British papers spread anti-Muslim propaganda

http://media.worldbulletin.net/250x190/2012/02/06/peppiatt.jpg

He also noted that statistics about immigrants in the country were being changed to present a negative picture of them.

A former Daily Star journalist has repeated accusations that a number of British daily newspapers put pressure on journalists to fabricate anti-Muslim stories.

Richard Peppiatt, who worked as a full-time freelance journalist at the Daily Star for two years, claimed that editors forced journalists to fabricate news that suggested Muslims and immigrants were threatening national security.

He said the fabricated stories were mainly related to Muslims, depicting them as a threat to British society. The defamatory stories became more widespread after the bombings in London on June 7, 2005 -- often referred to as 7/7 -- and the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

“Especially since 7/7 and, to a degree, since 9/11, Muslims have certainly been painted as the ‘cartoon baddy.' Definitely in the tabloids. Someone always has to be blamed, you can't just leave it up in the air when something happens; somebody always needs to take the blame. Sadly it's the Muslims that have been chosen to be portrayed as the ‘baddies',” he told Cihan in a phone interview.

Peppiatt noted that it was not possible for Muslims to take action against the publication of derogatory articles because it is only possible for an individual who has been mentioned by name to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the regulatory body for UK magazines and newspapers. However, if a group or a religion is targeted it is difficult to file a complaint.

“It was therefore challenging for Muslims to complain as there was no one individual being affected by the articles. However, it clearly does affect individuals as it affects the way people behave towards each other in society. I certainly came to understand that what we print in the media has a direct effect on the lives of individuals; this can lead to violence on the streets, based on what we write,” Peppiatt told Cihan.

He also noted that statistics about immigrants in the country were being changed to present a negative picture of them.

“[There was fabrication in the Daily Star] regarding the number of jobs immigrants are taking and the numbers arriving in Britain. It is in stories about that where the statistics were de-contextualized and sensationalized to make the scenario look much worse than it actually it is.

They will mention how many come and not how many have left. There have been cases in which there has been a net drop in immigration figures, but that was never mentioned as it did not fit the narrative of painting immigrants in a bad light. There was no fair perspective and no consideration that immigrants are trying to get a better life. This was done on purpose, as the editors wanted to present a negative perspective on immigration,” he said.

Peppiatt made his first confessions on the issue last November when he spoke to the Leveson Inquiry, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, which is currently looking at the culture, practices and ethics of the British press in general. The inquiry was launched following the News International phone hacking scandal.

“…This naturally led to fabrication in order to fulfill an unrealistic quota. Much more insidious was when this same philosophy was applied to stories involving Muslims and immigrants, when yet again a top down pressure to unearth stories which fitted within a certain narrative (immigrants are taking over, Muslims are a threat to security) led to casual and systemic distortions. In short, ethical concerns were always subservient to financial ones,” Peppiatt told the Leveson Inquiry.

Regarding the reasons why he made the confessions, Peppiatt told Cihan that for a long time he had not been happy about the stories he was asked to write. “The only way to combat what the sensationalists were writing was to be sensationalist myself, to embarrass them publically. Leaving quietly would not have made a difference. It was a gamble that may have embarrassed them into changing their behavior a little bit,” he added.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=85428

More lies from other newspapers

A cross in the Coptic Church in Cairo’s Zabaleen neighborhood, where Copts work as the capital’s unofficial garbage collectors. (NOW Lebanon)




“We don’t feel as safe as before,” said Georges Nader, an Egyptian Copt who lives in Cairo. A year after the revolution that led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, Nader said that the number of Egyptians Copts fleeing the country was on the rise.

“Half of my family is in Canada or the US, and they are trying to get us out of the country too. We are just waiting for the right opportunity,” the 25-year-old told NOW Lebanon.

Last fall, the Egyptian Coptic Church’s lawyer Naguib Gibrael estimated that some 100,000 Christian families had left the country in the preceding months, and that since Mubarak’s ouster, sectarian strife has escalated in the country.

A little over a year ago, 21 Copts died in an attack on a church in Alexandria, while last spring, another 15 were killed in Imbaba when three Coptic Orthodox churches were burned.

It wasn’t until last October, however, that violence peaked, with a new group behind the hostilities: Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). The military body, which assumed power in the wake of Mubarak’s fall, responded to a peaceful Coptic demonstration against churches being burned by setting the security services on protesters, resulting in 27 deaths. None of those responsible for the killings have been brought to justice.
 
Josette Abdullah, a Cairo-based clinical psychologist, said that even though she as a Copt has never experienced threats or discrimination in Egypt, Christians’ current fears are understandable.

“Even with my name, which is clearly not Muslim, I have never encountered any problems, and from my personal experience, in addition to historically speaking, Egypt has shown relatively few signs of sectarian violence,” she said. “But lately, it seems to be about wreaking havoc, and whoever is behind the instigation is willing to create tension between religions or other groups in society.”

Though on paper, Egyptian Christians and Muslims are equal by law, many admit that Copts, who make up approximately 10 percent of the country’s population, are often discriminated against. Between 2008 and 2010, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) recorded 52 cases of Coptic-Muslim conflict. Many fear that with the new Islamist majority in parliament, things will only get worse.

“At first, Islamic figures will come across as protectors of their Christian brothers, but that is solely about reeling in support,” said Georges al-Sanady, a 25-year-old engineer from Cairo. Sanady says that after paying lip service to equality, the Islamists in power will try to enforce Sharia law.
 
“It will not happen overnight, but Christians are not buying this, regardless of their social class,” he said.

Coptic Priest Philopateer Gameel echoed Sanady’s fears.

“Post-revolution, the situation has in fact deteriorated,” he said, pointing to the elections, which he insists were rigged.  According to Gameel, religious rhetoric was used as propaganda during Friday prayers in mosques, as well as in some churches, “which proves the extent to which authorities manipulate and attract voters through religion,” he said.

But at the very least, one positive outcome of the revolution is greater freedom of expression.

“We are voicing concerns now, and have more freedom do so,” said Ra’fat Basta, a political and human rights activist, and a representative of the Shabab Maspero group.

“Both Christians and non-Christians, Islamists, are making themselves heard,” said Gameel.

He added that ultimately, it was not fair to only deem Christians the victims of pre-and post-revolution corruption and state-sanctioned violence, which are problems facing the country as a whole.

“Many moderate Muslims, especially those with significant investments in the country, such as in the tourism industry and free trade, are also fearing harassment in their personal life and work,” he said.

“This is where moderate Muslims and Christians are on par. They all share these same concerns.”

Nadine Elali contributed reporting to this article.




To read more: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=359158&MID=0&PID=0#ixzz1ljGg5ev2
Only 25% of a given NOW Lebanon article can be republished. For information on republishing rights from NOW Lebanon: http://www.nowlebanon.com/Sub.aspx?ID=125478

Adamant,

I don't think you've necessarily posted lies there, but your article doesn't really say anything. Apart from a Coptic man feeling he doesn't like the direction Egypt took after the revolution, the article doesn't really say anything.

Is that all you could find?

"Josette Abdullah, a Cairo-based clinical psychologist, said that even though she as a Copt has never experienced threats or discrimination in Egypt..."

I was chatting to a friend of mine in Egypt about the situation over there. She's a Coptic journalist. She used to work for BBC Arab Service. I made the comment that now that the elections are over she must feel a lot safer. She had been telling me before about the police brutality and how a friend of hers was torured.

Her reaction was "Nooo - It's terrible here - worse now that ever. The country is in a real mess. Pray for Egypt."

I just hope she keeps safe. I'm not one of these Muslim bashers, so please bear that in mind.

- and I agree that Copts never used to suffer any discrimination.

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:

I was chatting to a friend of mine in Egypt about the situation over there. She's a Coptic journalist. She used to work for BBC Arab Service. I made the comment that now that the elections are over she must feel a lot safer. She had been telling me before about the police brutality and how a friend of hers was torured. Her reaction was "Nooo - It's terrible here - worse now that ever. The country is in a real mess. Pray for Egypt." I just hope she keeps safe. I'm not one of these Muslim bashers, so please bear that in mind. - and I agree that Copts never used to suffer any discrimination.

The only time I have experienced religious discrimination in the workplace came not from redneck Aussies, but from an Egyptian Copt.

falah wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 2:07pm:

muso wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 1:44pm: I was chatting to a friend of mine in Egypt about the situation over there. She's a Coptic journalist. She used to work for BBC Arab Service. I made the comment that now that the elections are over she must feel a lot safer. She had been telling me before about the police brutality and how a friend of hers was torured. Her reaction was "Nooo - It's terrible here - worse now that ever. The country is in a real mess. Pray for Egypt." I just hope she keeps safe. I'm not one of these Muslim bashers, so please bear that in mind. - and I agree that Copts never used to suffer any discrimination. The only time I have experience religious discrimination in the workplace came not from redneck Aussies, but from an Egyptian Copt.

Well she is not a bigot. she has many muslim friends.

Falah-

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

falah wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 2:07pm: muso wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 1:44pm: I was chatting to a friend of mine in Egypt about the situation over there. She's a Coptic journalist. She used to work for BBC Arab Service. I made the comment that now that the elections are over she must feel a lot safer. She had been telling me before about the police brutality and how a friend of hers was torured. Her reaction was "Nooo - It's terrible here - worse now that ever. The country is in a real mess. Pray for Egypt." I just hope she keeps safe. I'm not one of these Muslim bashers, so please bear that in mind. - and I agree that Copts never used to suffer any discrimination. The only time I have experience religious discrimination in the workplace came not from redneck Aussies, but from an Egyptian Copt. Well she is not a bigot. she has many muslim friends.

