Book Burning

[MMI]

Here's a good idea ... Let's put an inanimate book on "trial". Although it can't defend itself, we can appoint someone to put up a really determined defence on its behalf - or we can put up some stooges to do the opposite.

If the verdict is innocent, then, of course, the book will be allowed to go free. But if it is guilty then it shall suffer the ultimate penalty ... it will be eliminated by fire.

Now this isn't intended to be an incitement to violence in any shape or form, indeed, as devout Christians, we abhor violence, it's just a genuine attempt to find the truth and to glorify God.

So, which book shall we try for its life? Mein Kampf? Le Grimoire du Pape Honorius? Ad abolendam? Bhagavad Gita?

No, none of those. Far more evil to a righteous Christian is the Koran, so let it be that.

(Actually, we don't know it is far more evil than any of the other books: that's for the fair trial we have organised to determine.)

And when we find it guilty, and burn it ... I mean if it is found guilty after a fair trial (with no right of appeal) ... and if it is sentenced to be burned, then we expect all Moslems to accept the verdict calmly and philosophically, as the just and rational decision it would be, and to realise that God's truth can only be found in Christian texts.

And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

[Thorne]

And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

[TantricSoul]

Insanity.
That's the word that comes to mind in this circumstance, and there is plenty to go around on all sides.

[thir]

Insanity.
That's the word that comes to mind in this circumstance, and there is plenty to go around on all sides.

Ain't that the truth. I just saw a program about the Phelps cult and their hate church, but got no wiser as to what has happened to these people. I was totally shaken! I never would have thought I'd actually feel sorry for such people, but in the end I was. They seem driven by one emotion: fear. Fear of hell. This emotion controls their whole life, more important than family or anything else. It is almost insane.

I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse.

[MMI]

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

Isn't that pretty much what Pastor Terry Jones would have said?

He deliberately provoked the riots. It was HIS fault. Sure the rioters are guilty for over-reacting, but Jones burned the Koran knowing something like that would happen, just to publicise his business, the Dove Outreach Centre, and its products: hate books, hate t-shirts etc.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.
[/quote]


Isn't that pretty much what Pastor Terry Jones would have said?

He deliberately provoked the riots. It was HIS fault. Sure the rioters are guilty for over-reacting, but Jones burned the Koran knowing something like that would happen, just to publicise his business, the Dove Outreach Centre, and its products: hate books, hate t-shirts etc.

This is a difficult moral question. Certianly both parties are responsible for their actions.

That book burning was a dispiseable act, pretty much like the darn Mohamed drawings
in the Danish news paper. But it still does not excuse killing people.

To me a response that makes sense would be to burn a bible online, or to publish drawings mocking Jesus. Yell at each other, but that is the extent of it. It is the killings that makes me think that what I insist on calling dogmatic religions are too dangerous and have too much power over other people.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
And if innocent non-Americans die as a result of our action, who gives a fuck? It won't be our fault.

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

True, the one who kills is responsible for killing. But what about the instigator? Does this person not have any responsibility at all? Or does book burning also come under the heading of 'freedom of speech'?

As in, some hateful people shout 'kill the gays kill the gays' and not only are they not part of the killing that follows, because it is all freedom of speech, and nobody needs actually do it?

[leo9]

As in, some hateful people shout 'kill the gays kill the gays' and not only are they not part of the killing that follows, because it is all freedom of speech, and nobody needs actually do it?

This is always a judgement call, and historically, the US has drawn the line a lot further over on the side of free speech than Europe. I'm pretty sure that if Pastor Jones had been in England he'd have been arrested just for proposing his trial and burning; he'd certainly be in jail now. Likewise the Wesborough Baptist Gay-haters. It is arguable that our political debate is that much less free as a result: but with all due respect, the US's wider limits for speech don't seem to have produced a markedly higher level of wisdom in the debate.

The real problem internationally is the same kind of cultural incomprehension that bedevils so much international debate. The countries that feel attacked by this have such radically different traditions of politics that they honestly do not believe that the President of the world's most heavily armed nation can only show his disapproval of this by wringing his hands in distress. One can understand why. If something similar (mutatis mutandis) happened in a Middle Eastern state, and the perpetrator went unharmed, we would take it as proved that his actions were at least approved, if not actually sponsored by the government.

[leo9]

PS - I realised after it was too late to edit that what I was referring to in the above was the book-burning, not the riots. I hope that's clear now.

[leo9]

No, it will be the fault of those imbecilic, superstitious assholes who believe that their book has magical powers and is far more important than human life.

So in your view, if one shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the responsibility for the consequences lies entirely with those imbecilic enough to believe that there was a fire?

[Thorne]

So in your view, if one shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the responsibility for the consequences lies entirely with those imbecilic enough to believe that there was a fire?

