MR

Well isn't it nice that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi will be able to die at home with his friends and family there to comfort him. His family will have a body to bury according Islamic law. Too bad the 270 souls that were murdered by Mr. al-Megrahi and his associates were not afforded the same consideration. I'm so glad to know that Scotland is such a compassionate country. I can only wonder where is their compassion for the victims families?

Of course we all know this is more about Britain getting access to Libya's oil so this is being done to keep Gadhafi happy. Shame on them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_lockerbie

I agree. They should have let him die and prison and then fed him to pigs. Religion in general is pretty fucking absurd. Praying to some magical dude in the sky is fucking mindless and borders on insane. Though I did do it yesterday when I thought my plane wasn't going to make it through some pretty brutal storm clouds.

PS Islam sucks.

Saint John wrote:I agree. They should have let him die and prison and then fed him to pigs. Religion in general is pretty fucking absurd. Praying to some magical dude in the sky is fucking mindless and borders on insane. Though I did do it yesterday when I thought my plane wasn't going to make it through some pretty brutal storm clouds.

PS Islam sucks.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

Carl Sagan

Gunbot wrote:"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

Carl Sagan

He's one to be barking about beliefs. Isn't a fundamental devotion to scientific method and inquisitive skepticism at its most basic a belief, too? Of course it is. Remember, by not making a decision, you're still making a decision. Anyway, the life of a believer is full of far more infinite possibilities than that of a non-believer. (Except in doctrine or dogma.) Because the capacity to believe or at least admit you can't be sure opens the mind way more than the confines of a rigid WYSIWYG mentality.

Just sayin'. Carry on.

This thread seems to have been hijacked somewhat.

What I find difficult to comprehend about religions and beliefs is that there are literally hundreds of them, and millions of believers in each one. Yet many are mutually exclusive - in other words even if one religion is the truth then many others cannot be true. This in turn logically means that millions of believers base their belief on something that cannot be true but they believe it absolutely nonetheless.

If that is the case then there is at least a possibility that they may all be false beliefs. I don't have any inner voice telling me that any one religion is the real deal, so I'm sitting on the fence and saying to all believers 'show me why you have exclusivity on the one true religion?'.

All we can say with certainty is that most of the bloodiest wars in history have been conducted in the belief that 'my religion is better than your religion'.

Sorry, getting back to the point of the thread, I'm in two minds about the release of this guy. If he is indeed guilty, then I say he should have been kept in prison until the end. However there is a growing suspicion in the UK that he wasn't really the guy responsible but was a convenient scapegoat, and if that is the case there is more of a case for compassion.

Marty

Rhiannon wrote:

Gunbot wrote:"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

Carl Sagan

He's one to be barking about beliefs. Isn't a fundamental devotion to scientific method and inquisitive skepticism at its most basic a belief, too? Of course it is. Remember, by not making a decision, you're still making a decision. Anyway, the life of a believer is full of far more infinite possibilities than that of a non-believer. (Except in doctrine or dogma.) Because the capacity to believe or at least admit you can't be sure opens the mind way more than the confines of a rigid WYSIWYG mentality.

Just sayin'. Carry on.

A belief buoyed by evidence or lack of. Science is a self-correcting process, religion is not.

No one is saying you don't have the right to believe.

MartyMoffatt wrote:This thread seems to have been hijacked somewhat.

What I find difficult to comprehend about religions and beliefs is that there are literally hundreds of them, and millions of believers in each one. Yet many are mutually exclusive - in other words even if one religion is the truth then many others cannot be true. This in turn logically means that millions of believers base their belief on something that cannot be true but they believe it absolutely nonetheless.

If that is the case then there is at least a possibility that they may all be false beliefs. I don't have any inner voice telling me that any one religion is the real deal, so I'm sitting on the fence and saying to all believers 'show me why you have exclusivity on the one true religion?'.

All we can say with certainty is that most of the bloodiest wars in history have been conducted in the belief that 'my religion is better than your religion'.

Sorry, getting back to the point of the thread, I'm in two minds about the release of this guy. If he is indeed guilty, then I say he should have been kept in prison until the end. However there is a growing suspicion in the UK that he wasn't really the guy responsible but was a convenient scapegoat, and if that is the case there is more of a case for compassion.

Marty

If this guy dies from anything BUT cancer, there is going to be some serious questions raised.

Gunbot wrote:A belief buoyed by evidence or lack of. Science is a self-correcting process, religion is not.

I agree. Evidence can however be tangible as well as interpreted. Religion is not self-correcting. But spiritual growth is. Adhering to an archaic code of conduct doesn't make anyone a good person, which is why many religious people are found hypocritical. If there is a hell, will showing up in a brick and mortar shell for one hour on Sunday keep me out? Hell no. But people tend to want to lump belief, divination, spirituality, faith and the like in with "religion". When religion is just a man-made blanket of rules and ideas for those who can't think outside the pulpit. And to touch on Marty's comment, not all who have a belief are a "I'm right, you're wrong" variety. I personally can accept that just as in quantum physics, every possibility is reality until one occurs. We all came from the same origin (whatever you think that to be), we all deviated over time. You may think cannibalism is wrong, but in some places on earth, it's not. So are you going to say you know better than they? Or can you be content to accept that's just how it is. And to each their own. Such is my philosophy on this stuff. I'm a little existential. So what.

No one is saying you don't have the right to believe.

That's not where I was going. I'm saying a faith or belief in something is just the same as the lack of the faith or belief. In the end, disbelief is just belief in the opposite of the subject at hand. Which was my point to the Sagan quote. Everybody believes.

