₦airaland Forum

For the 2nd time, is your dishonesty and imbecility congenital or acquired? Yes or no. . .a simple answer will suffice.

Believe me it would have done the US and everyone else a world of good. One of the first laws in general management is to avoid as much as possible other people's problems ! Another clear case of Superman GWB's high handedness.

Poor me, for a while I was under the illusion that you were a crusader for the respect of these inmates' rights. So it is better that these people are sent back, often to countries allergic to the concept of human rights, in a warped attempt to pass the buck?

Another way of looking at is that the treatment of these people in US hands is better - there goes your rights' concern - and that it makes more sense for the US to detain them, for the purpose of gathering intelligence, preventing their escape and isolating these people from other jihadist. Passing the buck, though good for image laundering, is no way to protect the American people.

So who should determine the rules of engagement in a Multilateral world? GWB?

This is about the procedure for dealing with captured sworn enemies of the US who pose a danger to the US, a danger that is original in its form and modes of execution. In the absence of any agreed formalised system of dealing with this new threat, Gitmo will suffice for now.

Correction,States. Last time I checked,Spain,UK,Germany,Italy all had some form of Al-Qaeda attack or threat,yet - NO GITMO

Thanks for the carp, I take it that you couldn't find other examples of this new threat. Germany and Italy have had their September 11?

For these groups, as OBL has reiterated ad nauseam, the US is the focal point and its Western allies are only ancilliary. Having said that, many European nations have detention powers, often for years without trial,  that would put many dictatorships to shame. Never mind their evidence and investigative rules.

Is it just me or you can't seem to complete a paragraph without expletives? Shocked Like I said I appreciate America's unique circumstances post -911,however multilateralism that saw the end of the 2 world wars and arguably the Cold war,is the solution not the mess reffered to as  'Bush Doctrine', GWB's war on terror' & of course GITMO !

You are making a wider point which is simultaneously irrelevant and naive. US anti-terror measures have seen the co-operation of virtually all nations on the planet. Even with respect to Iraq, 60 nations co-operated, hardly ''unilateral'' unless you revel in the mutilation of grammar.

Even the process of capturing, transfering and keeping Gitmo inmates requires multilateral co-operation. I would appreciate if you didn't deploy vacuous talking points you can't defend, otherwise, expletives will actually be used.

Bastage:
Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

Is your imbecility and dishonesty congenital or acquired? Yes or no. . . simple answer will suffice.

Chrisbenogor:
@omonla
Freewill and omniscience are contradictory.
If I already know before hand what you will do, your other choices are really only an illusion your mind tricks you that you are fighting a battle but in reality you are not, in the end you must choose it because I already know.
If you took a clue from the definitions I gave you might have sat down to ponder what you said again.
If God knows what I will do by 5 pm I really have no choice but to do that which will happen by 5 pm I cannot change my mind at 4 30, to the ordinary eye it might look like I have choices but I don't, what happened by 5 in Gods eye must happen.
So its either God is omniscient or  we have free will it cannot be both.

The illogic of an oaf.

God knows what you will do by 5pm not because what you will do by 5pm is necessarily predetermined but that God knows what you will choose to do by 5pm. Free will is the freedom to choose from a range of alternative paths available to a person, omniscience includes knowing what path will be chosen.

Chrisbenogor:
Hehehehehe be careful foaming and convulsing is surely not too far away now .
But wait oh you no get joy at all oh, you no fit even do christmas for your enemies?

Au contraire. Calling a Arrow a Arrow is very much enjoyable especially if said Arrow may have delusions that he is not a Arrow.

Chrisbenogor:
Abeg I need a book

The above is now much better framed. . . . it epitomises the unlettered Arrow that you are.

Bastage:
All that crap and you haven't answered the question.Has religion influenced genes?
Yes or no. It's a simple question. A simple answer from a simpleton will do.

You are obviously a congenital liar:

Now,no one disagrees with the suggestion that events influenced by religion might affect ''mating'' choices.

That this self-regarding numbskull has chosen to hide behind an irrelevant question is hardly surprising. Like I asked earlier, how does it shed light on the question of why a man - whether Mao or Stalin - acted in a particular way? Bloody Arrow.

Chrisbenogor:
Bastage no mind the guy he is certainly david's sidekick at throwing smoke grenades and he sucks at it.