Falah has stated on another forum that it would be good if the  remaining Coptic Christians of Egypt were forced to pay the jizya tax. "Inshallah" was his term!

Adamant wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

Falah has stated on another forum that it would be good if the  remaining Coptic Christians of Egypt were forced to pay the jizya tax. "Inshallah" was his term!

There has been a lot of talk in Egypt about imposing this discriminatory tax on non muslims with most wanting it.

I would say it is similar to paying protection money to the mafia.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Adamant wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 7:27pm: Falah has stated on another forum that it would be good if the  remaining Coptic Christians of Egypt were forced to pay the jizya tax. "Inshallah" was his term! There has been a lot of talk in Egypt about imposing this discriminatory tax on non muslims with most wanting it. I would say it is similar to paying protection money to the mafia.

The jizya would likely be much less than the income tax most people pay in Australia. In an islamic state, Muslims must pay the alms tax which is 2.5% on most wealth - this is not due on Christians. Christians are also exempted from compulsory military service in the Islamic state. Through the payment of the jizya Christians enjoy the security of the Islamic state without having to do military service. Women, children and the elderly do not pay the jizya.

Historically, one of the reasons that Christians welcomed Islamic government was because the jizya was much lower than taxes they paid under their Christian governments.

Quote:

The Sun left its readers in no doubt as to why the outrage had been committed. Local Muslims were waging a vendetta against four British soldiers who hoped to rent the house on their return from serving their country in Afghanistan. The paper quoted an army source saying that: "these guys have done nothing but bravely serve their country – yet they can't even live where they want in their own". But there was one very big problem with The Sun story. There was no Muslim involvement of any kind. It is true that a house had been vandalised in Montagu Road, part of the comfortable and prosperous Windsor suburb of Datchet – as The Windsor Express had reported the previous day. It also looks very likely that the attack was connected with the potential arrival of four household cavalry officers. The average house price in Montagu Road is around £600,000 and there is an air of almost rural tranquillity. As far as we could discover, no Muslims lived in the area. To all intents and purposes Montagu Road was a white, gated community. The Sun claim that a "Muslim hate mob" could have arrived unnoticed and committed vandalism without being observed was nothing short of preposterous. Furthermore, the police denied any Muslim connection. But Islamophobia As this pamphlet will illustrate, it can be encountered in the best circles: among our most famous novelists, among columnists from The Independent and Guardian newspapers, and in the Church of England. Its appeal is wide-ranging. "I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it," writes Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, then writing for The Independent. "Islamophobia?" The Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle rhetorically asks in the title of a speech, "Count me in." Imagine Liddle declaring: "Anti-Semitism? Count me in", or Toynbee announcing that she was "an anti-semite and proud of it". This just wouldn't happen and for very good reasons. Anti-semitism is recognised as an evil, noxious creed and its adherents barred from mainstream society and respectable organs of opinion. Not so Islamophobia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-shameful-islamophobia-at-the-heart-of-britains-press-861096.html

falah wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 8:48pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Adamant wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 7:27pm: Falah has stated on another forum that it would be good if the  remaining Coptic Christians of Egypt were forced to pay the jizya tax. "Inshallah" was his term! There has been a lot of talk in Egypt about imposing this discriminatory tax on non muslims with most wanting it. I would say it is similar to paying protection money to the mafia. The jizzya

What?

::)

Pay no attention to Soren. He might be in his early 60s, but he's still going through a very long puberty.

falah wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 8:48pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Adamant wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 7:27pm: Falah has stated on another forum that it would be good if the  remaining Coptic Christians of Egypt were forced to pay the jizya tax. "Inshallah" was his term! There has been a lot of talk in Egypt about imposing this discriminatory tax on non muslims with most wanting it. I would say it is similar to paying protection money to the mafia. The jizya would likely be much less than the income tax most people pay in Australia. In an islamic state, Muslims must pay the alms tax which is 2.5% on most wealth - this is not due on Christians. Christians are also exempted from compulsory military service in the Islamic state. Through the payment of the jizya Christians enjoy the security of the Islamic state without having to do military service. Women, children and the elderly do not pay the jizzya. Historically, one of the reasons that Christians welcomed Islamic government was because the jizzya was much lower than taxes they paid under their Christian governments.

You are a fantasist and a scheme/planner deceiver.

You are suggesting, implying, insinuating, slyly as always, that Christians paid less tax than Muslims because they didn't have to pay the 2.5 % alms tax. You are a mendacious, dishonest man.

Tell us how much tax a Muslim paid, all told, and how much a non-Muslim.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

::) Pay no attention to Soren. He might be in his early 60s, but he's still going through a very long puberty.

AT least nobody can say that I married a Lebanese Muslim - and then left Islam.
How discombobulated is that?

I have been called discombobulating before, but never discombobulated.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:

I have been called discombobulating before, but never discombobulated.

They have been trying to hide it from you. But now you now. You are discombobulated. (In Old English = ditzy).

Soren wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

They have been trying to hide it from you. But now you now

Now I now?

No wonder I'm confused/ing.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:11pm: They have been trying to hide it from you. But now you know Now I now? Now wonder I'm confused/ing.

I can correct my typos. You can't correct your ditz.

You remind me of Enid Blyton, mighty son of Odin.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:29pm:

You remind me of Enid Blyton, mighty son of Odin.

You prove that it is not beyond a ditz to think of Enid.

More stuff on those well loved to death Copts in Egypt


Posted GMT 2-9-2012 1:48:30
      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AINA) -- National and international rights groups have consistently criticized the recourse to the so-called "reconciliation meetings" -- dubbed "Bedouin sittings" -- that take place between Copts and Muslim assailant after every attack on Copts. The meetings are conducted under the auspices of state security. Last week a series of meetings were held by radical Muslims to decide on the fate of the Copts in a village in Alexandria, and Muslims insisted that the whole Coptic population of 62 families must be deported because of an unsubstantiated accusation levied against one Coptic man.

Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (El-Ameriya), Alexandria, were attacked on January 27 by a mob of 3000 Muslims led by Salafi leaders, who looted and torched homes and shops belonging to Copts. The violence was prompted by allegations made by a Muslim barber named Toemah that a 34-year-old Coptic tailor, Mourad Samy Guirgis, had on his mobile phone illicit photos of a Muslim woman. Mourad denied the accusation and surrendered to the police for fear for his life. Muslims looted and torched his workshop and home after he surrendered to the police, and his entire family, including his parents and his married brother Romany, were evicted from the village. He is still in police detention. (AINA 1-28-2012).

Three "reconciliation meetings" were held at the El-Ameriya village police headquarters. They were attended by Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood representatives from neighboring villages, as well as church representative. Muslims demanded the eviction of all Coptic inhabitants from the village because "Muslim honour had been damaged."

Many believe that the mobile phone story was fabricated as an excuse to start violence against the Copts. According to the police, the woman in question denied the story and no photos were found on Mourad's mobile phone, according to Ihab Aziz, a Coptic-American activist who is presently in Egypt.

During the first reconciliation meeting it was agreed that only Copts who were directly involved with the Mourad incident would be evicted, and the church demanded compensation of two million pounds for the innocent Copts whose homes and businesses were torched on January 27. Muslims, especially Salafis from the neighboring villages, refused any kind of compensation and insisted on the eviction of all Copts.

On January 30 a Muslim mob attacked Copts in Kobry-el-Sharbat for the second time, and torched three Coptic homes in the presence of the security forces, "which took the role of an onlooker and made no effort to stop the violence," according to Joseph Malak, lawyer for the Coptic church in Alexandria. "This proves that the assailants were not afraid of the security forces or the law."

Muslim representatives demanded the eviction of the wealthy Coptic merchant Abeskhayroun Soliman, together with his four married sons and their families, accusing them of causing sedition by shooting in the air when Muslims broke into and torched their home while the family was inside. "No one was wounded due to the alleged shootings, which the family says never took place. The police authorities issued an arrest warrant for two of the Soliman sons," said Ihab Aziz.

The Solimans have been in hiding with a Muslim family which saved them from their burning homes, and is presently giving them protection. Muslims threatened that if eight Coptic families were not evicted by February 3rd, all remaining 54 Coptic families in the village would be subjected to violence after Friday prayers. They called it "Friday of Eviction" and "Friday of Clean-up."

On Wednesday February 1, a hastily organized reconciliation meeting was arranged by security authorities, and was attended by Ebeskharion Soliman and one of his sons.

The terms of the agreement which resulted were:


eviction of eight Coptic families, namely three of the Mourad families, in addition to five Soliman families.
selling of the assets of the wealthy Abeskhayron Soliman family within three months by a committee, under the supervision of Salafi shaikh Sherif el Hawary. Soliman has no right to get involved in the sale or even accompany a prospective buyer.
the Committee is to collect any money accrued from the sale of his land, properties, businesses as well as collect promissory notes pending from business transactions by the Soliman-owned chain of stores.
in case of non-implementation of this Agreement, all Copts in the Kobry-el-Sharbat village will be attacked, their homes and property completely torched.

Abeskhayron Soliman signed the agreement, which most Copts viewed as "humiliating."

Father Boktor, who attended the meeting, described the reconciliation agreement as "utter injustice."

Wissa Fawzi, member of the Maspero Coptic Youth Union in Alexandria, said that Soliman has nothing at all to do with the Mourad story, but signed the agreement to save his family and the Copts in the village, "otherwise there would have been a massacre of the Copts on that Friday." He said that Security authorities pressured Soliman into accepting the terms of the agreement by threatening him with refusal of police protection for him and his family. "What constitutes the real crisis is the complicity of security officials in the process of displacement," said Fawzi.

