Idaho patriots tool up to battle Jihad with pork bullets US patriots concerned about "the ever growing threat of radical Islam and Sharia Law" can sleep sounder* in their beds thanks to an innovative range of pork-coated ammunition designed to dispatch jihadists directly to hell. Jihawg Ammo's high-tech covering of ballistic paint, infused with "highest quality pork product made …
Puckle, the inventor of an early rapid fire gun, suggested square bullets for use against "the Turk". For some reason he honestly thought they would be more effective against an other-religioned enemy.
I was expecting these to be a joke at someone's expense, and that seems to be the case but I'm just not sure who's expense.....
Not more effective. Just more painful. The idea was round bullets would penetrate easily casing a lot of deep internal damage, while square bullets would catch at flesh and leave a shallower but wider, more severe wound. Round bullet means target drops dead, square means they drop in agony and slowly die of blood loss.
You'd think so but actually its not. Armstrong Whitworth came up with a square bullet rifle that was more accurate than its round firing counterpart on the basis that its designer spent ages figuring out the perfect rifling which was easier to achieve on square bullets than round - it also improved gas sealing which meant higher gas pressure, better muzzle velocity and given it was the British Army using them dead fuzzy-wuzzy at a safer distance...
Having actually visited Ohio I'm so not surprised they'd come up with this.. but the most depressing thing? religion is indeed for idiots - but who's the bigger fool? the godbotherer or the atheist who votes for him...
Religious belief should automatically preclude political power..
Having actually visited Ohio I'm so not surprised they'd come up with this.. but the most depressing thing? religion is indeed for idiots - but who's the bigger fool? the godbotherer or the atheist who votes for him...
That would be the atheist who actually believes that science proves anything at all in regards to god. Real science makes no comment on the subject either direction, but the number of atheists who claim otherwise is absolutely staggering.
I heard a rumor, years ago, that during the first Gulf War we were dropping pamphlets threatening to wrap the corpses of fallen Iraqi soldiers in bacon. The source of said rumor attributed the propaganda as one of the primary reasons that war ended so quickly. Personally I sprinkle salt liberally on that one, especially given Bush Sr's connections to the Saudi royal family, but it sounds plausible. It could work in the current war to, except for two things: the American public would throw a hissy fit over it and, as we kill most of them with drones, they'd know we couldn't recover the bodies.
My personal opinion has always been that there should be a Church and a Mosque, probably also a Synagogue joined as part of the same building at the site of Ground Zero. It makes a statement to those that would hijack religion to use as an excuse for their own twisted ideology.
I did follow that up with making the new twin towers a v sign pointing towards where the terrorists actually came from, but that may be seen as rather provocative and probably only really understood by the British.
In the new World Trade Center itself, there was to be a chapel, to be used for all the world's great religions, including Islam. One way to make that less annoying would be to have the imam be an Ahmadiyya Muslim. This would firmly exclude any tie to those factions within the Muslim world that sympathize with terror.
An excellent point. Might as well let them get on with it, then.
I wonder if we can set up a country with entry requirements based on a support for the scientific method - a citizen is free to worship any god or gods they please, so long as they can first devise a proper peer-reviewed experiment proving that said god(s) actually exist.
GJC
wonder if we can set up a country with entry requirements based on a support for the scientific method - a citizen is free to worship any god or gods they please, so long as they can first devise a proper peer-reviewed experiment proving that said god(s) actually exist.
I believe in the universe, but I'm b*****ed if I can think of an experiment that proves it exists. What would the control be? I'm not even sure that I can prove that I exist.
@Nigel 11
"I believe in the universe, but I'm b*****ed if I can think of an experiment that proves it exists. What would the control be? I'm not even sure that I can prove that I exist."
I would hope observational evidence would prove you exist. Otherwise I am commenting to nothing. So at least virtually you have a presence that can be seen and quantified. The same with the universe.
I have often wondered about a scientific society being created but then they would likely be invaded constantly.
@AC 15:27. It's not a common philosophy, but one can believe that nothing really exists except one's own thoughts. "Am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming it is a man". If you work in IT and are familiar with the concept of virtuality, it's actually a less strange idea than it might be otherwise. How can you prove that you and I are not simulations of human brains, in a historical simulation being run by the beings that supplanted humanity during the technological singularity that has already happened out there in the real solar system.
Occam's razor comes in handy with thoughts like this, but that's an axiom not a proof.
I often find myself lapsing into solipsism - apart from anything else, I find some of the phenomena around me to be impoisible: just how do the slender wings of the modern airbuses etc provide enough lift to raise those monstrous forms stuffed full of people into the air?
+1 Jake. People deserve respect, beliefs don't.
If they believe my disrespect of their beliefs(e.g. one the Abrahamic religions; the moon landing was faked; offshore coding is cost-effective) is a disrespect of them as a person, then that is just one more belief of theirs that I do not respect, but I will continue to try to respect them as a person.
"People deserve respect, beliefs don't."
Those withj religious beliefs deserve no respect whatsoever. The truth is laid out in front of them and they chose to disbelieve instead opting for faith.
Dangerous people. Like it or not!
Personally I think you're dead wrong. I work for a festival, which while ostensibly Christian has bands and speakers from all religions and none. It's not just a small operation either, in it's 40th year and currently attracts about 20k people. (It's called Greenbelt.)
I go to churches where speakers from many different areas come, we have interfaith dialogue with many other local religions. Just because some shoutey small minded bigots say that "My religion is the only way" at the top of their voices, doesn't mean that different religions don't talk to each other.
