Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

Evolution theory disproved, heres the bible

[CHOULO19 24,332]

If you where made by accident, then your nothing. Your life means nothing.

And hence god exists because you want to mean something?

Evolution is not even debatable anymore. The evidence is overwhelming and all your questions and more are answered by countless science books. Evolution is as common a scientific fact as the round shape of the earth or how the sun works..

No, I was talking about zero evidence for morals coming 'from above'. In fact there are plenty of evidence to the contrary. The fact that we now know that morals are physical aspects of the brain and are the work of neurons, the historically global moral values, the fact that morals exits long before any organized religion mentions them, the fact that people of varying beliefs have similar morals...etc. I can go on and on. That's another scientific and historical fact: Morals were not invented by religion. There are no two ways about it.

[Fernando 6,376]

And hence god exists because you want to mean something?

Evolution is not even debatable anymore. The evidence is overwhelming and all your questions and more are answered by countless science books. Evolution is as common a scientific fact as the round shape of the earth or how the sun works..

No, I was talking about zero evidence for morals coming 'from above'. In fact there are plenty of evidence to the contrary. The fact that we now know that morals are physical aspects of the brain and are the work of neurons, the historically global moral values, the fact that morals exits long before any organized religion mentions them, the fact that people of varying beliefs have similar morals...etc. I can go on and on. That's another scientific and historical fact: Morals were not invented by religion. There are no two ways about it.

No god exists because the creation declares his glory just like a watch declares the glory from it's maker.

As per evolution evidence overwhelming, you mean the evidence that is being thought at school in the textbooks that are full of lies?

You mean the evidence that has to rely on circular reason?

A lot of your so called "evidence" has been debunked and yet still remains in text book.

And morals do come from above as mentioned many many times. A bi product of evolution has no sense of this, of what's right or wrong. Those are design implanted by a higher cause.

Let me ask you, where the "historically global moral values" came from? Who gave it to them? Who told them what was right and wrong?

Where is your proof that morals exists before any organized religions mentions them? Was you there?

The fact that people of varying beliefs have similar morals...doesn't that gives you a big clue? They all got it one from one same being.

Just like Noahs flood, which is not just a bible thing but many cultures around the world carry a similar story.

They have a common origin.

So I can go on and on as well.

That's another scientific and historical fact: Morals were not invented by religion.

Where's this infallible proof?

And check this out:

Richard Dawkins was asked about rape during an interview:

Justin Brierley (JB): If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I, I wouldn’t, I don’t want to answer that question. It, it, it’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded askance. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad, that’s a value judgment, I’m very glad that I live in such a society.

JB: When you make a value judgment don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

RD: My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

JB: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

RD: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

JB: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

RD: You could say that, yeah.

[Strike 6,969]

To see the kids sent away in coffins rather than in uniforms...Just terrible. Condolences to those affected

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Coincidentally, this is almost identical to the "Global Political Power and Influence" chart...

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The race to save Peter Kassig

This is a very sad but excellent and incredibly insightful piece in the Guardian. It's not a political opinion, just a very interesting revealing story. If you have 15 free minutes today, make sure you read this.

[EBH 283]

Just because we know evolution to be true, doesn't mean that we only exist because of a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. You seem to be of the opinion that any acknowledgement of scientific proof and any argument against creationism automatically means that all of those people who argue these things are morons like Richard Dawkins, completely bankrupt of any spirituality in their lives and convinced that we're an accident.

We aren't an accident of evolution. But that doesn't legitimise religion. Oh no. Fuck all religions. They're institutions of control and slavery. They are violent and are stained with the blood of billions. Every religion in the world boils down to "Obey what my god says otherwise I'll kill you, filthy infidel/you'll go to hell, filthy sinner".

Obey.

I have a problem doing that. Fuck you and your rules, Jehovah/Allah/Jesus.

That doesn't mean I'm Richard Dawkins, who is as much an odious cretin as any imam or rabbi or priest. Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it. I'm not afraid of a posthumous 'hell'. What could possibly be worse than human life? Only one thing: living it in perpetual fear, a fear of breaking a set of thousands of year old commandments, given to us by paranoid schizophrenics, who 'saw' angels and 'heard' their voices. You cannot allow this hell that is earthly existence to be made worse for you by placing limits on yourself based on the delusional ravings of long dead schizophrenics.

I am my own God, and I damn sure will do a better job of running my own universe, than the god that created this universe has. I think this is a very important realisation for people to come to. Just as a mental exercise if nothing else. Challenge yourself. Create a better universe than this one. I'm sure all of us can imagine of a better world than that which we inhabit. And it is in doing so that we can all come to the realisation as to how false religion is and how false our creator god is; because if we mere mortals can conceive of a fairer, juster, better planet than what we have, then it is proof of our superiority to our creator! Ideas are worth as much as actual physical results in this sense, because all of our religious texts indicate that our creator planned out every single last detail of its creation and executed the plan to perfection. I.e. what we live in is, according to our god, as good a job as possible. It cannot be improved upon at all.

