Rashard Mendenhalls comments on Osama - WTF?

[maniclion]

It helps. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa. It's the place on the globe with the least amount of religion and is also the most fucked up place on Earth.

Nah there are a lot of Christians there, it's the most popular religion, just like Islam in the North, I think thats the biggest part of why sub-saharan africa is such a bad place, the North is the more prosperous due to it's access to the Mediterranean, the Muslim are keeping the Christians down.

China being communist atheist has the least amount of religion, like a billion and a half. They are soon to catch up with our ass from all these reports

 

[ALBOB]

..the second part was just me stating what sets me off against religions fighting, or all out contempt for any religion or bigotry or any other state of intolerance..........

Irony thy name is maniclion.

 

[soxmuscle]

It helps. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa. It's the place on the globe with the least amount of religion and is also the most fucked up place on Earth.

you're implying that we need to believe in some kind of personal deity to in order to reach a certain level of morality?

Wow, DOMS.

I respect the hell out of you but I am truly baffled that somebody so educated could say something like this.

 

[jbzjacked]

Dancing With The Stars has built up that mofos estrogen..

 

[maniclion]

Irony thy name is maniclion.

How is it irony. That I have no tolerance for broad sweeping intolerance that paints all Christians bad, or every Muslim is militant or Blacks are dirty and stupid, etc?

 

[BillHicksFan]

It helps. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa. It's the place on the globe with the least amount of religion and is also the most fucked up place on Earth.

What you've said makes no sense at all as up to 85% of Sweden citizens are atheist, along with Japan, England, France, Finland, Czech Republic, Australia, Norway, New Zealand and most of the other developed countries all share a high rate of atheism. As a matter of fact all of the most developed countries in the world have a high level of atheist/agnostics with America being the exception as it is the largest Christian nation of the planet. If people needed a deity to worship in order to have high morals why do these countries all display a sense of harmony and good living standards in comparison the the rest of the world?
Where's the evidence to suggest that atheist/agnostics are less moral than the religious? You won't find any because it doesn't exist.

As for Africa, it is a very religious country and that is contributing to their problem. With the Pope declaring that condoms be forbidden and that jerking off is a sin, is it any wonder that most women are contracting AIDs from being raped. A good percentage of the populalation already have AIDs and while HIV meds are not given to these people the Vatican stands watching this with arms folded, it's pure evil. I don't need to get into the Islamic side of things as we can agree on the level of evil that they're capable of. I just handle my resentment for Islam in a different way than you do.

I don't understand how you can possibly believe what you have just said.

 

[BlueLineFish]

He just lost his major sponsor days after signing a four year extension. Good for Champion

Pittsburgh Steelers' Rashard Mendenhall loses apparel sponsor - ESPN

 

[ALBOB]

I have no tolerance for broad sweeping intolerance

You're asking how I find this ironic?

 

[bandaidwoman]

I read something by a Muslim man the other day about Osama's death and how he was glad that one more terrorist was gone. He said he was sick of these extremists feeding on Muslims with low self esteem or who were suffering from depression and have suicidal tendencies.

emory university has a huge contigent of persian researchers, my new turkish collegue reminded me that this sob has killed more muslims than americans, they despise him.

The nice thing about being an athiest is I can celebrate his death and not worry about whether the big man in the sky gives a shit.

 

[bandaidwoman]

you're implying that we need to believe in some kind of personal deity to in order to reach a certain level of morality?

Wow, DOMS.

I respect the hell out of you but I am truly baffled that somebody so educated could say something like this.

I like Einstein's quote ""A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

93% of the members of the National Academy of sciences are athiests. I would not consider them amoral, probably some of the most lawabiding, moral people I know who do what they do for the love of science ,not money.

Religion allows for man to to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are not ie: sin to wear condoms, must cover head, not work on sundays , constraining sex among consenting adults, etc. these are pressing concerns but not morality. They do have good charity services, but Doctors without borders and red cross don't waste precious resources about virgin births and condoms are sinful, thus more bang for my donation bucks....

 

[soxmuscle]

What you've said makes no sense at all as up to 85% of Sweden citizens are atheist, along with Japan, England, France, Finland, Czech Republic, Australia, Norway, New Zealand and most of the other developed countries all share a high rate of atheism. As a matter of fact all of the most developed countries in the world have a high level of atheist/agnostics with America being the exception as it is the largest Christian nation of the planet. If people needed a deity to worship in order to have high morals why do these countries all display a sense of harmony and good living standards in comparison the the rest of the world?
Where's the evidence to suggest that atheist/agnostics are less moral than the religious? You won't find any because it doesn't exist.