I count Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists and Buddhists amongst my friends, I'm glad it's so.
You totally missed the point. What is your interfaith dialog but simple respect of each other? You don't believe in Allah, they don't believe in Jehova. Neither of your religions allow for a dualistic approach where you are both worshipping the same God. You can say you respect their religion but really you are dissembling.
I similarly count people of all beliefs amongst my friends, including the moon hoax and cost-effective off-shoring I mentioned.. Doesn't stop me believing they are completely wrong and that their beliefs are stupid. I'm just honest enough to say that their beliefs don't make any kind of sense when seen against what I know to be true.
It is the monotheistic religions themselves which say "my religion is the only way" - it's just that each religion's shouty bigots are less embarrassed about saying so. Your diplomacy towards believers of other faiths does you credit, but plenty of antitheists like myself have read your holy books and we KNOW what your religions say. They are not mutually compatible beliefs, at least some of you are wrong, and to my mind you all are. And more importantly if you are a Christian who thinks Islam is a valid belief, you are probably breaking your own rules - they are there in black and white, e.g. Commandment 2.
You were clearly downvoted by someone who knows sod-all about religion, but is happy to wade in on the topic. Which is a major part of the problem. Anyone who doesn't understand that all three religions are worshipping the same person really shouldn't really be expecting their opinions to be valid or worthy of any attention.
Thanks, John.
I don't take said beliefs to be likely, much less certain, but have long since accepted that, since I can't prove anything either way, I'm free not to worry about it. It's highly liberating, and I would recommend it to everyone (except I won't, as that would be prosletising!).
It is even more liberating to not entertain the idea as possible unless a proponent of the idea can prove it is so.
I suggest you read Russell's Teapot Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot - are you as agnostic about the chances of Jehova existing as you are that Zeus and Apollo exist?
@Clive Galway
Yup, utterly agnostic about the whole lot, teapot included (not to mention the dragon in your garage). None of it is worth losing any sleep over.
Never begrudge a man his vices, except perhaps if that man's particular vice is shooting pork-coated bullets at what he perceives to be terrorists.
"You don't believe in Allah, they don't believe in Jehova. Neither of your religions allow for a dualistic approach where you are both worshipping the same God. "
Firstly, Jewish, Muslim and Christian worshippers all worship the same God. That's pretty much World Religion 101. Odd how many people totally miss the point.
And they both allow a duallistic approach where OTHER PEROPLE can worship other Gods. It's just that members of those faiths only *themselves* only worship one God (which is the same one). There is no reason at all except for people being arseholes that the religions cannot co-exist with a degree of mutual respect.
As ever, the basic problem with the planet is arseholes.
No, we don't and I'd never offend a Jew by claiming he worships the same G-d I do. I will respect him and his beliefs, but that itself is a religious conviction of mine. Yes, I believe in the Trinity and that one aspect of it matches the G-d religious Jews worship. But Christ aspect of the Trinity changes who that G-d is. I expect the government to not establish any sect as an state state requirement because I do not want the government abusing my faith. I'll grant I'm less tolerant of Muslim religion, but mostly because of their recent behavior killing civilians. And he still has the right to worship as he sees fit. I just claim that because of actual actions and threats made, that the government has probable cause to keep watch on them. Just like the UK had probable cause to keep watch on the "political" IRA.
The concept that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same G-d is an agnostic/atheistic meme that does not reflect true differences between the faiths.
@Tom -
Jews, Chrisitans and Muslims worship the God of Abraham. They may go about it in different ways, they may see "godhead" in different ways, but it's the same "godhead". After all, there are many ways in to my father's house, etc. etc.
Actually they sort of do. All three worship the God of Abraham. They just disagree about the nature of their God. Of the three, however, I think only Christians (and not even all of them) recognize any relation, since they acknowledge that Christ is the son of Jehovah.
They do not, however, recognize Allah as the same God they worship. Depending on which Christian theologian you ask you're likely to get answers which call Muhammad anything from a fraud to the victim of infernal deception, but Allah bears no resemblance to the God Christians know.
Jews sometimes, not always, view Christ as a prophet, and some branches of Judaism (specifically Messianic Jews) recognize him and the God of Christianity as being the same as their own. Other branches hold the same view of Christ that Christians hold of Muhammad.
By comparison, Muslims are very solidified in their views. The do not recognize any connection to either Jews or Christians (or so I understand -- I don't know as much about Islam as I do about Christianity and Judaism).
None of which changes the inescapable fact that all three of these religions trace their roots to Abraham, a single man living several thousand years ago in the Middle East, and claim to worship his God. This is the basis for saying all three worship the same God.
"Firstly, Jewish, Muslim and Christian worshippers all worship the same God. That's pretty much World Religion 101. Odd how many people totally miss the point."
Allah didn't have a son. The entire Christian faith is based on the belief that Jesus Christ was God made flesh.
The Jewish Messiah has yet to appear. Jesus Christ wasn't it.
These are not mere disagreements over doctrinal details. The three Abrahamic religions are fundamentally and eternally incompatible.
jake: ...If any given religion respected the beliefs of any of the others.
AC: I go to churches where speakers from many different areas come, we have interfaith dialogue with many other local religions.
John H Woods: You totally missed the point. What is your interfaith dialog but simple respect of each other?
Try reading for comprehension, John. AC was addressing precisely the point jake explicitly made, in the terms he made it. Honestly, some of you people are so concerned with grinding your ax that you can't even read the words your interlocutors post.