Copts in Kobry-el-Sharbat were stunned after hearing the news of the eviction of the "top Copt" in their community, whose wealth is estimated at more than 20,000,000 Egyptian pounds. "There is a feeling of humiliation and being completely under the mercy of the radical Muslims," said Rami Khashfa of the Alexandria Maspero Youth Union "they are terrorized and are scared of the future. Copts in the neighboring villages are also scared." He said that Copts in the village are thinking of moving elsewhere.

Speaking on US-based Christian TV channel Al-Karma, Magdy Khalil, head of the Middle East Freedom Forum, said that reconciliation meetings made up of Salafis and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and arranged by security officials are illegal and forced eviction is one of the crimes under international law. "Who gave them the right to form a committee headed by a Salafi to sell Christian property? This is thuggery and blatant targeting of Copts."

Khalil called on the Coptic Melli Council, which is the civilian body that represents Copts in the Egyptian State, to protest this agreement and ask for the return of the Copts to their homes. "If we accept it, this will open the door for an avalanche of forced evictions." He believes that radical Muslim have a bigger plan they hope to achieve by terrorizing the Copts, namely displacing and dispersing them from places with high Coptic population density, taking their property and weakening them economically.

Ihab Aziz, like many others, believes that "Coptic capital" is targeted everywhere in Egypt. He said that members of the Egyptian parliament have been made aware of the El-Ameriya forced displacement, and the issue will be brought before parliament shortly.

By Mary Abdelmassih

http://www.aina.org/news/20120208194830.htm

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:

I was chatting to a friend of mine in Egypt about the situation over there. She's a Coptic journalist. She used to work for BBC Arab Service. I made the comment that now that the elections are over she must feel a lot safer. She had been telling me before about the police brutality and how a friend of hers was torured. Her reaction was "Nooo - It's terrible here - worse now that ever. The country is in a real mess. Pray for Egypt." I just hope she keeps safe. I'm not one of these Muslim bashers, so please bear that in mind. - and I agree that Copts never used to suffer any discrimination.

muso,

I know that God WILL bear that in mind.

He, by the means of his spirit, is keeping tabs on all of us.

Monitoring our choices, and paying attention to our motives for those choices.




Psalms 15:1
LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
2  He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
3  He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
4  In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
5  He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.


Luke 9:24
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.


John 12:25
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
26  If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.


1 Chronicles 28:9
And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

Soren wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:41pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:29pm: You remind me of Enid Blyton, mighty son of Odin. You prove that it is not beyond a ditz to think of Enid.

Careful. On this forum, you need to get married before you show such affection.  ;)

Adamant wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 1:14am:

More stuff on those well loved to death Copts in Egypt

For what it's worth, Syrian Christians are extremely worried that Islamists will take over Syria. At least they get respect and tolerance from the current regime. There is concern that the situation will become like that in Egypt.

In Egypt, the problem right now is lawlessness. Pure and simple.

muso wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Adamant wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 1:14am: More stuff on those well loved to death Copts in Egypt For what it's worth, Syrian Christians are extremely worried that Islamists will take over Syria. At least they get respect and tolerance from the current regime. There is concern that the situation will become like that in Egypt. In Egypt, the problem right now is lawlessness. Pure and simple.

ISLAM 'legitimises' lawlessness [the lawlessness of moslems].   .....pure and simple.



Google,
islam, lawlessness



But muso, is happy, not to criticise moslems and ISLAM.

Because muso, like so many today, is a 'tolerant' person.





+++



TOLERANCE OF EVIL

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper


"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann

muso wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

Adamant wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 1:14am: More stuff on those well loved to death Copts in Egypt For what it's worth, Syrian Christians are extremely worried that Islamists will take over Syria. At least they get respect and tolerance from the current regime. There is concern that the situation will become like that in Egypt. In Egypt, the problem right now is lawlessness. Pure and simple.

But persecution against Muslims is ignored by people like you. Only a few days a go a Muslim restaurant in melbourne was raided by Syrian Alawites who robbed the store terrorised staff with knives whilst shouting support for president Al-Assad. They even stole driving licenses of the staff.

If these Alawite thugs will even target Muslims in Australia, how much is the persecution of muslims actually inside Syria?

falah wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

But persecution against Muslims is ignored by people like you. Only a few days a go a Muslim restaurant in melbourne was raided by Syrian Alawites who robbed the store terrorised staff with knives whilst shouting support for president Al-Assad. They even stole driving licenses of the staff. If these Alawite thugs will even target Muslims in Australia, how much is the persecution of muslims actually inside Syria?

What do you expect us to to when shia muslims persecute sunni muslims or when sunni muslims persecute shia muslims?
Pehaps we should stop immigration from backward cultures that follow the ideology of a 7th century tribal warlord.

If Islam is the religion of peace then explain this sectarian bloodshed in Islam that started around 1400 years ago with the battle of the camel,what is the bodycount from this sectarian violence between muslims we know it is not zero yet that number shows how much attention muslims pay to this statistic while spruiking off with  their judeophobia.

Not a word from muslims about how they persecute the Ahmadi muslims,Abdus Salam won the first nobel prize in science for a muslim yet because he was an ahmadithey removed the word "muslim" from his grave.

Pakistan massacre minority muslims from the ahmadi sect-
http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/01/pakistan-massacre-minority-ahmadis

The Ahmadi have their own website they outline the persecution they suffer from mainstream Islam-
http://www.thepersecution.org
Falah you are a hypocrite your belief is responsible for this persecution.

In Indonesia Ahmadi were killed after this friday prayer where the Imam says it is ok to kill the Ahmadi,their blood is halal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp-jf9zgoxU

What do you say about that imam saying it is halal to kill the ahmadi falah?

I bet you dont answer that question

falah wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

muso wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:51am: Adamant wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 1:14am: More stuff on those well loved to death Copts in Egypt For what it's worth, Syrian Christians are extremely worried that Islamists will take over Syria. At least they get respect and tolerance from the current regime. There is concern that the situation will become like that in Egypt. In Egypt, the problem right now is lawlessness. Pure and simple. But persecution against Muslims is ignored by people like you. Only a few days a go a Muslim restaurant in melbourne was raided by Syrian Alawites who robbed the store terrorised staff with knives whilst shouting support for president Al-Assad. They even stole driving licenses of the staff. If these Alawite thugs will even target Muslims in Australia, how much is the persecution of muslims actually inside Syria?

Persecution is right across the board in Syria. I don't know what you mean by people "like me". I have a number of valued friends across the world, some of whom are Muslim. I would hate for anything to happen to them. I also exchange Eid cards every year with some in Kenya and Tanzania. I don't condone persecution in any shape or form.

In Egypt, it's not about religion. There is total anarchy, and those who fought for freedom under the Mubarrak regime were being arrested and beaten up by the police, and were labelled as thugs or beltagia. Their actual religion has no bearing on this. Copts and Muslims actually united in that fight.

Please don't tar me with the same brush as others.

falah wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

muso wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:51am: Adamant wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 1:14am: More stuff on those well loved to death Copts in Egypt For what it's worth, Syrian Christians are extremely worried that Islamists will take over Syria. At least they get respect and tolerance from the current regime. There is concern that the situation will become like that in Egypt. In Egypt, the problem right now is lawlessness. Pure and simple. But persecution against Muslims is ignored by people like you. Only a few days a go a Muslim restaurant in melbourne was raided by Syrian Alawites who robbed the store terrorised staff with knives whilst shouting support for president Al-Assad. They even stole driving licenses of the staff. If these Alawite thugs will even target Muslims in Australia, how much is the persecution of muslims actually inside Syria?

An analogy;

Letting PREDATORS, like crocodiles, live together is not 'persecution', it is 'natural selection'.

Crocodiles predating upon other crocodiles [and they do!], is not 'persecution', it is 'natural selection'.

So when at the zoo, you have a new crocodile [a predator] arrive, the zoo keeper should put the crocodile into the crocodile enclosure.

Persecution, would be putting the new crocodile in the sheep enclosure.

That would be persecution, for the sheep.



In the human family, moslems are predators.

ISLAM teaches moslems predation [....upon those deemed to be non-moslems].

ISLAM teaches moslems that predation is lawful and 'natural' for themselves.


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29



Google;
house of war, Dar al-Harb


Google;
divisions of the world, in islam, Dar al-Harb




+++


Non-moslems who believe moslems are 'like us', are willingly ignorant, willingly naive.

Why so ?

Q.
Why do some non-moslems so blatantly hate truth ?

A.
Because, for some non-moslems, they have learnt that truth does not serve them [i.e. they know that truth does not, will not, serve them, in their seeking to achieve their desires].   [....therefore they hate truth.]






Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Yadda wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 1:57am:

In the human family, moslems are predators.

That is why, in the last 60 years, the Christian USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam, Philippines, Lebanon, Grenada, Cuba, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Laos, Panama and Korea.

In the same period, the Christian USA has bombed the Philippines, Somalia, Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea.

Who is the only people to ever drop a nuclear bomb on civilian targets? Christian USA.

Who firebombed Japan and Germany destroying up to 90% of some cities? Christian USA.

Who Killed 6 million people in WWII? Christian hitler.

Who killed 3 million people in Cambodia? Atheist Pol Pot.

Who killed 20 million people in USSR? Atheist Stalin.

Who killed 50 million people in China? Atheist Mao.

Who Conducted the Spanish inquisition? The Catholic Church.