Rhiannon wrote:He's one to be barking about beliefs. Isn't a fundamental devotion to scientific method and inquisitive skepticism at its most basic a belief, too? Of course it is. Remember, by not making a decision, you're still making a decision. Anyway, the life of a believer is full of far more infinite possibilities than that of a non-believer. (Except in doctrine or dogma.) Because the capacity to believe or at least admit you can't be sure opens the mind way more than the confines of a rigid WYSIWYG mentality.

Just sayin'. Carry on.

Neil Peart sure agrees with you:

"If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice."

Rhiannon wrote:

Gunbot wrote:A belief buoyed by evidence or lack of. Science is a self-correcting process, religion is not.

I agree. Evidence can however be tangible as well as interpreted. Religion is not self-correcting. But spiritual growth is. Adhering to an archaic code of conduct doesn't make anyone a good person, which is why many religious people are found hypocritical. If there is a hell, will showing up in a brick and mortar shell for one hour on Sunday keep me out? Hell no. But people tend to want to lump belief, divination, spirituality, faith and the like in with "religion". When religion is just a man-made blanket of rules and ideas for those who can't think outside the pulpit. And to touch on Marty's comment, not all who have a belief are a "I'm right, you're wrong" variety. I personally can accept that just as in quantum physics, every possibility is reality until one occurs. We all came from the same origin (whatever you think that to be), we all deviated over time. You may think cannibalism is wrong, but in some places on earth, it's not. So are you going to say you know better than they? Or can you be content to accept that's just how it is. And to each their own. Such is my philosophy on this stuff. I'm a little existential. So what.

No one is saying you don't have the right to believe.

That's not where I was going. I'm saying a faith or belief in something is just the same as the lack of the faith or belief. In the end, disbelief is just belief in the opposite of the subject at hand. Which was my point to the Sagan quote. Everybody believes.

Just to be clear, Sagan was not a non-believer, or an atheist. If he was, he wouldn't have wasted his time for looking for answers. He wanted to make an informed decision. I fall into that same category. I want to know, I want to see why A > B. I don't need religion as a comfort food. I just want answers. Science doesn't stymie Imagination, it invigorates it by bringing discipline to it. I don't need to be happy with the answer at the end, the knowledge of being correct will be solace enough.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

This is just my take on things of course and to each his own.

This is all St. John's fault.

Gunbot wrote:This is all St. John's fault.

So are greenhouse gases, but that's beside the point.

And I get you, btw. That's how I think, you're just somehow missing the point that I'm failing to make. Oh well... it's no big deal. I'm different in that in my quest for gnosis and truth, I'm content enough to leave enough delusion to lure my life into a sense of meaning. Be it wrong or right.

MartyMoffatt wrote:Sorry, getting back to the point of the thread, I'm in two minds about the release of this guy. If he is indeed guilty, then I say he should have been kept in prison until the end. However there is a growing suspicion in the UK that he wasn't really the guy responsible but was a convenient scapegoat, and if that is the case there is more of a case for compassion.

I agree Marty that if this man was falsely convicted then he should be freed. However, there is a legal way to do that. He could have gotten a new trial, and found not guilty, given a pardon by the government etc. To just open the door and let him walk without adequate proof that he was wrongly convicted is a slap in the face to the victims and their loved ones. These people have suffered enough.

Gunbot wrote:This is all St. John's fault.

I love planting a seed and then watching it grow like a fuckin' bean stalk.

This was a financially motivated move, as it turns out. Disgusting!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 814939.ece

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.

steveo777 wrote:

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.[/quote

You're having laugh.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Duncan wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.

You're having laugh.

Sadly, I don't think he is. Just don't mention the IRA. They don't count, remember?

Rhiannon wrote:

Gunbot wrote:This is all St. John's fault.

So are greenhouse gases, but that's beside the point.

And I get you, btw. That's how I think, you're just somehow missing the point that I'm failing to make. Oh well... it's no big deal. I'm different in that in my quest for gnosis and truth, I'm content enough to leave enough delusion to lure my life into a sense of meaning. Be it wrong or right.

You look really good,keep doin what you are doin hun

Rhiannon wrote:He's one to be barking about beliefs. Isn't a fundamental devotion to scientific method and inquisitive skepticism at its most basic a belief, too? Of course it is.

Um no. Religion is fire insurance. People pray just in case that if the magical invisible dude in the sky exists. However, if believing in something gives one satisfaction and security, I guess it works for that person.

stevew2 wrote:,keep doin what you are doin hun

For the love of Shit Steve, you sound like Richard Simmons in a Hanes for Her outlet store saying "hun."

Think about that, dickhole.

steveo777 wrote:

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.

You have

mdaemon wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.

You have

Who is this "you" that you are referring to?

steveo777 wrote:

mdaemon wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.

You have

Who is this "you" that you are referring to?

Khalid Al-Jawary was deported to Sudan after serving half of his sentence

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crim ... _khal.html

mdaemon wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

mdaemon wrote:

steveo777 wrote:

Duncan wrote:Absolutely terrible. Thank God America never acts in its own national self interest.

----------------
Now playing: Lucifer's Friend - Warriors

Is my sarcasm meter broken? American does act in our own national self interests, but I doubt we'd have freed a convicted terrorist for the reasons we were initially given.

You have

Who is this "you" that you are referring to?

Khalid Al-Jawary was deported to Sudan after serving half of his sentence

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crim ... _khal.html

Well, you said "you", as in me personally. The only terrorist I ever let go was this bitch I used to go out with years ago.