This guy is a serious psychopath.
President: Rule of Islam only way for salvation of mankind – Irna — The following is a press release from the Islamic Republic (IRAN) News Agency. Apparently the idiot President of Iran, who is hoping to get all his people killed in some war, is now the chief hoo-hah regarding the declaration of Muslim war against the rest of the world. He apparently doesn’t know that the Sunni branch of the religion generally doesn’t follow his orders.
The following is the press release in its entirety.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that rule of Islam on mankind is the only way for salvation of human beings.
“There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind,” said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul.
President Ahmadinejad said nations are today distancing themselves from culture of materialism and selfishness and look for a new way for their prosperity, that is the path of Islam.
He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is.
“Nations today have no haven but religion,” the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies’ divisive plots.
He said, “All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks.”
He said that the Iranian nation today feels more than ever the need to stand beside the Afghan nation.“The Islamic Republic of Iran has kindly received their Afghan brothers and will continue to do so in future. Minor issues will cannot affect Iran’s policies on Afghanistan,” he added.
The president said Islam belongs to all generations and Muslims should get ready for global mission of Islam.
found by Bill Reising
#62 – Gary Marks,
It’s true that our religion is based on money. But, I’m not sure I can call a system that includes corporate welfare capitalism. I’m not sure that I can call it capitalism when companies can externalize risks and expenses while privatizing profits. I think it’s greed that goes beyond capitalism. It’s greed that amounts to outright legal theft.
#48 – Sometimes you have to make tradeoffs. Besides, it would just mean we have to drive more to counteract the nuclear winter effect.
#59 – Hey – He’s my crony, I’ve been on this BLOG longer!
>>Have you never heard of a word with more than one meaning?
Sure I have, Scottie. And which meaning of the word describes YOU??
>>No, I say that if you read any dictionary, something you have
>>flatly refused to do, you will find both definitions.
Oh, and Scottie: I’m sorry if I went beyond the Cliff Notes Pocket Dictionary you have. I’m sure that document defines “religion” as “Christian, Jew, Muslim”, and if you’re not one of them, you’re not part of a religion.
Perhaps I overestimated you.
Look a little deeper, and you will be sure to realize (unless you’re terminally dimwitted) that Atheism and the belief in God’s non-existence is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or the Bha’i Faith.
#67 – MM,
The one you’d consider a religion. I believe there is no god. If someone gives me any data at all, that might change to doubt. As yet, I have not seen any data and thus have no doubt. This does not mean that I would not change my mind if some new data item were presented. A driveway smudge that looks like Jesus Manson won’t do.
#68 – MM,
(Apologies to everyone else for the huge post to follow.)
Please pick from the list from dictionary.com and tell me which one includes atheism:
Source 1 (dictionary.com unabridged):
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
Source 2 (American Heritage):
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Source 3 (WordNet):
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; “he lost his faith but not his morality”
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power; “he was raised in the Baptist religion”; “a member of his own faith contradicted him”
And now for definitions of atheism. Again, please pick the one that sounds religious to you, based on the definition of religion you picked above.
Source 1 (dictionary.com unabridged):
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Source 2 (American Heritage):
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Source 3 (WordNet):
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
#68 – MM,
In case it is not clear, the first section of definitions is a list of definitions from three sources for religion. The second list is for atheism. Pick one from column A and one from column B, so to speak and make them match so that atheism is a religion.
Or, if you prefer, cite your own dictionary. Please include the complete definitions of your choice for both words. Thanks.
Whether or not atheism is or is not a religion is really a pretty boring question. Does it matter?
You can make the case atheism is a religion because if it were not a religion then there would have to be things like Christian atheists (which makes no sense).
Yeah, you can argue atheism is a “religion” because — like Christianity, Islam and the like — it does have a limited set of (unproven) beliefs, specifically that there is no proof/compelling evidence for supernatural powers. It is unproven because I can’t disprove the existence of God or any other belief system based on inherently unknowable beliefs.
But at the end of the day, this is a very boring conversational topic that is just arguing about human categorization, don’t you agree?
(As long as someone isn’t trying to get intelligent design taught in school or something equally annoying, I have a great deal of respect towards Christianity, it is very good religion and you can’t find anyone advocating violence in the New Testament and the value system is — for the most part — excellent. Everyone always points to the nutballs to knock Christianity, but there are nutballs of all flavors in this world).