My Lai Massacre of Civlilian Vietnamese by Christian US Soldiers

mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, by United States Army soldiers of "Charlie" Company of 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/My_Lai_massacre.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Dead_man_and_child_from_the_My_Lai_massacre.jpg

falah wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

Yadda wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 1:57am: In the human family, moslems are predators. That is why, in the last 60 years, the Christian USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam, Philippines, Lebanon, Grenada, Cuba, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Laos, Panama and Korea. In the same period, the Christian USA has bombed the Philippines, Somalia, Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korea. Who is the only people to ever drop a nuclear bomb on civilian targets? Christian USA. Who firebombed Japan and Germany destroying up to 90% of some cities? Christian USA. Who Killed 6 million people in WWII? Christian hitler. Who killed 3 million people in Cambodia? Atheist Pol Pot. Who killed 20 million people in USSR? Atheist Stalin. Who killed 50 million people in China? Atheist Mao. Who Conducted the Spanish inquisition? The Catholic Church.

You left Bosnia off your list Falah do you recall the USA helping that war criminal muslim called  Naser Oric?


You should read the USA constitution before making absurd claims Falah or you might end up looking like a dumbfvckistani.

  "Nowhere in the USA constitution do we have a single mention of christianity,God,jesus or any supreme being.

There occurs only 2 references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

Article IV section 3 - No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United states.

The USA is a secular country as defined by their constitution that makes your post full of lies falah.

The first muslim massacre in a long list dating back around 1400 years of jews known as the genocide of the Banu Qurayza-
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

"Nowhere in the USA constitution do we have a single mention of christianity,God,jesus or any supreme being. There occurs only 2 references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Article IV section 3 - No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United states. The USA is a secular country as defined by their constitution that makes your post full of lies falah.

American voters, politicians & soldiers are all secular atheists then are they?

The fact is that the US is one of the most religious Christian countries in the world. There 90 million Evangelical Christians in the US. Nearly 1 in 3 voters in the US are fanatical Evangelicals.

To say that the actions of the US government do not reflect their Christian values is absurd.

On his first day in office, President Bush implemented the Mexico City Policy; this policy required nongovernmental organizations receiving federal funds to agree not to perform abortions or to actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.

Bush banned embryonic stem cell research.

The Bush administration promoted a policy of abstinence only sex education, denying federal funding for any other type of sexual health education.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Bush's policies were not rooted in the Christian religion.


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

The first muslim massacre in a long list dating back around 1400 years of jews known as the genocide of the Banu Qurayza- http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

Only an idiot would take the wikiislam anti-Muslim propganda site seriously.

You may as well get information about black people from a KKK or David Duke website if you are going to get "information" about Islam from a hate-site.

falah wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 3:11pm:   "Nowhere in the USA constitution do we have a single mention of christianity,God,jesus or any supreme being. There occurs only 2 references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Article IV section 3 - No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United states. The USA is a secular country as defined by their constitution that makes your post full of lies falah. American voters, politicians & soldiers are all secular atheists then are they?

That question indicates you are ignorant of what a secular state or country is falah.

Australia is a secular country as is most of the world check out the red on the map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

Only a dumbfvckistani muslim would claim a secular country is a christian country.

Wiki islam was set up by ex muslims, the same people who you think it is ok to kill for apostasy.
Killing an ex muslim for leaving Islam is a hate crime you hypocrite!i

A) Is the USA a democracy?

B) Are the vast overwhelming majority of US politicians and voters Christians?

Now you do the math. The American Government does not represent an atheist majority.

falah wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 5:11pm:

A) Is the USA a democracy? B) Are the vast overwhelming majority of US politicians and voters Christians? Now you do the math. The American Government does not represent an atheist majority.

The USA like Australia is a secular country,do you even know what a secular country is falah?

Have you ever heard the term "Separation of church and state"?
Do you comprehend what that means?

Which one is the majority in the USA falah can you make up your mind is it the christians or atheists?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

The USA like Australia is a secular country,do you even know what a secular country is falah? Have you ever heard the term "Separation of church and state"? Do you comprehend what that means? Which one is the majority in the USA falah can you make up your mind is it the christians or atheists?

This might be a bit complicated for you, but America is a secular state with an overwhelming Christian majority electorate who vote Christian presidents to determine their foreign policy.

Does the US constitution say that Christian politicians cannot control US foreign policy?




Atheists are relatively few in the US, where nearly 80% of the population claims to be Christian:

http://religions.pewforum.org/img/major_religious_traditions.gif

falah wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 5:33pm: The USA like Australia is a secular country,do you even know what a secular country is falah? Have you ever heard the term "Separation of church and state"? Do you comprehend what that means? Which one is the majority in the USA falah can you make up your mind is it the christians or atheists? This might be a bit complicated for you, but America is a secular state with an overwhelming Christian majority Does the US constitution say that... Atheists are relatively few in the US, where nearly 80% of the population claims to be Christian:

You should read the American constitution instead of listening to your imam.

The National Academy of Sciences did a survey on the religion of their members and 93% of them are atheist or agnostic.

I would say atheists are very common among the educated only stupid people believe in fairy tales and jinns.

Read this Falah why are 93% atheist or agnostic with this demographic from the USA?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html


You dont believe in christianity or judiasm or any other beliefs so you are an atheist when it comes to all religions except Islam.

People who believe in God are not allowed by the Darwinist establishment to become scientists.

These days there are obstacles put in the way for Believers to enter science.


Quote:

"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," Ecklund says... ...Among scientists, as in the general population, being raised in a home in which religion and religious practice were valued is the most important predictor of present religiosity among the subjects. Ecklund and Scheitle concluded that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable. Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."... http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

What the US studies have found is that scientists are far less likely to be Christian than the rest of the US population. However, there is a suggestion that people from other religions may be more inclined to be scientists:


Quote:

while nearly 14 percent of the U.S. population who responded to the GSS describe themselves as "evangelical" or "fundamentalist," [Christian] less than 2 percent of the RAAS population identifies with either label. The only traditional religious identity category where the RAAS population has a much higher proportion of religious adherents than the general population is among those who identify as Jewish -- 15 percent compared to 2 percent of the general population. http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

Before the Darwinist extremists took over, there were plenty of scientists who believed in God:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Max Planck (1858-1947)

Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"


William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).


Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.


Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.


Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."


Anyway there may be a returning to religion amongst scientists:


Quote:

RAAS data reveal that younger scientists are more likely to believe in God than older scientists, and more likely to report attending religious services over the past year. "If this holds throughout the career life-course for this cohort of academic scientists," Ecklund says, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy." http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

Quote:

Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science ...disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists...scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith. "It should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles," said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith. Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force. Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people... ...When the American Association for the Advancement of Science devoted a session to this idea of separation at its annual meeting this year, scores of scientists crowded into a room to hear it. Some of them said they were unsatisfied with the idea, because they believe scientists' moral values must inevitably affect their work, others because so much of science has so many ethical implications in the real world. One panelist, Dr. Noah Efron of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said scientists, like other people, were guided by their own human purposes, meaning and values. The idea that fact can be separated from values and meaning "jibes poorly with what we know of the history of science," Dr. Efron said. Dr. Collins, who is working on a book about his religious faith, also believes that people should not have to keep religious beliefs and scientific theories strictly separate. "I don't find it very satisfactory and I don't find it very necessary," he said in an interview. He noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said... ...Dr. Collins was a nonbeliever until he was 27 - "more and more into the mode of being not only agnostic but being an atheist," as he put it. All that changed after he completed his doctorate in physics and was at work on his medical degree, when he was among those treating a woman dying of heart disease. "She was very clear about her faith and she looked me square in the eye and she said, 'what do you believe?' " he recalled. "I sort of stammered out, 'I am not sure.' " He said he realized then that he had never considered the matter seriously, the way a scientist should. He began reading about various religious beliefs, which only confused him. Finally, a Methodist minister gave him a book, "Mere Christianity," by C. S. Lewis. In the book Lewis, an atheist until he was a grown man, argues that the idea of right and wrong is universal among people, a moral law they "did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try." This universal feeling, he said, is evidence for the plausibility of God. When he read the book, Dr. Collins said, "I thought, my gosh, this guy is me." Today, Dr. Collins said, he does not embrace any particular denomination, but he is a Christian...he said he had discovered in talking to students and colleagues that "there is a great deal of interest in this topic." Polling Scientists on Beliefs According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."... ...This response is not surprising to researchers like Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the academy and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics. He said he could understand why religious people would believe that anything that eroded belief was destructive... ...He rejects the idea that scientists who reject religion are arrogant. "We know how many mistakes we've made," Dr. Weinberg said..."Most scientists I know simply don't think about it very much. They don't think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists."... ...Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown, said his students were often surprised to find that he was religious, especially when they realized that his faith was not some sort of vague theism but observant Roman Catholicism. Dr. Miller, whose book, "Finding Darwin's God," explains his reconciliation of the theory of evolution with his religious faith, said he was usually challenged in his biology classes by one or two students whose religions did not accept evolution, who asked how important the theory would be in the course. "What they are really asking me is "do I have to believe in this stuff to get an A?,' " he said... ...Dr. Murray, who describes himself as "a cradle Catholic" who has rarely missed weekly Mass and who prays every morning, said that when he was preparing for the first ever human organ transplant, a kidney that a young man had donated to his identical twin, he and his colleagues consulted a number of religious leaders about whether they were doing the right thing. "It seemed natural," he said... ...Since his appearance at the City College panel, when he was dismayed by the tepid reception received by his remarks on the incompatibility of good science and religious belief, Dr. Hauptman said he had been discussing the issue with colleagues in Buffalo, where he is president of the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute. "I think almost without exception the people I have spoken to are scientists and they do believe in the existence of a supreme being," he said. "If you ask me to explain it - I cannot explain it at all."... ...Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning. But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=3

Quote:

...What do scientists actually believe when it comes to religion? Almost three-quarters say “there are basic truths in many religions.” This compares with just over 80% of Americans who believe the same... http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-vs-religion-what-are-scientists-religious-beliefs/

Einstein was an atheist we have been through this how thick are you?