It is the monotheistic religions themselves which say "my religion is the only way"
There are monotheistic sects which don't advocate that position. And, of course, there are polytheistic (eg some Hindu sects), quasitheistic (eg some Mahayana Buddhisms), and atheistic (eg some Theravada Buddhisms) faiths which similarly do not exclude other faiths as possibly correct - and jake didn't mention monotheism in the comment AC was responding to.
And, frankly, it's a little ironic seeing AC here being lectured by someone who goes on to write "I'm just honest enough to say that their beliefs don't make any kind of sense when seen against what I know to be true". Your foundation is no more secure than AC's; what you "know to be true" is just as subject to the epistemological scandal. Any substantive conclusion based on metaphysical speculation - and that includes atheism - is equally at risk, because by definition the supernatural (anything outside the natural order) can't be put to scientific test. And that's without even involving the problems of the reliability of the senses, Descartes' "evil genius", etc.
It's possible to make an argument that a "perfect Bayesian reasoner" is arguing from a superior basis, on the grounds that such reasoning is only subjective when evaluating axiomatic probabilities. Beyond that, we're all equally mired in the swamp; and it's demonstrably impossible for any human being to act as a perfect Bayesian reasoner (as psychological and neurological experimentation has shown).
Personally, I avoid untestable assumptions where I can, because I find them neither necessary nor advantageous. But I don't pretend this makes my thinking generally better than that of the faithful, except in the limited formal sense that it makes my logical system more connected (because it admits fewer axioms and doesn't have a universal "god" axiom to fall back on).
"You don't believe in Allah, they don't believe in Jehova. Neither of your religions allow for a dualistic approach where you are both worshipping the same God"
I reckon you knew what you were doing there JHW. - a troll for the non thinking athiests perhaps....?
I do think we antitheiests fell into our own trap by sometimes talking about the 3 main monothiest religions praises the same god.. I mean... how can we tell he's the same god ? he (probably) doesn't exists, and there is no evidence for him... how do you scientifically prove therefore that they are the same imaginary entity 'believed in' by seperate groups of people. I wondered if Dicky D just says it to wind them up more.....
"work for a festival, which while ostensibly Christian has bands and speakers from all religions and none. It's not just a small operation either, in it's 40th year and currently attracts about 20k people. (It's called Greenbelt.)"
20K people being corrupted by twisted and evil "faith".
I do not need a religion to know what is right and what is wrong. If you as an individual need a faith to be guided, that is not only very sad, but does not shed a favourable light on your parents/upbringing.
All religion is nothing more than an elaborate story designed to keep humanity in check and stop them from raping/pillaging/murdering each other on a mass scale.
I don't need to be told that this is wrong. I know and not because it was written in a fantasy book 1000's of years ago.
This alone is the reason why religion MUST be kept well away from public life. It has no place in a modern civilised society.
Patronising? Much?
Describing faith as evil puts you squarely in the camp of the small minded prescriptive atheists who to me as just as bad as the people who claim to speak for any religion and then try to force their opinions onto others.
As for your assertion that you don't need religion to know what is right and wrong, where do you think the vast majority of your concepts of right and wrong came from in the first place?
"It's called Greenbelt"
Err... Apples and oranges. That is organized by the _ONLY_ big church I know which adheres to the teaching of its founding father which explicitly specify that you can believe (apologies if I am misquoting) in god only by yourself and noone, never ever should force anyone to believe in god and how you reach that belief. This is the only big church that does not just preach religious tolerance, it leaves by it. The methodists.
I spent two years in a methodist run university in my youth. I quite vividly remember even today how the provost called "on the carpet" in his office some religious nutheads that were harrassing the atheists and agnostics club and threw the book (literally - showed them the actual pages from the Wesley book) at them. To put things in perspective - your average church of England school is 10s (if not 100s) of times more intolerant than a methodist event (despite all regulatory safeguards and limitations).
So first of all anyone stating that there is no such thing as intolerant religion is wrong. Methodists are a fine example, there are a couple of others (albeit smaller ones). These are however a minority. And so unfortunately are you sir :(
I'd agree with you, Geoff ... If any given religion respected the beliefs of any of the others. Problem is, they don't. It's their way or the highway ...
Buddhism
Taoism
Shinto
Bahai
Faith is a non-starter for anyone capable of thinking for themselves.
The worst thing is, you're committing the same logical fallacy as those you criticize -- the only difference is that you're generalizing to an even more absurd degree. They say "religion x is all dangerous crazy nutters" and you say "all religious are dangerous crazy nutters."
Well I say those who over-generalize are the dangerous crazy nutters.
didnt Buddhism produce some of the finest warriors of their time (the Japanese samurai)?
Samurai beliefs had wandered a long way from the source. If they were still Buddhist at all, they were a sect on the fringes. And on the fringes of the fringe, the Japanese suicide-asassin sect, the name of which I've forgotten. Devote your life to learning to kill, kill the man your Abbot ordered you to kill, then kill yourself to attain Nirvana if you survive your mission. Truly bizarre.
Buddhism begat many of the martial arts. The forms of unarmed combat that specialize in redirecting an opponent's attack against himself are probably truest to their source. It is not necessary to become a punchbag to believe in non-violence.
I think the already hazy line between Buddhism and Shinto is being confused here, I was under the impression that most of the Japanese martial arts are more from Shinto than Buddhism, indeed Sumo is fought in a mock up of a Shinto temple.
However didnt Buddhism produce some of the finest warriors of their time (the Japanese samurai)?
