How Can I Contact Telstra Bigpond...
Business & Finance0 min ago
Atheism
109 Answers
What good has atheism done for the world?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I offer no defence to suicide bombers (how many times do I need to say it?), but we are at war and our enemy will prosecute that war by whatever means it can bear arms against us.
What (again) is the difference in action between 7/7 and the Birmingham pub bombings?
We prosecuted a war against Serbia, the beligerrants were 100s of miles away in Kosovo so we bombed Belgrade.
America sends an unmanned drone to bomb a house in a sovreign country which is none aligned to the conflict in Afghanistan, how many people got killed who had nothing to do with the war, who just happened to be passing?
How many taxi drivers have been killed (let alone bystanders) by Israeli rocket attacks in Gaza targetting Hamas?
It appears to be beyond the limited scope of your understanding that these are the arguments they promote, when we can answer them we will start to win the battle in their homelands.
It is to me one of life's curiousities, that so many people talk about the illegal war in Iraq, and yet noone seeks to mention that Waziristan is in Pakistan and that Pakistan is not a combattant.
How times change, at least Jane Fonda spoke about the war in Vietnam at least she amongst others spoke about Laotian neutrality (nominal though it was) and yet we can bomb a foreign country just because it happens to be next door?
I feel that your ponderings are proof positive that truth is the first casualty of war.
But thankyou for admitting to you're illogical attitudes (you are human after all) you're no different to the rest of us, so please don't talk to us about "scientific proof" unless you now want to say that "personal experience" is proof?
My sympathies to your friend and her family, I hope they're well.
What (again) is the difference in action between 7/7 and the Birmingham pub bombings?
We prosecuted a war against Serbia, the beligerrants were 100s of miles away in Kosovo so we bombed Belgrade.
America sends an unmanned drone to bomb a house in a sovreign country which is none aligned to the conflict in Afghanistan, how many people got killed who had nothing to do with the war, who just happened to be passing?
How many taxi drivers have been killed (let alone bystanders) by Israeli rocket attacks in Gaza targetting Hamas?
It appears to be beyond the limited scope of your understanding that these are the arguments they promote, when we can answer them we will start to win the battle in their homelands.
It is to me one of life's curiousities, that so many people talk about the illegal war in Iraq, and yet noone seeks to mention that Waziristan is in Pakistan and that Pakistan is not a combattant.
How times change, at least Jane Fonda spoke about the war in Vietnam at least she amongst others spoke about Laotian neutrality (nominal though it was) and yet we can bomb a foreign country just because it happens to be next door?
I feel that your ponderings are proof positive that truth is the first casualty of war.
But thankyou for admitting to you're illogical attitudes (you are human after all) you're no different to the rest of us, so please don't talk to us about "scientific proof" unless you now want to say that "personal experience" is proof?
My sympathies to your friend and her family, I hope they're well.
Everton, what on earth are you babbling on about?
It seems you're hurtling somewhat uncontollably from one scenario to another. We began by talking about Islamic suicide bombers and the people who instruct them, and since then you've taken us on a rocky world tour from Rourke's Drift, to Serbia, to Vietnam, to Birmingham, and to several other places. However, since the world has never experienced terrorism such as we're experiencing now, none of your examples, political, military, or otherwise, compare to it - and neither do they negate it. And in between all that, for some peculiar reason known only to you, but somehow involving God, we've questioned the safety of MMR, which despite your clearly desperate attempts to undermine me on a personal level, isn't positively proven, so you're mistaken - I have no reason to concede that I am illogical.
And thank you for asking, but no, my friend's little boy is not well at all - and he never will be.
It seems you're hurtling somewhat uncontollably from one scenario to another. We began by talking about Islamic suicide bombers and the people who instruct them, and since then you've taken us on a rocky world tour from Rourke's Drift, to Serbia, to Vietnam, to Birmingham, and to several other places. However, since the world has never experienced terrorism such as we're experiencing now, none of your examples, political, military, or otherwise, compare to it - and neither do they negate it. And in between all that, for some peculiar reason known only to you, but somehow involving God, we've questioned the safety of MMR, which despite your clearly desperate attempts to undermine me on a personal level, isn't positively proven, so you're mistaken - I have no reason to concede that I am illogical.
And thank you for asking, but no, my friend's little boy is not well at all - and he never will be.
It amuses me greatly to watch you squirm in mock perplexion, try not to get your knickers in a knot. They're not personal attacks it's just I tend to feel that at least the others are consistent, whereas you flip flop all over the place
What you're is struggling with is the realty that we are at war and that our enemy wants to kill us.
