Anime is Japanese animation, as others have said. You've probably seen some and not realized that it was. Look up these names and you'll probably recognize at least one.
Australia - Kevin Rudd Brazil - Luiz Inario Lula da Silva Canada - Stephen Harper Austria - Werner Fay Mann Bulgaria - Boyko Borisov Finland - Matti Vanhaven Cuba - Raul Castro Republic of China - Wen Jiabao Britain - Gordon Brown France - Francois Fillon Norway - Jens Stoltenberg
Anyone who pays attention to international news should be able to get at least six right. And anyone familiar with languages other than English should be able to get the rest.
"Easter" is like every other "christian" holiday, an invented fiction intended to supplant a previously existing non-"christian" holiday.
"All Hallows Eve" replaced Samhain, "christmas" replaced hannukah and solstice celebrations (as well as the worship of Mithras), "valentine's day" is a fiction that replaced the Lupercalian festival, and "easter" replaced worship of Oestre, s fertility/nature worship religion. It's far easier to replace and destroy that it is to compete when what you're selling is no better than the other guy.
It's really no different than what the Soviet Union used to do with "nonpersons", rewriting history and forbidding people from talking about things that have been banned.
Terry Nichols wasn't executed for the Oklahoma City bombing because he started spewing religious bunk at his sentencing hearing - the religion of those who were deciding his fate.
Each of Nicols and the Lebanese man faced - or didn't face - execution not because of their religion, but because those considering whether to kill them have religion.
If you agree with those in power, you get to live. If you disagree, you'll be killed. That's a great message that's being sent.
It took you 10 months to notice this? It sounds like you got this garbage off a rightwing website and chose to flog the dead horse here.
And here I thought christians believed bearing false witness was a "sin". Or is it okay to lie when promoting and imposing religion upon others? Then again, that was Martin Luther's view 500 years ago in Germany.
Choosing not to impose prayer on others and not to violate a separation of church and state does not equate to banning religion, no matter how often the lie is repeated. But considering one of the first respondents was a liar who claimed "religion is banned in schools", it's clear that dishonesty is the only course of action for those who want to impose religion upon others. Those who "want religion in government" are too dishonest to say what they're really after: they really want THEIR religion in government.
If Bobby Jindal became president and converted back to hinduism and expected christians to start saying chakras to Shiva, you'd go into such a tizzy that you'd never recover. You wanted George Bu**sh**'s "national day of prayer" because he shared your religious dogma. People like you only want a "national day of preying on non-believers" because you're getting your way, not because it's the right thing to do.
Secularism protects religion because no one view can dominate; whenever one religion has dominated, it tried to eradicate other religions. Secular does not mean atheist, no matter how many times you tell the lie.
Think back to high school. When you were doing research for a project (social studies, history, whatever) you didn't use just one book, you used several because of differing information - some might be biased, some might be incomplete.
Multiple sources gave a more rounded and complete picture. Why would a person view getting the news as being any different?
The only reason to have a single source is because you want to hear or read things that already agree with your opinion, and/or you're unwilling to hear what other people think.
Just how uninformed are people? That's what the US is doing now. Invading countries for oil and forcing countries into unfavourable (for them) trade deals is how the US plans to stay top of the heap.
And anyone who "thinks" Alaskan oil will solve the US's demand for it hasn't passed grade 5 math. The maximum estimate of oil in Alaska is 16 billion barrels and the US uses 20 million barrels of oil per day.
Let's be generous and say the US cuts consumption in half to 10 million. Sixteen billion of reseves divided by 10 million used is 1600 days of oil. That's four years and five months. Only an idiot who can't count considers that a "long term solution".
There is an important detail the pro-torture types forget (read: deliberately ignore) when they try to talk about "worst case scenario" justifications for torture.
They blithely ignore the fact that those willing to bomb and/or mass murder large numbers of people are likely to be "true believers" and not concerned for their own safety or well being. Torture isn't going to work on them because they're willing to die for their cause.
As well, soldiers doing "black ops" (illegal murders and such in other countries) are trained to resist torture. It's not going to work on them either. The only people that torture would work are those unlikely to be a threat, so it serves no purpose in either case.
Just as noticeably, those who argue for "worst case scenarios" are using single cases as justification for using torture in all cases.
It is important to know what other people think. The problem is there are a lot of dishonest and ignorant people who "think" they know what others think, or worse, they deliberately describe others using their own biased terminology and innuendo, rather than the words of those being described. The site linked to contains definitions that would not offend or upset those being described, ergo, its writers were enlightened.
Unfortunately, there are a great many people who aren't interested in facts but instead describe others using their own biased terms to insinuate negative things about other groups (e.g. some fundamentalist christians call catholics "satanists", or there are people who say "atheists are 'against god'"). Myself, I would not describe christians as anything other than "Someone who believes in the bible and jesus christ and claims to follow them", a definition that would not upset most christians (except for those of a narrow view who want to claim that theirs is the only "true" christianity).