Monotheism v2.0 (code-named Christianity) is indeed very servicable, and a much-improved release over the version 1.0 which had been reportedly rushed to market. However, it must be noted that because the program code wasn’t rewritten from the ground up, it still suffers from certain vulnerabilities inherited from the legacy code, kept somewhat intact for purposes of backward compatibility and familiarity to users. The greatest of these logical vulnerabilities remains the central deity, with multiple conflicting descriptions in the user manual, as well as a buggy interface and unreliable, often undocumented, return values in many of the functions.
However, as problematic as v2.0 was, many users still prefer it to v3.0 (code-named Islam). Despite the blind acceptance in some parts of the world of version 3, there are still very large communities that refuse to upgrade from either of the two earlier versions, due to some major changes in the code that many people find hard to live with (literally).
I’m waiting for version 4 (code-name not available).
#73 – Gary Marks,
Version 1 was Zoroastrianism. Add one to all of the rest of your version numbers. And, keep in mind, despite all of the problems with v2.0 (Judaism), some still have trouble with the fact that v3.0 introduced some regression that upset some people that were not happy about bringing back the concept of eternal damnation.
Also, keep in mind that while 4.0 has not yet achieved the market share of 3.0, it is making great headway through its greater productivity (reproductivity?)
>>The one you’d consider a religion.
That’s all I needed to hear, Scottie. Me and the rest of the civilized world (excluding members of the Atheist faith). You have WAAAAAY too much interest in pursuing this to the bitter end. You and the rest of your anti-holy-roller fanatic fundamentalist Atheist proselytizers.
Let it go, son. It’s not really THAT important. If you want to call your religion a “hobby”, that’s just dandy. You are free, son. Go whither thou willst.
#72 – hmeyers,
I have a great deal of respect towards Christianity, it is very good religion and you can’t find anyone advocating violence in the New Testament and the value system is — for the most part — excellent.
Really?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/peaceful.htm
None of the texts for any flavor of monotheism can be read literally without coming to violent conclusions. They also all have peaceful passages. But, it cannot be said that there are no violent passages in Christianity, especially for those who acknowledge that Jesus did not, in fact, nullify the old testament, which has passages like the one about Joshua at Jericho, an entirely despicable genocide that even went so far as to include infants and animals.
Mister Mustard, why are you so unwilling to accept a definition of atheism as being the simple lack of belief in any god? Most people who call themselves atheists do so with that generally accepted dictionary definition, yet you continue to insist that it includes more meaning, elevating it to the sort of belief system that it’s clearly not intended to be. Is it because you’re intent on having that “Gotcha!” moment, where you hold up the mirror and say, “But you have a belief system too, ye hypocrite”?
You can say it a thousand times, but it just ain’t so. However, I’ll be the first to stand up and say I have an active, positive belief that the god described in the Bible doesn’t exist, and that he created neither me nor the universe. That belief doesn’t come from science or evolutionary theory, but from the Bible itself. It may be a popular myth, and the one I was indoctrinated with as a child, but its coherence to an adult mind suffers greatly from its multiplicity of authors. If anyone thinks torture in the mideast is bad, they should see the tortured logic of theologians who try to resolve the logical incongruities within the Bible.
However, there are many other definitions of god that I couldn’t reasonably exclude from the realm of all possibility. Rather than force your definition of atheism upon us, let us define ourselves. As long as we use words and definitions included in the dictionary, what’s your beef, dude?
#75, Mustard:
Once again, you have proven you are nothing but a hack.
When confronted with evidence that convincingly challenges your claim that atheism is a “religion,” you refuse to answer the question and breakout the ad hominem attacks.
For you to react so bitterly to evidence against your bullshit, you show this debate really is “THAT important.”
#75 – MM,
Oh great malren slayer, I am very surprised and disappointed that you flatly refused to at least pick a couple of definitions from somewhere and make your case. I even thought one of the definitions in the list I posted would have given you some material to work with. And, still you refused. Perhaps on this one, you should STFU.
But, please keep coming back for other debates. You really do have a habit of making very good points. This just isn’t one of them.
This guy is just one more in a long list of megalomaniacal douche bags that end up getting a lot of people killed. Religious/political beliefs are almost secondary to their sociopathology.
We’ll see if this a-hole finds a Sudetenland to annex or Poland to invade, so we’re all off to the races. And thanks to George who put on his version of the Finnish War to help this idiot decide that there could be opportunity.
