Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Any comments from either side of argumentors here? Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic and, interestingly, was never excommunicated (and had quite good diplomatic channels with the papacy) - however, he made his own religion from Ayran myths and his own interpretations of the bible. He frequently made references to his belief that he was some sort of divine messenger, was under the protection of the almighty, was on a divine mission to remove the jews*, etc. ("Who says I am not under the special protection of God?") He was unquestionably religious. Not unquestionably christian, but unquestionably religious. *and gypsies, freethinkers, political opponents and athiests

Do you understand what the words 'redefining religion' mean? I shall clarify this for you: You are redefining what religion is to mean 'awe and wonder at the universe.' They are not the same thing, as discussed in the earlier post which you might want to read.

'All' that needs to be done is allowing and enabling by default different terrain LODs and viewdistances depending on the altitude and type of vehicle: planes get the lowest LOD and highest viewdistance, etc. I say 'all' because I'm sure it isn't that simple - for example, syncing in multiplayer.

Stop it. Awe != religion. Already dealt with in previous posts; the deep sense of awe, wonder etc we have for the world does not mean we are religious. Here Are people who believe the earth is flat and the sun goes round it stupid? Idiots? Are people who believe that they can be bitten by snakes without getting hurt stupid? Its exactly the same thing. Stop apologising for some kinds of stupidity for no reason. The emperor has no clothes.

US to pull out of Fallujah (apparently) url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3670193.stm[/url] Going to be leaving the defence to locals, apparently.

Read the post please. Don't sit there claiming a religious practice is cultural when it is clearly religious. I didn't think you were the type. Under swedish laws women are equally protected. But if the (not extremists) muslims who follow their Koran had their way, they would not be and this would be de rigeur.

That would be because that is not how to debate. Emotional appeals are not arguments. People need to learn this. Agreed. One of the main problems with it. If that were the entirety of the bible, there would not be as many problems - there'd still be a lot of religious violence, of course - thou shalt have no other god but me. Which 10 commandments are you referring to? There are three different sets in the bible. without these people being taught the religious 'ways of knowing' they would not be convinced by the bullshit. And the more education, the less likely religion is to arrive; it is, after all, an illogical and unobjective thing. None of which makes religion a good thing nowadays.

For the 500th time: Name a better one. Name an equivalent one. Name ANY OTHER MEANS of determining if something exists or not.

