Can Muslims have alcohol on their skin ???

[Mr Nobody]

Because they are always knocking on our doors with pamphlets.  When's the last time a door to door athiest bothered you at dinner time?

Spot on i have never had a athiest knock on my door for money

[wavelength]

I think the problem here is that "religion", or better "spirituality" is mistaken for "religious fundamentalism". Those are two different, almost opposing concepts.

[Tapeworm]

Spot on i have never had a athiest knock on my door for money

'Give me your address there.'

[doozejooze]

Door to door atheist. That was funny.. "Hello were atheists and we were never here tonight and neither is God."

[The Master]

Not a sin for them to blow up a group of children walking to school before heading out to gang rape and behead a 13 year old Christian girl either. 

When did they gang rape and behead a 13 year old christian girl?

/Napalm anyone?

[wavelength]

BTW, looking diesel there KSA.



But I see a little belly button action there, isn't that kind of not allowed?

[Tapeworm]

Wow.  Do you collect... stuff?

[Mars]

Are you joking? Statistics show that atheists are the least violent of all groups ranked by "religious (or not) affiliation".

haha exactly.

[The Wizard of Truth]

why are atheists so violent towards the believers (as in everyday people), yet the believers don't really give a shit about the atheists?

You dont hear on the News 'A train was bombed by a suicide athiest bomber' now do you?

[Mr Nobody]

haha exactly.

Mars time for another porno pic

[The True Adonis]

I think the problem here is that "religion", or better "spirituality" is mistaken for "religious fundamentalism". Those are two different, almost opposing concepts.

Even the moderates or the "spiritual" but not religious crowd pave the way to being satisifed in NOT understanding the Universe as it is.  It also paves the way for Scientific Fact and Evidence to take a back seat to superstition.  Lastly, it permits the existence of fundamentalism as it is but a few steps back since the supernatural and mythological element is concurrent from the "spiritual" to the extremist.

[The True Adonis]

I think the problem here is that "religion", or better "spirituality" is mistaken for "religious fundamentalism". Those are two different, almost opposing concepts.

Also the "spiritual" allow respect for faith to permeate when it is simply a belief in something without evidence or contrary to all evidence.

The spiritual should also be treated as ignorant because they are too scared to simply say "I don`t know" or rather, "we are still working on that".  Instead they attribute some sort of asinine mysticism in the hopes of seeking a pattern or a connection that they can understand even though it is based on nonsense or "feeling".

[wavelength]

Even the moderates or the "spiritual" but not religious crowd pave the way to being satisifed in NOT understanding the Universe as it is.  It also paves the way for Scientific Fact and Evidence to take a back seat to superstition.  Lastly, it permits the existence of fundamentalism as it is but a few steps back since the supernatural and mythological element is concurrent from the "spiritual" to the extremist.

I disagree. One has to understand the difference between scientific findings as they relate to the scientific aspects of the world and holistic statements made e.g. by philosophy and theology. I have absolutely no problem with evolution theory as it relates to the biologic aspect of mankind. However, this does not mean that these biologic aspects are all there is to humankind. Understanding the universe in all its aspects is not something natural science is able to deliver, simply by definition of natural science. I agree that there should be absolutely no reason to limit or compete with science in any way based on religious believes (see e.g. intelligent design / creationism), that is not the true purpose of spirituality at all.

[Tapeworm]

Even the moderates or the "spiritual" but not religious crowd pave the way to being satisifed in NOT understanding the Universe as it is.  It also paves the way for Scientific Fact and Evidence to take a back seat to superstition.  Lastly, it permits the existence of fundamentalism as it is but a few steps back since the supernatural and mythological element is concurrent from the "spiritual" to the extremist.

Nothing wrong with a little mythology 'Adonis.'  Some of out greatest truths are expressed in allegory.  That's how I prefer to see religion in general.  Throw all figurative expression out the window and you're eliminating art in general.

No one ever makes trouble about allegorical truths.  It's always some disagreement about interpretation of literal truth that leads to conflict, it seems.

[emn1964]

Isn't bodybuilding disallowed in islam because of the narcicism?

[The True Adonis]

Nothing wrong with a little mythology 'Adonis.'  Some of out greatest truths are expressed in allegory.  That's how I prefer to see religion in general.  Throw all figurative expression out the window and you're eliminating art in general.

No one ever makes trouble about allegorical truths.  It's always some disagreement about interpretation of literal truth that leads to conflict, it seems.

Of course. I love morality, allegory, literature and fiction.  My love for poetry and novels as well as philosophy though is no way supernatural nor is it for anyone else. 

[The Master]

Isn't bodybuilding disallowed in islam because of the narcicism?

Have no idea, but Islam forbids faggotry.

