different than that of Dr Daniel pipes - "Militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution" - and who could disagree? Just don't forget to look past the obvious harm caused when religious militancy picks up a gun. Religious fundamentalists of all flavours have done far greater harm when in control of government policy than an explosive vest.

Power? what power? Alabama judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore after refusing to remove the 10 commandments from his courtroom. was Paul Hill shown any mercy after murding a abortion doctor? no, the state had him executed and became a Martyr to nobody. maybe you also noticed George Bush certianly isn't having much of a cake walk trying ban stem cell research is he? i'll agree to a certian degree religion will have a certian hold on this country, but it really pales in comparison to the strangle hold our very own culture has over the population like Hollywood, GTA and other violent video games some of which have been banned in other countries, certian rock and rap music and fast food culture.

[Panda-PL- 0]

First of all using word "fundamentalism"... Some use words they certainly don't understand.

Check a dictionary or better - ask a muslim.

Fundamentalism can even be used to fight fanatism.

Another comment: people are NATURALLY religious - religion developed out of nowhere as a result of intelectual activity and it will apper in some form again in few generations even if You sucseed in compleately convincing people to atheism and the religion itself is compleately forgotten.

It might get even worse, 'cause You'd dump few thousent years of it's development.

PRC banned relligion. After twenty - or so - years the new generation of atheistic intellectualls... became ufologists

Progress, my as*!

Another thing is that I was amazed that NONE of the muslims I ever talked to ever tried to convert me. Same goes for Jews. Nor did I try to convert anyone if I see he's happy with his beliefs (ufologists and scientists including) and doesn't want to change them (including my father). In Christianity a desire to rule over other peoples' thoughts can be interpreted as a blosphemy against God.

Somehow it's ATHEISTS that stick to their religion so much and want to convert others . PRC and CCCP as an example.

Some are even as hipocritical as to try to use human tragedies to prove their point and try to play on people's emotions even in face of a great tragedy.

A true beliver will never go down that low.

Religion is selfish?

I don't think that anyone I know will go to hell. Hell is already crawling with people compared to whom even You are an angel. If I was to recive the same punnishment then it wouldn't be logical. If I sin I only hurt myself - in a meaning that sin stops me from better understanding God and thus living a better life.

I'm not affraid of hell. I have faith in God's mercy (even muslims do).

You know of an atheist who organised international charity?

What about people who give massive founds and refuse to reveal themselves?

Atheism implies egoism. A world of egoism sure is safer, yet not better.

One final remark is that from my observations non-belivers who choose to belive in God preffer to become muslims over christians .

PS. You make a bold assumption that if someone is a beliver it implies the person's stupidity or lack of education.

I'll dissapoint You. The priest that I know for longest time - f. Joseph Hess - is a real hobbyst when it comes to philosophy and theology. From what I saw every wall in his office is filled with books and there is really no philosopher or thinker that You'd be able to throw at him. Including even some communism - time philosophers that used arguments simmilar to Yours (Your beloved science - the fetish of all atheists) and modern philosophy. It is highly propable that his knowlage in the subject of atheism exceeds Yours and still he's the best priest I know, which I find ironic.

[Bernadotte 0]

Power? what power? Alabama judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore after refusing to remove the 10 commandments from his courtroom. was Paul Hill shown any mercy after murding a abortion doctor? no, the state had him executed and became a Martyr to nobody.

Nope. Your absolutely right. America's mainstream Evangelical Christians did not have the power to rewrite the Constitution regarding the separation of church and state. Nor were they able to convince the courts that murder should not a capital crime if the victim is an abortion doctor.

But, just because they couldn't cast the above mentioned miracles doesn't mean they aren't powerful.

[Ares1978 0]

@ July 15 2005,09:50)]Another comment: people are NATURALLY religious - religion developed out of nowhere as a result of intelectual activity and it will apper in some form again in few generations even if You sucseed in compleately convincing people to atheism and the religion itself is compleately forgotten.

People are NATURALLY atheists, it doesn't take any convincing to "turn" people. In fact, religious people will fight tooth and nail to keep their faith, which is what happened in every communist country. What you perceive as "an attempt to convert religious people to atheism" today, is nothing more than (justified) ridicule. Religion developed out of the lack of knowledge. People are naturally curious about how things work, but not that many actually have the mental capacity and the time to figure out the facts. That of course created a market for the bubblegum philosophy that is so characteristic for all religions.

Quote[/b] ]PS. You make a bold assumption that if someone is a beliver it implies the person's stupidity or lack of education.

I'll dissapoint You. The priest that I know for longest time - f. Joseph Hess - is a real hobbyst when it comes to philosophy and theology.

I have known a lot of preachers in my life (and went to school with their kids) and I really have to say that they are by far the stupidest and most egocentric people that I have ever known and to be honest, they couldn't even "out-philosophize" a goldfish.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]People are NATURALLY atheists, it doesn't take any convincing to "turn" people. In fact, religious people will fight tooth and nail to keep their faith, which is what happened in every communist country. What you perceive as "an attempt to convert religious people to atheism" today, is nothing more than (justified) ridicule.

Thanks for Your oppinion. Still don't have a clue why do You want everyone to become atheists so much. Besides that it was allways a dream of every ideologist to have power over other people's thoughts.

Quote[/b] ]Religion developed out of the lack of knowledge.

So we have knowlage and religion. Atheism is also a religion. You claim something even trough You cannot prove Your point. And still You keep Your claim, morover You claim that there cannot be a proof, and that if You cannot supply a proof, then Your claim has to be accepted based on my blind faith.

If it is not - then I'm not-progressive:D.

BTW. atheism is also a romantic phantasy... The roamntic faith in science and progressive mankind fighting the ghosts of the past...

Atheist will will fight tooth and nail to keep their faith.

Atheism =/= lack of faith.

It is faith that some other faith is untrue. It IS religion - even if You think that it has more true in it then everythink else.

In other words: I say there is a green monster under Your bed.

You say there is nothing under it. Unless we check both of us cannot tell what is or ISN'T under the bed.

Quote[/b] ]People are naturally curious about how things work, but not that many actually have the mental capacity and the time to figure out the facts.

Marx&Engels. Only that this denominates, as at their times scientists claimed that universe is infinite in both space and time. This, together with darvinism was one of the basis of atheism.

None of the three statements is taken for granted.

You just stated out that there is no reason to fight religion or discuss it - it will dissaper itself ONCE the sience develops.

Right now science is still not even crawling. There is no explenation on bnature of energy and matter, no explenation on why is universe not a homogenious mass. why does the universe exist, why does counciousness exist (this one is esspecially interesting), how did life appeared (can we duplicate the process?) and how it evolved (propably it evolved, yet how did RNA changed into DNA? Can we duplicate the process? ). Without PROOF such things are not even uncheckable, non-personal empiria (Bible has this status).

Science can never go beyond science, and that's why rel;igion will still be existent (a strong belief that science will in future explain everything is he same as waiting for the judgement day - it is right now equally propable based on the data we have).

And if scientist say "theese issues can be explained by quantrum phisics laws, which we still don't know, but they'll surely be discovered in the future". He says "God created it that way, as for nature of God every day we get closer to full enlightment".

Then what is the difference between God and the laws of quantrum phisics?

It is hi time for atheists to realize that they are just a religion. Lack of counter-proof doesn't imply their theory is true. Lack of proof doesn't imply it is untrue.

You can only say for sure: You cannot prove it (it is true).

If You say: You are wrong - You have to prove Your point.

still waiting.

But the odds are against You.

BTW. It doesn't take much qualifications to become a preacher. Haviung wife and kids (usually many) is a real killer to ones brain.

I was talking priest, and a really good one.

PS. Could You please start by defining atheism?

Try not using words like "claim", "faith", "belief", "convinced" etc. Try to point out the sciuentific approach that religion doesn't have. And please using science reffer only to proven theories. Also please no more sophism and games with words, nor evasions. Clear statements and solid proofs.

If You don't have proofs, yet your belief is right and any other cannot be true - atheism is a religion.

[Gordy 0]

It may not fit this thread 100% but it's interesting for several reasons:

1. Shows what's it like out there

2. Most of all for OFP puropses. That's what it means to be knocked down by bullet (he lives and quickly responses to attack, which is also interesting).

what's it like to take a shot at a body armour.

