Kamina

01011011 01110001 01110101 01101111 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101110 01100001 01101101 01100101 00111101 00100111 01010110 01100101 01110010 01101001 01110011 01101111 01110000 01101000 00100111 00100000 01100100 01100001 01110100 01100101 00111101 00100111 01001010 01110101 01101110 00100000 00110001 00100000 00110010 00110000 00110000 00111000 00101100 00100000 00110000 00110111 00111010 00110000 00110010 00100000 01010000 01001101 00100111 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 00111101 00100111 00110110 00110000 00110000 00110100 00110101 00110100 00100111 01011101 00001101 00001010 01010100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 00110001 00110000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 01110011 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110000 01100101 01101111 01110000 01101100 01100101 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101100 01100100 00101110 00001101 00001010 00001101 00001010 01010100 01101000 01101111 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01110011 01110100 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101000 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00101110 00001101 00001010 01011011 00101111 01110001 01110101 01101111 01110100 01100101 01011101 00001101 00001010 01010100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 00101110

I don't have a lucky number, but I must confess that I prefer nine to other numbers. I just like the sound of the word, so if I can make something be 9 in number, I will. I think that it is foolish to do things like skip the number 13 when numbering the floors of a building. The thirteenth floor is still the thirteenth floor, even if one calls it the 14th.

I'm here for the other people that are here. I truly enjoy talking with many of them and reading their conversations.

Darkangel - VNV Nation

My mother's homemade blueberry pie.

If life is a gift, then it is free of charge. There is no need to return anything...

Hate to rain on your parade, but Quantum Mechanics. Nothing ever truly touches. Electrons repel each other before they can touch.

The internet.

Couple of quick responses; I'm short on time. Of course questions are not accusations, I never said they were. I am simply trying to clarify my statements, as there seems to be some confusion as to their meanings. The existence of state supported terrorism does not undermine my argument. As I was arguing that religion does not require state support in order to execute organized violence, the existence of state-supported terrorism does nothing. It simply shows that the state can support "terrorism", not that religion needs state support to organize. I do not care about the struggle to define the term: "war on terror." I am using one acceptable definition of it; the definition has been clearly outlined so that a majority of people can understand it (if this is untrue, then I apologize.) In this particular argument, the many possible definitions of the term are a moot point, since they don't affect the central points I am trying to make. Define the term howevewr you wish, but undrstand that other viable definitions of it can be used.

I was talking purely about the current war on terror as it has been executed to date. My purpose was not to accuse Muslims of being the only religion that had extremists willing to commit acts of terror nor was it to suggest that the sides involved in this particular conflict were the only sides that have ever been involved in any religious conflict. I am well aware that other examples of terrorist conflict exist, I simply chose to not comment on them for the sake of brevity. I fail to see how state sponsored terrorism aids my argument, thus I chose to not address it. I also realize that many of the tactics the US and its allies have used are questionable and the label "terrorist" is sometimes little more than propaganda. However, in order to talk about the current conflict in a manner understood by everyone, I am forced to use terminology that most people understand. I am sorry if any of this offended you. JimBob: I would consider any religion that does not believe in a god to fit the literal definition of atheist. But you are right, I did not allow for religions like Taoism in my response. I had assumed we were talking about atheist vs theist due to the videos.

To clarify my point: the current war on terror isn't war on a particular state. It is a war against a particular religion, or more accurately, a war against a particular subset of a religion. It is like declaring war on the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican is a state, but it is subservient to the Church. Destroying the state does not destroy the Church; the Church has no need of the state to organize its membership and field combatants. Although you are correct that religion is often supported by the state, you seem to be ignoring the possibility that it is the state that is supported by religion. The difference between our opinions is mere perspective on cause and effect. I don't think either of us could ever convince the other. That said, I would rather not have any dogma at all, regardless of how it is applied. But I am more accepting of the risks, perhaps the truth is more harmful. I did make some assumptions about the thoughts behind your words in the last post. It appears I was wrong, so I retract my comment. Also, if the religions in the hypothetical world did not have a god, would that not make them atheist by definition? By contrast, the hypothetical untrue religion was assumed to have a god, thus making it theist by definition. I hope that cleared it up a little.

How would you explain the current "War on Terror" then? The United States has effectively declared war on a particular ideology sect of radical Islam and vice versa. There is no state on the latter side of the conflict, there is only religion. I also take issue with your assertion that: To accept this is to blame the (usually) small group of people in control for the actions of the many. Most authoritarian systems began as democracy and changed the system by convincing a majority of people to support their ideology. I think that dogma (the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from) is the real problem. When a large group of people hold the same dogma, it becomes very easy for them to band together to "defend" those who seek to oppose it. About your other point, I have two responses. First, your scenario suggests that the current world religions do not give hope, purpose, and improve people's lives or that they cannot do so to the same extent a theist religion could. Secondly, I do not think that Terry's belief in untrue things is inherently wrong in the same way that I do not believe that a child's belief in fairy tales are inherently wrong. When Terry began to act according to his beliefs, I would question him for acting in a manner that did not make sense to me, but it still would not be wrong. If Ismism demanded tribute from Terry in the form of cash, labor, or blood sacrifice, I would strongly counsel Terry against belief and might even attempt to dissuade him from belief. If Terry rejected my advice because he was perfectly happy with the situation, I would stop advising him on this matter. I do not believe that Ismism or Terry is inherently wrong. However, if Ismism required Terry to convert or kill non-Ismists, that would be inherently wrong. If Ismism told Terry that non-Ismists were inferior to Ismists and could not be trusted, that would be wrong. It all depends on what Terry believed in. The fact that what he believes in is untrue does not make it wrong, the content of his beliefs makes them wrong. Please note that I do not think that convincing others of your beliefs is wrong, but to have a religion in which a central tenement is that all people MUST be converted is wrong.

It may seem a little odd to quote Nietzsche here, but I believe it is appropriate. That may seem a little extreme to you, but it is what I believe is one layer of truth about government. The desire to hang a government over the people is an act of destruction and the setting of a snare; another truth is that destruction in moderate amounts benefits creation. I agree with what Reverend Zeus said, except for his views on abortion. Abortion is a difficult topic to come to conclusions about. It is my view that the destruction of a fetus is roughly equivalent to the destruction of skin cells. Thanks to Stem Cell Research it is possible to take skin cells, regress them into embryonic stem cells. In the near future, it will be possible to use these cells to form a completely new human being. When that becomes possible, will it be murder for a person to scratch?