It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mosque to go up near New York's ground zero

page: 25
31
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
makinho21:

I have no urge to engage in a pissing contest with you. I really don't care WHAT your religion is, atheism or otherwise. That's a personal matter every individual has to decide for themselves.

Furthermore, I'm not going to derail this thread any further. You asked, I answered, that's all.

This will be my last post on the subject, which I'm sure comes as a relief. Frankly, I've not met this degree of dogmatic ire since dealing with muslims, and to a lesser degree christians.

It seems you have more in common with them than you'd care to admit.


Originally posted by makinho21
Explain to me what is "supernatural" about leperchauns?


I don't know. I've never investigated Leprechauns. It could be that they are entirely natural. I assume by your vehemence that you have seen one. Who am I to doubt your faith, simply because I HAVEN'T seen one?



We have various books and tales which make claims for their existence. We have visual representations of what they look like and where they live.
Real-life claims warrant scientific investigation: you CAN refute the concept of gold at the end of the rainbow.


To be honest, I've never had the urge, since childhood, to try to track down the end of a rainbow to find out. As I recall, the end of the rainbow kept moving due to refraction, and I never got there. If it does in fact keep moving away, and you never can get there, how do you know what's to be found?

Nevertheless, it's not for me to shake your faith. Believe as you will.



You can not appeal to this supernatural plea-bargain, and then turn around and invest that same supernatural "being" in everyday aspects of normal life. Fine - keep it "supernatural" and untouchable, as you attempt to claim it to be. But then, how dare you, forcefully install such an unfalsifiable and untestable creation in our midst and claim it as truth and real and observable.


Sure I can. It's hard to tell for sure, but I presume your assertion is that I have done so at some time. If that's the case, it's proof enough for me that I can.

'How dare' I? Well, because I can, of course! It's a staid life indeed when one dares not dare. If you could point out where I have 'installed' (forcefully or otherwise) an 'untestable creation', and then proceeded to claim it as 'real', I'd be happy to consider changing it, or having it changed.



Dogma, specifically, is defined by doctrine from which divergence is non-permitted. Said doctrine is final and supreme.


Interesting tack. Ever considered applying that to your own thought processes, as demonstrated in this thread?



Science is anything but - ideas are constantly being re-examined and, if found to be appropriate, corrected. Where does that happen in bible study?


Uh huh. If you say so. I understand from some christians of my acquaintance that what you propose here is the reason there are so many different varieties of religion - those 'corrections' you mention. The main difference being that these 'corrections' are applied to their studies of their religious texts, rather than 'experimentation'.



Science is founded on the dynamic principles of experimentation and verification (as you proposed),


Indeed. It may surprise you to find out how acquainted I am with the scientific method - and the limitations thereto. Surely you are aware that everything has limitations?



but that is exactly what separates it from the mindless dogma you so fervently adhere to.


Again, if you'd be so kind as to point out where I have 'adhered to a dogma' (mindlessly and fervently or otherwise), I'll consider changing that, or having it changed. Fair enough?

And, inadvertently I'm sure, you've made my point for me. That was my whole point, that science and religion are entirely different fields. Then you proceed to take issue with me, and somehow refute that while upholding it?

Atheists can no more support their beliefs with science than christians or muslims can. It's an entirely different field.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


aren't you high and mighty? I am only pissed because you make this claim that a lack of belief is somehow...a belief in itself.
Perhaps I mistook you for some bible-wielding evangelical. If you aren't, I'm sorry, but the only people I've seen spout the same childish "tack" as yourself, are the same evangelicals who go to cementaries and wakes of gay people and condemn them to hell.
My point with the fairy tale references is exaclty what you referred to: "how can one truly know" - you said it yourself, you never made it to the end of that rainbow. This is why logical and critical analysis of such claims are needed.
I could easily say there is a "supernatural being" who talks to me and claims that all gingers are evil and must die. Somehow, that doesn't seem very logical or sensical.

I do not need this convoluted thing called faith to NOT believe in a christian or muslim or judaic god. This is where you are sorely misinformed.

I could also care less if you are familiar with the scientific process, you seem to ignore how it is completely different from the faith-based positions of religion.

It's funny, that also those differing sects and creeds, unlike the dynamic nature of scientific disciplines, all claim to be right and innately KNOW the others are incorrect and wrong. This is why bible study is nothing like science.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Begging the indulgence of the readers and the mods, this was just too juicy to pass up. All bold mine.


Originally posted by makinho21

I do not need this convoluted thing called faith to NOT believe in a christian or muslim or judaic god. This is where you are sorely misinformed.


