Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
it also appears Barry has taken his self appointed retraining mission to new heights. but the interesting tell, is that the good doctor never seems to recognize that he could benefit immensely from the same medicine he constantly prescribes to all others. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Feste, what you say makes perfect sense to any sort of mature individual. We all recognize that free speech is an inviolable part of democratic societies. It is also a privilege really. But if some use that right to endlessly insult others in the most crude fashion, then because it is, and has always been a crazy world, at some point, someone is coming to become unhinged and lash out, possibly in the worst possible way. And, if one has themself, a mindset of constantly pushing other people's buttons to get reactions, then they become numbed to a certain sensitivity that is the social lubricant of peaceful coexistence of differing views. They would maintain, I have the right to dump on you, and your beliefs and I will continue to do so because it is my right, and if you don't like, then that is just too bad To try to frame it in another way, is just a weak misdirection. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. The prophet was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are the cartoons this magazine published: The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/. “In 2012, the magazine included multiple caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; one was called “Mohammad: a star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beard was the only thing covering the lower half of his body. The cover depicted Mohammad in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” I wouldn’t have
[FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 09-Jan-15 00:15:05 UTC
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 01/03/15 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 01/10/15 00:00:00 394 messages as of (UTC) 01/08/15 23:04:04 69 TurquoiseBee turquoiseb 44 Bhairitu noozguru 35 salyavin808 30 aryavazhi 27 Michael Jackson mjackson74 23 curtisdeltablues 21 steve.sundur 19 j_alexander_stanley 15 feste37 15 anartaxius 14 jamesalan735 13 s3raphita 12 emily.mae50 10 hepa7 10 emptybill 9 jr_esq 8 Share Long sharelong60 6 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569 3 ultrarishi 3 srijau 2 'Rick Archer' rick 1 yifuxero 1 reverse_archery 1 ldlawson 1 WLeed3 1 Turq turquoiseb 1 Duveyoung Posters: 27 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Dr. David Bentley Hart has indicated that the proof of God's existence can be done through logic and metaphysics. I have tried to do this in the past by using the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a few people here in this forum. You failed to participate. Why? Barry doesn't interact well with idiots. However, because I am an idiot, I have a forlorn hope for you. Now, you're making arguments based on an emotional level which is not proving your point about God's non-existence. You can talk all day until the cows come home. But you won't prove anything. If Barry does not interact with you, he will not prove anything. That is logical. See, there is hope for you, however misplaced that hope may be. All Barry would ask of you is, 'Show me God, we'll wait'. If you could do that, Barry would have no recourse. Have you read the classic book Language, Truth and Logic by Alfred Jules Ayer? Written in 1936 it specifically deals with the logical problem of metaphysics. Here is Ayer's summary of Chapter 1: The Elimination of Metaphysics: p.33: What is the purpose and method of philosophy? Rejection of the metaphysical thesis that philosophy affords us knowledge of a transcendent reality. 34: Kant also rejected metaphysics in this sense, but whereas he accused metaphysics of ignoring the limits of human understanding we accuse them of disobeying the rules which govern the significant use of language. 35: Adoption of verifiability as a criterion for testing the significance of putative statements of fact. 36: Distinction between conclusive and partial verification. No proposition can be conclusively verified 38: Or conclusively confuted. 38: For a statement of fact to be genuine some possible observations must be relevant to the determination of its truth or falsehood. 39: Examples of the kinds of assertions, familiar to philosophers, which are ruled out by our criterion. 41: Metaphysical sentences defined as sentences which express neither tautologies nor empirical hypotheses. 42: Linguistic confusions the prime source of metaphysics. (emphasis added) 44: Metaphysics and Poetry. The above are summaries of the nature of the arguments, not the arguments themselves. You have to buy the book to get the real stuff. Publishers blurb: 'A first-rate antidote for fuzzy thought and muddled writing, this remarkable book has helped philosophers, writers, speakers, teachers, students, and general readers [that's you] alike.' 'A delightful book...I should like to have written it myself.' —Bertrand Russell Remember Russell's words are a primary statement of what FFL is all about. From the FFL home page: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Feste, what you say makes perfect sense to any sort of mature individual. We all recognize that free speech is an inviolable part of democratic societies. It is also a privilege really. But if some use that right to endlessly insult others in the most crude fashion, then because it is, and has always been a crazy world, at some point, someone is coming to become unhinged and lash out, possibly in the worst possible way. And, if one has themself, a mindset of constantly pushing other people's buttons to get reactions, then they become numbed to a certain sensitivity that is the social lubricant of peaceful coexistence of differing views. They would maintain, I have the right to dump on you, and your beliefs and I will continue to do so because it is my right, and if you don't like, then that is just too bad To try to frame it in another way, is just a weak misdirection. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. The prophet was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are the cartoons this magazine published: The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/. “In 2012, the magazine included multiple caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; one was called “Mohammad: a star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beard was the only thing covering the lower half of his body. The cover depicted Mohammad in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” I wouldn’t have advised this magazine to publish any of these, and indeed the French government advised the same. You have to remember that in Islam the prophet is not depicted. It is considered sacrilegious to do so (see the article). No good will come from it. It is just being offensive for the sake of it.
[FairfieldLife] Efficiency in Action
Indian worker 'takes 24-year sickie' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30722515 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30722515 Indian worker 'takes 24-year sickie' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30722515 The Indian government sacks a civil servant who it says went on leave in 1990 and never came back to work. View on www.bbc.com http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30722515 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Feste, what you say makes perfect sense to any sort of mature individual. We all recognize that free speech is an inviolable part of democratic societies. It is also a privilege really. But if some use that right to endlessly insult others in the most crude fashion, then because it is, and has always been a crazy world, at some point, someone is coming to become unhinged and lash out, possibly in the worst possible way. And, if one has themself, a mindset of constantly pushing other people's buttons to get reactions, then they become numbed to a certain sensitivity that is the social lubricant of peaceful coexistence of differing views. They would maintain, I have the right to dump on you, and your beliefs and I will continue to do so because it is my right, and if you don't like, then that is just too bad To try to frame it in another way, is just a weak misdirection. Quite right, we are much better off with a bunch of self appointed spokesmen for supreme beings telling us what we can or can't say about the way our societies are run. And if some can't cope with a difference of opinion and want to both have their medieval religion and all the benefits of modern society then they should be allowed to control the social debate with violence. Fly planes into buildings, burn down theatres, murder cartoonists. It's our own fault for daring to question the authority of the almighty. I wonder what it is that makes you think it's our own fault, a desire for the TMO to be accorded protected status perhaps? Buck wanted that to be the case. Fact is we live in an evolving world. It's the job of religions to stay the same and protect thier supposedly received wisdom. That's why these people destroy, because they can't fit those two ideas into their heads at the same time - one of them has to go. Most societies are struggling to get away from millenia of religious rule and all the structural disadvantages for women etc that they bring. Islam is just the last religion to face the inevitable reformation to bring it more in line with the reality of what people want and deserve. Most of them can cope but some are insane with the strength of their upbringing, they can kick and scream all they like, the only alternative is some horror like the Islamic state. You can have your beliefs but if you live in a society where people hold different ones you have to accept that yours aren't special. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the prophet. It only
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
Xeno, You should read the original writings of Plato and Aristotle regarding logic, metaphysics and Being. You might be able to understand directly from them based on the sound of the words they're trying to convey regarding this subject. Nonetheless, even if logic and reasoning are technically accurate to prove the existence of God, they may not be enough for most people. They need to be supported by an assurance from the heart. This could be done through meditation and association with others with the same goals. Aquinas mentioned that all of his writings regarding this matter were pulp when compared to the rapture he experienced after gaining enlightenment. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Dr. David Bentley Hart has indicated that the proof of God's existence can be done through logic and metaphysics. I have tried to do this in the past by using the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a few people here in this forum. You failed to participate. Why? Barry doesn't interact well with idiots. However, because I am an idiot, I have a forlorn hope for you. Now, you're making arguments based on an emotional level which is not proving your point about God's non-existence. You can talk all day until the cows come home. But you won't prove anything. If Barry does not interact with you, he will not prove anything. That is logical. See, there is hope for you, however misplaced that hope may be. All Barry would ask of you is, 'Show me God, we'll wait'. If you could do that, Barry would have no recourse. Have you read the classic book Language, Truth and Logic by Alfred Jules Ayer? Written in 1936 it specifically deals with the logical problem of metaphysics. Here is Ayer's summary of Chapter 1: The Elimination of Metaphysics: p.33: What is the purpose and method of philosophy? Rejection of the metaphysical thesis that philosophy affords us knowledge of a transcendent reality. 34: Kant also rejected metaphysics in this sense, but whereas he accused metaphysics of ignoring the limits of human understanding we accuse them of disobeying the rules which govern the significant use of language. 35: Adoption of verifiability as a criterion for testing the significance of putative statements of fact. 36: Distinction between conclusive and partial verification. No proposition can be conclusively verified 38: Or conclusively confuted. 38: For a statement of fact to be genuine some possible observations must be relevant to the determination of its truth or falsehood. 39: Examples of the kinds of assertions, familiar to philosophers, which are ruled out by our criterion. 41: Metaphysical sentences defined as sentences which express neither tautologies nor empirical hypotheses. 42: Linguistic confusions the prime source of metaphysics. (emphasis added) 44: Metaphysics and Poetry. The above are summaries of the nature of the arguments, not the arguments themselves. You have to buy the book to get the real stuff. Publishers blurb: 'A first-rate antidote for fuzzy thought and muddled writing, this remarkable book has helped philosophers, writers, speakers, teachers, students, and general readers [that's you] alike.' 'A delightful book...I should like to have written it myself.' —Bertrand Russell Remember Russell's words are a primary statement of what FFL is all about. From the FFL home page: What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