93% of the National Academy of science members do not believe in god.

That is less than 1/10 who do believe in god, who is the odd one out in that group falah?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 10:57pm:

Einstein was an atheist we have been through this how thick are you? 93% of the National Academy of science members do not believe in god. That is less than 1/10 who do believe in god, who is the odd one out in that group falah?

lol...mate your so full of sh(t. Einstein was athiest? lol...now I've heard it all.

'God does not play chance'....now who was it that said that?

Einstein was actually put forward as a candidate for the Israeli leadership.....being a practising Jew.

Seriously...some of the crap that comes out of your mouth is amazing. You make it up as you go along....

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god


Quote:

When he turned 50, Einstein granted an interview in which he was asked point-blank, do you believe in God? “I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Not sure how much more clearer you would like it to be. 'I am not an athiest'....lol, yet doesn't stop douchebags like you making up lies.

Lol...and you wonder why we don't take anything you say seriously.


Oh...and speaking about secular countries? You do realise that Iraq was secular under Saddam...as was Egypt under Mubarak. Yet that didn't stop scum like you repeating time and time again that they are 'muslim'.

Fool....

Lestat wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 10:07am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 10:57pm: Einstein was an atheist we have been through this how thick are you? 93% of the National Academy of science members do not believe in god. That is less than 1/10 who do believe in god, who is the odd one out in that group falah? lol...mate your so full of sh(t. Einstein was athiest? lol...now I've heard it all. 'God does not play chance'....now who was it that said that? Einstein was actually put forward as a candidate for the Israeli leadership.....being a practising Jew. Seriously...some of the crap that comes out of your mouth is amazing. You make it up as you go along.... http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god Quote: When he turned 50, Einstein granted an interview in which he was asked point-blank, do you believe in God? “I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” Not sure how much more clearer you would like it to be. 'I am not an athiest'....lol, yet doesn't stop douchebags like you making up lies. Lol...and you wonder why we don't take anything you say seriously. Oh...and speaking about secular countries? You do realise that Iraq was secular under Saddam...as was Egypt under Mubarak. Yet that didn't stop scum like you repeating time and time again that they are 'muslim'. Fool....

Einstein did not believe in god.

Do Agnostics believe in god lestat?

Why dont you read what Einstein really thought about religion here it even cites where the quote came from -
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Did Saddam or Egypt sign the Universal Declaration of human rights or was Iraq and Egypt like Iran and Saudi Arabia in saying the Universal declaration of human rights violates Islamic law.

Baron,

Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again.

You quite clearly stated that Einstein was an athiest. I have provided you a quote where he quite clearly states 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'.

Not sure how much more clearer it can be. Now that your lie has been exposed...you slightly shift the goal posts...and claim he is 'agnostic'...or not 'religous'.

But you didn't say that...did you. No..you quite clearly stated that he was an athiest.

Do you admit that you just made that up?

Secondly, he did believe in God, and has stated so publicly...many times. Do you really want me to make you look the fool a second time?

If you do, just say the word.

So Einstien rejected his native Judism and Christianity. So what...I can understand why? Anyone with a semblence of logic would reject these two pagan cults. Its no surprise whatsoever. However, to claim that he is an athiest when he is not...is just outright misleading.

Its no coincidence....many people raised Christian/Jew become agnostic. Deep inside they believe in a creator...a higher being, however, they cannot accept the numerous contradictions/and and outright lies and errors in the Bible/Torah...

Many become muslims.

Besides...I suggest you read the very quotes from Einstein you posted. It appears clearly, that he rejects the idea of a 'personal God'. He states so quite clearly.


Quote:

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”

The concept of a 'personal God' is very much Judeo Christian concept.


Really...your not telling us anything we don't already know.

And on your final point. Once again...what has the 'universal declaration of human rights' have to do with secularism?

Nothing..thats what. Just another pathetic attempt by yourself to divert from the facts. Egypt and Iraq were both secular nations, yet it doesn't stop you labelling them as muslim. No different then Falah labelling the US as Christians.

Besides...I'm pretty sure that the declaration of human rights says something about indefinate detention for political reasons. Hows the US track record with that? Guantanemo ring a bell?

.

Lestat wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 4:21pm:

Baron, Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again. You quite clearly stated that Einstein was an athiest. I have provided you a quote where he quite clearly states 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'. Not sure how much more clearer it can be. Now that your lie has been exposed...you slightly shift the goal posts...and claim he is 'agnostic'...or not 'religous'. But you didn't say that...did you. No..you quite clearly stated that he was an athiest. Secondly, he did believe in God, and has stated so publicly...many times. Do you really want me to make you look the fool a second time? So Einstien rejected his native Judism and Christianity. So what...I can understand why? Anyone with a semblence of logic would reject these two pagan cults. Its no surprise whatsoever. However, to claim that he is an athiest when he is not...is just outright misleading. Besides...I suggest you read the very quotes from Einstein you posted. It appears clearly, that he rejects the idea of a 'personal God'. He states so quite clearly. Quote: The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.” Egypt and Iraq were both secular nations, yet it doesn't stop you labelling them as muslim. Guantanemo ring a bell?

Do you even know what an agnostic is lestat?

Tom Huxley came up with the term,he was an associate of Charles Darwin.

Demographic research services normally do not differentiate between various types of non religious respondants so agnostics end up in the same category as atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Defining_agnosticism
Agnostics get counted with atheists as having No religion.

What does Islam say about atheism Lestat?
The atheist who does good deeds is worse than the one who kills his mother and takes care of dogs
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/10300/atheist

Please cite where i have called Iraq or Egypt under Saddam-Mubarek muslim countries!

Fidel Castro rents Guantanamo bay to the USA for $1 per year.
He has never cashed the rent cheques.
Did Cuba sign the UDHR?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

Lestat wrote on Feb 13th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Baron, Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again. You quite clearly stated that Einstein was an athiest. I have provided you a quote where he quite clearly states 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'. Not sure how much more clearer it can be. Now that your lie has been exposed...you slightly shift the goal posts...and claim he is 'agnostic'...or not 'religous'. But you didn't say that...did you. No..you quite clearly stated that he was an athiest. Secondly, he did believe in God, and has stated so publicly...many times. Do you really want me to make you look the fool a second time? So Einstien rejected his native Judism and Christianity. So what...I can understand why? Anyone with a semblence of logic would reject these two pagan cults. Its no surprise whatsoever. However, to claim that he is an athiest when he is not...is just outright misleading. Besides...I suggest you read the very quotes from Einstein you posted. It appears clearly, that he rejects the idea of a 'personal God'. He states so quite clearly. Quote: The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.” Egypt and Iraq were both secular nations, yet it doesn't stop you labelling them as muslim. Guantanemo ring a bell? Do you even know what an agnostic is lestat? Tom Huxley came up with the term,he was an associate of Charles Darwin. Demographic research services normally do not differentiate between various types of non religious respondants so agnostics end up in the same category as atheists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Defining_agnosticism Agnostics get counted with atheists as having No religion. What does Islam say about atheism Lestat? The atheist who does good deeds is worse than the one who kills his mother and takes care of dogs http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/10300/atheist Please cite where i have called Iraq or Egypt under Saddam-Mubarek muslim countries! Fidel Castro rents Guantanamo bay to the USA for $1 per year. He has never cashed the rent cheques. Did Cuba sign the UDHR?

lol...yes I know what an agnostic is...do you? I think not.

Many agnostic..though rejecting religon, believe in a higher being. A higher spirit...many believe in a God, just do not accept religon. Many don't.

The very term..'agnostic' means 'people who knew'.

Einstien himself said many times he believes in a higher being....a creator...it was the 'personal God' concept which he very much rejected. A concept which is very much Christian.

To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable.

Have you ever heard of Arians? Or the Mandeans? Both considered Gnostics...and they existed long before Tom Huxley.

I suggest you do some reading, instead of just cut and pasting links that you think support your narrow ignorant views.

Besides, its irrelevant...why are you even now mentioning 'agnostic'.

You said that Einstein was an athiest. You didn't say he was agnostic...you said he was an athiest.

You only starting going on about him being agnostic when you were quite clearly shown to be a douche bag.

Are you denying that you stated that Einstein was an athiest? You didn't say agnostic did  you...you said 'athiest'.

Do you now admit that he was not athiest?

Numerous times you attack Islam using examples from countries that are not muslim, but are secular and/or monarchies. When Abu and Falah highlight this to you, that these countries to not govern by islamic law, and are not Islamic states...you are the first to whine about their claims.

Yet now you are doing the very same thing.

Oh...and by the way, Guantanemo Bay is a US military base, and is considered to be US soil. Those prisoners who are abused and tortured are under US supervision.

So tell me ... Did the US sigh the UDHR?

falah wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

This might be a bit complicated for you, but America is a secular state with an overwhelming Christian majority electorate who vote Christian presidents to determine their foreign policy.

Would you classify Mormon as Christian? Many Christians, especially in the US, would not.

Lestat wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable.

I'm not getting into the argument about Einstein. The way that God existed for Einstein is different from the way God exists for you and the way God exists for me. If we're talking about Gods with three different sets of attributes, the terms atheist  and Theist don't convey much intelligence. I'd stick to Muslim in your case. "Muslim" and "Christian" are at least well defined whereas "Theist" is a bit wooly because God (Allah) outside the major religions is not adequately defined.

Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself.

