jakee

Then could you answer my earlier one? Are you willing to be treated in the same way as Mr Padilla should you be wrongly accused of treason? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But what if he didn't? How do you know he is a traitor? The government have said they think he is, but they have fought very hard to avoid having to prove it. What if the government one day thinks you are a traitor? Are you going to lie back on your steel mattress in your bare cell and think "Oh well, its a fair cop, this is the price I pay for freedom" or are you going to be pissed off and demanding a trial? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

How our enemies treat detainees is completely and utterly irrelevant in how we should treat ours. Is freedom from summary execution the only freedom the government needs to afford us? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

My word, control through fear is most certainly alive and well in the US! If we allow this kind of 'justice' (hah) to become widespread then it cannot fail to harm the US. Innocent people will be locked up for very long periods of time and the complete and utter lack of transparency and oversight will allow the administration to claim x, y and z successes without actually having achieved a damn thing! It is attitudes precisely like yours which would allow this to become the thin end of the wedge. You seem perfectly happy that rights are being taken away from traitors. The point you miss is that those rights are being taken away from anybody who could be accused of being a traitor. And that means everybody Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Sure. But of course that still does not make it likely that he did. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Nope, wouldn't call it religious. Wouldn't call it atheist either. "Never crossed my mind" isn't a choice to dis-believe, it's just agnostic in it's purist form (don't know, don't care). I was looking for an answer to the second part of the post Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Priceless! Isn't one of the main purposes of the constitution to prevent majorities having it all their own way? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Until I was old enough to go to school I had absolutely no concept of god. Didn't know what the word meant, never heard of Jesus etc. Never crossed my mind that there might be some big dude sitting up there pulling the strings. I very much doubt you would call that state of non-belief religious. Then I was old enough to go to school, sat through my first religious assembly and thought to myself "what on earth is this beardy dude talking about?" (No joke, took me at least 2 or 3 years to figure out that people actually did believe the stories) So, I still held the same lack of belief about god, my outlook on the universe changed not one bit (though my outlook on human gullibility did), had I suddenly become religious? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Good point, and outside of this site I wouldn't. I don't go looking for fights, I just read here and there they are. That was also a very poorly thought out part of my post - I would actuelly like to know what people mean when they say refer to things like that. What i probably should have said is that on the face of it, it seems like those ideas of god are so far apart from the standard definiton that they seem, to me at least, to no longer fit the meaning of the word. If someone says "I believe in a god that is the laws of physics" do they actually believe anything different to what I do, and is "God" adequate terminology to describe their belief? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I think for the large majority of believers in the world today (however much or little they may have thought about the subject) 'God' does mean an intelligent creator, with a distinct personality. For the vast majority of human history this is what god has meant. When we step outside this definition we run into all kinds of problems, some people will say, for instance "I believe in god, I think God is the universe." I don't even know what that means, let alone how to argue against it! The universe is obviously there, but I don't accept it as God. Similarly when people say "God is this force/ that particle that underpins x theory" I honestly don't understand what idea of God that is, or what use it has beyond semantics. To collect, catalogue and refute these multitudes of new definitions of God would take a lifetime of study and a book larger than anyone is going to be willing to read. NB. I haven't read God Delusion and don't really plan to, so this is not a defense of what Dawkins does or does not say, but rather my own thoughts on the matter. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Can't be done. many beliefs in God include the subset of belief that god wants them to convert others to the same belief. If you respect their belief and let them get on with it then they will not be respecting yours - if you force them to respect your belief you will be disrespecting theirs. Simply by stating that I am an atheist I am more or less telling all christian/ muslim/ hindu etc believers that they are wrong, and vice verca. F**ked if you do, F**ked if you don't. Just my opinion. I've always thought religious tolerance was a contradiction in terms. And of course it woud be nice if everyone was respectful, but the modern world seems, if anything, to be slipping further into extremism. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Can't be done. many beliefs in God include the subset of belief that god wants them to convert others to the same belief. If you respect their belief and let them get on with it then they will not be respecting yours - if you force them to respect your belief you will be disrespecting theirs. Simply by stating that I am an atheist I am more or less telling all christian/ muslim/ hindu etc believers that they are wrong, and vice verca. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The attacks on evolution (and life's origins) from creationists are overwhelmingly based on ignorance and deliberate suppression/ misinterpretation of the evidence and theories we have. This gross intellectual dishonesty is what is engaged with "dogmatic hostility" simply because it is repeated over and over and over despite being refuted everytime. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The Bible is man's attempt at moral law?! Say it again, I think I just fainted. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And if their irrational belief tends to make them very decent people while followers of Poseidon tend to believe in human sacrifice you would still not give them 'more' respect? I think Christians have killed more humans than have Poseidon followers. However, whenever I bring up the Inquisition and the Crusades someone complains that it's ancient history. Following your logic would tend to leave only Buddhism and Wiccan as worthy or respect. I've read a few statements by the Dalai Lama that state things were sometimes quite brutal in Buddhist Tibetan history. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I thought the bible focused more on perfect, unattainable ideals when it came to morality not "Well shit, I guess if you're going to do it anyway then its ok." Seems like a horrible compromise to me. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I don't know why everything exists. Science has not yet explained it so it would be arrogant of me to pretend I could give an explanation. For a moment though, consider this - 10 or 15 years ago (an age in the world of fluid dynamics) a study was made on the flight of bumblebees. The findings were that based on all our current knowledge bumblebees were too heavy for their short, weak wings to enable them to fly (Cue lots of tabloid headlines "scientists declare bumblebee impossible"). We've now found that bumblebees use vortices in previously unexpored ways to create their lift. Anyway - during the time we had no idea how a bumblebee flew was it ever suggested that God picked bumblebees up and carried them where they needed to go? Of course it wasn't, it's an absurd suggestion which no-one would have been satisfied with. So why does it suddenly become a valid proposition on the larger questions when on smaller issues it is unacceptable? One last thought (A Dawkins paraphrase) granted we cannot absolutely prove or disprove God through science, this does not for a second mean that the chances are 50/50. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If someone truly believed they had gnomes at the bottom of the garden you'd probably laugh at them. If someone truly believed their house was haunted you'd probably laugh at them. If someone truly believed a leprechaun sat on his shoulder telling him what to do you might go so far as to get him professional help. If someone truly believes that an all powerful intellect created the universe and the world and everything on it just for us humans and that this intellect really does care whether we are nice to each other in very specific ways (and dictated books/ sent angels/ created magical golden plates to tell us how to be nice to each other) and whether we worship it in very specific ways then these people are religious and these beliefs must (apparently) be respected and unquestioned above all others. To even suggest it may be wrong is the height of intolerance. Every religion out there has books that explain why they are right (and, by consequence why everyone else is wrong). Now, with the God Delusion and other publications atheists have books that explain why we are probably right and by consequence why everyone else is probably wrong. Its not being forced down anyones throat, no-one is being made to go and buy it. It's just there if you want it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

