We have contributors from all over the world here. Some are atheists, some are Buddhists, some Hindu, some Jewish, some Christians, etc.
The reason this blog exists is to form a coalition of Infidels (those who are hated by Muslims) to fight the war against Islam and Sharia, by getting information out about the offenses being committed in the name of Islam.
In the Western world, we have the right to believe, or not, in any religion we find to be to our edification. I am happy that is the way it is here.
Sometimes issues of faith impact upon the importance, and therefore the dissemination of this information.
If one of our fellow Infidels wants to make an argument for the benefits, or the rightness, or the productivity of his own particular view of the world, then it is important that he or she do so, as long as the overriding purpose is to help us defeat Islam and Sharia.
Apparently, there has been some controversy concerning a post put up by Babba Zee, regarding Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. While I respect those two men, I must make it clear that there arguments for the rightness of atheism are absolutely wrong.
Dawkins and Hitchens are not just atheists. They are absolutist, evangelical atheists. It is one thing for a person to say, they don't believe in God.
It is another thing entirely for a person to say, "There is no God, I am sure of it. And, because I believe what I believe, everyone else ought to believe as I believe"
That is stupid. It is a logical impossibilty to prove their is no God. So, to try to make the argument is to be intellectually dishonest.
One can be an agnostic (not sure that God exists), or they can personally know that they do not believe in God, but, as a matter of faith, it is impossible to know, for sure, whether God does exist or not.
We will, sometimes, make the mistake of putting up posts wherein the information we put out is intellectually wrong. If it is shown to be wrong, we will apologize and correct it.
Because Dawkins and Hitchens are intellectually wrong, they owe us an apology. And, I think that was Babba's point.
At the very least, the Judeo-Christian religion has added an enormous power to our culture here in Western Civilization. If we attempt to subtract that power, we will have gone an awful long way to helping the Islamists destroy us.
That's my opinion. Argue among yourselves.
28 comments:
Dawkins and Hitchens are not "wrong" about that point and they owe nobody an apology. I'm sorry you've taken this stance, Pastorius. I do not equate reason with faith and will not make judgments on that basis. There is no God. I owe no one an apology for that statement. Therefore I must consider your statement a declaration of "not welcome" to atheists and I can't work with that. Now I'm going to go look for sites where it's not a requirement that I bow the knee to something that does not exist.
That's my opinion. Argue among yourselves.
Nice Post Pastorius
Here's all I have to say on this and then I will post no more on it.
I don't want to ARGUE with anyone.
I don't have any compunction to disabuse anyone of their way and no one will ever make me step off how I walk in the way of the covenant I was given.
You can take my head first. I wont need it where I will go.
However I will rail agaisnt what I find to be evil and wrong
WHERE EVER I FIND IT
even if I find it in MYSELF
Dig:
Everyone goes through changes
Looking to find the truth
Don't look at me for answers
Don't ask me
I don't know
(Ozzy, this video was in my Links post at my place today)
And ... beware anyone who claims to KNOW absolutely, from any personal identity direction.
all I KNOW
is this:
I work for GOD
I have a binding contract with the GOD of Abraham Issac & Jacob
I break it, and there will be hell to pay FOR ME
what anyone else wants to do is their own business
and is not between me and them
But between them and GOD
I was born a Jew
I was BORN under contract to HaShem from a Biblical POV
I am rejected by both establishment Jews AND establishment by Christians
I walk in the way of no ISM
I piss almost EVERYONE off
believe me I am used to this crap
I have never told anyone who to be
ever
not here
not anywhere
All I ask is people do the same for me.
This seems to be a very tall order these days.
Everybody wants to rule the world.
I want no part of the world. But I have to live in it, and I must speak what I see regardless of who will dislike me defame me conflate me or berate me for it.
I don't do this for anyone's approval. I do what I am supposed to do as Jesus taught it to me. If that means everyone hates me so be it, he told me that would happen too.
So the spectre of being a "Pariah" means absolutely jack shit to me.