Another self-regarding Arrow.

congoshine:
Like I said these detainees aren't stateless,if indeed the have committed crimes ,the prevailing laws in their countries should hold sway ! i don't need to go to the whole torture thingy & Human rights charter etc !

The prevailing laws in their country? Presumably, the cause for the respect of their rights will be advanced if the US handed most of these people back to face the legal regimes in their countries of origin? Do you live in the real world?

You will agree the convention assumes conflict between two states? Becuase how else can you determine the 'duration' of the war?

Precisely! Citing the Conventions here is absurd because it arguably doesn't apply. Let's consider all references to the Geneva Conventions here as obtuse, shall we? I'm glad you have seen the light.

Now we have a conflict between a state(US,Western World) and an amorphous organistaion,one would think the right thing to do in such circumstances in to get a binding UN resolution which everyone agrees with. Mind you this isn't the first time a state would fight a terrorist org.
I know you will tell me there wasn't time but that just points back to the incompetece of GWB & his 'all star team'.

That is a matter for debate on the correct political strategy to have been adopted, however, what we are debating here is the legality of the Gitmo measures. You cannot glibly proclaim something as illegal when you are obviously struggling to find a legal regime that clearly applys to the circumstances.

This is the first time a state is fighting a movement as amorphous as the worldwide Islamist extremist movement of which Al-Qaeda is the centre-point. If you want to differ, please name other examples, I'm prepared to be astonished.

This is not like the fight against the IRA, ETA or Baader-Meinhoff. Anybody who thinks the same municipal legal regime sufficient in tackling such organisations will be apt here is hopelessly misguided.

This is so,so wrong. So because Al Qaeda totures captured US soldiers ,the US can do the same? Because they behead POWs,they should likewise be beheaded. Thats the summation of the war on terror.The fact is you either go down to their level (in which case they can declare victory for adequately changing your ways &systems) or you maintain your really 'high standards' and use your means to force them to conform?

Fact: Gitmo inmates are not being tortured and summarily beaheaded as Al-Qaeda does to its captives. Go down to their level? Why the crass hyperbole? Gitmo inmates are treated far better than Al-Qaeda treats its captives.

I would rather be detained in Gitmo than in Kirikiri. The sooner we cast aside the exaggerated claims about Gitmo, which maintains higher standards than the overhwhelming majority of the world's prisons, the more informed our thinking will be.

The reality is that neither the municipal legal system nor the international legal regime has clear answers to this new phenomenon. Law is organic, it keeps growing and the designation as unlawful combatants, which is not entirely new, is presently the most sufficient tool to deal with this menace until there is international agreement on how to deal with these situations.

Until then, all crass claims about the illegality of Gitmo, substituting complex analyses with simple-minded glibnes, should be left to mischievous partisans or clueless buffoons.

Bastage:
LMAO. You base your whole argument about Stalin on genes? Not once have I claimed that Stalin's genetic make-up was a factor.

You are a recidivist bovine. What would give you the impression that my whole argument is based on Stalin's genes - the argument is that Stalin's behaviour, like any other human's, is based on a range of factors of which religion and genes are some of the factors.

My original assertion was that he was influenced by religion. Nothing to do with genes. [b]You came into the thread whining that there was no connection between genes and religion. [/b]Don't whine that you specifically targetted genes as in the same sentence when you first mentioned them, you also mentioned income and education. When you did move onto targetting genes, it had nothing to do with Stalin. The issue was did religion influence genes. Nothing else. You may retardedly cherry pick bits of posts all you like and throw them in any context you like - the fact is, you're my bitch.

A gratuitiously mendacious oaf, let me give you another simple task you craven liar: find where I asserted no connection between genes and religion.

I referred to the diversity in the range of causative factors on a human being's behaviour vis a vis Stalin's behaviour,here is the original quote:

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

The point is that the vast majority of Stalin's life influence is not religion. Genes, income and education, inter alia, play a part. Claiming that religion had some influence on these is besides the point. Influence here is not one-dimensional;these factors themselves shape religion.

I listed a multitude of quotes from David and I, in case, given your bovine nature, you failed to understand. You called all these ''cherry picking'', pray, where are my other quotes which constitute a contradiction of those ''cherry picked'' quotes? You don't seem to have an honest bone in you, do you?

