Was that the phrase from "the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" as someone was leaving ?

Ok all, I am signing off. Time for me to go.
It has been good here, but there is a time for all seasons.
It'll give me more time for my family and sports, but I'll miss this place.
I won't be posting anymore and wish you all the best.




“But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matthew 16:15-16

Cheers Sprint.
Sneak back in under a new pseudonym!!

:)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 11:18am:

Was that the phrase from "the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" as someone was leaving ? Ok all, I am signing off. Time for me to go. It has been good here, but there is a time for all seasons. It'll give me more time for my family and sports, but I'll miss this place. I won't be posting anymore and wish you all the best.

Yeah, righto Sprint. Thread after thread of Muslims defending themselves because of your endless trolling and baiting them and now you're outta here.

I suggest you spend some time getting over your Islam obsession. Learn that you can't abuse people out of their culture or beliefs nor, when it comes to faith, can you reason them out of it either.

The trouble is that the standards of political correctness that the non-faithful are expected to observe, are much higher than those of the faithful.

In many cases Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims alike feel quite free to use all manner of descriptions against other religions, and especially against those who are not aligned with any religion. The latter are obviously fair game to them.

They can continuously hurl out insults like the French castle scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail, and they can do so with impunity because they can hide behind 'religious freedom'.

However choose one or more intolerant verses from the Bible or the Qur'an and substitute "Muslims" or "Christians" then there would be no end of complaining about victimisation.

Examples:

Thou shalt not suffer a Lutheran to live.

And Pentecostalists will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.

For Muslims is a painful doom.
Theirs in the world is ignominy and theirs in the Hereafter is an awful doom. (2.114)


Can you see what I mean. It's one rule for the religious in their self righteous fortresses, but don't try to use the language to criticize them or you'll be accused of bigotry or even taken to court.

muso wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 3:11pm:

Examples: For Muslims is a painful doom. Theirs in the world is ignominy and theirs in the Hereafter is an awful doom. (2.114) Can you see what I mean. It's one rule for the religious in their self righteous fortresses, but don't try to use the language to criticize them or you'll be accused of bigotry or even taken to court.

How about first of all you actually take the time to read the verses you put of the Quran on the forums, and check what context it is in first..

002.114
And who is more unjust than he who forbids that in places for the worship of Allah, Allah's name should be celebrated?-whose zeal is (in fact) to ruin them? It was not fitting that such should themselves enter them except in fear. For them there is nothing but disgrace in this world, and in the world to come, an exceeding torment.

It's talking about those who would prevent others from going and worshipping God in places of worship, this also applies to Muslims preventing Christians and Jews from worshipping in their places of worship..

No one will accuse you of bigotry mate, only stupidity after pasting that garbage you just put up..

"The trouble is that the standards of political correctness that the non-faithful are expected to observe, are much higher than those of the faithful. "

Yes, I agree. Those with no religion must respect the faith of those who are religious. Why? I don't respect WHAT they believe, I only respect their RIGHT to believe it. If I want to say "I think that's a crock of poo, and your messiah or prophet is a lying paedophile" then I should be able to without fear of retaliation. Why is their truth and belief system more important than mine?

Mainstream atheism is a relatively new thing.

Every civilisation on the entire planet has some sort of religion or mystery explanation for everything we have.

Most people believe in something out there, and most people were raised with some degree of religiosity.

Multi generational brainwashing is a hard thing to break.

It's only going to get worse too. Political correctness and the over sensitivity of society is going to further restrict what you can and can't say in the not too distant future.

easel wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 1:50pm:

Mainstream atheism is a relatively new thing. Every civilisation on the entire planet has some sort of religion or mystery explanation for everything we have.

I respectfully disagree. (Isn't that better than if I called you stupid?) What about Swedish civilisation? - or New Zealand?  There are many other countries where the largest group of religious positions is that of 'no religion'

The majority of people certainly believe in something, but they believe in all kinds of different things. That doesn't validate their position against that of the non religious.

I guess you're new to the forum, but I'm very far from being a mainstream atheist. I actually prefer the position of moderate religion to that of table thumping militant atheists. I prefer to deal with people who do their own reality checks rather than piously quoting scripture of whatever flavour. That includes atheist 'scripture'. I distance myself from remarks like "Faith is just belief without evidence" or that religious people are somehow irrational or deluded.

It just saddens me how a person will defend a statement however ludicrous, just because he believes that it was made by a person of his faith. It just makes them sound stupid (touché) when it's finally revealed that the statement was made by a lampooning imposter. (and I'm not talking about you either)

I don't know what you mean, but what I meant was that widespread atheism isn't thousands of years old like organised religion, thus mainstream atheism is a relatively new thing.

Oh yeah and I believe in God. I also think you should be able to bash religion freely.

And my post wasn't in reply to you.

widespread atheism isn't thousands of years old like organised religion

How do you know this?

Athiesm has been around even before and during Socrates days.

However, scholars agree that athiesm as a burgeoning thought or as a mainstream "philosophy" begun around the late 17th century with the intellectual movement - The Age of Reason (or the Age of Rationality) championed by western philosophers like Descates, Kant, Baruch, Malebranche & Berkeley.

This followed on to the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. Then, philosophers such as Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau attacked institutions such as the church. Enlightenment refers to the intellectual and philosophical coming-of-age of academic thought. The era was one of political aspiration for governmental consolidation, greater rights for common people, for supplanting the arbitrary authority of aristocracy and established churches. There were critical opinions of traditional institutions, customs, and morals. In France it culminated in the French Revolution.

It was the begining of the end for absolute rule by the church, monarchs and the aristocracy.

easel wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

I don't know what you mean, but what I meant was that widespread atheism isn't thousands of years old like organised religion, thus mainstream atheism is a relatively new thing. Oh yeah and I believe in God. I also think you should be able to bash religion freely. And my post wasn't in reply to you.

I know that your post wasn't meant in reply to me  :)  Don't take offense in any way. I'm just contributing to the discussion  ;)

If you mean by atheism, absence of belief in an exclusive monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition then that's a relatively modern phenomenon (well post 6th century BC).

Prior to about the 6th century BC, the Jews themselves were Polytheistic. There is plenty of evidence for that, and the Bible itself is one source of evidence. Archaeological evidence is another. I have a personal interest in Ancient history which frequently leads me to receiving some very interesting emails from the ethereal heights of academia :)

As far as the Muslim and Christian Gods being the same, we get a very muddled assortment of answers from the faithful. Jehovah and Allah  certainly have a lot  of history in common.

I agree that you should be able to bash religion freely. I just choose not to out of respect. If I sound like I am bashing religion, please tell me.  Some people often try to follow their religions, but come across as being hypocritical. I have every respect for religion, but little respect for hypocrisy.

Again, I don't mean you personally, but that must be as obvious to you as it is to me.

If you mean by atheism, absence of belief in an exclusive monotheistic God of the Abrahamic tradition then that's a relatively modern phenomenon (well post 6th century BC).

What makes you think that? Absence of evidence?