[FairfieldLife] Good article -- The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders
It's refreshing to read someone who actually gets it, as opposed to some of the They brought it on themselves because they attacked genuflect religion nonsense we've been hearing from some quarters. The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders - The New Yorker | | | | | | | | | | | The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders - The New YorkerThe murders today in Paris are not a result of France’s failure to assimilate two generations of Muslim immigrants from its former colonies. | | | | View on www.newyorker.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | A quote from the article I liked because it says it all (color highlighting mine): Because the ideology is the product of a major world religion, a lot of painstaking pretzel logic goes into trying to explain what the violence does, or doesn’t, have to do with Islam. Some well-meaning people tiptoe around the Islamic connection, claiming that the carnage has nothing to do with faith, or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that, at most, the violence represents a “distortion” of a great religion. ... A religion is not just a set of texts but the living beliefs and practices of its adherents. Islam today includes a substantial minority of believers who countenance, if they don’t actually carry out, a degree of violence in the application of their convictions that is currently unique. Charlie Hebdo had been nondenominational in its satire, sticking its finger into the sensitivities of Jews and Christians, too—but only Muslims responded with threats and acts of terrorism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Feste, what you say makes perfect sense to any sort of mature individual. We all recognize that free speech is an inviolable part of democratic societies. It is also a privilege really. But if some use that right to endlessly insult others in the most crude fashion, then because it is, and has always been a crazy world, at some point, someone is coming to become unhinged and lash out, possibly in the worst possible way. And, if one has themself, a mindset of constantly pushing other people's buttons to get reactions, then they become numbed to a certain sensitivity that is the social lubricant of peaceful coexistence of differing views. They would maintain, I have the right to dump on you, and your beliefs and I will continue to do so because it is my right, and if you don't like, then that is just too bad To try to frame it in another way, is just a weak misdirection. Quite right, we are much better off with a bunch of self appointed spokesmen for supreme beings telling us what we can or can't say about the way our societies are run. And if some can't cope with a difference of opinion and want to both have their medieval religion and all the benefits of modern society then they should be allowed to control the social debate with violence. Fly planes into buildings, burn down theatres, murder cartoonists. It's our own fault for daring to question the authority of the almighty. I wonder what it is that makes you think it's our own fault, a desire for the TMO to be accorded protected status perhaps? Buck wanted that to be the case. Fact is we live in an evolving world. It's the job of religions to stay the same and protect thier supposedly received wisdom. That's why these people destroy, because they can't fit those two ideas into their heads at the same time - one of them has to go. Most societies are struggling to get away from millenia of religious rule and all the structural disadvantages for women etc that they bring. Islam is just the last religion to face the inevitable reformation to bring it more in line with the reality of what people want and deserve. Most of them can cope but some are insane with the strength of their upbringing, they can kick and scream all they like, the only alternative is some horror like the Islamic state. You can have your beliefs but if you live in a society where people hold different ones you have to accept that yours aren't special. It is my opinion that the thing that causes most spiritual/religious people to react with anger to those poking fun and laughing at them is that the laughter dissolves their sense of self importance. Because let's face it...for many of them the whole *reason* they're involved with this religion/group/cult they're part of in the first place is because it tells them over and over and over how important and 'special' they are. Let us also not forget that Steve's rant above isn't really about Muslim extremists vs. cartoonists anyway, no more than Feste's is. IMO they're ranting on behalf of people like themselves on FFL who resent being told that THEY are not nearly as important as the TMO has led them to believe they are...by people they feel superior to, such as...uh...moi. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : If you deliberately go around provoking people, youshouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. If I am a rich manand I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar billsattached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong tocommit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly,since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. Thisis not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. OtherwiseI put myself at risk as well as innocent others. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see noreason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all,that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemnedthe cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons. I am notsaying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to doso was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. | | | | | | French magazine sparks another controversy over ... A French satire magazine has published a special issue
[FairfieldLife] Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon
If ya want to see how a saint can sin all his life and still be rose scented, then this is your film. I shudder to think what the TMO might have done if this guy'd met Maharishi. Will not let my imagination go there, thank you very much. But yeah, really, Shep Gordon is about as Gumpy as a guy can be when it comes to true-life experiences. Irony: no sign of Tom Hanks in the film -- though everyone else, yes, are in the film. I'm a writer. I said everyone. That's everyone as spoken by Gary Oldman in the Professional. I'm a prude by many a metric, so Shep's sins could loom over my take on him, but the responses of, well, everyone, to him are a testament unto his personal integrity; and this wins me. You? Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/supermensch_the_legend_of_shep_gordon/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/supermensch_the_legend_of_shep_gordon/ Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/supermensch_the_legend_of_shep_gordon/ Critics Consensus: Its unabashedly positive tone may strike some viewers as disingenuous, but even if Supermensch doesn't tell the whole story, it's an unde... View on www.rottentomatoes... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/supermensch_the_legend_of_shep_gordon/ Preview by Yahoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Now the Catholics weigh in: The empire strikes back! After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/ After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/ The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death, says leader of U.S. Catholic organization. View on www.washingtonpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/ Preview by Yahoo From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Aww come on, he's not saying that Barry - he's just saying that publishing cartoons that deliberately offend Islam is like waving the red cape in front of a bull - its just not a good idea. And I disagree. I think that ANYTHING that can help to wake these homo retardis idiots from their Medieval slumber is a good idea...in the long run. Yes, the ones stuck in this retarded state of mind are crazy, and likely to act out in unpredictable and WMD ways, but we really DO owe it to them -- and to the planet -- to help them wake up. In this case, as it turns out, the Koran itself does not prohibit creating visual images of their prophet. Those aberrant ideas come from a lesser set of teachings called hadith. Those sicko ideas took hold, and now as a result most Sunni Muslims believe that ALL visual depictions of Mohammed should be prohibited, punishable by death. Not just derogatory images, ALL images. THAT is how sane modern Islam is.
[FairfieldLife] From my best friend, who is in Paris right now...
The whole country is in complete solidarity and mourning. We were on the bus at noon, when the national minute of silence was planned, and the bus driver stopped the bus, got up and told the passengers we were stopping for a minute to observe the silence. Nobody complained and you could have heard a pin drop the entire minute. We went to the Museum of Modern Art and they not only looked through any bags, but everyone got scanned with a hand scanner, like at the airport. Nobody complained there either. Most of all, the French are adamant to support free speech. No fear at all, just an anger at what happened and an even stronger support of free speech. They are printing 1 million copies of Charlie Hebdo next week (the circulation is normally 60,000), and I have no doubt they will all sell. I'll try to get a copy myself. So far, this country is the exact opposite of how the US would react.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Thank you for the recommendation about The Imitation Game. It was a wonderful
movie, with truly great performances from both Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira
Knightly.
The Imitation Game Trailer (International Trailer) - IMDb
| |
| | | | | | | |
| The Imitation Game Trailer (International Trailer) - IMD...Watch the latest
The Imitation Game Trailer (International Trailer) on IMDb |
| |
| View on www.imdb.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: ultrarishi no_re...@yahoogroups.com
Ah, the bravery of theliberals who think they have a perfect right to insult
anyone's cherishedbeliefs just because they want to.
I'm sorry, but you and the Right Wing do not get to own this argument. I hear
this shit from my libertarian and tea bagger friends all the time, that
somehow, they are braver, more respectful, more informed, because they they
thought that dissent stopped with end of the Revolutionary War. This is
offensive speech in my mind.
Humor, satire, lampoon is a great American and world wide tradition. Let's
remember Ben Franklin. Let's also remember Lenny Bruce.
Liberals, and generally opened minded people period, are brave. The choose to
buck the status quo. If you want to see a brave liberal catch The Imitation
Game. It's a darn good film even if they fiddle with the details a bit to
make it a thriller. Braking the Enigma and Lorenz was great work which saved
lives and most likely ended the WWII 2 years early. Remember cherished beliefs
are the same thing as cherished facts, or just plain facts.
Thanks for your comments on this issue, really. I was starting to think that
only Salyavin and Curtis and I were the only sane ones here, and you know that
down that path lies madness and NO ONE really wants to go there, so thanks for
the course correction. :-) :-) :-)
Thanks also for the entertainment prompt, in the form of reminding me about
The Imitation Game. Those of you who have not yet attained EC (Eyepatch
Consciousness) probably don't know, but this is the best time of the year for a
pirate such as myself. In the last two days I think I've seen over a dozen
screeners of this year's best movies. These are almost always in DVD
resolution, and you sometimes have to put up with the Property of
Such-and-Such Studios watermarks from time to time, but they're good, clean
copies of the latest movies.
I don't know for sure, being a read-only pirate, but I suspect that some of
these copies come directly from Academy members or journalists voting for
Golden Globe nominations. Many of the ones I found today in the Pirate verse
still haven't come to me via my legitimate reviewer channels. Go figure.
Anyway, The Imitation Game showed up today, so thanks for the reminder. I may
watch it later tonight.
