Pastor in US burns Koran, Afghans kill 8 UN workers in protest

[blankall]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, but you believe in the virgin birth, the divine right of the Pope, the resurrection and the whole nine yards. You don't believe in anything else. You aren't open to anything else.

How is that not a more inflexible belief system than simply not believing in something?

There is lots of debate in religion about the specifics of the "virgin birth", the power of the pope, the resurection, etc etc etc...Pastors, Imans, Rabbis, Monks, etc... spend much of their day debating the true meaning and truth of religion. That's basically their job.

The only one not debating anything are the atheists. They are concrete in their belief system and 100% convinced they have the exact answer to the big questions.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm saying they're both to blame. The pastor knew full well what his actions were going to lead to, but he chose to do it anyways. And that's why he also has the blood of those people on his hands.

So now we have to worry about provoking psycopaths by exercising our basic rights. What if I told you I was going to murder someone if you left your house. Are you to blame if you ever leave your house?

[The Yen Man]

On an off topic thing, I still chuckle when listening to the story of virgin Mary. Imagine if that were to happen today.

"Hey Joseph. I'm pregnant. But I swear I didnt' sleep with anyone! It must be an act of God!" I wonder how that story will fly.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

What the heck would burning a book prove though? That's basically telling all Muslims to go fata themselves and saying "I spit on your religion". Sure he is free to exercise his free will, and that's exactly what he did. But in the end, his action cost some innocent people their lives. I hope this pastor is able to sleep at night, because his stupid action of self righteousness led to the death of 8 people.

Pastor Terry Jones did nothing wrong. Distasteful? Yes. Wrong? No.

He's free to burn as many Korans as he wants and should be allowed to do so with impunity.

Murderous mobs were killing innocent people a few months ago merely because of Jones' announced intention to burn a Koran.

Murderous mobs happen where there are states of lawlessness, which in this case is what is currently happening in Afghanistan.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Pastor Terry Jones did nothing wrong. Distasteful? Yes. Wrong? No.

He's free to burn as many Korans as he wants and should be allowed to do so with impunity.

Murderous mobs were killing innocent people a few months ago merely because of Jones' announced intention to burn a Koran.

Murderous mobs happen where there are states of lawlessness, which in this case is what is currently happening in Afghanistan.

Not necessarily. Some systems of law encourage murderous mobs. The problem is a lack of law based on fundamental rights and freedoms which must be universal to all people.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

You describe scientific method.

If you knew enought about science, you would no that nothing can ever be 100% certain. Every principle in science is in some way based on belief. That belief may be based on extensive evidence, but it is belief nonetheless.

Science is method.

Compiling and testing of facts. Beliefs are not science.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by blankall

So now we have to worry about provoking psycopaths by exercising our basic rights. What if I told you I was going to murder someone if you left your house. Are you to blame if you ever leave your house?

Meh. All I'm saying is, if I were that pastor, I'd feel awfully guilty that I provoked some psycho's into killing 8 people just so I can stoke my ego and show the world I'm defiant against terrorists. It must be awfully brave of him to do so in the safe comforts of his own home and not have to fear the consequences.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by blankall

The baby is agnostic. They haven't yet formed their belief systems about whether or not their is a god.

Actually the baby would be an agnostic athiest.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by blankall

You admit you have made the choice. You have chosen a belief system.

Once again, if you were agnostic and had not yet made the choice, you would not have an ideology. You have made the choice, you, therefore, do have an ideology.

So my ideology is what I want for dinner, what beer I'm grabbing on the way home, and who's playing hockey tonight?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not necessarily. Some systems of law encourage murderous mobs. The problem is a lack of law based on fundamental rights and freedoms which must be universal to all people.

Systems of law encouraging lawlessness cannot, by definition, be considered law. You're thinking of mob rule.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Systems of law encouraging lawlessness cannot, by definition, be considered law. You're thinking of mob rule.

What is considered murder differs from system of law to system of law. What we might consider murder might be condoned in other systems of law.

For example, some systems of law condone killing homosexuals. Once a person has been proven to be a homosexual, their execution no longer qualifies as murder.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

So my ideology is what I want for dinner, what beer I'm grabbing on the way home, and who's playing hockey tonight?

Those are actions based on ideologies and beliefs.

For instance, you might have a steak for dinner because you believe that eating meat is acceptable. Other people believe that eating meat is wrong and won't eat meat tonight.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bane

Actually the baby would be an agnostic athiest.

hmm... arguably. Although since a baby is not yet aware of the concept of a god, it's hard to argue they have made a choice either way. Regardless, it's a totally different sceneario from someone who has been made aware of the concept of god but chooses not to believe.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

What is considered murder differs from system of law to system of law. What we might consider murder might be condoned in other systems of law.

For example, some systems of law condone killing homosexuals. Once a person has been proven to be a homosexual, their execution no longer qualifies as murder.

You're confusing mob rule with repression. State-sponsored executions are not consistent with lawlessness. Quite the opposite.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Science is method.

Compiling and testing of facts. Beliefs are not science.

Science also includes knowledge and theories based on that knowledge. Theories are beliefs. Science has a very strict definition about what kind of evidence is allowed to contribute to beliefs.

Even then the term "science" can be used to incorporate social constructs and non-physical beliefs, for example: social science, political science, etc.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

You're confusing mob rule with repression.

Mob rule is a form of government and invovles a system of laws, sometimes informal. It's not democracy and can most certainly be repressive. Not all systems of laws are fair. In fact, some entrench repression.

[troutman]

Is Atheism an Ism? Atheism is No Religion, Philosophy, Ideology, Belief System
http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...smReligion.htm

http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html

There are reasons for trusting science and there are reasons for religious convictions, but the reasons for our trust in science are called evidence and the reasons for our religious convictions all reduce to hope.

Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:

"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.*

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by blankall

Those are actions based on ideologies and beliefs.

Well while we're reaching that far...

For instance, you might have a steak for dinner because you believe that eating meat is acceptable. Other people believe that eating meat is wrong and won't eat meat tonight.

What about I chose to have a steak because I like steak because it tastes good?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is Atheism an Ism? Atheism is No Religion, Philosophy, Ideology, Belief System
http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...smReligion.htm

http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html

There are reasons for trusting science and there are reasons for religious convictions, but the reasons for our trust in science are called evidence and the reasons for our religious convictions all reduce to hope.

Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:

"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.*

Science admits that nothing can ever truly be proven with 100% certainty. Therefore, every priciple requires a degree of belief. Some require more than others, but that does not make them seperate concepts.

The difference between the two definitions provided are just opposite ends of a spectrum. They're both most certainly ideologies though.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

What about I chose to have a steak because I like steak because it tastes good?

I wasn't debating whether or not steak tastes good. Everyone knows it does

By choosing to eat meat you are exercising actions based around ideologies which tell you it is acceptable to eat that particular kind of meat.