Yet all these arabs drool over each others ripped asses at the BB stage

[The True Adonis]

I disagree. One has to understand the difference between scientific findings as they relate to the scientific aspects of the world and holistic statements made e.g. by philosophy and theology. I have absolutely no problem with evolution theory as it relates to the biologic aspect of mankind. However, this does not mean that these biologic aspects are all there is to humankind. Understanding the universe in all its aspects is not something natural science is able to deliver, simply by definition of natural science. I agree that there should be absolutely no reason to limit or compete with science in any way based on religious believes (see e.g. intelligent design / creationism), that is not the true purpose of spirituality at all.

There is NOTHING supernatural or mystical to the concept of ideas or the interpretation thereof.  I challenge you to provide an example.

[The True Adonis]

I disagree. One has to understand the difference between scientific findings as they relate to the scientific aspects of the world and holistic statements made e.g. by philosophy and theology. I have absolutely no problem with evolution theory as it relates to the biologic aspect of mankind. However, this does not mean that these biologic aspects are all there is to humankind. Understanding the universe in all its aspects is not something natural science is able to deliver, simply by definition of natural science. I agree that there should be absolutely no reason to limit or compete with science in any way based on religious believes (see e.g. intelligent design / creationism), that is not the true purpose of spirituality at all.

Also as a side note: evolution is not only applicable to humans nor has it ever been considered solely in an anthropocentric sense.  Evolution applies to all life down to the DNA level. 

I think you are also confusing artistry with in some way being mystical or supernatural.

[wavelength]

There is NOTHING supernatural or mystical to the concept of ideas or the interpretation thereof.  I challenge you to provide an example.

I would formulate differently to avoid further complication and argueing over the terms "supernatural" and "mystical" (I probably have a different definition than you). So let's just postulate the following statement: "There is nothing to the world other than what (natural) science can say about it. I challenge you to provide an example showing the opposite."

With such a statement, you already provided the example yourself. That statement is clearly a statement not derived using the methods of natural science. You must have used a body of thought different to natural science to come to such a conclusion. Simply because, a true natural scientist is not allowed to deal with anything outside the scope, methods, and restrictions implied by natural science. Therfeore he cannot say anything about what is outside this scope, foremost whether or not there actually is anything outside it at all. To be able to make the statement that there is nothing beyond the aspects of reality he is able to deal with, he already must have stepped outside the realm of science.

So by making such a statement, you in fact have become a philospher.

[The True Adonis]

I would formulate differently to avoid further complication and argueing over the terms "supernatural" and "mystical" (I probably have a different definition than you). So let's just postulate the following statement: "There is nothing to the world other than what (natural) science can say about it. I challenge you to provide an example showing the opposite."

With such a statement, you already provided the example yourself. That statement is clearly a statement not derived using the methods of natural science. You must have used a body of thought different to natural science to come to such a conclusion. Simply because, a true natural scientist is not allowed to deal with anything outside the scope, methods, and restrictions implied by natural science. Therfeore he cannot say anything about what is outside this scope, foremost whether or not there actually is anything outside it at all. To be able to make the statement that there is nothing beyond the aspects of reality he is able to deal with, he already must have stepped outside the realm of science.

So by making such a statement, you in fact have become a philospher.

I don`t understand your point at all.  There is no such thing as a limitation on Science itself. Our ability to interpret and analyze may be limited, but that in no way invites the supernatural or spiritual. I also didn`t write what you quoted.  Again, name something "outside the scope".

[wavelength]

I don`t understand your point at all.  There is no such thing as a limitation on Science.  I also didn`t write what you quoted.  Again, name something "outside the scope".

Of course there are limitation to science. A natural scientist is limited to the methods of science.

The easiest example of concepts that are essential to science, meaning they are not defined within science but taken for granted, are the concepts of space and time. There is no natural scientific explanation of what space and time is. The scientific aspect of space e.g. is that in certain scientific models of it, it has 3 measurable dimensions. That however does not explain what space is, it merely takes a few observable aspects of it and uses them in certain models. The fact that science always operates on models of reality alone implies a reduction of reality of course.

[wavelength]

Our ability to interpret and analyze may be limited, but that in no way invites the supernatural or spiritual.

I agree to the extend that the supernatural or spiritual can never be invited to a scientific-positivistic world view. That goes without saying.

[The True Adonis]

Of course there are limitation to science. A natural scientist is limited to the methods of science.

The easiest example of concepts that are essential to science, meaning they are not defined within science but taken for granted, are the concepts of space and time. There is no natural scientific explanation of what space and time is. The scientific aspect of space e.g. is that in certain scientific models of it, it has 3 measurable dimensions. That however does not explain what space is, it merely takes a few observable aspects of it and uses them in certain models. The fact that science always operates on models of reality alone implies a reduction of reality of course.

These are merely hypothesis that are being tested and yet to be tested with the technology and equations we have.  Nothing mystic, supernatural or spiritual or out of the realms of Science.  Hawking has gone to 11 dimensions.  He didn`t just claim it.  He backed with theoretical physics and equations. Just as Dark Matter and the Multiverse theory are being posited.  They are not merely based on whims. Carl Sagan wonderfully explains the 4th dimension here:

[ironneck]

i think muslims should bomb building and christians should burn women with red hair
oldschool bitch!