1. Degrees of religion

Comment #206099 by Stublore on July 8, 2008 at 5:17 am

Yes, religion is inherently a way of life but I believe it can exist in degrees. I know that picking and choosing which parts we adhere to goes against the fundamentals of faith but I truly, honestly believe that as long as a person is doing their best, they are doing enough. Some will say that's a cop-out but religion isn't a vehicle for gathering kudos from dogmatic worshippers; it is there as a personal bond between a human being and God. As long as a person's actions do not harm anyone and stay within the range of their moral barometer, I think they deserve respect.

2. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #184917 by Stublore on May 26, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Sigh, spell checker strikes again :(

At the alter, too, people feel the same sense of peace that comes from either the comforting words of the clergy, or from the intoxicating, brain altering, smell of incense.

At every mass, the priest would grab the brass incense burner from the alter boy

3. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161753 by Stublore on April 15, 2008 at 3:59 pm

We love all our [gay] students as we do all people in our churches but their lifestyle is not encouraged, particularly if it was a promiscuous lifestyle

4. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #144600 by Stublore on March 16, 2008 at 11:53 am

That is absolutely brilliant!!
Kudos to Sanal Edamaruku, and India TV for continuing to broadcast, not sure what it says about their quality of programming though :)
Can you imagine a similar program going to the lengths of India TV in the UK, Eire, or the US
"Tonights X-Factor replaced by a live feed of a shaman working his ju-ju on a non-believer, stay tuned for the shocking conclusion! Viewer discretion advised as this program may contain scenes which are harmful to your faith!!"

5. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144180 by Stublore on March 15, 2008 at 9:15 am

They just used the word "when," and if this kind of rhetoric, which is racist, is allowed to infect the civil discourse -- whether it comes from the Christian right or the New Atheists -- toward Muslims, who are one-fifth of the world population, most of whom are not Arabs...

6. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141069 by Stublore on March 10, 2008 at 1:31 am

And it's not like they have to go far to see what a disaster this bill will create: Texas is already in a peck o' trouble for passing a similar law.
The link above in the article did not work for me, I think this is the article:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-miller_27edi.ART.State.Edition1.425343c.html

7. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128492 by Stublore on February 17, 2008 at 7:18 am

Rofl! Johnson is a nickname for a certain male body part, so it's an appropriate award for Stein :)

8. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75672 by Stublore on October 3, 2007 at 9:18 am

It's not the "N" word, it's Nigger, or is it Negro?
The "N" word could apply to any word in the language which begins with that letter. The same token applies to all those other "bad words" which the PC crowd are trying to abbreviate to a single letter, which to non-english speaking people can be very confusing.

9. Some US Muslims say suicide attacks OK

Comment #44154 by Stublore on May 23, 2007 at 1:25 pm

I often wonder what motivated these people. Sure, religion will play a big major part. But EVERY SINGLE ONE? You have to ask yourselves, some of these people are woman - remembering that islam is a male dominated culture. Were they co-oerced, blackmailed? Who knows!? And thats the point. We just don't know.

10. Mysteries to Behold in the Dark Down Deep: Seadevils and Species Unknown

Comment #43820 by Stublore on May 22, 2007 at 7:29 pm

steve99
That is an extremely common misunderstanding. They don't have to withstand any pressure! Water flows freely through their bodies, so they experience no forces as a result of living at great depths.

What they do have to deal with is the fact that water provides a different chemical environment at such pressures, so their enzymes are different from those in organisms closer to the surface.

11. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #40735 by Stublore on May 14, 2007 at 8:31 pm

"She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death," said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

"If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it."

That just made me laugh!
Typical response to criticism of islam :(
islam means submission, not peace, and ofc if you disagree, you get submitted for a coffin.

"The Prophet Mohammed was a peacemaker and a role model for humanity," she said. "My understanding is that he was a peaceful person who believed that religion was a choice. He tried to teach people and bring them into it, not punish them."

Sure, he was peaceful when he had no power, but once he got the upper hand all bets were off!

And iirc don't later commands take precedence over earlier ones if there is a conflict? So if he says be peaceful at the start and later says kill all the unbelievers, then the kill all the unbelievers is the proper thing to do?

12. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36798 by Stublore on May 2, 2007 at 10:59 am

" 10. Comment #36590 by vertigo25 on May 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I have to agree with weavehole. This is pretty much just an extremely slanted article promoting nationalism and xenophobia.