Only those who will blindly race for the exits, knocking down anyone who gets in their way.

But this is not the same kind of thing. In this case some radical Imam stood up and claimed that, since this one asshole burned the Koran, Muslims should rise up and kill anyone who is not Muslim. He didn't shout "fire"; he whispered, "kill the projectionist!"

[denuseri]

It is fanatical a holes like them that give other people a bad name by proxy in the eyes of too many unfortunately. Both the book burners and the people rioting over it just make terrible examples of how religion can be abused by those who dont follow the very things they claim too.

And calling people stupid for having religion and such hypocritical stereotyping of all faiths for the actions of a few is just as bad a crime imho becuase all it does is add fuel to the fire of intolereance.

[thir]

It is fanatical a holes like them that give other people a bad name by proxy in the eyes of too many unfortunately. Both the book burners and the people rioting over it just make terrible examples of how religion can be abused by those who dont follow the very things they claim too.

And calling people stupid for having religion and such hypocritical stereotyping of all faiths for the actions of a few is just as bad a crime imho becuase all it does is add fuel to the fire of intolereance.

If you mean me, I did not call anyone 'stupid', I called them 'almost insane'. And so they were, and I think maybe all real cults are like that. 'Cults' as in isolating their members from the rest of society, and, as in this case, living in fear of Hell every waking moment of their life, as well as sprouting hate and obscene slogans at other people - all other people.

That does not spell normal to me.

As for "I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse" that should have been "dogmatic, institutionalized religion." I was too shaken to think straight but by all gods large and small, I stand by that!

On the same evening I (stupidly) saw the film The Magdalene Sisters. If you do not know it, it concerns the Irish laundries which were run by nuns, with the work done by 'fallen women', such young girls who had been raped, or was considered flirty, or had a child out of wed-lock, or who were otherwise on edge with their family or the local, catholic priest. They were in there for an indefinite time, some all their lives, working 10 hours a day, always scolded, treated with contempt, and without any human relationship to even each other, as they were never allowed to talk with each other which was enforced by any and all means.

Same thing happened in protestant UK and much of Europe, and the last of these launderies closed in Ireland in - guess - 1996!

Neither church has even apologized for this inhuman behaviour.

This is obviously one a small part of what dogmatic religion can bring - the kind that is either a tool for power, or is, in itself, a power.

No religion, no government, no political faction has the right to tell anyone what to think, or do.

As for fire of intolerance, that has always seemed to me to come from said dogmatic religions. Everybody else simply discuss, they do not try to make all other people abide by their ideas.

[Thorne]

If you mean me, I did not call anyone 'stupid', I called them 'almost insane'.

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

As for "I can see why some people think that religion is a real danger and a curse" that should have been "dogmatic, institutionalized religion." I was too shaken to think straight but by all gods large and small, I stand by that!

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized. Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

Neither church has even apologized for this inhuman behaviour.

Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

No religion, no government, no political faction has the right to tell anyone what to think, or do.

And yet this is exactly what religious organizations are designed to do! Political organizations as well. Governments tend to follow the dictates of whichever political organization is in control at the time.

As for fire of intolerance, that has always seemed to me to come from said dogmatic religions. Everybody else simply discuss, they do not try to make all other people abide by their ideas.

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers. It appears to me that, as those young people leave, the remnants cling ever more tightly to their archaic beliefs, further driving the young away, rather than trying to adjust to reality and at least attempt to keep the younger people aboard. And they quickly become even more demanding and intolerant of those who do not follow their particular superstition.

[denuseri]

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized. Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.


Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

And yet this is exactly what religious organizations are designed to do! Political organizations as well. Governments tend to follow the dictates of whichever political organization is in control at the time.

So do individual arguments in any debate (attempt to sway the other side to their own).

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers. It appears to me that, as those young people leave, the remnants cling ever more tightly to their archaic beliefs, further driving the young away, rather than trying to adjust to reality and at least attempt to keep the younger people aboard. And they quickly become even more demanding and intolerant of those who do not follow their particular superstition.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.

[Thorne]

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.

So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something, and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

Knock wood.

[thir]

Thorne:
Just give them a couple of hundred years. They'll get around to it. (see: Galileo)

Denuseri:
OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

Just to clear up a misunderstanding: Thorne is answering to my comments about the Magdalene Sister's Launderies, and, as I was careful to say, they were in use all over Europe in both catholic and protestant countries, though under different names.

And my own comment: I think the important thing here is that great injustice was done and much suffering occured as a result of that, and that is the point here, no matter what religion caused it. As I said Neither church has bothered to apoligize for these atrocities but what the heck, it was only women who got hit and they did not, and do not, count for much anyway in the 3 mono religions. Oh, and, in some cases their babies, of course. If that matters.