Yes, but they weren't fighting for Buddhism (or more to the point, against other religions)-- they were fighting for their nobles. The question wasn't which religions are pacifist, but which are tolerant and respectful of other religions.
@Anonymous Coward
Since the Japanese samurai mostly fought only other Japanese samurai or unarmed peasants, I don't know whether they qualify as being among 'the finest warriors of their time'. The only non-Japanese they ever faced were the Mongols, who were making mincemeat of them before typhoon season intervened.
Buddhism, Taoism & Shinto are philosophical ways of life, not organized religions (at least when done right).
Bahai is similar to Islam or Mormonism ... it exists only to make the leaders money, and give them power. Somewhat similar to the Catholics and the rest of the Christian sects.
I don't say "all religions are dangerous crazy nutters". Rather, I prefer "organized religion is the root of all evil".
I>Faith is a non-starter for anyone capable of thinking for themselves.
s your disrespect for those whose beliefs don't coincide with yours deliberately ironic or something else?
It is pride, thinking more of yourself than others, which is at the root of nearly every conflict.
That problem is endemic to humanity and is demonstrably not confined to those with a belief in the supernatural. At least some religion outlines a better way, seeks to mitigate pride and offers some hope. Atheism demands nothing and offers nothing, usually resulting in hedonism and/or nihilism.
In a world without purpose or meaningful destiny, everything is irrational because there is no reason for chance. All is vanity.
I'm all for respecting other people's religious beliefs right up until those beliefs say I and my family should be murdered in cold blood for not sharing them.
If you want to go to the Mosque or Temple or Church every week, so be it. If you want to believe that you were put here by the Creator, or that the Great Wolf guide you through visions while you're smoking a sacred herb, or that your ancestors watch over you, or that the God Emperor is protecting you from the Chaos Gods, what do I care? If you choose to believe that we're all cosmic accidents and that there's nothing beyond what our 5 basic senses can tell us, what difference does it make to me?
But the second you start to believe I need to die and begin to act on that belief I will take whatever steps I need to stop you and protect myself and my family. If that means making a bullet that you believe will send you directly to hell in hopes that you decide not to mess with me, then I will.
I know not all Muslims are violent, but to be honest when it comes down to offending the non-violent majority of the religion or potentially saving some 'infidel' lives, I'm going to save lives. This lunatic idea that there's anything wrong with treating murderous religious extremists as the murderers they are just because their motivations are religious in nature is just unacceptable to me. Making a weapon that will scare them so badly that they don't want to try to kill me or my family anymore by using the same religion that prompted them to violence in the first place seems pretty reasonable to me.
Okay, I'll start pointing and giggling at you now.
Just because your religion preaches "there is no god" doesn't stop it being a religion.
The only time I stop respecting people and their beliefs, religious or otherwise, is when they refuse to discuss things on the possibility that they might be ill-informed and therefor potentially wrong.
>> Just because your religion preaches "there is no god" doesn't stop it being a religion.
Seriously? "Atheism is a religion too! HERP DERP DERP!"
No priests, no meetings, no faith, no dogma, no commonality at all except not believing in god(s)... sure sounds like every religion I ever heard of!
Muppet.
@David Hicks:
"No priests, no meetings, no faith, no dogma, no commonality" Really?
No Priests: Dawkins
No Meetings: Sceptics in the pub - a group whose Reading web site, last time I looked, said in as many words that religious people need not apply. And 9 lessons and carols for Godless people, there are many.
No Faith: The levels of certainty are higher than most religious people I know.
No dogma: Sure, there's none, no books that bang on at the already converted, nothing. No Dawkins said it, so it's got to be right.
No Commonality: Again, have you actually met any of the trndy, hipster athiests? Many of them may as well be clones of each other.
I don't care if you do or don't believe in a God, but don't delude yourself that it's some free thinking personal ideology that has nothing akin to any religion.
"No Priests: Dawkins"
Not a huge fan of the man, never read any of his work.
"No Meetings: Sceptics in the pub"
Never been to any meeting like that.
"No Faith: The levels of certainty are higher than most religious people I know."
No, because scientific theory is only ever one experiment away from changing.
"No dogma: Sure, there's none, no books that bang on at the already converted, nothing. No Dawkins said it, so it's got to be right."
Again, I've never read any of his works. I agree there's a bit of a personality cult around him and a few others though, but he hardly speaks for some sort of "Church of Atheism".
"No Commonality: Again, have you actually met any of the trndy, hipster athiests? Many of them may as well be clones of each other."
That applies to all trendy hipsters. Nothing to do with any lack of belief in the supernatural.
So go on, tell me how I'm actually part of a religion. While you're at it, tell me how not having any hobbies is in itself just another hobby.
>> No Priests: Dawkins
I don't turn to him for moral guidance and he doesn't get to tell me how to live and I don't give him any money.. He is entertaining on the telly sometimes. That doesn't make him a priest. FAIL.
>> No Meetings: Sceptics in the pub
All atheists have to go to this do they? Specifically the Reading branch? FAIL.
>> No Faith: The levels of certainty are higher than most religious people I know.
You won't find many atheists who are certain of anything except that you have no evidence on your side, and with no evidence there's no reason to believe. That's not faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence. FAIL.
>> No dogma: Sure, there's none, no books that bang on at the already converted, nothing. No Dawkins said it, so it's got to be right.
Reading Dawkins (or other) books is not required to be atheist, only to not have religion. FAIL.
