Re: Terry Jones- Burn the Quran day

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 01:53

vilkrang wrote:

There is a key difference though, none of the people you mention who commited genocide did it "in the name of atheism".

Oh, that's alright then eh ? Slaughter millions in the name of your beliefs and you're evil - slaughter them because of their beliefs and you're not ? My above post explains quite simply that religion is not responsible for a single death. Evil is evil .... end of. Why it's carried out is by the by.

Hitler was also a vegetarian, does that mean that vegetarianism promotes genocide? Of course not.

Your point being ?? What has this old chestnut got to do with anything? Nobody suggested such a thing. Please be serious.

It is however indisputable that many atrocities have been commited in the name of religion, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single example of genocide in the name of atheism.

I don't have to. See above.

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 02:37

Growler wrote:
vilkrang wrote:

There is a key difference though, none of the people you mention who commited genocide did it "in the name of atheism".

Oh, that's alright then eh ? Slaughter millions in the name of your beliefs and you're evil - slaughter them because of their beliefs and you're not ? My above post explains quite simply that religion is not responsible for a single death. Evil is evil .... end of. Why it's carried out is by the by.

Hitler was also a vegetarian, does that mean that vegetarianism promotes genocide? Of course not.

Your point being ?? What has this old chestnut got to do with anything? Nobody suggested such a thing. Please be serious.

It is however indisputable that many atrocities have been commited in the name of religion, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find a single example of genocide in the name of atheism.

I don't have to. See above.

I never justified genocide, you seem to be implying that I did. Of course the people who commited genocide are evil, but the fact they were atheists is completely incidental and did not motivate them to slaughter millions in any way. Some religious people have tried to justify evil actions through their religion though, the point I was trying to make was that just because an atheist commited genocide then that should not reflect badly on atheism.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

by PeterCS Sun 12 Sep 2010, 02:42

I was just wondering what the Ex-Python and peace activist had been drinking/smoking

by PlanetPakistan Sun 12 Sep 2010, 03:04

The One wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:regardless of a given situation you can almost guarantee that most Indian posters will have negative views of Muslims and will try to either defend or conceal the shortcomings of others.

oooo! biting. considering over 150 million indians are muslim

for the record i think all religions are sh!t. but by no means do i consider all are equally sh!t

There are not too many Indian Muslim posters either here, PP or ICF(although i have not visited that forum in a almost a year).
The point is that you are bias(not racist like buck but certainly very biased) which is why your views are VERY one sided and VERY predictable

by taipan Sun 12 Sep 2010, 08:15

Surprised there has been no mention of the proposed mosque near to the ground zero site.

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 11:26

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Vilks, are you being deliberately obtuse here ?

Granted - religious wars were carried out in the name of the religion, thats an obvious fact. The fact that the likes of Stalin didn't publicise his pogroms "in the name of atheism", then in what name do you think he carried them out? In the name of communism ? In the name of equality? Like Chistians, Muslims etc, he committed his evil deeds in the name of his beliefs.

I know you're not stupid, but to imply that religion makes good men commit evil acts is simply fatuous. It merely gives evil men a pretext for committing said evil.

Tell me though - if the fact atheists committed genocide means it shouldn't reflect badly on atheism, surely the same argument applies in the case of religious genocide. You look as though you want to have your cake and eat it - and not get fat either.

by Gary 111 Sun 12 Sep 2010, 11:40

A minor pedantic point, but Hitler was a Catholic.

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 11:47

Aye, he was Gary, but not even the most outspoken atheist has (at least to my knowledge) ever claimed his acts were motivated by his faith. His deeds certainly weren't the acts of a Christian - or any other believer for that matter.

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 11:49

Growler wrote:"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Vilks, are you being deliberately obtuse here ?

Granted - religious wars were carried out in the name of the religion, thats an obvious fact. The fact that the likes of Stalin didn't publicise his pogroms "in the name of atheism", then in what name do you think he carried them out? In the name of communism ? In the name of equality? Like Chistians, Muslims etc, he committed his evil deeds in the name of his beliefs.

I know you're not stupid, but to imply that religion makes good men commit evil acts is simply fatuous. It merely gives evil men a pretext for committing said evil.

Tell me though - if the fact atheists committed genocide means it shouldn't reflect badly on atheism, surely the same argument applies in the case of religious genocide. You look as though you want to have your cake and eat it - and not get fat either.

"are you being deliberately obtuse here?"

