An Atheist public policy group today called upon Congress to investigate the unauthorized distribution of bibles by U.S. military troops in Afghanistan.
The incident was revealed on the Al Jazeera television network, and consisted of video shot by a U.S. filmmaker. It shows military chaplains at Bagram Air Force base planning distribution of bibles
printed in the native Pashto language to Muslims. Such an act reportedly violated regulations.Kathleen Johnson, Military Director for American Atheists says that the year-old video footage is “a public relations disaster for the United States.”
“This film depicts our troops as modern-day ‘crusaders’ who are out to proselytize and convert Muslims,” said Johnson. “We’re supposed to be fighting terrorism and helping the Afghanis build a new civil society
that educates women, protects human rights and brings economic development. Religious conversion is not and should not be on our government’s to-do list.”
Full Press Release
For those of you who don’t know, my Dad was in the Army during WWII. He fought the Nazis and came back with one arm. Most of his friends didn’t come home at all. Flash forward to today, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our children are there, too, and they are still dying.
Every time a soldier loses life or limb, we as a nation must ask why. My father fought because Germany was intent on world domination and poised to make it happen. If there ever was a good reason to lose soldiers, that’s one.
Many have debated the need for Korea, and Vietnam, and Gulf 1, and of course the Iraq War, but this is not about the need for a specific war.
This is about soldiers who died spreading religion. This is about men and women, in American Uniform, under American guard, breaking American law and (more importantly) local law by distributing bibles in Moslem countries. As I have mentioned before on many occasions, this constitutes the crime of “Blasphemy” in these countries and can carry a death penalty. Even where it’s not a capital offense, the fundamentalist Moslems think it should be. And here come our children.
Our children come bearing bibles written in Pashto. Our children preach and minister to locals. Our children place themselves in danger. We must ask why.
The problem is the lying. The preachers (paid by the government), claim the bibles, which were found and destroyed, were the soldiers’ private property. Did I mention they were written in Pashto? Even if the bibles were owned by the soldiers, they weren’t for the soldiers. To suggest otherwise is a lie (a cover-up) about international crime.
Kathleen (our Military Director) and my father have said the same thing to me: soldiers do something for one reason — they were told to do it. These soldiers were told to preach religion to the locals by a superior officer, and then the chaplains lied about the bibles being personal property (implying they were for the soldiers). Again, we must ask why.
Why were they doing it? How far did it go, who gave the OK, and most importantly, has anyone died? I can only imagine the pain a parent must feel when a child dies in war; but what about a child dying to spread religion, in defiance of international law and the very constitution which the child swore to uphold?
Yes, there are other big questions here, like:
-
“Aren’t we doing exactly what the terrorists say we’re doing — waging a religious war against Islam?”
“Doesn’t this kind of activity promote anti-American sentiment in the entire Arab world?”
“Where else is this happening?”
But my question is all about life and death. Who died for this? Who no longer exists? Who has one fewer parent, or one fewer child, because someone gave the order to spread Christianity to the Moslems? Who got shot defending the activity? Who died because our soldiers were handing our bibles instead of defending other soldiers? We need numbers, and we need names.
And we need you to demand them. Please take a moment to write your congressman, senator, and local paper demanding to who how many people have died or been injured handing out bibles to locals in Moslem countries. Their deaths were completely meaningless and will remain meaningless unless they can be used to prevent future deaths by stopping this illegal and insane exercise.
thinking about how religion has gummed up the globe makes me wanna barf…..
and leave the unborn and dead alone religion….
what,pinkocommie
under reagan we signed the treaty against torture so where were your democrats when bush admin lawyers signed off on enhanced measures.
questions 1 are terrorists covered by the treaty
2 are these enhanced measures in violation of the treaty
lincoln suspended habeus corpus,fdr put japanese/americans in camps.obama will be no diff.
“lincoln suspended habeus corpus,fdr put japanese/americans in camps.obama will be no diff.”
Bush was big on following rules and obeying the constitution as well, not to mention then UN.
I don’t really understand your point.
