Non Dutch youth now form majority among their age group in Amsterdam

Wake up western Europe. You will be swollowed by those fucking terrorist. That's what they are-terrorists. That god awful religion that they have and spew that garbage about allah and their f-god.

"You will be swollowed by those fucking terrorist." (Lola)

Is this supposed to be an insult or a death threat against the 700+ million Europeans? do you hate Europeans?

Storm Rider, the more preposterous is the one that leads to questions such as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Well, what's the point; I also believe that is preposterous. Not all religious people are good or rational, nor all atheists.

Oops! Careless wording, sorry, Storm Rider. I meant to say people can believe whatever makes them happy as long as their beliefs are not thrust down others' throats and do not harm others in any way.

Beejj,
Yes, it's fun corresponding with you too. I sense that you are a good atheist.

Dear storm rider,
Thanks for your intelligent posts which I think both Beej and I agree with.
I also loathe Marxism(with a passion)believing it to be a demonstrably bankrupt
ideology as evidenced by recent history.
I have no problem with either Theists or Deists as long as they do not threaten
my freedom or seek to corrupt young minds with specious nonsense.
(eg the IDiots and creationists who wish t
hat their quaint beliefs be introduced into the science class rooms of public schools in theUSA).This I'm sure is an example of what Beej is referring to when he says
that he abhors religion being thrust down an individuals throat.(and what Thomas Jefferson was thinking about when formulating the the USA constitution)
A visit to LGF will assure you that this is an ongoing problem in the US).
I am against all forms of sectarianism insofar as it engenders irrational tribalism
in the young and creates jaundiced ideologies in the intellectually challenged.
(Northern Ireland being a good example of this form of social stupidity).
But I absolutely support an individuals unalienable right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by"the infinite value of human life"
If you mean pacifism then No!(whilst theoretically moral it's practically stupid.)

Correction and expansion:

I draw a distinction between one nation under God and theocracy - which means one nation under church (or synagogue - or mosque). I am against theocracy, but also against atheocracy - which is institutionalized atheist, i.e. Marxist-Communist, ideology.

It seems to me that what our founding fathers created is something in between theocracy and atheocracy. They created one nation under God but not one nation under church. Our founding fathers included only those few Judeo-Christian laws (Declaration of Independence) which are essential for just government and for a just society, but not the myriad other Biblical laws. I consider these Judeo-Christian Declarational laws part of Western Civilization as much as our secular and scientific heritage. That secular heritage is also included in the Declaration, and you won't find any Christians or Jews objecting to it.

1. All men (people) are created equal = Judeo-Christian religious law based on the understanding that the Biblical God is above all people, and all people are equalized by the Great Equalizer. This is equality under just law, not government-forced (Marxist) economic equality.

2. All people have a God-given right to their life: "You shall not murder."

3. All people have a God-given right to liberty, such as freedom to speak their minds. The Exodus story is a freedom story, and the Liberty Bell says: "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof" from the Book of Leviticus. The New Testament states: "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty"

4. All people have a God-given right to the pursuit of happiness. As John Locke and our founders recognized, the pursuit of happiness in part boils down to the individual's right to his/her property creatively attained as fruit of individual labor. “You shall not steal.” “You shall not covet… anything that is your neighbor’s.”

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams

5. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." This is the secular Declarational Law.

If American atheists can accept the first four laws as irreversible (even if not sacred, and only considered irreversibly rational), and consider the fifth law as irreversible as well; then I can envision an end of the American culture war.

I'm not an American but "the constitution" is to my mind one of the finest documents of history.
If our muslim chums embraced these golden principles(fat chance)
Then we would live in a better world.
Islamic ideology rejects any principles which endorse freedom of the individual(no Jeffersons ,Adams,Lockes,Paines,etc in their lot).
Like Marxism and other 'isms Islam believes that human kind should
totally conform to a doctrine so ridiculous that to my mind they become
indistinguishable from the certifiably insane.
Ever felt that you are a victim of a bad influence Shukri?

I have several atheist friends, and they appear to live good lives; I presume you can say the same about many of your religious friends. Just as you would have a problem with State Christianity, State Judaism, or State Islam, I similarly object to State Atheism - which is Marxism - or Communism.
The United States is exceptional in that our Declaration says that individual human rights are sacred - they are the irreversible gift of God rather than the reversible privileges granted by government. The Constitution also recognizes the pre-existing nature of our human rights by restraining government from trampling on them - rather than granting them - a feature not found in any other Constitution on Earth to my knowledge. How does an atheist respond to this aspect of America?

I draw a distinction between one nation under God and theocracy - which means one nation under church (or synagogue - or mosque - or institutionalized atheist, i.e. Marxist, ideology).

I am not a pacifist - my father fought in hand-to-hand combat at the Battle of Saipan in 1944, and he personally killed several enemy soldiers (who were trying to kill him). I’m very proud of my courageous father (God rest his brave soul). But the value of human life is infinite in my mind nevertheless. If not infinite, then human life is measurable - measurable in economic terms according to Marx.

One thing atheists seem slow to accept is the reality that radical atheism (Marxism) resulted in an exponentially greater amount of state-sponsored human suffering and murder (over 100,000,000) during the twentieth century than that of radical Christians throughout the entire history of Christianity. R.J. Rummel credibly estimates other death counts throughout history, and he pulls no punches or otherwise minimizes the death counts from Christian and Western movements.

• African slave trade with New World - up to 2 million.
• Christian Crusades - 1 million.
• Spanish Inquisition - 350,000.
• North American Indians - up to 25,000.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

http://theblackbook.wordpress.com/2006/11/22/ex...

As far as you and I are concerned; it seems the more we disagree on faith in the super-natural world, the more we agree on the realities of life on planet earth; we agree to live and let live. As an atheist do you believe in the infinite value of human life? Do you as an atheist believe in the individual's unalienable right to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness?

Thank God all atheists are not Stalins and Maos. One Stalin goes a long way in the killing game.

I'm not sure what infinite value means, but yes is my answer to your final question provided that individual is not a naughty boy - like Stalin and a few Muslims who spring to mind.

You're a funny guy!

Thank God all Christians are not like some of the old medieval bishops and popes, and Cathars.

Stalin and Hitler did not purse a creative pursuit of happiness, but a destructive pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence says we have an individual natural and sacred right to the former, but not the latter.

Storm Rider, people can believe whatever makes them happy. Modern-day Jews and Christians are vastly different in their behaviour from that which was the case a long time ago. (Why? Because of science!!) Good luck to them. May they prosper. They will never convert me to their beliefs, but who cares? As for the other crowd - the johnny-come-lately Muslims - my feelings are different. Jews and Christians pose no threat to me: they accept my atheism; they allowed me to keep my children free of their influence; but the other lot chill my blood not only for the danger they pose to me and other non-Muslims, but for the hellish things they do to their own. Science flourishes in Christian lands, as it does in Jewish communities. Indeed, I have never met a Christian or Jew who seeks battle with science, other than those weirdo Creationists and Intelligent Design wallahs, but they are nothing more than figures of fun. Islam, however, values stagnation of the human mind above anything else, and I seethe with rage when I think of their mentally imprisoned children, eyes forever tightly shut against concepts and modes of behaviour the rest of us take for granted. What a tragic waste! How many brilliant minds have thus slipped through the net? If you have the time, click on the You Tube links Necrowulf provided yesterday and this morning. They are so revealing of the damage Islam does.

