Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Off Topic > Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-01-2006, 06:37 PM   #61
o_frenchtoast
 
o_frenchtoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-
And, FWIW, BS reaches internationally and has programs in many countries...including Iraq. But by all mean...continue with your attack that is not true.
What part is not true? The fact that BSA will not accept a gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual/atheist/agnostic member?
o_frenchtoast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 06:46 PM   #62
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchToast
What part is not true? The fact that BSA will not accept a gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual/atheist/agnostic member?
The part where you say that they teach hatred. If you want to argue about what you don't know about the Scouts then why not start your own thread about it?
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 06:53 PM   #63
o_backstaber
 
o_backstaber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
I find it extremely amusing how the Boy Scouts are mentioned, then people just start talking about (mostly criticizing or bashing it) when it was only there for a small minute comparison. Now let's not let this get too far off topic, as the last few posts have been.
o_backstaber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 06:55 PM   #64
o_frenchtoast
 
o_frenchtoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
http://scoutingforall.org/
o_frenchtoast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 07:35 PM   #65
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
We digress...

To say the Boy Scouts of America are not principled on moral and religious values would be ignoring the facts. Their oath, after all, is "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." It's a private organization that is founded on the betterment and welfare of America. It does not practice bigotry. It teaches outdoorsmanship, citizenship, self-respect, adventurism, and leadership.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 07:53 PM   #66
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Yeah, let's stick to the topic of Sharia Law...if there's additional discussion left on it?
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 08:49 PM   #67
o_frenchtoast
 
o_frenchtoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by uBeR
It's a private organization that is founded on the betterment and welfare of America.
A private organization that uses public funds.
o_frenchtoast is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 09:14 PM   #68
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
It's non-profit.

Also:
Quote:
Funds to support the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America come from registration fees, local council service fees, investment income, Scouting and Boys' Life magazines, sale of uniforms and equipment, and contributions from individuals. These monies help to deliver the program of the BSA (through four regional service centers and more than 300 local councils) to chartered organizations that use the Scouting program to meet the needs of their youth.

The National Boy Scouts of America Foundation also provides funding for both local council needs and national organization initiatives. Most of this funding comes from specifically designated gifts made to the foundation by individuals, corporations, and other foundations.

The national office

* Provides local councils with program development and evaluation as well as camp and office planning, extensive financial counseling, planned giving and fund-raising information, and professional personnel support
* Coordinates a communications network through magazines and literature (handbooks, merit badge pamphlets, brochures, training materials, and professional development training)
* Creates a climate of positive understanding and support
* Makes available uniforms, equipment, and program supplies
* Administers national high-adventure bases and national events (jamborees, National Eagle Scout Association and Order of the Arrow conferences, and National Council meetings)
* Maintains communication with chartered organizations that use the Scouting program (religious institutions, civic organizations, labor unions, professional organizations, business, and industry)
* Maintains liaison with Scouting associations in other countries as a member of the World Scout Conference
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 11:12 PM   #69
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
The BSA's tax free status and political support in luau of its inherent discrimination against atheists or gays is what is called into question, no less than similar practice at churches, even though they are obviously not for ALL americans, unless you happened to consider gays or atheists non-american at which point we have a different problem. Considering the recent statistics gathered around the Nov 7th elections, aprox 17% of americans are atheist... the lowest percentage of any 1st world country. While that is shameful to start with, the bigger issue is that 17% of americans and their children will not be allowed into the BSA, and we're not talking gays or closet cases yet here...

back on topic:

Quote:
Middle Eastern nations aren't the most liberal of environments. I don't know what you're talking about.

What's worse is you're comparing Muslims to Nazis. Come on. Let's get real. The extermination of Jews is obviously a violation of human rights, and obviously ethically and morally wrong. Recognizing, however, you have past lineage with that is different. Oh, BTW, you know that Pope guy, yeah he was Nazi child (in Hitler Youth).