As for Africa, it is a very religious country and that is contributing to their problem. With the Pope declaring that condoms be forbidden and that jerking off is a sin, is it any wonder that most women are contracting AIDs from being raped. A good percentage of the populalation already have AIDs and while HIV meds are not given to these people the Vatican stands watching this with arms folded, it's pure evil. I don't need to get into the Islamic side of things as we can agree on the level of evil that they're capable of. I just handle my resentment for Islam in a different way than you do.

I don't understand how you can possibly believe what you have just said.

DOMS is way too smart to actually believe in religion when all things are considered but it's impossible for him to truly rid his life of something that was forced upon him from the moment he was born, as it would anybody else.

You can't rationalize an irrational concept, which is why, in time, religion will be dead.

 

[DOMS]

DOMS is way too smart to actually believe in religion when all things are considered but it's impossible for him to truly rid his life of something that was forced upon him from the moment he was born, as it would anybody else.

You can't rationalize an irrational concept, which is why, in time, religion will be dead.

I choose what I think and do. No one forces anything upon me. Growing up, I didn't practice any religion. I was taken to church a few times, but I remember almost nothing of it. I'm religious because of decisions I made for myself as an adult.

I pointed out the shittiness that is Africa to demonstrate that a lack of religion isn't some sort of panacea. I'll also point out that the West has lead the way in scientific and social advancement for the last 100 years. The very same West that is founded upon religion; Christianity to be precise.

I also don't think it's wise to exclude the spiritual component of humanity. Ayervedic medicine uses it to great effect in the field of medicine. As does Buddhism in the pursuit of increased consciousness and intellect. Not that you have to be religious to acknowledge that aspect of humanity.

Oh, and one last thing to consider: all the mass murderers in the 20th century were atheists.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Lot's of intelligent people are religious and Freud did say psycological defense mechanisms keeps most people from divorcing the two. The japanese and chinese have found a circuitous way through certain forms of buddism which allows you to relinguish god and make mankind more self reliant on their own salvation. This lack of "rescue me complex" and solicitting divine help makes us very self reliant as a culture. The Jews have a similar philosophy I believe.

athiests did not commit mass murder because of the ideology of athiesm.

Fascist regimes actually plied the tools of religious propaganda to enforce their delusional thinking, they enforced dogmatic teaching by rejecting one form of dogmatism and replacing it with another. It was the smartest way to counter the most powerful force controling simple civilian's lives .The holocaust itself harnessed the religious antisemitism to fuel it's movement. And Mao only found it convenient after christian ideology killed 50-70 million of us just before he took reignafter Taiping rebellion. A singular powerful defining moment in the asian history ignored by western christian historians. These governments were not the liberal democracy with honest dissemination of information, they were not champion of reason . Asian communism is a different breed from stalinism. They did not suppress the 400 sects of buddism, they only now hate and distrust the christians like americans hate muslims. And its too bad because both have their honorable, wonderfully compassionate followers. religion iin this country is throwing our scientific education back into medieval times where we have to reconcile science with the bible.

killing fields, mao's programmes, are not examples of what happens to someone when they abandon religion, it testifies to the dangers of any dogmatism.

 

[BillHicksFan]

The very same West that is founded upon religion; Christianity to be precise.

Just because an ideology has been believed in the past it does not been that we should keep believing it in future when in it has been debunked at the very core. No belief should be cherished in such a way that we continue to teach it despite knowing it cannot be true.

I also don't think it's wise to exclude the spiritual component of humanity. Ayervedic medicine uses it to great effect in the field of medicine. As does Buddhism in the pursuit of increased consciousness and intellect. Not that you have to be religious to acknowledge that aspect of humanity.

There's a huge difference from spirituality and religion. I would consider many scientists and myself to be more spiritual than people who base their beliefs on blind faith alone and dismiss evidence that doesn't support their beliefs. That's not spirituality, thats stupidity.
Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a personal God. It doesn't seperate man from God and it has many wise and positive elements in favour of it being true to nature. Science and Buddhism often compliment each other therefore I have no beef with this set I beliefs.

Oh, and one last thing to consider: all the mass murderers in the 20th century were atheists.

Hitler was born a Roman Catholic and he cleverly used the Catholic authorities as a tool to gain favour for the extermination of the Jews and as bandaidwoman has stated, their motovation was not due to their atheism.

 

[maniclion]

You're asking how I find this ironic?

My intolerance leads me to feel sorry for those people, instead of the hate and malcontent the whole hearted intolerant feel....