[thir]

Usually she's addressing me with this kind of statement. And that's probably because I feel that anyone who BLINDLY follows a religious leader is, indeed, stupid. Those who learn about their religion, who actually think about (a rarity in my experience) might be considered gullible, perhaps, but not necessarily stupid.

Following anyone blindly is, in my view of things, a very dangerous thing to do and, also in my view, plain wrong. Because the last judge of your behaviour is you yourself, and you cannot just let that go. It is part of being a sentient being to be accuntable for your actions, whoever gives the orders.

As for thinking about your religion I am sure that you are wrong in assuming that most people do not do that. In less religious countries you have to think a lot to become religious in the first place, as it is not part of the culture. People who change religions have also thought a lot. And I would guess that most young people sooner or later take such things - and all kinds of things - up to revision. They should, anyway.

Of course that still leaves a number of people who do not think about their religion, and that is as dangerous, as I see it, as people who blindly trust authorities in general.

That is why I could never be a soldier of a member of various 'operational forces' of one kind or another. I could never make myself a blind tool for other people, least of all politicians of priests, meaning no offence to either as individuals but targeting the system. Defending your own homeground, on it,that is different, but also a different situation.

A religion is, by definition, institutionalized.

No. A pagan religion is a religion, but as far from being institutionalized as you can get.

Faith does not have to be either religious or dogmatic.

True, nor anything to do with anything spriritual at all.

Statistics seem to indicate that, in the US, the more dogmatic religions are losing young members in record numbers.

If so, I see it as very positive. If the religion is any good, they will come back later, or start their own, but they will base it on their own thoughts and values.

[DuncanONeil]

"If the verdict is innocent, then, of course, the book will be allowed to go free. But if it is guilty then it shall suffer the ultimate penalty ... it will be eliminated by fire."

A court trial never results in a verdict of innocent! Merely "not guilty". Difference is that a "guilty" verdict means the state proved its case! "Not guilty" means the state did not prove its case.

[leo9]

Here's a good idea ... Let's put an inanimate book on "trial". Although it can't defend itself, we can appoint someone to put up a really determined defence on its behalf - or we can put up some stooges to do the opposite.

By a most entertaining coincidence, in the same week UK television showed Paul Theroux' second documentary on the Wesborough Baptist Church, who would certainly be Exhibit A if one were to put the Bible on trial.

The thought that occured to me was: if I were to go to Pastor Jones' neighbourhood and burn a Bible with much hullaballoo and publicity, what would be my chances of getting out alive? Because, y'know, they've proved to their satisfaction that only Muslims are violent...

[MMI]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.


If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).


As for the book burning issue - remember that? - we do see Moslem fanatics desecrating Christian and Jewish places of worship, and I expect they would happily burn the Bible. Those Moslems are behaving in exactly the same way as Pastor Jones and his crew: fanatically, in a way each side would characterise of the other as evil and satanic. Such behaviour is deliberately provocative, and a violent reaction is the least they are hoping for. It is neither Christian nor Moslem. That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

[Thorne]

It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Exactly my point! Except to say that many of the things which were once presumed to be actions of gods have been explained as natural processes, ones which do not require the assumption of a god to occur. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes were all once thought to be manifestations of the gods. We now understand the natural forces which cause these phenomena much better, and nowhere do we require the actions of a god for them.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.

Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

[MMI]

And I have not denied anything absolutely. I have stated repeatedly that evidence for gods does NOT exist, and that there is no need to assume that they do just because some people want to believe in them.

I'm not really attacking you on this one, Thorne. I'm on your side, but less vehement in my denial and less contemptuous (seemingly) of those who do believe. We are, after all, talking about nothing.

I read a book, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" which, while it does not prove that gods cannot exist, makes a pretty good argument that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, Yahweh or Jehovah, cannot exist as defined by those beliefs. But you are right, there is no proof that gods do not exist, just as there is no proof that they do. There is also no proof that comets are not messengers of the gods, sent to warn us of impending doom. There's just no reason to believe that they are.

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

I don't know about how equal the responsibility should be, but I do agree that they are at least somewhat responsible. Here in the US, the law says that anyone participating in a felony is equally responsible for anything which happens during the commission of that felony. Fortunately, book burning is NOT a felony, but knowingly inciting someone to murder is.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

The more important issue here, though, is that too many people around the world are kowtowing to the Muslim fanatics out of fear of reprisals. The reaction to this book burning is far in excess of the act itself. Killing innocent people because their religion was insulted? That is just insane! And such insanity needs to be stopped.