#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374 -- #yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp #yiv8047785374hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp #yiv8047785374ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp .yiv8047785374ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp .yiv8047785374ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374ygrp-mkp .yiv8047785374ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374ygrp-sponsor
#yiv8047785374ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374ygrp-sponsor #yiv8047785374ygrp-lc #yiv8047785374hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374ygrp-sponsor #yiv8047785374ygrp-lc .yiv8047785374ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8047785374
#yiv8047785374activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8047785374 #yiv8047785374activity span
.yiv8047785374underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8047785374
.yiv8047785374attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv8047785374 .yiv8047785374attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8047785374 .yiv8047785374attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv8047785374 .yiv8047785374attach label
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
One makes interesting friends as a TM teacher. Living back in my small hometown in the 1980s one of them was the local church pastor who was also into computers. His son once visiting with a high school friend spotted my picture of SBS and said his dad would not approve. Little did he know his dad loved discussing theology with me and had no problem with my spiritual choices. :-D On 01/08/2015 01:23 PM, ultrarishi wrote: The thing that bothered me about the movie I reviewed here the other day, I Origins is they were a bit naive about the difference between religion and spirituality. The Pitt character is actually arguing spirituality not religion. But the writer even had one Indian character ask him if he is religious This is a great point, Bhairitu! And it is something that I always felt was gift of walking the spiritual path and being a meditator, is that one begins to make clear distinctions about things and find ways to clarify it. For a number of years I have been irritated by the use of spirituality being used as a synonym for religion. It is not its equivalent. Joseph Campbell and CG Jung were great at pointing that out. If anything, they are antonyms and mean very different things. Kind of like the maps is not the territory. One (religion) may be a discription of the other (the territory), but the experience of the two is very different. I think this is why the ability to discriminate (as in seeing distinction, especially fine distinctions, and not the bigoted type of discrimination) comes about with meditation and spiritual growth. Distinction is also not the sole providence of meditation, either. It's part of growth and flowering of the mind and awareness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] From my best friend, who is in Paris right now...
We'll just see how long they like the increased surveillance and searches. Europeans have always laughed about how silly the US is with the TSA and DHS bullshit (even at sport events). On 01/08/2015 01:40 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: The whole country is in complete solidarity and mourning. We were on the bus at noon, when the national minute of silence was planned, and the bus driver stopped the bus, got up and told the passengers we were stopping for a minute to observe the silence. Nobody complained and you could have heard a pin drop the entire minute. We went to the Museum of Modern Art and they not only looked through any bags, but everyone got scanned with a hand scanner, like at the airport. Nobody complained there either. Most of all, the French are adamant to support free speech. No fear at all, just an anger at what happened and an even stronger support of free speech. They are printing 1 million copies of Charlie Hebdo next week (the circulation is normally 60,000), and I have no doubt they will all sell. I'll try to get a copy myself. So far, this country is the exact opposite of how the US would react.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Try to imagine the shitstorm that would hit the fan if the TMO learned that
someone in Hollywood had bought the film rights of Robes of Silk, Feet of
Clay and was about to turn it into a major film.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag
Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all
likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them...
It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl
- who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the
experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be
cancelled.
There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's
flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until
their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions.
Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your
actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is
that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point
of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply
can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs,
where would it end?
I can't believe it was 10 years ago either:
Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation
of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh
representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the
protesters had attempted to stifle free speech.He said: Free speech can go so
far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going
to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK
for that?Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely
careful.This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up
after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday
night.
Play axed after Sikh protests
|
|
|
||
| Play axed after Sikh protests The Birmingham theatre attacked this
weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of
a play that depicts murder and rape in ...|
|
| View on www.theguardian.com |Preview by Yahoo|
|
|
Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians...The magazine is
not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. |
|
|
| View on qz.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
| |
#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574 -- #yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp #yiv7701547574hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp #yiv7701547574ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp .yiv7701547574ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp .yiv7701547574ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574ygrp-mkp .yiv7701547574ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7701547574ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574ygrp-sponsor #yiv7701547574ygrp-lc #yiv7701547574hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574ygrp-sponsor #yiv7701547574ygrp-lc .yiv7701547574ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7701547574
#yiv7701547574activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7701547574 #yiv7701547574activity span
.yiv7701547574underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7701547574
.yiv7701547574attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv7701547574 .yiv7701547574attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7701547574 .yiv7701547574attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7701547574 .yiv7701547574attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv7701547574 .yiv7701547574attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7701547574 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv7701547574 .yiv7701547574bold
[FairfieldLife] Comments on the Paris tragedy from someone in a position to comment
Religion is a “medieval form of unreason”: Salman Rushdie responds to Paris attacks | | | | | | | | | | | Religion is a “medieval form of unreason”: Salman Rushdi...In a statement, the author defended satire and called for fearless disrespect of all religions | | | | View on www.salon.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | Excerpts from his statement: Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. 'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion.' Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect. Hear, hear.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Chilling indeed, salyavin, that people would say, and obviously think, that
once their religion has been insulted, they are no longer responsible for their
actions! It's these kinds of thoughts and words and actions that ALMOST make me
subscribe to mandatory drug intervention for certain imbalances.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 4:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag
Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all
likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them...
It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl
- who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the
experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be
cancelled.
There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's
flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until
their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions.
Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your
actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is
that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point
of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply
can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs,
where would it end?
I can't believe it was 10 years ago either:
Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation
of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh
representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the
protesters had attempted to stifle free speech.He said: Free speech can go so
far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going
to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK
for that?Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely
careful.This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up
after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday
night.
Play axed after Sikh protests
||
|||| Play axed after Sikh protests The Birmingham
theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it
was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in ...||
| View on www.theguardian.com |Preview by Yahoo|
||
Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians...The magazine is
not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. |
| |
| View on qz.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130 -- #yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp #yiv2175274130hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp #yiv2175274130ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp .yiv2175274130ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp .yiv2175274130ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130ygrp-mkp .yiv2175274130ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2175274130ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130ygrp-sponsor #yiv2175274130ygrp-lc #yiv2175274130hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130ygrp-sponsor #yiv2175274130ygrp-lc .yiv2175274130ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2175274130
#yiv2175274130activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2175274130 #yiv2175274130activity span
.yiv2175274130underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2175274130
.yiv2175274130attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv2175274130 .yiv2175274130attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2175274130 .yiv2175274130attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2175274130
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Brilliant idea. Ben Kingsley could definitely nail it as the lead role! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Try to imagine the shitstorm that would hit the fan if the TMO learned that someone in Hollywood had bought the film rights of Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay and was about to turn it into a major film. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them... It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl - who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be cancelled. There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions. Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs, where would it end? I can't believe it was 10 years ago either: Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the protesters had attempted to stifle free speech. He said: Free speech can go so far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK for that? Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely careful. This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday night. Play axed after Sikh protests http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 Play axed after Sikh protests http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 The Birmingham theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in ... View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 Preview by Yahoo Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians... http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ The magazine is not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. View on qz.com http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Warning. Offensive material within.
This videos are disgusting and should be banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzWV0i5l-0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzWV0i5l-0A To take the image of the world's leading expert in consciousness and tireless campaigner for world peace and suggest that he didn't know as much as he claimed and was basically in it for the money is an outrage. I say we arm ourselves and storm the BBC HQ and slaughter everyone until we can't see anything that challenges our view of this great man. It's the only way to keep a realistic sense of perspective.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808wrote: BTW, you might want to listen to at least the first fewminutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell isa scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump || |||| 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... || | View on batgap.com |Preview by Yahoo| || Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Well said as usual, Salyavin. What I think is fascinating is that we (on FFL) seem to be having the same discussion along two different threads. In one, a few seem to be saying that religious beliefs are somehow protected, and that criticizing or lampooning those beliefs is bad...or at the very least, rude and socially unacceptable. In this thread, a few people are trying to say essentially the same thing about subjective experience -- if this guy (or JohnR) claims to have experienced remote viewing, then we should just sit back and allow them to say it, without asking for proof. Criticizing or making fun of them for believing these things is bad or rude, because they clearly *believe* what they're saying, and that somehow makes those beliefs protected. I cry bullshit. I do not believe that ANYTHING is protected or out of bounds for criticism or humor. The very attempt to claim something is is IMO a minor terrorist act. And if you try to claim that having been interviewed by Rick Archer gives this Tom Campbell guy any special status or believability, well I just remind you that he interviewed Ravi Chivukula and Jim Flanegin, too. All of these people are Just People, stating *opinions* based on how they've interpreted their personal subjective experiences. This does not confer upon them any protected status, any more than it confers upon them any authoritative status. JohnR is unable to provide any proof that he saw anything other than his own imagination -- BOTH w.r.t. his claim of having remotely viewed this planet, and w.r.t. God. This Tom Campbell guy is in the same boat. He is mistaking his subjective experience for Truth. Muslims who attempt to intimidate others into not making *legitimate* fun of beliefs and belief systems that most people on this planet outgrew centuries ago are doing the same thing. Sure, they must have some pleasant experiences while praying to their God, but that does *NOT* make that God out of bounds or free from being criticized or lampooned. My only quibble with the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo is that I would have made one a little more biting than they did. In the cartoon showing (ostensibly) Mohammed being pushed in a wheelchair by an Orthodox Jew, I would have replaced the Jew with Jehovah himself. The implication in my cartoon would have been that both of these guys found themselves in the same Old Folks Home, where they both belong.