Therefore if the individual can put together a better plan, then they've won even before they start executing the details of the plan in real physical existence.

The creator should not be worshipped as a perfect being. How can it be perfect if its creations are way smarter than it is? How can it be perfect if its creation is so obviously imperfect? How can it be perfect if I can conceive of something better than what it has created?

[Fernando 6,376]

Just because we know evolution to be true, doesn't mean that we only exist because of a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. You seem to be of the opinion that any acknowledgement of scientific proof and any argument against creationism automatically means that all of those people who argue these things are morons like Richard Dawkins, completely bankrupt of any spirituality in their lives and convinced that we're an accident.

We aren't an accident of evolution. But that doesn't legitimise religion. Oh no. Fuck all religions. They're institutions of control and slavery. They are violent and are stained with the blood of billions. Every religion in the world boils down to "Obey what my god says otherwise I'll kill you, filthy infidel/you'll go to hell, filthy sinner".

Obey.

I have a problem doing that. Fuck you and your rules, Jehovah/Allah/Jesus.

That doesn't mean I'm Richard Dawkins, who is as much an odious cretin as any imam or rabbi or priest. Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it. I'm not afraid of a posthumous 'hell'. What could possibly be worse than human life? Only one thing: living it in perpetual fear, a fear of breaking a set of thousands of year old commandments, given to us by paranoid schizophrenics, who 'saw' angels and 'heard' their voices. You cannot allow this hell that is earthly existence to be made worse for you by placing limits on yourself based on the delusional ravings of long dead schizophrenics.

I am my own God, and I damn sure will do a better job of running my own universe, than the god that created this universe has.

Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it.

........

No comment.

[We Hate Scouse 10,261]

Just because we know evolution to be true, doesn't mean that we only exist because of a series of extremely unlikely coincidences. You seem to be of the opinion that any acknowledgement of scientific proof and any argument against creationism automatically means that all of those people who argue these things are morons like Richard Dawkins, completely bankrupt of any spirituality in their lives and convinced that we're an accident.

We aren't an accident of evolution. But that doesn't legitimise religion. Oh no. Fuck all religions. They're institutions of control and slavery. They are violent and are stained with the blood of billions. Every religion in the world boils down to "Obey what my god says otherwise I'll kill you, filthy infidel/you'll go to hell, filthy sinner".

Obey.

I have a problem doing that. Fuck you and your rules, Jehovah/Allah/Jesus.

That doesn't mean I'm Richard Dawkins, who is as much an odious cretin as any imam or rabbi or priest. Yes, there is a god. But that doesn't mean for a second that I will worship it or obey it. I'm not afraid of a posthumous 'hell'. What could possibly be worse than human life? Only one thing: living it in perpetual fear, a fear of breaking a set of thousands of year old commandments, given to us by paranoid schizophrenics, who 'saw' angels and 'heard' their voices. You cannot allow this hell that is earthly existence to be made worse for you by placing limits on yourself based on the delusional ravings of long dead schizophrenics.

I am my own God, and I damn sure will do a better job of running my own universe, than the god that created this universe has. I think this is a very important realisation for people to come to. Just as a mental exercise if nothing else. Challenge yourself. Create a better universe than this one. I'm sure all of us can imagine of a better world than that which we inhabit. And it is in doing so that we can all come to the realisation as to how false religion is and how false our creator god is; because if we mere mortals can conceive of a fairer, juster, better planet than what we have, then it is proof of our superiority to our creator! Ideas are worth as much as actual physical results in this sense, because all of our religious texts indicate that our creator planned out every single last detail of its creation and executed the plan to perfection. Therefore if the individual can put together a better plan, then they've won even before they start executing the details of the plan in real physical existence.

The creator should not be worshipped as a perfect being. How can it be perfect if its creations are way smarter than it is? How can it be perfect if its creation is so obviously imperfect? How can it be perfect if I can conceive of something better than what it has created?

Holy fuck you're alive. I thought you died or some shit Eric. You talked to that girl you were stalking yet??

[Kieran. 6,317]

Both religion and atheism have arrogant certainty without a shred of evidence.

Agnosticism is best.....

Hit the nail on the head my friend.

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

RIP the workers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

We must defend the right of freedom of speech

[Amblève. 4,995]

Pretty much the best article I've read on the Hebdo topic.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

[CHOULO19 24,332]

RIP the workers at Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

We must defend the right of freedom of speech

Was having an interesting debate yesterday (with someone from London, coincidentally) about whether or not we should be sharing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a sign of support. On one hand, the cartoons are disgustingly racist (and quite frankly unfunny) and spreading them would means also spreading a negative sentiment towards not juts Muslims, but everyone that looks like them. On the other hand, my argument was that, in such situations, republishing the cartoons does not mean endorsing the opinions but a defense of the freedom of speech. Even if the opinions are aimed against me and no matter how extreme they are, I would fight for the right to express them in all democratic forms. Curios what you make of this?

