A bill imposing jail terms of up to three years on those who offend religious believers is set to become law in Russia. The new blasphemy law was approved by the State Duma in Moscow on Tuesday, June 11

http://www.examiner.com/article/russia-criminalizes-blasphemy-jail-time-for-insulting-religion

With due respect, is your Dad still working with your brother ? You insinuated it in a debate on Atheism as a religion. BTW you said after returning from a brief hiatus that you want to acquire wealth and power. Posting every piece of atheist-centric news won't help that. Try making a thread were you post it. Like you initially did with the atheist argument thread.

Uyi Iredia: With due respect, is your Dad still working with your brother ? You insinuated it in a debate on Atheism as a religion. BTW you said after returning from a brief hiatus that you want to acquire wealth and power. Posting every piece of atheist-centric news won't help that. Try making a thread were you post it. Like you initially did with the atheist argument thread.

How does dat concern you? With due resopect

Logicboy03:


How does dat concern you? With due resopect

I was wondering whether you work with them. Maybe if you did you'll be a bit discrete making threads. Consider my suggestion about opening a thread to post news relating to atheism.

If someone were to come up to me and say that my mother does not exist, I would not just slap them. I might consider rendering that person and viewpoint non existent, because anything less would render me as a person and being non existent.

Every thought, every motion, every growth from my birth would be something that did not happen.

It would be insanity: believing it would lead me to act insane, not believing it would lead me to turn that insane rage on he who advances the thought that seeks to render my spirit worthless - and non-existent.

This, my friend, is as good a description as I can muster, of what is in fact legitimate theistic rage against atheistic thought.

There have been thought developments in the world that were thought to be advancements in thinking. Some of them have, with further advancement, been shown to have actually been false and wrong. This is the way atheism will go in the future. In time, and with greater thought development, it will fade away as altogether false and implausible. What will emerge will be a clearer understanding of the source of things, and a banishment of religious contrivances.

Let me just add however, that the vast majority of humanity will never subscribe to atheism. They simply know within them that it is not the case: that they have a source and origin, and no amount of discussion will ever change that. Atheists will eternally form only the minority of humans, much as lunatics in asylums are in the minority. There is, in truth hardly a difference between both sad minorities.

Ege te absolvo.

Isn't it an interesting world we live in?

[size=14pt]Government condemns hate speech based on race, gender and sexual preference
Media: Government is promoting freedom and equality.

Government condemns hate speech against religion
Media: Government is against freedom and equality![/size]



WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?



By the way it is interesting that your topic starts with "Stalin rolls in his grave...." Surely you are not advocating Stalin's legacy are you?

Mr anony: Isn't it an interesting world we live in?

Government condemns hate speech based on race, gender and sexual preference
Media: They are promoting freedom.

Government condemns hate speech against religion
Media: They are against freedom

Why the double standard?

Indeed.

Problem though, is criminalizing it. I should not be jailed for saying that I hate women, gays, or whites. Neither should I be jailed for saying I hate Jesus or Mohammed.

Deep Sight:

Indeed.

Problem though, is criminalizing it. I should not be jailed for saying that I hate women, gays, or whites. Neither should I be jailed for saying I hate Jesus or Mohammed.

In a way, I agree with you. As long as you are not carrying out physical attacks on those you hate.

Word, Mr Anony, word. Of course, the reason for this is they view religion as mental slavery.

Mr anony:
In a way, I agree with you. As long as you are not carrying out physical attacks on those you hate.

I agree too.

Deep Sight: If someone were to come up to me and say that my mother does not exist, I would not just slap them. I might consider rendering that person and viewpoint non existent, because anything less would render me as a person and being non existent.

Every thought, every motion, every growth from my birth would be something that did not happen.

It would be insanity: believing it would lead me to act insane, not believing it would lead me to turn that insane rage on he who advances the thought that seeks to render my spirit worthless - and non-existent.

This, my friend, is as good a description as I can muster, of what is in fact legitimate theistic rage against atheistic thought.

There have been thought developments in the world that were thought to be advancements in thinking. Some of them have, with further advancement, been shown to have actually been false and wrong. This is the way atheism will go in the future. In time, and with greater thought development, it will fade away as altogether false and implausible. What will emerge will be a clearer understanding of the source of things, and a banishment of religious contrivances.

Let me just add however, that the vast majority of humanity will never subscribe to atheism. They simply know within them that it is not the case: that they have a source and origin, and no amount of discussion will ever change that. Atheists will eternally form only the minority of humans, much as lunatics in asylums are in the minority. There is, in truth hardly a difference between both sad minorities.