[FairfieldLife] The Right To Blaspheme
A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them... Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims | | | | | | | | | | | Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians...The magazine is not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. | | | | View on qz.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | |
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Bingo. If you have a somewhat more philosophical take on this, 1.) first you a grouped with the religious crowd 2.) then, next comes the hammer of the epistemolgical argument, which again reduces religion to it's stone age origin. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : We lampoon religions all the time in the US. I'm a equal opportunity religion basher. I feel that all religions probably belong in a museum. But we have people here who think that Buddhism and Hinduism are religions when they are philosophies. I seem to recall that Zoroasterism is also a philosophy (very much an advaite offshoot) but people have made it into a religion too. I first took a look at Islam after taking my SCI course and my rationalization was the Mohamed wanted to set things we saw as natural laws as rules in a religion because people weren't observing them otherwise. Actually what happened was Mohamed, seeing the ongoing wars between the war lords at the time invented the religion to put an end to it. We have better ways of dealing with war lords these days. And we need to do it rather than letting them continue to run amok. On 01/07/2015 12:55 PM, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Ah, the bravery of the liberals who think they have a perfect right to insult anyone's cherished beliefs just because they want to. Brave for sure. They just paid with their lives. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to insult other people's religion. They don't like it and it is not helpful to the situation. You should have learned that in grade school. Lampooning others' beliefs is a time-honoured tradition in the West. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : From: s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife] mailto:s3raphita@...[FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com It's an odd kind of duty to publish cartoons that mock the founder of one of the world's largest religions in the way that is plainly meant to be deeply offensive to adherents of that faith. You say things cut both ways, and the matter of respecting the faith of others does also. Why should anyone *respect* a faith they regard as intolerant of gays or women or free speech? Respect has to be earned. I support anyone's right to criticize Islam as robustly and satirically as they wish; just as I support someone's right to argue that liberal attitudes to sexuality are repugnant. Let everyone say what they wish; we can listen to their claims and come to our own conclusions. What are you afraid of? Thank you for saying this. There is this terrible meme we have inherited for centuries -- both in the East and in the West -- that says, If we call it 'religious', it's *protected*. You can't say bad stuff about it or criticize it. During many of these centuries, the people saying this were IN CHARGE. Their religion *ran* things. So if anyone *did* say anything critical of their religious beliefs, they just killed their asses. Simple as that. What we're seeing today in radical Islam and in the fundamentalist extremes of religion such as Hindu Supremacy is a bunch of religious people wishing that the world still worked that way. They'd really *like* to KILL anyone who doesn't believe the way they think they should. Currently on planet Earth, only one major religion is actually consistently claiming to be PROUD of doing that -- killing anyone who doesn't believe the way they think they should. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : It's an odd kind of duty to publish cartoons that mock the founder of one of the world's largest religions in the way that is plainly meant to be deeply offensive to adherents of that faith. You say things cut both ways, and the matter of respecting the faith of others does also. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Re That other people don't see the world the same way you do should be the first thing they have to teach at these faith schools.: Well, yes. But can you imagine a state, secular school teaching kids that some people regard homosexuality as an abomination, or that women's place is in the home, etc, etc? It cuts both ways. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty argued that we should always have some private (non-state) schools otherwise the state would simply use its monopoly to push the ideology of the ruling Establishment. He was right then; he's right now. The problem is we have two opposing
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them... It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl - who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be cancelled. There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions. Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs, where would it end? I can't believe it was 10 years ago either: Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the protesters had attempted to stifle free speech. He said: Free speech can go so far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK for that? Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely careful. This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday night. Play axed after Sikh protests http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 Play axed after Sikh protests http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 The Birmingham theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in ... View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 Preview by Yahoo Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians... http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ The magazine is not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. View on qz.com http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Preview by Yahoo
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Some of the cartoons are really funny, I'd have to say, to bad I don't speak french. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them... Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians... http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ The magazine is not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. View on qz.com http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Brilliant idea. Ben Kingsley could definitely nail it as the lead role! eeh, you mean nail as in nailing? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : Try to imagine the shitstorm that would hit the fan if the TMO learned that someone in Hollywood had bought the film rights of Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay and was about to turn it into a major film. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them... It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl - who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be cancelled. There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions. Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs, where would it end? I can't believe it was 10 years ago either: Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the protesters had attempted to stifle free speech. He said: Free speech can go so far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK for that? Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely careful. This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday night. Play axed after Sikh protests http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 Play axed after Sikh protests http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 The Birmingham theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in ... View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1 Preview by Yahoo Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians... http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ The magazine is not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. View on qz.com http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-ins-with-christians-than-with-muslims/ Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 5:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag
Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all
likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them...
It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl
- who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the
experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be
cancelled.
There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's
flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until
their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions.
Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your
actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is
that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point
of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply
can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs,
where would it end?
I can't believe it was 10 years ago either:
Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation
of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh
representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the
protesters had attempted to stifle free speech.He said: Free speech can go so
far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going
to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK
for that?Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely
careful.This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up
after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday
night.
Play axed after Sikh protests
||
|||| Play axed after Sikh protests The Birmingham
theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it
was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in ...||
| View on www.theguardian.com |Preview by Yahoo|
||
Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians...The magazine is
not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. |
| |
| View on qz.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242 -- #yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp #yiv0703951242hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp #yiv0703951242ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp .yiv0703951242ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp .yiv0703951242ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242ygrp-mkp .yiv0703951242ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0703951242ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242ygrp-sponsor #yiv0703951242ygrp-lc #yiv0703951242hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242ygrp-sponsor #yiv0703951242ygrp-lc .yiv0703951242ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv0703951242
#yiv0703951242activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv0703951242 #yiv0703951242activity span
.yiv0703951242underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0703951242
.yiv0703951242attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv0703951242 .yiv0703951242attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0703951242 .yiv0703951242attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv0703951242 .yiv0703951242attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv0703951242 .yiv0703951242attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv0703951242 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv0703951242
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Oh God I can't wait
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Try to imagine the shitstorm that would hit the fan if the TMO learned that
someone in Hollywood had bought the film rights of Robes of Silk, Feet of
Clay and was about to turn it into a major film.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
A little background, for those who might be tempted to believe that French mag
Charlie Hebdo only made fun of Muslims. Not true...they were (and in all
likelihood will continue to be) equal opportunity blasphemers. Good for them...
It all reminds me of the trouble we had in England with Sikhs when a Sikh girl
- who was abused as a child by an elder at her temple - wrote a play about the
experience. Hordes of angry Sikhs attacked the place and forced the play to be
cancelled.
There were lots of highly disturbing letters - and even a Sikh on the BBC's
flagship discussion show - claiming that they were a peaceful people until
their religion is insulted and then they are not responsible for their actions.
Which is chilling enough on its own because not being responsible for your
actions is how we define insanity in the civilised world, but what was worse is
that no one was arguing against this right to destroy to protect their point
of view. Even the chair of BBC's Question Time let the matter go. You simply
can't have people claiming immunity for their actions based on their beliefs,
where would it end?
I can't believe it was 10 years ago either:
Mohan Singh, from the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in south Birmingham, an organisation
of Sikh temples, said the theatre should have heeded the concerns of Sikh
representatives before the protests turned violent but denied that the
protesters had attempted to stifle free speech.He said: Free speech can go so
far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going
to upset 600,000 thousands Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK
for that?Religion is a very sensitive issue and you should be extremely
careful.This morning the theatre could be seen with its windows boarded up
after protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday
night.
Play axed after Sikh protests
|
|
|
||
| Play axed after Sikh protests The Birmingham theatre attacked this
weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of
a play that depicts murder and rape in ...|
|
| View on www.theguardian.com |Preview by Yahoo|
|
|
Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians than with Muslims
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Charlie Hebdo has had more legal run-ins with Christians...The magazine is
not anti-Islam as much as it is anti-religion and broadly anti-establishment. |
|
|
| View on qz.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|
|
| |
#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588 -- #yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp #yiv9330171588hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp #yiv9330171588ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp .yiv9330171588ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp .yiv9330171588ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588ygrp-mkp .yiv9330171588ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588ygrp-sponsor
#yiv9330171588ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588ygrp-sponsor #yiv9330171588ygrp-lc #yiv9330171588hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588ygrp-sponsor #yiv9330171588ygrp-lc .yiv9330171588ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv9330171588
#yiv9330171588activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv9330171588 #yiv9330171588activity span
.yiv9330171588underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9330171588
.yiv9330171588attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv9330171588 .yiv9330171588attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv9330171588 .yiv9330171588attach
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/ Help me out here, Michael. I haven't looked at an issue of USA Today in years. I remember from my time in America that it used to be illegal to buy the newspaper unless you could prove that your IQ was less than 90, but I was unaware that it had turned into a satire magazine. So WTF, dude? Did USA Today just give a complete madman a platform on which to write 284 words that PROVE he's insane, and representing an insane religion, or is this really an article from The Onion? Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires. Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, Whoever insults a Prophet kill him. However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see. Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred. The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security. So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk? It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. The prophet was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are the cartoons this magazine published: The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/. “In 2012, the magazine included multiple caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; one was called “Mohammad: a star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beard was the only thing covering the lower half of his body. The cover depicted Mohammad in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” I wouldn’t have advised this magazine to publish any of these, and indeed the French government advised the same. You have to remember that in Islam the prophet is not depicted. It is considered sacrilegious to do so (see the article). No good will come from it. It is just being offensive for the sake of it. http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspi... http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ At least 12 were killed in a terrorist attack on the magazine's offices today. View on thinkprogress.org http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Ah, the bravery of the liberals who think they have a perfect right to insult anyone's cherished beliefs just because they want to. Brave for sure. They just paid with their lives. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to insult other people's religion. They don't like it and it is not helpful to the situation. You should have learned that in grade school. Lampooning others' beliefs is a time-honoured tradition in the West. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com It's an odd kind of duty to publish cartoons that mock the founder of one of the world's largest religions in the way that is plainly meant to be deeply offensive to adherents of that faith. You say things cut both ways, and the matter of respecting the faith of others does also. Why should anyone *respect* a faith they regard as intolerant of gays or women or free speech? Respect has to be earned. I support anyone's right to criticize Islam as robustly and satirically as they wish; just as I support someone's right to argue that liberal attitudes to sexuality are repugnant. Let everyone say what they wish; we can listen to their claims and come to our own conclusions. What are you afraid of? Thank you for saying this. There is this terrible meme we have inherited for centuries -- both in the East and in the West -- that says, If we call it 'religious', it's *protected*. You can't say bad stuff about it or criticize it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