I could very well ask you the same question, there is a huge distinction between when someone or a group (al-qaeda for example) start a holy war in the name of their religion and when someone who happens to be an atheist commits genocide. The atheism in no way motivated them and is never used to try to justify their actions, whereas religion is the prime motivation and justification in a "holy war". It's a massive distinction.

If you look at the people who carried out the July 7th bombings in London you'll find that some of them were well respected in their community, one of them worked in a primary school. They genuinely believed that what they were doing was god's work, and could justify it with their faith. Now clearly they were misguided, but at first glance some of them didn't appear to be out and out evil men, but their faith in religion convinced them that it was ok to carry out the atrocities.

Religion is also responsible for holding back scientific growth, particularly in the United States, and even in England with the number of faith schools that there are these days.

Incidentally I don't mind debating this with you but your snide remarks are getting a little grating now so would appreciate if you just discussed the points without them.

by Allan D Sun 12 Sep 2010, 11:56

Uncle Joe dynamited churches and staged "anti-God" exhibitions as well as putting priests and believers in the gulags. I also noticed in the article I posted earlier about the Soviet persecution of Christians that Khruschev closed down 12000 churches and had a programme to send committed atheists round to believers' homes to convince them of the error of their ways.

Communists were not the first to enforce atheism by brute force. Once the Jacobins gained power in the French Revolution not only was religion abolished with thousands of Catholic priests going to the guillotine (they even wanted to pull down Notre Dame but it was reprieved to be re-dedicated to the worship of Reason - one of history's supreme irony bypasses) but they even tried to abolish Sunday by introducing a ten-day week.

This anti-clericalism provoked a backlash in the more devout provincial areas outside Paris, particularly Brittany, which was suppressed brutally.

An interesting aspect of the NY mosque/Islamic community centre controversy that appears to have been overlooked is the reluctance by the city authorities to allow the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox church which was destroyed in the 9/11 attack. Again the political elite appears to be bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims but totally indifferent, if not downright hostile, to the requests of Christians.

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 14:06

vilkrang wrote:
Growler wrote:"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Vilks, are you being deliberately obtuse here ?

Granted - religious wars were carried out in the name of the religion, thats an obvious fact. The fact that the likes of Stalin didn't publicise his pogroms "in the name of atheism", then in what name do you think he carried them out? In the name of communism ? In the name of equality? Like Chistians, Muslims etc, he committed his evil deeds in the name of his beliefs.

I know you're not stupid, but to imply that religion makes good men commit evil acts is simply fatuous. It merely gives evil men a pretext for committing said evil.

Tell me though - if the fact atheists committed genocide means it shouldn't reflect badly on atheism, surely the same argument applies in the case of religious genocide. You look as though you want to have your cake and eat it - and not get fat either.
"are you being deliberately obtuse here?"

I could very well ask you the same question, there is a huge distinction between when someone or a group (al-qaeda for example) start a holy war in the name of their religion and when someone who happens to be an atheist commits genocide. The atheism in no way motivated them and is never used to try to justify their actions, whereas religion is the prime motivation and justification in a "holy war". It's a massive distinction.

I've changed my mind - I'm beginning to think you are stupid as far as this debate is concerned. If Stalin's atheism wasn't his motivation for purging believers, I ask you again ... what was ? I'm not sure how I'm being obtuse as I've readily conceded the point about evil being committed in the name of religion. I condemn all evil equally, whoever carries it out, and for whatever reason. You're still persisting in saying that religious motivation is somehow worse.

If you look at the people who carried out the July 7th bombings in London you'll find that some of them were well respected in their community, one of them worked in a primary school. They genuinely believed that what they were doing was god's work, and could justify it with their faith. Now clearly they were misguided, but at first glance some of them didn't appear to be out and out evil men, but their faith in religion convinced them that it was ok to carry out the atrocities.

I've never disputed this point, so I don't know why you keep repeating it.

Religion is also responsible for holding back scientific growth, particularly in the United States, and even in England with the number of faith schools that there are these days.

Haven't read such tripe in ages. I have to say, I'm at a loss to see the connection between faith schools and scientific progress. Many people - of all faiths and none - are concerned about the implications of cloning, GM food and other such research which could be construed as "interfering with natures normal processes" so to speak. Religion hasn't stopped the boffins doing whatever they please. What evidence do you have for such a sweeping statement ?

Incidentally I don't mind debating this with you but your snide remarks are getting a little grating now so would appreciate if you just discussed the points without them.