No gore or other crap like that.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Religion is overcome by education and a solid quality of life. Since the introduction of science religion has taken a less dominant position in explaining the world - that trend is very clear. When we know about celestial mechanics, we don't need Ra to pull out the sun every morning. When we understood lightning, there was no need for Thor any more etc

Ya need to read your history books then a little more Denoir because the Norse religion was not taken down by science but rather by a competing religion...Christianity...a religion that still thrives today.

Quote[/b] ]

And I would claim that every single person in the world is an atheist to a certain degree. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you follow the religious laws of the old Egyptians? Are you fearful that Huitzilopochtli might get vengeful if you don't sacrifice a few slaves to his honor each year?

Again Egyptian religious beliefs were coopted by the Romans and later were overtaken by Christianity and Islam...both of which survive today.  Science has not replaced those religions except in the minds of atheists.  

Quote[/b] ]

I don't think religions should be banned and especially not by force. I do however think they should not be encouraged. We should not respect religion more than belief in alien abductions or that little green gremlins are living under my bed. I think that in the context of terrorism, if we're repeating the mantra that there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam, that we won't solve anything.

I don't believe in organized religion (or at least not literal interpretation) because they were written in the contexts of their time.  However making fun of them as you are doing is just an attempt at delegitimizing them and does nothing more then anger people.  As for alien abuduction, while I never was abducted I have seen a UFO very very clearly above my yard in a cloudless blue sky... a perfect black disk only about 700-1000 ft up quitely flying across the sky minding its own business.  I don't use drugs, it sure as hell wasn't Venus  or the sun, and it forced me to serioiusly consider some of the research done on UFO's and to think about life beyond this planet.  But I suppose you don't believe in that either eh?

But I guess thats for another thread.  

Quote[/b] ]

And I'm not singling out Islam because it is different from western theology. In the middle ages and for a long time after that, there was something seriously wrong with Christianity. Fortunately with the advent of science, and with social progress secular humanism became dominant in the west, which suppressed religion. With the exception of a small layer of fundamentalists, modern Christians are far more secular than they are religious.

You need to come live in Texas and see if you still think that.

American Christians are, in general, and especially in the Southern United States, quite fundamentalist.  You are speaking from a European perspective.   Also... a practicing Christian is still a Christian regardless and they will still profess their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior no matter what science you put in their face.  Also you might remember something called the Protestant Reformation?

Change in religion always happens.  That is for certain.  But it does not mean that they always become more secular.  Islam for example has gone through periods of greater secularism and fundamentalism.  RIght now it is on an upswing of fundamentalism.   I honestly am quite surprised that no American religious or religious leader has started to rally Christians to fight Muslims yet.  The anger is there...the fear is there.  All of the "firewood" for rallying Christians for war is present.    

Quote[/b] ]

It is very sad if that is the case (which I don't believe for a second). People who do get their complete morality from the dogma of their faith are potentially very dangerous. All you need a priest or an imam (who you accept as a complete authority in religious matters) to tell you that killing is ok, and off you go.

Only if followers believe in that intepretation of their religion or in a literal interpretation.  You paint all religions with a broad stroke Denoir.  They are not all like Islam and all forms of Islam are not the same.

Religion can just as easily be replaced by secular ideology as a form of religion.  Look at how many died in the name of communism.   Look at how many are dying in the name of capitalism.

Whether they be religious, political, or economic ideologies, people will live and die by them Denoir because they have faith in those ideologies.

Quote[/b] ]

Let me put it in a different way. You do not approve of suicide bombings, right? Are you making that judgement on a purely religious belief that killing innocent people is wrong, or is there something else there?

My personal belief is based upon multiple beliefs.   It is based upon what my parents taught me, it is based upon what I learned in Church, it is based upon what I saw on TV, and later became based upon my studies of other religions and on natural law.  All the major religions I've studied are against the murder of innocent people.  

However if I want to convince a militant Muslim of that I have to convince him not by speaking from my own personal beliefs but rather from the religious laws in his own religion.

Quote[/b] ]

If it is your religion that tells you it is wrong, then you are a hypocrite talking about religious tolerance. Then you are just promoting your sect's values over the values of other sects. If you truly believe in full religious tolerance and respect, then you should respect the faith of the homicidal religious fanatics. If your morality is based on your faith, then you have a lovely little holy war there, your faith vs their faith.

First I believe in no organized religion. But I study them to learn more about the many forms people study divinity around the world.  Second, religion is always open to interpretation.  

If I see a homicidal religious fanatic who I know does not present the mainstream interpretation of his religion, or I feel that I can combat his beliefs using alternative interpretations, then I will do so in a manner that will force him to consider whether he is gambling with his soul by seeking a path of hatred and murder.   I may not believe in his religion, but it doesn't stop me from pointing out the fallacies in his own belief system from the perspective of his religion as if I was a believer.... and to a certain extent, I may very well share many of the beliefs that his religion may have.  

Quote[/b] ]

Or is there something else behind it? Could you possibly believe that killing innocent civilians is wrong, regardless if your faith says its ok or not? Could there possibly be a more fundamental set of values that go beyond religion?

Could there also simply be a misinterpretation of religion and hate filled/ethnocentric individuals who manipulate religion for their own political gain by inciting violence and divisions within their own religion and with people of other faiths?

As I said earlier, my beliefs on morality come from many sources.  My Karma belief is I suppose, from the Hindu/Buddhist religion.  But am I a follower of that religion? No, although my personal beliefs most closely resemble Zen Buddhism.  But there is a similar belief (similar to Karma) in Islam as well.

But the belief that murder is wrong was passed down to me *primarily* from my parents.  I can only speculate where the morality beliefs of all my ancestors came from but with the example of murder, that can almost certainly fall under natural law.  

My believe in Karma however doesn't except as a type of philosophy based upon observation of one's own life experiences and studying cause and effect relationships....but even then Karma goes way past that and is much more complex as it ties life events that have no direct or indirect relationship together.  For some people who follow organized religion they have a very real fear of being punished in this life, the here-after, and/or in the reincarnated life for doing evil deeds. This is one aspect of Karma although in most Buddhist traditions, there is no hell except the hell of your own making.

Quote[/b] ]

Oh there is plenty of other excuses to kill people. And yes, people have often used religion as an excuse for violence. The case in London however as well as the WTC attacks and the numerous attacks in Israel are not a consequence of religion being used as an excuse. You don't kill yourself over an excuse. That's the fundamental difference. If you are going to kill yourself for a cause, then you most certainly believe in it.

Very true, but what Burdoy said still stands.  People will always be ready to murder and go to war for extremist ideologies whether they be religious or secular.  When religion is used it for such deeds it is almost always a twisted perversion interpretation of that religion that is used.

Furthermore I am NOT an apologist for terrorists. There is NOTHING that excuses them for what they did.  But it seems that you side more with Avon Lady on this matter in that you fail to understand the need to understand their religious beliefs from their spiritual perspective as well as their overall religion.  THAT is what is key, not whether or not their religion is valid or not.  That is an issue for human society to work out over the long term, and is NOT a way to combat terrorism as you will not likely convince a die-hard Muslim that his religion is invalid.  

I believe that science will slowly but surely uncover more and more of the "unexplained" but until then religion will continue and even with the absence of religion, men will continue to kill each other over belief systems of some form.

Take suicide bombing for example. If you truly believe in some secular cause and believe its worth fight for, AND you are an atheist, I could see how suicide bombing tactics could be seen as a very effective means of guerilla warfare in a very cold calculating rationale way of "evening the odds" against a technologically superior force. I don't believe in that, but I can see how others might from a completely non-religious viewpoint.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[red oct 2]

Power? what power? Alabama judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore after refusing to remove the 10 commandments from his courtroom. was Paul Hill shown any mercy after murding a abortion doctor? no, the state had him executed and became a Martyr to nobody.

Nope. Your absolutely right. America's mainstream Evangelical Christians did not have the power to rewrite the Constitution regarding the separation of church and state. Nor were they able to convince the courts that murder should not a capital crime if the victim is an abortion doctor.

But, just because they couldn't cast the above mentioned miracles doesn't mean they aren't powerful.

yea true, they do have power but they certianly won't be using any of that power to force their religious beliefs on anybody. the day politicians start telling me to go to church every weekend will be the end of their career in a heart beat. remember when George Bush said something like "God wanted me to be President"? that didn't set to well w/ lot people and they started saying, The whole God thing, we don't like it. Cut it out. i know certian individuals have been trying to put religion in school, but so far its failed every time.