NIHILISM
is the SAME
as ISLAM
in a different costume
From my POV
I FIGHT ONE ENEMY THAT LOOKS LIKE THREE
When Ayaan Hirsi Ali called Catholicism the same as Islam and Nazism
there was not a peep
No one ran it
No one spoke about it
When Hagee said that Catholicism gets it all wrong and is an ritualistic `ism not a biblically correct way and made other statements regarding his feelings on it
The world went apeshit
under the bus he went and with RELISH
All the fair minded fans of Ayaan hurried to throw him under a bus and call him bigot on all the blogs
but she is NOT a bigot for saying something far WORSE?
MOF we should never ever even mention that, nu?
ME?
I disagreed with both statements
But I HELD IT AGAINST NEITHER OF THEM and IMO NEITHER OF THEM ARE BIGOTS
Again I ask you:
who are REALLY the ones proselytizing and judging?
Cause it sure as hell aint me.
I got attacked immediately with the Silly Poetry crack (and more).
I didnt say JackShit to any of you about your beliefs.
I never do, unless I am battling Nihilism, ISLAM, Commies or Fascists.
But you sure as hell
RIGHT OFF THE BAT
attacked mine
and accused me of attacking you.
That is called TURNSPEAK
I have nothing else to say on this I am not going to explain my position 100 times
but if I am willing to accept all of you the way you are
the least you can do is the same for me.
Pastorius,
I have to agree with you.
Arguing does not imply lack of acceptance.
AT ALL
Just ask my wife
Epaminondas said...
Arguing does not imply lack of acceptance.
AT ALL
Just ask my wife
LOL
That may very well be
However
I do not ENJOY arguing and I do not see any purpose to it. Also it is not biblically correct and so I do not do it even when I WANT TO.
I don't even argue with my husband
Drives him nuts LOL
My yes is a yes
and my no is a no
Arguing with ALLIES IMO
indicates one of three things
1) you DESIRE the approval of the person who started the argument with you desperately
2) you DESIRE to prove the other person "wrong" and be "right" IOW you will to disabuse the other person of their stated view, you wish to CHANGE their MIND
3) You think somehow that by arguing you are going to accomplish something ("something" varies by individual) which indicates a need to CONTROL shit which you really have no control over to begin with.
It indicates LACK OF ACCEPTANCE
Which is why I only "argue" with the enemy - and then it is not a legitimate "argument"
I do not "debate" with evil
I make my statements very strongly
and generally just let them lay there.
Isaiah 59:4
No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
2 Timothy 2:23
Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
Hebrews 6:16
Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument.
I am not a Sophist
I do not live by the argument
I gotta go
LOVE TO YOU ALL
You left out reason 4
It's a sport
If you've never heard Jerry Stiller and Ann Meara, or Mary Matalin and James Carville start a fake fight on radio and hear it morph in to a real one inside of 60 seconds, you're missing something.
You just haven't lived until you can make your spouse's argument because you know PRECISELY what he/she is going to say before he/she can, make it for them and make them say what you would have said just to fight with you.
Best done before morning coffee
Pastorious,
You believe in god.
The Enemy believes in god.
Are you telling all of us atheists in the fight against Jihad that you have more in common with the enemy than you do with us, based on that narrow belief? That a belief in god is more important than an individual’s moral worth? May not be what you intended, but the clear implication is there, and it’s out of line. I don’t give a damn if you believe in god, but you obviously give a damn that I don’t. Since we're allies against a common enemy, let’s stay clear from equating goodness with godness and we’ll stay on track and fight the bad guys as this site is meant to do.
You’re offended by Hitchens’ and Dawkins’ certain belief that there isn’t a god. What of the enemy’s absolute belief that there is? It's belief itself that Hitchen's and Dawkin's are fighting against, for they have no 'beliefs' to uphold. One thing I'd fault with their approach is that they have no overriding philosophy to buttress their stance, that in the end, they're merely fighting for non-belief, not for a morality based in reality, such as Objectivism. But in a post 9/11 world, their position should be tolerated. For where was god on 9/11? He was in the hearts and minds of the suicide killers.
If you think it's your belief in god that moves you to fight the jihad, then how can you effectively argue against those who engage in the jihad for the same reason? This is about Good and Evil, not about God and Devil, so I suggest that instead of demanding an apology from Hitchens and Dawkins, that you instead fully appreciate that there are those who fully stand with you against Jihad, regardless of your belief in god.