For Denoir: something a little closer to his home Yes, It is Islamic Don't Apologize for It! By Azam Kamguian In the last few weeks, the Swedish society has been touched by the brutal and calculated murder of Fadima Sahindal; a young courageous woman who chose to live according to her will and paid the price by her life. In the last two months, two other young women in Denmark and Britain were killed by their fathers because of the honor of the family. Honor of men and the family took their lives. Honor killing is a tribal and Islamic practice prevalent in Islam- ridden countries and Muslim inhabited communities in the West. Being killed deliberately and brutally is, in fact, a price that victims pay to practice their minimal human rights such as how to dress, talk to men other than their male family members, live, work and study independently, and marry at will, or have voluntary sexual relations. Hundreds of women get shot, burned, strangled, stoned, poisoned, beheaded or stabbed every year in Islam ridden countries because their male relatives believe their actions have soiled the family name. They die, so family honor may survive. According to this tribal and religious practice, woman is a man's possession and a reflection of his honor. It is the man's honor that gets tarnished if a woman is 'loose'. The murderers and their defenders refer to this verse of the Koran that allows husbands to beat their wives: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill - conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them", the Koran, chapter 4, verse 34. Honor killing is a tribal practice that has been incorporated in the religion of Islam, because of its anti - women nature and misogynist philosophy. And the law is usually on the man's side, not only in the Middle Eastern and the Central Asian countries, but shamefully, in the Western countries too. They often letting murderers go unpunished or with a light sentence. According to this Islamic concept and tradition, from the early childhood, girls are taught about "eib", which means shame, and "sharaf", which means honor. And everywhere girls go are reminders that their most important mission in life is to remain virgin until they marry. Boys are also taught to have "ghayrat", meaning to be ardent. All these concepts are Islamic concepts, and that is why the killers always defend their acts of murder by these Islamic concepts. According to the UN statistics, the majority of these murders occur in the Islam - ridden countries and Muslin inhabited communities in the West. Though, honor killing may seem not much surprising in societies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, its occurrence is indeed shocking and shameful in the heart of Europe in the 21st Century. And that is where the reactionary idea of Cultural Relativism is put into practice to justify women's victimization by excusing Islam and backward traditions. Unfortunately, until recently which some measures were implemented by the Swedish government, this government not only neglected to protect the lives and the rights of these women, but also justified their murders under the name of respecting 'other' people's religion and culture. While the murderers have repeatedly and openly defend their act by referring to Islam and the Koran, the majority of feminists, the mainstream media and intellectuals try to explain these murders as the prevalent patterns of domestic violence against women in the Western societies. While the murderers, whether in the Middle Eastern countries or in the Muslim inhabited communities in the West, openly state that their act of murder are "crimes of honor", and that they are merely following the directions set down in their religious beliefs, both in the Koran and in the Bible, the apologetic Western intellectuals repeatedly assure us that it is not Islam and the backward traditions, it is the common pattern of violence that is happening to the Western women too. Swedish intellectuals should show the honesty that is required and expected from intellectuals, by telling the truth, by siding with those innocent young women who were victimized and continue to be brutally victimized because of the Islamic and backward tradition. It is not acceptable to apologize for Islam and backwardness. And as far as the Swedish government is concerned, there shouldn't be a different basis for people's right in the one and same society; in the Swedish society. All should be considered as Swedish citizens and equal before the law. The Swedish society is duty bound to safe guard and protect the rights of women and girls from Muslim origins. This could be done only by abolishing all the respective discriminatory laws against these girls and women. This could be done only when there is no respect, excuse and legal interpretation for the misogynist Islamic and traditional beliefs and practices. Email: azam_kamguian@yahoo.com

ooo, flame bait. Very mature.

Redefining religion as awe != a good argument. If all your arguments are simply redefining words to mean whatever you want, you won't impress anyone.

I think you are confusing being tolerant of others (which I am) with believing that they aren't doing any harm. We tolerate others beliefs only until they actually do harm, regardless of how much we disagree with them. I disagree with the rubbish spouted by the religious. It is not true. I do, however, tolerate them as long as they are not doing harm to others. The same as you. It's not about how many interpret whichever way. It is all bullshit. Nonetheless, I tolerate it until they push it on others, etc. Yes. Ordinary people, swayed by their beliefs, vote the way they are told, do as they are told, and so on. This is not only about the extremists. Even fairly moderate people will vote a certain way because of their religion - and for no other reason. Nonsense, denoir, Nonsense. Their bullshit is tolerated but that does NOT make it less bad or wrong. Still. Doesn't make it less bad. Because people are less religious, (which is a good thing) religion is less influential in peoples lives. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A GOOD THING. 90%?? Wrong.