As well, some reject accurate definitions because they don't like the accuracy of them of the facts that accompany them (e.g. people who object to the term "abrahamic religions").
The ReligionFacts "Big Religion Chart" is an attempt to summarize all the complexities of religions and belief systems into tiny little boxes on a single, quick-reference comparison chart. Yes, of course this is impossible. As we always warn with our comparison charts, this is no substitute for reading about religions in greater detail, talking with religious adherents, etc. But this religion comparison chart can (hopefully) be a useful and accessible way to "get the gist" of some unfamiliar groups and compare basic beliefs and practices of the world's religions and belief systems. Currently, 42 belief systems are listed.
Foreign intervention decades ago is the cause of the problem.
Obviously you're a FAUX News watcher. Taking the number of deaths into account, the unemployment rate, the sectarian fighting, the lawlessness and the lack of infrastructure, Iraq actually was better off under Saddam.
First, democracy is not something one imposes on other countries, it's chosen from within by its own people. One would think the US, of all countries, would understand this considering its own history, but apparently not.
Long term stability and democracy happens when countries are allowed self-determination without outside interference. That can happen even in countries that have been ruled by brutal regimes - just ask the Indonesians, Indians, Taiwanese, South Koreans, Nicaraguans or Filipinos. The most important thing is, it's their country to decide for themselves. If your counter-argument is the false one of "The US invaded to end Saddam's brutality!", then please explain why the US doesn't invade Sudan or Burma despite equal and worse atrocities.
Second, considering the US's history of opposing democracy in other countries, either overthrowing them and supporting puppet regimes (e.g. Argentina, Panama, Iran) or trying to overthrow democracies (e.g. Greece, Nicaragua), it's not the best country to be organizing elections, especially considering the regimes it has supported on other countries in the past (e.g. Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran, the Philippines, Cuba, etc.). Oddly, where the US should be intervening to protect human rights, and the people of the country want a democracy, (e.g. Burma) the US is nowhere to be found.
Third, Iraq is an artificial country carved out by western nations arguing over oil fields decades ago. If they hadn't been meddling in the region, there would be centuries old ethnic regions turned into countries with no internal conflicts or genocides. More meddling isn't going to solve the problem, they have to solve it themselves, either by separating or learning to get along. And if extremist islam is the concern, recall that there was no extremist islam a hundred years ago, Iran was secular before the Shah, and Iraq had no Al Qaeda presence before 2001.
If they want help, they'll ask for it. Then they will welcome outside influences, but not now. Outside influence ("infidels" on "holy ground" in Saudi Arabia) is why Osama bin Laden started Al Qaeda after the first Iraq war.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
Ah, one of the ignorant speaks without knowledge, as per usual. Clearly, you don't understand why people don't buy the bull of the buybull, if what you said above is what you "think".
I stopped believing the lie of "god" at age six for the same reason I never believed in the tooth fairy or santa claus. People blathered on about it and claimed to have seen it or had "evidence" but never produced it or verified it, and any claims were easily debunked, they were shown as lies intended to make people believe.
I don't believe in "god" because I learned to think and be objective. From the buybull, Paul 13:11,
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Too bad the religious don't take their own advice.
Religion may serve as a security blanket for a child, but adults with blankets are either immature or trying to throw blanket parties (i.e. be violent with non-believers). Or both.
Prove one exists first. All you have are fairy tales making the claim, but no evidence to show.
No doubt your response will be the ever-popular and infantile, "Just wait until you die, you'll see!" Those who say that sound like a little kid threatening to call his big brother to beat up other kids, but he never calls because he doesn't have one.
Only psychos demand sycophants. Charles Manson demanded adoration of himself and demanded that people kill innocents for his own pleasure and glorification. How is that any different than the "god" of the buybull? (It's called the buybull because one must buy the bull to believe it.)
If there actually were a "god" and it were so small minded, infantile and insecure about its own existence to behave as it's alleged to do, it wouldn't be worthy of reverence. But it would be worthy of irreverence, as religion is now.
You can call it the "Just US, just U.S., not justice" attitude of the extreme right in the US. They take the view that the US can invade other countries to impose "law and order" while actually doing lawlessness and disorder (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan). Yet the notion that an external police agency like Interpol, which works within the laws of the country it operates in, can somehow be objective is alien to them.
The extremists in the US take the view that only the US can do right and know what's best for everyone. Then again, when such people talk about "exporting democracy", what they really mean is invading and removing it (thus, exporting it) as happened in Chile, Argentina, and numerous other nations (or attempted and failed, as in the case of Greece).