>> No Commonality: Again, have you actually met any of the trndy, hipster athiests? Many of them may as well be clones of each other.
No, I haven't, because there's no congregation, meetings or commonality you absolute muppet. FAIL.
>> I don't care if you do or don't believe in a God, but don't delude yourself that it's some free thinking personal ideology that has nothing akin to any religion.
Except it doesn't. It's not even an ideology, I'm not part of a group. I just don't believe in gods and I don't go to church. That's all there is to it. I'm not sure why it is you think this makes people like me religious.
"Except it doesn't. I don't believe in gods and I don't go to church. That's all there is to it"
If that were all there was to it, you wouldn't feel the necessity to bang on about it, including detailed replies to people challenging you about it on a public forum on the Internet.
But, you know, keep protesting that you don't have belief and that you're in no way like anyone else who has the same not-belief as you.
>> If that were all there was to it, you wouldn't feel the necessity to bang on about it, including detailed replies to people challenging you about it on a public forum on the Internet.
Right, because religious nuts making sweeping statements on the net should never be challenged, and because I'm in an argumentative mood today I *must* be religious and non belief must actually be a religion.
>> But, you know, keep protesting that you don't have belief and that you're in no way like anyone else who has the same not-belief as you.
"Everyone that doesn't collect model trains is just making a hobby out of not collecting model trains and is no different from train collectors."
"Err, no, I don't buy tracks or scenery or obsess over replica steam engines"
"you do all these things that are just the same!"
"No, I really don't"
"If not collecting trains wasn't a hobby you wouldn't be protesting about it!"
Moron.
So, I'm a religious nut and a moron.
Your arguments would carry more weight if you didn't have to resort to abuse. Then again you are making exactly my point, and probably your own point, blind faith beit in a God or in no God is a bad thing it clouds the mind, it prevents people from having coherent arguments and they just shout their beliefs and resort to abuse if they don't get their own way.
Were you to ever meet me in real life you'd know that I am the furthest away form a religious nut and as you can get and I'm certaonly no moron.
I also don't abuse people on the Internet who aren't the same as me.
>> Your arguments would carry more weight if you didn't have to resort to abuse.
I don't have to, it's just more fun that way.
>> Then again you are making exactly my point, and probably your own point, blind faith beit in a God or in no God is a bad thing it clouds the mind, it prevents people from having coherent arguments and they just shout their beliefs and resort to abuse if they don't get their own way.
This is true.
However it's impossible to have a coherent argument when one side is perpetually assigning motives, thought patterns and behaviours to the others.
Hell, I'm not going to argue that you're wrong to believe in god, that's not my place and is entirely up to you, its your belief. The only reason we're arguing at all is because of folks like yourself trying to tell me what I think and believe.
>> I also don't abuse people on the Internet who aren't the same as me.
That's not what's happening here, I'm sorry you think that.
By my read of the timeline on this thread, the first nutter posting sweeping and unprovable generalizations on this thread was the atheist jake, with you following soon thereafter.
And make no mistake about it, atheism is every bit as much of a belief system without proof as theism is. Or as is frequently and correctly pointed out in certain other threads, absence of proof is not proof of absence. In order to know there is not a god you must have examined everything that has existed from the beginning of time until the end of time. As Descartes correctly pointed out, that would make you the very thing you claim you know does not exist.
>> By my read of the timeline on this thread, the first nutter posting sweeping and unprovable generalizations on this thread was the atheist jake, with you following soon thereafter.
Jake said "Idiots of any religious stripe should be pointed at & giggled at at every opportunity.". Do you identify as an idiot? Note how he doesn't say we should point and laugh at all religious people, just idiots of any religious stripe.
Killraven then comes along and says atheism is a religion, which is what got my goat.
>> And make no mistake about it, atheism is every bit as much of a belief system without proof as theism is
Nope.
>> In order to know there is not a god
Who's claiming this?
Nobody. Not me. Not anyone else in this thread and not even Richard Dawkins.
FAIL.
""Except it doesn't. I don't believe in gods and I don't go to church. That's all there is to it"
If that were all there was to it, you wouldn't feel the necessity to bang on about it, including detailed replies to people challenging you about it on a public forum on the Internet.
But, you know, keep protesting that you don't have belief and that you're in no way like anyone else who has the same not-belief as you."
Retarded argument!
"No priests"
You call them 'scholars' or 'scientists'
'No meetings'
True, but most religions don't have meetings. The Abrahamic religions are really an exception in that regard. They just happen to collectively encompass a huge percentage of the world population (I don't know the exact number, but I think it's over half when you combine all three)
'No faith'
You have total faith that there is nothing beyond what can be seen (with exceptions at the subatomic scale), to the point of rejecting any evidence that suggests otherwise.
'No dogma'
Really? Given the number of times natural selection has been debunked only to be resurrected with implausible hypotheses to counter the debunking (co-option to counter irreducible complexity for instance) I'd say otherwise.
'No commonality at all except not believing in god(s)'
There's very little commonality in some religions. You should hear the wide range of beliefs from people who self identify as 'Pagans' for instance. Or even (slightly) more structured religions like Wicca and Shamanism. The belief that there is no god actually gives you more commonality than some of them.
Simply put, anything that comments on the existence, or lack there of, of a god is a religion. In the case of atheism, it goes even further since atheists believe that life began naturally but have no way of explaining how that happened (as far as I know that is -- every theory I've come across on the matter has been rejected or debunk by the scientific community because they found out the conditions weren't right for them 4 billion years ago).