Ege te absolvo.

Guy, Shut up


If someone has the right to say that there is god with no scientific evidence, another person has the right to say the opposite. There is no justification for the theistic rage.

Freedom of beliefs/disbeliefs. There is no justification

God is not your mother, relative or a human being,- he should not be protected by any human law. A secular country should never have blasphemy law.

Mr anony: Isn't it an interesting world we live in?

[size=14pt]Government condemns hate speech based on race, gender and sexual preference
Media: Government is promoting freedom and equality.

Government condemns hate speech against religion
Media: Government is against freedom and equality![/size]



WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?



By the way it is interesting that your topic starts with "Stalin rolls in his grave...." Surely you are not advocating Stalin's legacy are you?

See the dubious fellow?

The govt puts forward a blasphemy law and you are claiming that it protects against hate speech on religion?


The media has every right to portray this in a negative light.

Mr anony:
In a way, I agree with you. As long as you are not carrying out physical attacks on those you hate.

mtchew. Ironically who are the ones killing for beliefs? Atheists or theists? Simple question which you wont answer straight

Logicboy03:


Guy, Shut up


If someone has the right to say that there is god with no scientific evidence, another person has the right to say the opposite. There is no justification for the theistic rage.

Freedom of beliefs/disbeliefs. There is no justification

God is not your mother, relative or a human being,- he should not be protected by any human law. A secular country should never have blasphemy law.

O I agree, as you would have seen in my revert to Anony, had you bothered to read. I was simply explaining some of the deeper psychology in the matter, which, of course, I had no doubt would be lost on you.

Deep Sight:

O I agree, as you would have seen in my revert to Anony, had you bothered to read. I was simply explaining some of the deeper psychology in the matter, which, of course, I had no doubt would be lost on you.

I was addressing your BS posychology not your comment to Anony.

Logicboy03:


I was addressing your BS psychology not your comment to Anony.

Well you didnt, and you cannot.

Deep Sight:

Well you didnt, and you cannot.

You must be God

am i seeing things?

Stalin Rolls In His Grave

it's worse than I thought!
logicboy na wa for u o

*Kails*:
am i seeing things?



it's worse than I thought!
logicboy na wa for u o

What is the problem now?

*Kails*:
am i seeing things?



it's worse than I thought!
logicboy na wa for u o

Apparently logicboy is the new defender of Stalin's legacy. The great hero who fought for his freedom to mock other people for their religious beliefs.

Mr anony:
Apparently logicboy is the new defender of Stalin's legacy. The great hero who fought for his freedom to mock other people for their religious beliefs.

Lol.....Stalin was a murderer..cold blooded....

i am happy logicboy now admits Stalin was an atheist.

Logicboy03: Lol.....Stalin was a murderer..cold blooded....

.....and an atheist who was very effective in attacking religion in his country

frosbel: i am happy logicboy now admits Stalin was an atheist.

Stalin was an atheist and a cold blooded killer

Logicboy03:


Stalin was an atheist and a cold blooded killer

yes, his atheist ideology was responsible for the death of over 200 million souls. Glad to know you admit.

Mr anony: .....and an atheist who was very effective in attacking religion in his country

Understatement....he murdered religion



====================


But he was a communist.....seems Anony and his pals also forget that

Deep Sight: If someone were to come up to me and say that my mother does not exist, I would not just slap them. I might consider rendering that person and viewpoint non existent, because anything less would render me as a person and being non existent.

Every thought, every motion, every growth from my birth would be something that did not happen.

It would be insanity: believing it would lead me to act insane, not believing it would lead me to turn that insane rage on he who advances the thought that seeks to render my spirit worthless - and non-existent.

This, my friend, is as good a description as I can muster, of what is in fact legitimate theistic rage against atheistic thought.

You're angry someone told you that santa doesn't exist? Bravo

Deep Sight:
There have been thought developments in the world that were thought to be advancements in thinking. Some of them have, with further advancement, been shown to have actually been false and wrong. This is the way atheism will go in the future. In time, and with greater thought development, it will fade away as altogether false and implausible. What will emerge will be a clearer understanding of the source of things, and a banishment of religious contrivances.

Let me just add however, that the vast majority of humanity will never subscribe to atheism. They simply know within them that it is not the case: that they have a source and origin, and no amount of discussion will ever change that. Atheists will eternally form only the minority of humans, much as lunatics in asylums are in the minority. There is, in truth hardly a difference between both sad minorities.