Bosch,
"Are you telling all of us atheists in the fight against Jihad that you have more in common with the enemy than you do with us, based on that narrow belief? That a belief in god is more important than an individual’s moral worth? May not be what you intended, but the clear implication is there, and it’s out of line. I don’t give a damn if you believe in god, but you obviously give a damn that I don’t. Since we're allies against a common enemy, let’s stay clear from equating goodness with godness and we’ll stay on track and fight the bad guys as this site is meant to do."
I don't think that is what Pastorious is saying.
Blogger Bosch Fawstin said...
You believe in god.
The Enemy believes in god.
IT AINT THE SAME GOD and anyone who tells you it is
is a fool
or full of shit
Epaminondas said...
You left out reason 4
It's a sport
AHH
this explains everything.....
I know DICK-all about sports
lol
also re: Pastorius saying he has respect for both men
I have a LOT of respect for Hitchens, I love him very much despite what he probably would think of me if her knew me
although I know someone who knows him
who told him at a party that I pray for him
which made him laugh a lot
LOL!
I have ZERO respect for Dawkins
ZEEEE-ROOOOOOOOO
I pray not for him.
Babba go bye bye again for now
"It's belief itself that Hitchen's and Dawkin's are fighting against, for they have no 'beliefs' to uphold"
Funny I thought they were against the idea that belief should be imposed via any idea of superior moral rightness.
Why should they be against worshiping a cat's anus if one is so inclined, as long as the cat's anus believers don't think everyone had better worship it or else?
BTW, is there a FULL MOON?
Hitchens is alright with me.
I just don't give a shit what people want to worship as long as they don't tell me it's the perfect word of a god who then turns out to be a racist swine.
RRA,
You said: There is no God.
I say: Prove it. You can't. Because it's a logical impossibility to prove a negative. You can't prove fairies don't exist, and you can't prove love does not exist. You can't prove (as Vonnegut said) that my penis is 40 light years long - but that most of it length is in the 12th dimension).
That is the point of my post in a nutshell. The point of my post is not to be unfriendly.
I don't care if you don't believe in God. Just don't push your atheism on me.
I make every attempt to not push my belief in God on you.
Bosch,
You said: Are you telling all of us atheists in the fight against Jihad that you have more in common with the enemy than you do with us, based on that narrow belief? That a belief in god is more important than an individual’s moral worth?
I say: No!
That is not what I am saying. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I know atheists who are much better human beings than people who "believe in God." I've also know people who believe in God who are better than atheists.
What I said in the post, Bosch, is the following:
"We have contributors from all over the world here. Some are atheists, some are Buddhists, some Hindu, some Jewish, some Christians, etc.
The reason this blog exists is to form a coalition of Infidels (those who are hated by Muslims) to fight the war against Islam and Sharia, by getting information out about the offenses being committed in the name of Islam.
In the Western world, we have the right to believe, or not, in any religion we find to be to our edification. I am happy that is the way it is here."
To be clear, I believe it is extremely important that we be able to believe what we want to believe.
Muslims do not believe we ought to be able to believe what we want to believe.
Therefore, I find much more in common with anyone who is opposed to Islam. Islam is opposed to Freedom. I think Freedom is the most important thing in the world.
I hope that answers your question, because I admire you, and I certainly would not want to insult you.
By the way, I think this argument is, largely, a diversion from the real purpose of this blog, which is for us to find common cause in our fight against Islam.
I studied religion and philosophy in college. I have a great respect for the world's religions and ideas.
I'm a pretty ecumenical guy. I love Buddhism and Hinduism in particular, and I borrow from them in my way of seeing the world.
Two of my favorite philosophers were Hume and Nietzsche. They both attacked the idea that one could prove the existence of God. In a way, they attacked the idea that one could prove the existence of pretty much anything. I admire that idea, because I think it takes intellectual balls to be sohonest with oneself. We're all just a bunch of blindmen feeling an elephant and describing it from our own point of view.
Does that make sense?