White = yes, Black = no and grey = grey. ;D

---

Lestat wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 13th, 2012 at 7:41pm: Lestat wrote on Feb 13th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Baron, Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again. You quite clearly stated that Einstein was an athiest. I have provided you a quote where he quite clearly states 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'. Not sure how much more clearer it can be. Now that your lie has been exposed...you slightly shift the goal posts...and claim he is 'agnostic'...or not 'religous'. But you didn't say that...did you. No..you quite clearly stated that he was an athiest. Secondly, he did believe in God, and has stated so publicly...many times. Do you really want me to make you look the fool a second time? So Einstien rejected his native Judism and Christianity. So what...I can understand why? Anyone with a semblence of logic would reject these two pagan cults. Its no surprise whatsoever. However, to claim that he is an athiest when he is not...is just outright misleading. Besides...I suggest you read the very quotes from Einstein you posted. It appears clearly, that he rejects the idea of a 'personal God'. He states so quite clearly. Quote: The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.” Egypt and Iraq were both secular nations, yet it doesn't stop you labelling them as muslim. Guantanemo ring a bell? Do you even know what an agnostic is lestat? Tom Huxley came up with the term,he was an associate of Charles Darwin. Demographic research services normally do not differentiate between various types of non religious respondants so agnostics end up in the same category as atheists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Defining_agnosticism Agnostics get counted with atheists as having No religion. What does Islam say about atheism Lestat? The atheist who does good deeds is worse than the one who kills his mother and takes care of dogs http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/10300/atheist Please cite where i have called Iraq or Egypt under Saddam-Mubarek muslim countries! Fidel Castro rents Guantanamo bay to the USA for $1 per year. He has never cashed the rent cheques. Did Cuba sign the UDHR? lol...yes I know what an agnostic is...do you? I think not. Many agnostic..though rejecting religon, believe in a higher being. A higher spirit...many believe in a God, just do not accept religon. Many don't. The very term..'agnostic' means 'people who knew'. Einstien himself said many times it was the 'personal God' concept which he very much rejected. To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable. Have you ever heard of Arians? Or the Mandeans? Both considered Gnostics...and they existed long before Tom Huxley. Besides, its irrelevant...why are you even now mentioning 'agnostic'. You said that Einstein was an athiest. You didn't say he was agnostic...you said he was an athiest. Are you denying that you stated that Einstein was an athiest? You didn't say agnostic did  you...you said 'athiest'. Numerous times you attack Islam using examples from countries that are not muslim, but are secular and/or monarchies. Oh...and by the way, Guantanemo Bay is a US military base, and is considered to be US soil.

You have shown your ignorance with agnostics by comparing "gnostics" with the term first used by Tom Huxley in 1869 called "agnostic".
Read this Lestat-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Quote:

Thomas henry Huxley was an English biologist,Known as Darwin's bulldog for his advocacy of Darwin's theory of evolution

The first Agnostic,the man who invented the word believed in evolution which contradicts religion.
Your definition of agnostic is a load of codswallop i suggest you look it up in a dictionary instead of doing the muslim thing in trying to redefine words.

Einstein did not believe in the god that is found in religous holy books did he,he thought religion was all bullshit so that makes him a non believer in religion.

Lestat many people say they are atheist towards religion yet agnostic about god so are they atheist or agnostic or a combination of both?

In our recent census did it say tick no religion if you have no religion or were there separate boxes for atheist and agnostic?

When we look at Irreligion in Australia are atheists and agnostics in the same category of No Religion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Australia
Those with 'No Religion" are the fastest growing demographic of all the religous options in Australia.

Would you have been happier if i said Einstein thought religion was a load of bullshit?

The reality is you have your panties in a twist over what label to give someone who thinks religion is all bullshit - you are totally ignorant about agnostics as well as atheists i suggest you do some research on these try wiki instead of your imam.

Please cite where i called Saddam -Mubarek with Egypt and Iraqs muslim countries i think you have mistaken me for someone else.

How can the UDHR work in a country that has not signed it?
IMO they should have called them POW then they could hold them till the end of the war,this war on terror could go for a long time.

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself.

Atheist is disbelief in the existence of god (as defined in holy books,who else defines god?)  it has nothing to do with belief.

If someone says Porcine animals will become aerodynamic is that a belief?
If someone replies "No they wont, too fat, too heavy, no wings there is nothing to indicate this could be possible" Is that a belief or a simple rejection of the hypothesis based on facts?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:00am: Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. Atheist is disbelief in the existence of god (as defined in holy books,who else defines god?)  it has nothing to do with belief. If someone says Porcine animals will become aerodynamic is that a belief? If someone replies "No they wont, too fat, too heavy, no wings there is nothing to indicate this could be possible" Is that a belief or a simple rejection of the hypothesis based on facts?

Yep - Isn't that what the chart says? Pure atheism answers "no" to the question of Belief in God(s)

Agnostic atheists also answer no, but add that they don't know for sure.

Agnostic Theists say that they don't know for sure, but they happen to believe in God.

Who else defines God? Einstein? me? - anybody who wants to.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

If someone says Porcine animals will become aerodynamic is that a belief? If someone replies "No they wont, too fat, too heavy, no wings there is nothing to indicate this could be possible" Is that a belief or a simple rejection of the hypothesis based on facts?

I just hope that there is a sense of humour here. Here goes:

http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/2/Airlines-Security.jpg

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:39am: muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:00am: Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. Atheist is disbelief in the existence of god (as defined in holy books,who else defines god?)  it has nothing to do with belief. If someone says Porcine animals will become aerodynamic is that a belief? If someone replies "No they wont, too fat, too heavy, no wings there is nothing to indicate this could be possible" Is that a belief or a simple rejection of the hypothesis based on facts? Yep - Isn't that what the chart says? Pure atheism answers "no" to the question of Belief in God(s) Agnostic atheists also answer no, but add that they don't know for sure. Agnostic Theists say that they don't know for sure, but they happen to believe in God. Who else defines God? Einstein? me? - anybody who wants to.

That chart has atheism next to religion on the side of belief which makes it wrong IMO.

The bible says the earth is flat knowledge says it isn't,Quran says http://quran.com/18/86 Read all translations for that belief.
Atheists use common knowledge to see these beliefs are false yet that chart has them on the side of belief which is why i think it is wrong.

When a muslim takes the shahada they say there is only 1 god and Mo was his messenger.
All other religions are bullshit beliefs to a muslim and any other god apart from Allah does not exist,Islam does not recognise beliefs that came after Islam because Mo was the final prophet from God.
Therefore any individual interpretation of god that is not the Islamic god Allah is bullshit according to Islam.
Islam defines God as the Allah in the Quran there is no other god according to Islam.

Start from scratch with these guys on disbelief as Lestat has shown he does not know the difference between gnostic and agnostic.

Read this to see where the average Imam is at with Atheism-
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/10300/atheist

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

You have shown your ignorance with agnostics by comparing "gnostics" with the term first used by Tom Huxley in 1869 called "agnostic". Read this Lestat- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley Quote: Thomas henry Huxley was an English biologist,Known as Darwin's bulldog for his advocacy of Darwin's theory of evolution The first Agnostic,the man who invented the word believed in evolution which contradicts religion. Your definition of agnostic is a load of codswallop i suggest you look it up in a dictionary instead of doing the muslim thing in trying to redefine words.

Actually, it is you who has shown your ignorance. So what....I suggest you take your own advice and look up the definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic


Quote:

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk) n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Einstein did not believe in the god that is found in religous holy books did he,he thought religion was all bullshit so that makes him a non believer in religion.

Oh dear...you really like digging yourself in a hole don't you.

For the upteenth time...you said quite clearly, that Einstien was an athiest.

Did you not say that? Was I imagining it? Now...in your arrogance, you just can't admit you were wrong...can  you.

As I have shown you, Einstein did not believe in a personal God...he said so himself. You yourself already provided the quote where he said so. Christianity has a personal God...not 'all religons' as you put it. Then again, given your demonstrative ignorance, it doesn't surprise me that you can't grasp this concept.


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Lestat many people say they are atheist towards religion yet agnostic about god so are they atheist or agnostic or a combination of both?

That comment makes no sense. Who says this? You say many people...name them. Tell me, who are these nameless people.

Its not rocket science...look at the definition. Athiests believe their is no God. Agnostics are not so sure. Some believe there may be, some believe thier is...but reject religon.

If someone is agnostic about God, then by the very definition, they are not athiests.

Sheesh, all this because you cannot admit you were talking tribe when you made the claim that Einstien was an athiest.

Even after I provided you a quote where he quite clearly states, definitively that "I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'.


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

In our recent census did it say tick no religion if you have no religion or were there separate boxes for atheist and agnostic?

wow...your not truly basic your whole argument on a question in the census?

Are  you?


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

When we look at Irreligion in Australia are atheists and agnostics in the same category of No Religion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Australia Those with 'No Religion" are the fastest growing demographic of all the religous options in Australia.

But 'no religon' is not necessarily 'athiest'. It seems you can't get this through your thick head.

Alas..I suspect you already know this...but just can't admit that you were wrong when you claimed that Einstien was an athiest.

'God does not play chance'...now tell me...does that sound like something an athiest would say....given that athiests deny the existence of God completely.


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Would you have been happier if i said Einstein thought religion was a load of bullshit?

But you didn't say that did  you? You said he was an athiest. Now...will you admit you were wrong? That he is not an athiest.

C'mon...it shouldn't so hard, given that he himself quite clearly stated so.

lol...and you wonder why no takes your Abu Sina claims seriously. hehe


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

The reality is you have your panties in a twist over what label to give someone who thinks religion is all bullshit - you are totally ignorant about agnostics as well as atheists i suggest you do some research on these try wiki instead of your imam.

whoa...wait a minute. its you that gave the label, not me. I'm just highlighting that your claim was 100% incorrect.