It is easy to talk grandly on a Yahoo group about the “responsibilities of thinking people,” but I stick to my original point: deliberate provocation of Muslims by means of grotesque cartoons serves the interests of no one. They drive the Muslims crazy and for what purpose? I used to be an editor of a newsmagazine, and we published cartoons, which I was responsible for selecting. This was in the days before radical Islam was perceived as a threat, so I don’t recall seeing any that mocked Islam, but we wouldn’t have printed them. Such cartoons are in bad taste. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't suggest that when the insane people finally go over the top and carry through on their threats that it's somehow the fault of those who -- unlike you -- refused to be bullied. It is the *responsibility* of thinking people on this planet to point out how insane and out of touch with reality this lunatic fringe of Islam is. To do so is not without risk, given HOW insane these people are, but the alternative is to live like frightened sheep, something you seem to be advising. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
On 01/08/2015 09:29 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 11:08 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you *might* want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell *is* a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ image http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Sounds to me like you still didn't actually listen to or see the interview. File under Salyavin BS and I that doesn't stand for Bachelor of Science. :-D It was you who suggested I listen to at least the first few minutes so I did. Do I have to go through the whole thing just to please you? It won't make any difference, it's not like we I haven't come across endless conference circuit mystics who are good at math and think that justifies any idea they hang their hat on. Look at John Hagelin with his string theory yagyas. You can't use your mind as a proving ground for physical ideas, it doesn't work, you just end up agreeing with yourself. I think the bias here is that you don't like *any scientist* who can show there might be something to consciousness and spirituality. He's not trying to prove religion BTW which I like to call the crumbs on the plate after a meal of spirituality. Ya gotta remember that up until recently scientists were preoccupied with tried to keep society fed and the war machine going. Now it's time to look at other things. ;-) Now I'll let you get back to Top Gear.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 11:08 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you might want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell is a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Sounds to me like you still didn't actually listen to or see the interview. File under Salyavin BS and I that doesn't stand for Bachelor of Science. :-D It was you who suggested I listen to at least the first few minutes so I did. Do I have to go through the whole thing just to please you? It won't make any difference, it's not like we I haven't come across endless conference circuit mystics who are good at math and think that justifies any idea they hang their hat on. Look at John Hagelin with his string theory yagyas. You can't use your mind as a proving ground for physical ideas, it doesn't work, you just end up agreeing with yourself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
You're starting to scare me, feste, so I'm going to curtail any further discussions of this with you. It's like you have this blind spot about religion, deceiving you into thinking that if something calls itself a religion it has to be respected, no matter how aberrant its beliefs may be. If you honestly think that there is, has ever been, or ever will be a time in human history in which it is permissible to kill a human being for making a drawing of another human being, then I'm sorry but you're as crazy as the radical Islamists are. From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind It is easy to talk grandly on a Yahoo group about the“responsibilities of thinking people,” but I stick to my original point:deliberate provocation of Muslims by means of grotesque cartoons serves theinterests of no one. They drive the Muslims crazy and for what purpose? I used to be an editor of a newsmagazine, and we publishedcartoons, which I was responsible for selecting. This was in the days beforeradical Islam was perceived as a threat, so I don’t recall seeing any thatmocked Islam, but we wouldn’t have printed them. Such cartoons are in badtaste. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, youshouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich manand I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar billsattached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong tocommit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly,since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. Thisis not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. OtherwiseI put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't suggest that when the insane people finally go over the top and carry through on their threats that it's somehow the fault of those who -- unlike you -- refused to be bullied. It is the *responsibility* of thinking people on this planet to point out how insane and out of touch with reality this lunatic fringe of Islam is. To do so is not without risk, given HOW insane these people are, but the alternative is to live like frightened sheep, something you seem to be advising. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see noreason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all,that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemnedthe cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons. I am notsaying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to doso was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. | | | | | | French magazine sparks another controversy over ... A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... | | | View on rt.com| Preview by Yahoo | | | ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the Westbut the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insultthe prophet. It
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
For my part, I just don't think 3/4 of the world's population should be held
hostage by the beliefs of others. If someone was stupid enough to insult the
Prophet in Saudi Arabia, or another majority Muslim country, they would surely
pay for it. On the other hand, if one insults the Prophet in a non-Muslim
country the faithful just need to learn to deal with it quietly and in the
mosque.
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/
Help me out here, Michael. I haven't looked at an issue of USA Today in years.
I remember from my time in America that it used to be illegal to buy the
newspaper unless you could prove that your IQ was less than 90, but I was
unaware that it had turned into a satire magazine. So WTF, dude? Did USA Today
just give a complete madman a platform on which to write 284 words that PROVE
he's insane, and representing an insane religion, or is this really an article
from The Onion?
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means
submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in
the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are
determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even
non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an
increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of
insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than
that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an
obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under
sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State.
This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, Whoever insults a Prophet kill
him.
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want
to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as
laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and
freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting
the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national
security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo
to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at
risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the
world's population was protected.
#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879 -- #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp #yiv8223968879hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp #yiv8223968879ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp .yiv8223968879ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp .yiv8223968879ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp .yiv8223968879ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-sponsor
#yiv8223968879ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-sponsor #yiv8223968879ygrp-lc #yiv8223968879hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-sponsor #yiv8223968879ygrp-lc .yiv8223968879ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879activity span
.yiv8223968879underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8223968879
.yiv8223968879attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv8223968879 .yiv8223968879attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8223968879 .yiv8223968879attach img
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
Nope, no Onion deal - its USA Today all the way. That very first sentence
caught my eye. Says a lot on a few words - dunno how widespread that belief is,
but it does not bode well for harmony in the world, unless of course the TMO is
willing to send a bunch of purusha governors into all the Muslim states where
sharia law reigns supreme. I await their humanitarian relief effort.
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Right To Blaspheme
From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/
Help me out here, Michael. I haven't looked at an issue of USA Today in years.
I remember from my time in America that it used to be illegal to buy the
newspaper unless you could prove that your IQ was less than 90, but I was
unaware that it had turned into a satire magazine. So WTF, dude? Did USA Today
just give a complete madman a platform on which to write 284 words that PROVE
he's insane, and representing an insane religion, or is this really an article
from The Onion?
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means
submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in
the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are
determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even
non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an
increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of
insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than
that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an
obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under
sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State.
This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, Whoever insults a Prophet kill
him.
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want
to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as
laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and
freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting
the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national
security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo
to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at
risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the
world's population was protected.
#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879 -- #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp #yiv8223968879hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp #yiv8223968879ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp .yiv8223968879ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp .yiv8223968879ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-mkp .yiv8223968879ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879ygrp-sponsor
#yiv8223968879ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-sponsor #yiv8223968879ygrp-lc #yiv8223968879hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879ygrp-sponsor #yiv8223968879ygrp-lc .yiv8223968879ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv8223968879
#yiv8223968879activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv8223968879 #yiv8223968879activity span
.yiv8223968879underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8223968879
.yiv8223968879attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv8223968879 .yiv8223968879attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv8223968879 .yiv8223968879attach img
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see noreason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all,that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemnedthe cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons. I am notsaying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to doso was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. || |||| French magazine sparks another controversy over ... A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo...|| | View on rt.com |Preview by Yahoo| || ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the Westbut the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insultthe prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. The prophet was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are thecartoons this magazine published:The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo. “In 2012, the magazine includedmultiple caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; onewas called “Mohammad: a star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beardwas the only thing covering the lower half of his body. The cover depictedMohammad in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” I wouldn’t haveadvised this magazine to publish any of these, and indeed the French governmentadvised the same. You have to remember that in Islam the prophet is notdepicted. It is considered sacrilegious to do so (see the article). No good will come from it. Itis just being offensive for the sake of it. | | | | | | The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspi... At least 12 were killed in a terrorist attack on the magazine's offices today. | | | View on thinkprogress.org| Preview by Yahoo | | | ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Ah, the bravery of the liberals who think they have a perfect right to insult anyone's cherished beliefs just because they want to. Brave for sure. They just paid with their lives. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to insult other people's religion. They don't like it and it is not helpful to the situation. You should have learned that in grade school. Lampooning others' beliefs is a time-honoured tradition in the West. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com It's an odd kind of duty to publish cartoons that mock the founder of one of the world's largest religions in the way that is plainly meant to be deeply offensive to adherents of that faith. You say things cut both ways, and the matter of respecting the faith of others does also. Why should anyone *respect* a faith they regard as intolerant ofgays or women or free speech? Respect has to be earned. I support anyone's right to criticize Islam as robustly and satirically as they wish; just as I support someone's right to argue that liberal attitudes to sexuality are repugnant. Let everyone say what they wish; we can listen to their claims and come to our own conclusions. What are you afraid of? Thank you for saying this. There is this terrible meme we have inherited for centuries -- both in the East and in the West -- that says, If we call it 'religious', it's *protected*. You can't say bad stuff about it or criticize it. During many of these centuries, the people saying this were IN CHARGE. Their