It's fun corresponding with you.

Storm Rider, Einstein was an atheist, pure and simple. The words you quote are beyond reproach, but in no way suggest he had any belief in God.

Dear Beej,he was a JEW.Believing or not in God,didn't make him LESS Jew than I am,
as was Karl Marx,Trosky and other Jews.If someone mother is Jewish,Jewish he'll be.

Adolf Hitler would send Einstein to Treblinka,Mathausen or Auschwitz if he could,for
to stay alive in Nazi Germany one should have to PROVE that no "jewish blood" was
in his family veins back to 1750...

Jewishness isn't only about religion,but ethnicity as well.

Yes, he was indeed a Jew - so many of the great scientists (and pianists and violinists and chess players) of the 20th Century were/are Jews. But he was not a religious Jew.

He wasn't religious and so do I.Nevertheless one of the possible reasons
of his non-religious stance could be explained by the sheer and open
hostility of non-Jewish German population toward us,Jews.

Composer Felix Mendelssohn converted into Protestant Christianism
as Karl Landsteiner (who discovered the blood types that made blood
transfusions safer),who even cursed his condition of Jew...German
universities didn't like to see many Jews enrolled as its students,therefore
Jews were obliged to convert into Christianism.

It's sad,but true.On the other hand,as I said earlier, the Third Reich wouldn't
recognize such "conversions",thus both Mendelssohn,Landsteiner among
scores of other "V.I.P's" of the German Jewry would be killed if they lived through
the 1930's and 1940's in Nazi-Occupied Europe.

Yes, Jewhawk, I am pretty well fully conversant with the lot that befell Jews in Europe. I disagree, though, with your seeming assertion that Einstein's rejection of religion had anything to do with fear of the Nazis. After all, it mattered not to the Nazis if a Jew was religious or otherwise. Furthermore, Einstein was about 50 when Hitler came to power in 1933. Einstein was a man of courage, and nothing would have swayed him from Judaism had he belonged to the faith.

As a matter of interest, do you know anything about Lise Meitner, the brilliant Jewish woman who worked (under the shoddiest conditions) with Hahn and Strassman and interpreted the results of their famous experiment? An astonishing woman, she fled Germany, taking with her the theoretical guts of what would become the atom bomb. God works in mysterious ways!!

Beej,
I don't believe Einstein was an atheist because he refered to God in a way which recognizes the existence of God. I believe Einstein was a Deist, not believing in "a personal G-d interfering with natural events."

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." Albert Einstein

"God is subtle but he is not malicious." Albert Einstein

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQ...

Believe what you will. He had a tendency to couch his ideas in such ways. He was an atheist, though.

Storm Rider, I am unable to reply to your message in the usual way because there is no "Reply" facility at the end of your message. Instead, it says "More". Perhaps I am too stupid for all this fancy technology.

I do not define faith as you do. Faith is unshakable belief in someone or something.

In another message you wrote (to Hellosnackbar, I think) you referred to God-hating atheists. That's an impossibility; a contradiction in terms.

Well, George Orwell didn't believe that this is an impossible idea or a contradiction in terms. Hatred of God may be irrational, but that doesn't mean it is an impossibility. Marxist ideology in my view is based on irrationality in all of its core beliefs.

“He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him....Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell

An atheist CANNOT hate God.

"All those who hate Me love death." Proverbs

Karl Marx was a God-hater, and he hated religion as well as the ordinary religious individual. I suppose, by your understanding of the term atheist; Karl Marx wasn't an atheist, but rather a believer and death-loving enemy of God.

“I long to take vengeance on the One Who rules from above.” Karl Marx

"And still, you personified mankind, I may take you by the power of my mighty hands and crush with fierce force. In the meantime, as the abyss gapes before me and you in the darkness, You will fall in it and I’ll follow you, Laughing and whispering into your ear: “Come down with me, friend!” Karl Marx

http://www.forerunner.com/predvestnik/X0013_Kar...

Bully for Marx, but if he hated God he believed in him.

To Hell with Marx; his God-hating, death-loving philosophy led to the state-sponsored murder of over one hundred million innocent civilians during the twentieth century. Marxism, through its hatred of the ordinary individual and forced submission to the all-powerful Godless State, is similar to Islam with its hatred of the ordinary individual and forced submission to the all-powerful Islamist State. Both the Marxist and the Islamist wish to suppress the God-given natural rights of the individual - to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness. Both the Marxist and the Islamist wish to play God with the lives of ordinary people.

“The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.” Saul Alinsky

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualPr...

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things....The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Karl Marx

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/mani...

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State….Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.” Syed Abul A’la Mawdudi

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable....

I base my definition of faith on the greatest of enlightenment philosophers, the man whose ideas on human equality and just government power were a basis for that of our founding fathers and the American Revolution its self.

“Where revelation comes into its own is where reason cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith…that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being Beyond the Discovery of Reason, are purely matters of Faith; with which Reason has nothing to do.“ John Locke

“…by His order and about His business, they are His property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's…. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions…“ John Locke

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

Most of us that come to this site are infidels. A few that come here defend Islam, some of those seem to be infidels too. Whether you believe Islam is a religion or not, it is Islam that has drawn the lines because Islam defines anyone that does not belong to it as an infidel. As a result, there are barriers erected by Islam to keep infidels from interacting with it's followers to certain extants, politically as well as within their relgious functions.
Even within Islam there are barriers erected, between male and female for instance, with seperate entrances and areas of worship. Wherever it goes Islam erects these barriers and tries to impose it's "culture", creating unease, anxiety, distrust, and conflict in countries that welcome immigrants as people trying to improve their lives by embracing the laws and customs of their hosts. Most of us come to this site to read about the incidents that confirm the negative actions of Islam, and to discuss ways to counteract these problems. What I see is that the actions of Muslims speak louder than words, that their atrocities far outweigh those of the infidlels.

The root of the problem, as I see it, is the existance of Islam. But, you can not seperate the existance of Islam from the existance of the other two related religions, the Jewish and the Christian. When you question the existance of these religions, you have to question the existance of all religion. For this site, I'll concentrate on the basics of the 3 in conflict at present. All claim their roots can be traced to the same book, the Bible. The books of the Bible have been written in different languages, translated in different ways at different times, and books have been included or left out at the whims of men. There are contradictions in the book itself, and evidence it is based on earlier texts that have been condensed and edited. The origins of the Koran, even more so, are open to question. To start with, it was written down on palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels. There's no way, when it was put together, to know what might have been lost or mistakenly included, what was actually dictated and what was fiction. And then, all religious texts are open to interpretation and dispute, as can be seen by the exsistance of sects in all 3 religions.