Hmm, entire Middle East rioting and mobbing? Seems like another one of your fallacies. But it's really easy to think that when you ignore the calls for peace and the end of the violent protests by high-ranking Muslims across the world. And please don't common about theological, canonical, and doctrinal issues of which you have very little knowledge on.
You mis-understood, the comment about liberal environments was directed towards muslim actions while inside of liberal countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweeden, and Germany... which didnt do anything about the riots in the name of appeasing the rioters and not offending their 'religion' any further. While in those nations with the widest of human freedoms afforded to any citizens of any nation, wider than even the US, they chose to rally with hate speach, slogans threatening death to media leaders, and the burning of their host countries flags amongst others and human effegies, for not legaly condemning the publishing of cartoons and imprisoning the makers and publishers, and calling for the removal or death of Denmark's PM. Killings of dozens of people were reported as results of rallies worldwide against a cartoon, where people were shot dead in afghanistan, pakistan, Iran and Denmarks embacies were attacked and firebombed across the muslim world prompting their closing.

We might not be able to condemn every arab or muslim, but we can condemtn is their governments for doing nothing in terms of legality to stem the hate they use themselves to control their populace. No messages to quell the violence came during the protests and rallys from any middle eastern country, not even during the burning of the embacies, some only way after.

The quiet calls of muslim leaders from within europe to stop the protests were only aired after the majority of the violence was over with and they were concerned with the images being published of these organized mobs rallying for death and destruction and calling for religious legislation under threat of bombings and beheadings. The only reason they called it off is because it was making them look bad, for being as intollerant as they are.

Your american free thinkers from the Islamist Thinkers Society, did this in celebration of a Tel-Aviv bombing.

Heres another rally held again in NY: here

These arent some disorganized mob, they are lead by muslim leaders, intellectuals, and scholars. I suggest you read over their rhetoric. I, for one, know, that none of them would support the free speech granted to them, for other minorities, as evidenced in what they call for, and their own homeland's policies.

The muslim intelligencia of every nation is easily moved to critisize its host and any anti-arabic/muslim news, stories, or facts. It is true that they critisize arab governments, but never the theo-centric ideology of the politics that govern them. To them, a theocracy is ideal, and inseprable from nationalism.

And yes, I know about the Ratzinger's days in the hitler youth and then stationing of anti-air defences. He is now old, and an anti-semitic idealist he's not, he has renounced his youthful arrogance and serves to bridge gaps between catholicism and its neighbors / victims on an ideological level, if not on a political one, in an appeal to stability rather than the denouncing of practices under 'heretical' terms, as no doubt his religion tells him to think as such of the jews and muslims. One hell of a run-on sentence, but you get the point.

Your judgement on my canonnical knowledge is unfounded, and neither is the presumption that I would make judgements solely on theological documents... because whats on paper is almost never in practice. My judgements are based on observation of national events and the ideologies behind them... the realities of arab leaders using quaranic literature and voice for tyranical purposes does not escape me... the real disgust is in arabic acceptance of such practice without questioning its motivation, or origins, when the clergy uses it to propagate violence and intollerance of the worst kind under the guise of the rest of the world bein un-islamic. And the disgust within the realisation that that is *all* that they need to say.

Akin to calls in the US of things being un-patriotic or un-christian, except with no reason or regulation, and obsene governmental support.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-01-2006, 11:18 PM   #70
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
ugh... Russian...can't you condense your comments into something that is brief and gets your point across?
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 12:17 AM   #71
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
The BSA's tax free status and political support in luau of its inherent discrimination against atheists or gays is what is called into question, no less than similar practice at churches, even though they are obviously not for ALL americans, unless you happened to consider gays or atheists non-american at which point we have a different problem. Considering the recent statistics gathered around the Nov 7th elections, aprox 17% of americans are atheist... the lowest percentage of any 1st world country. While that is shameful to start with, the bigger issue is that 17% of americans and their children will not be allowed into the BSA, and we're not talking gays or closet cases yet here...
Like I said, they're nonprofit. Most nonprofit organizations get tax reductions. What's your point? Also like I said, they're a private organization. They're rooted in religious values, as I pointed out above. If you can't get your head wrapped around that, then you shouldn't join. Hmm, shameful we're nation of religious morality? Hmm, shameful that only 17% of Americans are atheist? Shameful only 26% of America is Catholic. Why is it shameful? Are you trying to push atheists beliefs on people? Is that why it's shameful? Not enough people like you? I don't get it.