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
On 01/07/2015 11:08 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you *might* want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell *is* a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ image http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Sounds to me like you still didn't actually listen to or see the interview. File under Salyavin BS and I that doesn't stand for Bachelor of Science. :-D
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
On 01/08/2015 12:10 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: *From:* salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you *might* want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell *is* a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ image http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... */Well said as usual, Salyavin. What I think is fascinating is that we (on FFL) seem to be having the same discussion along two different threads. In one, a few seem to be saying that religious beliefs are somehow protected, and that criticizing or lampooning those beliefs is bad...or at the very least, rude and socially unacceptable. In this thread, a few people are trying to say essentially the same thing about subjective experience -- if this guy (or JohnR) claims to have experienced remote viewing, then we should just sit back and allow them to say it, without asking for proof. Criticizing or making fun of them for believing these things is bad or rude, because they clearly *believe* what they're saying, and that somehow makes those beliefs protected. /* */ /* */I cry bullshit. I do not believe that ANYTHING is protected or out of bounds for criticism or humor. The very attempt to claim something is is IMO a minor terrorist act. And if you try to claim that having been interviewed by Rick Archer gives this Tom Campbell guy any special status or believability, well I just remind you that he interviewed Ravi Chivukula and Jim Flanegin, too. All of these people are Just People, stating *opinions* based on how they've interpreted their personal subjective experiences. This does not confer upon them any protected status, any more than it confers upon them any authoritative status. /* */ /* */JohnR is unable to provide any proof that he saw anything other than his own imagination -- BOTH w.r.t. his claim of having remotely viewed this planet, and w.r.t. God. This Tom Campbell guy is in the same boat. He is mistaking his subjective experience for Truth. /**/Muslims who attempt to intimidate others into not making *legitimate* fun of beliefs and belief systems that most people on this planet outgrew centuries ago are doing the same thing. Sure, they must have some pleasant experiences while praying to their God, but that does *NOT* make that God out of bounds or free from being criticized or lampooned. /* */ /* */My only quibble with the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo is that I would have made one a little more biting than they did. In the cartoon showing (ostensibly) Mohammed being pushed in a wheelchair by an Orthodox Jew, I would have replaced the Jew with Jehovah himself. The implication in my cartoon would have been that both of these guys found themselves in the same Old Folks Home,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... View on rt.com http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the West but the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insult the prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. The prophet was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are the cartoons this magazine published: The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/. “In 2012, the magazine included multiple caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; one was called “Mohammad: a star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beard was the only thing covering the lower half of his body. The cover depicted Mohammad in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” I wouldn’t have advised this magazine to publish any of these, and indeed the French government advised the same. You have to remember that in Islam the prophet is not depicted. It is considered sacrilegious to do so (see the article). No good will come from it. It is just being offensive for the sake of it. http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspi... http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ At least 12 were killed in a terrorist attack on the magazine's offices today. View on thinkprogress.org http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Ah, the bravery of the liberals who think they have a perfect right to insult anyone's cherished beliefs just because they want to. Brave for sure. They just paid with their lives. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to insult other people's religion. They don't like it and it is not helpful to the situation. You should have learned that in grade school. Lampooning others' beliefs is a time-honoured tradition in the West. ---In
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, youshouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich manand I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar billsattached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong tocommit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly,since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. Thisis not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. OtherwiseI put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't suggest that when the insane people finally go over the top and carry through on their threats that it's somehow the fault of those who -- unlike you -- refused to be bullied. It is the *responsibility* of thinking people on this planet to point out how insane and out of touch with reality this lunatic fringe of Islam is. To do so is not without risk, given HOW insane these people are, but the alternative is to live like frightened sheep, something you seem to be advising. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see noreason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all,that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemnedthe cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons. I am notsaying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to doso was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. | | | | | | French magazine sparks another controversy over ... A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... | | | View on rt.com| Preview by Yahoo | | | ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind Lampooning others' beliefs may be a tradition in the Westbut the Muslims don't like it so I see no purpose in doing it in cartoons that insultthe prophet. It only brings negative results, as we have seen. I simply cannot believe that someone on this forum is dumb enough to believe this, feste. You are in effect saying, Lampooning the beliefs of people who have threatened to kill us if we lampoon their ideas is a bad idea, because they might kill us. An attitude like yours essentially ALLOWS these people stuck in the Middle Ages to dictate to the world how they should act. The people making these threats are terrorists. The people submitting to them are perpetuating terrorism. The prophet was just a man, as was almost every other spiritual figure in history (unless they were women). People should just get over their fantasies about these men and women. These are thecartoons this magazine published:The Controversial Cartoons That Are Said To Have Inspired The Terrorist Attack Against Charlie Hebdo. “In 2012, the magazine includedmultiple caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in which he appeared naked; onewas called “Mohammad: a star is born,” and showed a man bent over so his beardwas the only thing covering the lower half of his body. The cover depictedMohammad in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew.” I wouldn’t haveadvised this magazine to publish any of these, and indeed the French governmentadvised the same. You have to remember that in Islam the prophet is
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
It would be better if you would read the post you are responding to before you respond to it. Nowhere did I say that it is permissible to kill a human being for making a drawing of another human being. The phrase you use is ridiculous because it reduces the complexity of the issue to the way a child might see it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : You're starting to scare me, feste, so I'm going to curtail any further discussions of this with you. It's like you have this blind spot about religion, deceiving you into thinking that if something calls itself a religion it has to be respected, no matter how aberrant its beliefs may be. If you honestly think that there is, has ever been, or ever will be a time in human history in which it is permissible to kill a human being for making a drawing of another human being, then I'm sorry but you're as crazy as the radical Islamists are. From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind It is easy to talk grandly on a Yahoo group about the “responsibilities of thinking people,” but I stick to my original point: deliberate provocation of Muslims by means of grotesque cartoons serves the interests of no one. They drive the Muslims crazy and for what purpose? I used to be an editor of a newsmagazine, and we published cartoons, which I was responsible for selecting. This was in the days before radical Islam was perceived as a threat, so I don’t recall seeing any that mocked Islam, but we wouldn’t have printed them. Such cartoons are in bad taste. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't suggest that when the insane people finally go over the top and carry through on their threats that it's somehow the fault of those who -- unlike you -- refused to be bullied. It is the *responsibility* of thinking people on this planet to point out how insane and out of touch with reality this lunatic fringe of Islam is. To do so is not without risk, given HOW insane these people are, but the alternative is to live like frightened sheep, something you seem to be advising. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/. I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ French magazine sparks another controversy over ... http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/ A French
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Aww come on, he's not saying that Barry - he's just saying that publishing cartoons that deliberately offend Islam is like waving the red cape in front of a bull - its just not a good idea. But I still think that the Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries need to just get over it. The Islamists can't really condone that I think because of what Mohammed supposedly wrote or said about killing anyone who insults a prophet. So they are stuck - they can't have credibility and not stand by that at the same time. But the more moderate Muslims must have some out to allow for that kind of thing. There do seem to be a lot of Muslims who think they should be allowed to do as they please and have no one say them nay, and that the rest of us have to go along with it. And here I am defending Feste, one of my most vigorous foes here on FFL (third actually behind Dougy who called for my speedy departure from this life via drone strike and his old buddy Nappy who would have cheered had such a thing happened) so the whole world is upside down anyway!!! From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind You're starting to scare me, feste, so I'm going to curtail any further discussions of this with you. It's like you have this blind spot about religion, deceiving you into thinking that if something calls itself a religion it has to be respected, no matter how aberrant its beliefs may be. If you honestly think that there is, has ever been, or ever will be a time in human history in which it is permissible to kill a human being for making a drawing of another human being, then I'm sorry but you're as crazy as the radical Islamists are. From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind It is easy to talk grandly on a Yahoo group about the“responsibilities of thinking people,” but I stick to my original point:deliberate provocation of Muslims by means of grotesque cartoons serves theinterests of no one. They drive the Muslims crazy and for what purpose? I used to be an editor of a newsmagazine, and we publishedcartoons, which I was responsible for selecting. This was in the days beforeradical Islam was perceived as a threat, so I don’t recall seeing any thatmocked Islam, but we wouldn’t have printed them. Such cartoons are in badtaste. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, youshouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich manand I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar billsattached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong tocommit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly,since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. Thisis not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. OtherwiseI put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't suggest that when the insane people finally go over the top and carry through on their threats that it's somehow the fault of those who -- unlike you -- refused to be bullied. It is the *responsibility* of thinking people on this planet to point out how insane and out of touch with reality this lunatic fringe of Islam is. To do so is not without risk, given HOW insane these people are, but the alternative is to live like frightened sheep, something you seem to be advising. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see noreason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all,that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Ah, the bravery of the liberals who think they have a perfect right to insult anyone's cherished beliefs just because they want to. I'm sorry, but you and the Right Wing do not get to own this argument. I hear this shit from my libertarian and tea bagger friends all the time, that somehow, they are braver, more respectful, more informed, because they they thought that dissent stopped with end of the Revolutionary War. This is offensive speech in my mind. Humor, satire, lampoon is a great American and world wide tradition. Let's remember Ben Franklin. Let's also remember Lenny Bruce. Liberals, and generally opened minded people period, are brave. The choose to buck the status quo. If you want to see a brave liberal catch The Imitation Game. It's a darn good film even if they fiddle with the details a bit to make it a thriller. Braking the Enigma and Lorenz was great work which saved lives and most likely ended the WWII 2 years early. Remember cherished beliefs are the same thing as cherished facts, or just plain facts.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
From: jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Barry, Dr. David Bentley Hart has indicated that the proof of God's existence can be done through logic and metaphysics. I have tried to do this in the past by using the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a few people here in this forum. You failed to participate. Why? Because you've been pointed several times to websites that reveal this Argument to be idiotic and hideously flawed, and you've never even responded. You're too much of a lightweight to waste time on. Hey, you asked.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Now the Catholics weigh in:
After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’
slaughter
| |
| | | | | |
| After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’
slaughterThe murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier didn’t
understand the role he played in his tragic death, says leader of U.S.
Catholic organization. |
| |
| View on www.washingtonpost.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Aww come on, he's not saying that Barry - he's just saying that publishing
cartoons that deliberately offend Islam is like waving the red cape in front of
a bull - its just not a good idea.
And I disagree. I think that ANYTHING that can help to wake these homo retardis
idiots from their Medieval slumber is a good idea...in the long run. Yes, the
ones stuck in this retarded state of mind are crazy, and likely to act out in
unpredictable and WMD ways, but we really DO owe it to them -- and to the
planet -- to help them wake up.
In this case, as it turns out, the Koran itself does not prohibit creating
visual images of their prophet. Those aberrant ideas come from a lesser set of
teachings called hadith. Those sicko ideas took hold, and now as a result
most Sunni Muslims believe that ALL visual depictions of Mohammed should be
prohibited, punishable by death. Not just derogatory images, ALL images. THAT
is how sane modern Islam is.