I assume you have 'proof' for the non-existence of a deity, so that you may 'NOT believe'? Not that it really matters whether you do or not, as I've said numerous times now, you may believe (your own word...) as you will. I care not how you proceed in that belief.



I could also care less if you are familiar with the scientific process, you seem to ignore how it is completely different from the faith-based positions of religion.


I can only assume that your dogma requires you to somehow get that peculiar interpretation from this passage of mine in the post directly above:


Originally posted by nenothtu

And, inadvertently I'm sure, you've made my point for me. That was my whole point, that science and religion are entirely different fields. Then you proceed to take issue with me, and somehow refute that while upholding it?

Atheists can no more support their beliefs with science than christians or muslims can. It's an entirely different field.


Now, can we get back to the regularly scheduled programming?

Edit: for pesky spelling errors. No one is perfect, eh?

[edit on 2010/5/11 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
ok, for those who think that the Mosque should be built there this is for you.

Putting aside our right to religon in this country ask yourself if this could be happening New York too.

It may be and it may not be happening.

Since these conversations are about the intentions of having it built near the World Trade Center I think this may give a little more insight.

www.aolnews.com...

[edit on 11-5-2010 by MagicaRose]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Begging the indulgence of the readers and the mods, this was just too juicy to pass up. All bold mine.


I thought you weren't bothering to reply? Your arrogance and condescending nature showcase your inability to think beyond the stance you have taken.



I assume you have 'proof' for the non-existence of a deity, so that you may 'NOT believe'? Not that it really matters whether you do or not, as I've said numerous times now, you may believe (your own word...) as you will. I care not how you proceed in that belief.


Again, you failed at addressing this properly: an atheist's stance is a response to claims put forth by the theist. I can surely respond to my cousin's insistence that the tooth-fairy is real. The burden of "proof" is not with me, pal, as I have never made a claim that some unknown, unseen, beared man sits in the clouds and watches me. My stance is simply a response to such buffoonery - "nothing more, nothing less". Perhaps you seem to think I am an anti-theist, which may be more akin to your miscalculated take on atheism.




I can only assume that your dogma requires you to somehow get that peculiar interpretation from this passage of mine in the post directly above:


Originally posted by nenothtu

And, inadvertently I'm sure, you've made my point for me. That was my whole point, that science and religion are entirely different fields. Then you proceed to take issue with me, and somehow refute that while upholding it?

Atheists can no more support their beliefs with science than christians or muslims can. It's an entirely different field.


Now, can we get back to the regularly scheduled programming?

Edit: for pesky spelling errors. No one is perfect, eh?

[edit on 2010/5/11 by nenothtu]


Atheism is an absence of belief - please - get that through your thick skull.
I sense it is probably difficult for you to comprehend this, but atleast try (Yoda would not be proud)

beliefs are staples of dogma...absence of belief, then, is what? - Un-dogmatic?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
This is equal to blasphemy!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21

I thought you weren't bothering to reply? Your arrogance and condescending nature showcase your inability to think beyond the stance you have taken.


It's not a matter of 'not bothering to reply', it's a matter of being unwilling to further derail the thread. A reluctance that I note you don't share. As with all True Believers, you appear to prefer making mountains out of molehills than sticking to the subject at hand.



The burden of "proof" is not with me, pal, as I have never made a claim that some unknown, unseen, beared man sits in the clouds and watches me. My stance is simply a response to such buffoonery - "nothing more, nothing less". Perhaps you seem to think I am an anti-theist, which may be more akin to your miscalculated take on atheism.


'Burden of proof'? You appear to confuse scientific method with court procedure. 'Burden of proof' is a legal concept, not a scientific one. In science, the 'burden of proof' rests on those who truly want to know. You appear to not only not want to know, but to fear investigation. That's cool, though. Your religion is as much a right as any other.

As I've said umpty-zillion times now, believe as you will.



Atheism is an absence of belief - please - get that through your thick skull.
I sense it is probably difficult for you to comprehend this, but atleast try (Yoda would not be proud)

beliefs are staples of dogma...absence of belief, then, is what? - Un-dogmatic?


Quaint notion, but incorrect. atheism is from greek 'a-', meaning a negation, i.e. "without" at your suggestion, and "theism", a belief in a deity. Atheism is NOT an 'absence of belief' as you claim, it is an opposition to a theistic belief. Note that a belief in an absence is NOT an absence of belief. By the very nature of it, it is a belief all by itself.