When I showed beyond doubt that religion has influenced the gene pool you start whining on about some "unique religion gene". It was never an issue that I even attempted to broach after earlier dismissing it out of hand by calling you a cock (which you are).

This guy is a self-assured liar! A unique religious gene was never an issue? Why then did it take until the dead of the night to remark on what you called a ''total u-turn'' when all the quotes I listed, many of you which you quoted, asked for evidence of a unique religious gene. You are either bovine or a craven liar or an astonishing combination of both features.

Like David noted here:

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

The issue of religion influencing genetic make up is besides the point. You can't proclaim that someone is a creation of religion when man is a product of a variety of factors, of which religion is one, unless you are trying to establish that each factor has a unique religious nature.

So lets look at the evidence. I stated that Stalin was influenced by religion. I stated that he was born to a Christian family, raised in a Christian city, went to a Christian school, played with Christian friends, went to a Christian seminary, trained to be a Christian priest.
Then you join the thread burbling about income, education and genes and how these things are not affected by religion. I then decided to show you that you are wrong and did so in all three instances. Your quotations about the "Muslim gene" weren't even on the table until after I showed you proof that Islamic moors affected the gene pool of Christian Spain. You have quite literally moved the goalposts once you've had your dumb ass kicked.

This guy is a mendacious oaf. If I assert that a man is a product of many factors - religion,genes,income,education - that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be understood to mean that each is mutually impervious to influence.

Stalin is a product of many factors, no where have I claimed that each factor has no influence on each other. Take income; education,genes and religion are affected by income. However, it will be stupid to claim that everything is as a result of income.

Pray, how does telling us that religion might have an influence in Stalin's ancestor's mating decisions shed light on Stalin's gulag policies unless it carried the implication that Stalin's genetic make up was unique in its relation to religion.

My quotations about "Muslim gene'' wasn't on the table until after your copy and paste? What an idiotic liar. This quote came before your crass copy and paste and you quoted it in your first response containing the Moors' link :

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up? What is the difference between Edward Said's make up and Yasser Arafat's?

Your dishonesty must be inbred and is utterly shocking!

Shifting the goal posts? Why did you respond to my question about a Muslim gene by referring me to an article about the Moors? It was only in the middle of the night that you came back with a new line after David and I had been futilely trying to get you to see that genes are not unique to religion.

This is the same craven liar that once challenged me several times to cite one historical mention of Jesus outside scriptures, only to re-emerge later with a different tack; they are not contemporaneous historical mentions. Another idiot on NL trying to save face on a web forum.

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke. Don't bring it into the topic as a smokescreen and then start saying that I don't know what I'm talking about when I neither give a shit about a "Muslim gene", find it relative to the topic nor even believe it exists.So, did religion have an influence over genes?Yes or no, bitch? It's a simple question. How about you answer it and stop hiding behind long winded posts full of bullshit.

Why repeatedly cite quotes demanding an answer to a specific question and suddenly re-emerge the next day to proclaim that you were unaware of the questions being asked? You must be dumb as a stump.

If religion can influence genetic make up, which is besides the point, how does it shed light on the question of why a man - whether Mao or Stalin -acted in a particular way? That is and always has been the crux of the debate.

A recidivist retard adducing non-sequiturs in an absurd bid to save face while pretending to mis-understand what his interlocutors were asking. I wonder what new tack he will adopt tomorrow, one day he is citing scientist who are atheists, the next he is saying their acheivements is as a result of religion. Bloody idiot!

Bastage:
LMAO. Oh you guys really have me rolling on the floor with laughter!!!!!!!! ;DDavidDylan just out and out denies the credibility of one of the largest genetic studies ever undertaken and 4-Play does a total U-turn.

4-Play. This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!  

The apt term to describe your brain is bovine, since it seems to work in slow motion.Firstly, Here was David's comment:

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

Here are my previous comments from which this dolt senses a ''total u-turn'' from me.

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up? What is the difference between Edward Said's make up and Yasser Arafat's?

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors?

is there a unique Muslim gene

The stupid copy and paste job didn't establish the existence of a Muslim gene, or any other religious gene.

This unrepentant dolt is still assuming the premise as proven:that there is a unique religious gene, unique to different faiths

This however leaves unanswered the source of your premise, that Muslims have a unique genetic make up which your dumb copy and paste jobs have left us none the wiser.

Bastage thinks that references to racial genes in races where Muslims are dominant is as good as references to a Muslim gene.