Religion began when primates evolved enough to notice things happening but were too ignorant to explain it, such as solar eclipses:
Child:"Why is the sky getting dark in the day, daddy?"
Father:"Be...because 'god' is angry!"
Child:"What's a 'god'?"
(The father then proceeds to cut out the child's heart with a stone knife to appease the sun. Seeing the sun return, he assumes cause and effect and continues worshipping and killing.)
And Obama is "the one", right? And you wonder why people think the religious are crackpots.
The only "anti-religious" people are those who want a state religion, who want religion in schools and government, and no other religious view allowed - for example, the US four hundred years ago, or Saudi Arabia today.
As for "ridding the world of religion", no one is doing that. Religion will die naturally when education replaces ignorance and fear. Religion needs the force of law to survive, it wouldn't survive without it.
And contrary to the oft told lie, a secular society is not an atheist society.
Believe? Go ahead, nobody is trying to stop you, despite your claims to the contrary. The only thing people would stop you from doing is imposing it on others.
The only thing "sacred" about religion are the cows (i.e. the religious have a cow if their religion is criticized).
Religions, with only the rarest exception, "teach" the idea that those not belonging to the religion are "flawed", "inferior" "going to hell", "need to be converted" and other such nonsense. Why would you get involved with someone who's view is that you're not fine as you are and that your views don't deserve respect?
And that's without mentioning the issue of kids or the arguments about how kids should be raised. Look up the names Joseph Reyes and Rebecca Shapiro. They exemplify all the reasons people of differing religious views should not get married.
If a being from another planet came to Earth without ever having been tainted by the nonsense of religion and you had to convince the being that there was a "god", how would you do it? Show it the buybull?
The being would say, "That book is two thousand years old, and humans only live 70 years. I'll need to see some archeological evidence. That book is apocryphal, anecdotal at best."
You wouldn't have any evidence to show, everything you believe is based upon words. All you have are claims; what you are selling is the word of mouth not "the word of 'god'".
In case you're tempted to say, "You have to prove there is no 'god'", it would be dishonest and uneducated of you to say so. The burden of proof always - and I mean always - lies with those who make the claim. You are claiming that a "god" exists, so the burden of proof is on you to prove it exists, not anyone to refute it. The default position is always that it doesn't.
That burden of proof is called positive argument, that what is claimed must be proven; it's also known as false until proven true. In a court of law, positive argument is known as innocent until proven guilty. If you wanted your "god" to be considered "true until proven false" (negative argument), to be ethical and consistent, you would have to accept "guilty until proven innocent" for yourself in a court of law if you were ever accused of a crime. Demanding different burdens of proof for you and a "god" is not just hypocrisy, it's moral cowardice.
Also take not of an important point: How does admitting that "god" must be proven prevent anyone from believing in it?
Answer: It doesn't prevent anyone from believing. Admitting that theists must prove there is a "god" only prevents theists from claiming it as fact, and it prevents them from imposing it upon others in schools, law and government. It doesn't prevent people from having their religion, despite lies told to the contrary.
"I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." – Anonymous
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." – Christopher Hitchens
Ethics have nothing to do with religion except when people say "'god' wants me to do this!" to justify unethical acts. Otherwise, anyone who is ethical would be whether the person has religion or not, and the same is true of unethical people.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
"Non-believer"?
If he was a "non-believer", then why did he have three buybulls in his house as compared to one book on atheism?
If mentioning the book on atheism was relevant, why wasn't it relevant to mention the three buybulls? Ignorance, bias, laziness, or just desperation to sell copy by inflaming passions?
And for the record, atheists reject "demons" in the same way we reject "god". The "writer" of that piece of yellow journalism (a/k/a dishonest propaganda) clearly wasn't interested in presenting all the facts.
Whether the bombers were christians, satanists, atheists, buddhists, or whatever still remains to be seen. That is a fact.
And if by mentioning the bombers possessing a book on atheism you are inferring that all atheists would do this, then it also equally applies that all christians would do the same a Scott Roeder. I don't believe that, but it is the inevitable conclusion of what's being inferred by mentioning a particular book.
You're talking about an object submerged in water at depths far below where visible light ends, and it was only found by trial and error through searching the ocean floor.
I'm talking about a non-existent object allegedly on the Earth's surface, unlikely to be covered by snow on a mountain in a region where there is little precipitation.
The difficulty in searching for an "ark" pales in comparison to searching for a submerged ship.
K_rational Forum Posts (257)
RE: Anime ?
Anime is Japanese animation, as others have said. You've probably seen some and not realized that it was. Look up these names and you'll probably recognize at least one.Jack and the Witch
The videodisk video game "Cliff Hanger", which borrowed from a movie, "Rupin III: Castle Cagliostro"
Astroboy
Speed Racer
Macross
Galaxy Express 999