[denoir 0]

@ July 15 2005,08:50)]Another comment: people are NATURALLY religious - religion developed out of nowhere as a result of intelectual activity and it will apper in some form again in few generations even if

Religion developed because of the lack of understanding of the world. As we understand more of how the universe works, gods become less relevant. You do understand that the god that you believe in is just one of thousands of different gods that people have believed in - the less we knew about the world, the more gods we had. With the advent of science religion has been driven further and further into an abstract fuzzy concept, far from the dogma of the scripture. The scripture for instance in Christianity has plenty of very specific statements about the nature of the world, which are in clear conflict with scientific evidence. A typical example of that is that Genisis chap 5 defines the age of the Earth quite clearly - that it is around 6000 years old. ( http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B01C005.htm )

In addition the scriptures are full of internal inconsistencies and contradiction. One simple example of that is the new testament vs old testament god. In the old one, god is a venegeful homicidal maniac that among other things has no problem with murdering innocent children (All firstborns in Egypt - Exodus) . In the new one, he's a flower power hippie speaking of peace love and understanding.

Again, I'm not looking to discuss theology with you, so I'll just give you a link which you can explore yourself:

List of Biblical contradictions

Quote[/b] ]It might get even worse, 'cause You'd dump few thousent years of it's development.

I agree that it can get worse if you ban religion. We can see it in some Eastern European countries today. As a backlash from communism, we're seeing strong nationalist and religious trends.

Quote[/b] ]PRC banned relligion. After twenty - or so - years the new generation of atheistic intellectualls... became ufologists

Progress, my as*!

Ufologists, religious people, astrologers.. it's all the same.

Quote[/b] ]Another thing is that I was amazed that NONE of the muslims I ever talked to ever tried to convert me. Same goes for Jews. Nor did I try to convert anyone if I see he's happy with his beliefs (ufologists and scientists including) and doesn't want to change them (including my father). In Christianity a desire to rule over other peoples' thoughts can be interpreted as a blosphemy against God.

Aha, right, and the inquisition and the missionary missions were just um.. a mistake? I suppose that people were stupid back then and really misread the scripture, but you today, you know the real truth, eh?

Quote[/b] ]Somehow it's ATHEISTS that stick to their religion so much and want to convert others

Atheism is not a religion or even a belief, it is lack of belief. Do you consider it a religious issue that you don't believe there are little green Martians living under your bed?

Quote[/b] ]A true beliver will never go down that low.

No, a true believer blows himself up on a subway killing civilians. If you aren't out there killing people, you are not religious enough.

Why are you not killing people that work on Sunday? The bible clearly states that those that work on the sabbath should be put to death. It also states that it is the duty of every follower to make sure that God's rules are followed.

When you have a bacterial infection, do you pray for it to go away or do you take antibiotics (something that wouldn't have existed if religion had its way)?

Quote[/b] ]You know of an atheist who organised international charity?

Hehe, sure why not, let's take the Live 8, the huge global charity for Africa campaign that was a few days ago. It was started and organized by Bob Geldof, an otuspoken athiest.

What about the person who has given most to charity in the history of the world - Bill Gates, who has donated about $28 billion to charity? Yepp, atheist as well.

Why don't we take a broader context of it? What has saved billions of lives - prayer or medicine? Was it the millions of holy men in India that saved the country from starvation? No, it was the nobel laturate Norman Borlaug, an outspoken atheist, that developed a GM wheat for the purpose of helping the Indians from starvation. And that's exactly what happened, he saved millions of lives.

What about the global scale? Well, the US which is far more religious than the EU gives far less per capita in foreign aid.

If we look specifically at an event, say the Tsunami disaster, you'll see that it was quite atheistic Norway followed by very atheistic Sweden who gave most per capita.

A weak person perhaps needs an authority to tell him to help fellow men and do good. I certainly don't and as figures show neither do people in general.

Quote[/b] ]What about people who give massive founds and refuse to reveal themselves?

What about them? Since we don't know who they are, we can't say if they are religious or not. Or is that one more of your unfounded beliefs?

Quote[/b] ]Atheism implies egoism. A world of egoism sure is safer, yet not better.

Are you more selfish because you don't believe in Zeus?

Quote[/b] ]One final remark is that from my observations non-belivers who choose to belive in God preffer to become muslims over christians .

And what exactly do you base that observation on? 95% people have the same religion as their parents and/or surroundings do. The only thing I know about you is that you're from Poland and that you are religious - and yet I can be pretty certain that you are a Catholic Christian, and not say a Hindu. Coincidence?

[Panda-PL- 0]

I'm starting to get sick of that. Atheism is not a religion? Still no definition.

If it was a lack of belief it would be agnosticism.

It is a belief that there is no god.

And therefore it is an unproven claim.

A claim taken on faith without a proof is religion.

More than this You make a CLAIM and supply NO PROOF.

You state that no proof can be supplied or it will be supplied in future. And therefore I SHOULDN'T demand one.

That is just nonsense.

I DEMAND a proof. If You cannot supply one - atheism (understood as belief in God's non-existance) is a belief - it is a RELIGION.

You keep up Your sophist-style talk and evasive technique of not answering a question and then changing subject.

Your claim that atheism is not religion is NONSENSE - what You describe (lack of belief in God) is agnosticism.

<u>You mistake:

fundamentalists and fanatics

atheism and agnosticism

rationality and empirism (COMPLEATLY OPPOSIDE TERMS! )

</u>

You quote the same old mantra: "just You wait and you shall see the science will provide proof". And You keep beliving without a proof (because it IS OBVIOUS there will be one in the future - a fortune teller must have told You). The more critiques You see the more You tend to belive - taking everyone who doesn't agree with Your RELIGION for idiots. You are as stubborn as a hardcore fanatic and Your methodology is exactly the same - "time will prove I'm right, because I'm right and I'm right because you're wrong, and you're wrong because I say so".

Or maybe my posts are too long, and You decide to concentrate on one - usually irrelevant - detail then answering questions one by one.

-supply a proof

-if You cannot, then You cannot. Future, hipotetic proof is no proof at all.

-after failing in supplying a proof decide if You are an atheist or an agnosticist.

-if You are an atheist it - together with point one - automatically puts You among ancient Egiptians, ufologists, christians, muslims, satanists and so on.

-if You are an agnosticist - You should read Your posts once again and change Your way of thinking

-if You are an empiryst - then say so. Also know that ones rthinking that Earth was flat were empirysths and they were right - empirysm states that things are as we see them.

-if You are a rationalist - don't demand a empiryc proof

-if You state that both are the same - You have no idea about classical philosophy. And You would't "outphilozophize" a goldfish.

As far as I can tell You make nomenclature mistakes in classification of belief systems, fanatism/fundamentalism mistake,  and a total screw-up was empirysm/rationalism.

When given logical arguments You reply "Huh? Where? You give no arguments at all..." And then start Your low-rank "I don't need a proof" proof.

PS. To me reason why I'm being born a Pole and a Catholic and being able to see a Polish head of RCC, who had started many reforms and joined CONSERVATISM AND REFORMS, brought new hope to my country, fought and - toogether with my nation - beaten the non-human communism in my lifetime is obvious. And I am very greatful to Lord for that I was borned in my country finally free, as a free man and meet all the people I did met.

PS2. Read about direct and indirect empiria (checkable indirect empiria and incheckable). Decide among which You would place religion, science, microscience, astronomy, deep space astronomy and atheism. You'll be surprised to see that atheism cannot even be called indirect, incheckable empiria.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Somehow it's ATHEISTS that stick to their religion so much and want to convert others

That is a fact. From my experiences in life atheist are the most pushy aggressive fanatics you’ll ever meet.

Have I ever had a Christian attempt to convert me? Yes, every now and then Jehovah’s witnesses will knock on my door (usually on a saturday) and ask “Do you know Jesus?†To which I fight the urge to say “Oh yeah he lives down in little Mexico three blocks that way.†What I end up saying for real is usually something like “ Oh yeah Son of God yadda, yadda.†I then follow it up usually with an “ I have my beliefs and I’m not likely to change them, I respect your views though and I enjoyed the conversation.†Every time and I mean every time they end up saying “ Well thanks for your time god bless, yadda, yadda,.†And they leave. Time taken out of my day, two to five minutes. I've never recieved the “YOU’RE GOING TO BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE HEATHEN REPENT!†speach.