My point is that terrorism is an extremely broad term which can be applied to nearly any government or group when you consider certain opposing positions. For example, we consider radical muslims to be terrorists while they equally consider us to be terrorists. Logically, when you look at what terrorism is defined as, both sides are completely correct in labeling the other as a terrorist group.
So in regard to torture, do I think we should be able to torture and generally treat the group we consider terrorists as if they have no human rights? Absolutely not, because I don’t want my brothers and sisters and other fellow americans to be tortured and treated inhumanely by them. When one side sanctions torture, it sanctions it not only for the opposing or “terrorist” group, but also for it’s own people. I personally think torture is wrong regardless, but to accept torture as a viable option with the knowledge that in doing so your own people will suffer – that is monstrous. And that’s not even going into the fact that torture is a failed means of collecting data from an enemy:
http://tinyurl.com/2nfg4h
http://tinyurl.com/rczzcd
http://tinyurl.com/qzxun3
As for the treaty against torture, article II of that convention states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
In response to question 1: In my interpretation, no circumstances whatsoever would mean that yes, terrorists are covered.
In response to question 2: It’s funny that you specifically choose the words “enhanced measures” in your second question because that’s a nicer way to say torture. So is torture in violation of the treaty against torture? Why yes, yes it is.
Pinko
Well put.
————————————————————–
Reason
You haphazardly apply the definition of “terrorist”, assume that BushCo has magical powers to determine who is a “terrorist”, and then assume that torturing these “terrorists” is going to do more good than harm.
The US is a terrorist nation and if you do not step up and call for a real and thorough investigation and prosecution of the BushCo war crime family you will be inviting the revenge of the world upon us.
I meant that without the unknowable element we would not strive for something greater, I never meant that a christian only chooses their faith based only on gaining excitement in life. That unknowable element should be striven for by multiple angles not just one (science).
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
Einstein (one of the greatest scientific minds in history)
Funny I don’t remember saying I’m religious yet people keep throwing me into that corner.
As much as religion has gummed up the world which I also believe, science has done the same. There have been many times that scientist have been so focused on solving a problem that they forget what it may ultimately be used for (i.e Atomic bomb). The crusades killed many in the name of religion yet so has science. That is why I would not claim to be Atheist nor Religious I merely try and do my best to understand and not think in one extreme or another. Keep your mind open and invite thoughts you may not other wise believe, don’t let the hard and painful things in life close your mind and soul to new possibilities.
And my point is that the unknowable element still exists outside of the supernatural or superstitious. It’s a fallacy of the common man to assume that because science can explain something that science as we know it has the ability to explain everything. I feel it is just as ridiculous to state that without an “unknowable element” which is, by your inference, rooted in faith and religion, people would stop striving for something better.
Science is a tool of humanity in the same way that religion is a tool of humanity and so, both institutions are inherently flawed because humans are not perfect. The difference, as I stated previously, is that while religion is established and very little changes within the foundations of religion, science is by it’s own definition ever evolving and self correcting and open to being wrong. I’m talking the institution of science, not the scientists themselves.
Keep your mind open and invite thoughts you may not other wise believe, don’t let the hard and painful things in life close your mind and soul to new possibilities.
This is good advice, but the way you are trying to warp it in order to make yourself feel better on an interwebz blog is a pretty big slap in the face to it’s Zen Buddhist foundations.
Gene
Einstein was an atheist or at least a nonbeliever. His words have been systematically distorted by theists everywhere.
What method does religion use in it’s quest for knowledge? How does one know when religion has produced new knowledge?
Science has provided great power which has been misused. More often than not by religiously addled minds.
Thumbscrews? The rack?
ACK! Trick question!
Gene
Useful knowledge isn’t something that lies in the middle of some human defined “extremes”. The history of our growing knowledge is one that redefines the extremes. Knowledge of our universe isn’t achieved through polling.
