actually screwing up on the issue of details vs principles is a convenient tool in a whole range of political escapades ... in fact you fall victim to it yourself by trying to draw up the faults of a minority as sufficient to discredit a majority (such as citing religious anti-abortion violence ... more details later)
Wrong. You're just confusing my points and twisting them to fit some sort of philosophical structure which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
so are laws, and they can also met out pretty hefty sentences to others regardless of familial bonds (no man above the law and all that) .
whats your point?
My point was obvious. The laws of man outweigh the laws of God.
and this establishes a precedent for parents killing there children on (so-called) religious grounds as a common behaviour?
It's common enough for society to work together to prevent it.
Typical of most resistance groups/guerrilla forces born out of a threatened national identity at the hands of foreign invaders ... perhaps what is unique is that some of them were previously on the payroll of national business magnates of their to-be invaders
Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you ever observed and spoken to their population? National identity itself has very little to do with their ideologies. The majority is religion whether you like to admit it or not. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've talked to militants, peaceful civilians, and government officials in Iraq and ALL of them agreed that religion was the main cause of the violence. Trying to scapegoat this and saying otherwise is an insult to the innocent victims that fell prey to the hands of the religious extremists.
If you want to understand the subject you would be better off looking further afield than atheist hate sites
You can find the same information everywhere on the web. It's called Google.com and wikipedia.com. Try them some time instead of being stuck in an 1700's philosophy class in your head.
Why are you so blind to the hefty criticisms from the very persons you are trying to lump in with them?
eg
The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia.
Now you are just being ignorant.
"While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,[9] and became notorious internationally for their treatment of women.[10] Women were forced to wear the burqa in public.[11] They were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an.[10] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging in the street, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[12]"
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law Read... it will do you some good.
Do you think that there are no religious minded people in the middle east critical of the above mentioned groups or do you blindly believe the nonsense spouted by atheist hate sites?
Dude, I'm not lumping everyone that believes in religion in the same catagory. Stop thinking I am. Like I've said before, there are good, moral religious people that do not condone violence or extremism. I'm not going to say it again; your generalizations are becoming old.
You can easily find mainstream criticism of these acts (even within the links you provide) by the same religious groups you are trying to lump in with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Pro-life_reactions
If the best you can do is cite an incident almost ten years ago, I think you have proven my point.
You haven't proven anything... at all. You've only generalized the discussion in the attempt to avoid even recognizing my points. I've made very legit points, none of which you've given a direct answer to or even simply acknowledged. If I were to even say that the sky was blue, I'm sure you'd come back and say, "Well, who knows that its blue? Is it blue because you think it is? What if your blue is my green? What if blue really
is green? What is color anyway?"
generally the best way to learn is to ask for a clarification as opposed to insulting the speaker
So lets try again, one point at a time
You are extolling the glories of altruism (eg feeding the hungry, relieving the distress of flood victims etc) as the highest platform of action, yes?
Sigh... I'm resigning from this discussion with you. I'm tired of metaphorically opening the dictionary only to find that the only language it comes in is Swahili, and I don't know Swahili. Furthermore the damn dictionary is written in a mixed up code. And when you finally do figure out the language and code and you go to look up the definition of the word "apple", it tells you, "Water flows counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere". I'm not going to do this "one point at a time". It's a waste of time.
And take it as an insult if you want, I don't care, but until you get your head of of this ancient philosphical state and start paying attention to reality, good luck having any successful discussions here. You may be some incredibly intellegent and well-educated person who just took one too many philosophy classes and lost touch with reality or you may just be some kid who thinks he sounds smart. I have no idea nor do I really care. But for the sake of holding debates and discussion, unless it's against Stilpo -who also thought in such vague relativism - it's unlikely many will follow you. Some of the brightest and most admirable members we have here have admitted at one point or another that they have absolutely no clue where you're going or what you're saying in a discussion. So, my advice: re-evaluate your tactics, answers questions directly and for God's sake, lay off the thesaurus!