Quote:
You mis-understood, the comment about liberal environments was directed towards muslim actions while inside of liberal countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweeden, and Germany... which didnt do anything about the riots in the name of appeasing the rioters and not offending their 'religion' any further. While in those nations with the widest of human freedoms afforded to any citizens of any nation, wider than even the US, they chose to rally with hate speach, slogans threatening death to media leaders, and the burning of their host countries flags amongst others and human effegies, for not legaly condemning the publishing of cartoons and imprisoning the makers and publishers, and calling for the removal or death of Denmark's PM. Killings of dozens of people were reported as results of rallies worldwide against a cartoon, where people were shot dead in afghanistan, pakistan, Iran and Denmarks embacies were attacked and firebombed across the muslim world prompting their closing.

We might not be able to condemn every arab or muslim, but we can condemtn is their governments for doing nothing in terms of legality to stem the hate they use themselves to control their populace. No messages to quell the violence came during the protests and rallys from any middle eastern country, not even during the burning of the embacies, some only way after.
Uh, your source on this? Probably none, I'm sure. But that's fine. Your arguments are always full of logical fallacies. I'd have to wholly disagree because I remember explicitly denouncements of violence from Muslims across the world [edit: in fact you are flatly wrong, sir]. I could get you specific quotes from specific leaders if I still had an account from a different forum I used to browse. You continue to use actions of the few [please don't misconstrue this, because it's relative] to continue your bigoted tirade on Muslims. Hmm, we should condemn every Arab and Muslim. You're right. Oh? We should condemn their governments? Wait, didn't you just say their governments were Danish and inner-European? Hmm. Oh, you mean we should condemn other governments for the actions of the few so-called Muslims. OK. Great logic, sir.

Quote:
The quiet calls of muslim leaders from within europe to stop the protests were only aired after the majority of the violence was over with and they were concerned with the images being published of these organized mobs rallying for death and destruction and calling for religious legislation under threat of bombings and beheadings. The only reason they called it off is because it was making them look bad, for being as intollerant as they are.
Wrong again.

Quote:
Your american free thinkers from the Islamist Thinkers Society, did this in celebration of a Tel-Aviv bombing.

Heres another rally held again in NY: here
I do not at all know them, nevermind support them. [Edit: after research, I wholly disagree with their views.]

Quote:
These arent some disorganized mob, they are lead by muslim leaders, intellectuals, and scholars. I suggest you read over their rhetoric. I, for one, know, that none of them would support the free speech granted to them, for other minorities, as evidenced in what they call for, and their own homeland's policies.
Funny you say this because their Web site states contrastingly: "We are less than a handfull of Muslims from Ahlus Sunnah wal jama'ah who give public da'wah to society . . ."

Last edited by o_uber; 12-02-2006 at 12:23 AM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 12:18 AM   #72
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
actualy, that is a condensation, I was citing more stories in my first post with more descriptions, but I thought just two would get the point across.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 01:15 AM   #73
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Like I said, they're nonprofit. Most nonprofit organizations get tax reductions. What's your point? Also like I said, they're a private organization. They're rooted in religious values, as I pointed out above. If you can't get your head wrapped around that, then you shouldn't join. Hmm, shameful we're nation of religious morality? Hmm, shameful that only 17% of Americans are atheist? Shameful only 26% of America is Catholic. Why is it shameful? Are you trying to push atheists beliefs on people? Is that why it's shameful? Not enough people like you? I don't get it.
The sad part is that statisticaly we're the least moral country of the 1st world generation. You can read my earlier threads where I've discussed this thuroughly or go over to politicalcrossfire.com and read up on some cited statistics. Or just watch this video right here

Perhaps then you'd like to see a video on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence itself, right here

Both of which were produced before America dropped to #20 on the international corruption and transparency report, with france beating us by a whole 2 slots for first time in history. I'll let you guess what scandanavian countries were the leaders in transparency.