Gene said:
“As much as religion has gummed up the world which I also believe, science has done the same. There have been many times that scientist have been so focused on solving a problem that they forget what it may ultimately be used for (i.e Atomic bomb). The crusades killed many in the name of religion yet so has science. That is why I would not claim to be Atheist nor Religious I merely try and do my best to understand and not think in one extreme or another. Keep your mind open and invite thoughts you may not other wise believe, don’t let the hard and painful things in life close your mind and soul to new possibilities.”
Response: As your fellow red headed step child welcome to hell. And while I’m not much into the spiritual shit, I believe merit exists in your argument about unbridled science. When they realize they can, they never ask should we? As you pointed out, most often, like rocket science, and nuclear science, they were driven by a desire for the better way to kill each other. But, I get the feeling that you think that pain is watching your father die in a hospital bed. No!!! Pain is watching your entire family and community disappear in Darfur. That is pain.
NeoWolfe
Neoplasm
Belittling the pain of others. Charming.
Actually I was pointing out how petty our idea of pain is. And how real and horrific the pain the rest of the world is feeling. Belittling? No just a call to reality of what hell really is.
NeoWolfe
The pain of watching one’s father die is petty to you?
Unless its jewish suffering in which case it counts.
One thousand fold.
Gene said:
Not all atheists are scientists. Atheists trust science to provide answers to many of the worlds mysteries. Atheism does not encourage scientists to convert discoveries into weapons systems. For the most part it is the faithful who encourage new and better weapons for their holy wars, like the one in Iraq.
I am an atheist. Once again, I feel, atheists have been maligned.
Krys:
I plainly demonstrate your moral relativism by pointing out how you want abortion both ways and the best reply you can come up with is, “You’re still wrong.” Wow. Just as I predicted—now that you’ve been backed into the corner, you deny the corner exists.
It’s déjà vu all over again—this is like trying to convince karen that commitment can’t be test driven…
Yes, I did—and you’re squirming.
Iraq? IRAQ caused Janet el Reno to threaten lenders with fines for not making bad loans as early as ’94?—nine years before Bush invaded Iraq? And Iraq caused the malfeasance and outright fraud by the leftist administrators of FannieMae and FreddieMac as well as Hillary’s enlistment of ACORN to harass lenders a decade before Bush invaded Iraq? You’re obviously clueless about what’s really happened in this country for the past 20 years. Will you ever get your head out of the sand and attempt to investigate the truth about the role liberals have played in all this?
A MISTAKE???? Clinton was getting Lewinskys by mistake??? My God! I am trying to reason with a lunatic.
But that’s what you clearly implied with:
Ok, so what did cause that recession?
Yeah, that’s a funny coincidence—they usually start doing that right after they (like you have here) are no longer able to intellectually defend their position.
Oh YEAH! That’s right—I’m the imbecile here who’s come back with the brilliant, succinct, and fully substantiated replies like: “you’re still wrong,” and “Iraq.” That’s it, keep denying that corner exists, ol’ boy.
No. I won’t! I’ll keep pointing it out for as long as you continue to demonstrate it.
Hey, I ain’t the one here who’s flailing about like Nancy Pelosi was last week after she was backed into a corner.
Is, or was? Yeah, I wouldn’t give a nickel for it now, but back in ’94 they at least stood on their principles and didn’t back down to that lying, philandering, hick from Arkansas and his megalomaniacal wife.
You said it. You’ve once again demonstrated your inability to back-up what you claim and instead resort to schoolyard sneering.
No, I’m not.
Yeah, I do. I’m not the one who clearly can’t defend his claims here.
Again, you drag me into the middle of this, jcc. What is it you want? Do you need more attention?
Ambivalence on 1 subject is not ambivalence in all subjects. ‘Rare but legal.’
Except I’ve got stats, & you’ve got nothing but bald assertions.
Keep flattering yourself – no one else will.
Dude, look @ the money we’re hemorrhaging over there. If you can’t see that, then you’re blind.
Odd, again, not what I said, not my opinion. He obviously made a personal mistake. It didn’t effect the country, & I’d like a refund on the money pissed away on that nonsense.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Bush administration, Mr. Ostrich.