The article says that he turned down the offer from his insurance Co. In that sense the car is still his though the police are saying he waited too long before trying to claim it back from them. I say it's his property so he can do whatever he wants with it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You've replied to the wrong person bud, I've already asked if nigel99 can answer those questions. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well those would be spiritualists not atheists then wouldn't they. The only other epithet that can be attatched to a true atheist would be to those who consider themselves humanist. And anyway, why are you so down on spiritualists? Can't you let them believe their thing in peace without your constant anti-spiritual activism? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Any examples? I only ask because I've seen him accused of irrationality by some simply because a) He used the word 'probably' in the statement "Jesus probably existed" and b) His definition of "reputable biblical scholar" wasn't "One who believes the bible is the true and inerrant word of God from page 1." Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Which has absolutely no bearing on your statement that 'atheism is fanaticism'. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Hah! So how many fanatical atheist evangelists can you name? I'll have a go - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bertrand Russell...... any more for any more? How many evangelist atheists hold weekly meetings or organise protest rallies in your neighbourhood? Any? When laws connected with 'morality' are being debated how many prominent atheists' opinions are sought to balance out the bishops, cardinals and rabbis? Now stop whinging Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Jesus H Christ woman you are the most condescending poster I have ever read on here (and yes, I have read my own posts)! Has a week ever gone by that you haven't told someone how to live their life? Do you want to have an ideagasm?