I wouldn't call it anti-muslim threads, I call it reporting the truth. Most of my posts were backed with various news organizations ranging from the BCC to the Christian Science Monitor. I also got my stuff from the 911 commission. What did I say, that muslims working for the federal government have stolen classified secrets, that muslims working for the federal government have given false reports on translated material, refused to translate material, and cheered at 911, that muslims that are in the military have attacked and killed american soldiers that muslims in the military have aiding and abetting the enemy, that Muslims working for the federal government have refused to make arrests and even warned suspected terrorist of up coming arrests, that the DC sniper was muslim, that their were plots to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel, The Holland Tunnel, and the Brooklyn Bridge by the Sudanese UN dipolmat core, that the empire state building had an attack, that the trade towers had a prior attack before 911, that a school load of kids was shot up on the brooklyn bridge, that the FBI, during the Clinton years and prior to the second so called gulf war, had arrested a dozen arabs in Brooklyn who were making poision gas that was to be released in the subways, that a bombing plot of the republican convention was stopped, it goes on and on.........
Andy, I wasn't specifically referring to your posts at all... I don't know why you got that idea. I'm sorry, if you think so. I found some of your posts quite well thought, but the threads do have a specific anti-muslim attitude, overall. I hope I didn't offend you. If I did, it was not intended.
Oh i guess you mean the posts where every muslim should be killed. I wasn't a fan of that myself. People should be careful with hate for they can become what they hate. As for the recent earthquake: I am reminded of something I read a long time ago in the Torah/Old Testament and it went something like this Word of God Do not rejoice in thy enemies sorrow for I weap for after all are they not my children too. again rough powerphasing from a memory of reading but the idea is still there.
Most atheists I've talked to, and I've talked to quite a few, would fall into the category of what I've heard described as "agnostic atheists." They see little or no convincing evidence in a God or gods, and so hold belief in a "supreme being" to be illogical. That's the category I fall into. One analogy I've seen used is belief in pink invisible unicorns that live on the moon. There might be these unicorns living on the moon, but I don't believe in them. I don't think they exist. However, I can't fairly say, "There are no pink invisible unicorns living on the moon," because I have no direct evidence to refute such a belief. That's what you might call a non-belief without a belief in a non. However, I think the difference is mostly a matter of definition, semantics, and careful phrasing. It is a very fine distinction, and one I've seen debated frequently by agnostics and atheists themselves. Usually, if one is discussing such beliefs with someone who calls himself and agnostic or atheist, it might be good to ask him how he defines it.
Yeah, I've known quite a few myself. I believe there is more there than semantics, myself. Where lack of evidence exists, the logical conclusion is that a conclusion cannot be determined. Your example brings up points of improbability, but such as everything else, cannot be disproven through logical deduction - you can't prove a negative, as is noted - unless the negative is accepted in the premise. A supreme being, such as a god figure, would not be a proof of deduction - it has been tried, with almost humorous results. St. Augustine tried it as such: Two relevant questions: Does god exist? Who or what is god? Answer: To define the problem, we should answer the last question first - what is god? God is perfection. Turn to the first question, Does god exist? The answer is obviously yes, because if he didn't exist he would not be perfect. I think we can all agree that's fairly ridiculous logical reasoning. Thomas Aquinas attempted the topic as well, and where his work was much more detailed and rational, his logic argument was flawed in various locations, and his results were dismissed. No matter what perspective you approach, the argument for God's existance is one of inductive reasoning and emperical data. Awareness of one's self-existance is not in the cards, when talking about electrical impulses and neural pathways of the brain. There is more there that everyone knows, but nobody can explain - proof one that life is more than science, to date, has outlined. What can be proven, by easy observation, is that it no longer demonstrates existance after death. Where did it go? Like the electrical impulses that fed messages to the body, did it just fade away? We don't know, because it is no longer measurable by our standards... but it was there, and it wasn't yet explained - and now it's gone - and where it is, that can not be explained either. Science tells us: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Is it then logical to assume that whatever was there, did exist? If so, what was it before - and what more people want to know - what is it after? To say that it's gone is just as illogical as the idea that it has passed on to some higher form. To accept an idea of a higher form, you have already made the leap that something exists beyond provability - the belief in a supreme form is just one venue of how such a design is administered... Not really so illogical from an inductive sense. Once you've tackled what you believe to be a fair answer to self-awareness, anyway.
Sounds like you're getting into trying to get into defining and explaining consciousness. That's a toughie. (...and it would be fun to try to tie it back to the orginal topic of this thread!)