Self flattery will get you…some serious therapy.
Blah, blah, blah. Yawn.
(Chuckle) yet another psuedointelectual rant. JaCCoff can’t explain the flood, creation, or justify the genocide in Caanon. He can’t defend his faith at all, yet he wants to have political and philosophical discussion as though he was credible. LOL. He can’t and won’t even try to defend the murdering monster he worships. I find myself wondering why we encourage this “golem”?
NeoWolfe
JCC
Moral relativism? What is that? What’s wrong with it?
I challenge you to offer a definition of the term “moral relativist” that would not apply to you.
I’m surprised ya’ll still read his posts. I’m all for debate but I do have certain prerequisites – such as intelligence, honesty, and direction of thought. JCC seems to enjoy simply picking posts apart without any actual point to be made. Or maybe there is a point hidden beneath all that self-righteousness and pseudo-religious rhetoric but as I have no vested interest in digging around for it, i simply scroll on past.
After looking into the matter I must conclude that there is no such thing as a moral relativist. Depending on the conditions and knowledge of the individual and many more factors, everyone is one way or another is a moral abolutist.
Crap. Helped JCC hijack a thread.
Sorry folks.
the event that religion doesn’t get is that they stomp on human dignity while clumsily defending thier claim that thier supernatural friend gave them the moral code book….you know the book that gave us the miracle of sexism and bigotry….
today our morality is defined in our courts….and in our courts there is a court recorder….so….as of today….the best god can do is George Burns and Morgan Freeman….
so help me god…I mean no body
Curious I can see everyone speaking of the strong arm of religion and how it is slow to evolve. Also how the idea of faith or spirit is the reason for war.
“For the most part it is the faithful who encourage new and better weapons for their holy wars, like the one in Iraq.”
Of what faith do you speak, or are you just generalizing all of those that may believe in the idea of faith or something that may exist greater than ourselves?
I can’t stand the word “Religion” and I use the words “something greater than ourselves” cause I would never be arrogant enough to think that I have it all figured out.
My issue with faith only arises when someone who dictates their life by faith tries to impose that faith on me, claiming i am somehow “missing something” when I decline to share in it. I know what I feel, and whatever that feeling is that people of faith talk about, I don’t share it. Personally, I agree with how faith is laid out here:
http://tinyurl.com/p2wgxp
Both the idea of science and the idea of religion for lack of a better word have been around so long that it seems that they are both a part of the human condition.
If Religion is so broken so horrible for the world then maybe it is what need the most attention to improve on it to make it better.
Again I am not religious I only ask the question to better understand. Should we just completely abolish the ideas behind faith and spirit to be replaced by the almighty science. If there can be something positive to be gain in any way from it is it not something that can add to the enrichment of our lives?
If Religion is so broken so horrible for the world then maybe it is what need the most attention to improve on it to make it better.
Again I am not religious I only ask the question to better understand. Should we just completely abolish the ideas behind faith and spirit to be replaced by the almighty science.
I have met plenty of people who are governed by a sort of inner faith and I’m totally respectful of that. It’s when that faith, which is supposed to be entirely personal, is turned into a powerful institution with political ties that exists outside of taxation and often times outside of criticism that makes me angry. The fact is that the idels of faith and spirit in no way need religion in order to exist. Christianity in particular is broken because it’s inherently broken. There’s no way to fix it as it is a bastardization of the very teachings of the christian god on which it’s supposed to be founded.
It’s not those who are spiritual or “religious” in the sense that exists outside of organized religion that pose a threat to society, as everyone should be allowed to peacefully worship or not worship as they see fit. However, it can’t be said of ANY organized religious group that in no way has said group attempted to use their position in their communities to impose their beliefs on non-believers, and to me that is an infringement on people’s basic human rights. If religions were simply peaceful institutions of worship for those who chose to worship there and nothing more, then I highly doubt anyone would take issue. The problem is, religion as it exists today was created to subdue the masses and keep the working class from thinking too much outside the governing power’s influence. That is — religion as an organized being, not religion as a personal belief and choice.