I'm sorry that you don't like the style of my posting, and you'll find most posters - if asked - would agree that I'm not one to be deliberately offensive. Two replies on a thread grating suggests a skin like rizla paper - I thought you made of sterner stuff. Don't take it personal, after all what am I to you ..... an anonymous username on an internet forum - not someone who should have the power to spoil your day.

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 14:44

The problem is that people will condemn things such as cloning, GM food, growing meat in a vat and so on as against god's wishes and unnatural.

But the people that condemn it usually don't have a clue about it, they just believe what the media tell them, and the media don't understand science at all (in some cases deliberately misrepresent it). Neither, in my general experience, do most religious believers.

You can't stop progress or research and you can be damn sure that the military will be researching the hell out of everything for weapons anyway, so the benefits must be reaped. The cries from religion and the media are an irrelevancy. You wouldn't ask a journalist to fix your car, so why ask them about science?

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 15:10

No arguments with the general thrust of your argument Clam - but you don't deny there are plenty of people with no religious faith who are uneasy about the things I mentioned? They don't invoke God, but still have a gut feeling it's wrond and/or dangerous territory.

I think you do a huge dis-service to many believers when you say they don't understand science ... many do, and many scientists are believers. Religion and science are not incompatible.

Also, you must be aware that scientists get it wrong, sometimes on a grand scale. Thalidomide is one of the best examples. Then look at food ..... if we believe the tefal-heads, everything is bad for us - until a new lot of research suggests that, actually, that same food may be beneficial after all. They're always changing their minds. A journalist doesn't need to understand the science to report " the conclusion of this research suggests x, y or z.

You're absolutely right about the military too - but again - we go into questionable territory. I may be wrong, but I believe that, after the attacks on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Robert Oppenheimer himself questioned what he'd unleashed - he knew that in the wrong hands, his creation really could destroy the earth and mankind as we know it.

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 15:43

Growler wrote:No arguments with the general thrust of your argument Clam - but you don't deny there are plenty of people with no religious faith who are uneasy about the things I mentioned? They don't invoke God, but still have a gut feeling it's wrond and/or dangerous territory.

I think you do a huge dis-service to many believers when you say they don't understand science ... many do, and many scientists are believers. Religion and science are not incompatible.

Also, you must be aware that scientists get it wrong, sometimes on a grand scale. Thalidomide is one of the best examples. Then look at food ..... if we believe the tefal-heads, everything is bad for us - until a new lot of research suggests that, actually, that same food may be beneficial after all. They're always changing their minds. A journalist doesn't need to understand the science to report " the conclusion of this research suggests x, y or z.

You're absolutely right about the military too - but again - we go into questionable territory. I may be wrong, but I believe that, after the attacks on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Robert Oppenheimer himself questioned what he'd unleashed - he knew that in the wrong hands, his creation really could destroy the earth and mankind as we know it.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

I wasn't accusing every believer of scientific ignorance by any means, and I agree for the most part that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible. I was using a sweeping generalisation, I know, but it is at least partly true.

I'm very aware that scientists get it wrong all the time. In fact a good scientist would be mostly happy for his work to be proven wrong because the goal is not personal glory. And a good scientist would then retract his paper and start working on a new one, recognising the flaws in his first and improving it. The thalidomide issue was an interesting one because that played a huge part in ensuring proper clinical trials on new drugs. This is why new drugs now take years of development and proving (all justified, of course). And things like the Cochrane Collaboration help too.

People have the impression that science is about sweeping statements from experts/authority figures, but it's not at all, it's consensus (Cochrane Collaboration style). Journalists also have no idea how to read a scientific paper and appraise it's qualities (eg. blinding, randomisation etc.) and reading the conclusion isn't how you get the results. That's just someone's opinion; the meat of a paper is the result.

Studies on food are notoriously unreliable. Take the red wine thing for example. On the face of it, studies say that it is good for you in moderation. But it could also be that those people who regularly drink red wine are richer and thus live in a better area, have a better diet, and a better standard of living, which will inevitably make it appear that there is a beneficial effect. It can also be very revealing who funded a study. Drugs companies are notorious for doing things like using completely inappropriate statistical tools, comparing things against a placebo (waste of time in certain circumstances), not bothering to blind, not bothering to randomise, not bothering to write a proper method, sampling too few people, ignoring people who drop out etc. etc. Thank god they can't advertise straight to the public!

