Atheists and Fundamentalists

[Papagiorgio]

Let me give you a link to the Hamas Charter. It's full name is actually The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which might give you a slight clue as to the nature of it's contents.

If you really want to know what Israel is up against - take some time to read it.

It is pretty long however, but I think you'll get the general gist from this extract from Article 7:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Out of curiosity - what do you think the main reason for the conflict currently is?

Hamas doesn't control every country in the middle east. Hamas' actions are religiously motivated that is true. Are Israels. What about Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. Why don't these countries help their muslim brothers the Palestinians? Religion is a political tool there now. The Palestinian's plight has become a tool used by other "Muslim" nations to keep western influence (Israel) out of their countries.

The main reason for the continuing conflict in the middle east is Black Gold.

Religion started it though.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Who do you currently believe is a non-religious crazy person with nuclear weapons and an intent to destroy the world?

If such a person existed - why aren't we dead?

I didn't say this person existed. But are you saying there are no crazy, suicidal, irreligious people?

Only in America would all of those be classed as politics, which ironically enough, is the point I was making.

But as you wish - we'll continue it in the American Politics section, I'm sure.

They are considered politics because science has been politicized. Take global warming, for instance. Even abortion, a matter of life and death, is considered political.

[Tiggs]

Not needed, imo Tiggs; at least not according to the way I read Scriptures.

Karlis

To be fair, it's a minority view, I guess.

Still. Whether the Temple descends from Heaven, or it's built, there's that rather thorny matter of Islam's oldest Mosque being built on top of where it's supposed to be.

[Karlis]

To be fair, it's a minority view, I guess.

Still. Whether the Temple descends from Heaven, or it's built, there's that rather thorny matter of Islam's oldest Mosque being built on top of where it's supposed to be.

A minority view; we agree Tiggs.

The "Temple descends from Heaven":

According to Scriptures,this will be after a period of 1,000 years of rule on Planet Earth by Jesus; a long time into our future.

Regarding, "thorny matter of Islam's oldest Mosque" -- there are umpteen theoretical guesses/interpretations regarding this. A search on Google will give hundreds of hours of reading on this topic. I don't have the knowledge, and many scholars have spent a lifetime of study on this, and still can not come to an agreement here.

Karlis

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I think Islam's oldest mosque is in Medina (or Mecca, if you count the Kaaba).

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[MARAB0D]

Sounds like hyperbole to me. Western society is, to an extent, based on (or at least influenced by) Judeo-Christianity. Where are the "bad things"? I see science, knowledge and tolerance have flourished in the West. There are good and bad things that come with religion (as well as irreligion). I don't see it ending civilization, though.

And I notice most of your examples of how "religion" always leads to bad things are about Islam... which is a totalitarian political ideology, and can hardly be called a religion.

There was a time in your life when the diapers were essential element of your personal hygiene. But then your learned how to use toilet paper and shower. Pretty much the same way there was a time when the "western civilisation" was hold together by Christian values and approaches; but now it is a different time.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Woah, many new pages! Loving the Middle East digression guys, the Temple and the Dome of the Rock aren't going to be able to occupy the same point at the same time.

Mara, is that a great analogy? I'd more say that Christian values and approaches are the grandfather of Western civilization at its present iteration.

[Tiggs]

Hamas doesn't control every country in the middle east. Hamas' actions are religiously motivated that is true. Are Israels. What about Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. Why don't these countries help their muslim brothers the Palestinians? Religion is a political tool there now. The Palestinian's plight has become a tool used by other "Muslim" nations to keep western influence (Israel) out of their countries.

The main reason for the continuing conflict in the middle east is Black Gold.

Religion started it though.

There is no oil in Israel.

Are Israel's action religiously motivated? That would depend on what you mean by action. I think you could make a decent case that they wish to stay in Israel for historical and religious purposes.

Jordan appear to be one of the more moderate states in the Middle East. Ironically, Israel represents possibly it's most stable geopolitical border. To the North, there is Syria, which Jordan accuses of supporting Hamas terrorist operations running out of Jordan. To the South is Saudi Arabia, which is increasingly coming under attack from Al Qaeda. To the East, is Iraq.