Ege te absolvo.

Bold claims, considering trends in the developed world over the last few hundred years. Also considering the nature of atheism, this isn't say.. one claiming the aether exists. And even if these were true, at least the atheism as always a minority bit (the rest is a bit too nonsensical to hold), what of it? Most of the world will always be heterosexual (actually bi, but I'll ignore that), so what?


On another note, what's the point of being a deist if one prays? Not familiar with the topic, but wouldn't one who prays be a theist?

wiegraf:

You're angry someone told you that santa doesn't exist? Bravo

You minimize the discussion into absurdity. I will ignore that.

Bold claims, considering trends in the developed world over the last few hundred years. Also considering the nature of atheism, this isn't say.. one claiming the aether exists.

Atheism does say that there is not an intelligent and living source of the universe and life. That's bollocks, looked at from every direction.

And even if these were true, at least the atheism as always a minority bit (the rest is a bit too nonsensical to hold), what of it?

It might be beyond your atheistic azz to understand or accept this, but in spiritual matters, the intuition of the overwhelming majority is not something to be overlooked, even if it is not perfect in all respects.

Most of the world will always be heterosexual

Does it strike you that nature purposed it any other way?

(actually bi, but I'll ignore that), so what?

This is a Freudian slip.

But don't worry, it means nothing to me.

Just reflect on the "most" that you applied to this statement.

On another note, what's the point of being a deist if one prays?

There are many different schools of deist thought. There is even Christian Deism, just so you know.

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

As for me, I believe that the self-existent and natural laws of the creating element take effect with or without prayer. I do not believe that those laws preclude the concept and reality of help within creation.

Not familiar with the topic, but wouldn't one who prays be a theist?

A deist is a breed of theist.

Deep Sight:

You minimize the discussion into absurdity. I will ignore that.

Erm, that is what you posted boils down to. That would make your point absurd, no?

Deep Sight:
Atheism does say that there is not an intelligent and living source of the universe and life. That's bollocks, looked at from every direction.

What's your definition of every direction?

Deep Sight:
It might be beyond your atheistic azz to understand or accept this, but in spiritual matters, the intuition of the overwhelming majority is not something to be overlooked, even if it is not perfect in all respects.

Fixing

fixed:
It might be beyond your atheistic genius to understand such drivel, but in spiritual (aka, make-believe land) matters, the intuition (AKA silly opinions, in this case) of the overwhelming majority is not something to be overlooked, even if it is clearly not perfect in any form in most respects.

I don't disagree. But that does not make these 'intuitions' correct, yes? What's this fallacy called, the one about majorities being right by default?

Deep Sight:
Does it strike you that nature purposed it any other way?

And again, so? Nature also has many species that eat their young.

Deep Sight:
This is a Freudian slip.

But don't worry, it means nothing to me.

Just reflect on the "most" that you applied to this statement.

That's not how Freudian slips work. The statement would have to have been accidental, at least consciously so, but it clearly wasn't so in this case, yes? It was very deliberately put that way, yes?

As for the "most", again, so?

Deep Sight:
There are many different schools of deist thought. There is even Christian Deism, just so you know.

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

As for me, I believe that the self-existent and natural laws of the creating element take effect with or without prayer. I do not believe that those laws preclude the concept and reality of help within creation.

A deist is a breed of theist.

What's this double talk? Does prayer work or not? Yes or no please?

Personally, I'm glad to see you're owning up to being a theist that simply doesn't go to church. Similar to how we'd have say, a moderate muslim, who claims he's not for extremism but has no problem supporting sharia.

Too cowardly to choose one or the other. Conveniently religious when it fits you, not when it doesn't. Make up your damned mind, if you will, good ser.

^^^ I wasn't able to discern anything in your post above worth responding to.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I wasn't able to discern anything in your post above worth responding to.

I have noticed how your posts so far have been filled with substance. Including, of course, your annoyance at us atheists not knowing how many reindeer santa requires to pull his sleigh

It's a very free world, so feel very free to run away, good, kind and noble sir.

wiegraf:
I have noticed how your posts so far have been filled with substance. Including, of course, your annoyance at us atheists not knowing how many reindeer santa requires to pull his sleigh

It's a very free world, so feel very free to run away, good, kind and noble sir.

Hmmm, early morning sarcasm. Aite, let me indulge you.