We attack them in their homes and they do the same to us that is the nature of war, you say why bomb innocent civilians? I say why bomb Belgrade?
I demonstrate that because of our materiel superiority they resort to the suicide bomb as a means to deliver ordinance. You still have'nt explained the significant difference between this and the IRA attacks?
In terms of the prosecution, rather than the aims, of this or any other war we are no better than our foes, get it?
Chaka, Naomi constantly berates people constantly about the value of scientific proof (earlier in this thread I think too), but when it does'nt correlate with her own view she rejects it (apparently just like the religious) the basis of her rejection in this instance is personal expeience which, again, we are reminded is not proof. I'd support her in her principled rejections if only she'd accept that personal experience is proof for others too, perhaps it is because she is so much cleverer than most she feels free to condescend us with her answers, and no she says MMR is'nt safe..
FYI we still have'nt uncovered the atheism's gift to the world?
We still have superstition, do you want to ring the tarot card hotline?
What you're is struggling with is the realty that we are at war and that our enemy wants to kill us.
We attack them in their homes and they do the same to us that is the nature of war, you say why bomb innocent civilians? I say why bomb Belgrade?
I demonstrate that because of our materiel superiority they resort to the suicide bomb as a means to deliver ordinance. You still have'nt explained the significant difference between this and the IRA attacks?
In terms of the prosecution, rather than the aims, of this or any other war we are no better than our foes, get it?
Chaka, Naomi constantly berates people constantly about the value of scientific proof (earlier in this thread I think too), but when it does'nt correlate with her own view she rejects it (apparently just like the religious) the basis of her rejection in this instance is personal expeience which, again, we are reminded is not proof. I'd support her in her principled rejections if only she'd accept that personal experience is proof for others too, perhaps it is because she is so much cleverer than most she feels free to condescend us with her answers, and no she says MMR is'nt safe..
FYI we still have'nt uncovered the atheism's gift to the world?
We still have superstition, do you want to ring the tarot card hotline?
Yes, strange as it may seem, Chakka, I do have doubts. Had I not seen what can happen - albeit rarely - I would no doubt hold an alternative view, but that little boy and his family's lives are devastated, and no principle is worth that. It is, of course, very important that children are vaccinated, but it isn't essential that these three are given in one hit, and since I can see no reason to take unnecessary risks with any child's well-being, or future, I would plump for separate vaccinations.
I still don't know what this has to do with God. :o/
I still don't know what this has to do with God. :o/
Didn't see you there when I replied to Chakka, Everton. You're amused, and I'm bemused. You're still babbling. Do you know what you're talking about? You're banging on about war, but unlike the IRA, the people who carried out the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks weren't military personnel. There is no comparison.
Incidentally, I never squirm. Sorry to disappoint you.
Incidentally, I never squirm. Sorry to disappoint you.
Oh good grief! You are tiresome, Everton.
Right.
1. This question is stupid. Personal experience does not necessarily constitute proof. However, until absolute proof is available, I reserve my right to make my own judgement.
2. Yes.
3. This was answered in my previous post.
And are you ever going to tell us what MMR has to do with God?
Right.
1. This question is stupid. Personal experience does not necessarily constitute proof. However, until absolute proof is available, I reserve my right to make my own judgement.
2. Yes.
3. This was answered in my previous post.
And are you ever going to tell us what MMR has to do with God?
MMR has nothing to do with God and everything to do with your love of the proof of truth via science, I know you don't like to say anything clearly so let's all content ourselves with your constant references to scientific proof when you don't (necessarily) believe it yourself.
The question is actually about atheism, but never mind.
The IRA a military unit?
Tell that to Thatcher, the IRA was just as military as the Taleban is I don't know how you define military units they (the IRA) were not officialy on the payroll of any state, they targetted civilians for the sake of targetting civillians as that was the only means they could find to prosecute their war and deliver their ordinance.
The days of 2 Generals deciding to meet in a field and have a fight have now passed, the enemy does not have the materiel resources to attack us "cleanly" so it delivers it's strikes in whatever way it can.
I don't condone suicide bombing, I don't condone the killing of innocent people, but I understand it happens in war.
Even if you look at Waziristan there may well have been a major target in that house, but that target was in a foreign country that is not fighting in this conflict, how can that strike be legal? That's a question.
If you look at Abu Qatada, the Jordanians want him, they view him as a very serious terrorist threat to their government, how would you feel if the Jordanians blew up the house he was living in and killing a post man who just happened to be passing by? That's a second question.
We are not blameless in this war.
The question is actually about atheism, but never mind.
The IRA a military unit?