...... I did not think you as misguided as this. Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity Also Known as: Ad Populum Description of Appeal to Popularity The Appeal to Popularity has the following form: 1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2. Therefore X is true. The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false. This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product. This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question. This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy. Examples of Appeal to Popularity 1. "My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing." 2. "I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay." 3. Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority. Once again, just because some people don't really listen to religion, doesn't mean it is a good thing. Any time anything related to social issues is in the news, they invariably have a 'guest' from the religious lobby. These people usually know very little about the topic (see the discussions on cloning) and do nothing but interfere. One of the biggest 'arguments' against many issues is 'its against god.' This is not 'extremists' - it's everyday people who just go along with what their priest or whooever tells them. They hear 'its against god' and, without thinking for themselves, decide they are against it. Again, arguement from numbers. Mainstream religion still preaches many 'bad' things. There are still many 'bad things' in the bible. The people that aren't ruled by religion are not very religious, are they? Religious people, however, DO let religious dogma interfere with their practical lives. Any discussion on social issues in the news usually features 'religious leaders' - just because they are religious. It doesn't really matter if they represent the majority. Just because it was a minority of individuals who persecuted Jews in 1940s germany, does NOT mean hitler's new religion wasn't a bad thing. It's still wrong, its still bad, no matter how few people listen to it nowadays. No, the flaw is that religion influences the way people vote by not allowing them to think. If people are being influenced by their religion on how to vote, then how is that a proper seperation of politics and religion? Do you have any numbers that support the counter claim? Are there any numbers available? No. It's too woolly a subject to define with absolutes. Maybe a fraction of the population is influenced to denounce a new technological breakthrough solely on their religious grounds. Maybe a fundamentalist cleric manages to persuade a few more young men that heaven and 72 virgins await him ....

The SA80 was originally designed and manufactured by HK's british division. The A2 is more reliable. Apparently more than the m16. But. It is still not a very good rifle. It's extremely heavy (heaviest issued assault rifle in the world ATM), unergonomic, difficult and time consuming to clean. But it is accurate. *edit* And shooting is a sport. Archery is a sport. Civilians don't need automatic weapons - but they don't need fancy cars and other consumer goods. Legal weapons aren't the cause of crime, as madmedic said.

Just because religious people don't like admitting that hitler was religious, doesn't mean he was not I should also have said 'It doesn't mean he was, either.' I thought that was clear enough though. Hitler was unquestionably religious - his own religion. He was not unquestionably a christian - but he WAS definitely religious. How else do you explain his insane beliefs but as his own religion?

Just because religious people don't like admitting that hitler was religious, doesn't mean he was not. Hitler reinterpreted the bible. So what? Every single priest, bishop, iman, Rabbi, and theologian does exactly the same thing when they read it - they form their own interpretation. There is no consistent interpretation - every denomination and even every reader has their own. Hitler used religion to control people. So what? THAT'S WHAT ITS FOR. Again, its nothing any other religious leader doesn't do. Hitler didn't share your interpretation of the bible = he wasn't a true believer. So what. Almost noone else in the world shares the same interpretation of the bible as you, as hitler, as the pope, etc. Your biggest mistake is assuming that hitler wasn't religious because you don't like the idea.

Humans, like all social animals, have empathy with other members of their race, because, although in some situations it is detrimental, by and large those families which looked after their own and relatives children survived and reproduced sucessfully more often. Morality comes from intelligence, compassion and empathy. It does not come from religion.

...But an argument from numbers is a fallacy. Yes. There is also a motivating factor to proselytize, to treat others badly based on their religion/ life choice stuff, etc etc. Am I? You said yourself earlier that religion interferes with science, that it meddles politically - that is the type of thing I'm talking about. The overall point being that the negative effects NOWADAYS outweigh the positive effects.

Suggested 1000 times already.

That is not the only interpretation of it.... I am NOT saying that people don't follow it. I'm saying that they do not lack morals or empathy without it. I am saying that it is not the only source of morality or even the main one. It isn't bad to do the right thing for the wrong reasons... the problem is when they do the WRONG thing for the wrong reasons.

Well, yes...not all, probably not a majority...but certainly some. And not to an extreme of no morality whatsoever - more a moral guide. Do you think these people were born like that or have they become like that due to abuse, environment, etc?

You seriously think that some people have no empathy or compassion until they were told whatever religion they follow? ? ? Humans have morality by default. We are social animals. Without something that brutalises and removes their empathy(usally religion), people are basically good.