Now have I ever had an atheist try to convert me? Oh god, all the fucking time. They just wont shut the fuck up it borders on harassment plain and simple. Any time a religious discussion comes up and people ask me “What do you believe?†I end up saying “ Well you know I don’t go to church or anything but I believe in a higher power and I guess I might be considered a Christian if anything.†Now at this point if the person I’m discussing with is an atheist, well lets just say the shit hits the fan. It’s always the same old tired cliché’s, “ You’re a dumb ass I bet you believe in Elvis and UFOs.†Followed up with the classic references to the tooth fairy, inquisitions, the crusades, the handful of abortion clinic bombings (they'd have you belive it's an epidemic), etc etc. They will not change the subject either, they always hound and harp at you until you just want to scream. I had this guy I use to work with follow me out to my car in the parking lot “God is dead blah f’n blah blah.†Average time taken out of my day while I’m being forced to listen to the atheist sales pitch? Thirty minutes to an hour, I swear they know when you can’t escape (work bus train) atheist love a captive audience.

I do what ever I can to avoid religious and political debate in my day to day life now. I don’t need any more ulcers. At least on a bulletin board I can choose not to read, unlike real life where you’re helpless and can’t get away from the other guy.

[denoir 0]

Ok, let's go for some definitons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Quote[/b] ]

Rationalism, also known as the rationalist movement, is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching.

Not to be confused with Cartesian rationalism (also called continental rationalism) which goes far further claims that human reason is the source of all knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Quote[/b] ]

Empiricism (greek εμπειρισμός, from empirical, latin experientia - the experience) is generally regarded as being at the heart of the modern scientific method, that our theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith; that is, empirical research and a posteriori inductive reasoning rather than purely deductive logic.

Modern science as well as my own position is a combination of rationalism and empiricism. The axiomatic definitions have to have an empirical basis, but further theories can be developed throught deductive reasoning within a number of frameworks (ie. logic and mathematics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Quote[/b] ]

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists (60.7 percent of U.S. general scientists and 93 percent of N.A.S. top scientists expressing disbelief or doubt, with only 7% of believers among the members of the National Academy of Sciences (Nature 386:435-436 [1])).

Note the construction of the word. It's not anti-theism (which would be anti-thesim), but atheism, meaning non-theism. It is not a belief that there is no god, it is a disbelief that there is a god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Quote[/b] ]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims, particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods or deities, are either unknown or inherently unknowable. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

Agnostics may claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge; alternately they may claim that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves scepticism toward religious statements.

Put in simple terms, the most open position is of course agnostic - given that you can define what "god" is (please do!. It is however a very impractical position as it doesn't fit very well with our inductive reasoning. The agnostic position does not work with the scientific demand for falsifiability. In scientific terms, a theory is only accepted if there is a way of testings its validity. And in this case, the theory is "God exists". "God doesn't exist" isn't a theory, because it relies on the unproven axiom of existence of god. So there isn't an atheist "God doesn't exist" theory, just a rejection of the "God exists" theory, because it neither fulfills the requirements of a theory, nor does it supply any verifiable evidence.

So while the agnostic position may seem feasible at first, from a scientific point of view it is not.

The late Carl Sagan had an easy to understand example in his book "the Demon Haunted World":

Quote[/b] ]

The Dragon in My Garage

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me", you say, and I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon

"Where's the dragon", you ask.

"Oh, she's right here", I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon".

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea", I say, "but this dragon floats in the air". Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless", I say. You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, except she's an incorporeal (bodyless) dragon and the paint won't stick!"

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? You're inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

So, should you be agnostic about the dragon, or is it reasonable to dismiss the dragon theory as whole?

Ok, let's go on with definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Quote[/b] ]In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions.

In many ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaticism

Quote[/b] ]Fanaticism, from French fanatique or Latin fanaticus 'of a temple, inspired by a god'.

Fanatical character, spirit or conduct.

A fanatic is a person filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

Ok? All religious fundamentalists are not fanatics, but most religious fanatics are fundamentalists, agreed?

And finally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Quote[/b] ]

Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. Occasionally, the word "religion" is used to designate what should be more properly described as a "religious organization" – that is, an organization of people that supports the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization).

Read that again, especially the belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine part. That is why atheism in no way can be considered a religion.

Is it a belief? It's a very vague word. I believe that when I sit down on my chair, it won't break. I base this belief on inductive logic - I've sat on it lots of times and it hasn't broken, and most chairs that I've sat on during my life time haven't broken. So I believe that the chair I'm sitting on now isn't going to break either. If it does, then I will lose my faith in it.

The big difference is that I have a solid empirical foundation for my the faith in my chair. In the case of religion it is blind faith - i.e it is a theory that isn't backed by any form of real evidence. Me not believing the theory is not a counter theory, it is not a competing faith - it is simply the fact that I won't recognize your theory as true, until you prove it. That's atheism. Atheists point out that.. dude, you have to prove this crazy shit first before I believe you.

I have no concept of god at all, as I have never had any need of using that concept for whatever purpose. That there is a god is your theory, and you have to convince me that it's true, not the other way around. The more simply theory must be the axiomatic one a universe is a more simple concept than a universe + a god (or gods). The burden of evidence is on the part that presents the theory.

If I claim to have a dragon in my garage, then it's up to me to prove it. It is not up to you to disprove it. And if I say that the dragon is invisible and otherwise completely undetectable, you have truly no reason to accept my dragon story.

Quote[/b] ]Or maybe my posts are too long, and You decide to concentrate on one - usually irrelevant - detail then answering questions one by one.

Funny, I adressed your post more or less line by line while you completely ignored my post. That's how you uphold faith - you look the other way when somebody brings an argument that you know could affect your view. A very nice example of classical self-deception that is so common with blind faith.

Sputnik Monroe:

Quote[/b] ]From my experiences in life atheist are the most pushy aggressive fanatics you’ll ever meet.

Yes, atheist can be agressive and I'll try to explain why. Those that have been around here for a while might have noticed that my previous religious arguing has been far more tolerant and respectful of religion (contrasted with some other very agressive atheists on this board). My reasons for being tolerant were fairly pragmatical - there's little to gain by pissing on people's beliefs - especially beliefs that they are unlikely to change. And personally, I don't like to be rude to other people.

I have however changed my position on that relatively recently. The reason for that is I guess the crap that is happening in Iraq and now London. Had religion been harmless personal belief, then I would be quite fine with it. I wouldn't have agreed with it, but I wouldn't have seen it as an issue worth fighting over.

Religion however isn't harmless. When you have people commiting murder because of religious belief, it stops being funny. When you have people praying to get well, instead of taking medicine, because their priest told them so, then it stops  being funny.

The problem is that there is no way of differentiating between religions. There is no test that can (from a religious point of view) say that one religion or interpretation of religion is true and that others are false. A religion is a closed system, it's own point of reference and the ultimate authority to its followers. So you can't at the same time be tolerant of religion and say that religions (or religious interpretations) that tell the followers to kill innocent people are bad.

So I am growing more and more confident that at least organized forms of religion have to be subjected to far higher scrutiny than they are. It's not a question of believing in god or not, it is a question of accountability to the rest that don't share your faith.

Miles Teg:

Quote[/b] ]

Ya need to read your history books then a little more Denoir because the Norse religion was not taken down by science but rather by a competing religion...Christianity...a religion that still thrives today.

Fair enough, but my point is that by each step (even if it was religion->religion), it became less specific in terms of presenting an explanation to the physical world. In terms of religions that have been taken down because of science, I'd say Christianity is the main one - due to the social and scientific progress in European countries and countries of European origin. Not that Christianity has been "taken down", but you'll find most atheists in the world in Christian/ex-Christian countries.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And I would claim that every single person in the world is an atheist to a certain degree. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you follow the religious laws of the old Egyptians? Are you fearful that Huitzilopochtli might get vengeful if you don't sacrifice a few slaves to his honor each year?

Again Egyptian religious beliefs were coopted by the Romans and later were overtaken by Christianity and Islam...both of which survive today. Science has not replaced those religions except in the minds of atheists.

The point of that paragraph was just to say that you're an atheist as well. You don't believe in (I assume) Huitzilopochtli, an Aztec god who demanded human sacrifices on a regular basis. On what basis can you say that adhering to your religion is more universally correct than the now dead religion of the Aztecs?

Quote[/b] ]However making fun of them as you are doing is just an attempt at delegitimizing them and does nothing more then anger people.

By refering to "little green men under my bed" etc, I'm trying to get through that there is no difference. Religion is a completely arbitrary belief. It's a closed system which is its own point of reference. From an outside point of view one fantasy is equal to any other in terms of legetimity in explaining the world or what's worse, in dictating moral actions.