The Syrians fully support Hamas. Lebanon are the home of Hezbollah, which also is waging Jihad against Israel.

[Tiggs]

A minority view; we agree Tiggs.

The "Temple descends from Heaven":

According to Scriptures,this will be after a period of 1,000 years of rule on Planet Earth by Jesus; a long time into our future.

According to Christian scriptures, yes. Jewish scriptures, not so much.

Regarding, "thorny matter of Islam's oldest Mosque" -- there are umpteen theoretical guesses/interpretations regarding this. A search on Google will give hundreds of hours of reading on this topic. I don't have the knowledge, and many scholars have spent a lifetime of study on this, and still can not come to an agreement here.

Would you agree that the consensus opinion is that the the site where the temple was is currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock?

[Karlis]

Would you agree that the consensus opinion is that the the site where the temple was is currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock?

Yes, the "consensus" is as you say Tiggs. But there is much dispute about the correctness of that "consensus". For instance, take the following example:

Where Was the Temple?

The Temple was not located on the high spot currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock

. The Dome was built on the most imposing location, the situation of the former Strato's Tower, a pagan place of worship. It incorporated the eight-sided design of Astoreth's place of worship into its architecture, a feature of the Dome that is unique in Islamic architecture.

The actual location of the Temple was to the south of the Dome of the Rock at the approximate location of the Al Kas fountain

which is north of the current location of the El Aksa mosque at the south end of the current Temple Mount. This places the Temple directly to the west of the Western Wall (a.k.a. Wailing Wall).

Reasons for This Placement

The evidences for the southern placement are as follows:

... (Snip).

[The article continues with seven reasons for that opinion.]

Link to source

[Tiggs]

I didn't say this person existed. But are you saying there are no crazy, suicidal, irreligious people?

I'm saying that there are no crazy suicidal irreligious people who have the ability to fire a nuclear weapon. No sane electorate would ever allow such a person into power. In countries of high religiosity, however, religious belief is almost mandatory to be elected into such a position.

They are considered politics because science has been politicized. Take global warming, for instance. Even abortion, a matter of life and death, is considered political.

Again. Abortion is only considered political within countries of high religiosity such as the United States, due to the Christian hijacking of the Republican Party. No other mainstream Western political party runs for office on an anti-abortion platform.

Science only becomes politicized when results are fabricated for political ends or when the results clash with held religious beliefs.

I think Islam's oldest mosque is in Medina (or Mecca, if you count the Kaaba).

The Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic Mosque still in existence. There were earlier mosques built, all of which have been subsequently destroyed and rebuilt.

[Tiggs]

The Temple was not located on the high spot currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock. The Dome was built on the most imposing location, the situation of the former Strato's Tower, a pagan place of worship. It incorporated the eight-sided design of Astoreth's place of worship into its architecture, a feature of the Dome that is unique in Islamic architecture. The actual location of the Temple was to the south of the Dome of the Rock at the approximate location of the Al Kas fountain which is north of the current location of the El Aksa mosque at the south end of the current Temple Mount. This places the Temple directly to the west of the Western Wall (a.k.a. Wailing Wall).

Agreed. The other common location cited for the temple is the Al Kas fountain, which is part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam's second house of prayer after Kaaba in Mecca (and is probably where the temple actually was located, IMO).

Either location will require the demolition of part of what Islam considers to be it's third holiest site.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I'm saying that there are no crazy suicidal irreligious people who have the ability to fire a nuclear weapon. No sane electorate would ever allow such a person into power. In countries of high religiosity, however, religious belief is almost mandatory to be elected into such a position.

Yes, but my point is that suicidal thinking isn't limited to religion. Insanity is insanity. A suicidal Atheist with a nuclear bomb (this person may or may not exist, but that's besides the point) is no less dangerous than a suicidal Christian or Muslim with a nuclear bomb.

Again. Abortion is only considered political within countries of high religiosity such as the United States, due to the Christian hijacking of the Republican Party. No other mainstream Western political party runs for office on an anti-abortion platform.

Science only becomes politicized when results are fabricated for political ends or when the results clash with held religious beliefs.