Yes, seriously. A belief system, is a belief system, is a belief system.
More rational responses below have similarly been down-voted. Amusing how the Athiest/Agnostic trolls take offense so easily, usually more easily than the devout, when their own (lack of) belief is questioned.
I've been an Agnostic for nearly 40 years, but still not ignorant enough to think that I have all the information about deities, real or otherwise.
What is the difference in belief in God and belief in No_God? Answer: two letters and an underscore.
The problem is belief, without evidence. In a universe containing very good evidence for its own creation, is it really wise to deny all possibility of a creator just like that? As soon as you start thinking that's OK, you are on as much slippery path to logical inconsistency and moral ruin, as those who assert that the creation was 6000-odd years ago because this book says so.
I'm a militant agnostic, otherwise known as a scientist. Yes, I do have to start with a few axioms (which I'll drop if anyone ever finds a way to disprove them). One is that there exists an objective universe outside my head. Another is that Occam's razor is a really good idea.
>> What is the difference in belief in God and belief in No_God? Answer: two letters and an underscore.
Awesome. Could you point out the people who actively believe there's no god?
I know a lot of folks who don't have any religion (we call these atheists) due to lack of evidence, but I'm not sure I know anyone that positively asserts there is not and can be no god. Because that would be pretty dumb. Not even the likes of Dawkins, that people seem to love to hate, claim that sort of thing.
Actually I did once encounter a 'strong' atheist like that on fark. They were nuts.
>> The problem is belief, without evidence. In a universe containing very good evidence for its own creation, is it really wise to deny all possibility of a creator just like that?
Who's doing that?
I just don't see any evidence for one. If it turns up, I'll change my position.
>> I'm a militant agnostic, otherwise known as a scientist.
Sounds like you're also an atheist to me.
You probably dislike the label and its associations for a variety of reasons, but unless you actually believe in a god or have a religion, that's what you are because that's what the word means. I'm also both agnostic (I have no knowledge) and atheist (so I have no religion).
"Just because your religion preaches "there is no god" doesn't stop it being a religion."
It's not a religion. It's pragmatism.
Don't TELL me that gawd/ess(s) exist ... Fucking SHOW me that they exist. If you can.
Until then, kindly keep your mumbo-jumbo out of my bandwith. Ta.
"The only time I stop respecting people and their beliefs, religious or otherwise, is when they refuse to discuss things on the possibility that they might be ill-informed and therefor potentially wrong."
Indeed. Did you comprehend what you wrote before hitting submit?
Religion isn't science, it's not scientifically provable, it's belief and faith. In the same way that you can't prove there isn't a God, you can't prove that there is either.
Also science isn't everything, there are arts, literature, philosophy non of these things are scientific or scientifically provable, but they exist and we are the richer for them.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Also science isn't everything, there are arts, literature, philosophy non of these things are scientific or scientifically provable..."
It pretty much is everything when it comes to "where did the universe come from". No one's asking Anish Kapoor or Martin Amis what came before the big bang, any more than they'd ask the local Imam/Priest/Witch Doctor for a considered critique of "One flew over the Cuckoo's nest".
"Also science isn't everything, there are arts, literature, philosophy non of these things are scientific or scientifically provable, but they exist and we are the richer for them."
I am pretty sure that if you go to a library, you can prove that literature exists.
"I'm not sure I'm right and I've been a church goer all my life, I question my beliefs every day."
As a child,I was sent to Sunday school every week. Normal school had a morning service every day. I questioned my "beliefs" at a very early age, ie before I left school, and came to the fairly obvious and logical conclusion that those beliefs were the result of being told the same thing time after time, therefore it's true, and therefore must be a fallacy.
I don't believe that anyone claiming to go to church regularly has ever really questioned their beliefs. If they had, they'd either believe wholeheartedly and no longer question it or have given up that belief and no longer have to question it.
I suspect that what you question is not the your religion itself, but how you feel about some aspects of it. That's not the same thing.
In the wake of this groundbreaking invention, I had the idea of a lifetime:
The
G A T E S of B A C O N ™
It's an easy, pleasant solution for all the TSA's problem with airport security.
Replace the scanner gates with a bead curtain where the beads are made from pork scratchings (or crackling), interspersed with strips of bacon.
This provides a pleasant smelling, non-radiation means of stopping any potential Islamic terrorists from entering an aircraft, without having to look at their privates while cutting down on equipment costs, privacy issues and radiation exposure for the citizens of god's own country.
The smell alone should stop any Allah-praising proto-bomber from going through and having his self brushed all over by the unclean pig bits, thus having to subject himself instead to a manual patdown. If you use pig-leather gloves for this, it will deter even the most determined Muslim from ever using air travel again.
On a further thought, the artificial fish smell that is added to C4/ Semtex could be replaced with the smell of fried pork bangers or other unclean, scrummy foods. Not only would this stop Jihadists from handling it, it would also mask the usual acrid smell of RDX and PETN better and make it more pleasant and natural for sniffer dogs to detect.
(Does this really need an extra sarcasm marker?)
We need bacon rolls at security check!, nice little bite sized ones made with proper back bacon!
Anyone not consuming one gets a mandatory enhanced pat down!
In all seriousness... Security theatre is just that, when they allow people to walk round an airport with their heads and bodies fully covered, I see it as pointless...
An Israeli military photographer told me** a story on a similar theme a few years ago. There was a long spate of bus bombings in Israel in the 90's which, according to this guy, the Israelis finally brought a halt to it by letting it get back to Hamas that they were scraping up the bits of the bombers and burying them upright in a pig carcass. A double no-no apparently since upright burial is haram too.