 

[maniclion]

I choose what I think and do. No one forces anything upon me. Growing up, I didn't practice any religion. I was taken to church a few times, but I remember almost nothing of it. I'm religious because of decisions I made for myself as an adult.

I pointed out the shittiness that is Africa to demonstrate that a lack of religion isn't some sort of panacea. I'll also point out that the West has lead the way in scientific and social advancement for the last 100 years. The very same West that is founded upon religion; Christianity to be precise.

I also don't think it's wise to exclude the spiritual component of humanity. Ayervedic medicine uses it to great effect in the field of medicine. As does Buddhism in the pursuit of increased consciousness and intellect. Not that you have to be religious to acknowledge that aspect of humanity.

Oh, and one last thing to consider: all the mass murderers in the 20th century were atheists.

Do you believe Atheists are direct proof of the anti-christ working within society?

 

[DOMS]

There's a huge difference from spirituality and religion. I would consider many scientists and myself to be more spiritual than people who base their beliefs on blind faith alone and dismiss evidence that doesn't support their beliefs. That's not spirituality, thats stupidity.
Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a personal God. It doesn't seperate man from God and it has many wise and positive elements in favour of it being true to nature. Science and Buddhism often compliment each other therefore I have no beef with this set I beliefs.

Huge difference? No. That's like saying that hitting a ball with a bat is hugely different from baseball. Using a ball and bat is a subset of playing baseball. In other words, religion contains spirituality as a subset. Though, quite obviously, you can have spirituality without religion. Which is what I said.

Hitler was born a Roman Catholic and he cleverly used the Catholic authorities as a tool to gain favour for the extermination of the Jews and as bandaidwoman has stated, their motovation was not due to their atheism.

You haven't actually studied Hitler, have you? I ask because I have. Hitler was born into Catholicism, but quickly turned his back on it and denounced it. Later in his political career, he once again latched onto religion because that was a key component in a party that he wanted to use to attain more power. That is what Hitler believed in. He believed in being whatever it took to gain more power, no matter the affiliation.

Even if Hitler were religious, the rest of the 20th centuries mass murderers were not, and together dwarfed his body count. You have Mao Ze-Dong (78 million) and Jozef Stalin (23 million) with a combined body count of 101 million deaths. However, Hitler wasn't religious, so you can tack on another 12 million.

I'm not even including others such as Pol Pot and Idi Amin, but you get the idea.

 

[DOMS]

Do you believe Atheists are direct proof of the anti-christ working within society?

Not at all.

 

[bio-chem]

religion iin this country is throwing our scientific education back into medieval times where we have to reconcile science with the bible.

total rubbish. I was trained in science at a religious university and it has not in one way effected my education, my career, or my religious beliefs. religion and science are easily reconciled. they are not mutually exclusive. I am every bit as able to participate in Sunday School as I am to research in a lab.

Where you get into problems (and atheists are just, if not more likely to participate in this as religious folk are) is when an individual tries to use one to prove the other inferior. or that by not accepting either science or religion they are somehow superior, or intellectually greater than those who do.

The truth is both are flawed. God is perfect. We are not. We are not capable of understanding God completely as we are presently constituted. Mortality is an opportunity to learn of God. it is a process.

Our understanding of science is incomplete. Everyday we learn new things about the world around us. disproving things we held as true, or factual just weeks before.

One day when we pass on as our understanding is expanded and our eyes are open we will all learn that science and God co-exist rather easily. There is nothing about science that God doesn't already know.

 

[Arnold]

The truth is both are flawed. God is perfect. We are not. We are not capable of understanding God completely as we are presently constituted. Mortality is an opportunity to learn of God. it is a process.

Our understanding of science is incomplete. Everyday we learn new things about the world around us. disproving things we held as true, or factual just weeks before.

One day when we pass on as our understanding is expanded and our eyes are open we will all learn that science and God co-exist rather easily. There is nothing about science that God doesn't already know.

wow, you must either be the smartest person in the world or you came back from the dead, otherwise how the hell would you know? There is no man on this earth now or ever in history that knows anymore or any less what happens after we die nor whether god exists. my argument to say that god does not exist is going to be more powerful and factual than your argument as to why a god does exist. religion was created to control the masses, and damn it does a wonderful job, not to mention religion has killed more people in history than all wars combined, even to this day.

 

[DOMS]

total rubbish.

Calling religion the primary detractor of science is wrong for an additional reason.

The encroachment of companies, political parties, and other non-religious gruops are a far greater danger.