They aren't quite as bad as TV advert surveys "67% of 15 people agreed" (that if you give them a free razor it will cut your beard), but some of them aren't far off!

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 15:46

Growler wrote:No arguments with the general thrust of your argument Clam - but you don't deny there are plenty of people with no religious faith who are uneasy about the things I mentioned? They don't invoke God, but still have a gut feeling it's wrond and/or dangerous territory.
.

Forgot this bit!

Agreed that many people are uneasy about these kind of things. In some cases with good reason eg. releasing genes for antibiotic resistance into the wild would be a spectacularly bad idea. But this will all inevitably be researched by people and it's better to have it regulated than have it all occur in a shady backstreet underground lab.

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:00

Clamson wrote:

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

I wasn't accusing every believer of scientific ignorance by any means, and I agree for the most part that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible. I was using a sweeping generalisation, I know, but it is at least partly true.

I'm very aware that scientists get it wrong all the time. In fact a good scientist would be mostly happy for his work to be proven wrong because the goal is not personal glory. And a good scientist would then retract his paper and start working on a new one, recognising the flaws in his first and improving it. The thalidomide issue was an interesting one because that played a huge part in ensuring proper clinical trials on new drugs. This is why new drugs now take years of development and proving (all justified, of course). And things like the Cochrane Collaboration help too.

People have the impression that science is about sweeping statements from experts/authority figures, but it's not at all, it's consensus (Cochrane Collaboration style). Journalists also have no idea how to read a scientific paper and appraise it's qualities (eg. blinding, randomisation etc.) and reading the conclusion isn't how you get the results. That's just someone's opinion; the meat of a paper is the result.

Studies on food are notoriously unreliable. Take the red wine thing for example. On the face of it, studies say that it is good for you in moderation. But it could also be that those people who regularly drink red wine are richer and thus live in a better area, have a better diet, and a better standard of living, which will inevitably make it appear that there is a beneficial effect. It can also be very revealing who funded a study. Drugs companies are notorious for doing things like using completely inappropriate statistical tools, comparing things against a placebo (waste of time in certain circumstances), not bothering to blind, not bothering to randomise, not bothering to write a proper method, sampling too few people, ignoring people who drop out etc. etc. Thank god they can't advertise straight to the public!

They aren't quite as bad as TV advert surveys "67% of 15 people agreed" (that if you give them a free razor it will cut your beard), but some of them aren't far off!

They're great aren't they ?

100% of my sons (all one of them) agree that I'm a good bloke Very Happy

100% of my ex-wives (all one of them) think I'm a useless dickhead.

Surely they can't both be right ........

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:10

They can if you do actually have a penis growing out of your head!

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:10

Clamson wrote:
Growler wrote:No arguments with the general thrust of your argument Clam - but you don't deny there are plenty of people with no religious faith who are uneasy about the things I mentioned? They don't invoke God, but still have a gut feeling it's wrond and/or dangerous territory.
.

Forgot this bit!

Agreed that many people are uneasy about these kind of things. In some cases with good reason eg. releasing genes for antibiotic resistance into the wild would be a spectacularly bad idea. But this will all inevitably be researched by people and it's better to have it regulated than have it all occur in a shady backstreet underground lab.

That's the scary bit ....... an accident of some kind which lets the genie from the bottle. I'm thinking (admittedly not an exact analogy, but close enough to show my point) of the leak of foot & mouth virus from the government lab at Pirbright only three years ago.

Hard to imagine much worse than a boffin developing a biological weapon with the contagion of flu and the persistance of anthrax, and that particular nasty escaping the test tube.

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:11

Clamson wrote:They can if you do actually have a penis growing out of your head!

cheeky bugger !! ( I don't actually BTW )

by taipan Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:19

Growler wrote:
Clamson wrote:They can if you do actually have a penis growing out of your head!

cheeky bugger !! ( I don't actually BTW )

You aren't really a pom?

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:24

Growler wrote:

That's the scary bit ....... an accident of some kind which lets the genie from the bottle. I'm thinking (admittedly not an exact analogy, but close enough to show my point) of the leak of foot & mouth virus from the government lab at Pirbright only three years ago.

Hard to imagine much worse than a boffin developing a biological weapon with the contagion of flu and the persistance of anthrax, and that particular nasty escaping the test tube.

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't be comfortable with the government regulating these things. It would have to be a third party regulatory body. It wouldn;t surprise me at all if the military were working on something like you describe though.

