TR,

True there is no physical evidence on religions, but then there is no physical evidence on random creation ie stars, planets and solar system. Are you saying that I can give you 4 gallons of water, a kg of calcium, a pin head of iron and you can create a walking talking human being with complex nervous and emotional system?

There is, at least, physical evidence on a single consciousness that connect all living creatures to itself and to each other. One life turning experience for me 16 years ago when I was in the field of medical research: an animal in a lab in Switzerland gets distressed brain signal when any of its young in two other labs (one in the US and the other in the philippines)dies in the animal testing process. The young animal in Asia recorded the same distress when the brother died in the US lab. I won't elaborate for not to bore the audience but its extreme arrogance to say 'because its not in my line of sight I can't see it or appreciate it'.

Peace,

Ich bin ein bin liner.

TR, Your language about your New Order is worrying me. I don’t like change that replaces one danger with another. I suppose it depends on what you mean by “deconstructing” and “holding to account”. For example, do you mean “seize power and ban religion on pain of death”? Communism did that and it wasn’t pretty.

I agree that fundamentalist Islam is extremely disruptive and dangerous, and that an aggressive response has to be considered. However, a response that is too blunt will damage the innocent. If atheism became the prevailing thought, it would not only deconstruct extremist Islam, but all of Islam, along with all of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism etc. Atheism is a blunt instrument.

The merits of atheism. First of all, I agree with your assessment of Boaz and Fellow Human: they are both intellectually stupid :) I am, too. However, it is not enough for you to say so. As soon as you announce yourself as an atheist, we already know you don’t believe in God, or heaven or angels, and that you regard our belief in God etc as a fantasy. How could you say otherwise? However, you have not said anything to shake my belief.

There is nothing irrational about believing in God unless you insist on empirical proof before you make are prepared to recognise or believe something. Like you, I believe my eyes, but insisting on proof imposes an unnecessary limitation on your thinking. This limitation is self-imposed.

FH,

Wait a minute... Are you saying an animal in Switzerland got "distressed" when it's offsprings died overseas (in a laboratory in US and philippines) ??

Any reference on the internet?

A point is that there are an enormous number of Muslims. Because of these numbers there would be at any time several who misbehaved. We then generalize the actions of a small percentage as typical of the majority.

We have developed the habit of stereotyping, as was once done with Jews.

I am proud to hear fellow human's claim that Australia is the least biased of countries he has seen, but we can still do better.

Logic,

How good is your logic ??

Supposing there is an enormous number of Islamic States in this world. Now let me apply your above logic two ways:

(A)... Most Islamic States are Secular & Democratic. But because of these large numbers there are always several who "misbehave" (by becoming Undemocratic).

(B)... Most Islamic States are Undemocratic. But because of these large numbers there will always be several who successfully remain Secular and Democratic.

Do you think:

1. (A) is always true;
2. (B) is always true;
3. Both are true; or
4. Both are false ?

Perhaps not surprisingly, the fact that Jewish people had experienced trauma due to stereotyping caused many Jews to jump at the slightest stereotyping.

But what is true/false must not be influenced by emotions in an illogical way.