I've always advocated carrying an emergency packet of pork scratchings ever since, should someone near you suddenly yell "Allahu Akhbar" out of the blue, you can call their bluff by whipping out the packet and pointing out that the resulting pork shrapnel will at least whittle the number of virgins allocated down from the full 72.
** May require a generous pinch of salt
It's "almost anything can be improved with the addition of bacon". That's "almost".
This kind of thing isn't good for many people. A lot of people happen to be born into a religion, without necessarily espousing the extremism or any aspect of that religion. In fact most people in the world are "born into" a religion, whether they like it or not. Just like the vast majority of people are born into a given nationality, whether they like it or not. Jihad and nasty Islamic preachers are surely a minority, unless I am mistaken. Most Muslims surely cringe when they hear these daft loonies mouthing off and committing crimes, but they can't do much about it. With stunts like this, you alienate the majority, and make them feel under some kind of racist attack, because it seems aimed at ALL of them, and you give ammunition (pardon the pun) to the extremists and their recruiters. So I have to agree, for a non-Muslim, it's very funny, but in the end, it's not very nice. And anyway, the odds are, none of these bullets are ever going to kill a Jihadi, but this being the USA, a few in the wrong hands might end up killing innocent people, some of whom may even not be Muslim.
This post has been deleted by its author
> With stunts like this, you alienate the majority, and make them feel under some kind of racist attack, because it seems aimed at ALL of them
How can it possibly be aimed at all of them? They're bullets. The idea (leaving aside for a moment that the inventor has said the real weapon here is sarcasm and assuming these will be used in anger) is that it works as a deterrent against people for whom death isn't a deterrent. If you're a Jihadist suicide bomber, you believe you're going to Paradise. Someone shoots you during your mission, you're still going to Paradise. Someone shoots you with one of these, you're going to Hell. So, good deterrent -- better than plain old vanilla bullets, anyway. But, if you're not a jihadist, where's the threat here? The whole point is an extra layer of deterrent for people who you were going to be shooting anyway: suicidal terrorists. Why would non-suicidal non-terrorists be offended by that?
but even I can see that the "HAM in MoHAMmed" line is bound to offend (as is the little piggy mascot).
Just because you can make offensive jokes (and you can, that's free speech) doesn't mean you should go out of your way to upset people.
You have it almost right.
The Discordian (Hail Eris!) Pentabarf states:
" 3.: A Discordian is required to, the first Friday after his illumination, Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Roman Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns)."
"....Actually it's true. Just like most of the other things that apologists for the Israeli terrorist state...." So, the guy was attempting a suicide-bombing of a supermarket (is that a military target for you?), and the article says ".....Hamas, whose military wing has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel....." but somehow your twisted logic makes out that the Israel is the "terror state"......?
They are all cunts, and the only problem is the shit caused to the civvies that have to live through it.
I'm reminded of a Jarvis Cocker song.
What Hamas did isn't relevant to what Israel is.
Attacking civilians with white phosphorous, deliberately shooting children, shelling families on the beach, collective punishments, torturing and imprisoning children and using them as a humans shields, oh - and the conclusion of at least 2 Amnesty International annual reports and countless others from Human Rights Watch, the UN and countless others makes Israel a terrorist state....
"What Hamas did isn't relevant to what Israel is......" Your inability to see the reality is exactly why the Middle East peace process will fail - too many idiots making too many excuses in the name of Islam. And I don't just mean the Israeli-Arab problem, but also the Sunni-Shia problem (which has killed far more Muslims and made many more homeless refugees than the Israelis ever have) as currently being demonstrated in Syria. All too often, Islam breeds intolerance and a complete disregard for anyone else's point of view, even amongst themselves. Enjoy your endless wars, which predate the creation of Israel and even the arrival of the European colonial powers you like to pretend are the cause of all your problems.
"Attacking civilians with white phosphorous....." So how many Fakeistinian "civilians" were killed by Israeli white phospherous shells? Come on, tell us all how many this "terrible travesty against humanity" has actually been independently verified as killing? Even with a lot of padding it out and repeating baseless propaganda, even then you won't come near the figure shown just by this list of Fakeistinian suicide attacks between 1989 and 2008:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
"....deliberately shooting children...." You mean Hamas faking their shooting for propaganda?
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=855&x_context=3
"....shelling families on the beach....." You mean the ones that set of a mine planted by Hamas to deter Israeli reprisals for Hamas's suicide bombers and rocket attacks?
http://honestreporting.com/gaza-beach-libel/
"....torturing and imprisoning children and using them as a humans shields...." You missed out using them as suicide bombers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
".....and the conclusion of at least 2 Amnesty International annual reports and countless others from Human Rights Watch, the UN and countless others....." ROFLMAO! So which members of the UN Security Council have labelled the Israeli state a terrorist entity? None. Now look how many have labelled Hamas as one - the US, UK (in fact all of the EU countries), as well as Canada and Japan. I suggest you go do a lot more reading in between du'a, you might actually learn a few facts.
"So how many Fakeistinian "civilians" were killed by Israeli white phospherous shells?"
That's the thing, White Phosphorous doesn't usually kills. It just inflicts horrific injuries. Like these attacks on a school: http://friendsofpalestine.wordpress.com/resources-and-readings/image-galleries/photos-of-israeli-white-phosphorus-attacks-on-un-schools-in-gaza/
"....deliberately shooting children...." You mean Hamas faking their shooting for propaganda?