Opposition to abortion is far from limited to Christians. I myself am irreligious, and you won't find a bigger opponent of abortion. It's a matter of life and death. It has nothing to do with religion, even if some people oppose abortion because their religion tells them to.

And I notice, from my experience, most people who support abortion are irreligious. Killing unborn children, in my opinion, hinders progress. Obviously hindering progress isn't limited to religious people.

[Karlis]

Agreed. The other common location cited for the temple is the Al Kas fountain, which is part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam's second house of prayer after Kaaba in Mecca (and is probably where the temple actually was located, IMO).

Either location will require the demolition of part of what Islam considers to be it's third holiest site.

So, *if* whatever will occur in the future regarding Jews attempting to start on a "new temple", the consequences most likely could be bloody.

Since the Al-Aqsa Mosque is topical in this thread -- have a look at these really fabulous 360^o set of photographs. One set of photos is of the mosque.

http://www.360tr.com/kudus/

The Wailing Wall

The Holy Sepulchre

Al Aqsa Mosque

Edited June 17, 2010 by Karlis

[Papagiorgio]

There is no oil in Israel.

Are Israel's action religiously motivated? That would depend on what you mean by action. I think you could make a decent case that they wish to stay in Israel for historical and religious purposes.

Jordan appear to be one of the more moderate states in the Middle East. Ironically, Israel represents possibly it's most stable geopolitical border. To the North, there is Syria, which Jordan accuses of supporting Hamas terrorist operations running out of Jordan. To the South is Saudi Arabia, which is increasingly coming under attack from Al Qaeda. To the East, is Iraq.

The Syrians fully support Hamas. Lebanon are the home of Hezbollah, which also is waging Jihad against Israel.

No there is no oil in Israel, but Israel is a westernized ally in the oil rich Middle East.

History and religion definitely played a role in the creation of Israel, and is probably part of the reason they wish to stay. I don't deny that religion plays a role in the Mid East. I just don't think it is the main point of contention anymore.

[ohio state buckeyes]

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/12/1303777/paul-prather-new-atheists-embody.html

I think this guy has an interesting point. What does everyone else think?

I think he is 110 percent right !

[Tiggs]

Yes, but my point is that suicidal thinking isn't limited to religion. Insanity is insanity. A suicidal Atheist with a nuclear bomb (this person may or may not exist, but that's besides the point) is no less dangerous than a suicidal Christian or Muslim with a nuclear bomb.

It's not beside the point. It's completely the point. It's absolutely and utterly the point. It's Mr Point in Point Land on International Point Day wearing a Pointy tie and feeling particularly Pointy making a Point.

Insane suicidal kittens with nuclear weapons could destroy the world, too. Thing is - there actually are no Insane suicidal kittens with nuclear weapons. Thus, they're way down my list of things to worry about when considering how civilisation is going to end.

Theocracies with nuclear weapons? Pretty much at the top.

Opposition to abortion is far from limited to Christians. I myself am irreligious, and you won't find a bigger opponent of abortion. It's a matter of life and death. It has nothing to do with religion, even if some people oppose abortion because their religion tells them to.

And I notice, from my experience, most people who support abortion are irreligious. Killing unborn children, in my opinion, hinders progress. Obviously hindering progress isn't limited to religious people.

Obviously, nothing. Prove that 1. abortion hinders progress and 2. the majority of supporters of abortion are irreligious.

Also - just so we're clear - Opinion on abortion is either defined by religious beliefs or it's not. Your first paragraph says it isn't, whilst your second says it is.

Which is it?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

It's not beside the point. It's completely the point. It's absolutely and utterly the point. It's Mr Point in Point Land on International Point Day wearing a Pointy tie and feeling particularly Pointy making a Point.

Insane suicidal kittens with nuclear weapons could destroy the world, too. Thing is - there actually are no Insane suicidal kittens with nuclear weapons. Thus, they're way down my list of things to worry about when considering how civilisation is going to end.

Theocracies with nuclear weapons? Pretty much at the top.

Your point is that there are suicidal religious people with nuclear weapons (or about to have nuclear weapons)? Okay... How is this relevant in a discussion about how religion destroys civilization?

Obviously, nothing. Prove that 1. abortion hinders progress

If one believes abortion is the killing of an unborn baby, of course that hinders progress. It's barbaric.