Since neither stance can be 'proven' scientifically and objectively, BOTH stances are nothing more than 'beliefs'. Note that I have nowhere had the temerity to proclaim either stance as 'right' or 'wrong' (unlike yourself), I have only stated they are both 'beliefs'. Faiths. Religions.

In order to dispute that, and put this issue to rest, you will need to bring objective proof of the non-existence of a deity to the table in support of your position. I have nowhere claimed one way or the other, I have merely stated that either position is necessarily based on 'belief', until it can be based on objective 'proof'.

That IS my position. Bring your 'proof'. Anything else is just to attempt clouding the issue with confusion and pretty words, chasing your tail in circles, trying to support AND refute what I say at the same time.

You made the claim that atheism is the absence of belief, so show the objective proof to remove that from the realm of belief itself onto a factual basis. THEN you may have a basis to argue for it not being a religion. UNTIL then, not so much.

You, sir, have the last word (unless you can manage to blunder across yet another glaring error in logic, that is). I'm weary with watching you chase your tail to attempt to support your belief and deny it at the same time, and frankly it makes me sort of dizzy just to watch.

Edit to add this:


Originally posted by makinho21
beliefs are staples of dogma...absence of belief, then, is what? - Un-dogmatic?


That seems to be where your problem is - not understanding nor being able to define the term 'belief', which you have actually used yourself in support of your own.

Beliefs are ideas unsupported by objective proof. That's why they are just 'beliefs' rather than 'facts'. 'Dogma' is based on, and supported by, belief - not the other way 'round. Remove belief, and dogma fails. Remove dogma, and belief can continue unfettered by such.

Atheism is a belief, the necessity to preach it (on the internet, for example) is a dogma, and both of these taken together place it firmly in the religious camp.

BTW, 'absence of belief' is possession of objective PROOF. With proof, it's no longer belief, it's then FACT. Please, proceed to present your proof, so you can lay this puppy to rest.



[edit on 2010/5/12 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Oh but there is such a "burden of proof" concerning theistic claims: as soon as one say's that these supernatural processes occur in our natural world, such claims warrant investigation. I believe Mano Singham puts it best:

If the existence of your god has empirical consequences, then provide empirical evidence that supports your contention. If it has no empirical consequences whatsoever, then say so and we will not interfere with your theological and philosophical ruminations because we do not really care to speculate on the properties of what we consider to be a mythical entity.

You completely ignored the issue at hand. Like I said, I can easily respond to my cousin's claims that Mrs. Toothfairy appears every time I lose a tooth, and deposits a solid dollar underneath my pillow - this is entirely logical and does not require any leap of faith. Sure you can't know for sure, but then you can't know anything for sure...this is why scientific observation, logic and the subsequent elimination of unlogical priniciples is important to myself: perhaps it isn't to you. That's cool....


You seem to have your own definition of atheism, and that is also cool. However, it is clear, obviously, few people, beyond the religious rite, agree with you. Atheism, as many words, probably has changed in meaning through the ages, and perhaps at it's most basic, it can described as you so demand. Regardless, many of today's atheists see it as strictly absence
of belief: not rejection or denial as you try to posture.

The original Greek word of atheos is simply "without gods" - "I am without gods" sounds surprisingly similar to "I have an absence of gods".
Obscurantist prose does wonders for making one's point though doesn't it?

You have decided upon the definition, in turn, to support your point. It is clear, however, there is not one set definition to follow. You may continue attacking straw if you wish, but my initial point (which you have failed to even acknowledge) remains the analogy of addressing other "supernatural" things, like fairies and leperchauns.

You, surely - at some point - have demonstrated this yourself. You can reject such claims without substantial evidence for their existence.
This is because the laws that science have come to know as true and observable, would cease to operate in cases of "gold at the end of the rainbow".

Go on living in your little redudant bubble, it really makes no difference.

You have now responded twice more than you originally (and so playfully too) explained you would. While you seem to pay it service, "de-railing" the thread comes second to your need to, once again, continue proselytizing your contrived belittling position on atheism.
Gidday sir



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 




You can never prove or explain to a religious person that Atheism is not like a religious belief and is actually not a belief at all.

They just don't get it...



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


Excellent post! Never mind the fact that it can be entirely scattered to the wind as your others have, and just as easily. It was a masterful attempt, mostly successful, at completely sidestepping and avoiding like the plague every point I made, and the most supreme suspension of logic I may have ever been witness to!

Should you decide to start a thread on this topic, assuming I can manage to stumble across it, I'll be happy to eat your lunch THERE, but not here.

Should you decide instead to claim what tattered victory you can manage to salvage from THIS thread instead, then by all means, pat yourself on the back, bask in your victory, and have a beer on me.