When loonies want to ban the teaching of evolution, it's easy to see them for what they are and what they're doing. However, when a corporation buys off scientists via funding, or when political groups use scientists to further agenda, be it supporting something they want or defaming something the other group is doing, or when pro-man mad global warning groups blacklist scientists who dare to question that belief, it's not so easy to see and is much more prevalent.

 

[soxmuscle]

total rubbish. I was trained in science at a religious university and it has not in one way effected my education, my career, or my religious beliefs. religion and science are easily reconciled. they are not mutually exclusive. I am every bit as able to participate in Sunday School as I am to research in a lab.

Where you get into problems (and atheists are just, if not more likely to participate in this as religious folk are) is when an individual tries to use one to prove the other inferior. or that by not accepting either science or religion they are somehow superior, or intellectually greater than those who do.

The truth is both are flawed. God is perfect. We are not. We are not capable of understanding God completely as we are presently constituted. Mortality is an opportunity to learn of God. it is a process.

Our understanding of science is incomplete. Everyday we learn new things about the world around us. disproving things we held as true, or factual just weeks before.

One day when we pass on as our understanding is expanded and our eyes are open we will all learn that science and God co-exist rather easily. There is nothing about science that God doesn't already know.

In addition to what Prince said, the whole concept of "God" is preposterous.

Keep the fairy tales to the wide screen...

 

[soxmuscle]

When loonies want to ban the teaching of evolution, it's easy to see them for what they are and what they're doing. However, when a corporation buys off scientists via funding, or when political groups use scientists to further agenda, be it supporting something they want or defaming something the other group is doing, or when pro-man mad global warning groups blacklist scientists who dare to question that belief, it's not so easy to see and is much more prevalent.

I do agree with this, though I fail to see how discrediting science does any thing to legitimize your precious religion.

 

[DOMS]

I do agree with this, though I fail to see how discrediting science does any thing to legitimize your precious religion.

Don't get your atheist panties in a bunch. I wasn't discrediting science in order to bolster religion in any sense. I'm pointing out that saying religion is the biggest threat to science is uninformed and moronic. More importantly, it blows smoke in front the real problems, which is never a good thing.

There was a time when scientists served one master: the pursuit of pure knowledge. Now they often serve other masters who have little interest in pure knowledge.

 

[Arnold]

religious (conservative) views blocked stem cell research funding.

 

[BillHicksFan]

Huge difference? No. That's like saying that hitting a ball with a bat is hugely different from baseball. Using a ball and bat is a subset of playing baseball. In other words, religion contains spirituality as a subset. Though, quite obviously, you can have spirituality without religion. Which is what I said.

Some people seek spirituality through means of religion and some seek it within themselves so there is a huge difference. The latter does not require an imaginary friend to explain anything about the nature of reality.

You haven't actually studied Hitler, have you? I ask because I have. Hitler was born into Catholicism, but quickly turned his back on it and denounced it. Later in his political career, he once again latched onto religion because that was a key component in a party that he wanted to use to attain more power. That is what Hitler believed in. He believed in being whatever it took to gain more power, no matter the affiliation.

Even if Hitler were religious, the rest of the 20th centuries mass murderers were not, and together dwarfed his body count. You have Mao Ze-Dong (78 million) and Jozef Stalin (23 million) with a combined body count of 101 million deaths. However, Hitler wasn't religious, so you can tack on another 12 million.

It's not that I haven't studies Hitler, it's that I'm tired of seeing Hitler being used as the poster boy for Atheism, especially when he had the Catholic church in his pocket. Both atheists and creationists alike can agree that he was an evil dictator and that the world would have been a better place had he never existed so that argument is void of any substance.

 

[soxmuscle]

religious (conservative) views blocked stem cell research funding.

My brother has juvenile diabetes. As does my cousin.

 

[soxmuscle]

Don't get your atheist panties in a bunch. I wasn't discrediting science in order to bolster religion in any sense. I'm pointing out that saying religion is the biggest threat to science is uninformed and moronic. More importantly, it blows smoke in front the real problems, which is never a good thing.

There was a time when scientists served one master: the pursuit of pure knowledge. Now they often serve other masters who have little interest in pure knowledge.

Very true.

You really need to do your homework these days when it comes to science.

But if you truly want to talk about ulterior motives...

 

[bio-chem]

In addition to what Prince said, the whole concept of "God" is preposterous.

Keep the fairy tales to the wide screen...

ok, wise one. disprove God.

you really should stick to the sports forums. big people are talking here.

 

[Arnold]

ok, wise one. disprove God.

we don't have to disprove something that no one can see or witness, all you have is a book of fairy tales, it proves nothing.