All 3 religions claim interaction with their "god". Abraham spoke to God before Sodom and Gomorah. Jesus, Son of God, walked among the multitudes, Allah sent Gabriel to dictate the Koran to Mohammed. But the leaders of these religons today are men, clergy, who claim to speak for God. But NONE of them can prove they actually do speak TO "God". They ask their followers to accept that they do on faith. So when they speak, their followers all too often follow blindly whatever they say, all too often with deadly consequences these days. Many ask today, why "god" does not appear and speak for himself. Many believe "he" will return someday. Until "he" does, why do their followers make life and death decisions based on what human religious leaders say? When we see so much deceit from leaders in all areas of all socities, why do we trust relgious leaders just because they say they are speaking for God? Particularly in areas that involve war and violence, should we trust anyone that tells us to kill in the name of God?

I don't advocate destroying these religions, or any religion. Most religions do many good things, with the exception of Islam, imo, the harm it does far outweighs the good, and it's on a course to do much worse.
I do advocate that all religions stay out of politics, altho I know how impossible that probably is. What's the alternative? That these religious problems will resolve themselves at a very dear cost to all of humanity.

They ought to have Richard Dawkins video conferencing in all the mosques and Madrassas.

Do you think Muslims support Creationism? I've never seen any indication that they do, but then no one can read everything or watch every video, not me anyway. What do you think of the idea that a Supreme Being may use Evolution to create life forms? A kind of combination of Intelligent Design and Evolution? By the way, I think you can have Intelligent Design through a Supreme Being without being religious.

Sir Wilhelm, please don't think I am trying to be offensive or insulting in any way when I recommend that you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If you have not already done so, you will enjoy it. I've read it 3 times! A friend of mine, a committed christian, reckons Dawkins is "off his trolley", although he has failed to argue cogently against anything Dawkins has written in the book.

As a scientist and former atheist I have an outsider's perspective when it comes to religion and faith in no God. Like C.S. Lewis, I came to the conclusion that atheism requires faith to the same degree as that of religious faith; it is simply faith with an equal and opposing vector. Atheists make a grave error if they suppose that science is a pet rock in their pocket. Modern science was in fact mostly developed by religious people during and after the Renaissance. Both the atheist and the religious should love science; but the atheist will tend to worship it whereas the religious will worship the Creator of science. Religious people make a grave error if they do not love science.

• Science is the process of determining how matter behaves using observation, testing and inductive reason; with reason defined as the ability to see and understand observable self-evident truth.

• Faith is any belief undiscoverable by science, which is to say any belief which is unobservable and untestable.

• Religion contains faith that eternal God created matter.

• Atheism contains faith that matter is either eternal or created it's self.

• By definition there can be no conflict between Science and either Atheistic Faith or Religious Faith since all faith is outside the domain of science, and science is likewise outside the domain of any faith. True faith and true science are, and always have been, mutually exclusive and never in conflict.

I cannot agree that atheism involves faith of any kind. Atheists do not worship science: they worship nothing. Science cannot and does not provide sustenance for the atheist. The atheist who considers science to be "a pet rock in his pocket" does not understand the nature of science. Nearly all the great scientists of the 20th Century were atheists, but I doubt if science per se was the culprit that drove them to non-belief. I would suggest that their towering intellects, upon examining the question of God's existence, found the idea preposterous. One does not have to be a scientist to reach such a conclusion. Science is not at war with religion, but followers of religions often see themselves at war with science. Science ignores religion. The scientist is the sceptic par excellence: he has faith (I hesitate to use the word) in nothing other than the notion that the search for truth is noble.

Which is more preposterous - an uncreated eternal universe, or an un-created eternal God who created the universe? Which view reflects a superiority of intellegence and which an inferiority?

"I would suggest that their towering intellects, upon examining the question of God's existence, found the idea preposterous."

"the doctrine of a personal G-d interfering with natural events could never be refuted… by science, for it can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." Albert Einstein

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_ei...

If one defines faith as any belief undiscoverable by science, i.e.: any belief which cannot be confirmed through observation and testing; then, since God is unobservable, belief in God is faith, and so too belief in no God. Science cannot find God; therefore any belief regarding the super-natural, either pro or con, requires faith.

Our apparent disagreement hinges on the definition of faith.

That's the non overlapping magisterium view .
If you read the "GodDelusion "Dawkins deals with that.
You say "former atheist"?what caused you to aquire belief?
Finally a belated thank you for that outstanding post you gave before this one.

I sense a difference between atheists who have simply have no interest in God vs. those who hate God; and I believe you are of the former type, whereas Marxists are of the latter. Non-God-hating atheists, in my opinion, can actually fulfill the highest earthly religious obligation of my brand of religious faith; and that is to view other people as individuals with infinite value and unalienable human rights (life,liberty,creative pursuit of happiness) which is ultimately the most essential function of government power - the whole purpose of government in the first place.

More than a few Eastern European dissidents witnessed the God-hating, human-liberty-hating type of individuals who always rise to the top in Marxist societies:

"For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life, and as the only meaningful principle of history." Sergi Bulgakov

“The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism's pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism's view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically. Bulgakov draws our attention to numerous and far-reaching analogies between socialism (especially Marxism) and Judaic apocalyptics and eschatology. Finally, socialism's hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment--it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions…. It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world (its destruction or alteration) or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism's attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term "atheism" is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of "atheists" but of "God-haters," not of "atheism" but of "theophobia." Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevi...

I believe the Eastern European dissidents of Marxism understood a truth in regards to God and government power; the same truth that our founding fathers understood, i.e.: without an essential core of God's law unjust and eventual tyrannical government power is inevitable - due to the intrinsic evil imbedded within human nature. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton. The Declaration of Independence provides that essential core without establishing a theocracy. Our Declaration of Independence was the moral basis for our Constitution which, through those essential Divine laws within the Declaration, limits man's governing power and thereby leads to a just society.

Non overlapping magisterium was a concept annuciated by Stephen J
Gould a highly respected evolutionary biologist which basically states that in reality religious faith and science are not necessarily contradictory(as stated by your good self).
I would however question your view that atheism is another form of faith.
Atheism as I understand it is a position of scepticism based on the common sense view that belief in a personal God(Theism) or indeed an impersonal God (Deism ie. a God who started the creation ball rolling
and then left man to his own devices) a God of evolution is a simplistic view.
My view(for what it's worth) is that a personal God is ridiculous and
a noninterfering God somewhat less so.{verging on agnoticism).
I have no need for a supernatural supreme being to worship because that is the same pysche adopted by the Islamists who excuse their bestiality with the BELIEF that their God(the angry Allah) is on their side.(Allah underwrites Islamism or that's the message these animals
preach!)
I therefore wish to distance myself from saying that The God I believe in
is far better than the God the Islamists believe in.(it takes me down to their leveli.e .the lowest level that's possible to imagine.)
There's a serious struggle ahead perhaps lasting years and it's clear you are on the side of right(our side).
In simplistic terms there are the goodies(us) and the demonstrable baddies (them)(with the nauseating leftish cultural equivalentists on the baddies' side).
It would be stupid to let some childish side issue like God belief deflect us from the MAIN issue.
Complacent apathy is not an option it's a certain recipe for defeat and the cowardly squandering of the freedom our forbears fought for.
Rant over!
Still chuckling over your comments on V I Lenin and the non too avuncular uncle Joe.


unscientific.