Pastorius, I have not posted anything relating to god or the absence thereof, just as a promised not to months ago. I do, however, reserved the right to respond to comments. Now you have babbazee here who has a post denouncing atheists once or twice a day. And who thinks the Islamists' belief in god doesn't count because it's the wrong god.
I'd be happy to argue the point ad infinitum if I enjoyed debating for the sake of debating, but I don't. I don't even enjoy having to deal with the issue of Islamism, but I do it because it's important.
As for my proving there is no god, no one is required to prove a negative. I won't say I think there "might" be one, I dunno, maybe, as Leonard Peikoff used to say, there's a convention of little green men studying Hegel on Mars, he couldn't prove there wasn't. But he wasn't going to believe there was until somebody could prove it. The fact that "God" is a more imposing and majestic concept doesn't get it off the hook of required proof.
Prove your god does exist. Then I will acknowledge it.
Please do not ask me to apologize for saying God does not exist. If you asked me to apologize for saying the earth is round instead of flat it would be the same thing to me. That's called intellectual integrity, it's not trying to be rude. But I won't put anyone's "feelings" before it either.
Well, as a leftist, and a believer, And having a lot of experience working years with some hard core absolutism,
nihilism, scientific and/or materialist dialectics, etc., atheism, all three religions,
its simple,
DOGMA.
Personally any kind of absolutism as far as I'm concerned is not only patriarchal as hell but its dogmatic as hell, doesn't matter whence it comes from, and that includes a forced atheism,
its still 'mind control'. Or thought control,
personally, I don't give a damn if someone wants to worship the green tree frog and set up camp with green candles and wants to dance in circles in little banana suits, as Long as they don't impose or force those beliefs on me or others, and this is one issue I do write on quite often,
I have not a problem with people sharing what they believe, if it works for them, hey great, if it gets them through the dark times or times of dull drudgery great, if it gives them peace of mind and makes them a better person great,
as Long as they don't violate human rights of others or children and as long as they don't force group think or dogma, I'm fine with it, because its really simple,
when that person dies, what that person lives with, feels, thinks, is Their's, and Their's alone and NO ONE is God, or has the right of God to force, any belief, on anyone. IF people learned that type of respect for FREEDOM and FREEDOM OF FREE WILL,
we would have a completely different world.
And political dogma just the same, lumping all people or all ideologies in one lump generalization is EXTREMELY NARROW MINDED,
nihilism, has some valid points, if you Take the context of the time it was written in, so does nationalism, so does communism, liberalism, in Theory, they have some good merits, on Some points, Emphasis on some points,
However, That aside, they have just as many FLAWS, that includes democracy [majority rule, remember slavery was totally acceptable under majority rule democracy but I'm sure if you asked the slaves then if they felt it was true democracy they would have told you to shove it],
there Is no perfection, no Absolutism, and its When they is claim to such, that is when the problems begin.
Theories are often misconstrued and distorted For the intent of dogma which is what makes many of them so dangerous, nihilism, nationalism, communism, elitist representation [which is also related to fascism btw--Burke had some fascist traits, though sure he would not have forseen the extent of how they would be carried out--and this has been stated numerous times in scholars on the issue of fascism, there are various definitions btw], etc.,
and no I don't concur with nationalism or nihilism, but I do understand them and the HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT that caused or resulted in those theories, same for communism,
its one thing to Judge when we sit here, but if you had of lived in Tsarist Russia while your children were tortured because they were serfs/peasants and you were raped with no rights, you might at that time be very welcoming of Boshevism (sic), or if you had of been one of those factory workers living in debt-prisons you might have welcome Marx in that day,
or if you had of been starving in Germany and feared communism you might have welcomed nationalism, or in Spain, [and it was in that fear that fascism gained momentum, via liturgy and clergy]
or prior to, Russia and Europe, nihilism, the pretense and moral decay of that time which WAS HORRID you might have welcome nihilism to destroy all that pretense around to create something anew,
they all [in theory] had good and/or valid points, when taken to extremes as they were, then they become monstrous, and Yes some theories are sure, more absolutist and dogmatic,
question is Why do people tend to be drawn towards the dogmatic? And I think thats the important issue because even in liberalism there can be extreme dogma, even in anarchism there is dogma, especially group think.
