Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 17 Oct 2006 13:47 Eeyore wrote: > Tell me about this brutality. You are that one 'tick' better behaved. E.g. Hong Kong, South Africa -started the end of Apartheid I am sure you are still strongly present in Hong Kong and in many other former British Colonies. Commonwealth is better, IMHO. > Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were > treated. Yeah! > Graham Best regards, Daniel Mandic
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 13:53 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4534D840.74FF3116(a)hotmail.com... > > > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK >> government whitewash that followed its collapse. >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2544355.stm > > That was truly outrageous with the government attempting to suppress > evidence ! Not the first, and certainly not the last time.
From: Lloyd Parker on 17 Oct 2006 09:43 In article <eh30er$n6o$1(a)news-int.gatech.edu>, david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: >In article <eh2q77$c28$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >>>>> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >>>>> >a crime. >>>>> >>>>> You are lying. >>>> >>>>I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. >>>> >>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>their >>>>Muslim counterparts. >>>> >>> >>>Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. >>> >>>John >>> >> >>McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic >>fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). > >And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? > >You're letting your biases cloud your reason. Fundamentalist Christians >aren't the radicals you try to equate them with. If you really believe >that, you're woefully or willfully ignorant. > >Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every killer >who is anti-religion or unreligious? By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything. >Can I lump Ted and Barney in with anyone >who kills just because he wants to? If you'll tell me whom they murdered and why. >There's probably a killer out there who >believes most of what you do, but I don't think you're a danger to anyone. > >People kill because they are evil. They may use a belief to hide behind or to >rally followers, or they may really believe what they say. If you want to say >that everyone who believes X is bad because an evil person says he believes X, >your're going to have a lot of labels to make. > > > True; my post was in response to those lumping all Moslems in as such.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Oct 2006 14:07 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:05:46 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:100aj2tujd38kum9omn0ni4tcbd22cfdbe(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:47:19 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:igi8j2tmonmnsklrgqsh5dds73npt22g6m(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>>> <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>>>>>their >>>>>>Muslim counterparts. >>>>> >>>>>More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >>>>>US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >>>>>are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >>>>>and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >>>>>well.) >>>> >>>> And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You >>>> seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing >>>> among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. >>> >>> >>>Yeah, but the fundamental difference is that a religious organization, >>>which >>>gets special tax breaks because of the special protected position that >>>religion holds in the Constitution, is supposed to stay out of the >>>business >>>of governing the country. Mother Jones, and the liberal organizations >>>associated therewith enjoy no such special protection. Any church that >>>dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have >>>their tax-exempt status revoked. >> >> There are plenty of tax-exempt nonprofits on both sides, or rather all >> sides. > >The ones I'm objecting to are the religious ones, and they're almost >invariably aligned with the right. Particularly so when you factor in the charitable dollars involved, by the way. Also, I've done a little research on the subject just recently. The IRS gives 501(c)3 status to churches without their having to even apply for it. It's an a priori assumption, by dint of just being a church, at all. Also, churches, unlike other 501(c)3 orgs, do not have to file Form 990s with the IRS describing their contributions. There is _no_ requirement for passing along any of that information to the government by churches. They _can_ file for 501(c)3. They _can_ file Form 990s. But they don't have to do any of that. (In other words, they are a great way to hide activities and launder money, if that is the way you are bent.) More, I also did some research on how our own state's ability to control land use changed after Clinton signed the RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTION ACT in 2000. Turns out that churches now enjoy simply unfettered construction. Our state no longer can require much of any conformance. It is still permitted to require engineering sense, of course, in construction plans. But it can no longer control land use by churches. I assume this is the same circumstance pretty much elsewhere in the US, now. The below link is _not_ an anti-religious link by any stretch -- it is pro, in fact. But: http://religiousbroadcasting.lib.virginia.edu/pro_orgs.html "Religious broadcasting in the U.S. now exists on a vastly larger scale than in any other nation. In fact, it exists on a scale beyond the recognition of most Americans. Further, religious broadcasting continues to experience a period of sustained growth." If you are interested in just how many dollars are involved here, last time I looked at summaries, there was some 73 billion US dollars in charitable contributions in 1993 to religious organizations throughout the US. (This was about 66 billion US dollars in 1990. You can check some of these numbers for yourself: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59929.000/hju59929_0.HTM .... and there are other sites to check more on this.) It turns out that much of that money is going into church construction and other capital projects around the US, not into operational expenses or "good works." The above link points this up. Just keep it in mind when you consider what is going on here and the magnitude of it. The effects are manifest. You would have to keep your head stuck in the ground like an ostrich not to see it playing out. >>They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and >> that's reasonably well enforced. > >Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play >for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few >denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the >extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a >big problem, in my book. Bingo. Sometimes, I think John really told the truth -- he just does electronic design and little else. I'm not complaining -- more power to him. But it also means he may also have his head in the sand, too. Once in a while, it would do some good to take a look around. >> They are not prohibited from doing >> good works, even governmant-funded good works. > >Agreed, nor should they be. Yup. Jon
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:11
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:qdk8j29a18e3jpjv10oqht1vkhv1ecdv13(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats >>the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or >>ID >>or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical >>position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions >>on >>exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example) >>evolutionary >>theory. >> > > Why so? Why so what? Why is ID dead end science? Or Why Can ID dismantle Monotheistic faiths? > If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this > universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out > how it works? Yes, it may well be the case that this has happened. Science does not deal with things like this. If you want to believe a genius kid in a parallel dimension created our universe, feel free to do so. Who created the kid? How can we falsify the existence of the kid? When we get to hard questions (are quarks fundamental for example) the answer becomes "if the kid wants it that way." How can we ever hope to know what, if any, laws the kid is subject to? What if the kid decides tomorrow to change the fine structure constant by three orders of magnitude? What stops him? ID provides _no_ real answers and generally ends up with a "because" or a simple "it is so." This is not any form of science I have been taught to recognise. > If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe > unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to > scientific inquiry. Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific exploration in that manner. The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer scientific questions. Why is the electron fundamental? Because God said so. What makes XYZ happen? God. Pretty much a dead end. Yet despite this many, many, scientists (including Darwin) have held strong religious beliefs. Forcing ID into the science lab does a disservice to both science and religion. > It might even lead to insights in basic physics; I very much doubt it. More the opposite. > Lord knows we need some. Well, we need insights in advanced physics now. We have the basics pretty much nailed down. |