Any chance Bastage, resident mutilator of science, can explain what genetic uniquesness exists between Ethiopian Christians and Irish Christians.

So after all the above quotes, Bastage claims that talk of a ''gene for religion'' represents a u-turn, presumably incompatible with the above cited quotes! Calling this swine an slowpoke is an insult to imbeciles.

Now,no one disagrees with the suggestion that events influenced by religion might affect ''mating'' choices. But the debate was the extent the various influences - whether religion or genetics - may play in, for instance, Stalin's murderous instincts. Now, unless Stalin's genetic make up was unique to a particular religious faith or to religion generally, it is the height of idiocy, being utterly irrelevant,  to state that Stalin's ancestral origin might have been somewhat influenced by some religious inspired event.

A crass bovine like you may take forever to grasp things, perhaps, that explains why you thought the pursuit of religious ideals is the same as the persecution of religionists. What a first-grade idiot.

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion".

All the comments assumed that this was the case your evidence supported but that it failed to show a unique genetical make up exclusive to reliogion, viz, the magic words -gene for religion - which woke you from your stupor. Here was David's comment:

You have a problem with mental coordination. The crusades were about religion but that is not the issue. The question is did the crusaders carry a gene unique to ALL christians?

Stalin is influenced by religion but also his genes, but Stalin's genes, no matter the historical religion inspired mating decisions, does not have a unique religious make up that explains his latter behaviour. That a bovine and an unrepentant dolt like you fails to grasp this beggars belief.

In reality, it's either a failure of comprehension or a craven afterthought from you.

Bastage:
Read it and weep.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

What a congenital cretin. The 2 bolded parts do not constitute evidence of a gene for religion

Any chance Bastage, resident mutilator of science, can explain what genetic uniquesness exists between Ethiopian Christians and Irish Christians.

Never has science been murdered with such zeal that will put to shame Galileo's inquisitors.

@Bastage

Bastage:
How blatant do you want the evidence to be?"Their decision to do so is revealed through the genetic make-up of modern Spanish Catholic men who were often unaware of their ancestry. . . 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors. In addition, the scientists characterised the Y chromosomes of the Arab and Berber army that invaded Spain in AD 711 from data on people living in Morocco and the Western Sahara."

Now unless those "Moorish ancestors" were also "Spanish Catholic men". Unless they were Muslims and Christians at the same time, I'd say that there had to be conversions somewhere along the line, wouldn't you?

Touche. This however leaves unanswered the source of your premise, that Muslims have a unique genetic make up which your dumb copy and paste jobs have left us none the wiser.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

@Davidylan

I think Bastage's bewilderment is a product of living in the UK. People often talk of Muslims as if they are a race. Hence, Bastage thinks that references to racial genes in races where Muslims are dominant is as good as references to a Muslim gene.

Bastage:
Dear 4-Play. Quite simply, you defy logic.But have this one too:


Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7316281.stm

Of course, you can say that this has nothing to do with religion either. After all the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity did they?
You can also belittle this one as it was the first I got when I Googled "crusades+genetics".

This unrepentant dolt is still assuming the premise as proven:that there is a unique religious gene, unique to different faiths, in the first place which is spread in the process of human interaction.

This guy must be a comprehensive numbskull

LMAO. You were the idiot that decided to use genetics to prove your untenable position. I've merely replied to the false statements you've made to create a smokescreen. Let me remind you:

What an unrepentant dolt. What has the question of Stalin's beliefs, for which I raised the analogy, got to do with your phantom religious genes? Still working on the simple task I set you?

Read the article again. The reason they know that there were conversions was because of the similarity of genetic make-up between the anscestors of the converted and the Moors. There is a genetic similarity that would not exist if there had been no conversions to religion. They would not be able to get a result if there was not a genetic marker. Which part of that don't you understand?

The article states such? Surprise me, show me where this dumb claim was made in the article.

huxley:
Whether the article was the first or thousandth may NOT detract from its plausibility, which is determined by its content.  The thrust of this position is that if ultimately our mental state is owed to our genetic makeup, a position for which there is good scientific evidence, it stands to reason that our vulnerability to religion may also be explained by our genes.  This area of research is still in its infancy, but the chances are good that we will begin to see more psycho-genetic work in the public arena in the near future.

