Quran Burning

Status
Not open for further replies.

j156ghs

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
62
Location (City and/or State)
Vail Colorado
Yeah, but, burning the U.S. flag is free speech? Putting a Christian statute in urine or feces is art and free speech -- and publicly funded? Time magaine once had a cover (in the '70s) about God being dead. Have they ever had a cover story about Allah being dead? Ha!

Patricia Schroeder, a crazed socialist, heads the American Publishers Association the last I read; she is the head book-burner today. You just don't see the millions of books that don't considered or published because of their partisan control. Schroder was the congresswoman from Denver who helped to destroy the military and most civil rights under the guise of protecting our rights. Like most of her Marxist ilk, she uses phony charges (usually involving some feminist illogic) and third-grade name calling. As Soviet socialist icon Vladimir Lenin said, "You don't engage your political opponents in debate. You destroy them, you wipe them from the face of the earth."

Your attitude evolved from the same people but they told you thing like, "I might disagree with you but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." Well, they lied until they got control and now they are coming for you, just as they once came for the Jews. We are not taught history so that we will be doomed to repeat it. Marxists have the Big Lie theory; Western civil rights leaders say the truth will set you free.

Neal Butler said:
http://www.ktar.com/category/us-new...h-rebuffs-military-concerns-on-Quran-burning/

I think this is pretty disgusting. I was and still am upset about the 9/11 attacks, but I don't think this is an appropriate response. This is a Christian organization; Christ commanded us to love one another no matter what basically and I think this is the complete opposite.

There is a quote in the article by General Patraeus - "images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan- and around the world- to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

I really hope this guy reconsiders. Clearly it will do more harm than anything and place our troops in Afghanistan in a much more difficult position.

Any thoughts to the contrary?
 

Yourlocalpoet

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
526
Location (City and/or State)
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
TylerStewart said:
Yourlocalpoet said:
If you did think critically about religion you would conclude that religious belief is irrational, that is all I'm saying, you seem to take offence at this and I don't know why. I have an irrational fear of spiders, it's not a bad thing, (or maybe in my case it is) nevertheless it's still irrational.

I think critically about religion, very critically, and I don't see it as irrational at all. Much about religion is faith-based. I don't need hard facts to confirm what I believe. If someone thinks it's irrational, that's their own opinion and isn't going to change mine. I've had several pretty significant events happen in my life that confirmed to me that my religious beliefs are on the right track.

How critical is critical though? (I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm genuinely interested) What about Jesus being born from a virgin mother, or his raising Lazarus from the dead, Noah and his ark, or the world being less than 10,000 years old? (These are things that a few of my friends believe in) For me, if I was to believe in these things that belief would be irrational because they would be beliefs that lack logic.
Yes I agree much of religion is faith based, but isn't that what faith is, a belief that is held in spite of reason or logic? The reason I think religious belief is irrational is because rationality holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, and religious belief isn't, it's held mostly as you say by faith, something which requires no hard evidence.
I'm afraid I do need fact and evidence in order to be persuaded of something, or rather to weigh up the evidence and make my own decision based on that evidence and I am in no way suggesting that you need to change your opinion, nor would I ever try to. I'm just unsure why saying people hold irrational or illogical beliefs is offensive, many religious people I know acknowledge that their beliefs are irrational because in light of the contradictory evidence they still would not part with them.
 

Neal

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,967
Location (City and/or State)
Arizona
Len said:
WHATEVER,, The decision to burn or not to burn may be made by the Local Fire Marshall.

The local fire marshall in this case has denied a burn permit, or whatever is required. He has been assured by a lawyer that he has nothing to worry about because he has the right of free speach.
 

chadk

Active Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,601
Yourlocalpoet said:
How critical is critical though?

VERY critical. It is in my nature to question and challenge things. Nothing is spoon fed to me. In fact, many old timers on this board get frustrated with me when I question their experience and methods for tort husbandry. You can tell me something, but I like to understand the "why" behind it before I can accept it.

I know of many intelligent and educated aetheists and agnostics who were very critical and challenging of Christianity, only to become Christians at some point. Too many expamples to list.