And really...you claiming that it is I that is ignorant about agnosticism is laughable.

your the douche bag that believes and has stated that agnosticism and athiesm is the same thing.

lol...really?


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Please cite where i called Saddam -Mubarek with Egypt and Iraqs muslim countries i think you have mistaken me for someone else.

I will remind you of this quote next time you bring it up....deal?


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

How can the UDHR work in a country that has not signed it? IMO they should have called them POW then they could hold them till the end of the war,this war on terror could go for a long time.

So you are critical of Islam because apparently its 'incompatible with UDHR'...yet acknowledge that a country that is a signatory has bypassed the UDHR by using loop holes.

Kind of shows that the UDHR aint worth the paper its written on..if the strongest nations in the world do not even abide by it.







[/quote]

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

falah wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 7:13pm: This might be a bit complicated for you, but America is a secular state with an overwhelming Christian majority electorate who vote Christian presidents to determine their foreign policy. Would you classify Mormon as Christian? Many Christians, especially in the US, would not.

Just as many muslims, would not classify shi'ites as muslims.

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Lestat wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 9:38am: To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable. I'm not getting into the argument about Einstein. The way that God existed for Einstein is different from the way God exists for you and the way God exists for me. If we're talking about Gods with three different sets of attributes, the terms atheist  and Theist don't convey much intelligence. I'd stick to Muslim in your case. "Muslim" and "Christian" are at least well defined whereas "Theist" is a bit wooly because God (Allah) outside the major religions is not adequately defined. Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. White = yes, Black = no and grey = grey. ;D

Fair enough.

Baron made the claim that Einstien was athiest. I provided a quote directly from Einstien...where he states 'I am not an athiest'.

I never claimed that Einstien believed in the same God as me...I never made any claim about what Einstien did or did not believe. It was Baron who made the claim...I corrected him.

It is he then who claims that athiesm and agnosticism is the same thing.

I know very well the difference between the two. He does not (though I suspect he does, he is just struggling to admit he was wrong).

I have many friends who are agnostics. They believe in a God, don't really know what His nature is, etc, etc..but they believe there is, in their words 'something out there'. They reject religon completely. They are agnostics.

I know others who completely reject the concept of God. Don't believe in any God, or higher being at all. They are athiests.

As I said earlier...to claim that someone who believes in a God is an athiest is ludicrous.

And he has the gual to claim I don't know what agnosticism is. lol

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:39am: If someone says Porcine animals will become aerodynamic is that a belief? If someone replies "No they wont, too fat, too heavy, no wings there is nothing to indicate this could be possible" Is that a belief or a simple rejection of the hypothesis based on facts? I just hope that there is a sense of humour here. Here goes: http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/2/Airlines-Security.jpg

That might stop the zionists from boarding planes...but how do you suggest we stop them from dropping bombs on innocent children?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:44am: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:39am: muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:00am: Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. Atheist is disbelief in the existence of god (as defined in holy books,who else defines god?)  it has nothing to do with belief. If someone says Porcine animals will become aerodynamic is that a belief? If someone replies "No they wont, too fat, too heavy, no wings there is nothing to indicate this could be possible" Is that a belief or a simple rejection of the hypothesis based on facts? Yep - Isn't that what the chart says? Pure atheism answers "no" to the question of Belief in God(s) Agnostic atheists also answer no, but add that they don't know for sure. Agnostic Theists say that they don't know for sure, but they happen to believe in God. Who else defines God? Einstein? me? - anybody who wants to. That chart has atheism next to religion on the side of belief which makes it wrong IMO. The bible says the earth is flat knowledge says it isn't,Quran says http://quran.com/18/86 Read all translations for that belief. Atheists use common knowledge to see these beliefs are false yet that chart has them on the side of belief which is why i think it is wrong. When a muslim takes the shahada they say there is only 1 god and Mo was his messenger. All other religions are bullshit beliefs to a muslim and any other god apart from Allah does not exist,Islam does not recognise beliefs that came after Islam because Mo was the final prophet from God. Therefore any individual interpretation of god that is not the Islamic god Allah is bullshit according to Islam. Islam defines God as the Allah in the Quran there is no other god according to Islam. Start from scratch with these guys on disbelief as Lestat has shown he does not know the difference between gnostic and agnostic. Read this to see where the average Imam is at with Atheism- http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/10300/atheist

Yeah...so? I never said that I believe Einstien is religous. Did I? I never said he was muslim. Did I?>


It was you that stated he was an athiest.

Yes I believe Einstien was a disbeliever. I never denied it. However...he did not see himself as an athiest. And you claimed he did.

You were wrong...now deal with it. :D

Where do you think the term 'agnostic' is derived from...you douche bag.

Lol...you have no idea.

Lestat wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again. lol...yes I know what an agnostic is...do you? I think not. The very term..'agnostic' means 'people who knew'.

What you posted in post #55 at 12.44 pm contradicts what you posted here after you looked it up in a dictionary

Lestat wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:13am: You have shown your ignorance with agnostics by comparing "gnostics" with the term first used by Tom Huxley in 1869 called "agnostic". Read this Lestat- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley Quote: Thomas henry Huxley was an English biologist,Known as Darwin's bulldog for his advocacy of Darwin's theory of evolution The first Agnostic,the man who invented the word believed in evolution which contradicts religion. Your definition of agnostic is a load of codswallop i suggest you look it up in a dictionary instead of doing the muslim thing in trying to redefine words. Actually, it is you who has shown your ignorance. So what....I suggest you take your own advice and look up the definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic [quote]ag·nos·tic (g-nstk) n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

You are just contradicting your own definition of agnosotic you gave at 9.38 am,i told you to look it up



Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Einstein did not believe in the god that is found in religous holy books did he,he thought religion was all bullshit so that makes him a non believer in religion.

As I have shown you, Einstein did not believe in a  God...he said so himself
Yes so why do religions try and claim he believed in fairy tales and Jinns from the holy books?



Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Lestat many people say they are atheist towards religion yet agnostic about god so are they atheist or agnostic or a combination of both?

That comment makes no sense. Who says this? You say many people...name them. Tell me, who are these nameless people.
Many people say they are atheist towards religion and agnostic about god,try google if you cannot comprehend this concept


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

In our recent census did it say tick no religion if you have no religion or were there separate boxes for atheist and agnostic?

wow...your not truly basic your whole argument on a question in the census?
Do agnostics get put in the same category of NO RELIGION as atheists?Why is this the case Lestat?



Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Would you have been happier if i said Einstein thought religion was a load of bullshit?

But you didn't say that did  you? You said he was an athiest. Now...will you admit you were wrong? That he is not an athiest.
Atheist or agnsotic is pretty much the same to me they are both classed as NO RELIGION.

lol...and you wonder why no takes your Abu Sina claims seriously. hehe
Islamic website with 5 Islamic scholars says Ibn Sina was an atheist- who do you think people are going to believe on that one..LMAO .

And really...you claiming that it is I that is ignorant about agnosticism is laughable.
Read your definition of agnostic in your earlier post before you looked it up

your the douche bag that believes and has stated that agnosticism and athiesm is the same thing.
lol...really?
Both are classified as having NO RELIGION so are they the same on that?


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

Please cite where i called Saddam -Mubarek with Egypt and Iraqs muslim countries i think you have mistaken me for someone else.

I will remind you of this quote next time you bring it up....deal?
So you cannot cite anything from me is that what you are saying?

So you are critical of Islam because apparently its 'incompatible with UDHR'...yet acknowledge that a country that is a signatory has bypassed the UDHR by using loop holes.
If Cuba signs the UDHR what implications does that have for the USA?
[/quote]
[/quote]

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Lestat wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 9:38am: To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable. I'm not getting into the argument about Einstein. The way that God existed for Einstein is different from the way God exists for you and the way God exists for me. If we're talking about Gods with three different sets of attributes, the terms atheist  and Theist don't convey much intelligence. I'd stick to Muslim in your case. "Muslim" and "Christian" are at least well defined whereas "Theist" is a bit wooly because God (Allah) outside the major religions is not adequately defined. Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. White = yes, Black = no and grey = grey. ;D

muso,

A great chart/graphical representation there.       :)

Let me meditate upon it a little.      ;)

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

Lestat wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 9:38am: Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again. lol...yes I know what an agnostic is...do you? I think not. The very term..'agnostic' means 'people who knew'. What you posted in post #55 at 12.44 pm contradicts what you posted here after you looked it up in a dictionary

Apologies...was meant to be 'gnostic' means 'people who knew'....

'agnostic'..having the 'a' in front means 'people who don't know. Agnostics are not sure..some think their might be a God, some think that their is, yet they reject religon.

Whereas athiests flat out reject the concept of God. Einstien did not flat out reject the concept of God. He rejected a notion of a personal God, but does believe in the higher being...a creater. He said so many times. Yet for some reason you seem to either ignore or now know.

You see..I can admit when I am wrong. You, despite claiming that Einstien was an athiest, and despite me providing you a quote from the man himself, where he states 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'...despite all this, you still cannot admit you were wrong. Arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination.

And you still make the ludicrous claim that agnostic and athiesm is the same thing.

Whatever...your boring me now. its quite obvious that your not worthy of my time.

My work is done..I've exposed you for the cut and paste ignoramus you are. without google...your nothing but hot air.

lol...

so because their both classified as 'no religon', then in your ignorant eyes this means they're the same.

Ridiculous.

Its like saying because Collingwood and Essendon both hate Carlton, then they're the same.