#80, Rob R, said: “This guy is just one more in a long list of megalomaniacal douche bags that end up getting a lot of people killed. Religious/political beliefs are almost secondary to their sociopathology.”
Are you talking Bush or Armadinijad?
#8. Yes, look what happened when Christians got the bomb. It was dropped twice on Shintoists within the year.
Muslims, Jews and Hindus have had the bomb for several years and haven’t dropped it on anyone. Atheists had the bomb for almost several decades and didn’t drop it on anyone.
Thus, history shows that Christians and nukes don’t mix, but one is generally safe with Muslims, Hindus and Atheists.
#9. in order to play nice with Muslims, Catholics should refer to god as ‘Allah.’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20279326/
I prefer to refer to god as ‘imaginary’ myself.
#47. And actually Pedro, the Spanish election was tilted by the ruling party’s crazy and politically-motivated initial insistence that the bombing was the work of the Basques. Had they a better response, they could still be in power now.
>>I am very surprised and disappointed that you flatly refused to at
>>least pick a couple of definitions from somewhere and
>>make your case.
Ah, Scottie, Scottie, Scottie. I picked one, I made my case (see somewhere else on DU), and all bobbo (the Requestor) could do was scratch his balls, drink beer, and refer to his “Engrish for Dummies” reference set.
I gotta tell ya, dude, I’m about ready to be beamed up. Who ever thought that members of the Atheist religion would have their knickers in such a twist about having their religion identified as a religion? Who knew?
If they’re really all THAT bound and determined that their belief system should be treated with the same degree of respect given to the “I don’t collect stamps” contingent, I guess I’m willing to capitulate.
Shitty hobby anyway. I asked at the Post Office the other day if they had any “Elvis” stamps, and they did not.
#83. edit that ‘almost’ in front of “several decades”
#84 – MM,
I must not have been watching that thread. Please either repost your answer or provide a link to the other thread. I have not gotten an answer from you yet.
#84: Again with the dodge.
By your own argument, you shouldn’t have brought this up again on DU. But you did, in #25.
Rather, you should have just said “See what I think on this issue by researching my other posts.” But you didn’t.
Apparently, writing “see somewhere else on DU” is only convenient to you when you’re trying to dodge the issue at hand. The rightwing pundits on talk radio must envy your ability to dodge questions.
>>
Natefrog, go back to masturbating. You’re not adding anything to the discussion.
MM,
I found your post for you. You’re welcome. This was your definition. I’d love to know what dictionary it came from. But, I’ll work with it.
“Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals.”
So, even by this particularly broad definition dug up from somewhere, atheism only meets a third of the definition. The portion I emphasized does not match atheism at all. There is no moral code, no practices, no institutions associated with such belief. Sorry.
#82 Eric Phillips
I meant Armadinijad, but you really made me LOL. Thanks!
>>There is no moral code, no practices, no institutions associated
>>with such belief
Don’t need no moral code, don’t need no practices, and don’t need no stinkin’ institutions. Just need a blind faith belief in something relating to God.
And you’ve got it, in spades, Scottie.
So you’re primitive. Big fucking deal. Nobody holds that against you.
#88, 91: Ouch. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your junior high insults will never harm me!
Better suggestion: Why don’t you add something of substance to this debate?
>>Why don’t you add something of substance to this debate?
Been adding until I’m bled dry, Nathaniel. Go back to the hand lotion.
#83
“Yes, look what happened when Christians got the bomb. It was dropped twice on Shintoists within the year.
Muslims, Jews and Hindus have had the bomb for several years and haven’t dropped it on anyone. Atheists had the bomb for almost several decades and didn’t drop it on anyone.”
doug, you must be one of those idiot atheists that are an embarrassment to the rest of us and make us look stupid.
Do you not have the slightest background in history? Are you not familiar with the history of WW2, the history of the USSR, of Mohammed?
Bad people come from all creeds.
#72 – MScott
If Jesus were alive today, if he ever existed, he’d be a peacenik. It’s pretty hard to portray someone like that as violent.
You can raise the typical nerd arguments about some sentence somewhere in someplace to grasp at straws, but the fact of the matter is that the New Testament teaches peace and love. Religious zealots have always found ways to misuse things.
IF there was a Jesus, and viewing him as just a normal man, it is rather difficult to dislike or find fault in what he preached. Hating Jesus is almost as silly as hating Buddha, Ghandi or Martin Luther King and only an angry and biased person could do so.