Quote[/b] ]As for alien abuduction, while I never was abducted I have seen a UFO very very clearly above my yard in a cloudless blue sky... a perfect black disk only about 700-1000 ft up quitely flying across the sky minding its own business. I don't use drugs, it sure as hell wasn't Venus or the sun, and it forced me to serioiusly consider some of the research done on UFO's and to think about life beyond this planet. But I suppose you don't believe in that either eh?

In UFO's or in life beyond this planet? In UFO's no, as there is no evidence and nothing that would allow a deduction of such a theory. As for life elsewhere in the universe, I'd be surprised if there wasn't any elsewhere. Given what we know about Earth - how it really isn't very unique, and given the size of the universe, I think that the probability is quite high that there is life elsewhere.

As for your experience, did you directly jump to the conclusion that it was aliens taking a ride in our sky? Don't you think there are a million of less spectacular explanations for what you saw? But yes, that's a different discussion.

Quote[/b] ]But it does not mean that they always become more secular. Islam for example has gone through periods of greater secularism and fundamentalism. RIght now it is on an upswing of fundamentalism. I honestly am quite surprised that no American religious or religious leader has started to rally Christians to fight Muslims yet. The anger is there...the fear is there. All of the "firewood" for rallying Christians for war is present.

..and yet as far as Islam goes, Bush, a professed Christian has behaved impeccably, praising Islam etc. Could it perhaps something to do with that America is structurally a secular system and that the Christians, such as Bush have accepted that secular values supersede religious ones?

Quote[/b] ]You paint all religions with a broad stroke Denoir. They are not all like Islam and all forms of Islam are not the same.

Yes I do because they are all closed systems that define ultimate moral rules and ultimate explanations of the world. They are their own point of reference and the supreme authority. From an external point of view, they are completely arbitrary fantasies.

Quote[/b] ]Second, religion is always open to interpretation.

Not necessarily. As a matter of fact most sects will tell you that there is exactly one correct interpretation.

Quote[/b] ]But the belief that murder is wrong was passed down to me *primarily* from my parents. I can only speculate where the morality beliefs of all my ancestors came from but with the example of murder, that can almost certainly fall under natural law.

My point exactly, morality doesn't have to do a thing with religion.

[Bernadotte 0]

If I claim to have a dragon in my garage, then it's up to me to prove it. It is not up to you to disprove it. And if I say that the dragon is invisible and otherwise completely undetectable, you have truly no reason to accept my dragon story.

Let's change the story slightly.

One day you walk with a friend to his house.  Along the way you reach a narrow, but very deep chasm spanned by a 10 cm wide beam.  Fearing you may fall, you get on your hands and knees and slowly cross the abys a little at a time.  Your friend, on the other hand, calmly strolls across the beam with little regard for the danger.  When you ask him how he is able to do such a thing he tells you that there is an invisible flying dragon that will catch him if he should happen to slip and fall into the chasm.  After much discussion throughout the evening you finally manage to convince him that there are no such things as invisible dragons.  

The next day when your friend doesn't show up for work you go to see what's wrong.  You find him at home perfectly fine and able to work, but no longer able to cross the chasm for fear of falling down.

The point, if it isn't obvious, is that no matter how imaginery God is for some people, for others it is a very real and important part of their lives.  And without God, some people are not able to get past life's day-to-day chasms and obstacles.

Thank God, I'm not one of them.  

[Panda-PL- 0]

You attacked Islam.

As a christian, taking into consideration that there are really no Islam representatives, it was my duty as a Christian to defend Islam (call it Jihad if You like).

As soon as You realised Christians and Jews won't join Your crusade against Islam AS AN RELIGION you started an assault on religion itself calling it irrational and causing people to commit irrational deeds.

From Your definition of rationality and empirism You clearly see that what You really ment is that religion cannot be empirically proven.

Based on Your personal empiria You can sit on a chair.

If I tell You that not allways, because the spaces between nucleids are big enought for a slight chance that they'll pass each other - that is checkable indirect empiria. Then You test me, and say - not true. Then the empirical truth for You is that You can allways sit on a chair.

Now rationality claims that if there is a chance that You'll fall inside the chair - then it is possible.

As You see theese give opposide results.

And two truths.

BTW. Rationalism in christianity - attempt was made by JPII. You cannot prove that religion is irrational.

But putting it asside:

You then were told that religion is only a small share of terrorism. And that Islam-related terrorism can be put to a stop using islam. You then decidet to OMMIT that mistake of Yours and then made another: claimed that atheism is not a religion (and claimed that it is more rational then any religion could be).

You suggested there is no God (more exactly - that beliving one is stiupidity and the science will supply proof - which means YOU BELIVE THERE IS NO GOD - otherwise You wouldn't write t=hat everything could be explained without referin to Him, or You even compared Him to a green monster under Your bed).

Quote[/b] ]Read that again, especially the belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine part. That is why atheism in no way can be considered a religion.

Here goes. Off the bat! - ishall You belive there is no God, then You have a "belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine part".

And thus it is religion.

If You are an atheist as defined in Your definition - You should say "maybe You're right, I respect Your beliefs, there is a chance that God exist". If You say there is no God - You fall out of definition.

Quote[/b] ]"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

The propper answer is - I cannot check it, so maybe there is, maybe there isn't. If You are an atheist - that is.

anti-theism is a religion.

atheism - in Your oppinion - means that You should hold Yourself from judgement.

If You were an empiryst You wouldn't belive in God. You wouldn't also belive in Bohr's nucleon model, stars and such stuff.

If You disbelif it means You belive there isn't?

And if You do not belive there isn't God, then putting an end to religion is irrational, because shall God existed You would make all humanity go to hell.

So now please nicely appologise and say that Your idea of salvation of humankind by removing religion off the face of the Earth is crap.

[denoir 0]

Oh dear, this is clearly not getting through to you. Let's try again more slowly.

There is a very important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief.

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

Do you understand this?

If you believe that dragons do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No dragons" religion? Is it a matter of faith that dragons do not exist? Can I come along to your non-dragon church with you tomorrow? Do you have any non-dragon prayers for me?

From a scientific point of view it's quite simple. Theism is a theory, whereas atheism is the rejection of the theory. It is not a competing theory, just a rejection of the theism theory that has been put forward.

Quote[/b] ]Here goes. Off the bat! - ishall You belive there is no God, then You have a "belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine part".

No, most certainly not. It is not,  "I believe that God does not exist " - it is "I do not believe that God exists". It is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. I have no beliefs concerning Gods or any other supposed supernatural beings.

Perhaps you didn't understand the Wikipedia definition due to language difficulties. Let's go straight to a dictionary definition, it's more formal, so perhaps you will understand it better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Quote[/b] ]

re·li·gion

n.

1.

   a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

   b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2.  The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3.  A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Quote[/b] ]From Your definition of rationality and empirism You clearly see that what You really ment is that religion cannot be empirically proven.

That's the problem. If the god theory was true and a super powerful being was interfering in our lives, then we would be able to detect it. That's the basic definition of interference - you change something noticeable. If it can't be measured or detected in any way - i.e if it makes no noticeable difference, then it is a superfluous theory. It's the invisible, undetectable dragon. If it cannot be measured, the theory is not falsifiable and thus not a legitimate theory (in the scientific meaning of it) and can be rejected directly.

Quote[/b] ]Based on Your personal empiria You can sit on a chair.

If I tell You that not allways, because the spaces between nucleids are big enought for a slight chance that they'll pass each other - that is checkable indirect empiria. Then You test me, and say - not true. Then the empirical truth for You is that You can allways sit on a chair.

I suppose what you are trying to describe in a very wrong way is quantum tunneling. But anyway, I never said that the empirical test had to be done by me. As long as it is documented, reproducible and most importantly statistically significant others can perform the experiments. I mention statistically significant because the probability of me tunneling through the chair are infinitesimal. So a sitting-down-on-chair-test for quantum tunneling can be outright rejected as a valid test.

Quote[/b] ]BTW. Rationalism in christianity - attempt was made by JPII. You cannot prove that religion is irrational.

Of course I can, there's nothing more simple than that. Rationalism has the strict demand for complete consistency. I can take two lines out of a bible and demonstrate that they are contradictory and you have your proof. Not to mention the irrationality of the practice of the monotheistic religions. To give you a quick example: God is omniscient, right (he knows everything)? Then why do you go to Church and/or pray? If he is omniscient then he knows already what you are going to say and he also knows what the consequences are going to be. By omniscience, you have made your world completely deterministic. If god already knows everything that will happen, then poof goes free will.