There’s no fix for that in my way of thinking beyond tearing down the foundations of that that deceitful institution so that those who choose to be religious can contemplate their own beliefs without being told by their preacher-god, pope-god, or what have you what exactly it is they should think and feel. I don’t see many examples of freedom of thought within the confines of religion institutions and I find that alarming, as should every free human being, regardless of their personal beliefs.
well Gene….I think a point you miss is that your higher power theory can only be supported by lets say ligament religious institutions….you know…the ones that automatically qualify for tax breaks bennies….I dont think you came up with the higher power theory on your own did you?…..
think of how this idea of a higher being evolved….from dancing around a fire frightened by its own shadow…..to a deviant seize of an opportunity gained from a knowledgeable tidbit…..
people claiming that they have the inherent word of a supernatural friend is so out of date these days…..
off topic
oklahoma gov to sign into law putting ten commandment monument at state capital.
What super natural friend to you refer too?
When we create a definition for a word (GOD,Atheist,Christian) aren’t we in some small way, especially if it represent a collected groups thoughts creating an institution of sorts. Isn’t the very fact that this site exist to inform, educate and allow for free discussion, trying to promote an idea. Although I agree that some but not all faith based institutions have tried hard to force feed their ideals on the masses (i.e Catholicism). Guess it how you promote that idea right, if in a positive no confrontational way it’s OK. Although as I said before some kind of conflict is healthy we need to be challenged.
I often wonder what will I think of faith and science when I am on my death bed, what will we all. Will some pre-programed idea placed by society kick in and make me think that I believe in GOD, will it be purely based on fear that there will be nothing or will i just say this is the way of things and all I am is just a mechanism of nature.
Maybe the will be some kind of evolution of ideas between science and faith (please not the church of Scientology lol), that may bring about a more harmonious hybridization of faith and science. Whether your faith lies in science or in God, maybe both, whats important is that we believe in something even when we know that we will never have all the answers and no one idea/institution will fix that.
“It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Great example of man that shared both his ideas on faith and the world in what I belive to be a positive way and with that bested what was then a powerful entity (Britain).
“well Gene….I think a point you miss is that your higher power theory can only be supported by lets say ligament religious institutions….you know…the ones that automatically qualify for tax breaks bennies….I don’t think you came up with the higher power theory on your own did you?…..”
Guess first that would depend on if you believe in nature or nurture. Second by the very nature of that question I might ask you the same of your ideas. Personally I believe both are necessary for the development of sentient beings. If you believe in one you are merely a puppet of your environment if you believe in the other you are no different than the very institutions you proclaim to be faulty.
By the way great discussion, love a healthy debate, if anything I am glad to see we all have passion.
Gene
During the couple of years that I have been posting on this blog I have never read posts like yours. You write a lot yet say almost nothing. What does this phrase – which is prototypical of your posts – mean:
Does that phrase actually mean something to you? Believe. Idea. Faith. Could you possibly string together a few more nebulous words for us? Oh yes here we are:
Like the rest of the freaking universe? That’s not great enough for you?
War Room is No Place for Bible Study
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/05/25/war_room_is_no_place_for_bible_study/
Krys:
Yeah, and one can be a “little bit” pregnant, too. Well, at least you’ve tacitly admitted to it.
And you still just don’t get it. Abstinence works every time it’s tried.
Which is nothing compared to Uh-bama’s astronomical $1.8 TRILLION deficit—but I digress, the sub-prime mess was years in the making and had far broader implications than a local war in Iraq. When Soros brought down the credit market, he brought down the whole government-backed house of cards that the Dems had been building and defending for years—and that collapse pulled most of Wall Street with it. IRAQ had absolutely nothing to do with this mess that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd helped architect and defend, dude.
Huh? “It was a personal mistake” is exactly what you said—and how can that be anything but your opinion?
This is surreal. How can engaging in consensual, adulterous sex be a “mistake?” He knew exactly what he was doing every instant. Oh, but I’m supposed to forgive—nay—expect such peccadilloes from such a brilliant and nuanced politician.
