₦airaland Forum

I did a little research on Flew's conversion and apparently he - [b]not [/b]a lifelong atheist - 'converted' to deism. Quite different than the belief in a divine creator. Anyway, here are some articles on Flew and his conversion:

Wikipedia on Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew
A critique on the arguments Flew used to motivate his conversion: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333347/posts

@ nikinash
Oh I just like to debate and I'm passionate about some subjects. I would rather say that would indicate that I would very easily fall over and be mushy

@ nikinash
Why are you pleasantly surprised

@ lioness

I appologise for being too frank and sounding off rude. It's calling a spade a spade and I am sorry because it is certainly not my intention to offend you.
I stand by what I said, but you really do not need to read more into it than that. It does not imply anything whatsoever about your qualities as a human being, only that you shut yourself off from this specific knowledge.

lioness:
Whats this supposed to mean Nferyn

Exactly what it reads.
I try to learn and understand opinions that differ from mine, you do not seem to seek that kind of knowledge.

Can you tell us a little more about what made him change his mind. The article is very unclear

Ralex:
@nferyn

1) Well you're right there, American companies are one thing but what of Shell and the rest and their double standards

No doubt about that, but due to the structure of multi-national corporations, they act a-morally at best, immorally at worst. I certainly do not put European businesses at a higher moral plane than American ones. It's the difference in core societal values I'm talking about. Might (money) makes right is much more accepted in the US than it is in most of Europe.

Ralex:
2 & 3) In as much as the freedom of free speechis essential, is it not obvious that it does not apply everywhere and each region should be treated in such ways as to meet their own standards. Is it right to use measures applicable to one region to apply to another region?!

I find this actually quite simple. Within most European countries, the freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed. Even if the government would want to impose censorship, they do not have the legal means to do so. Within Europe, nobody has the right to ask for censorship, if somebody wants such a thing, they should try to change the respective constitutions through the parliamentary process. I doubt they will have much traction, though.
The fact remains that those Muslim groups try to impose their value system on the rest of society. It's not as if they are forced to draw offensive pictures of Muhammed themselves, is it? Europeans decided that freedom of speech is important to them, they're not on a quest (a crusade, I might say) to bring democracy to those Muslim countries. To be honest Europe is still recovering mentally and morally from past attempts in that direction.

Ralex:
I agree with u that it shows bad taste but they passed up several chances to make amends when it was local before it went international because the Danish muslims first complained and asked for retraction, Had they regarded them with any form of respect at all it would have been retracted.

Sorry to call a spade a spade, but I find that bullshit. That Danish newspaper was quite hypocritical, but that does not mean that amends needed to be made, on the contrary. The moment those protests became violent, I would rather have expected the opposite.
Respect is usually a cover-up for appeasement and thought control. What exectly deserved respect here?

Ralex:
To say "I do not know that this offends u much, I will not do it again " Is not a sign of weakness or lack of free speech either
European countries took the stance to protect themselves against a " deliberate attack at one of the core values of contemporary European society" should they not also have extended that courtesy to the Islamic world at large?

They didn't even start by trying to explain how offensive it was, but rather first called for censorship and only after they heard it fell on deaf ears did they try to explain the reason why it was so offensive to them. And the moment those Danish Imams went to campaign in the Muslim world, it indeed became an attack on free speech. There was one Jordanian person they interviewed during those protests. He was saying that he couldn't believe that the Danish government was so weak that they even couldn't shut up a meagre newspaper. That's shows the complete lack of understanding of how European society works.

Wht courtesy are you talking about exactly?

Ralex:
The moderate moslems of Europe do not understand free speech because it is embebed in their pysche and unpbring to be carefull of uterances. We should respect that.
(nferyn I like your response sha u and charlisco r the only ones responding intelligently)

Why should we respect that. I agree that much more needs to be done to educate these people on the functioning of European societies, but they chose to immigrate after all. I doubt the same tolerance would be exhibited if Europeans in those Middle Eastern countries would ask for respect for their values in the same manner?

lioness:
Not interested, i guard my heart against what i read.

Self-imposed ignorance. So sad

About Tai Solarin:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/Tai_Solarin.html

Well worth a read, even for the religiously inclined

Ralex:
@ To everyone

My beef is with the STUPID DANISH PEOPLE AND THE TWO FACED EUROPEANS. Google, Aol, MSN, yahoo (Though all American companies but they are global as well) and a host of others censor chinese search materials in order to pacify the chinese and gain access to their enormous market and yet they can't respect the simple wish of a religious people and censor such carton out of their papers.