Every religion has similar "courts," and they are not in anyway a challenge to governmental law. Aside from religions there are other groups who have their own judicial systems such as universities and athletic organizations."

Wow, i admit that i did not know that EVERY religion is entitled to set up their own courts, and employ their version of justice, rather than using the justice system of the land. Perhaps you could show me the FSM's court.
One of the things that i find repugnant about the sharia courts, apart from their treatment of women ,is the paying of fines for violent crimes. So if you beat someone up, and then intimidate them to go to these "courts" and pay a few quid, then you are in effect getting away with it, and setting up a system where if you can afford it you can use violence to get your way.

13. How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

Comment #24808 by Stublore on March 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Reposted from another article(cant find it unfortunately)
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=348792007

14. Long live satire

Comment #24572 by Stublore on March 7, 2007 at 10:54 am

Comment #24410 by mantel on March 6
"Islamic civilization has been a more tolerant society to Christian civilization. When Europe persecuted and Jews and Muslems, Islam let them live inside their borders, although of course not with the same status as Muslems when it came to taxation and political and legal positions. Jews were forbidden in Spain before and after the Muslem rule there, and the Jews in Jerusalem were much more tolerated when the city was under Muslem rule than during the part of teh Crusades when Christians were in control. "
That's quite a statement, so lets look at some of these things:
1)Muhammad in 628, attacked the Jews at the oasis of Khaybar, and after capturing one of the leaders, had him tortured till he revealed where the treasure was hidden.After then accepting surrender, Muhammad imposed the following conditions, that half the produce was to go to him, and most importantly, M could cancel the treaty and expel the jews whenever he wanted.
The 2nd Caliph, Umar, expelled the Jews from Mecca and Medina, quoting M "Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the arabs"
When the muslims invaded India, hundreds of thousands were put to the death, and others forced to convert to Islam.
Non muslims are not allowed to repair their places of worship, and display of items showing affiliation to a religion apart from Islam was not permissible.
Non muslims have less rights under the law in Islamic states, a non muslim may not be the boss of a muslim, but ofc the reverse is perfectly acceptable, non muslims are subject to much higher taxes than muslims, if a non fine was imposed on a muslim, it was halved if the victim was not a muslim. A non ,Muslim could be put to death for raising his hand to a muslim, even in self defence!

Then there was something called the "Devshirme", introduced by the Ottomans, it took a fifth of all catholic children, and made them into soldiers for islam, and continued for at least 300 years.
And ofc, lets also remind ourselves that it was Islam, which first adopted the rule, saying that Jews had to wear a yellow star to mark themselves out from the population.
If you look into it, you will find that the myth of Islamic tolerance is just that, a myth!, like the koran :).

"Islamic criticism should come from within Islamic countries. "

Strongly disagree with that. Criticism if valid, can and should come from not only within a sociey, but also from outside it. It is ridiculous and dangerous in the extreme to state that a society/culture group can only be criticised by that group, especially when that groups worldview comes into contact and conflict with other groups. Surely the criticisms of those who are in conflict be it ideologically,technically,intellectually etc are also worthwhile, even if they are not one of the parties involved in the conflict, and even more valid if they are one of the parties.


(Thanks to Why I am not a muslim by Ibn Warraq for this info)

15. Radical cleric sparks fury in Australia

Comment #18216 by Stublore on January 19, 2007 at 3:32 am

"We are the most humiliated nation on earth"

Since when is islam a nation?

16. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16869 by Stublore on January 9, 2007 at 10:02 am

While i agree with RD on the issue of religion, in this instance i am totally at odds with him. I forget who said it, but it was something like, if i kill a few hundred there will be uproar, but if i kill a few hundred thousand, there will be no outcry(paraphrased quite badly ). Saddam was undoubtedly a murderer on a truly massive scale, and when he was tried by an Iraqi court, and found guilty, of which no other verdict could be returned, i think it is incredibly naive to start wringing one's hands and saying this was an atrocity. The problem seems to be that with the presumption of innocence, on which most western justice systems are built, people seem to have great difficulty accepting, that sometimes, people are guilty BEFORE they are tried. From a moral standpoint, which is better, locking someone up in a small cubicle, for perhaps decades, and as a result spending perhaps millions on their continued incarceration, or simply executing them once the verdict is turned in, and spending the money saved on more worthwhile causes? As for using Saddam as a case study, who is to say he would co-operate, or even that he was special, and even more constraining from the liberals, is what about HIS rights. It always makes me cringe, when brutal, vicious, sadistic killers, are finally brought to trial, and then people start talking about their rights, totally ignoring the harm and suffering that lead to these people being tried. I do however agree that it was crass to broadcast footage of the actual execution, but i imagine that many people would not belive that he was actually dead until they had seen it.

17. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11686 by Stublore on December 6, 2006 at 2:32 pm

Hi FSW, sorry you seem disapointed at the the replies on this site, but if someone post on this site that their "beliefs" are based on intuition, then to be honest, they deserve to be tore a new one :)
Intuition is not proof, nor any basis for what most of the posters on this site are here for, which is rational discussion.
DMatthews posts are incompehensible, esp if as he says they, I have no beliefs about God whatsoever. I just have an intuitive sense that He does exist and that He'd prefer that humankind not. "
And
"God is not so enamored of the Earth's most successful primate that He would spend eternity in Heaven with either the creature or its soul. God is not so impressed by the primate that He would honor it by punishing it eternally in Hell with Satan.

God simply has reached an unemotional objective conclusion that the human experiment has failed and has no run its course and must come to an end. Such is life in a harsh cold empty vacuum which is the Universe.

We were given so many gifts and had such great potential but humankind has squandered it all away. Now we are in the process of running out of planet and running out of time. Enjoy these good days while they last because they won't last forever."
One has to wonder how DM came this knowledge, it seems he has a direct line to this god dude, which no one else has. Really, how can you have any form of conversation with someone who posts that he is in touch with god, esp as i said the vast majority of people here do not believe such a thing exists, and his view of god seems to be unique. By claiming he has intuitive knowledge of this, he may as well claim he has intuitive knowledge that the Teapot exists! What i have observed on this site, is that the responses are based on the quality and clarity of the post under discussion, and DM post are neither clear not quality. Personally i'm beginning to think DM just likes to post bullshit and sit back and watch the fireworks. As one poster said, it's like trying to pin jelly to a wall debating with him, he changes the goalposts and post nonsensical rationales for his viewpoints. FSW: "The purpose of a debate is for both sides - remaining open-minded and open to criticism - to get closer to 'the truth', not for one side to 'win' over the other for ego's sake. " I dont think that DM's post come anyway near debate, and none of the objections raised by posters have been answered rationally by him, therefore it seems to me, that he is deserving of the scorn heaped upon him.

18. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11576 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 3:26 pm

Hey David, newsflash, the vast majority of muslims in iraq are being killed by muslims. Therefore muslims are responsible for this, not the Americans or British
If you shoot at soldiers on the street, you seem to be saying they have no right to defend themselves, their lives are not worth defending. It's the initiators of the shooting that bear the brunt of the responsibility for the consequences, not the respondents. Yet the no. of civilians as i said before pales into comparison with those killed by carbombs or abducted and tortured.
The infrastructure, and power vacum while caused by the american invasion, are continuing as a direct result of the muslim on muslim violence, therefore they are the ones responsible, not the americans.
And yet again you resort to the tactics of the past, to try and justify your point, another newsflash, smart weapons are designed specifically to destroy a specific target, rather than the carpet bombing that needed in the past to achieve the same result. This is just one example of the shift of tactics that modern Western Armies use, as could be seen in the Bosnian campaign, and in the start of the Iraqi invasion.
I feel sorry for you david, you are still trying use to use the past to justify violent actions perpetrated TODAY by muslims, and it just does not make any sort of sense, and seeing as how you are incapable of actually answering my questions, this will be my last reply. I have i believe shown not once but 3 times that islam is inherently violent, and your only answer seems to be, that until islam reaches the bodycount achieved by the west, throughout all of recorded history, then we cannot criticise islam for using violence today, while also it seems implying that the only killing in the history of mankind was done by westerners, all other societies were what? peaceful beacons of light?

19. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11565 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 2:36 pm

David:
"Europe has a long history of violence which spans the entire globe ... as such, I find all European accusations against the Muslims ironic. The Europeans have (I would guess) a million-to-one advantage insofar as bloodshed is concerned."