It is very interesting to me that the literal interpretation of the bible only fell out of favour when it was proved (in the common use of the word) utter nonsense. When people figured out that the world just could not be 6000 years old, suddenly there was a huge rush to claim 'the bible is not literal.' Well, 1) Yes it is. The whole book is written as a literal account of events- the way the authors thought things happened. The fact that these authors were totally wrong doesn't change the way they wrote it. 2) if it isn't true, then the religions based on it are worthless. The only value of the book is the same as any other book of nursery stories and myths; Aesops fables, etc- they are quite useful as stories.... but thats all, really. ...because the literal interpretation of the bible - the original interpretation - is obviously ....bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. Hence the get out clause of 'its not really literal' Pity, because that IS how it was written. Nowadays we can see it is nonsense. For most people that might serve to show them that the book is nonsense, but some like to twist reality to retain their beliefs. Parables. And? So?How else to explain the contradictory qualities of the bible? it was written by semi-literate goat herders several thousand years ago and expanded, edited, chopped about and 're-interpreted' about 1600 years ago. Handy little cop-out, isn't it. That still doesn't resolve the issues of religion interfering in science, stifling human intelligence, stating that reality is other than it is (any sermon featuring miracles, as already said,) etc. 'Hey god, I killed a bunch of women and children... but I'm sorry' - 'Ok then, off you go to heaven.' 'Hi god, I believed that you were called allah because I was brought up in a muslim country' ' GO TO HELL!' Many things have been argued. That doesn't make them the truth. Apart from the complete support of the church for these event, the encouragement, the praise.... Conveniently you sidestep the entire issue, namely the persecution of Galileo for hundreds of years and the total refusal of the catholic church to accept the fact (until sometime this century) "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46] "What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125] "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god." [Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2] In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity: 24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession.... It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity. -Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925 Etc. You get the idea. Re-read what you just said. Gods chosen representative on earth was scared. Right. I suppose all those moral messages in the bible must have helped him come to the 'right decision,' eh. Lucky he was such a religious man, or he might have actually had some human decency. Once again, the church refuses to let human decency, or things that would reduce human suffering, interfere with their religion. Still waiting on a reason for that. Nobody said anything about abolishing religions. Please read the thread. Educating people so they think for themselves, yes. Reason, empathy and compassion can prevent that. Deal with it. Religion is not the source nor the deciding factor of empathy or compassion. It is never rational to cause needless suffering, no matter how people redefine words to suit themselves. Liar. The questions are always asked. Some of us, however, are HONEST enough to say 'we don't know yet' as the answer. Which is, of course, far better than making stuff up. Africa; bipedal apes who became intelligent. Wherever I can, physically and mentally. A bipedal ape with a relatively large brain. An emergent property of such a large brain with so many interconnections. Name an atheist fanatic. That is, one whose athiesm drives them to fanaticism, not whose thirst for power. It is a complete fallacy to always assume that a stance halfway between two points is always closer to the truth. On religion, there is either a supernatural being presiding over the universe or there is not. There is no half way. This was also dealt with earlier, which you appear to have ignored. One might want to stop wasting time building churches and build hospitals instead. One might want to use the time spent talking to invisible fairies to help others. One might want to stop dangerous delusions (that one is immune to snake venom, that 'laying on hands' can heal people) Praying is the greater evil.

Operation Northwoods This document seems to be giving the conspiracy theorists a field day. A lot of them are claiming that that a similar plan was used / is being used nowadays, with 11/9 etc. (note that the document suggests ACTUALLY creating disasters as well as staging them.) I think its..... interesting. I certainly do not think 11/9 was staged, but I think its likely that it was siezed upon as an opportunity by the US Govt... *edit* I also know that intelligence agencies like to contemplate some very 'pie in the sky' type of things that they aren't actually intending to carry out, and practice 'what to do in the event that' x,y, z happens, etc. Comments?

I don't think its any more or less offensive if its 2 weeks after the fact or 2 decades. The game itself doesn't look good, but the concept does.