Judeo-Christian religious faith elevates the individual above that of the animal by acknowledging something super-natural within the individual; by recognizing that an individual is created in the image of God. If an individual is made in the image of God; then he/she has, as a result, immense dignity and a certain value; in fact, the life of an individual then has infinite value. An individual endowed with such value must, as a corollary, have certain unalienable human rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (part of which is the right to property creatively attained through labor).

Human value and human rights - that is the heart and soul of religious faith for me, and it was true for our founding fathers as well. Preservation of our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for me is a religious obligation, because preservation of our most essential human rights defends the infinite value and dignity of human life.

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

“The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” Samuel Adams

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson

Maybe what I wrote didn't sink in all the way. As an atheist I had belief and faith, just as I now do; my former faith was simply an equal and opposite vector to religious faith. I chose religious faith when it dawned on me that the issue boiled down to a choice between competing faiths. Religious faith, at least of the Judeo-Christian variety, has the benefit of elevating the individual beyond the level of animal existence, albeit sometimes intelligent animal existence.

Summarize in your own words what Richard Dawkins means by the non-overlapping magisterium view.

You don't offend or insult me by recommending that I read The God Delusion. I have not read that particular book, but through my own research over many years, I believe I know most of the true story behind religion on Earth. Which is why I use the term Supreme Being as opposed to God. I believe there is a distinction between the Entity that created the Universe and what religions try to worship on Earth. I feel I can communicate directly with the Supreme Being and need no person or religion to intervene for me. I do not try to impress my beliefs on anyone else. Each person should find their own way to whatever it is they seek. There is so much I want to read already, I can't keep up, hopefully someday I will find the time to read this book.

If you choose to not believe there is a Supreme Being, God, or whatever you want to call it, that is fine with me, I am not offended or insulted by that. I respect your opinion enough that I hoped you could give me a thoughtful answer on my questions. I still hope you can.

Did you read my answers to the questions you posed - about the rotating planet and Jonah, etc? By the way, are you confusing the earth's spinning on its wobbly axis with its orbiting the sun?

Yes, I read your answers and answered them in another post, not sure where, I've gotten confused with all the posts on this site, sorry. And no, I'm not confusing precession with the Earth's orbit.

europe will be eurobia soon!!!
those fckers will rule europe first holland then france follwed by germany and england!!!!
eurobia is soon
but i wont worry about it before 2012 ... the mayan calender ends in 2012 !! maybe islam too

firstly, let me reiterate how amusing i always find it to read your disclaimer that "Racism...will not be tolerated" - if only the same principles were applied to the posts as are enforced upon commenters.

fear of Islam is xenophobia. in fact, i think you should change your site's name to 'Xenophobia is Cool'.

Indigenous Australians are a minority in their own country. Indigenous north americans are a minority in their own country. Indigenous Fijians are a minority in their own country. Indigenous NZers are a minority in their own country. the list goes on. Colonialism is the original effect of globalisation. Immigration as a concept lies squarely and firmly at the feet of the anglo-europeans who set forth and conquered all those centuries ago. suck it up princesses. sorry whiteys, can't have your christopher columbus cake and eat it too.

your deliberate blurring of the distinction between 'non-white' and 'non-dutch' is so blatant, but your readers are so blind they just lap it up. you continually ask your detractors to 'explain further' or 'answer the question' but you refuse to do so yourself. this site, and all those like it, are so devoid of rational or independent thought you are simply left to re-post baseless grabage from your other right-wing mates. it's like a circle-jerking news-feed for bigots and xenophobes.

here's a question for you: why are you so afraid of a group of young people who (according to the article above) love doing homework, listening to music, and going to church on a almost daily basis?

i can see how this is so mush less preferable to hordes of shaven headed white kids wearing various FA and UEFA guernseys (ie gang colours) trashing public spaces and marauding europe's poorest neighbourhoods. or not.

I enjoyed reading your post, nomadique, but I am bound to take you to task over your claim that we continually ask our detractors to explain further and to answer the question while refusing to do so ourselves. You seem to enjoy a spot of selective blindness. On occasions almost without number we have striven to provide answers to the questions posed by Muslims, but they steadfastly refuse to pay us similar respect, instead, responding with a comment or question that evades the issue at hand. If you seek confirmation for this, simply go through the correspondence several of us have had with Shukri and Xkon. You will immediately see the falseness of your contention.

To feel threatened by a religion and to display defensive hostility in the face of that threat is not to indulge in racism. Consult a dictionary, please. While you are about it, look up the definition of xenophobia, too. That which we write is directed squarely at Islam, no matter which country has its followers.

I do not know if you have ever read any of my posts (I'll leave it up to others to bat for themselves), but I challenge you to find examples of my display of lack of rationality or independent thought. You would deem me a bigot because I regard Islam as enslavement of the human mind; a belief system that forbids apostasy, punishable by death; a cult that reduces women to something resembling beasts of burden; a threat to free speech and rationality; a betrayal of all the sacrifices made to achieve the (blemished, perhaps) freedoms we take for granted? Very well, I am guilty as charged, but I will continue to fight the catastrophic inroads Islam is making as it gradually overwhelms Western Society.

Tell me: are the foul skin-heads to whom you refer acting as they do in order to comply with religious beliefs? Are they Catholic jihadis, perhaps? Are you implying that the sole remedy to these evil buffoons is the ultimate victory of Islam? That would be a heavy price to pay, in my opinion, but perhaps you think otherwise.

Beejj
That fear of islam is xenophobia was quite funny, it seems that muslims and muslim supporters don't know the definition of anything.

They even call Islam a race, quite funny! :P

the use of semantics as a mechanism to defend your words simply weakens your argument. so do assumptions.

i an neither muslim nor a muslim supporter. and at no stage have i referred to islam as a race.

you should take your friend Beejj's advice and read posts more carefully, and not make stuff up to support your own bias. it serves no-one's case to do so.

...of course... you "never" said this "... fear of Islam is xenophobia. in fact, i think you should change your site's name to 'Xenophobia is Cool'. ... "

Right?

um, clearly i did say this, otherwise i would never have presented you with such a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate your first-rate cut and paste skills. which are clearly first-rate, and i congratulate you.

now, what was your point?

Come, come, nomadique - you can do better than that, I know. Cheapness does not become you. You have written beautifully to me, so show others similar respect, please. Do you believe Necrowulf is someone to be scorned? I don't.

For you to prove how fear of islam is xenophobia. Nothing in your post says or even mentions anything that proves that.

Your accusation that Beej uses ambiguous semantics is nonsense;as is your malapropic
use of the word xenophobic.(language is after all a convention that certain words have a certain meaning)

see, you're debating the words again, not the ideas. I'm not sure a discussion on lexical vs conceptual semantics is in the spirit of this web site.

further, I'm not sure whether malapropic is a word, but I'm happy to accept it because i can see what you're implying. however malapropism is more to do with mistaking similar sounding words, not the incorrect use of words which i think is what you're accusing me of. 'language' is simply a noun, and I'm not sure to what 'conventions' you are referring.