I call tax relief to these non-for-profits as taxation without representation... I do not want someone who excludes me on a permanent and unjustifiable basis to benefit from my taxation. Turn off their water, power, fire department support, police support, and any road cleared towards the place of practice / worship. Because my taxation paid for that, under the guise it would represent the good for ALL. I'm not here to give charity to those who dont want anything to do with me based on some moral high-road presumption that they are better than me.

Quote:
Uh, your source on this? Probably none, I'm sure. But that's fine. Your arguments are always full of logical fallacies. I'd have to wholly disagree because I remember explicitly denouncements of violence from Muslims across the world [edit: in fact you are flatly wrong, sir]. I could get you specific quotes from specific leaders if I still had an account from a different forum I used to browse. You continue to use actions of the few [please don't misconstrue this, because it's relative] to continue your bigoted tirade on Muslims. Hmm, we should condemn every Arab and Muslim. You're right. Oh? We should condemn their governments? Wait, didn't you just say their governments were Danish and inner-European? Hmm. Oh, you mean we should condemn other governments for the actions of the few so-called Muslims. OK. Great logic, sir.
The humour is in your need to insult instead of support your own arguement. Have you been on this planet in the past year or did you miss the world-wide protests against those mohammad cartoons?... the protests in inner-europe are what I'm pointing at. I'm not even mentioning the riots in France over the police hounding muslim youths in a crime neighborhood. For all our sakes, read up. And here is the danish embacy in Syria.

Quote:
Funny you say this because their Web site states contrastingly: "We are less than a handfull of Muslims from Ahlus Sunnah wal jama'ah who give public da'wah to society . . ."
The organizers are less than a handful, the dissilusioned, impresionable and eager supporers who showed up are many. How do you not link this with inciting violence, even if 2nd hand. It wasnt the KKK leader himself who shot those civil liberties aid workers.

Last edited by o_the russian; 12-02-2006 at 01:47 AM.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 04:26 AM   #74
o_uber
 
o_uber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
The sad part is that statisticaly we're the least moral country of the 1st world generation. You can read my earlier threads where I've discussed this thuroughly or go over to politicalcrossfire.com and read up on some cited statistics. Or just watch this video right here
Boy, oh boy Russian. Now I know why a majority of your posts are absurd; you're sources are absurd. Ladies and gentlemen if you ever needed a prime example of a non sequitur and a post hoc fallacy, this is it right here. Not to mention the subtle ties of polarization, rationalization, either-or, and hasty generalization arguments. But I'll save that stuff for literary debate. What's more is this guy lacks sources and includes grammar mistakes. This sir, is a top-notch source of information if I ever saw one. YouTube for the win, sir. But please, feel free to show me where in the Bible it tells us to kill, do drugs, and have illicit sex. He's tying two completely unrelated things into one argument. Furthermore, are these statistics he's looking at at all skewed?* Do these people who claim to be Christians and such really and devoutly so? Etcetera. *(Not talking about the flat out lie about 13% believing in evolution. It's actually 45%. Good game liar... but whatever you need to do to try to make your argument.)

Quote:
Perhaps then you'd like to see a video on the correlation between religiosity and intelligence itself, right here
See exact same reply as for above video. Once again, absurd sources of information, Russian. Same old logical fallacies as previously. Not only that, but deception! I do like, however, the most recent study that guy refers is from over 40 years ago. Over FOURTY years ago. Are you seriously trying to get me to believe information from a study 40 years ago, Russian?

Lets see,
"religiously conservative students are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability." Hmm, wasn't that the same thing they were saying about blacks during the same time? Hmm indeed. Too bad, though, that I couldn't find any source to this study, which I'm sure was misconstrued by the video's author, if ever made at all.