And what is dogma, well putting it in laymens terms its the belief that ONLY this is right and nothing else, and its dangerous in one, it doesn't allow dissent and two, it justifies the most extreme measures to see it complied to,
the dogmatics then becoming Gods of the world,
over humanity, justifying everything from Nazism to social violence to mass collectivization through violence to forced ideology/theocracy to forced atheism,
and in those dogmatic beliefs comes this belief that its then Entitlement to kill, maim, destroy any or move the forces of history or dialectics to create this vision of a world the dogmatics think is their just right. [Arendt]
Pastorious is correct, the day we don't allow dissent [and beligerance [sic] is a form of not allowing dissent] is the day we become dogmatic.
And I will include, one issue that I do think is narrow is the generalization of theories or ideologies [political] based on taking things out of history, without a true understanding of either the theories or the development of, communism being good example,
I see So much ignorance in the discussions on, in Iran, the most militant against Islam is in fact the communist parties, they aren't All Stalinist or Leninist or Maoist,
and even those that are today, are such DISTORTIONS its not even funny, and why this is relevant, is that is where I do see a dogma in the right that is Just as fascist, as what I've seen in the left,
same thing with feminism, there are at Least thirty different varieties of feminist theory, but most lump or generalize feminism into this extreme narrow defined catagory, and it is really ignorance of what feminism is, and what it isn't.
Some of that is of course due to the most vocal and authoritative, the Fascist elements which tragically are usually the ones that we see historically and in current affairs,
but its not the theories as much as its the Fascism of those theories meaning, taking those theories and forming a fascist ideology from them, and the Reason this is So important,
is that it can happen, in ANY IDEOLOGY OR THEORY,
including the most liberal of ideas or democracies, so its one of those forces we always should be diligent in watching for, because it is very easy to become dogmatic, and when that happens, something changes,
and what was before totally unacceptable, as far as means, becomes acceptable, as a means to an ends,
and Then, yes, you wind up with absolutism, a good theory or maybe with good points being made into an absolutist doctrine that insists on total compliance and moving out those who do not comply,
when thought becomes rigid and stagnate, and it demands all those who assent to to do the same.
And it happens in stages, first its a divide of dissent then its the demand of 'ideological PURITY', and then, thats when you get the Stalins and Maos and Mussolini's
I've seen one of the most liberal of far left parties, in a matter of one year, become extremely Stalinist, and it wasn't the ideologies of the platform in the beginning, no,
it was when there was absolute Refusal to allow dissent, when there was Demand for Purity, when there was Demand for adhering to the platform no matter what one believed,
and then, the purges [expelling from the party or exclusion to the point where it was futile to remain in] and what Was so shocking,
was how Easily the most liberal of minds, twisted and became dogmatic.
I've seen it in the far left, in the left, in anarchism [various theories in that too], in feminism, in religion, some more than others,
and in atheism.
And one thing they all have in common when they get totalitarian in thought and deed, is the refusal to see any merits on other ideologies OR to see any flaws within one's one ideology,
and Thats what spells trouble.
I can read Hobbes and Mill and Locke, totally different theories, and yet, see merits in each one of them, especially in taking context of them during the epoch they were written in,
life is not stagnate. Things change, its when they are Forced to change [by dogma] or when they are refused to change [by dogma] that despots can rise,
and I think the Biggest danger we have in pulling forces to confront the dogma and totalitarianism of Islamism is forming another type of totalitarianism to confront it,
not only that but it creates more division and divided we fall, in other words, if the ones who confront Islam are at each other's throats they are so busy destroying the other that the Islamists don't really have to do much but sit by and wait,
just as the Spaniards did when they first stepped soil on South America, the tribes [Mayan I believe, or Aztecs, well I'd have to look it up] but they warred, between two cousins, the Spaniards [conquestadors] simply waited, to see who would win, then they made their move,
hey, after all, half of the population was already taken care of, less resistance that way.