And yet you still ignore the fact that Einstien himself stated quite clearly 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'...yet mysteriously...you still insist that he is.

lol

Lestat wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:00am: Lestat wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 9:38am: To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable. I'm not getting into the argument about Einstein. The way that God existed for Einstein is different from the way God exists for you and the way God exists for me. If we're talking about Gods with three different sets of attributes, the terms atheist  and Theist don't convey much intelligence. I'd stick to Muslim in your case. "Muslim" and "Christian" are at least well defined whereas "Theist" is a bit wooly because God (Allah) outside the major religions is not adequately defined. Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. White = yes, Black = no and grey = grey. ;D Fair enough. Baron made the claim that Einstien was athiest. I provided a quote directly from Einstien...where he states 'I am not an athiest'. I never claimed that Einstien believed in the same God as me...I never made any claim about what Einstien did or did not believe. It was Baron who made the claim...I corrected him. It is he then who claims that athiesm and agnosticism is the same thing. I know very well the difference between the two. He does not (though I suspect he does, he is just struggling to admit he was wrong). I have many friends who are agnostics. They believe in a God, don't really know what His nature is, etc, etc..but they believe there is, in their words 'something out there'. They reject religon completely. They are agnostics. I know others who completely reject the concept of God. Don't believe in any God, or higher being at all. They are athiests. As I said earlier...to claim that someone who believes in a God is an athiest is ludicrous. And he has the gual to claim I don't know what agnosticism is. lol

Well, I only believe in a totally demystified God. God for me is the macro-neural network that makes up humanity. We communicate via voice, internet, body language and various media. "God" has real power that is "supernatural" only as far as the nature of life itself is not fully understood.  I know that particular "god" exists, because I have seen it in action.

I also have a second 'god', which is a very basic non-interventionist Deist style god, necessary as a prime reference and first cause only. I don't know if that can be described as having a personality or some basic characteristics that enabled the current universe to come into existence.  I am pretty sure that the first "God" only exists within the context of a human population.

Some would call me an atheist. Don't bother criticising my position. For me, it's just a first order hypothesis. I  posted it to provide an example of an atheistic theist. Anybody can define a god or gods according to their beliefs or experience. To say that only organised religions can do that is absurd.

Your highlighted statement is only true with respect to a God that is characterised from a particular world view or religion. I think that's your intention anyway, because the word "God" for you has meaning within the framework of your religion.

By the way, I'm not necessarily addressing specific points that you or anybody else makes. I'm just adding to the discussion.

By the way gnostic also has a historical pretext. "Gnostics" belonged to a specific religious sect, but I'm guessing that you knew that already.

Yadda wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:00am: Lestat wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 9:38am: To now claim that agnostics and athiests are the same, which they are not, is laughable. To claim that 'Tom Huxley' came up with the term is even more laughable. I'm not getting into the argument about Einstein. The way that God existed for Einstein is different from the way God exists for you and the way God exists for me. If we're talking about Gods with three different sets of attributes, the terms atheist  and Theist don't convey much intelligence. I'd stick to Muslim in your case. "Muslim" and "Christian" are at least well defined whereas "Theist" is a bit wooly because God (Allah) outside the major religions is not adequately defined. Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. White = yes, Black = no and grey = grey. ;D muso, A great chart/graphical representation there.       :) Let me meditate upon it a little.      ;)

Nah - you'll just draw a large circle around the lot and call it God.

Quote:

American voters, politicians & soldiers are all secular atheists then are they? The fact is that the US is one of the most religious Christian countries in the world. There 90 million Evangelical Christians in the US. Nearly 1 in 3 voters in the US are fanatical Evangelicals. To say that the actions of the US government do not reflect their Christian values is absurd.

By those rules, the governments of most middle eastern countries are therefore Muslim, and Islam is to blame for all the actions of the government, military and citizens

Lestat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 7:56am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 2:11pm: Lestat wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 9:38am: Why do you always move the goal posts when your lies are exposed...time and time again. lol...yes I know what an agnostic is...do you? I think not. The very term..'agnostic' means 'people who knew'. What you posted in post #55 at 12.44 pm contradicts what you posted here after you looked it up in a dictionary Apologies...was meant to be 'gnostic' means 'people who knew'.... 'agnostic'..having the 'a' in front means 'people who don't know. Agnostics are not sure..some think their might be a God, some think that their is, yet they reject religon. Whereas athiests flat out reject the concept of God. Einstien did not flat out reject the concept of God. He rejected a notion of a personal God, but does believe in the higher being...a creater. He said so many times. Yet for some reason you seem to either ignore or now know. You see..I can admit when I am wrong. You, despite claiming that Einstien was an athiest, and despite me providing you a quote from the man himself, where he states 'I AM NOT AN ATHIEST'...despite all this, you still cannot admit you were wrong. Arrogance and ignorance is a dangerous combination. And you still make the ludicrous claim that agnostic and athiesm is the same thing. Whatever...your boring me now. its quite obvious that your not worthy of my time. My work is done..I've exposed you for the cut and paste ignoramus you are. without google...your nothing but hot air.

I suggest you research "Gnostic" your idiocy is showing.

I think the term "NO Religion" is a better way of describing agnostics and atheists to ignorant muslims who cannot comprehend the concept that someone can be atheist towards religion and agnostic about a god.

Atheists and agnostics dont really care about what stage of disbelief they are at or if they change the title of their disbelief they will not start chopping each others heads off like muslims do when an apostate leaves Islam.

Atheists disbelieve in god because religion has put a piss poor case that is seriously flawed for god to exist.

Agnostics dont believe in the god that is found in religious texts because religions have put a piss poor case that is seriously flawed for the case of god.

When it comes to the lack of evidence supplied by religions to back their case for god both atheists and agnostics have a comon ground here and the burden of proof for god lies with those who are promoting the concept of god.

Atheists and agnostics have No religion because the religions have failed to prove their case for god and without evidence they will never be religious.
On this point atheists and agnostics are the same in rejecting religion.

Christians try to redefine atheism into God does not exist which is naughty and then it puts the burden of proof onto atheists to prove god does not exist.
Atheism is disbelief in God which means the religons have failed to prove their case for god.

Leading scientists still reject god
The National academy of sciences surveyed their members.
93% do not believe in god
7% do believe in God.
That is less than 1 in 10 members who believe in god ,who would be the odd one out in that group Lestat?
If science is compatible with religion then why do the majority of scientists reject religion?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

Leading scientists still reject god The National academy of sciences surveyed their members. 93% do not believe in god 7% do believe in God. That is less than 1 in 10 members who believe in god ,who would be the odd one out in that group Lestat? If science is compatible with religion then why do the majority of scientists reject religion? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I didn't realise that 'scientifically', truth or reality is always determined by the opinion of a majority of people.             :P

So, a truth is always 'confirmed', by what a majority says that a truth is ?

Majority opinion is always correct ?





So if one hundred people say that the world is flat;

And one person says that the earth is a globe;

Then the hundred people are correct.

Coz their collective intellect reflects the combined intellect of 100 persons, and they they therefore must be correct ?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:44am: [quote author=0023302D2C342D2C302D3036420 link=1328644868/51#51 date=1329183553][quote author=4B535549260 link=1328644868/49#49 date=1329181226] Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. Atheist is disbelief in the existence of god (as defined in holy books,who else defines god?)  it has nothing to do with belief. h

You're reading it wrong. (sigh) If it's black, it means "No" to Belief or knowledge. (aka as you said, nothing to do with belief in God)  So in other words "Do you believe in God?" - if "no" - you're an atheist.

- but I've seen these stupid semantics-based arguments that people come up with regarding "belief in a non-belief", so I see where you're coming from.

I don't see why it should be so complicated.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

Leading scientists still reject god The National academy of sciences surveyed their members. 93% do not believe in god 7% do believe in God. That is less than 1 in 10 members who believe in god ,who would be the odd one out in that group Lestat? If science is compatible with religion then why do the majority of scientists reject religion?

- but aren't scientists part of some worldwide conspiracy?  They're reptilians, along with other climate scientists. (Didn't you know?) Are  you saying that you trust them now?

IMHO it doesn't matter if 8 out of 10 dentists don't recommend  God. It's a question of personal taste and judgement.

Without doing the survey, I'd hazard a guess that all Iranian  scientists are Muslim too.  They also drink their tea with rose petals.  The latter is more of a cause for alarm than the former.

muso wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 12:26pm: muso wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:44am: [quote author=0023302D2C342D2C302D3036420 link=1328644868/51#51 date=1329183553][quote author=4B535549260 link=1328644868/49#49 date=1329181226] Here is a chart that I find useful. Agnostic is centred on knowledge and atheist is centred on belief - not that I use such terms much myself. Atheist is disbelief in the existence of god (as defined in holy books,who else defines god?)  it has nothing to do with belief. h You're reading it wrong. (sigh) If it's black, it means "No" to Belief or knowledge. (aka as you said, nothing to do with belief in God)  So in other words "Do you believe in God?" - if "no" - you're an atheist. - but I've seen these stupid semantics-based arguments that people come up with regarding "belief in a non-belief", so I see where you're coming from. I don't see why it should be so complicated.

With Lestat showing his ignorance of agnostics i think it is better to use the term "No Religion" if you have no religion with muslims,it spells out where people stand on religion without getting sidetracked on other issues of non belief.

At least the christians grasp the concept of atheist-agnostic.

If Lestat ventured into the atheist section he might see a thread on Pakistani atheists and agnostics website,which indicates they are aligned when it comes to religion.

Falah's article in his opening post does not say anything either. Only one vague example was given that relates to immigrants in general.

The journalist appears to admit to taking Abu's approach to percieved distortions from others - to respond by deliberately distorting yourself.