2. the majority of supporters of abortion are irreligious.

I said, “from my experience.” Meaning most people I know who support abortion (note: this includes late-term abortions) are irreligious.

Also - just so we're clear - Opinion on abortion is either defined by religious beliefs or it's not. Your first paragraph says it isn't, whilst your second says it is.

Which is it?

My first paragraph says abortion is a matter of life and death. It's a question of, "Should murder be legal?" An unborn baby is no different than an adult.

In the second paragraph, I acknowledge that some people oppose abortion simply because "God tells them to." My point is that opposition to abortion isn't exclusively religious. There are many irreligious people who oppose abortion. Clearly, it's not solely a religious thing.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Tiggs]

No there is no oil in Israel, but Israel is a westernized ally in the oil rich Middle East.

History and religion definitely played a role in the creation of Israel, and is probably part of the reason they wish to stay. I don't deny that religion plays a role in the Mid East. I just don't think it is the main point of contention anymore.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, as I honestly don't see any connection between the Jihad's declared against Israel and Oil.

[Tiggs]

Your point is that there are suicidal religious people with nuclear weapons (or about to have nuclear weapons)? Okay... How is this relevant in a discussion about how religion destroys civilization?

If you're unable to make the connection between a nuclear exchange and the destruction of civilisation, I'm not entirely sure what to tell you.

If one believes abortion is the killing of an unborn baby, of course that hinders progress. It's barbaric.

Barbaric is is the eye of the beholder.

From my viewpoint - forcing someone to carry a child to full-term after they've been raped is barbaric, as is forcing someone to carry a child that will kill them whilst they give birth.

I said, “from my experience.” Meaning most people I know who support abortion (note: this includes late-term abortions) are irreligious.

My first paragraph says abortion is a matter of life and death. It's a question of, "Should murder be legal?" An unborn baby is no different than an adult.

In the second paragraph, I acknowledge that some people oppose abortion simply because "God tells them to." My point is that opposition to abortion isn't exclusively religious. There are many irreligious people who oppose abortion. Clearly, it's not solely a religious thing.

So - in your worldview - religious people don't support abortion?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

If you're unable to make the connection between a nuclear exchange and the destruction of civilisation, I'm not entirely sure what to tell you.

If that's what Emma meant by "leading to bad things", then I see the point. Religious fanaticism does sometimes lead to such dangers, as we see with Islam. But my own point is that not every suicidal, powerful (eg nuclear-armed) person is religious. We all know Kim Jong-il, for instance, isn't religious, and he has nuclear weapons. Should he become crazy (or, crazier) as he gets older and approaches death, and somehow attack the West with nuclear weapons, that would have the same effect as an Iranian nuclear war.

Barbaric is is the eye of the beholder.

From my viewpoint - forcing someone to carry a child to full-term after they've been raped is barbaric, as is forcing someone to carry a child that will kill them whilst they give birth.

You say that's barbaric. Alright. Do you think killing unborn babies is barbaric also? Of course you do, so I hope you understand what I'm saying: That people oppose abortion because they think it's, in essence, the killing of an innocent, unborn baby. Such thinking doesn't hinder progress.

So - in your worldview - religious people don't support abortion?

No. In my worldview, opposition to abortion isn't exclusive to religious people.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Indiogene]

We as a free democratic society not only value personal rights to follow a religion of their choice, but the idea of "god" ordered mankind to write all sorts of meaningless laws to control every aspect of moral, behavior or conduct is absurd. I don't want any state religion, nor doesn't want state atheism to run the US and state governments. But hey, it's a free country and both fundamentalists & atheists have the right to speak out their grievances to their elected representatives...to a point.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Archangel Michael

[Blood_Sacrifice]

not true religions such as Christianity.

Why is Christianity a "true religion"?

[Beckys_Mom]

If the world does collapse and there are only 2 camps left 1. atheists and 2. Believers. I will go with the believers.

I'd rather go alone if that were the case.......but if I had to seriously choose....I'd plump for the atheist camp... that way no judging would happen...I could live my life FREE....FREE I tell ya

[Beckys_Mom]

Why is Christianity a "true religion"?

Good question