We already are a divided country, we simply Cannot afford to become any more divided, and to resolve that there are two ways,
become totalitarian and dogmatic and only work with those who Think like us, which could result in just another form of Fascism or,
fight in solidarity but retaining our ability to disagree and be united against a far worse fascism that lumps all of us together,
remember something, Islam hates anything that is not Islam, including nihilism and communism, doesn't matter how many duped leftists [despots] want to Use Islam to destroy the west as they did the anarchists back in 1700, remember, they disposed of the anarchists,
they Think they'll do the same with Islam--they are mistaken, as the far left in Iran and in Indonesia [Islamists slaughtered communists in a blood bath in Indonesia too], have been telling them AND the progressive left for years,
not to trust the Islamists, not to join forces, etc. but Power, begets power and will seek any means to justify the ends,
the resistance groups and forces in all the Islamic countries, many of them far left btw, have been saying, repeatedly,
to avoid reactionary course to oppose,
because it strengthens the Islamists, today they are saying this to the left/femininist/liberal, etc.,
and many to the right, because theocracy actually aids the opening the door to theocracy [Islam],
the reason I write this is Because I do read across the board, and there are feminists who are diabolically opposed to both Islam and Obama,
there are nihilist groups opposed to Islam, [believe it or not], atheist groups, Wiccan/Pagan groups, Right wing groups and yes there are still Some far left groups [though they are minority due to the infiltration of Stalinist-Maoist and Black/Chicano Nationalist left groups], that are diabolically opposed to Islam,
there are far right groups and even Constitutionalists and Militias,
I read them all.
But every single one of them are in their own little huddle of sorts, absolutely refusing to join forces with each other, and Meanwhile--all these types of ideologies,
or those who follow them, are being Butchered by Islamists world over.
If the Right, would in their discourse regarding the far left/left alliance with Islam, if they would state, the 'revisionist' left, the traitorous left to the basic principles of leftism,
if they were to state that, That, would have power, because there Is a divide, in so many of the political camps that if you bring them to surface,
you weaken the 'alliances', do you hear what I'm saying,
if all you do, is have this, well I'll just refuse to join or work with such and such because of something that happened 100 years ago, or for whatever reason,
all that does is work to reinforce the divide, I know So many feminists who refuse to work at all with the right that they'll stay silent even though diabolically opposed because its in their minds better to not say anything, to join with the right would mean betraying all they believe in,
OR VICE VERSA,
and tell you what, the Islamists are divided, they kill each other, but one thing they are EXTREMELY UNITED ON, IS KILLING AND/OR FORCING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, UNDER ISLAM,
on That, they all concur on and fight together on,
IF we are even going to BEGIN to defeat them, and those who are allies with them,
we're going to have to Pull it together, dump the dogma, and build a strong opposing force.
Personally, I don't care if you are a Jew or Christian or Commie or Republican, if you are against Islam, and the totalitarian forces of Islamofascism and are willing to join with me to fight them till the end, till that force is taken care of once and for all so that our children can Have the potential to dissent and have a world that they can at least Have that political room to work out all the other ideologies OR COME UP WITH SOME NEW ONES,
then, lets roll.
Because if the Islamists are standing over us, lining us up, honey it doesn't matter what you believe,
if you don't Submit to them, our heads are all going to roll just the same.
That is why on WAMI blog there is both right and left forces, and we haven't even added them all, they will be on the more formal WAMI blog which is under construction [the one up now is informal],
and there are a few far left groups that have splintered off and are extremely against Islam, they are also against a huge part of the far left [yes, shocking huh, that one can be far left/or anarchist left and still be very opposed to the majority of far left--its a variety of ideologies just like anything else],
I even know die hard nationalists in Serbia and in Europe who are very opposed to Islam, I don't concur with their total nationalism but hey, if I lived there, and had Islam at my back door damn right I'd be right in there with them,
I can hash out all the other later.
Because bottom line, its 2008, and we have a Medieval Dark Age religious fascism dead set on sending us all back to the dark ages, and they'll use any means at their disposal,
it high time we start using our own means, just as militantly,
and we can't do that if we are insisting on some kind of ideological or religious or non-religious purity.