'racism' is not the correct word to use here. i hate the phrase 'islamaphobia' because a) it's a recently made up word and b) it's a moot tag anyway as the anti-islam focus of this site is clear and unambiguous. 'religionism' has an entirely different (although not entirely unrelated) meaning. so i either used the term 'xenophobia' because it's as close to the mark as i could be bothered getting, or i was just being deliberately antagonisitic in the opening stanzas of my original post. i'll let you decide which.

Malapropism comes from the character Mrs Maloprop in Sheridan's great comedy play "the rivals" she uses words out of context with similar sounds to the correct word.
I'm no Greek scholar but Xenos in Greek means race or foriegn,
In surgery xenograft is grafting a body part of one animal onto another.
(example a pig's heart valve to replace a diseased heart valve in a human)`
Why don't you state unambiguously what you stand for?in order that we may
agree or disagree.(etymology is a side issue)
Incidently if you get a chance to see "The Rivals" take it.
It's the funniest play I've ever seen.It's totally timeless.

Why so afraid that the "master" race is now outnumbered?

Like the Commander in WWII that was surrounded. "Good, we can shoot in any direction".

I find this amusing. Islam sees itself as the master of everything, non-muslims are considered inferior, apes and pigs.

Whilst "black" muslims are inferior to the superior "arabs" then they have the old bickering with persians.

This is the reason why no muslim cares about Darfur, and they even do protests in support of the violence that occurs there. Not only that, islamic countries even supported Hitler! Especially the mufti of Jerusalem...

what about the catholics and the protestants? the romans and the irish? the romans and the christians? the jews and the christians? superior 'my god is better than your god' thinking is not exclusive to islam. take religion out of the picture, and the situation is worse. america as the leaders of the free world? europe as the origins of humanity? space, the final frontier?

your simplification of the darfur situation (and the role that islam plays in that conflict) is laffable. grow up.

interesting, islam still p;lays a role in it, wanting it or not.

I never denied any of those, I'm an atheist and religion is the root of all evil. Now, go9 read a little bit more about islam

a blanket statement like "...religion is the root of all evil..." is a cop-out and seriously weakens your argument. you have as much trouble staying on topic as Shukri does. take some lessons from Beejj and back up your beliefs. at least Beejj can debate the topic, you just seem full of non-specific hate which i find perplexing.

I think you are trying to attack the poster, which in fact shows how week your argument is... When someone prefers to attack the author instead of the message, then it shows that he is desperate, has no knowledge to refute the facts and prefer to attack someone in hope that he lowers to his level.


Islam is a religion, it is bad, how can it be "root of all evil "be wrong when islamic fundamentalist is the precursor of genocide?

Regarding Darfur, Muslims definitely are a voice in condemnation of the atrocities taking place. See for example: http://www.mrdsd.org/

However, it is curious that the west has no similar outrage over the even-worse atrocities in the Congo.

Could it be because only Darfur has oil?

Are you sure that Congo is worse? It is bad in both sides, no doubt about that. But why do you quote only a small website, whilst there are tons of westerners worried about darfur?

What would the west do with the oil? It would invest in the country, see Dubai, although rich, but still very primitive and barbaric in its laws.

The Congo is definitely worse: http://tinyurl.com/cdq4ld

My concern is that people are being hoodwinked into caring about Darfur only because it has oil. If we are indeed concerned about the victims of atrocities, then we should be concerned about all victims; not just the few whom we can exploit for ulterior gain.

Have you ever bothered to read what I wrote? Have you ever read abut wrold economy? So you are blindly ignoring Dubai?

Cool... selective blindness...


about the link, were is the comparison between the 2?

The color of your skin does not determine superiority. From the Prophets final sermon:

"Verily in the sight of Allah, the most honoured amongst you is the one who is most God-fearing. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black nor for the black over the white except in God-consciousness."

http://tinyurl.com/cjrjvd

The word BLACK in Arabic is the same as SLAVE:ABED

Muslims were the main slave traders and captors.

You are wrong, sir.

"Aswad" is black. "Abd" is slave.

Slavery is illegal in all of the Muslim countries in the world.

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/mo...


"...Arab racism is so deep it is inscribed in the fundamental semantic structure of the Arabic language. Till this day, the generic word or for a black person is the preface "abd," which translates as "slave," as in "Abd"-allah (slave or servant of God). This linguistic norm, among many other racially-charged ones, is an expressive constant which holds true for the entire Arab-speaking world regardless of dialect and orthography...."

Dude, you should read more about stuff before you comment, ok?

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely racism in the Arab world. However, to ignore the words of the Prophet Muhammad, quoted above, and to claim that racism is Islamic is disingenuous at best.

How can they? moHAM-MAD even supported slavery and he himself invaded those countries!

There is no room in Islam for racism. This is why Malcolm X said:

"America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered white - but the white attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color." - http://tinyurl.com/cqn44w

Cool and "argumentum ad verecundiam" or appeal to authority.
Malcom X used islam to further his ideas, and sadly, he knows as much about islam as jupiter being able to harbour life.

Ad hominem: A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue...

Shukri, are you aware that Ad hominems can only be used against the "poster"?

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

People aren't killed in Islam for being atheists, so I have difficulty in believing that your translation is very accurate.

What does Zanadiq means then Shukri?

Kill the infidel?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30202744/

This came today, huh... why do I even bother quoting sources to you, as you already know their message and what islam preaches.

You see it everyday coming from the mouth of Muslims! "kill the infidel" "kill the kuffar" "damn pagans!"

Ah, it always comes back to the old translation problem, doesn't it? Tell me about the translation problems the Taliban have with the Koran, Shukri.

Yup, one very sick gentleman was Mr X. Boy, if anyone had an axe to grind it was he. I can't entirely blame him, though, nor would any modern American, but his embracing of Islam to improve the lot of black Americans was rejected. Martin Luther King showed the way. Of course, Cassius Marcellus Clay was influenced by Mr X ................. There again, it has to be admitted that the guy who currently sits in the White House (for how much longer, I wonder) must surely be a man on whom the shade of Mr X smiles.

The view of non-Muslims in Islam is more nuanced than you make it out to be. From the Koran:

* Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Qur'an 2:62]

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are pious .(3:113-115)

* And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a miserly price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3:199)'

* Say (O Muhammad ): "O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God. [Qur'an 3:64]

2:104 O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): "Listen to us" but say "Look upon us," and be ye listeners. For disbelievers is a painful doom.


2:90 Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.


"They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24

90:19 But those who disbelieve Our revelations, their place will be on the left hand.

Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19


2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.


4:51 Hast thou not seen those unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given, how they believe in idols and false deities, and how they say of those (idolaters) who disbelieve: "These are more rightly guided than those who believe" ?

2:65 And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!


Should I continue?

By the way, here is the majority interpretation signed by 304 of the most erudite and reknowned Muslim scholars from around the world.

http://tinyurl.com/5r9hsc

Erudition is an oxymoron when applied to Islam.
Islamic scholars indeed!
I've come to think of myself as an Islamic scholar;but with a somewhat different view
of the death cult.
Beej,Kal,John et al are all Islamic scholars of impeccable credentials.