Erm no - there are endless well documented cases - The Israelis even admitted it on occasion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/24/israel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/israeli-troops-accused-children-gaza
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/30/israel1
"....shelling families on the beach....." You mean the ones that set of a mine planted by Hamas to deter Israeli reprisals for Hamas's suicide bombers and rocket attacks?
Erm no - the Israelis admitted that one too (in between lots of demonstrable lies, but still)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_explosion_(2006)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_explosion_(2006)#Human_Rights_Watch
I see no relevance with what Hamas might be that justifies Israeli attacks on non Hamas civilians, families and children.
"....That's the thing, White Phosphorous doesn't usually kills......." Oh, so you can't provide a figure for those killed by WP, or is it just that it looks insignificant compared to even the 600+ Fakeistinians killed by other Fakeistinians in the Hamas-Fatah spat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict)? Oops, I bet they didn't tell you that.
".... It just inflicts horrific injuries....." Yeah, 'cos all those suicide bombings only kill and never maim or otherwise scar people, right?
".....http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/24/israel...." You are so blinded by religious dogma you can't even see the difference - the story is of an Israeli soldier being tried in an Israeli court for killing a child. Now find me any case where a Fakeistinian has ever been tried for killing an Israeli child. You won't because the Fakeistinians (and probably religious bigots like you) consider them heros for killing Jewish children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar).
"....http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/israeli-troops-accused-children-gaza...." And you seem to have ignored why the buffer zone is there - to stop Hamas terrorists launching attacks on the border posts and sniping at Israelis civilians in Israel. Everyone in Gaza knows about the buffer zone, it even points that out in the article, so sending kids into the zone says a lot about their parents. And all Hamas has to do is stop terrorist violence against Israel, recognise Israel and sign a peace treaty, and there would be no need for the Isrealis to impose a buffer zone.
".....http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/30/israel1...." And more OLD news about kids in the buffer zone that tries to minimise the fact that Hamas was trying daily to kill Israeli soldiers with IEDs. It also forgets to mention that in 2006 Hamas and Fatah killed far, far more Fakeistinians than Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict). A little context blows great holes in your propaganda.
"...... the Israelis admitted that one too ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_explosion_(2006)....." You should really try reading your own articles as it says nothing of the kind. If that is the quality of the "evidence" you think supports your warped view of reality then you really need remedial education.
"growing Islamaphobia in our society"
Religious beliefs are like sex. It should stay where it belongs, in the privacy of your own home and not seen in public!
All religious “recruiting” in public places should immediately be outlawed to prevent this sickness from being spread to the vulnerable in society.
A bullet that was somehow restricted to being used against "those bent upon hate, violence and murder" would be a wonderful invention, and not quite a logical contradiction.
Being killed by a pig bullet wouldn't prevent entry to heaven any more than being killed by a pig would (unless you choked while literally eating the bullet, but that would be silly).
A mosque was never planned to be built at ground zero.
Before embarking on a grand plan, think to yourself "might this make things worse"
I mean, how is your average Jihadi going to know that you've loaded pork-tipped bullets? I would suggest stopping in the middle of a firefight to taunt a Jihadi with the information simply wouldn't be a smart idea. Do you similarly hold off shooting at a possible suicide bomber, giving him time to detonate, just so you can explain what a horrible fate you have prepared for him? The buyers of this ammo simply don't seem to have thought this through. After all, going round with some form of public warning, such as a t-shirt with the legend "My gun is loaded with pork bullets", is just going to get you laughed at.
This post has been deleted by its author
Those least assured of their own convictions are the harshest critics of others'.
Besides which, Haram implies volition. Unwillingly ingesting that which is not Halal, is not itself Haram.
Forcing someone to do so is though.
So the perpetrator of forced or unwilling ingestion will of course, burn in the eternal fire of perdition but since the fine folks intent on deploying these meaty munitions are already infidels there is little or no change to their supposed fate.
Unfortunately for our Americans and their porcine ammunition, they should have done some research first. There's nothing in the Quran that forbids coming into contact with pork, only with not eating it, in the context of halal food rules. And even then, it's not totally rigid- if the only thing between you and death by starvation is a large rasher of bacon, Allah will be compassionate.
Reminds me of the scene in the film 'The Fearless Vampire Killers', where a character pulls out a crucifix and waves it at the vampire, who keeps advancing, saying 'Sorry, but I'm a Jewish vampire'.
I am not at all sure that ritual uncleanliness would bar a Jihadist from heaven. I've not heard of any religion which doesn't have an exception to such rules to cover the abusive actions of non-believers, or the necessities of saving life. Some things are more important than others.
,
This is a take from the event than Britain ran into in India. There the rebels put the word out that the British was using pig fat to seal the powder packets and the Islamic solders that Britain was using would not touch the powder packets to load the rifles which had the expected effect. These Islamic solders could not stand before the rebels.
I also though that the US military should have let the news out that there was pig grease on the bullets they used in Afghanistan and Iraq. But that would have offended the civilians and make it impossible to get them on their side.
Question to those of you complaining about rural broadband. How willing would you be to pay the true cost of things like food, water and electricity etc?
Keep in mind that a lot of the funding is specifically earmarked for rural areas but BT are exaggerating the cost and using the remainder to subsidy their city rollouts. I believe The Register even did a story on it at one point.
I'm sure many community fibre projects could do a lot more with the equivalent money awarded to BT.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