Like many other actions, a lot depends upon the context. Were these burners attempting to destroy all existing copies of the Koran? No, that's absurd. Were they trying to prevent people from reading the book? Nope. Were they making a statement about the followers of that book? Yes, they were. That, therefore, is free speech. We may not like what they are saying, but they do have the right to say it. At least in the US they do. Personally, I think they need to go one step further. They should buy several copies of the Koran and burn them in the central square of Mecca. Then let the chips fall where they may.

I can't think of any instance where anyone has kowtowed to Moslem fanatics - enlighten me, please. Certainly it is wise to take steps to protect oneself against future terrorist acts by such fanatics, but that's not submission. It is also true that we make arrangements that involve arming and financing them, but that's only done to further our own interests, so I don't count that as being subservient to them in any way, either.

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled. I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

[Thorne]

We are, after all, talking about nothing.

It's truly a tempest in a teapot!*

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

(Pity the poor scientist who has to prove the 330 million hindu gods deities cannot exist ... maybe he'll just confine himself to proving the Supreme One cannot exist.)

It shouldn't be at all necessary. One of the maxims of the scientific method is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the universe in six days (though we're not sure why it took him so long), created men and women (though why women were needed at that point, since they weren't having sex, we don't know), placed them into a garden and told them they could have anything in that garden except that tree (Oh, now I understand why the woman was there!), then tossed them out when they ate from that tree (even though he knew they would do so even before he made the universe), then he'd better have some damned extraordinary evidence to prove his assertions. Otherwise it's not more factual than the story of Hansel and Gretel.

I imagine US law also makes people responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions and penalises the negligent or reckless disregard of those consequences

Yes it does, but while the consequences of this book burning were definitely foreseeable, they were anything but reasonable.


* (See Russell's teapot)

[leo9]

The real point is that Pastor Jones knew or should have known (and I believe he calculated) what the reaction to the burning of a single copy of the Koran in circumstances designed to upset any member of the Moslem faith, not just its hard-liners, and surrounded by world-wide publicity, would be; and the mock-trial that took place was a further display of contempt, just to sugar the pill. Now you and I know that it's absurd to react that way just because one's religion is insulted, but it's nonetheless a fact that otherwise sensible and moderate people see red mist in front of their eyes when matters of religion are mishandled.

As I've noted before, if I were to ceremoniously and with great publicity burn a Bible in Pastor Jones' parish, I doubt if all his followers would politely agree to respect my right of free speech.

This is also a fine example of the way enemies co-operate to stir up a war. Despite his best efforts, Jones would probably have failed to cause an incident if Hamid Karzai hadn't helped him along by shouting outrage over Afghan radio. (This is why it took so long for the riots to happen.) Which incidentally shows that whatever other kind of rogue and fool he is, Karzai is no Western puppet: his US minders would certainly have stopped him if they could.

I know Americans value free speech rather more highly than Europeans do (although, as an aside, it is interesting to note how many Americans use European law to stifle the expression of viewpoints they find distasteful), but I'm sure it does not continue to uphold people's liberty to say what they like when such speech is likely to cause civil unrest, personal injury or death.

It's a judgement call, figuratively and literally, and one that gets regularly tested in the courts both here and in the US. An episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on our networks recently dealt with the dilemma where a US Nazi had been making speeches telling his followers to kill gays, and one of them did: could the leader be indited for murder, given that he hadn't named the actual victim, and should they try, given the implications for free speech?

[thir]

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

[Thorne]

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their god as the one TRUE god. They are constantly trying to create a theocracy in the US, one which I believe would rival the Taliban in barbarity.

It's important because of the amount of harm done to people in the name of religion, from cults which kill their children because they disdain modern medicine, to those who destroy children's lives in the name of their gods.

But since we cannot prove that gods don't exist we have to be happy with exposing those who perpetuate evil in the names of those gods, and show people that the religion which tries to maintain a hold upon them is far more evil than any demons or devils that religion claims to fight against.

[MMI]

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

You have responded to my other points in detail, Thorne, and while I personally do agree with your sentiments in general, I still think you have missed the point, and because of that, you persist in your Quixotic tilting at religious windmills. Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

That, really, answers your objections as to proving the existence of gods or otherwise completely.

Gee. I never get compliments like that!

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Excellent question. I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise. The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

[leo9]

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.

Science has nothing to say about any assertion that can't be tested. That's why scientists have no quarrel with mainstream religions, which long ago gave up making claims about material things, but are head to head with those, like creationists, who assert that their religion requires that certain material things which science denies must be true, such as that the world and everything on it were created a few thousand years ago.

If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

[MMI]

That is still proving a negative, and still impossible by definition. The only thing one can prove is that certain things that are claimed as evidence for god - miraculous cures, evidence of creation etc. - can be adequately explained within the existing framework of science.

Possibly so, but that's because of my inability to express my ideas coherently. What I had in mind was that people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god. They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that. If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.