Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 16:48 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com 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. >> >>Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried. >>Have you not noticed what's been happening lately? >>And it's not just Southern Baptist. >> > > Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a > sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. An interpretation issue really. It would not be unreasonable for Radical Christians or Jews to redefine some aspects of their faith to enable suicide for a just cause. The bible has killing anyone a sin, Christians have been fairly free with the definition of this though.
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 16:50 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:qndaj2p3kovkgrk7g4ijnppv9d1ptn2qfm(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:07:41 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:0h7aj25ckalb1dr630lm9apu323h2hj3ah(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>> <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin >>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nicely written. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called >>>>>>>>Kent >>>>>>>>State? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>>>>>> don't say what you are thinking here. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious >>>>>>example >>>>>>of >>>>>>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. >>>>> >>>>>Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard >>>>>troops. >>>> >>>>And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly >>>>force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just >>>>curious. >>>> >>> >>> Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get >>> hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick. >> >>It is sad that your national guard are pit bulls. Are stones really that >>frightening for them? >> >>It is sad that people are pushed to the point at which they feel they need >>to throw stones at Soldiers to get their voices heard. Isn't democracy >>wonderful. > > How does hurling rocks get "their voices heard"? Normally it is an act bourne out of desperation or frustration. Sometimes people do it just to be naughty, but I never realised that carried the death penalty. >>> As I said, I >>> wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the >>> right, and dead. >> >>It is fortunate your countries founding fathers didn't hold this >>viewpoint. > > They threw rocks at people with guns? Figuratively speaking, yes. An act of defiance towards a superior, oppressive, organisation. Pretty much the same thing.
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 16:51 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject to > > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the > > basic idea of evolution. > > Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the radio > show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit > behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the > specifics Darwin described. I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they know better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had no vailidity ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 16:55 T Wake wrote: > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > > > 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." Quite so and one the religios simply don't get. My conclusion is that the universe sits in a goldfish bowl on someone's coffee table because it makes as much sense. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Oct 2006 16:57
John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future > >messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how > >not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they > >already made. > > > Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and > Africa? Which bits of Africa did you have in mind ? Graham |