The stupid copy and paste job didn't establish the existence of a Muslim gene, or any other religious gene. You would think supercillious atheists will be able to inteprete science.

At best, all the article has shown is ancestral links with people of a certain Middle-Eastern origin. In summary, genetic evidence of different racial origins not of religious origin.

It's a good thing he didn't copy and paste this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/matthew_moore/blog/2008/04/15/gay_scientists_isolate_christian_gene

@Davidylan

All Bastage has done, which is why his argument lacks cogency, is google muslim genes and cited the first article he came across. That he doesn't understand the full import of the article has no bearing in his stridence.

He makes it up as he goes along contradicting himself with wreckless abandon. Everything is as a result of religion indeed

Bastage:
Your analogies suck.Let me give you a proper one.A Muslim is forced to convert to Christianity.
He breeds with other Christians (something he certainly wouldn't have done before conversion).
His genes are added to the local gene pool.
The gene pool is therefore altered.
Religion has created a situation where the gene pool has been altered.

Oh hang on. That's not an analogy. That's what actually happened!!!I've shown that religion has had an influence on genetics. It wasn't even a big issue on the topic but you tried to use it as a whipping boy and got caned yourself. Belittle it all you like as a "cut and paste job" but the article proves it beyond a doubt 100%.ext!!!!

Things you don't grasp suck, like logical consistency. Is this supposed to be a repudiation of the first point, that Stalin's beliefs were secularist, because it's obviously not. Your doltishness is plumbing new depths.

As for your own mangled analogy. It is undermined by one crucial question: is there a unique Muslim gene ab initio that eventually gets ''added to the local gene pool''? As an unrepentant dolt, you have chosen to assume the premise as proven.

RichyBlacK:
Why the title ''God Almighty Does Not Hear The Prayer Of A Jew''?

Because Warren subscribes to it and Hitch thinks that this ipso facto, among other things, renders him unworthy to say prayers at the inauguration.

Bastage:
Dipshit. Secularism is a reaction caused by religion. There would be no secularism if there was no religion. Simply because the concept wouldn't need to exist. Secularism is a by-product of religion. Ergo if they were created by secularism, they were created by the influence of religion.
I wouldn't expect a shallow idiot like you to be able to see that, but then I have learnt not to have very high expectations of you so I won't be too suprised if you come back with yet more illogical gibberish. You simply don't understand the concept of how big religion is, yet you're dumb enough to put all of your faith into something you do not understand.

Let's see how this swine's logic works using an analogy

Statement: I attribute  Thatcher's economic principles to monetarism, not Keynesianism
Bastage: Wrong: Monetarism is a reaction to Keynesianism, so Thatcher's economic principles were a product Keynesian economics.

Only a first-grade slowpoke will purport to repudiate the assertion that Stalin's beliefs were guided by secularism by stating that secularism was in reaction to religion.

LOL. What a cock. Every single person on this planet has a unique genetic make-up - only identical twins don't differ.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors? Are you possessed by a retarded ghost?

congoshine:
Every single national/international law has been broken.

Right, so you would expect these laws to be listed. .  . .or would you

If war crimes,the 3rd Geneva Convention(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention) is the prevailing International Law,is this being followed to the letter?

This is congo's best stab at a naming a law. Bear in mind that the Conventions permit the US to detain indefinitely for the duration of the war.

The Conventions rest on reciprocity, a nation is not bound by the Convention where its enemy - in this case Al-Qaeda - abhors the Convention. To hold otherwise will amount to placing a unilateral obligation on the US, an obligation its enemy does not recognise. It is this cardinal difference that explains why US detainees from the Iraq war never ended up at Gitmo.

I believe the US is fully entitled to treat this scum for what they are, unlawful combatants, not POWs or mere criminals entitled to habeas corpus.

davidylan:
Bastage . . . you have Bastadised your claim to literacy.

Never have I witnessed on NL, perhaps since the 'demise' of Denex, such a full frontal assault on common sense. He contradicts himself within minutes while adopting the garb of a pseudo-sociologist and scientist.

Bastage:
Fool. I never dodge an idiotic claim.
Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?


LOL. I laugh in your religion created face.

Look at this absurd attempt to defend the obtuse suggestion that our genes is the product of religion.

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up? What is the difference between Edward Said's make up and Yasser Arafat's?