I'm done, you win.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by makinho21
 


Excellent post! Never mind the fact that it can be entirely scattered to the wind as your others have, and just as easily. It was a masterful attempt, mostly successful, at completely sidestepping and avoiding like the plague every point I made, and the most supreme suspension of logic I may have ever been witness to!

Should you decide to start a thread on this topic, assuming I can manage to stumble across it, I'll be happy to eat your lunch THERE, but not here.

Should you decide instead to claim what tattered victory you can manage to salvage from THIS thread instead, then by all means, pat yourself on the back, bask in your victory, and have a beer on me.

I'm done, you win.



I'm quite sure I addressed the main points of your posts, that of your skewed definition of atheism, and why proof is warranted for religious claims. You failed to even attempt to answer my questions (thrice I believe).
Instead, especially in the last post, you use your mocking tone to sway the tide.
Either way, I sense you are becoming angry, or atleast, frustrated, and that never makes for a good debate.

edit: I also did not try to push my self-contrived definition of atheism/religion on anyone; that was you, specifically, and it warranted a response. I originally came here to comment on the OP.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by makinho21]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by makinho21
 


You can never prove or explain to a religious person that Atheism is not like a religious belief and is actually not a belief at all.

They just don't get it...


it definitely appears that way doesn't it? Oh well...he's gone for the time being (home to slumber and feed I presume).



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

UPDATE: OPENING DAY for Mosque set for... Sept.11 2011



Mosque madness at Ground Zero




The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


link

Now tell me this isn't a slap in the face...

peace



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

UPDATE: OPENING DAY for Mosque set for... Sept.11 2011



Mosque madness at Ground Zero




The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


link

Now tell me this isn't a slap in the face...

peace


Wow, now THAT is a slap in the face. They could do this any other day. 9/11 is not a day to celebrate anything, let alone the openning of a Mosque next to ground zero. Although my opinions on the mosque are that we should be able to look past the stereotype, my opinons on this opening date is that this is going too far.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
i just wanna say... who cares. when christains crusaded across earope and demanded they convert or die it was totally OK! and most of those contries still have christian churches. and plus who even cares about religion anymore. its all so currupt and full of greed and war that people have moved on. no one cares about muslims because they blow themselves up. no one cares about christians because they want your mony and little boys... building a mosque by ground zero is less offensive then building a federal building in general.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I find it very interesting that people are always decrying the apparent lack of non-extremist Muslim voices in our public discourse, and yet when we have an example of those voices they get castigated and lumped in with the very extremists they are trying to set themselves apart from.

Here's a quote:

Daisy Khan, executive director of the Muslim society, described her vision of a center led by Muslims, but serving the community as a whole.

"It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion," Khan said. "It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum."

Source


and another:


Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam spearheading the project and who has lived in this country for decades, says the community center is intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims.

Source


Honestly, I think it's a very hopeful symbolic gesture to have a non-extremist Islamic group openly engaging with the horror of 9/11. To use the emotive meaning of the area in a statement that should say to both non-Muslims and extremist Muslims, "Islam is one of many faiths practiced in the US and in NYC in particular, and does not require antagonistic relations with its fellow citizens."

I question the wisdom of choosing the tenth anniversary of the WTC disaster from a security standpoint, and wouldn't be surprised if such concerns make it impossible for them to put this plan into practice, but I welcome an Islamic group that is interested in participating in the rebuilding of the community.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wondering302
 


Take it easy 302, your racism is starting to show. What do you mean by "911 being not totally an inside job"?Sooo, it was our govt AND the Muslims?had you done any research on the subject of 911(plenty of threads bro!) then you would realise "all roads lead to Rome"(pun intended).Your post is garbage intended to incite and inflame.Just curious, who do you think perpertrated 911?IMO, the Christians have been party to some of the most horrific acts in humanity as have all religions. Theve been runnin our country,,,,if it aint broke dont fix it huh? ITS BROKE 302



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Hey, that's what happened in Jerusalem. I'm just sayin.... they have been fighting that war since god was a kid. Maybe the future will see religous wars over New Jersey instead of the Golan Heights???? Now THAT is a great premise for a book....aye?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
don't see any problem with this. Its not like they are putting up a museum dedicated to terrorists or something. But then again I'm someone who practices religious tolerance and I have no problem with most muslims. All muslims are not terrorists.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
NYC board OKs ground zero mosque


From the article:


"It's a seed of peace," board member Rob Townley said. "We believe that this is a significant step in the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism in the minority of the community."


Source: Jerusalem Post




top topics



 
31
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join