#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924 -- #yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp #yiv4843505924hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp #yiv4843505924ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp .yiv4843505924ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp .yiv4843505924ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924ygrp-mkp .yiv4843505924ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4843505924ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924ygrp-sponsor #yiv4843505924ygrp-lc #yiv4843505924hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924ygrp-sponsor #yiv4843505924ygrp-lc .yiv4843505924ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv4843505924
#yiv4843505924activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv4843505924 #yiv4843505924activity span
.yiv4843505924underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4843505924
.yiv4843505924attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv4843505924 .yiv4843505924attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 .yiv4843505924attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv4843505924 .yiv4843505924attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv4843505924 .yiv4843505924attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv4843505924 .yiv4843505924bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv4843505924
.yiv4843505924bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 dd.yiv4843505924last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv4843505924 dd.yiv4843505924last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv4843505924
dd.yiv4843505924last p span.yiv4843505924yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv4843505924 div.yiv4843505924attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 div.yiv4843505924attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv4843505924 div.yiv4843505924file-title a, #yiv4843505924
div.yiv4843505924file-title a:active, #yiv4843505924
div.yiv4843505924file-title a:hover, #yiv4843505924 div.yiv4843505924file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924 div.yiv4843505924photo-title a,
#yiv4843505924 div.yiv4843505924photo-title a:active, #yiv4843505924
div.yiv4843505924photo-title a:hover, #yiv4843505924
div.yiv4843505924photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv4843505924
div#yiv4843505924ygrp-mlmsg #yiv4843505924ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv4843505924yshortcuts
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Dr. David Bentley Hart has indicated that the proof of God's existence can be done through logic and metaphysics. I have tried to do this in the past by using the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a few people here in this forum. You failed to participate. Why? I always participate and shall do so again. The KCA claims that the universe, as it exists, must have had a cause. This is so obvious it doesn't need explaining, BUT the KCA goes on to claim that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful That's a pretty big stretch especially considering modern theories about quantum tunnelling etc. The problem is the same as the one we used to explain life before Darwin - we are complex therefore we must have had a more complex creator - the argument got superceded by a superior one that is now accepted by all credible people. If you want the universe to be created by some amazing god you've got to explain where he came from otherwise you're just pushing the moment of creation onto something ineffable. This is not an explanation. Any god that created the universe must be at least as smart as the smartest things in it so that he could know what was going to happen. Even setting the initial parameters so humans could evolve is a pretty neat trick. So the author of the KCA is going to have to explain how that intelligence came into being spontaneously. This is a much bigger task than simply explaining the big bang because of the unlikelihood of such complexity getting itself into existence in the right way first time. And just saying it's always been here is an appalling case of avoiding the question. That's my argument against the KCA; it explains nothing and contradicts itself before finally pushing the creation of the universe into the ineffable realm of some ultimately unknowable god. Hardly an elegant solution to the problem. But if the universe was unexplainable without recourse to the KCA they might have a point, but it isn't. Over to you... Now, you're making arguments based on an emotional level which is not proving your point about God's non-existence. You can talk all day until the cows come home. But you won't prove anything. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you might want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell is a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Well said as usual, Salyavin. What I think is fascinating is that we (on FFL) seem to be having the same discussion along two different threads. In one, a few seem to be saying that religious beliefs are somehow protected, and that criticizing or lampooning those beliefs is bad...or at the very least, rude and socially unacceptable. In this
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
Thanks, MJ! Turquoise B likes to distort other people's arguments. He does it all the time. He also seems to be developing a worrying habit of referring to those who disagree with him as insane. Actually, I can see both sides of the argument, but I do not think that the right to free expression is absolute. We have laws that prohibit hate crimes, for example, which may include verbal insults and offensive graffiti. There is also the matter of the general welfare. The terrorist attack in Paris resulted in the deaths of two people (the policemen) who had nothing to do with the quarrel. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : Aww come on, he's not saying that Barry - he's just saying that publishing cartoons that deliberately offend Islam is like waving the red cape in front of a bull - its just not a good idea. But I still think that the Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries need to just get over it. The Islamists can't really condone that I think because of what Mohammed supposedly wrote or said about killing anyone who insults a prophet. So they are stuck - they can't have credibility and not stand by that at the same time. But the more moderate Muslims must have some out to allow for that kind of thing. There do seem to be a lot of Muslims who think they should be allowed to do as they please and have no one say them nay, and that the rest of us have to go along with it. And here I am defending Feste, one of my most vigorous foes here on FFL (third actually behind Dougy who called for my speedy departure from this life via drone strike and his old buddy Nappy who would have cheered had such a thing happened) so the whole world is upside down anyway!!! From: TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind You're starting to scare me, feste, so I'm going to curtail any further discussions of this with you. It's like you have this blind spot about religion, deceiving you into thinking that if something calls itself a religion it has to be respected, no matter how aberrant its beliefs may be. If you honestly think that there is, has ever been, or ever will be a time in human history in which it is permissible to kill a human being for making a drawing of another human being, then I'm sorry but you're as crazy as the radical Islamists are. From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind It is easy to talk grandly on a Yahoo group about the “responsibilities of thinking people,” but I stick to my original point: deliberate provocation of Muslims by means of grotesque cartoons serves the interests of no one. They drive the Muslims crazy and for what purpose? I used to be an editor of a newsmagazine, and we published cartoons, which I was responsible for selecting. This was in the days before radical Islam was perceived as a threat, so I don’t recall seeing any that mocked Islam, but we wouldn’t have printed them. Such cartoons are in bad taste. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote : Barry, Dr. David Bentley Hart has indicated that the proof of God's existence can be done through logic and metaphysics. I have tried to do this in the past by using the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a few people here in this forum. You failed to participate. Why? I always participate and shall do so again. The KCA claims that the universe, as it exists, must have had a cause. This is so obvious it doesn't need explaining, BUT the KCA goes on to claim that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful That's a pretty big stretch especially considering modern theories about quantum tunnelling etc. The problem is the same as the one we used to explain life before Darwin - we are complex therefore we must have had a more complex creator - the argument got superceded by a superior one that is now accepted by all credible people. If you want the universe to be created by some amazing god you've got to explain where he came from otherwise you're just pushing the moment of creation onto something ineffable. This is not an explanation. Any god that created the universe must be at least as smart as the smartest things in it so that he could know what was going to happen. Even setting the initial parameters so humans could evolve is a pretty neat trick. So the author of the KCA is going to have to explain how that intelligence came into being spontaneously. This is a much bigger task than simply explaining the big bang because of the unlikelihood of such complexity getting itself into existence in the right way first time. And just saying it's always been here is an appalling case of avoiding the question. That's my argument against the KCA; it explains nothing and contradicts itself before finally pushing the creation of the universe into the ineffable realm of some ultimately unknowable god. Hardly an elegant solution to the problem. But if the universe was unexplainable without recourse to the KCA they might have a point, but it isn't. Over to you... The universe was never created. It is now, has always been, and will always be. Therefore, there is no need to postulate a creator.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
On 01/08/2015 11:24 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Now I'll let you get back to Top Gear. I hate Top Gear, I'm reading a book on cosmology I got for Crimbo, might watch a bit of Star Trek later though. Figured so and exactly why I mentioned that show. :-D Happy reading about science and now I'll get back to doing some science.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Now the Catholics weigh in: After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughter | | | | | | | | | After Charlie Hebdo attack, U.S. Catholic group says cartoonists ‘provoked’ slaughterThe murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death, says leader of U.S. Catholic organization. | | | | View on www.washingtonpost.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | What a surprise. Catholic priests are not fond of cartoonists.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
The thing that bothered me about the movie I reviewed here the other day, I Origins is they were a bit naive about the difference between religion and spirituality. The Pitt character is actually arguing spirituality not religion. But the writer even had one Indian character ask him if he is religious This is a great point, Bhairitu! And it is something that I always felt was gift of walking the spiritual path and being a meditator, is that one begins to make clear distinctions about things and find ways to clarify it. For a number of years I have been irritated by the use of spirituality being used as a synonym for religion. It is not its equivalent. Joseph Campbell and CG Jung were great at pointing that out. If anything, they are antonyms and mean very different things. Kind of like the maps is not the territory. One (religion) may be a discription of the other (the territory), but the experience of the two is very different. I think this is why the ability to discriminate (as in seeing distinction, especially fine distinctions, and not the bigoted type of discrimination) comes about with meditation and spiritual growth. Distinction is also not the sole providence of meditation, either. It's part of growth and flowering of the mind and awareness.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/08/2015 09:29 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 11:08 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you might want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell is a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Sounds to me like you still didn't actually listen to or see the interview. File under Salyavin BS and I that doesn't stand for Bachelor of Science. :-D It was you who suggested I listen to at least the first few minutes so I did. Do I have to go through the whole thing just to please you? It won't make any difference, it's not like we I haven't come across endless conference circuit mystics who are good at math and think that justifies any idea they hang their hat on. Look at John Hagelin with his string theory yagyas. You can't use your mind as a proving ground for physical ideas, it doesn't work, you just end up agreeing with yourself. I think the bias here is that you don't like any scientist who can show there might be something to consciousness and spirituality. No. I would be fascinated if they could show it but they never do. This is the problem. When physicists discover something important they don't just make a youtube video of some wishy-washy claims that could just as easily be explained more simply using processes we already understand, they take it into a lab and nail it down until they have what is called a 5 sigma. This means that they have proved it so far beyond reasonable doubt that nobody can say they've failed. 5 Sigma means that if a result was due to chance it would 1 in 3.5 million. What you might call a safe bet. I don't think the mystical physicists have anything that could even be called an explanation about how it might work, let alone any proof that it does. Look at John's demonstration, I watched the video and the instructions were to relax and not try (or whatever they were) John comes up with the sort of thing I might have done - though I expect there would be more giant robots fighting dinosaurs in my vision - but it isn't anything that someone couldn't have just imagined in the first place. Given that we know we have imagination and we don't know of any way distant knowledge can be gained purely mentally or that there are any structures in or brains that might have evolved to do that, I feel entirely justified in remaining sceptical until all or any of those things are demonstrated. The scientific control required is to show that visions gained aren't being made by the same imagination generator just being used in a different way. If I remember my Fortean history of the world, the CIA were pleased with the results of some remote viewers initially but realised they were getting more misses than hits, Finally the difference became as great as what you would expect from chance alone and the project was dropped as pointless. You paint me as being
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Aww come on, he's not saying that Barry - he's just saying that publishing cartoons that deliberately offend Islam is like waving the red cape in front of a bull - its just not a good idea. And I disagree. I think that ANYTHING that can help to wake these homo retardis idiots from their Medieval slumber is a good idea...in the long run. Yes, the ones stuck in this retarded state of mind are crazy, and likely to act out in unpredictable and WMD ways, but we really DO owe it to them -- and to the planet -- to help them wake up. In this case, as it turns out, the Koran itself does not prohibit creating visual images of their prophet. Those aberrant ideas come from a lesser set of teachings called hadith. Those sicko ideas took hold, and now as a result most Sunni Muslims believe that ALL visual depictions of Mohammed should be prohibited, punishable by death. Not just derogatory images, ALL images. THAT is how sane modern Islam is.