Has this craven liar finished the very simple task I set him

Bastage:
LMAO!!!!"And the award for the Most Blatant Contradictory Back Pedal goes to. . . . . . . . . 4Play!!!!!!!!!!!"

You would think that if you set a simple task, even for this retard, he would glady set upon the task. Let me repeat it so this unhinged swine can see: Please find where I have expressed the above; that religion does not shape society nor does society shape man.

Here was me a few hours ago:

Sure, as social creatures they are the products of society, however, their notoriety(which is the issue at hand) is not the product of religion but their particular brand of secularism.

If the mouth-breathing pond life had bothered reading what I have written in this thread he would have realised that I would claim that Judaism did not produce Hitler. It was an influence. Judaism influenced the outlook of Christianity, Christianity influenced views of Judaism. They played off each other. There is no escaping religious influence. Christian fundamentalists are loathe to admit it but they are influenced by Islam - they are reactive to it. Being reactive means that you have to have been influenced.

Firstly, this unlettered slowpoke astonishingly, after a second attempt, still doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase, ''pursuit of religious ideals''.

Let's try a 3rd attempt, hopefully this congenital oaf might comprehend.

Statement:Fidel Castro is not known for the pursuit of Hayekian ideals.
Bastage:Wrong! Castro pursued free-marketers

Perhaps, you think in the vernacular, which must explain why you think pursuit here pertains to the act of ''chasing after''.

Furthermore, you would not have claimed Judaism produced Hitler? Here is Bastage a few hours ago

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot.

An astonishing example of the self-contradiction of the obscenely idiotic.

To deny that religion has not shaped society is the claim made by an idiot.
To deny that society does not shape the man who lives in it is the claim of a total idiot.
But why take my word for it?

Let me set you one simple task since you possess the visual capacity of Stevie Wonder: Please find where I have expressed the above; that religion does not shape society nor does society shape man.

This gratuitiously mendacious oaf constructs straw man arguments and proceeds in a long unhinged rant about how society is shaped by religion.

The craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

davidylan:
Because we've seen through the hypocrisy of the likes of AC Grayling and you. When they say secularists are at war with "religion", what they really mean is doing away with christianity. Why don't they ever pick on the muslims? I'm sure AC Grayling doesnt want to become another Salman Rushdie . . .

How many AC Graylings are in Egypt? The craven prefer to be ensconced in the relative safety of the so-called Christian societies of the West yapping endlessly about Christianity, with a few token comments about Islam to construct the facade of balance.

Strangely, this freedom of expression is denied believers by atheists in China, Cuba, N.Korea,e.t.c. Given the relative minority status of secularists compared to believers, it's amazing the tens of millions of lives lost to one form of secularist philosophy, enough to put Osama bin Laden to shame.

davidylan:
Thank you for that succint point.

Its amazing that the very same Bastage and his cronies are the first to trot out the point that MOST scientists are athiests . . . aka they are more intelligent because of the lack of influence of christianity . .
On which side of the fence does Bastage stand? It is the fault of religion when things go wrong and when they are positive we discard religion as an irrelevant factor?

He has a different line of argument, usually incompatible with earlier arguments, for each topic. He was at pains to show the proportion of esteemed scientists who are atheists only to tell us that every positive is as a result of religion.

You would think these secular ''masters of the power of reason'' would have some cogency to their argument.

Either you didn't read the topic properly or you're just an ignorant, arrogant, shallow-minded prick, do you know that 4-play?
My quote states that "Christian influence would have produced Stalin."
He lived in a Christian society. He trained to be a priest. He was a product of a Christian society. It is utterly unavoidable for anyone raised in that condition not to be affected. How would he not have been produced by Christian influence? It's impossible that he wasn't influenced. Utterly and totally impossible. All you see is the atheist who attacked your religion. You don't see the child who grew up walking the streets of a Christian city, playing with Christian friends, learning about life in a Christian society, going to a Christian school, training to be a Christian - living and fucking breathing Christianity. You are blind.

The refuge of imbeciles is to construct a straw man's argument. The question has never been whether Stalin as a human being had some Christian influences but whether the murderous instincts of Stalin are a product of Christian influence or his rabid subscription to a particular secular philosophy. Even a puddenhead like you would admit it was the latter, however, you prefer to indulge in the inane wider issue of whether living among Christians might have some influence on you, what a knob.