The above said, it would be nice if we all stood for the freedom of speech for all different opinions and treated everyone equally. How about a little outrage for this as well:

(this was this morning, a few more have been added during the day)

Or how about support and protection for all kinds of free speech? The comics of Chrlie Hebdo about Islam are too extreme for me to even post on here and I defend their right to publish them. But the same magazine in 2009 had a cartoonist fired and tried for "anti-antisemitism" for commenting on Sarkozy's son marrying a VERY rich Jewish girl that he was "converting to Judaism for financial reasons."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Can't sensor what you want and call for freedom on speech when it conveniences you.

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

Was having an interesting debate yesterday (with someone from London, coincidentally) about whether or not we should be sharing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a sign of support. On one hand, the cartoons are disgustingly racist (and quite frankly unfunny) and spreading them would means also spreading a negative sentiment towards not juts Muslims, but everyone that looks like them. On the other hand, my argument was that, in such situations, republishing the cartoons does not mean endorsing the opinions but a defense of the freedom of speech. Even if the opinions are aimed against me and no matter how extreme they are, I would fight for the right to express them in all democratic forms. Curios what you make of this?

The above said, it would be nice if we all stood for the freedom of speech for all different opinions and treated everyone equally. How about a little outrage for this as well:

(this was this morning, a few more have been added during the day)

Or how about support and protection for all kinds of free speech? The comics of Chrlie Hebdo about Islam are too extreme for me to even post on here and I defend their right to publish them. But the same magazine in 2009 had a cartoonist fired and tried for "anti-antisemitism" for commenting on Sarkozy's son marrying a VERY rich Jewish girl that he was "converting to Judaism for financial reasons."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Can't sensor what you want and call for freedom on speech when it conveniences you.

I would like to see the cartoons, as I heard they werent that offensive. The only one I saw was one of Mohammed saying "400 lashes if you dont laugh". Hardly that offensive.

Whatever they were, theres no way they justify mass slaughter, and as one senior Imam said today "those who killed the workers at Charlie Hebdon were not killing in the name of god, they were killing in the name of the devil."

Also begs the question WHO exactly, is offended ? It cant be Mohammed, he is too big and grand a figure. If its his followers, er, dont look at the pictures.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I would like to see the cartoons, as I heard they werent that offensive. The only one I saw was one of Mohammed saying "400 lashes if you dont laugh". Hardly that offensive.

Whatever they were, theres no way they justify mass slaughter, and as one senior Imam said today "those who killed the workers at Charlie Hebdon were not killing in the name of god, they were killing in the name of the devil."

Also begs the question WHO exactly, is offended ? It cant be Mohammed, he is too big and grand a figure. If its his followers, er, dont look at the pictures.

A few translated to English:

Don't think it's wise to keep these here, so may be if it's best if you edit my post and delete them after you see them.

Of course no cartoon, no matter how extreme or racist, could justify obstructing humans' right of free speech. I'm asking, would you share them as a sign of defense of free speech even if you do not wish to endorse the racist opinion behind them?

[cosmicway 1,260]

Much as I 'd like to see all America's B52s taking off now and go to Syria, I 'd never publish cartoons that are offensive to the world's religions.
I know it's not the time to say it, but this was always my opinion. From way back with that book "satanic verses" and the riots in London.
It is however true that the jihaddists call all cartoons "offensive to religion", even when they are not.

There is so much ethnic abuse around, from all and sundry against all and sundry. Should we create terror groups and kill each other until there is no one left ?

[Beepu 1,714]

These events are just so tragic, just too much. How easy is it to take someone else's life?

If I kill anyone who offends me and my faith then I'd probably be an international criminal. But if you hate someone because of your faith you are doing it wrong!

Saying that, the cartoons are pretty bad. Still doesn't warrant a killing, but free speech is surely not saying whatever the heck you want, however you want to say it? Especially since the extremists gets offended by everything.

The sad thing about events like these is that people generalize Muslims with extremists, and Muslims with every religion on this planet.

[Fulham Broadway 16,411]

A few translated to English:

Don't think it's wise to keep these here, so may be if it's best if you edit my post and delete them after you see them.

Of course no cartoon, no matter how extreme or racist, could justify obstructing humans' right of free speech. I'm asking, would you share them as a sign of defense of free speech even if you do not wish to endorse the racist opinion behind them?

For all the publications and newspaper offices so called standing in solidarity with Hebdo, I dont think many would republish out of fear. So, in one respect the murderers have won.

They do seem designed to offend, as were the anti Catholic, anti Jewish, anti Pope ones. The ones directed at the French govt were more offensive imo.

The climate of being offended in society for whatever reason, is slowly overtaking the hard won right to free speech imo.