Yanks better convert to Islam, or bad things will happen (AlQaeda)

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Yeah, I wonder, is there a moderate, easy islam to convert to? Something that you just are, you don't have to go to church, eh, mosque, not that much praying, worshipping in your own way, own time.

No, that is not going to work.

[ajbera]

1) F*ck conversion. I'd rather pay the tax imposed on non-Muslims.

2) Atheism isn't religion per se, but since Reason alone is incapable of proving the non-existence of the supernatural, it relies on Faith to reach its conclusion. So atheism has more in common with theism than agnosticism.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


True. And bald is a hair color

religion is not per definition about gods.
budhism has no gods, neither has taoism or confucianism.

[loinburger]

Re: Yanks better convert to Islam, or bad things will happen (AlQaeda)

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The tape, called "Invitation to Islam," runs 48 minutes, expert Laura Mansfield said.

I love the way they worded this. It makes it sound like Laura Mansfield is an expert on the use of a stopwatch.

"How will we determine the running time for this tape??? This sounds like a job for... Laura Mansfield!"

[Winston]

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by CyberShy
religion is not per definition about gods.
budhism has no gods, neither has taoism or confucianism.

Sure, but to get back to your idea that atheism is a religion. I don't follow any particular rules that are related to the lack of a god, neither do I consider Darwin and Nietzsche as "prophets" of any kind, they just made important contributions to science and philosophy. I guess this makes me a "non-practicing atheist"

[Winston]

As ajbera indicated, you've chosen to believe that there is no God. Just as religious people choose to believe that there is. Both atheism and religion are based on faith, rather than fact or reason, that's what makes them similar in this respect.

[Pekka]

Wow, what a bold statement. Now, science does not support God at the moment, so if an atheist is basing his beliefs in science, that's not a religion. Science is not a religion.

If you're going to claim that there is a boogie man or ghost, you HAVE to have facts and if you don't, it doesn't make 'not-believing' into a faith based thing.

[Combat Ingrid]

Pekka

[Winston]

An atheist cannot "base his beliefs in science", since science has not pointed to the non-existance of God.

Whether the atheist himself belives his point of view to be supported by science is beside the point.

Some religious people might also think that their beliefs are supported by science, which is equally beside the point.

Any categorical stance on the subject of whether there is a God or not is fundamentally based on faith, which, as was pointed out, is a similar trait of both atheism and religion.

[Pekka]

Winston, stop sniffing your armpits.. what you just said makes no sense. I think you already understood how you first got it a bit weird and now you just have to defend your old statement...

"Some religious people might also think that their beliefs are supported by science"

Yeah, but these people usually are not very good at science. It's not the fault of science that someone interprets it like there's no tomorrow.

And we should be able to assume that something that has not been proven is not proven and therefore it is not supported by science until it is proven scientifically. And as such, science is not religion.

This be the end of it.

[Datajack Franit]

PRAISE ALLAH

[Pekka]

Because I assume most atheists are going to accept the existence of God if it can be proven, scientifically. Basically, they're just waiting for the evidence to show up. That's just not something that can be called faith based. Faith based is when you actualyl believe in something and you don't have evidence.

So you should consider atheists to be not believing in God... unless they can see some real evidence. There's just no faith in that.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Winston
An atheist cannot "base his beliefs in science", since science has not pointed to the non-existance of God.

Whether the atheist himself belives his point of view to be supported by science is beside the point.

Some religious people might also think that their beliefs are supported by science, which is equally beside the point.

Any categorical stance on the subject of whether there is a God or not is fundamentally based on faith, which, as was pointed out, is a similar trait of both atheism and religion.

I understand your point and it does have some merit. However, just like science has not disproved of god, neither has it disproved of the boogeyman. As there is no proof whatsoever for any of them, the rational conclusion for me is to consider them both as non-existant. Of course, if anyone would provide strong evidence that any of them exists, I would be forced to reconsider my position. It really doesn't have anything to do with faith as far as I'm concerned.

[Elok]

Actually, I think the rational conclusion would be agnosticism, in the sense of "soft atheism": coming to no conclusion about it. Definitely stating that there is no God is an assertion without evidence. And yes, that applies for the boogeyman as well...