Tell that to Thatcher, the IRA was just as military as the Taleban is I don't know how you define military units they (the IRA) were not officialy on the payroll of any state, they targetted civilians for the sake of targetting civillians as that was the only means they could find to prosecute their war and deliver their ordinance.
The days of 2 Generals deciding to meet in a field and have a fight have now passed, the enemy does not have the materiel resources to attack us "cleanly" so it delivers it's strikes in whatever way it can.
I don't condone suicide bombing, I don't condone the killing of innocent people, but I understand it happens in war.
Even if you look at Waziristan there may well have been a major target in that house, but that target was in a foreign country that is not fighting in this conflict, how can that strike be legal? That's a question.
If you look at Abu Qatada, the Jordanians want him, they view him as a very serious terrorist threat to their government, how would you feel if the Jordanians blew up the house he was living in and killing a post man who just happened to be passing by? That's a second question.
We are not blameless in this war.
Everton - I want to say one thing. In this regard you are bashing your head against a wall. When it comes to terrorism and killing then unfortunately few people only want to talk about certain incidents and do not even want to hear others. Naomi gave example of Abu Qatda, Omar Bakri etc. I do not know people myself and can't say they are good or bad. I heard all on the media what they might have said. Only once Abu Qatada was on TV where presenter asked him if he would condemn 7/7 bombing. and he said condemn all sort of innocent killing where ever, by any one individuals or states using any means. I think that covers every thing, but still the presenter was adamant for him to say categorically about 7/7. I have no idea why people have selective mind even in these matters. I have said the same words here under news section in condemnation and asked the others to just repeat my words. People do not. Unless these double standards etc are there unfortunately these things will keep on happening.
Octavius. In the end (and it relates to my above answer too) I have never define innocent the way you said in your previous post. And even now I said that by all the prominent scholars innocent mean what we all know as innocent.
Octavius. In the end (and it relates to my above answer too) I have never define innocent the way you said in your previous post. And even now I said that by all the prominent scholars innocent mean what we all know as innocent.
Well fascinating though this deliberation was, Naomi, you said something about personal experience, judgement, proof and being logical. How does that sit with you believing in a nature-god and seeing a ghost?
Firstly you claim it to be a personal experience and made a judgement that what you saw was a ghost, but yet you cannot provide proof and cannot really determine with absolute certainty that your judgement was logical. You mock the religious and fawn with the atheists, yet does your perception of your own �logic� and �reasoning� not make you as susceptible to atheist scorn as the religionists?
Keyplus, I am not sure that is what was concluded, but if you are saying that all American and British people are innocent from an Islamic perspective (aside from your general race/creed haters that is), then fair enough, I can accept that.
Firstly you claim it to be a personal experience and made a judgement that what you saw was a ghost, but yet you cannot provide proof and cannot really determine with absolute certainty that your judgement was logical. You mock the religious and fawn with the atheists, yet does your perception of your own �logic� and �reasoning� not make you as susceptible to atheist scorn as the religionists?
Keyplus, I am not sure that is what was concluded, but if you are saying that all American and British people are innocent from an Islamic perspective (aside from your general race/creed haters that is), then fair enough, I can accept that.
Chakka, it's up to you, but I won't change my mind.
Keyplus, you never admit that any Muslim does anything wrong, but your usual media propaganda excuse won't wash. Newsreels have been shown for all to see of both Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri spouting their hatred, so I can't believe you aren't aware - and if you aren't you must be the only person in Britain who isn't. All three I mentioned initially have fallen foul of the law. One has been deported, one is barred from entering the country, and the other has been jailed, so you sort of get the impression they must have done something fairly serious, don't you?
Octavius, possibly, but where�s your logic? I don�t fawn to anyone, but if I were fawning to the atheists the last thing I'd mention is having seen a ghost.
Right, that said, this thread isn't about me - and that�s something I seem to have to say an awful lot these days when you and Everton are around - so perhaps we can get off the subject now.
Keyplus, you never admit that any Muslim does anything wrong, but your usual media propaganda excuse won't wash. Newsreels have been shown for all to see of both Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri spouting their hatred, so I can't believe you aren't aware - and if you aren't you must be the only person in Britain who isn't. All three I mentioned initially have fallen foul of the law. One has been deported, one is barred from entering the country, and the other has been jailed, so you sort of get the impression they must have done something fairly serious, don't you?
Octavius, possibly, but where�s your logic? I don�t fawn to anyone, but if I were fawning to the atheists the last thing I'd mention is having seen a ghost.
Right, that said, this thread isn't about me - and that�s something I seem to have to say an awful lot these days when you and Everton are around - so perhaps we can get off the subject now.