Anthrax spores are incredible things really. Other bacteria are more dangerous, but like you say the persistence of anthrax spores is amazing.

by Growler Sun 12 Sep 2010, 16:46

taipan wrote:
Growler wrote:
Clamson wrote:They can if you do actually have a penis growing out of your head!

cheeky bugger !! ( I don't actually BTW )

You aren't really a pom?

Ouch !

by Guest Sun 12 Sep 2010, 18:01

Growler wrote:
vilkrang wrote:
Growler wrote:"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Vilks, are you being deliberately obtuse here ?

Granted - religious wars were carried out in the name of the religion, thats an obvious fact. The fact that the likes of Stalin didn't publicise his pogroms "in the name of atheism", then in what name do you think he carried them out? In the name of communism ? In the name of equality? Like Chistians, Muslims etc, he committed his evil deeds in the name of his beliefs.

I know you're not stupid, but to imply that religion makes good men commit evil acts is simply fatuous. It merely gives evil men a pretext for committing said evil.

Tell me though - if the fact atheists committed genocide means it shouldn't reflect badly on atheism, surely the same argument applies in the case of religious genocide. You look as though you want to have your cake and eat it - and not get fat either.
"are you being deliberately obtuse here?"

I could very well ask you the same question, there is a huge distinction between when someone or a group (al-qaeda for example) start a holy war in the name of their religion and when someone who happens to be an atheist commits genocide. The atheism in no way motivated them and is never used to try to justify their actions, whereas religion is the prime motivation and justification in a "holy war". It's a massive distinction.

I've changed my mind - I'm beginning to think you are stupid as far as this debate is concerned. If Stalin's atheism wasn't his motivation for purging believers, I ask you again ... what was ? I'm not sure how I'm being obtuse as I've readily conceded the point about evil being committed in the name of religion. I condemn all evil equally, whoever carries it out, and for whatever reason. You're still persisting in saying that religious motivation is somehow worse.

If you look at the people who carried out the July 7th bombings in London you'll find that some of them were well respected in their community, one of them worked in a primary school. They genuinely believed that what they were doing was god's work, and could justify it with their faith. Now clearly they were misguided, but at first glance some of them didn't appear to be out and out evil men, but their faith in religion convinced them that it was ok to carry out the atrocities.

I've never disputed this point, so I don't know why you keep repeating it.

Religion is also responsible for holding back scientific growth, particularly in the United States, and even in England with the number of faith schools that there are these days.

Haven't read such tripe in ages. I have to say, I'm at a loss to see the connection between faith schools and scientific progress. Many people - of all faiths and none - are concerned about the implications of cloning, GM food and other such research which could be construed as "interfering with natures normal processes" so to speak. Religion hasn't stopped the boffins doing whatever they please. What evidence do you have for such a sweeping statement ?

Incidentally I don't mind debating this with you but your snide remarks are getting a little grating now so would appreciate if you just discussed the points without them.

I'm sorry that you don't like the style of my posting, and you'll find most posters - if asked - would agree that I'm not one to be deliberately offensive. Two replies on a thread grating suggests a skin like rizla paper - I thought you made of sterner stuff. Don't take it personal, after all what am I to you ..... an anonymous username on an internet forum - not someone who should have the power to spoil your day.

Ah, I think I mis-read one of your quotes with regards to Stalin. I wasn't aware that he sluaghtered millions of people for a belief in god, if that's true then I will have to claim ignorance on that point.

My statement with regards to science was perhaps a tad sweeping, however I don't think that it's too big a leap to suggest that having creationism taught to children from a young age will hinder their trust and enthusiasm in science.

I do agree that religion and science can co-exist on some level, I'm assuming you are not a creationist as you seem intelligent enough, and whilst creationism and science are too diametrically opposed to ever get along I have known people in my family who take the view that evolution and the big bang are part of god's plan and not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. I heard Dawkins say that this was just fence sitting but I think he is being a little harsh here.

And on your last point, I don't take it personally dude, and I laughed at the suggestion that it ruined my day, but if you have to be a dick when you are debating then I'd rather not is all, plenty of other places to go!

by Growler Mon 13 Sep 2010, 01:42

Vilks

Para 1 ..... thank you, and I'll forgive your ignorance this time Smile

. Hence my dig about you being obtuse - it really did seem as though you were deliberately missing the point.

