Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

Yes, there are militant atheists. The reason why they are tolerated is because they argue using logic, rather than blind faith. Many of the most militant atheists will the first to say "show me evidence of God, and I'll trust there is one; however, as me to believe on blind faith and I'll show you the door".

You won't hear that from the opposite end of the spectrum.

As for the National article, yes. The burka, niquab etc are not Islamic dress. They're Arabian bedouin dress – a cultural phenomenon.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

Not much sign of a 'debate'.

It's not difficult, the site provides a little picture icon in the top of the box when you reply. I'm sure you could manage it if you tried.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

It's hard to strike up a debate with a brick wall too.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

Insults? Christ, if you want me to insult you I will, but I've not.

I haven't criticised your grammar either.

There is a lack of content, that's my point, you've not really offered anything credible.

I've not been brainwashed, I don't have a book (as good as it may be) telling me the way to live my life and how to deal with issues, how to ask for help etc etc.

Show me where I have been factually incorrect and you'll have my full apology....fundamentally though, your opinion on things against mine, which leads down a path to nowhere.

So, I think I should probably revert to the following (and this is an insult, just so you are aware in advance);

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

So have I got this right? Mathmatist and Desert Dweller (who actually lives in Wales) think that we will all be better people if we dress in a particular way and that showing some flesh in public makes us bad people? The rest of us pretty much think that our actions are what make us decent or not and that there are rather more important issues to get het up about?

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

Show me is not always the case. Show me oxygen, show me an atom, show me the pain when you are slapped in the face etc...

Some things had to be discovered with research and effort. The fact that that something came from nothing or randomly occured is mathematically, highly unlikely if next to impossible.

Also, one last thing, the argument if religion or atheism causing the most 'damage'. I don't recall Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot being pacifists and Nobel Peace Prize winners either. Communists that forced no religion upon people. Militant or terrorist atheists in other words. Forced labour, relocation and starvation aren't good things right?

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

If you read my earlier posts about 40 or so pages ago, I did say that the way you dress doesn't necessarily make a good person or not, but in this part of the world, how you dress does determine how you are viewed. This, you can't deny even you strongly disagree with this.

Just as many guys and gals in the western world dress to go out to a party / beach / club hoping to pull if that's their intention, the concept of overt and then covert attracting is frowned upon here like in a mall.

Yes, it goes on subtly, but out of 'public' eyes such as in hotels and bars. It's these mixed messages that are confusing many people as what one poster said previously.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

One assumes you're talking creationism versus evolution. Your sentence is one often used by creationists. Not to get drawn into your 'debate' if your god made everything who/what made your god, nothing?

Did Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot (BTW you missed out Hitler as he is normally lumped in with this group, or have you read Mein Kampf and were aware that he was a Catholic) do those things for something they didn't believe in (religion) or were they done for political ends? Myself I reckon it was the moustaches, moustaches = godless heathen atheists.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

All of these have cause and effect, and therefore can be proved. Hence why they are all scientific fact, rather than theory. The existence of a higher power could be described as a scientific theory, but it would be an extremely weak one based on circumstantial evidence.

There's an interesting theory that has been doing the rounds in the scientific community for a long time, but it's never really come up above the surface because it would be so hard to prove.

Everything is made of energy, right? Now we know that energy can't be destroyed, only transferred. If it can't be destroyed, it can't have an end. If something doesn't have an end, then it's reasonable to assume that it never had a beginning.

It is beyond the ability of the human brain to comprehend something that has no beginning and no end. We need to rationalise things (which is ironically an irrational response when faced with such aspects of the universe).

One way that civilizations that lacked our understanding of the fundamental construction of the universe that was rationalising that some higher power created it all. But then you have the issue of who created him/her; and if it exists, then it will be composed of energy, which can't be destroyed or created. It just exists. See the paradox?

Communist Russia/China weren't atheist because they didn't necessarily believe in some higher power. It was atheist so that Christianity/Islam and so on wouldn't pose a threat to its power base by being able to influence the proletariat. They were perceived as part of the existing power structure of the bourgeoisie.

What you also have to realise is that evil people will do evil things. They didn't do it because they were atheist. They did it because they could, and they would have done it if they were Christian/Muslim/Buddist/Hindu/Jedi...

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

Mikewot are you Christian by any chance? Have a look at this one!

Ahhh Christianity - The belief that a 'Cosmic Jewish Zombie' (who was his own father), can make you live forever, provided that you drink his blood and eat his flesh (Symbolically). Not forgetting, Telepathic Communication with him; believing that he is your master, in order that he can remove the sin that is in all of us! – 6,500 Years ago when the world (apparently) began, a woman was convinced (by a talking snake), to eat fruit from a magic tree! – Does this seem plausible enough?

Mmmmm and that is just one version! – What about the Jewish Zombie's Mother?

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

Now thats the funniest thing you have said yet. Who is the brainwashed one? The guy that has put up a fair and credible argument or the guy (?) that constantly contradicts himself and talks about irrelevant nonsense? And you dont make generalisations?? I dont have the time or inclination to go back through your posts and point out all the times you called western women 'Prozzie's' or Sex mad................

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

I'd have thought it fairly clearly apparent that I'm not afflicted with religion :) Yes I've seen that one and many many more.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

It's very hard to separate Arabia from Islam...and vice versa. It is a very Arabian centric religion.

N.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

So, how should we view the local dressed conservatively in a pristine kandora in a bar, drinking whisky and subtly snogging a prostitute??
A hotel/bar is a public place sweetie.

Re: Lack of Clothes - again
 

I corrected that for you.