Quote[/b] ]The propper answer is - I cannot check it, so maybe there is, maybe there isn't. If You are an atheist - that is.

anti-theism is a religion.

atheism - in Your oppinion - means that You should hold Yourself from judgement[./quote]

Agnosticism is when you say "there's no proof, but non-existence of evidence does not equal evidence of non-existence. "

Atheism is when you say "there is no proof, so there is no reason to believe in it"

As I said, agnosticism is the most open-minded version, but it is immensely impractical and goes against the scientific method of establishing a theory.

If You were an empiryst You wouldn't belive in God. You wouldn't also belive in Bohr's nucleon model, stars and such stuff.

Why not? They are very measurable and detectable. But specifically, no I do not believe that Bohr's nucleon model is a good one. It was a valiant first attempt, but a grave simplification. Schrödinger's wave based quantum mechanics gives a far better and usable model. Bohr's model is good for teaching high-school kids about atoms, but basically it's pretty much off the mark.

Quote[/b] ]If You disbelif it means You belive there isn't?

No, disbelief does not mean that I believe there isn't, it means that I do not believe there is!

[denoir 0]

If I claim to have a dragon in my garage, then it's up to me to prove it. It is not up to you to disprove it. And if I say that the dragon is invisible and otherwise completely undetectable, you have truly no reason to accept my dragon story.

Let's change the story slightly.

One day you walk with a friend to his house.  Along the way you reach a narrow, but very deep chasm spanned by a 10 cm wide beam.  Fearing you may fall, you get on your hands and knees and slowly cross the abys a little at a time.  Your friend, on the other hand, calmly strolls across the beam with little regard for the danger.  When you ask him how he is able to do such a thing he tells you that there is an invisible flying dragon that will catch him if he should happen to slip and fall into the chasm.  After much discussion throughout the evening you finally manage to convince him that there are no such things as invisible dragons.  

The next day when your friend doesn't show up for work you go to see what's wrong.  You find him at home perfectly fine and able to work, but no longer able to cross the chasm for fear of falling down.

The point, if it isn't obvious, is that no matter how imaginery God is for some people, for others it is a very real and important part of their lives.  And without God, some people are not able to get past life's day-to-day chasms and obstacles.

Thank God, I'm not one of them.  

That's fine, I fully recognize that some people use religion as a motivational tool, both for coping with existence as well as getting extra motivation for doing the "right thing".

But let's expand on the story a bit more to show the problematics.

Ok, you might say that if he gets careless and breaks his neck, it's his own problem. But suppose he has children, who he teaches that it is absolutely safe to run across the beam. So now his belief is endangering others - perhaps not that good.

Now suppose that he is a member of an organized "dragon belief" faith. As in any group, people try to demonstrate the belonging by showing how serious they are about the group's objectives. (In religion this is expressed by blind faith being considered a virtue - as faith is what keeps the group together). So then you have people outdoing themselves in believing in the catching dragon - so they throw themselves off the beam.

If your faith is strong enough, you'll selectively look at the data. "Look, Bob survived without breaking a bone! Long live the catch-dragon!" (while you forget that Peter, Lisa and Tom broke their necks). And then you go forth misrepresenting the religion to people who are in such a state of mind that they are looking for miracles/guidance/whatever - and then they start jumping off the beam.

The general problem isn't one individual's faith. It is his interactions with others, if those interactions are faith-based. As you can't prove that one faith is more correct than another, anything goes.

From a view point of religious respect, you can't say that the religion of the London suicide bombers was "wrong". It had no less evidence of its validity than the "mainstream" interpretation of Islam. So you have to look at the problematics of religion as a general concept.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ] So then you have people outdoing themselves in believing in the catching dragon - so they throw themselves off the beam.

    This is definitely not exclusive to religion. How many people have died from being bled as a medical practice back before modern medicine? How many birth defects were caused by DDT being sprayed on crowds in the 50s? Ever hear of the mad hatter syndrome? Hatters use to clean hats with mercury which is highly toxic to humans. Non surprisingly they would go nuts from over exposure to the mercury. What is my point? They all believed (had faith if you will) that DDT, mercury, or being bled was harmless.

   Religion doesn't have a monopoly on misplaced trust and faith. All the examples I gave people rationized that they were safe from those chemicals and such.

[denoir 0]

Absolutely, there is however a fundamental difference. Science is self-correcting. If you notice that you are doing something wrong, you correct it. Religion can't do that. You can't go into the bible and say "Aw, crap, they were completely wrong about that killing people that work on the sabbath thing. Let's correct that." Religion is based on the idea that it represents the final, ultimate and only truth. There's no room for improvement.

Having said that, blind faith in technology and science is not good either. One should always have a healthy dose of scepticism. There will always be fuck ups as well as negligence or even malevolent intent. With science at least you have a transparent modus operandi, a good documentation and the principle of self-correction. In religion you have to accept what's served and you can't count on any improvements to be made on it.

But as I said earlier, religion is far from the only source of bad things happening to people. It is however a significant source in the context of the thing we're discussing here, namely contemporary terrorism.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Science is self-correcting. If you notice that you are doing something wrong, you correct it. Religion can't do that.

Science is also known for making enourmous blunders.

The self - correcting takes centuries and encounters furious opposition and propaganda. I don't think I have to give examples. Science also tends to expalin everything even where it cannot - and forces it's "theories".

As for irrational beliefs... Darvinism is still far from a proven theory (check the net, but not only - we've had a programme on polish TV recently about some findings that were well documented, yet ignored by worl press - because darvinism is taught at schools and noone dares to subduct it toi revision... for how long?), yet both communism and facism - the two top-murderers in entire history - are based on evolutionism and "survival of the fittest"(the last theory has never been proven in an experiment on flies or bacteria - even trough tests lasted for thousants of generations of theese organisms. Neither did any scientist achived turning RNA into DNA...).

^A definite proof science had killed FAR more then religion.

But then again (which You forget) wasn't it just an excuse?

As to irrationality - both religion and science attempt to explain world - science is based mostely on classical empirism and religion is pure traditional rationalism. It was traditional rationalism that claimed in ancient times that earth is round and equador has 40000km (44000 in reality :P). I mentioned stars, because You cannot even state if they are there, what is their color, size, position... It's all guesswork 'cause really what we see is a few rays of light.

Quote[/b] ]Science is self-correcting. If you notice that you are doing something wrong, you correct it. Religion can't do that.

Religion can't? Catholic one for example? And some progressive musliums.

@The inconseqences in bible - there were no incosequences in Marx/Engels ideology. Yet it proved bullsh*** in practice and caused CCCP to be ~100 years economically and socially retarded... (not to mention enourmous deathsh toll). May I remind You that it was a scientific theory and it still has fanatical followers even trough both modern economics, social science and a living experiments that we see in different countries proved rubbish from the very point of most basic assumptions.

Anyways if I was to fabricate a "bible" I'd make sure it is consequent before publishing. Also different authors had different points of views, spoken to different people and lived in different times. You have to include changing background when interpreting.

@Free will: Even trough a man has free will yet if You'd be able to put him in the same place and time, with the same knowlage and predispositions he'd do the same no matter hoew many times You'd do that.

A man has his free will but he won't ever act against his own, personal nature, which can be affected by countless encounters and conversatrions, yet free will doesn't mean "random" will - meaning that knowing someone 100% You'd be able to guess 100% right what the man will do.

We act free but not irrelevent of who we are.

And Yes, God knw us all 100% before we were born and he chose a place for us in His plan. (I do know You don't belive it).

@Suiciders. Bombs were time-detonated and carried in hands. If You knew anything about shahids You'd know that this combination never had been used. Shahids wear explosives around their chests in so called "shahid's belts". There are many practical-and-ideological reasons. The most important is that when such belt explodes the head is torn appart and it remains undammaged - allowing identification by face, and also the face is undammaged, not humilitated by scars or wounds or even blood. The "martyr" then recieves a rock-star status, his familly gests n*10.000$ from some charity organisation, the "martyr's" face is displayed in public in countries like Iran on a big 5x5 meter billboards - smilling and happy with something witten and maybe an AK in hands. The "martyr" wants to be sure that noone will take away his fame.

I do't know about french media, but our's said that the police now tends to think that the terrorers were gathered on one station, were given the charges there and were supposed to leave them and get out of trains. Only that the timers were set a bit too early as the ones organising the assasinatio wanted the bombers not to cause pottential trouble in the future. Also no recordings had been made (just like 9/11 - and only the pilots knew the real target back then, the rest was told that the'll "just" hijack the plane).