But lets go on. Lets focus on those quotes he was trying to deceive us with. Shall we?

"In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day." (Dulles)

Or, from the man himself:
"[The Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus . . ." (Jefferson)

What about Thomas Paine, though?
"The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the Quakers … though I revere their philanthropy, I cannot help smiling at [their] conceit; … if the taste of a Quaker [had] been consulted at the Creation, what a silent and drab-colored Creation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its gaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing." (Paine)

"How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical." (Paine)

Albert Einstein?
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand" (Einstein)
or
"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." (Einstein)

Surely Bertrand Russell!
"I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity Lane, when I saw in a flash (or thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught it: "Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!" (Russell) [Ontological argument is an argument that proves the existence of God. No doubt, though, Russell struggled with his beliefs.]

Ah, Leo Tolstoy. [He found his answers in teachings of Jesus Christ and the Gospels. Read more about it in his "A Confession," "My Religion," "The Kingdom of God is Within You," and "The Gospels in Brief."]

So, what about John Adams?
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will." (Adams)
and
"I have examined all [religions]...and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." (Adams)
He was a Unitarian.

So you see, one can pull a clever quote and deceive the reader in to thinking that person is atheist and surely not religious. Wrong. Again. All these people I quoted above were, in fact, God fearing men. Good work Russian.

Quote:
The humour is in your need to insult instead of support your own arguement. Have you been on this planet in the past year or did you miss the world-wide protests against those mohammad cartoons?... the protests in inner-europe are what I'm pointing at. I'm not even mentioning the riots in France over the police hounding muslim youths in a crime neighborhood. For all our sakes, read up. And here is the danish embacy in Syria.
What? Humor? No. I've supported my arguments. I know what you're pointing at. How does that change anything of what I said? I don't even know what you're syaing anymore, to be honest.

Quote:
The organizers are less than a handful, the dissilusioned, impresionable and eager supporers who showed up are many. How do you not link this with inciting violence, even if 2nd hand. It wasnt the KKK leader himself who shot those civil liberties aid workers.
Touché! Well not quite. You have a point, but it's different from your original. That's fine. Like I said, I wholly disagree with this group's views. If you agree their views, then I disagree with you. Thus, I disagree with all of the supporters! Though, true racists who indeed shot the civil libertists!

Last edited by o_uber; 12-02-2006 at 04:36 AM.
o_uber is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 05:09 AM   #75
o_the russian
 
o_the russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Boy, oh boy Russian. Now I know why a majority of your posts are absurd; you're sources are absurd. Ladies and gentlemen if you ever needed a prime example of a non sequitur and a post hoc fallacy, this is it right here. Not to mention the subtle ties of polarization, rationalization, either-or, and hasty generalization arguments. But I'll save that stuff for literary debate. What's more is this guy lacks sources and includes grammar mistakes. This sir, is a top-notch source of information if I ever saw one. YouTube for the win, sir. But please, feel free to show me where in the Bible it tells us to kill, do drugs, and have illicit sex. He's tying two completely unrelated things into one argument. Furthermore, are these statistics he's looking at at all skewed?* Do these people who claim to be Christians and such really and devoutly so? Etcetera. *(Not talking about the flat out lie about 13% believing in evolution. It's actually 45%. Good game liar... but whatever you need to do to try to make your argument.)
Sir, perhaps if you cut out the indignities and name calling, 20% of the above paragraph could be weeded down to an arguement. Let me start out by removing your 45% claim. Check: This news story about the polls conducted at the 2004 election.

The poll was conducted where else?... the voting booths 2004! ... usualy an indicative sample, atleast of people involved enough to give a rats ass if we do teach evolution or not. Perhaps it would be more properly worded that only 13% of americans give a rats ass about having evolution as the primary curriculum over creationism.

The guy who posted that video did his research, as I've read those stats on numerous other sites.

Alrighty, moving on... the intellegence problem. The research that video maker did was also quite well founded, heres a lot more facts to support him that he ommited... silly him. Here is the wiki on a good ammount of studies conducted with many different intelligence identifying tests.