It's pretty well documented that the Russian Orthodox Church was a huge institution before the revolution. The Communist regime separated church and state, thus reducing its power and influence. Whilst religion was never expressly outlawed, church property was confiscated or destroyed, and believers were harassed, persecuted, imprisoned or indeed executed. Under Stalin, the number of churches fell from 29,000+ to fewer than 500. Whilst it's true that he did "revive" the church following the Nazi invasion of 1941, this was simply a matter of political expediency. He understood that it would probably encourage greater patriotic support for the war effort - since it was revived in name only and was never granted any real influence.

Para 2 ...... we all make sweeping statements, no worries. As for the teaching of creationism hindering youngsters trust and enthusiasm in science, I can't agree. I don't think it put people off in the past, when RE was a central part of the school curriculum. Now, its generally only faith schools which teach "old-style" RE. Whilst it's true enough that science courses have lost a degree in popularity in recent years, I suggest that's down to students having far greater choice of subject (especially at university), many of which are far less taxing on the brain, and far easier to attain a pass in. As religion seems to be declining in popularity I can't really see that as a reason for fewer people going into science.

Para 3 ..... I'm flattered that you credit me with some degree of intelligence, but I have to say you're wrong again ..... I am a creationist. When you concede that science and religion can co-exist to an extent, I believe the extent is much greater than you think. Forgive me for plagiarising a few lines from something I read last week, but it explains what I'm trying to say better than I ever could in my own words ...... ( he's an Oxford Professor of Maths, so far cleverer than I )

Quite simply, it's not a choice between the two. Many people confuse law with agency. God and his creation, or the laws of nature? By the same token .... Sir Frank Whittle, or the laws of physics? It's a confusion of category, since while the laws of physics explain how the jet engine works, somebody had to create the thing - build it, fuel it, and fire it up - laws themselves couldn't do that. Although he needed knowledge of the laws of physics, the task of actually bringing the jet engine into being needed the genius of Sir Frank as its agent. You can see what I'm getting at ?

To me, the universe was built to a rational, intelligent design. You may disagree, but to me, faith in a divine creator makes perfect scientific sense - I just can't imagine that the univeral laws of nature are a result of random lucky co-incidences.

Para 4 ....... Touche, I guess I deserved that.

I know I can be a sarky bugger at times - please don't let it put you off sparring with me. There are few enough of us prepared to spout bollox on here, so I'd hate for you to avoid me. You seem pretty well read in comparison with many of your age group I know, and you're certainly not stupid.

Your whole post looks like an olive branch - one which I'll gladly accept.

by doremi Mon 13 Sep 2010, 02:03

Allan D wrote:More people have died or been thrust into abject misery as a result of Karl Marx' Das Kapital. Maybe we should throw that on the bonfire too.

*sh!t*.

Allan D wrote:After all, it's not as if Muslims ever burn the Bible:

Yeah well that makes it alright then.

Merlin wrote:This becomes a highly amusing thread when reading the gems written by those who worship elephant gods, the long-bow wielding Rama and Sita, Kali the killer god and numerous other gods to represent the various castes - then cast scorn and (albeit humourously - I would hope) suggest the burning of both the Bible and the Koran ...

Ain't religion fun .......

It would have been an amusing thread if that had happened. Oh, I see what you have done, you know me and TO are from India and automatically assumed we (or atleast one of us) are hindu. Nice one.

PlanetPakistan wrote:
Merlin wrote:This becomes a highly amusing thread when reading the gems written by those who worship elephant gods, the long-bow wielding Rama and Sita, Kali the killer god and numerous other gods to represent the various castes - then cast scorn and (albeit humourously - I would hope) suggest the burning of both the Bible and the Koran ...

Ain't religion fun .......
regardless of a given situation you can almost guarantee that most Indian posters will have negative views of Muslims and will try to either defend or conceal the shortcomings of others.

Lets take TO for instance who seems like a fairly level headed guy but when discussing issues like the middle east conflict or this current issue he will try to defend the other party. In this particular instance its quite clear that he is ignoring the CRUX of the thread(racist pastor) and is busy posting lame cartoons.
p.s admitedly the point of muslim/christian army is very valid

That is unfair PP. Though I agree Vikas' views may have flirted with the danger line, I really can't remember any other regular indian poster here spouting negative views on muslims. SG has a Pak issue which in no way equates to a muslim issue. TO being on the Israel side of the gaza issue does not prove he has 'negative' views on muslims, the same as me supporting the rights of the people of the other side does not make me an Islam lover.

by Sponsored content