@Beliving: Your "knowlage" is in 99% based on third hand empiria. You go to school and You are told "blablabla..." If You compare history books from different countries You'd come to conclusion that we live on different planets.

From our point of view the "Great" French Revolution was just som stupid poorman rioting to steal the goods. Mporover they killed people just because they had more money. Yet this outrage is a grat patriotic celebration...

I don't mean to offend You, but I remember discussions on Hollocaust in European Parliment a while ago - when some guys prottested calling concentratrion camps "german" and were agreed with (those were Nazi, right? It's not true they were all Germans? NAzi weren't Germans afterall ) and then proposed to call them "Polish Concentracion Camps" . Even trough according to Ribentropp-Molotow there was no Poland.

But putting asside history - science causes people to tend to belive in literally anything that is printed and that's a fact. Should we blame science for wearwolf-storries printed in The Sun?

Like Einshteins relativity theory... 1% of people who claim to belive it really know what is the whole think about.

And science is a pawn to sponsoring bussinesman: for years doctors of different proffessions claimed smoking is not unhealthy... Now it is a proven mass-killer. BTW. smoking causes much more fatalities then Islam plus it is clearly irrational. Why don't You fight with smoking first and when You sucseed we'd start our talks about religion. Same goes for alcohole.

And anyway You don't understand a thing about RCC. RCC is not being subjected to science. If You'd studied the issue more You'd discover that in fact what RCC does is not progressing forwad but going back in time. The church now states that anything that'd been told or done and which is against new testiment should be revised. The RCC is now going back in it's history. What You see as progressive movement is in fact FUNDAMENTALIST movement started by "most tollerant and oppened minded pope" JP2. Also the appologies to the Jews and Muslims in the name of every catholic were made in the pure spirit of Bible, not due to science.

Your definition of fundamentalism is wrong.

Better said It would be that it means You belive in Your oldest scriptures, giving lesser attention to teachings that came afterwards (opposide of progressive), claiming that if something is for example against ANY possible interpretation of a holly book it mut be false way of thinking.

How come the RCC is both fundamental and "most progressive", yet no fanaticism?? Must be a riddle for someone who doesn'rt know much about the teachings of RCC and for someone in whose mentality RCC is still in middle ages (whose teachings - beside two saints - are now practiallay whole being revised - in the reference to Bible...).

And Yes, I'm a fundamentalist myself, and a peacufull one. Jesus was a fanatcal pacifist afterall   .

Even trough talking to You obviously doesn't make sense I still don't get tempted to blow anything up or at least burn Your flag. Must be quite a dissapointment to You.

Still no proof of Your theory:

Quote[/b] ]They're not using religion as an excuse to kill themselves and others they are doing it because they believe the religion.

It'd appear that the bombers didn't intend to die... Therfore financial, political etc. motives stay oppened.

Quote[/b] ]'ll tolerate that people believe in bullshit, and I'll accept that it's their right as individuals to be idiots, but I'll be damned if I respect it.

You didn't have much common sense a while back, plus You claimed religion being b*** for imbeciles. Still no proof to back that up.

Quote[/b] ]Why should I respect a religion that says that you should be stoned to death if you sleep with your neighbours wife?

Why should I respect someone who thinks it is normal?

Quote[/b] ]So it's a difficult problem. The first approach isn't a permanent solution. The step from irrational fundamentalist religious belief to irrational homicidal religious belief is not a big one. The core problem here after all is religion.

The core problem is stupidity. Stupidity comes in different shapes and colors. However it is religion-independent, or even reverse-independent as religion generally improves people, makes them think and develop themselves, develop their empathy and sensivility.

Anyways... if 95% percent of muslims are normal and religion makes them better and just 5% are commiting crimes, then the proportion is better then among non-religious people. Read a history book about XX century.

Why don't You - based on the same logic - fight motorisation. Oh the horrible traffic incidents! Want a link to some photos? Looks not better then terrorism.

The answer is simple - both cause far more good then bad.

Miles teg wrote:

Quote[/b] ]IF you understand what drives these terrorists then you can get to the root of the problem and destroy and wage war against their ideology which is NOT based upon traditional Islam.

You didn't pick up the subject. Propably You arent really interested in any religion. The same is with modern RCC i guess? So You don't get into details and rather make general statements based on Your fancy little books...

BTW. a blunder of Yours: You said something about being against at least the "organised religion". RCC is one of most organised. It is even one of its core beliefs taht it should be like that. On the other hand Islam is one of most independent and has usually no structure at all.

[philcommando 0]

Mankind has proven to be the greatest survivor of all species on earth( besides roaches). The only reason why is because we are capable of thought, at least the most dominant ones of our kind.

Why should one survive? Simply because there are things we desire to do. And desire begets greed, the ultimate reason to survive. Mankind are but beasts on 2 legs. Strip bare of all traces of civilisation, we are no more than talking bears. But we realised that the world is huge, alone, we could not do the things we want to do. We need to form groups to tackle situations in order to get what we want. Greed created civilisation to achieve our desires.

Intelligence is not equal as with talents. In all living creatures, we have dominant and meek similar species. Strength alone does not create societies. There must be a higher belief in order to motivate all similar species to achieve a goal. Religion was the first motivating tool by dominant men to control the weaker amongst his own by the first lightning streaking across the sky, with the dominant man giving a reason for it, the reason for of a higher being whom no man should question. The weaker  submitted to that reason and to many other 'reasons' that followed, becoming a 'leap of faith' as entire generations lead by the strong against the weak who used religion as a tool to motivate and suppress the weak until someone else stronger steps forth to challenge the leadership.

However, as men studied works of literature that were spread even amongst the lowly, several questioned the existance of religion. Is there proof of an almighty? The dominants ones will ask,' what proof is there that there is not, when you only need to open your eyes and look at nature?'

Karl Marx understood the power of religion throughout mankind's history and seek to stop it. Western civilisation is nothing but greed as it expanded from a tribal hut in Sumeria into Rome and then metamorphasized into the great British Empire where the sun never sets. But it was in vain, for science till today can never explain many mysteries of nature. Charlettans filled that void of 'what proof do you have that it doesnt exit?' motivated by greed. Where science fails to answer or used a concept as an answer to the unexplained, greedy men don on bedsheets and gave the answer, for the masses knows not the difference between of a scientific thesis and a charlettan's premise, both equally probable.

Therefore, what is an aethist or man of religion? They are only bears on 2 legs who are led by stronger ones to do their will.

Coming back to the topic, while should religion be won, there is no doubt that terrorism will still continue, because it is the nature of mankind to be greedy, be it for a loaf of bread or the entire universe and will exploit any other means to motivate and use others for their goals. However, the current motivation of terrorism is based on a faith that allows killing of individuals, therefore, we must eradicate the loophole in that faith, so that many other sheeps will not be fooled to join them.

Everyone should be given the freedom of their beliefs, if thats what it takes to motivate them and contributes to society, but such beliefs MUST NEVER allow them the freedom to kill another human being freely. Anyone who preaches so must stopped or be severely dealt with, otherwise, as we progress technologically, it only takes one bomb to wipe out millions. A couple of them and mankind wont even be recorded history. Roaches are not literates and will then rule.

[Bernadotte 0]

...religion is far from the only source of bad things happening to people. It is however a significant source in the context of the thing we're discussing here, namely contemporary terrorism.

Which religions?  Or are you primarily focusing on the role of just one religion; namely Islam?

(You may or may not have noticed that I place the problem at the door of several religions, and its origins WAY before 11 Sept 2001.)

[Panda-PL- 0]

Ehm... Quoting Marx who was wrong in almost every - if not every - point he's make is not a good idea.

If You look at what his theories' influence was on on humankind...

And then communism created gods - marx&engels, lenin, stalin... It's like with French Revolution - the one who abolish God next try to take his place just like the used-to-be revolutioners became rich and gained power.

Just like capitalism now - creates its own gods - success, cash, fame...

Communists hoped there is no God. That's why they tend to belive there's none. And that's why they've created pseudo-science that stopped real progress for long years. Like pyramids for sharpening razor blades or photography of human's aura...

For some murderers it really would be better if there was none.

As for walking bears... WTF are You dooing there then? And why would You worry 'bout people dieing or civilisation's end?

[edit]

Quote[/b] ]Which religions? Or are you primarily focusing on the role of just one religion; namely Islam?

He's lost himself compleately by now in his own ideology. One time it's organised religion, another time Islam, somewhere else religion as a whole...