Let me quote:
Quote:
Religiosity and education in the United States

Research in the United States has suggested a negative correlation between religiosity and educational level, a variable usually related with higher IQ. In 2000, noted skeptic Michael Shermer found a negative correlation between education and religiosity in the United States, though Rice University indicates this may not apply to the social sciences.[4] Lastly a June 2006 Gallup survey further supported that a definite belief in God declines with educational level.[5]
I hope 2006 is up to date enough for you.

And:
Quote:
Belief in a personal God among scientists

In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[1]. Another study found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.[2]

A 1998 survey[3] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study[4] which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba[5].
Where all these pretty little facts have their own citations you can nit-pick instead of adressing the arguement with your own facts.

Movin on... one can find enumerable quotes from people who contradict themselves on a daily basis, even the leaders. I'll give you that, but sadly the facts support the earlier assertions and premises that the world presents to us, no matter who put what form of media up on what form of mass communication.

You may feel free to attack the type of media, my grammar, my spelling, even call me names... considering its my 2nd language I think I do pretty well...but for as long as you cant address the facts, it means jack. And your avoidance of doing so only shows desperation.

Quote:
What? Humor? No. I've supported my arguments. I know what you're pointing at. How does that change anything of what I said? I don't even know what you're syaing anymore, to be honest.
From my first arguement you questioned my logic for arguing that the rioters sought legislation, beheading, disembowlment and utter violence in responce to the cartoons but not the atrocities commited by their faithful. That information came from the horses mouth, the plackards the people were carrying while moving down the streets of the nations where theyre free to express themselves, arguing that others should not have the same freedom, and suggesting the penalties. This is what you called me on and I've explained it TWICE... its less likely that you dont see what i'm saying than you dont want to see what I'm saying. And unless you can argue for mob mentality of the entire middle east, we can argue for the individual beliefs of every person in that mob in a country that is free, individualy supporting his own intollerance, hate, and warmongering. Why? Because they are not under threat of persecution in the countries where now they wish to persecute others like in their homelands. GET IT?

Last edited by o_the russian; 12-02-2006 at 05:16 AM.
o_the russian is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 11:55 AM   #76
o_ivaqual
 
o_ivaqual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
I've seldom heard something as inane as "your study doesn't count, it's too old plus also because people were RACIST at that time" a study isn't invalidated by time but by another study, and saying that is a pretty close call to the godwin point.

Youtube is as good a source as anything else, it's the content that matters. If the link was to a blog post containing the video would have it felt better for you to click on it ? I think so.

You also seem to construct your ideas on the principle that you are right, not that you are trying to reach a conclusion that approaches truth.

Just saying.. Please ignore this post if enclined to do so but honestly..
o_ivaqual is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 12:59 PM   #77
o_yomamashouse
 
o_yomamashouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Your Mamas House
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
This is the most rewarding part of derailing topics. Watching people make stupid arguments about each other's 8 paragraph holy-shit-i-don't-want-to-read-all-of-that post.

Uh oh , there goes my cover.
o_yomamashouse is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 06:42 PM   #78
o_nezumi
 
o_nezumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Peoples Republic of Harmfull Free Radicals
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Russian
aprox 17% of americans are atheist... the lowest percentage of any 1st world country. While that is shameful to start with...
Well fuck you too, asshole.

That's about the most intelligent thing I've got left to say.
o_nezumi is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 07:03 PM   #79
o_|404|innoc-tpf-
 
o_|404|innoc-tpf-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Russian, go sit with Tu. You're peas of the same pod so the sooner you get acquainted the better. To say that a low percentage of Atheists in the US is shameful ranks among the worst things you've said.
o_|404|innoc-tpf- is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 12-02-2006, 07:15 PM   #80
o_ginger lord
 
o_ginger lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
Back to the original post, I'm in the UK and havn't seen any of this on any news channel.
o_ginger lord is offline   Reply With Quote


Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.