"....here is the majority interpretation signed by 304 of the most erudite and reknowned Muslim scholars from around the world..."
That makes me laugh: it really, really makes me laugh.
In the west, we categorize a person as a scholar when he/she has passed through the rigours of first-class universities, gaining Bachelor's, Master's and Doctor's degrees, and has done much research and publishing, and is decreed one of the leaders in his/her field by peers, and by the public. Most true scholars in this way progress to be nominated Nobel Prize winners, or for other such scholarly awards.
The Nobel Prize was established in the 1895 through the will of the Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award a person, or persons, can receive in those fields. There is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics, which is a pity, but several prizes, such as the Fields medal, in mathematics have similarities to the Nobel Prize.
If you look at this web page >> http://www.aneki.com/nobel.html >> you will see that the top 21 countries, whose people have been awarded Nobel Prizes, are western countries, or countries such as India and Japan and Argentina which have had a profound western influence in education and research. If you dig a little further, you will realize that all of the top 21 countries in the Nobel list encourage free speech (sometimes a little haphazardly, to be honest, but none the less - free), have encouraged research, and have encouraged education, general literacy, invention and scholarship - for both women and men. And here we have islamic countries, more pointedly Pakistan, who are now bombing girls' schools and beating/beheading girls and women who simply would like a basic education. Please don't preach to us about so-called islamic scholarship. It's rubbish, and makes me want to weep.
Erudition in islamic research, in my mind and my small life experience, is limited to doing pedantic and confusing reading of the Cowran, and memorizing the Cowran word for word even though the person so doing quite often doesn't understand a word of it.
Preaching about islamic scholars is rubbish, because when have any so-called scholars contributed to anything good for the world, except being an expert in the art of Taqqiya (lying and misleading), and archaic dogma.
islamic scholars indeed - absolute rubbish. Has any isalmic scholar been awarded a Nobel or similar world-recognized award?? No.
It's rubbish, based on rubbish book written by a deranged, barbaric and psychotic pedophile who lived 1400 years ago. The sooner islam dies, the better. The death of this cult just makes common sense for our world.

Unfortunately, there is no Nobel Prize for theology.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize

A Nobel prize for theology??? That's like a Nobel prize for nursery rhymes.

Shukri - typical Taqqiya and deflecting the question. Stupid. ..."Unfortunately, there is no Nobel Prize for theology." Firstly, islam has nothing to do with theology, because under all criteria for religion, islam fails completely, because it is NOT a religion but a barbaric ideology based on the psychotic ravings of a deranged pedophile. Secondly, you never responded to my points about scholarship. Why is that? Is it because you cannot find any world-recognized scholarship in islam? I rather suspect that is the truth - no scholarship. As Churchill said about the ideology of islam, "Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live." He might well have added education and scholarship to the glaring deficiencies.

Thank you GeorgeOfTheJungle;
You explained everything, so good that if Shukri can't understand then we might as well talk to a wall...

Your quotes aren't indicative of the Islamic position on disbelievers. For example, 2:65 you quoted is a story about those who disobeyed God's Sabbath--the same story is also mentioned in the Jewish scriptures.

The general rule of Islam is that:

"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [Qur'an 2:62]

Oh the old excuse of taking out of context. You took your quotes out of context too!
See, I can play this game aswell!

It is so cool when you say "..Your quotes aren't indicative of the Islamic position on disbelievers.." when in fact it is exactly the opposite of what you said! They are, it is in the quran, it is the islamic view, the end... and to top it all islamists follows it!

Why we have the words
Kuffar
Kaffir
Jyzia
Dhimmis

and the favourite combination of the muslims, "dirty kuffar!"

you mean like the words in Judaism:

Kofer
Goy/Goyim
Shegetz
Shiksa

Oh wow, you know a few words in Hebrew that rarely get used in modern
conversation, the exception being when friends are busting each others'
chops.

It is not Judaism, but islam that calls we kuffar (infidels) the sons of
apes and pigs. But of course an anti-semite with his head buried in his ass
like you has no problem with that, right?

Jew Killer, great hero. Do you fire rockets from the safety of kindergartens? How many grannies have you killed? Killed any six year-olds to the glory of your poxed prophet, have you? How many wives have you? Just think about all the untouched female flesh that awaits a man of your powers!

I have many Jewish friends, and we call each other the most outrageous names - Goyim and the like. We laugh over the response to the poem, "How odd of God to choose the Jews" : "The Goyim annoy him!" You, of course, do not have the intellect to appreciate this, cursed as you are by an upbringing I would not wish upon a farmyard animals.

Go back to your wife and give her a good beating.

I don't deny that the verses you quoted are in the Quran. However, you are inappropriately applying them to all non-Muslim, when in fact, it is talking about specific situations, as can be seen from the verses themselves.

My quotes from the Quran, on the other hand, include true generic statements about the good points of disbelievers. Those verses clearly indicate the Islamic belief, that disbelievers aren't a monolithic cursed entity, but rather points out that amongst non-Muslims there are good people and bad people. The Islamic belief is that all people, even if they are non-Muslims, will be rewarded for their good deeds.

What?

Have you ever bothered to read the quran?
Why women in islamic countries are treated so badly then? Why christians can't have churches with crosses there? Why I can't take my book "the god delusion" to any islamic countries without it being confiscated? Why?

I don't think that any Muslim country, with the exception of Saudi, confiscates books.

Women do have challenges, however, claiming that it's because of the "Islamic country" is untrue, because most "Muslim countries" do not enforce Islamic sacred law, but instead a combination of French, British and American law.

There are also numerous churches in the Muslim world. See http://www.mec-churches.org/member_churches/mem... for example.

I wonder, If I was gay in any of those countries. Iran would kill me... I wonder, if a female would go out alone in any of those countries, hum...

What about Kwaiit, I wonder if they would allow me to continue taking my cough syrup without any objection and prison time.

I wonder, where in our laws, the testimony of a women is worth less than a men. I wonder, were in our laws we support pedophiles?

Shukri, one of the first steps in evolving culturally is to accept the blame and accept that you did wrong, unfortunatelly Islamic society stopped doing this 1000 years ago.

You seem to believe that any country with a Muslim majority population is an "Islamic society".

Unfortunately, this is not the case. For example, the mere fact that most Americans are Christians does not make America a "Christian society".

With the data at hand you can not reach to that conclusion. But oh well..

REad again what I wrote, and then again to see if you understand, if you dont...read it again.
That is how people understand what it can not.

The only exception to this rule is Turkey, but sadly the only thing keeping it from going to the same road as the rest of the islamic nightmare is the military elite.

Also, keep reading, the difference is that the west went through renaissance,( with no help of islam even though muslims say that... pure lies) and we are a SECULAR nation.

Secular, a word, that I think scares the shit out of any muslim.

http://www.movers.com/international_movers/cust...
"
Pornographic or political, military literature or controversial materials
Objects or ../images which could be construed as a graven image or contrary to Islamic morality
*ALL PRINTED MATTER, BOOKS, PICTURES RECORDS, FILMS, TAPES, SLIDES, MOVIES, VIDEOS, COMPACT DISCS, COMPUTER SOFTWARE, ETC. ARE SUBJECT TO CENSORSHIP AND CONFISCATION (MUST BE PACKED SEPARATELY FOR EASY ACCESS)
Prohibited goods MUST NOT BE INCLUDED with the goods being shipped
Any prohibited items in shipment will be confiscated and may be destroyed without the customer's consent"

But not a single one in Saudi. And how about in Iran? They jail, torture,
and kill converts from islam. How great islam must be, they have to kill or
threaten to kill those that wish to leave. Just like communism. Imagine
that!