Yourlocalpoet said:
I'm afraid I do need fact and evidence in order to be persuaded of something, or rather to weigh up the evidence and make my own decision based on that evidence and I am in no way suggesting that you need to change your opinion, nor would I ever try to. I'm just unsure why saying people hold irrational or illogical beliefs is offensive, many religious people I know acknowledge that their beliefs are irrational because in light of the contradictory evidence they still would not part with them.

Actually, the initial word used that started this was "insane" and it was later toned down to "irrational"...

"contradictory evidence" does not equate to absolute proof. For example, I can give you all kinds of contradictory evidence for man caused global warming. But if you strongly believe in man caused global warming and have your own sources of info that support its, who is being irrational? (not trying to start a debate on global warming, just an example... don't start in with 'scientific consensus' because that is still not absolute truth - consensus can change over time as more data comes out).
 

Yourlocalpoet

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
526
Location (City and/or State)
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
chadk said:
Yourlocalpoet said:
How critical is critical though?

VERY critical. It is in my nature to question and challenge things. Nothing is spoon fed to me. In fact, many old timers on this board get frustrated with me when I question their experience and methods for tort husbandry. You can tell me something, but I like to understand the "why" behind it before I can accept it.

It seems that were coming from opposite directions then, I'm not interested in the 'why's' of something, I don't think that everything that happens needs to have a reason or agenda, I'm more concerned with 'how' things happen.

I know of many intelligent and educated aetheists and agnostics who were very critical and challenging of Christianity, only to become Christians at some point. Too many expamples to list.

Why do you think that is?

Yourlocalpoet said:
I'm afraid I do need fact and evidence in order to be persuaded of something, or rather to weigh up the evidence and make my own decision based on that evidence and I am in no way suggesting that you need to change your opinion, nor would I ever try to. I'm just unsure why saying people hold irrational or illogical beliefs is offensive, many religious people I know acknowledge that their beliefs are irrational because in light of the contradictory evidence they still would not part with them.

Actually, the initial word used that started this was "insane" and it was later toned down to "irrational"...

I didn't use the word insane though it was another poster.

"contradictory evidence" does not equate to absolute proof. For example, I can give you all kinds of contradictory evidence for man caused global warming. But if you strongly believe in man caused global warming and have your own sources of info that support its, who is being irrational? (not trying to start a debate on global warming, just an example... don't start in with 'scientific consensus' because that is still not absolute truth - consensus can change over time as more data comes out).

Okay, but you've kind of just confirmed what I've been saying, strongly believing in something because I had my own sources of information that support it would never happen to me, it is you that has strongly held personal beliefs, I'm an empiricist, I would look at the empirical evidence of the two sides of the argument and then conclude with the one with the most empirical evidence to support it. (the explanation with the least probability, namely the least amount of evidence would be the irrational one.)
 

TylerStewart

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,062
Location (City and/or State)
Las Vegas, NV.
Newsflash

They just called off the scheduled burning. Anybody else curious how long it will take for 500 teenage boys to burn one now and put it on YouTube?
 

dmmj

The member formerly known as captain awesome
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
19,698
Location (City and/or State)
CA
2 nano seconds
 

chadk

Active Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,601
Yourlocalpoet said:
Okay, but you've kind of just confirmed what I've been saying, strongly believing in something because I had my own sources of information that support it would never happen to me, it is you that has strongly held personal beliefs, I'm an empiricist, I would look at the empirical evidence of the two sides of the argument and then conclude with the one with the most empirical evidence to support it. (the explanation with the least probability, namely the least amount of evidence would be the irrational one.)

OK, so you don't have any strongly held personal beliefs and I do. But not everything has strong empirical evidence. So you just don't take a stand on those things? Issues of 'right and wrong', morality, ethics, love, faith, etc...

So if both sides have almost equal empirical evidence, do you just stick with the one with more every time? That could get awful tiring switching back and forth as new evidence comes out. Happens often in many feilds of science...
 

Neal

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,967
Location (City and/or State)
Arizona
He claims he called it off because the (Immam?) in New York agreed to move the site of the proposed mosque...so...win,win,win right? ;)
 

Annieski

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
318
Location (City and/or State)
Edison, N.J.
Not just yet. The Imman says he knows of NO such deal. And there are NO plans to alter the original Plan.
 

wpk

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
73
Location (City and/or State)
Ohio
chadk said:
But not everything has strong empirical evidence.