Re: [FairfieldLife] New World....
Barry, Dr. David Bentley Hart has indicated that the proof of God's existence can be done through logic and metaphysics. I have tried to do this in the past by using the Kalam Cosmological Argument with a few people here in this forum. You failed to participate. Why? Now, you're making arguments based on an emotional level which is not proving your point about God's non-existence. You can talk all day until the cows come home. But you won't prove anything. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : On 01/07/2015 12:34 PM, salyavin808 wrote: BTW, you might want to listen to at least the first few minutes of Rick's interview with Tom Campbell. Campbell is a scientist, a physicistt. 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ 266. Tom Campbell - Buddha at the Gas Pump http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ In February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy (MBT) which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature o... View on batgap.com http://batgap.com/tom-campbell/ Preview by Yahoo Using your own consciousness to study itself sounds like confirmation bias to me. I would describe him as a mystic rather than a physicist because you can't do science without experiment to work out whether you are actually on the right track or just kidding yourself. The theory has to be tested. Everything he says is an assumption based on his own faulty logic and mistaking his interpretation of experience for explanation. File under Benjamin Creme. Or John Hagelin, he thinks that his ideas are worthy of acceptance without being demonstrated. It isn't physics. And looking at the similarities of older theories of consciousness being a justification of explanations of your own is fraught with danger, if one person can be wrong they can all be wrong. Having watched the lecture John posted I've no doubt I could go through the whole thing and pick it apart for the same reason. If he thinks he can do out of body experiences then he needs to have it proved definitively rather than in the usual wishy-washy way of holding a conference and having other people say yeah wow, I saw something too. Spooky. John demonstrated this yesterday with mistaking his imagination for being able to gain knowledge using paranormal means. This stuff can be tested but no one has to any convincing standard, these people are too devoted to do anything rigourous. Extraordinary claims etc... Well said as usual, Salyavin. What I think is fascinating is that we (on FFL) seem to be having the same discussion along two different threads. In one, a few seem to be saying that religious beliefs are somehow protected, and that criticizing or lampooning those beliefs is bad...or at the very least, rude and socially unacceptable. In this thread, a few people are trying to say essentially the same thing about subjective experience -- if this guy (or JohnR) claims to have experienced remote viewing, then we should just sit back and allow them to say it, without asking for proof. Criticizing or making fun of them for believing these things is bad or rude, because they clearly *believe* what they're saying, and that somehow makes those beliefs protected. I cry bullshit. I do not believe that ANYTHING is protected or out of bounds for criticism or humor. The very attempt to claim something is is IMO a minor terrorist act. And if you try to claim that having been interviewed by Rick Archer gives this Tom Campbell guy any special status or believability, well I just remind you that he interviewed Ravi Chivukula and Jim Flanegin, too. All of these people are Just People, stating *opinions* based on how they've interpreted their personal subjective experiences. This does not confer upon them any protected status, any more than it confers upon them any authoritative status. JohnR is unable to provide any proof that he saw anything other than his own imagination -- BOTH w.r.t. his claim of having remotely viewed this planet, and w.r.t. God. This Tom Campbell guy is in the same boat. He is mistaking his subjective experience for Truth. Muslims who attempt to intimidate others into not making *legitimate* fun of beliefs and belief systems that most people on this planet outgrew centuries ago are doing the same thing. Sure, they must have some pleasant experiences while praying to their God, but that does *NOT* make that God out of bounds or free from being criticized or lampooned. My only quibble with the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo is that I would have made one a little more biting than they did. In the cartoon showing (ostensibly) Mohammed being pushed in a wheelchair by an Orthodox Jew, I would have replaced the Jew
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
They do NOT have far to drive maybe will experience a roll over all to the good incarnate better next time to having learned to control ANGER!! ones, anger enjoy laughter as well! HA! HA! HA! It does serve to make a point non believers can LAUGH ! The profit all praise to his name KILLED Hurt distroyed may on his rise to power many hundreds in fact so its written so lets laugh enjoy our freedoms of SPEACH cartoon making in satire 4 all to grow into the light In a message dated 1/8/2015 12:44:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_re...@yahoogroups.com writes: It is easy to talk grandly on a Yahoo group about the “responsibilities of thinking people,” but I stick to my original point: deliberate provocation of Muslims by means of grotesque cartoons serves the interests of no one. They drive the Muslims crazy and for what purpose? I used to be an editor of a newsmagazine, and we published cartoons, which I was responsible for selecting. This was in the days before radical Islam was perceived as a threat, so I don’t recall seeing any that mocked Islam, but we wouldn’t have printed them. Such cartoons are in bad taste. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com If you deliberately go around provoking people, you shouldn’t be surprised if eventually they lash out at you. Yes, you actually should. Especially when what you so euphemistically call lashing out involves Kalashnikovs and killing 12 people *for making fun of someone who died 1383 years ago*. You're describing insanity and trying to make it sound as if the insane are somehow justified in being this insane because someone drew a cartoon they didn't like. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but taking this stance is making YOU sound as insane as the people who perpetrated this massacre. If I am a rich man and I decide to walk in a low-income, high-crime area with hundred-dollar bills attached to my clothing, I will likely get robbed. The thieves are wrong to commit robbery, but I must also bear some responsibility for acting stupidly, since I know how much money means to people and what they may do to get it. This is not blaming the victim but applying common sense and acting accordingly. Otherwise I put myself at risk as well as innocent others. So you think that what 3/4 of the world's population should do is just keep quiet and never say *anything* that challenges what the insane lunatic fringe of the other 1/4 holds sacred. You feel that people should submit to threats of violence and do whatever those who are threatening them tell them to do, eh? Well, if you want to live your life as a frightened little rabbit, fine. But don't suggest that those who don't want to live that way should. And don't suggest that when the insane people finally go over the top and carry through on their threats that it's somehow the fault of those who -- unlike you -- refused to be bullied. It is the *responsibility* of thinking people on this planet to point out how insane and out of touch with reality this lunatic fringe of Islam is. To do so is not without risk, given HOW insane these people are, but the alternative is to live like frightened sheep, something you seem to be advising. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com I see no reason to alter what I wrote. Insults from you are to be expected. After all, that’s what you do, isn’t it? Two years ago, the French government condemned the cartoons as needlessly provocative. See _French magazine sparks another controversy over Mohammed cartoons_ (http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/) . I am not saying the magazine should be prevented from publishing them; only that to do so was ill-advised. No problemo, feste. Thanks for clarifying your position. I assume you also feel that women who are raped were ill-advised to wear clothes that make them look like women, and that black people shot by the police while just walking down the street were ill-advised to not bleach their skins to look white. You're riding the Blame the victim bus. Now it all makes sense. (http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/) _French magazine sparks another controversy over ... _ (http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/) A French satire magazine has published a special issue containing cartoons on the life of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Similar images, which are deemed blasphemo... _View on rt.com _ (http://rt.com/news/france-mohammed-muslim-cartoon-224/) Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: feste37 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 12:37
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Religious Mind
From: ultrarishi no_re...@yahoogroups.com Ah, the bravery of theliberals who think they have a perfect right to insult anyone's cherishedbeliefs just because they want to. I'm sorry, but you and the Right Wing do not get to own this argument. I hear this shit from my libertarian and tea bagger friends all the time, that somehow, they are braver, more respectful, more informed, because they they thought that dissent stopped with end of the Revolutionary War. This is offensive speech in my mind. Humor, satire, lampoon is a great American and world wide tradition. Let's remember Ben Franklin. Let's also remember Lenny Bruce. Liberals, and generally opened minded people period, are brave. The choose to buck the status quo. If you want to see a brave liberal catch The Imitation Game. It's a darn good film even if they fiddle with the details a bit to make it a thriller. Braking the Enigma and Lorenz was great work which saved lives and most likely ended the WWII 2 years early. Remember cherished beliefs are the same thing as cherished facts, or just plain facts. Thanks for your comments on this issue, really. I was starting to think that only Salyavin and Curtis and I were the only sane ones here, and you know that down that path lies madness and NO ONE really wants to go there, so thanks for the course correction. :-) :-) :-) Thanks also for the entertainment prompt, in the form of reminding me about The Imitation Game. Those of you who have not yet attained EC (Eyepatch Consciousness) probably don't know, but this is the best time of the year for a pirate such as myself. In the last two days I think I've seen over a dozen screeners of this year's best movies. These are almost always in DVD resolution, and you sometimes have to put up with the Property of Such-and-Such Studios watermarks from time to time, but they're good, clean copies of the latest movies. I don't know for sure, being a read-only pirate, but I suspect that some of these copies come directly from Academy members or journalists voting for Golden Globe nominations. Many of the ones I found today in the Pirate verse still haven't come to me via my legitimate reviewer channels. Go figure. Anyway, The Imitation Game showed up today, so thanks for the reminder. I may watch it later tonight.
