http://tinyurl.com/kqfckql

Well bullsh!t is better than the truth:)...I hope you find what your looking for....

Oh dear.

OUG.....Its always an interesting read when its coming from blind faith. The problem is, and I agree with you to a point, that something has made us, but GOD is not what you think it is. One of the facts to support this, is the lack of love with-in or about any God for that matter and to think love is a God made thing, sorry friend, all intelligent life has some degree of it, and the rest is just a programmed instinctive res ponce.

It is more highly likely that what ever engineered all life on this planet, knew exactly what they were doing, hence mans wrong interpretations of it all, hence the bible/Koran and all human writings on the subject, with its multi failings.

The thing with the religious mind, its just afraid to move on to the next stage of what's drove us all to this point in time, and this fear is keeping the human mind in a state of evolutionary suspended animation of the brain.

I wrote a long time ago...(2006/2007plus) "If you lived long-ago as a primitive man, and something came from the sky, what would you call it?"

OUG...there is strong evidence to say, that a God of any sort, is not what we think it is.

"Is Gulf youth increasingly drawn to atheism?"

The only problem I can see with atheism, is the fact that religion is genetically woven into our very existences, and only time/evolution can remove it.

I support Atheism to a point, but these are early days considering mankind has just taken off its baby-boots on a scale of immortality that's seen all around the world considering religion in the hands of the powerful or just plain MAD.

Men kill for religion, but its the only system to use to cull ourselfes until now....(new diseases)+(better birth control) and so on..

IMO....the next stage of mans evo, is to go without a GOD and just take the past teachings with us into the new future.

To stay with the book, will cause mans destruction...so sayith your lord.

Planet3

What is meant by progressive feminism ? Just fill in these spaces:

A.

B.

C.

D.

What is the position of women under Islam ? Just fill in these spaces:

E.

F.

G.

H.

So how does feminism square with Islam ? Just fill in these spaces:

I.

J.

K.

L.

So let's go through it again:

* all cultures are equal;

* some religions are more equal than others - or to 'no religion': Islam is superior to Christianity or atheism in championing the rights of women;

* equal rights before the law for women is a western bourgeois concept;

* E = mc [squared], as a sexist concept, is worth giving a second's thought to.

Is this what it has come to ?

I'm 71, but I look forward to the day when men and women have equal rights and equal opportunities, all around the world. But it won't happen as long as we have careerist academics, posing as feminists, like Irigaray, telling women how to think. And half-wits going along with it all.

Forty years ago, who would have thought that the Movement could degenerate so far ?

Joe

Go to user and find the post...neutral...you know what's great about being neutral....everything:)

All the best.

Planet3

The problem with false ideologies dominating the study of science and mathematics is that great misery is caused to the powerless. Nick Cater in his article "Australian Curriculum beyond saving (The Australian, 14/1/14) refers to Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring". The promotion of her thesis caused the banning of DDT, which has resulted in millions of deaths due to malaria in Africa and Asia.
Furthermore the emphasis on "sustainability" has given free rein to the ideas of Malthus and the "Limits to Growth" of the Club of Rome, which as Matt Ridley pointed out in "Malthus, not Mao, inspired this horrible Chinese experiment" (The Australian, 14/1/14) resulted in China's brutal one child policy. False ideas can have tragic consequences, and as Nick Cater suggests, the Australian Curriculum is beyond redemption. It should be scrapped and a fresh start made

I really do hope that AJ Phillips, with whom I am presently debating on OLO on another topic, reads this article. Because it encompasses everything I have been telling him. It is preposterous that scientific truth should be subject to alteration or suppression by social theorists.

On the face of it, it is hilarious that feminist Lucy Iragarays opinion that the speed of light does not conform to feminist social theory, or that sexual differences should not be investigated. Except for one thing. 500 years after the beginning of The Age of Enlightenment, we seem to be regressing, and once again living in an age where wild eyed ideologues with lunatic agendas are telling scientists what to do. It is incredible that in 2014, such people, can, and do, intimidate scientists to shut them up, or at least force them to amend their scientific research results to conform to whatever is the contemporary social theory to Save the World.

Even within science, too many ideologues are gaining degrees in such academic disciplines as history, criminology, and perhaps even climate science, and using the authority and credibility which science bestows upon them to push their favourite social agendas in contravention of the scientific facts which they know are true.