Sorry, i did not realise it was a game where score keeping was being done(PS The Ottoman Empire did it's fair share of atrocites, but because they did not get up to the sum total of all deaths caused by Europeans, this does not count, nor the millions killed by the Chinese, etc), and again i guess, as you seem to be saying, it's ok for islam to kill people until they reach the same total as western society.
Wow, now that just blows me away,just let me restate your case:
because violence was perpetrated in the past, it right to do so now, till the scores are level!

"The Europeans and Americans also invented all of the weapons of mass destruction. The West has a nuclear arsenal numbering into the ten thousands compared to the Muslims who have at most only a few dozen nuclear weapons.

The West also threatened to annihilate all life on this planet in nuclear warfare, too. Mutually Assurred Destruction is equivalent to species-suicide. These nuclear weapons could very easily have vaporized 100 million humans in an instant and they would have done so except for extreme good luck (or Divine intervention). "

And the point of MAD, insane though it was, was that if either side started something, everyone loses, this does not hold as a brake on those of a religoius persuausion, esp those who believe that by killing those not a follower, you assure yourself a place in heaven, and also bypass the whole weighing of sins process, neat eh?! Islamic "scientists" could have also made these discoveries and many of the other ones made in Western culture, if they had embraced a forward looking, reason based society, not a retarded backward one, which views questioning as worthy of death not praise.

"Osama is an evil man for killing 3,000 civilians; George W. Bush and Tony Blair are evil men for killing 150,000 Iraqi civilians."

I have to admit this one has me baffled, just where were those 150,00 civilains you claim were killed by Bush and Blair, or are you deliberately "muddying the waters" as it were, by including the soldiers in that figure, and the key difference that you are missing, or perhaps just afraid to acknowledge, is that the islam deliberately sets out to kill the innocent, whereas the west, will make every effort to target military targets as their 1ST priority. Another point btw, is the number of Iraqi civilains who have died since the war began, have been innocent victims of the indiscrimate carbombings and abductions, which are waged on the basis of religious difference.
Is this policy of violence perpetreated by islam against the innocent not obvious to you, or are you just fixated on misdeeds by todays standard perpetrated hundred of years ago? Were those islamic regimes of the past more enlightened than those of the west at that time as regards human life and values?? I think the answer to that is obvious, NO, but the difference, is that islam is still stuck in that medieval mindset, the West has moved on.
I note that you had no answer to the portrayal of jews in isalmic newspapers, the apostasty issue, the deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the imams in the cartoon fiasco to name but three points i made, why is that? Could it be that islam is not really as peaceful as you would have is believe?

20. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11557 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 1:42 pm

To David Matthews:
My post actually takes the form of LOOK at what is done in the name of Islam TODAY, and provides pertinent examples.
Your defence, frankly is ridiculous, the west was violent in the past, so therefore you seem to be saying, it's forgivable for Islam to be violent today, which is a perfect illustration of my point, Islam is barbarous, backwards and most definitely a threat. Not only that, but it is incapable of learning like the west did, that violence and bigotry is not the answer to those who disagree with you. As regards the WMD, it does not matter who invented them, that genie is out of the bottle, what should be of concern, is how those living TODAY would use them, not those in the past, and let me say, i think that those europeans of the past would have been happy to use them to send the whole world to heaven, just like islam would today.( the good old "kill 'em all and let god sort them out " mentality)
If by any stretch of the word peaceful, you can say that islam is peaceful compared the west, you are worse than deluded.
Just to refresh your memory, 9/11 a deliberate targetting of civilians in the name of islam, the London and Madrid, in Iraq every day carbombs aimed at civilians(not the invaders, which would be at least understandable), the cartoon incident, deliberatley misrepresented by 3? Imams as containing 3 extra pictures,which unleashed a compaign of violence against western targets including the burning of churches in islamic countries, and the rape and burning of a nun, the treatment of women in islamic societies, the list is endless, and that does not include the hideous sterotyping and propaganda published in daily newpapers caricaturing and denigrating the jews, and lets not forget the policy of renouncing islam, the penalty is?...................................................
DEATH(wow, now that is peaceful!!)
On the basis of this evidence, there is NO WAY ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE. It is a delusion of lies, hypocrisy and medieval barbarity.
In the whole of the koran, there is less than 1%( i cannot find the exact figure, so it may be off) devoted to love and tolerance, the greater bulk of it is devoted to diatriabes against the unbeliever and killing of them.
The no. of christians that use their religions as an excuse to kill is negligible compared to islam, the no. of jews, buddhists,mormons, scientologists( ;) ), etc all have little of no killing in the name of their gods, yet islam stands head and shoulders above these deluded groups for their acceptance and willingness to embrace violence, and more importantly, violence again the INNOCENT.
If after all this you still maintain islam is a religion of peace, then i guess i can see why you are a believer, you have faith that it is the case, and mere facts cannot have any hold on your viewpoint :(

21. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11514 by Stublore on December 5, 2006 at 7:02 am

"Comment #11507 by David Mathews on December 5, 2006 at 5:32 am

Sam Harris is not merely intolerant, he is an anti-religious bigot. He spews slanderous accusations against Islam and encourages his followers to irrationally fear the Muslims. "

What exactly are these slanders that Sam spews?
He merely points out quite correctly in my opinion the danger that Islam represents. Is it slander to point out that islam is intolerant, misogynistic, and inherently violent? Given the modern proliferation of weapons of mass distruction, as Sam said for example a MAD rationale will not work with the religious, as they believe they will be rewarded for killing non-believers and go straight to heaven, therefore they do not care if they wipe out life on the planet. Judge people not on their words but on their actions, islamic suicide bombers consistently target the innocent in their cowardly campaigns, they scream for rights in western countries while simultaneously disallowing the same to those who live in isalmic socitietes, and all seem to think that the only way to solve their problems are with violence, just look at the furore over the cartoons, esp the misrepresentation of adding 3 images to the ones printed and pretending that they were part of it.
Many other religious institutions have accepted to a certain degree that their views are no longer paramount in society, islam still has to make that concession, and until it does, it will remain perhaps the most dangerous of all religious delusions in the world today.
It's not slander to tell the truth, and it's such a shame you cannot tell the difference.

22. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10844 by Stublore on November 29, 2006 at 12:16 pm

Comment #10817 by John Daigle on November 29, 2006 at 9:52 am

"And the most disgusting thing of all it seems to me is that you can actually buy your way out of your crimes."
------------

"I don't see why this is disgusting. Its the justice that the victims wanted. If the victim of the crime had wanted to press criminal charges under british law, this would have been dealt with as a crime under that law.

If people voluntarily choose to live by a set of rules, and I am not compelled to accept those rules myself, why should I care? "

Well 1st off, given all the hype in the british media at the moment about the dangers of knife crime, i am utterly amazed that the british police did/could not pursue this matter, i think it's outrageous that if the victim does not want to press charges, then the police simply drop the case, esp where the victim can claim a monetary reward for their inaction. Is this a common practice under british law, and if so what other crimes cannot be prosecuted in this manner?
Thats a very good question, why should you care about a group of people living in your country, who are governed by rules that you are not bound by. Why be worried that potential thugs can prey on "their own kind", providing they have the means to buy their way out of any trouble they may inflict on "their people", after all this will in no way affect the way they behave in society at large. And why should you care about the injustices that will be perpetrated on the most vulnerable members of society, esp if they have no option of asking "your" society for the help they need.
Afterall, if as the article says, that at least one court can hear criminal matters, and to my mind stabbing someone is a VERY serious offence, then soon all the minorities will be asking for the same thing, perhaps rape, or "honor killings" etc could be addressed under these cultures laws, would it be so unreasonable to ask that all "crimes" against those who practice these cultures, be dealt with under that cultures laws.
When you leave your own country, and particpate in anothers it is hardly conducive to integration to practice your own ideas about how the law should be based, rather than adopt the laws of the culture you are now part of.
But then again perhaps my view of this is skewed??

23. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10763 by Stublore on November 29, 2006 at 5:31 am

One of the most serious cases it has dealt with was the "trial" of a group of young men accused of stabbing a fellow Somali.

"When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing," says Aydarus. "The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

So let me get this straight, a guy was stabbed, the perp's admitted it in "cultural court", and paid some money to the victim!!!
WTF!!
So if i apply to a non english minority and am accepted, then any crimes i commit will be dealt with under their law system???
This is well and truly PC crap run amok, because as we all know, many cultures have somewhat different ideas not only about what justice is, but also who can actually avail of it, and what the penalty should be. And the most disgusting thing of all it seems to me is that you can actually buy your way out of your crimes.