On Santa Claus, I say as follows (and I was to weary to say it in my earlier post because I have said it a zillion times on this forum.

1. The discussion between the atheist and the theist as refers: the existence of God, is not, and cannot be about any particular religious notion of God (such as Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, Zeus, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster or, heck, your mocking Santa Claus if you like. The discussion is and remains about the origin of this universe and whether or not it had a powerful, transcendental, and pre-existent source. Note these three terms carefully.

2. However anyone chooses to clothe that source with their peculiar cultural worldview does not have any bearing on the discussion about the existence or non existence of a pre-existent cause[b][/b] of the universe and reality as we know it.

3. As such, it is entirely beside the point, when an atheist argues as follows -

a. Yahweh as described in the bible is blood thirsty and immoral, and so God does not exist.

b. Allah as described in the quoran is blood thirsty and immoral, and so God does not exist.

c. Olympus is a physical mountain and there is no evidence of Zeus there and so God does not exist.

d. I have not seen a man sitting on the clouds and so God does not exist.

e. The description of Brahman in hinduism is logically inconsistent and so God does not exist.

f. Santa Claus is a kiddies fairy tale, and so, God does not exist.

g. I have not seen God, and so, God does not exist.

What these statements have in common is a complete side-step of the pure philosophical questions at play, namely -

- Why something instead of nothing?

- Does the universe exist?

- Did it have a beginning?

- Did something cause its beginning?

- What caused its beginning?

- Does the cause possess attributes of -

i. Transcendence (existing outside the universe)

ii. Pre-existence (Existing before the universe)

iii. Power (having the energy to cause the universe)

You can therefore see that the discussion should be about the logicality or illogicality of presupposing a transcendent, pre-existent, powerful cause of the universe.

Whatever name anyone gives to that idea in their language or culture, and whatever addittional attributes they imagine and heap on it, has no bearing on the core discussion.

This is a philosophical and logical matter, and science should also bear on it.

It is for this reason that I find it hard, tiresome, and bothersome to revert when someone simply casts the matter in a most puerile form: to wit: Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and other such idle forms which just show that the person does not even have an idea of what is meant to be discussed in the first place.

- - - - - -

Now I come to your statement that the word "spiritual" is simply another word for "make believe".

Listen - in several discussions with atheists on this forum, I have elicited admissions that non physical things (like time, thoughts, emotions, ideas) do exist. The best they have been able to insist on is that these are creations of a material brain. That's actually neither here nor there. That non physical things exist, is enough to show that the non-physical is not "make believe".

You may quibble about whence they derive or arise, but you cannot deny that they exist, unless you are willing to state that time does not exist, that your thoughts do not exist (in which case I would not be willing to engage in a discussion with something that does not exist, lest I be considered mad) - and you must also be further willing to demonstrate that a thought (or time) possesses the scientific qualities of matter - namely has weight and occupies space. You should be willing to measure the weight and space as well.

What you can see from the foregoing is that you cannot wave your hand and describe the non-physical as "make believe" unless you are willing to state that your thoughts and time itself, are make-believe.

In actual fact, there was a wonderful post some years ago made by a great mind here (will look for it later) which demonstrated just by our every day activities and actions, that no human being actually lives his or her life on the supposition that only matter exists. Everything, absolutely everything, that has any meaning in the life progression of a human being is an immaterial thing. Time. Thoughts. Emotions. Ideas. I could go on forever.

You see, when atheists talk, they often make terrible statements far worse than any religious dogma. I have had long discussions with atheists on this forum who, in their bid to stay materialist, or deny the existence of God, have gone so far as to say that -

(i) We don't know that the universe had a beginning

(ii) If it had a beginning we dont know that it had a cause

(iii) Using the law of cause and effect in this matter, is an argument from ignorance and also a part-whole fallacy

(iv) Using the laws of motion in this matter is also an argument from ignorance and a part-whole fallacy

(v) something may come from nothing

- - - And also measured the properties of "nothingness" and ascribed it a value

(vi) Since we do not know the cause of virtual particles, they come from nothing - despite the fact that the vacuums in which they are observed are not "nothing" and contain gaseous pressure

(vii) Time commenced at the big b@ng - but - nothing could exist outside time and yet the pre existing singularity existed before the big b@ng,

(viii) Time and Space do not exist outside the human mind

- - - and many more.

Judge for yourself these ludicrous statements, and see if they are logically consistent in any form.

Then please contrast them with how I must feel, when some one comes along idly talking about believing in Santa Claus.