Keyplus talk is cheap, if you want to promote a view to people of a like mind or who are susceptible to your viewpoint then remaining at liberty is very important.
I don't know much about Bakri (is he the one who preached about killing the Jews?), I know even less about Qatada, but Abu Hamza is not a peace loving man and he promotes terrorism.
The point I'm trying to make about suicide bombing is that it's a military tactic, when you take the emotive nature of such bombings, it's just another way of going boom.
A well trained soldier can spot an IED, an experienced patrol will see the anamolies that occur when IEDs are present, the radio controlled IEDs have their signal blocked so they now need to be hard wired which makes them more difficult to conceal, they don't have guided missiles, aeroplanes or drones, little in the way of artillery and their rifles are innaccurate, so how do they deliver their ordinance?
On a man's back.
I don't condone the killing of civilians here (anywhere) but it is just a military tactic, it always happens in wars and we have to be prepared to face it, there's nothing new to this we had it with the IRA and we had it with Hitler and if my Nan (God rest her soul) can take it so can I.
The point I'm trying to make about Waziristan is this, I'm not sorry the intended victim is dead (he is our enemy) but what I'm suggesting is that as a target he was currently out of reach, Alexander Litvinienko springs to mind in this regard, but we are at war and that means that we have to accept that some of the things we have to do to win are unpalatable, and possibly illegal by our own standards.
Dolce et decorum was on everyone's lips 94 years ago, I feel that in 50 years time the consensus of opinion within the scholars of Islam will rue that same old lie.
I don't know much about Bakri (is he the one who preached about killing the Jews?), I know even less about Qatada, but Abu Hamza is not a peace loving man and he promotes terrorism.
The point I'm trying to make about suicide bombing is that it's a military tactic, when you take the emotive nature of such bombings, it's just another way of going boom.
A well trained soldier can spot an IED, an experienced patrol will see the anamolies that occur when IEDs are present, the radio controlled IEDs have their signal blocked so they now need to be hard wired which makes them more difficult to conceal, they don't have guided missiles, aeroplanes or drones, little in the way of artillery and their rifles are innaccurate, so how do they deliver their ordinance?
On a man's back.
I don't condone the killing of civilians here (anywhere) but it is just a military tactic, it always happens in wars and we have to be prepared to face it, there's nothing new to this we had it with the IRA and we had it with Hitler and if my Nan (God rest her soul) can take it so can I.
The point I'm trying to make about Waziristan is this, I'm not sorry the intended victim is dead (he is our enemy) but what I'm suggesting is that as a target he was currently out of reach, Alexander Litvinienko springs to mind in this regard, but we are at war and that means that we have to accept that some of the things we have to do to win are unpalatable, and possibly illegal by our own standards.
Dolce et decorum was on everyone's lips 94 years ago, I feel that in 50 years time the consensus of opinion within the scholars of Islam will rue that same old lie.
Naomi - I don't think I have to clarify to you which Muslim I think is doing wrong and which one is doing right. Common sense is that ANY ONE WHO IS KILLING AN INNOCENT WHO IS NOT THERE TO COMBAT HIM AND NOT TRYING TO KILL HIM is wrong. Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Atheist or who ever that person is.
Did I leave any thing with doubt.
I am sure you will find some.
Octavius - That is exactly what I mean. I never said and I am sure majority of Muslims believe that only by being American or English no one become a valid target.
Did I leave any thing with doubt.
I am sure you will find some.
Octavius - That is exactly what I mean. I never said and I am sure majority of Muslims believe that only by being American or English no one become a valid target.
No, you don't have to clarify anything, Keyplus, and neither do you have to use bold or capital letters. None of us here are entirely stupid, and since that constitutes shouting, it's extremely rude. Having said that, firstly you consistently refuse to elaborate on statements you make, which results in time-wasting one-sided debate, and secondly since you have never admitted that any Muslim has done anything wrong at all, your persistent refusal to answer any related questions could lead others to suspect your motives.
Incidentally, if Abu Qatada was pressed specifically on 7/7, wouldn't it have been simpler and more helpful, not only to the indigenous population of Britain, but to the new Muslim population too, if he had condemned the attacks unequivocally? But he didn't, did he? No of course he didn�t. I wonder why? On second thoughts, no I don't wonder why at all.
Incidentally, if Abu Qatada was pressed specifically on 7/7, wouldn't it have been simpler and more helpful, not only to the indigenous population of Britain, but to the new Muslim population too, if he had condemned the attacks unequivocally? But he didn't, did he? No of course he didn�t. I wonder why? On second thoughts, no I don't wonder why at all.