If you weren't such a retarded dipshit, you would know that the vast majority of those "innumerable influences" are themselves influenced by the religion that has been adopted by the society concerned, both directly and indirectly. I can guarantee that the very hole in which you live wouldn't be there if it wasn't for religion.

Your hypocrisy verges on the imbecilic. This moronic pseudo-sociologist only trots out this line of argument when the subject is the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

You under-educated buffoon. They were known for their pursuit of and the destruction of religion in their societies. It had so much influence over them that they felt the need to destroy it. If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your wig off. Or do you normally just go out and destroy things that you have no care about? Do you persecute the meaningless? You're an illogical idiot.

If the powers of comprehension elude you, one can only bemoan the unlettered vermin you are. Perhaps you reason in the vernacular, the ''pursuit of religious ideals'' is not the same as the persecution of religionists

Statement: Hitler is not known for the pursuit of Jewish ideals
Bastage: Wrong! Hitler was engaged in the pursuit of Jews

By the above illogic, a Bastage masterpiece, Jews/Judaism produced Hitler. Listen, you dunce, what is meant is that Stalin/Mao were uber secularists. Sure, as social creatures they are the products of society, however, their notoriety(which is the issue at hand) is not the product of religion but their particular brand of secularism. A nitwit like you might find this too hard to grasp.

You are a cretin. This is not about condemning Christianity. When someome dares so much as utter a sentence that you, in your world of blindfolded ignorance, don't understand, you automatically take it as a slight against your religion. And you wonder why secularists hate fundamentalists? It's because you do very good impressions of being mentally retarded. As for your statement that I would have laughed off a Christian inventor - you're nothing but an out and out liar. Let me point you to this:I have to keep repeating myself, yet still I don't think you're going to understand.EVERY negative is a result of religion. EVERY positive is a result of religion. Mankind was shaped by religion. When he creates negatives and positives, he does so as a result of his creation by religion.

Every negative/positive is a product of religion? I did mention that you share the religionists fanaticism as evident in your dilution of human behaviour to one explanatory factor:religion!

If every positive is a result of religion, then citing the proportion of Nobel laurettes who are atheists(as you once did) would be idiotic as their positive, their intellectual contributions, is as "a result of religion". It might be too much to expect some logical consistency from someone who is inebriated in idiocy.

Don't talk shit. I had told David innumerable times that this topic was not about Christianity but he insisted on adding it. My quote from the second page: And do you need me to yet again remind you that you're burbling on with your defence of Christianity, even though I've pointed out ad infinitum that the subject under discussion here is general religion.

You responded to a comment David made about the monsters called Stalin and Mao by glibly stating that they are products of certain religions. Would it be it too much to ask to admit that Mao and Stalin were also products of secularism, the philosophy which they propounded and enforced, instead of yapping with the self-assuredness of an slowpoke about the inevitable influence of religion.

What defined Stalin; Christianity or secularism?  Any person with at least half a brain will realise that his notoriety owes more to the latter.

Bastage:
I have stated that, in the case of Stalin, Christianity was an influence in his life, just as it is with all of us who live in a Christian society, be they Christians or atheists. Accusations such as "Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame" are just sheer fabrications when anyone can read back through my words here and see that is not what I said - that I am talking about something much deeper here. But then, Christians do like to play the blame game - after all, the whole religion is based on it and shallowness seems to be a common trait in the avid worshipper.
If I were a real critic of Christianity, believe me, I would be able to argue very well that Christianity was responsible for Stalinist terror. But that is not the issue here, even though David would like it to come to the fore so he can hide behind the smoke-screen that would create.

This schmuck is an uncompromising idiot. Here is your initial quote.

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot.

True, human beings are partly the product of the varying influences that imparted on their lives of which religion is one. To assert that Buddhism created Pol Pot is the sort of statement that tells us more about the bovine brain of the speaker than the subject itself. It is simultaneously too simplistic and irrelevant. Simplistic, because it mentions only one of innumerable influences. Irrelevant because these characters were not known for their pursuit of religious ideals

Pot and Stalin were rabid anti-religionists. Had Stalin been an admirable pioneer, say the inventor of a HIV vaccine, you would have laughed off any Christian who claimed that Christianity would have produced Stalin.

David raised it in the context of causality for their atrocities. To respond with your dumb statement, and subsequently claim you weren't trying to attribute blame is first rate idiocy