Ralex, I felt I had to answer here, because I think you do not fully understand the European context.
1. Europe and the US are very different. Do not talk about European attitudes and refer to US business practices as an example
2. The freedom of press, speech and opinion are essential in the functioning of western democracies. Nobody in Europe is going to accept censorship
3. Even though the publishing of those cartoons showed bad taste and a lack of respect for muslim sensibilities, it is still protected as free speech.
4. Under the guise of communalism, there is a tendence amongst some muslims in Europe to impose their cultural values, especially concerning clothing, the position of women, etc on overall society. As a woman, you should try to walk in normal summer clothes in a Muslim neighborhood in Brussels. You may be in physical danger.
5. Those same people went to the Middle East to incite the Muslim leadership. Those impopular, non-democratic regimes orchestrated those protest as it could take away the focus of their own failing policies.
6. After those protests and the completely disproportionate reactions, European countries had no choice but to oppose any form of censorship. This was no longer about the lack of sensitivity of a Danish newspaper, but about the deliberate attack at one of the core values of contemporary European society. A line had to be drawn.

Ralex:
The problem with the Europenas is they have refused to correctly evaluate the Islamic religion. It will not go away! it is here to stay. It is a fact of life. Their teaching is not all violence though some part of the Koran could be misinterpreted to preach violence. The Europenas easily dismiss them as fanatics and yes they are fanatics but the attitude of the Europeans only give those minor few who forment troblue reason to unleash violence and cause troblue they make it difficult for the moderate ones among them to get following.

This is not about correctly evaluating Islam, this is about a tendency to go back to a soft form of theocracy (a very touchy subject in Europe). Religious feelings and sensibilities that trump free speech is something that is never going to be accepted in Europe and it shouldn't be tolerated at all.
The moderate muslims in Europe, even though they oppose the violent reactions, still don't understand the importance of free speech in an open democratic society. By calling for censorship, they have put themselves in a marginal position within Europe. As long as these people do not allow criticism and especially self-criticism things are not going to improve.

bettyboop,
Do you feel uncomfortable if people are expressing opinions different than yours?
It is quite obvious that people argue and try to present their points of view as clearly as possible. It is sadening that what you probably consider to be the ultimate truth cannot be questioned. Is your faith/religion so weak that it cannot withstand any open criticism.

Your implicit attribution of wickedness to non-religious people is uncalled for.

prettyH,

As the PM's don't work anymore, I'll use this channel to communicate. I haven't sent you the mp3's yet because I borrowed out my CD and haven't received it back yet. I'll send them to you the moment I have my Cd back

cya

Ajisafe:
Yep, Nferyn. Ironic.

I wonder why you choose these words and why you even speak to me, I'm not even dhimmi (I hope I spelled that right )

Ajisafe:
Are you going to argue with me concerning my faith? And what dictionary are you referring to? The one written by the kufars like yourself? Please, we are Muslim! Never a "Moslem."

You know, Ajisafe, that the white South-African racist have approriated your muslim word kufar and use it against black South-Africans. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

chrisd:
Some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis to the mechanisms of evolution, but not to the fact of evolution. Evolutionary concepts are used to treat cancer, but all biblical concept have not been applied to any practical use. So there's no point to them. Speak of facts, never mind the rhetoric.

The only level at which the modern sysnthesis is challenged today is the level at which gradulaism works (e.g. through the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria) and the mechanisms by which genetic information influences development and thus whether or not gradulualism needs to be taken to the extreme, more precisely the role of regulatory genes in development that could have a bigger impact that extreme gradualism would suggest (not all genes are equal, small differences in genotype may have a big effect in the phenotype)

chrisd:
That was not freedom of speech.

Oh no? And what was it then?

chrisd:
That was made to make the muslim world react.

They published those cartoons because the author of a children's book abou the life of Muhammed could not find one person to illustrate his book. Whether or not that's a good reson is debatable ,but they were expressing an opinion and it was not primarily targeted at a muslim audience.

chrisd:
Freedom of speech is not putting those cartoons.

Now you have to explain that.

chrisd:
And those reactions were out of proportion according to non-muslims.

I honestly don't care according to whom they were out of proportion. Killing people and torching embassies because of the publishing of cartoons is out of proprtion to anybody but lunatics.

chrisd:
But it was not to non-muslims that they were addressed.

Really? On the basis of whatdo you make that statement? And even if it was targeted at muslims, does that mean they are no longer free speech?

chrisd:
If it was an article about some aspect of Islam I would have understood that, but for those who put the cartoons was not about freedom of speech but as a joke. Never understood the context of those cartoons. Other published those catoons too, but for me it was not a courageous thing to do, was just stupid and silly. That was why you got such commotion.

Even silly and stupid speech is protected. You better inform yourself about the context.

Do you actually care about the functioning of democracy?

IAH:
Well since you have thought it over, why not tell us the consequences you have thought over? Remember we are talking voluntary abortion here, so don't give examples of the medically adviced ones.