Then why believe it?

So you just don't take a stand on those things? Issues of 'right and wrong', morality, ethics, love, faith, etc...

These things don't require supernatural beliefs in order to be relevant (except faith). Morality and ethics are largely cultural and are definitely important. 'Right and wrong' can be a bit subjective, but a general definition can be agreed upon. If it promotes happiness, health, and well-being; or minimizes harm or suffering (or both), then it is moral. If it diminishes happiness, health, or well-being; or causes harm or suffering then it is immoral. These concepts are not difficult and don't need some sort of heavenly mandate to understand or accept.

So if both sides have almost equal empirical evidence, do you just stick with the one with more every time? That could get awful tiring switching back and forth as new evidence comes out. Happens often in many feilds of science...

You're right that this happens all the time. That is why science works and why it is real. If you don't change your positions in the light of new evidence, then what is the point? If "both sides" have equal empirical evidence then they most likely are in agreement and we can work on a consensus and where to go from there. If not, then there's some more work to do, another reason why science works.
 

Neal

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,967
Location (City and/or State)
Arizona
Annieski said:
Not just yet. The Imman says he knows of NO such deal. And there are NO plans to alter the original Plan.

Right, but the pastor of the Florida church was making that claim.
 

chadk

Active Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,601
wpk said:
chadk said:
But not everything has strong empirical evidence.

Then why believe it?

So you just don't take a stand on those things? Issues of 'right and wrong', morality, ethics, love, faith, etc...

These things don't require supernatural beliefs in order to be relevant (except faith). Morality and ethics are largely cultural and are definitely important. 'Right and wrong' can be a bit subjective, but a general definition can be agreed upon. If it promotes happiness, health, and well-being; or minimizes harm or suffering (or both), then it is moral. If it diminishes happiness, health, or well-being; or causes harm or suffering then it is immoral. These concepts are not difficult and don't need some sort of heavenly mandate to understand or accept.

So if both sides have almost equal empirical evidence, do you just stick with the one with more every time? That could get awful tiring switching back and forth as new evidence comes out. Happens often in many feilds of science...

You're right that this happens all the time. That is why science works and why it is real. If you don't change your positions in the light of new evidence, then what is the point? If "both sides" have equal empirical evidence then they most likely are in agreement and we can work on a consensus and where to go from there. If not, then there's some more work to do, another reason why science works.

You are making another assumption it seems - that I don't think "science works"... I'm an engineer. Electrical Engineering major, but now working in the computer\software area. I LOVE science. Biology was my strong area, but chose the more pratical route for my career. Chemistry, Physics, and other areas of math and science were areas I really enjoyed. Science and faith are perfectly compatible. You can be a perosn of science and reason and also a person of faith.
 

dolfanjack

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
151
Location (City and/or State)
Dallas Oregon
Science and faith are perfectly compatible. You can be a perosn of science and reason and also a person of faith.
I've tried to stay out of the whole religion disscusian here but when you say 'science and faith are perfectly compatible' you are so wrong! To have faith you have to belive in your bible PERIOD and the bible is not compatible to science. The "big bang" is science it can be measured, evolution is science we can practice it. The bible can't be proved " there is now evidence Jesus was even a person" thats why it's called FAITH. I don't care what people believe but don't ever say science and faith are compatable.
 
S

Scooter

Guest
evolution is science we can practice it

I was staying out of this also but I have to ask how exactly do you "practice" evolution?
 

chadk

Active Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,601
dolfanjack said:
Science and faith are perfectly compatible. You can be a perosn of science and reason and also a person of faith.
I've tried to stay out of the whole religion disscusian here but when you say 'science and faith are perfectly compatible' you are so wrong! To have faith you have to belive in your bible PERIOD and the bible is not compatible to science. The "big bang" is science it can be measured, evolution is science we can practice it. The bible can't be proved " there is now evidence Jesus was even a person" thats why it's called FAITH. I don't care what people believe but don't ever say science and faith are compatable.

Uh oh!!! I better call all my scientist friends right now (who happen to be Christian) and tell them they don't exist!!! Seriously, that is nonsense.

Let's try this... can a chemist have faith? Why or why not???