Getting to be one of the only two presidents ever impeached “didn’t affect the country?” You really are out in the ozone.
Oh that’s great, I ask for specifics and that’s all you can come up with? But why am I surprised—it’s just like asking for a specific example of PE.
Uh, Newt?—you know “Contract With America?” Clinton tried to kill it several times.
And exactly what did Clinton have to do with that?—absolutely nothing—he was riding Reagan’s wave of tax-cuts.
I’m both pro-choice AND pro-life. Like any sane person would be.
(He said, taking another hit off the glass pipe)
A deficit inherited.
Oh, that’s right, human beings never make personal mistakes. My bad.
Again, putting words into my mouth. He made a ‘human’ mistake. That better? Oh but wait – do you consider him to be human? I know you don’t think atheists are.
It certainly wasn’t important, until your side made a huge hullaballoo over it.
It’s a simple answer for someone who loves to muddy the waters.
Mr Newt I-Want-To-Divorce-My-Wife-Who’s-Dying-Of-Cancer? I don’t believe that for 2 seconds. He’s a waste of life.
So if I understand this right – Obama’s inherited deficit is HIS FAULT, but anything a Democrat does right can only be attributed to a Republican? Lay off the scotch, dude.
Your obsession w/false dichotomies has rotted your gray matter.
That’s a contradiction in terms.
No. Any sane person would realize that understanding and accepting the arguments against abortion exclusively preclude the accepting of the arguments for it. You’re clearly morally conflicted on the subject—therefore, a moral relativist.
No. A deficit exploded like no other before.
Didn’t say that. Making a mistake (as in an error in judgment when deciding a course of action) is completely different from knowing ahead of time that choosing to engage in adulterous activities is wrong because of the harmful affects it will have on one’s spouse.
No, because he didn’t make a mistake, “human” or otherwise. He deliberately chose to disregard his commitment to his wife. Lewinsky didn’t hold a gun to his head.
A president lying under oath isn’t important to his credibility as a leader??? Oh dear, more moral relativism…
And thank God somebody did!—we certainly can’t count on you libs to uphold the law, especially in circumstances like that and when it’s one of their own caught (literally) with his pants down. But besides that, are you seriously suggesting that the libs wouldn’t have gone apoplectic and tried to publicly hang Bush if he’d done something like that???
No, it’s a cop-out from someone who can’t substantiate his clichéd claims.
Yep, that’s the one… and ain’t it interesting that character issues in his personal life suddenly matter to you when it comes to your perception of his ability to govern, but I’m just “obsessing” over the insignificant and meaningless influences of Ayers, Wright and Alinsky on Uh-bama…
Really? You’re now saying it was Clinton who championed Welfare Reform? You’re pathological.
Wow, what a paragon of compassion and tolerance you are.
No. It’s one thing to inherit a deficit and try to mitigate it—it’s quite another to exacerbate the situation by deliberating trying to nationalize as much of the private sector as you can in an attempt at a megalomaniacal power grab.
It ain’t the quality of my gray matter that’s on display here. Keep talking—at this rate, it won’t be long before you’ve exposed the full extent of your willful incomprehension and distortion of history.
You know, Whutthole, I find myself taxed by your stupidity. You find Gene’s theory to be a prototype of what again? I found your post to be a prototype of another blizzard of bullshit. You want to be the Ku Klux Klan leader to paradise, unfortunately everyone sees you for what you are, and it doesn’t matter how long you contribute here, you are still a fucking amoeba. Try to learn to live with it.
NeoWolfe
… believe in the idea of faith …
Centers around the idea that not everything can inevitably be proven by science alone. To think this is as one sided as the belief that through Jesus alone you will be saved. Science’s focus on quantitative measures may lead one to believe that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.
Do you think you have love figured out? Is there a quantitative answers for it?
Do you believe there are other sentient beings that exist in the universe, that we are not the only ones? If so do you have any 100% proof of that?