Islamists are no respector of persons when it comes to Infidels,
I don't think we can really afford to be either, if we want to keep our heads. [no pun intended]
Natasha
Director of WAMI
RRA,
I can't prove God exists and so I don't try.
I can't prove love exists and so I don't try.
I don't blame you for not believing in God, and I especially wouldn't blame you if you did not believe in love, because there are not a lot of people who demonstrate love as much more than a way to get what they want out of other human beings.
These things are unprovable either way. They are matters of faith, and that is my point.
Pastorious,
You've made a non-issue into an issue here, so you should expect the response you've gotten, esp. when you title your post as you did.
We're ALL Infidels in the end here writing against Jihad and all of its antecendents. Why make an unecessary division among us by bringing the belief and non-belief of god into the equation, as if it's worth mentioning. It's not.
Let's stay on track against The Enemy here, without making irrelevant distinctions about where we anti-jihadists are coming from.
Bosch,
Let me be clear, because apparently I was not clear enough in the title of my post;
it is caled Statement on the Existence of God (OR NOT) ...
because I don't want to tell other people what to believe.
If I made a non-issue into an issue, then I am sorry. I saw the other comments thread and became worried we were being diverted into a fight over atheism vs. God's existence.
I am certainly not trying to argue you into believing in God.
The only point I made here which could be considered controversial is that, as one can not prove a negative, one can not prove God doesn't exist. One can say, "I don't believe in God," but it doesn't make sense to say, "People shouldn't believe in God, because he doesn't exist."
Yes, but your addition to the title: 'And what it means for IBA' is what bugs me and suggests it's a very important thing on this site.
Look, I don't question your decency, I know you to be a good guy, but this is an unfortunate post that should have gone unwritten, not because I want to put a clamp on your freedom of speech, but because it brings to the forefront an issue that means nothing in the fight against the enemy, which is the purpose of this site. And this idea that atheists are always called upon to prove a negative by those who cannot prove a positive, namely their god's existence, it's a dead end, which is why we always refer to the belief of an existence of a god, not in the proven existence of a god. I can go on, but I'll stop here for now.
Bosch,
I actually find it kind of funny that on Babbazee's post about Hitchens vs D'Souza, I addressed Revereridesagain, with this comment.
"By the way, if you think that the Infidel Bloggers Alliance is turning into an atheism smear site, ask Bosch Fawstin. He's an atheist and he is not complaining."
Only a few minutes later, you stated complaining. Now that's just funny!
Bosch,
I think proving the existnece of God, or proving that he does not exist, has no importance to IBA.
However, the world views of the various world's religions do have a great effect on the things we discuss here at IBA.
Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. have created great and noble cultures.
Each world view has inherent flaws in it.
Islam has more inherent flaws in it (as an ideology) than any other religion, and the evidence is there to prove it.
Islam has never produced a producive, non-violent, human rights respecting civilization.
I guess the ultimate question, when I come to think about it is, do Hitchens and Dawkins really mean to say that the Judeo-Christian ideology has contributed a net negative to the world.
If that's what they mean, and it does seem so, then I absolutely disagree with them.
Pastorius
I think IBA is a great site and read it daily. I disagree with some of the things said and done here but as Ben Franklin said "We shall all stand together or we shall be beheaded separately." This whole argument and "I'm never coming back to IBA" stuff appears to be a tempest in a teapot. You made your point clearly. Internal strife amongst we infidels does us no good. Let's defeat islam first and then argue about other things. If you post something I don't like, (and you have) I just won't read the whole thing and I'll move on to the next post. I don't have to agree with anything you say other than "We've got to defeat islam." I want and need IBA in that fight. Everything else is secondary.
Regarding the EXISTENCE of GOD, has anyone defined their terms?
What do you mean by EXISTENCE?
And what do you mean by GOD?
Sameno,
Thanks for the encouragement.
I want us to keep the peace so we don't become another LGF, always fucking arguing and forgetting about the Jihad.
Najistani,
That's going to make me have to think, and I'm dealing with the stomach flu.
This would make an interesting show, Jaco.
And that's all I have to say about that, except in your statement you used there and their interchangeably, just thought you should know.
Thanks Sra. Scherzo,
I seem to do that quite often.
Post a Comment