Are there areas of contention? You bet! But the same can be said for a miriad of other areas as well. Good sciene is full of contention. It is when you start hearing "the sciene is settle on xyz" that you have to look out. Good science is always challenging, always asking questions, always looking for another perspective.
 

harris

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
991
Location (City and/or State)
Ohio
In my humble opinion there are two topics that are pointless to debate, and that's politics and religion. Each side will never be able to make the other understand or believe in their point of view.

The bottom line of this topic is that the radical, terrorist, muslims have won this from the beginning. If we burn it, it's an excuse to kill. If we don't, we backed down because we're American cowards.

Let's all just have a beer and watch some football this weekend. Gonna be a great weekend for it.
 

Yourlocalpoet

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
526
Location (City and/or State)
Yorkshire, United Kingdom
chadk said:
Yourlocalpoet said:
Okay, but you've kind of just confirmed what I've been saying, strongly believing in something because I had my own sources of information that support it would never happen to me, it is you that has strongly held personal beliefs, I'm an empiricist, I would look at the empirical evidence of the two sides of the argument and then conclude with the one with the most empirical evidence to support it. (the explanation with the least probability, namely the least amount of evidence would be the irrational one.)

OK, so you don't have any strongly held personal beliefs and I do. But not everything has strong empirical evidence. So you just don't take a stand on those things? Issues of 'right and wrong', morality, ethics, love, faith, etc...

So if both sides have almost equal empirical evidence, do you just stick with the one with more every time? That could get awful tiring switching back and forth as new evidence comes out. Happens often in many feilds of science...

Of course I have an opinion on the concepts you mentioned but as someone already said, these concepts do not require a supernatural mandate in order for them to be accepted.

Well yes I agree, as I said before that's the beauty of science isn't it, it constantly strives to understand and quantify, it is objective thus it constantly moves forward.

chadk said:
dolfanjack said:
Science and faith are perfectly compatible. You can be a perosn of science and reason and also a person of faith.
I've tried to stay out of the whole religion disscusian here but when you say 'science and faith are perfectly compatible' you are so wrong! To have faith you have to belive in your bible PERIOD and the bible is not compatible to science. The "big bang" is science it can be measured, evolution is science we can practice it. The bible can't be proved " there is now evidence Jesus was even a person" thats why it's called FAITH. I don't care what people believe but don't ever say science and faith are compatable.

Uh oh!!! I better call all my scientist friends right now (who happen to be Christian) and tell them they don't exist!!! Seriously, that is nonsense.
Let's try this... can a chemist have faith? Why or why not???

I agree with Chad here, of course there are scientists who are people of faith, even if you have faith you can't reject science completely, I mean people that believe in God still accept the laws of gravity don't they?
I would however, and I'm in no way a biologist (I teach English) find it hard to explain the Genesis story if I was a scientist yet believed in the Bible.
There are some people of faith who believe in evolution, however they believe it was God that placed the tools in which evolution could start from, because they can't accept the explanation that is put forward by evolutionary scientists for the origins of the universe. This is a nice theory except that it fails to account for who created God in order for him to start the process of evolution.
What do your scientist Christian mates believe in? Do they find it difficult to believe in the virgin birth etc? (Again, I am genuinely interested.)

harris said:
In my humble opinion there are two topics that are pointless to debate, and that's politics and religion. Each side will never be able to make the other understand or believe in their point of view.

Not always pointless you can learn something new everyday Harris :)
Were not trying to make each other believe in anything, well I'm not anyway, I'm enjoying engaging in a debate and we will all probably continue to do so until a tortoise emergency comes up!
 

chadk

Active Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
1,601
I would ... find it hard to explain

There are many things we (anyone - even the brightest scientists) find hard to explain. That's just life and where a little honesty and humility go a long way. It alsl helps drive us forward in searching for answers and not getting lazy, content, or cocky in our current state of understanding things.

they can't accept the explanation that is put forward by evolutionary scientists for the origins of the universe.

Even the scientists can't all agree on this. There isn't just one explanation. There are many theories out there. It get's even more interesting when you start looking into all the theories about how the first living organism came about. Again, hardly a consensus in the scientific community.
 

dmmj

The member formerly known as captain awesome
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
19,698
Location (City and/or State)
CA
to sett;le the debate about evolution vs science I will use my time machine and go back in time and find out what I see, details to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top