Evangelical Christians are already in Muslim lands, proselytizing under various pretexts.

http://tinyurl.com/ct6ujl

Why am I not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia if I am an atheist?

You are allowed to enter Saudi, though not into Mecca or Medina.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/ci...

Baa baa blacksheep have you any wool?
Yes sir,Yes sir three bags full!
Chant 5 times a day and verily almighty Allah will admit you to paradise.

Sorry, it doesn't really rhyme.

The fear stems from the knowledge of what befalls sections of the world when Islam becomes dominant. Tolerance is soon but a memory and democracy dies. Free speech is stifled. Slavish adherence to a bizarre belief is the order of the day. Understand?

Religion is not socio-politics, my friend. The Dutch brought in immigration guest workers because they didn't have enough labor in the country. Simultaneously, they had declining birth rates because more people no longer wanted the responsibility of having children.

One thing that religion imbues people with is family values. Religious people get married early and have large families. The birth rate for Orthodox Jews, for example, is much higher than for liberal ones.

You want to reverse bad trends? Then get religious, and it will happen naturally.

Islam is NOT a religion in the accepted sense .(Islam is very much socio political).
It is a totalitarian ideology promulgated by world class mad men.
It's stated ideology is world domination and suppression of free speech and obeisance to the
dictum of a 7th century murdering sociopath(how many death fatwas for that Shukri?)
Listen to Wilders' speech(David Horowitz TV).
And as for having large families ,sired by uneducated morons;which rely on state handouts for their sustenance. It's clear that your paucity of scientific knowledge is complemented by your paucity of social and economic knowledge.
Remember that old adage:"Where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise."
The most apposite metaphor for Islam!! and yourself.
Beej has already said what I would have further added.

Catholocism's stated ideology is also world domination and suppression of free speech. where people seem to be taking umbrage at this site is the idea that only Islam has its roots in an abhorrent doctrine. this is simply not true. whilst far from being an Islamic apologist, I'm not in favour of the sort of blanket 'hatred by label' that is often espoused here.

islam is pseudo-socio-political as you point out, but so is judaism. my interpretation from your statement is that you are implying that christianity is the only 'true' religion (define 'accepted sense'). unfortunately, this sort of closed-mindedness is what does your own cause a disservice, and will often earn you the label of bigot, whether deserved or not.

in response to a jibe by Beejj, i stand by my assertion that this site is founded in a spirit of xenophobia (whether it fits precisely in the collins dictionary's definition of such) - that is, you believe your fear is justified, and will never be convinced otherwise.

There is nothing in mine or Beej's contributions that imply that christianity is the one true religion(I embrace HL Mencken's idea of religion"An attempt by the rational to believe the impossible")
Xenophobia is an irrational hate of people of differing ethnicity.(no evidense of this from John ,Kal).
Now ,if you mean that this site encourages people who believe that Islam is a dangerous,evil,death cult;that encourages its brain damaged followers to campaign in any way; using,intimidation,mind pollution of the young,lying,andmurder for its ultimate goal of a nightmare society controlled by coterie of bigoted ,insane religious
zealots ,then you'd be right.(there's no bigotry or faux semantics there).
We perceive Islam to be a pernicious,metastacising cult with a declared agenda
of obeisance to an imaginary deity(Allah the inactive).
Since we live in the 21st century ,simply eliminating the threat by annihilating them is not an option.
However unrelenting derision is:inthe hope, that some of the retarded believers
will see that they play the role of clowns in a ridiculous circus of the insane.
(and that they will see themselves as fools led astray by other fools).
The evidence that blind belief in the highly improbable is a basis for civilised behaviour is clearly ridiculous;and that's Islam.
I don't know what your position is nomadique but as I've said to Shukri(who imagines that he's a civilsed muslim).that if he believes in philosophically derived ethics and morals he should cast aside his superstitious conditioning;and join the real world.(i.e become an apostate)
And so should you;defending the indefensible is thankless and stupid.
Unless of course you are a mind conditioned believer

Regarding your views about Islam:

"It is interesting that Spencer, Pipes, and others, buttress their arguments with formulations and concepts associated with classical Islamic political theory. However, their understanding presupposes a single, narrow reading of the Islamic tradition, based on certain ideologically determined parameters, which limit their ability to accommodate an alternative reading."

http://tinyurl.com/cboar5

Religion is dogma, pure and simple. It has no basis in reason. Logic cannot lead to religious belief.

The falling birthrate in developed countries is due to the fact that their prosperity and freedoms allow young women to seek professional lives rather than to be merely biological receptacles and incubators.

Religion can engender family values, I agree, but it is not a prerequisite. I notice displays of keen family values in the Islamic world whenever I read of all the honour murders and the sacrificing of children to Islam's greater glory. I see them, too, when I read of the polygamous behaviour of the Saudis and the ease with which the "men" of that benighted country gain divorce.

Why should I ever wish to reverse such trends? They are a beacon of sanity in a troubled world.

Unfortunately, you mistake the actions of a few for the guilt of the whole, and this is right. When a few people commit a crime, other than them are not considered guilty of that crime.

At least, that's the way it is in a society concerned with justice.

"A few"? See Tonto's (or was it Kal's?) catalogue of Islamic excesses. Read the torrent of reports of Muslim atrocities on this site alone. You might claim that people of all religious persuasions commit heinous crimes, and you would be correct in doing so, but such acts are not committed on the basis of religious belief, whereas Islam IS the driving force behind the deeds of its followers, and I do not give a stuff about any passage you might quote from your ghastly book to try to claim otherwise. If a book can be so misinterpreted, it needs to be re-written, and that is something which causes Muslims to blanch. Modify the Koran???? But it is the TRUTH. It must never be questioned. 1400 years of intellectual development MUST be denied. Why? Because it gives us Muslims our only hope of dominance. Mr Mohammed cannot and must not be contradicted, for he saw the world in a clearer light than did all who followed him. He even had a magic horse! How can Einstein's relativity theories or the revelations of the quantum universe or the Darwinian view of life compare with Mr Mohammed's magic horse? I confess, Shukri, they can't ......

Are you following this, nomadique? Am I transgressing your high principles?

The Muslims are 1.3 billion people. Assuming a 1% criminal rate, that's 13 million people. 1% is not a majority by any means, my friend.

Again, please don't judge the whole by the actions of a few.

Shukri, old fellow, you utterly ignore, ONE AGAIN, that which I wrote. Believe me, I need no lessons in arithmetic from you, so do not think your assertion that 99>1 gives you the intellectual high ground. Read my message again and get someone to explain it to you.