Why would you exclude medical reasons?

One possible example: during a civil war a woman gets raped by the man who butchered her husband and her other children.
Another possible example: a single woman is pregnant. Two weeks after she finds out she's pregnant she loses her job
Another one: A retarded woman gets pregnant. She lives in an institution and can't take care of herself.

I think you can figure out what the consequences are of aborting or not aborting.

For an insightful debate on the topic where the two opposing positions are very eloquently explained:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=88699

[quote author=4-1-94ever link=topic=3833.msg213317#msg213317 date=1140228270]Is it just me, or am i really smelling burning flesh?? [/quote]If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen

4get_me,
Whether or not you consider skeptics to be dismissing contradictory information, you are not enirely correct in your view. Skeptics do not make claims of origins of certain phenomena unless there is sufficient positive evidence for their source. In case of unexplainable phenomena, the answer is usually along the lines of I don't know or I need more information. Very different from positive claims about the source of phenomena without evidence.
I don't really understand this sentence:
[quote author=4get_me link=topic=6961.msg213261#msg213261 date=1140223124]I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.[/quote]Can you explain?

I'm too lazy for a long argument, so you'll have to stick with the short version without the notes and references.

The qualities men and women posses are not distributed among their populations in similar manners. There are much more extremes among men. If you would look at all truly exceptionally intelligent people, you'll see far more men than women (even after smoothing out the consequences of unequal opportunity). On the other hand, there are also far more extremely dumb men than women. The retard women are far and in between. To find retard men though, you don't have to look very far

Does this mean anything for the individul? No, absolutely not. There are no levels of achievement (except physical ones) that are unattainable for women and the same goes for men, of course.

IAH:
Well, you and I know the circumstance we are talking about here.

Actually I don't. If you're talking about abortion, there can be many reasons why a woman would choose abortion and thus many circumstances under which that decision is taken.

IAH:
And you know it can never be wrong to give life, except you don't believe in potentials. What consequences could there possibly be in giving LIFE?

I don't know if it can never be wrong. If by allowing a potential life to become a real life you significantly endanger the existence or quality of already existing life, you could definitely call that wrong. If you actually think there are no consequences to bringing a child to term, then you haven't thought it over. I would rather think you're using rhetorical tricks here though

4get_me,

You made me think over Weinberg's quote again. You are right that Religion is not the necessary factor for good people to do evil things. Other motives can also make good people do evil things.
That does not mean that religion is not one of the most potent motivators for good people to do evil things. One of the main characteristics of the monotheistic revelatory religions is the reliance on faith, i.e. belief based on prior assumptions of truth who are closed from rational and scientific scrutiny.
All people undergo the psychological process of dealing with cognitive dissonance. It is a natural human trait to either discard or encapsulate contradictory information instead of changing already held prior conceptions. It takes a conscient effort to take a critical and skeptic stand, as it does not come naturally to humans.
Religious thought, by it's reliance on faith, feeds the natural human tendency of dismissing contradictory information. Religion, being one of the main elements that can give people's life purpose, is very resilient to contradictory information, even if the evidence is radically stacked against those [i]truths [/i]of religion.

Now concerning those people at Enron and in similar cases, you cannot possibly make the case that they were good. Unless of course that they, by being in support of the Christian Right in the US, are good by definition. Anyway, I enjoy your thoughtful contributions and would be very surprised if you held such primitive beliefs.

IAH:
Nferyn, if you had power to either let something insignificant grow to become siginificant OR let it fizzle out. Which would you rather do?

That really depends on the circumstances. What would the consequences be of letting it become significant and what would the consequences be of [b]not [/b]leting it become significant? There are no absolutes in life, it's all about choices and consequences and how to weigh them against each other.

[quote author=4-1-94ever link=topic=6207.msg213099#msg213099 date=1140213357]I give up men, but just don't go about preaching that, ok?[/quote]Preaching what exactly? That abortion is not a black-or-white issue? It isn't.

chrisd:
Well, if it was not for the cartoons there would have not been problems right. I don't think many people understand international relations, especially people in the media and journalists.

What are you saying? That appeasement is the answer to these threaths?
Those cartoons have been published. The act of publishing these cartoons showed bad taste. The reaction to the publishing was completely out of proprtion. Nothing can justify that kind of behaviour. After those violent protests, many western media decided to publish these cartoons in the name of the freedom of press. It was a courageous thing to do. The line had to be drawn. Tolerance and tact towards other cultures and religions can only go that far. There were calls for censorship and that is absolutely unacceptable.

Freedom of speech and opinion is [b]fundamental [/b]to the functioning of a democracy. I don't care if it makes international relations more difficult.