[denoir 0]

@ July 18 2005,19:05)]As for irrational beliefs... Darvinism is still far from a proven theory

I'm beginning to see that this is a pointless discussion as you don't know the most elementary things about science or the scientific method.

"Proofs" are written by mathematicians and logicians, not by physicists or biologists.  Science offers "proof" of nothing. Science offers data, gathered under specified conditions. Science seeks comprehensive yet parsimonious explanations of data named "theories," a jargon word which ignorant people often misconstrue as a synonym for "guesses."

No, it isn't "just semantics." It is the basis for the manner of reasoning, and the results to be expected from such manner of reasoning. A "proof" is not a product of science.

I think it is utterly shitty that people arn't taught these things in schools (or perhaps you weren't listening?).

Quote[/b] ] (check the net, but not only - we've had a programme on polish TV recently about some findings that were well documented, yet ignored by worl press - because darvinism is taught at schools and noone dares to subduct it toi revision... for how long?),

Gee, you saw something on TV. Care to back that up with a reference.. or perhaps even tell what it is.

By your standards of evidence-gathering, I saw on TV somebody who said the pope was gay, so it must surely be so..

Quote[/b] ]yet both communism and facism - the two top-murderers in entire history - are based on evolutionism and "survival of the fittest"

Nazism was based on something they called "social-darwinism" which is a pseudoscientific theory. As for communist theory, it was the exactly the other way around - "survival of the weakest". Workers of the world unite etc

Quote[/b] ]the last theory has never been proven in an experiment on flies or bacteria - even trough tests lasted for thousants of generations of theese organisms.

You know, in a discussion when you are running out of arguments, you're not allowed to make things up. This ain't church.

Natural selection is one of the things you can easlily demonstrate in a lab. As a matter of fact it's part of any basic high-school biology course today. Were you sick that day at school. It's quite trivial do demonstrate how for instance the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics.

Here's a very simple to understand description as reference for you:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour...._9.html

Quote[/b] ]Neither did any scientist achived turning RNA into DNA...).

Eh? It's a very simple chemical process where you attach hydroxyl groups at the right places. It's used all the time for PCRing RNA. The method is called reverse transcriptase.

Quote[/b] ]^A definite proof science had killed FAR more then religion.

But then again (which You forget) wasn't it just an excuse?

I am sure there have been a few instances of one scientist killing another over a dispute in theory, but generally speaking scientist don't kill scientist that don't agree with their work - unlike religion. Science is not normative, it just gives a description of how the world works, it does not say in any way what you should do with that knowledge. If you choose to make a nuclear power plant or a nuclear bomb has nothing to do with science. Religion on the other hand is primarily normative - it tells you what to do and how to do it.

Quote[/b] ]As to irrationality - both religion and science attempt to explain world - science is based mostely on classical empirism and religion is pure traditional rationalism.

Science is based on inductive and deductive logic, which means in practice an empirical base, a rationalist development of theories and empirical validation of the theories. Religion is pure authoritarian belief. Religion gets its world view from scriptures and from preachers. It has nothing to do with rationalism - on the contrary, it defies its very principles that human thought is the only relevant source of knowledge. That means it doesn't accept arbitrary authority - such as a "holy" book or whatever.

Quote[/b] ]It was traditional rationalism that claimed in ancient times that earth is round and equador has 40000km (44000 in reality :P).

Again, if you don't know things, don't just make things up. Earth's circumference was calculated first by Eratosthenes (276 BC-194BC) through very empirical means.

Here, you can do it yourself, step by step instruction (warning, does not include any prayer or supernational explanations):

http://outreach.as.utexas.edu/marykay/assignments/eratos1.html

While the church had nothing to do with the calculation of the circumference of Earth, incidentally they used to burn people for saying that it had a circumference, and wasn't flat as the religious dogma stated.

Quote[/b] ]I mentioned stars, because You cannot even state if they are there, what is their color, size, position... It's all guesswork 'cause really what we see is a few rays of light.

Everything that you see can is "a few rays of light". And it's not all guess work. By plotting the movement relative Earth, you can calculate their positions. By spectral analysis you can say what they are made up of etc

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Science is self-correcting. If you notice that you are doing something wrong, you correct it. Religion can't do that.

Religion can't? Catholic one for example? And some progressive musliums.

Yes and no. You can't go in and change the bible, can you? Has the Catholic church any time recently (say last 1000 years) removed or added sections in the bible?

Obviously it must in some way adapt to the undeniable reality that science - which they do by altering their interpretations making god and other supernatural things less important. The catholic church for instance has accepted both evolution and the big bang theory. So now it is no longer a god who interferes in the physics of the universe, but rather just started the whole thing. This is quite different from what was taught not many centuries ago - and not to mention what is written in the bible. So the adaptation that religion goes through is towards more and more vague and open interpretations of the scripture.

Quote[/b] ]@The inconseqences in bible - there were no incosequences in Marx/Engels ideology. Yet it proved bullsh*** in practice and caused CCCP to be ~100 years economically and socially retarded... (not to mention enourmous deathsh toll).

Das Kapital consistent? LOL, that's a good one. Communist theory was as full of holes as any religion. As a matter of fact, I think it is closer to religion than it is to science. Primarily it is normative, rather than descriptive, and when it is descriptive it bases its observation of dogma rather than empiricism. A good example is their dialectic materialism  that seriously fucked up scientific research in the Soviet union - especially in molecular biology.

There's no such thing as a complete consistent theory, even if you restrict yourself to very elementary logical and math operations. It's called the Gödel's theorem and has a very elegant mathematical proof.

So if everything is inconsistent or incomplete, what's the difference?

Quite simple, science does not have the requirement to be  consistent and complete. Science does not deal with "truth" of a theory, but with what theory gives the best verifiable results for a specific situation under specific condition. Religion on the other hand deals with absolute, universal, final truth, so the requirements are quite different.

Quote[/b] ]May I remind You that it was a scientific theory and it still has fanatical followers even trough both modern economics, social science and a living experiments that we see in different countries proved rubbish from the very point of most basic assumptions.

Economic and social sciences arndt classical science - i.e they don't follow the scientific method. So they don't count as science. Personally I think that much of sociology and for instance social anthropology is as much unscientific as most religions are.

Quote[/b] ]Anyways if I was to fabricate a "bible" I'd make sure it is consequent before publishing. Also different authors had different points of views, spoken to different people and lived in different times. You have to include changing background when interpreting.

Yeah, but what's the point of religion then, if it changes over time. It's primary strength is that it's supposed to be the word of god - something final and entirely true. In what way does religion then differentiate from any arbitrary fantasy?

Quote[/b] ]And Yes, God knw us all 100% before we were born and he chose a place for us in His plan.

Precisely, and that does mean no free will. If god knew from the beginning of time that you are going to kill somebody, you never had a choice. If the outcome is known (to god or otherwise), it has already been determined. So any bit about moral responsibility goes out the window. How can you be responsible for your actions if they are already predetermined. And they are already predetermined since god knows exactly what you are going to do.

A god that knows everything past, current and future means directly that we are nothing more than automatons. Why then bother preaching morality, when it has all been predetermined? Why bother praying - don't you think that god knows alread what you are going to say?

And if god created the world and he has always known everything, then everything that is happening and ever will happen is his doing. So why all the evil in the world? Why Nazism and communism? I mean it's not like it has any consequence, as our reactions to these systems were already decided. There's nothing to learn, nothing to improve.

This of course in combination of omnipotence and the fact that bad things happen in the world (i.e evil, suffering etc) - and the fact that religious dogma is absolute (which means it deals with "truth" directly and can be handled through logic), allows us to make a simple logical rebuttal:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

5. Evil exists.

6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.

7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

This is the classical "Problem of Evil". The standard Christian reply is that god gave people free will and people do evil. This is of course flawed on two main points. First of all, there are many things out of human control which cause great suffering - such as natural disasters. The second is that an omniscient god means no free will. If God knows all of our future actions, then the future is fixed, but if the future is fixed, it seems that there is nothing that we can do to change it. The ability to determine our future actions, though, is what constitutes human freedom. Divine foreknowledge, then, precludes the possibility of free will. Hence evil things happening are god's "fault", and not our fault as we have no free will.

Quote[/b] ]I do't know about french media, but our's said that the police now tends to think that the terrorers were gathered on one station, were given the charges there and were supposed to leave them and get out of trains

I don't know about French media either. I'm Swedish.

Ok, that will do for now, I'll address the rest of your post later.