Jesterballz, I’ve migrated the thread to my site for readability/loading time.
Taken from this post for readability.
I honestly can’t see how you can seriously say “I welcome civilised argument in the comments” when your name is “jesterballz”.
In any case, we can do this the easy way (testing for coherency, universality, and uniqueness of claim to truth) or the polemic way (point by point rebuttal/back and forth until no conclusion is reached). Up to you.
There are a whole lot of people out there who believe in “God”. Billions of people are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and are following their religion (most often blindly). But I strongly refute the claim that this particular “God” exists, and I have pretty good reason, too. So all those curious people out there, please read this and maybe you will realise your mistake. That said, I am not accusing anyone who believes in God of being stupid. Please make comments to explain your reasoning if you disagree with my theory.
The concept of a God or god-form is not necessarily an absolute, but a conjuration.
You’re already starting off on the wrong foot: God is the embodiment of the absolute.
Europeans no doubt have it much harder on themselves given the bulk of immigration from Arab states tends to be going towards them instead of the US. This article in Spiegel demonstrates just how seriously Islam is perceived as a threat to civil liberties and other traditionally democratic ideas such as the freedom of speech.
If there are any Muslim readers out there, I’d be happy to dialogue on how it indeed is or isn’t. Does the Quran permit freedom of speech? Did Muhammad? Do you see it as being a good thing or bad?
Also to the Buddhists – what do you think about the artistic statement of Budda being beheaded?
Berlin’s Deutsche Oper opera house is under fire for cancelling a controversial production of a Mozart opera which shows the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha. Politicians have condemned the cancellation as self-censorship and cowardice.
This is in reference to Comment Commandments revisited and the previous Pope to Muslim Fanatics: Why bother? posts in soccermomunplugged.
Cate implicates my comments in the “Pope…” post are inflammatory and purely malicious in nature.
– are inflammatory without addressing the issue of the blog
– are purely malicious in nature
Going by this definition of malicious, I fail to see where I am acting out of pure malice. Also, if the first few posts are any indication, I am sure that my characterization of your (Cate’s) generalized opinion of ME Arabs is on the mark.
I believe you (Cate) and I reached some sort of commonality of spirit at the “end” of our discussion, but judging by your last comment of the night, I believe it was built on false pretenses or a false unity, hence your post and following ban.
Allow me to illustrate:
No I didn’t forget that Jesus would know. But I am making the point that we all generalize. How aboutwe concede that we both reacted adversely to our triggers.
We are both probably on the same side of the issue anyway. You and I both want Muslims to be seen in a better light. Only I want the fanatics to stop doing everything in their power to reinforce negative stereotypes and you want President Bush and I not to generalize and create a hostile environment for innocent Muslims. Got it. I’ll make sure my Palestinian friend and her family feel welcome when they come for dinner on Tuesday evening.
Good night, Albert. (#97)
A beginner’s attempt at WWIII speculation. I think it can be said that there are many more options besides blasting each other to kingdom come at the world’s disposal as compared to the past, right?
via EnergyBulletin link. http://tinyurl.com/hmtu3.
The great thing about predicting human events is that you are so often wrong. In this case, nothing would make me happier than to be in error. But, G-d help us all, I think the odds aren’t that bad that I’ m right. It is possible that yesterday morning, we started World War III.
The beginnings of wars are often hard to identify. Which act lit the spark on the tinderbox? Which straw was the final one? Like peak oil itself, the beginnings of war are often visible only in retrospect. Why today? Why, when we might make the case a world war war began when the US invaded Iraq? Why when this particular cause might turn out to be just another brush fire?