“During the couple of years that I have been posting on this blog I have never read posts like yours. You write a lot yet say almost nothing.”
It’s right in front of you it’s a shame you just don’t see it.
Curious, have you always believed in atheism or did something in your life enlightened you to do so?
You assume to much of me through your questions.
Neoplasm
You are irrelevant.
Gene
That sentence does not make sense. What does it mean to “prove” “everything”? Science is in the business of observation, description and prediction. It is that simple and equally challenging.
Once again, your sentence makes no sense. What is the question? “Quantitative answers” for what? Love? Is love a hypothesis? If you have a hypothesis in mind then state it a bit – a lot – more clearly.
Let me make this simple for you. I don’t believe. Period.
Atheism is not a belief. I use the term atheist to describe myself to some simply because it is the only term with which believers are acquainted that can quickly convey what I think about their ridiculous questions. To be very clear the foundational question of theism “Do gods exists?” is nonsensical and I don’t spend time pondering the nonsensical. However, I do spend time wondering what would compel others to do so.
Only that you use nebulous language in a vain attempt to obfuscate ill-posed questions.
Nice tap dance whutthole, you said:
“That sentence does not make sense. What does it mean to “prove” “everything”? Science is in the business of observation, description and prediction. It is that simple and equally challenging.”
Response: Wow, I guess the way to dodge a question is to say you didn’t ask it right. Well, the question made perfect sense to me, and since it was asked in a sincere manner, I think the logical response would be,”Science is a work in progress, and how much we eventually understand about the universe depends on whether or not the process is derailed by planetary disaster or extinction.” Doesn’t that work better that a cloud of psuedointellectual bullshit.
I particularly enjoyed this one:
“Atheism is not a belief. I use the term atheist to describe myself to some simply because it is the only term with which believers are acquainted that can quickly convey what I think about their ridiculous questions. To be very clear the foundational question of theism “Do gods exists?” is nonsensical”
Response: Atheism is not a BELIEF, yet you BELIEVE the question of theism is nonsensical. What a putz. While I do not find fault with your BELIEF, since it’s conclusions are based on hunches and intuition and assumption, with no concrete proof, it’s more than a BELIEF, it’s a religion. Whutthole, the neo-fundie.
Finally, if you want to dodge another question about “love” as though it weren’t asked properly for your analytical amoeba nerve blob, all the answers can be found in chemical responses in the brain to hormones. The cogs and gears of the survival mechanisms of nature.
Bigots are irrelevant,
NeoWolfe
Neoplasm
You obviously think that Gene’s questions are well-posed. So please tell us what they mean. Dolt.
JCC – I really have come to write off anything you say as white noise (& republican spin), so I’ll say this for the final time: I’m not a moral relativist.
Anything else you say, I could care less.
You can believe what you want to believe – you will anyways.
What is a moral relativist and what is so bad about them?
Have you looked up the definition?
Whutthole,
It’s like this, god sends moses down Mt. Sinai with a stone tablet carved with his holy comandments, number one being: You shall not kill.
Then, when Moses realizes that in his absence, the Isrealites have built a golden calf to worship, god opens up the ground and murders twenty thousand of his chosen people. That is moral relativism. It’s like “dark energy”, a floating variable that makes every equation correct.
NeoWolfe
Fortunately this appears to be more of an isolated incident than al Jazeera made it out to be, though I’m sure there may be other yahoos trying to pull the same nonsense. Factcheck.org has some of the info on this particular story: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_the_obama_administration_burn_soldiers_bibles.html
Being an atheist in the military puts me in an uncomftorable position at times. Not believing in God, and more specifically a Christian God, has negative expectation on your military career. I could quote things people say on a daily basis, eithor individually or in a group setting.
I have no problem with a person saying, “Thank God.”, or praying before they eat. But hearing someone called a “crazy Muslim” because this person follows their faith to the same extents that our Christian politicians do is not offensive to me, just ignorant.
I have a problem with thank god NewIDRedSox …..religion needs to keep its unverifiable claims to itself….and I feel for ya…Im a retired Army SFC