Following this, nomadique?

i am following Beejj, but to be honest i think you are both skirting around directly addressing each others' points. unfortunately this debate (not just here, but globally) is often a battle of who can be most inflammatory.

one thing i appreciate about you Beejj is that you are clear and articulate. to reply specifically to a point you raised in your recent response directly to me, not all of your peers are as thoughtful and considered (but i haven't delved further to see if they are IAC contributors or readers).

anyways, far from being an Islamic apologist which i think is something you garnered from my last post, i disagree quite strongly with Shukri's assertions re: judging the many on the actions of the few. publicly, and globally, Islam has done itself no favours.

that said, i don't believe in judging the followers based upon the actions of their leaders and spokespeople. young, displaced muslims do often act in a way that doesn’t fit with our values, or indeed our western laws - the solution however is not to further isolate them by labelling them as 'muslim' and hating them without any further consideration.

we need to accept that it will take several generations to distance these young people from the extremist, fundamentalist views of their leaders, parents, forefathers or whatever. insulting, crticising, or simly lampooning these young people and their faith will only strengthen their resolve to resist assimilation and their desire to fight back.

we also need to look closely and deeply at the effects of poverty, rampant and unfettered capitalism(*), and the loss of genuinely representative politics in favour of 50%+1 democracy.

(* note: i am not anti-capitalist - i just think many checks and balances have been forgotten in recent decades. and effective 'free market' should still have limitations)

Thank you for your reply, nomadique - another enjoyable message. I am going to sound like a grumpy old fart or that maiden who doth protest too much, but I refute (!!) your claim that I skirt around issues. I might be guilty of missing a point (no I'm not!), but evading things is not my style. Too old for shadow boxing.

Perhaps I should say that my concern - make that hostility - is for Islam and the menace it poses the non-Islamic world. It is a creeping steamroller that flattens everything in its path. It refuses to be stopped. Its driver cares not a hoot for roadsigns and traffic lights. One of these days it might visit my neighbourhood! I find it impossible, however, to ignore its adherents when they are the steamroller drivers, so to speak, so my spleen is vented upon Muslims. I cannot but think otherwise.

As I have reported before, I taught recently at a Jewish school (as well as at another establishment simultaneously - or very nearly so) and was amazed to discover that the Jewish Studies Department absolutely poured fire and brimstone upon any pupil who spoke ill of Muslims. When I write "ill" I mean hate talk. The kids were nurtured in a manner I truly cannot imagine happening at the Islamic College a few miles away. They were encouraged - nay, forced - to see things from the Muslim perspective - to be tolerant, as Mimi put it. All the signals I receive from Europe and America suggest that there are plenty of people willing to give Muslims a fair go (nearly said a fair crack of the whip!). Islam, though, is a voracious monster that steadfastly refuses any accommodation. They KNOW they are right.

Everything seems to have gone haywire since ....... when? Did Khomeini upset the applecart? Once upon a time Jews and Christians (yes, I know I am ignoring India, but let me do so, please) could live in relative harmony in Islamic countries, but such is becoming a rarity. I do not see Muslims treated in non-Islamic countries as Jews and Christians are treated in Islamic states. (This is not the place to open that perennial can of worms, Israel, so I shan't.) Indeed, the inroads Islam is making all over Europe shows that it is doing very nicely for itself while intensifying the hostility in Muslim lands.

As a non-Muslim, this deeply disturbs me, so I will do all I can to turn the tide. I would like to believe that this site might cause an awakening in non-Muslim minds (I bet plenty of Muslims follow it!), so I will use it as my soap box. Hell, the West needs a few such soap boxes, given the reticence of the liberal media to print what they should be printing! Infidelesto has done the world a much-needed good turn in creating this site, and if tempers are sometimes frayed, it does no lasting damage. Truth can often be detected even in the fiercest invective.

I confess to not sharing your concern for younger Muslims. Damn me if you will, but the brainwashing they have received from birth and which is added to daily has already done the damage, so I believe they are just waiting to thumb a lift on the next steamroller that happens by.

I shall not attempt to comment on your closing remarks, but the guy who said that there are only two certainties in this word, death and taxes, left out poverty. Make it three.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, as I addressed the fact that all of the Muslim "excesses" that this site points to is related to an extremely tiny minority of Muslims.

My point, again, is that you shouldn't judge an entire community based on the actions of a few.

It's because they are a drain on welfare and their culture of priapism is undermining education .
Not forgetting of course their perpetual moaning that they be accorded more and more privileges.
Fucking their way to victory .
How wonderfully Islamic.

Oath Keepers … Guardians of the Republic, Orders We Will Not Obey Video

http://iblowminds.com/2009/04/09/oath-keepers-g...

It's a CRIME against humanity.

Some PC,left-winger can ask me the following:
"But many muslims were born there,you bigot!"

Yes,so do the hyenas and snakes at the Amsterdam's ZOO ,but they're no Dutch
citizens.I don't recognize muslims as europeans UNDER NO CIRCUNSTANCE
WHATSOEVER.They're ASIANS.Period.
This is DISGUSTING.The land of Rembrandt,Van Gogh,Vermeer
and ,why not,GEERT WILDERS is becoming part of the damned
UMMAH,a muslim land.

Before this grisly thing actually happen,I beg all those Dutch blond girls(under 25)
to MOVE TO BRAZIL,where they can do whatever they want...literally.

Not a very good idea, I come from Brazil and I must say that it is worse in there.

But mostly related to internet monitoring, and various other idiotic laws plus the fact that the are so many evangelicals that it is impossible to live there without incredible bad songs coming from their "temple" a few meters from your house(There seems to be one every corner!)

Brazilian Evangelicals are different from the American Evangelicals, the Brazilian evangelicals are almost as thick headed as muslims. If you say you are catholic they take it as personal offence, if you say you are jew they take it as offence, if you say you are atheist, they try to exorcise you.

Today, there is no safe place on the planet, my bet... so far is the US.

My dear,have you EVER heard a Brazilian Evangelic perpetrating a SUICIDE-BOMBING?
Nope.
Are they ANNOYING?
Yes.But they don't issue deadly fatwas,nor condone honor killings.
Their songs SUCKS?
Sure.But they sounds much better than a Muezzim call up from a minaret.
Please,do yourself a favor and COMPARE Muslims and Evangelicals...
You'll discover that if the Muslims should convert themselves into Evangelical Christianism,
the world would be 100% SAFER.
Lebanon would prosper.Israel would thrive.There would be no another 9/11.No Beslan massacres.
No Bali bombings...I can't continue for the list of ABOMINABLE acts commited in the name of Islam is ENDLESS.

Relax!

I'm saying they are as thick headed as muslims, not that they act like one.
Brazilian Evangelicals are against pretty much the same stuff that muslims are, but not all, maybe not the majority of stuff. But mostly gay marriages, scientific advancement, abortions and the lot.

BRazilian Evangelicals may not commit suicide bombings, but they are known to get a bit irritated and try to sue your pants of. Although there a few cases shown in the Brazilian media where a someone said he was atheist and the guy shot him.

No need for AK47s no need for bombs just plenty of hate and a reliable stiff willy.
Oh and a suitable slave as incubator.
All provided by generous hand outs.
Islamic heaven!
I wonder what this Wilders bloke is on abouit?

Well there you have it. Those idiots just allowed immigration to bury their asses......how stupid is that?