AgPest » Argentine stem weevil larvae
Scientific name: Listronotus bonariensis Argentine stem weevil larvae in ryegrass stem Mumbai | Nathan Bond's TART Remarks
Religion: Respect? Ridicule! Mumbai
The Mumbai attacks have Islamabad cautioning New Delhi not to “over-react”. This makes my blood turn cold.
India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers. India and Pakistan are disputing Kashmir. India and Pakistan have a history. India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers… And India and Pakistan only exist as separate countries because Hindus and Muslims believe different things about absolute nonsense.
More than a million people died in the religious killing of establishing the two states. Three wars have been fought and blood still flows freely and regularly on the border of two countries that are separated mostly by mythological bullshit.
Gujarat 2002 speaks to my fear and loathing. Sam Harris quotes C.W. Dugger: “Mothers were skewered on swords as their children watched. Young women were stripped and raped in broad daylight, then… set on fire. A pregnant woman’s belly was slit open, her fetus raised skyward on the tip of a sword and then tossed onto one of the fires that blazed across the city.”
The only difference between the peoples of India and Pakistan is the things they believe about… “God”.
We should be tolerant of religious belief?
People who believe that death – especially death in the execution of infidels – is the highest calling; people voted into office by the people of Gujarat, have access to nuclear arsenals.
Religion scares me shitless.
Are you okay with “Belief”?
Written by Nathan Bond November 30, 2008 at 09:28
Tagged with Hindu, Islam, Mumbai, Muslim	« Wáá’s die wáter!?
ErickV wrote (January 27, 2010 at 6:41 am):
“You should know that Hans disregards the OT as “symbolic”.”
Actually, it’s a bit more farcical than that. With sufficiently tortuous “logic,” selective passage citation, opportune disregard for reality, inapt analogising and a gravely solemn demeanour, one can conjure up just about any “fact” from [insert name of favourite religious text here]. What people such as Hans disregard is any faint possibility that they might actually be wrong in these matters. They all claim to know that theirs, and theirs alone, is the correct interpretation of the exact same source materials. That is why they are so remarkably funny when they start accusing each other of heresy. I mean, how else could Christianity end up with over 38,000 varieties, many of them doctrinally irreconcilable?
January 27, 2010 at 10:31	CT
You should know that Hans disregards the OT as “symbolic”.
I now know why Hans and the other crosstians worship “Liewe Jesus” and the cross as entities and also idolising their images, contrary to the First Commandment. The 10 Commandments are then also “symbolic”.
January 27, 2010 at 06:41	Hans, wake up and please take note:
0. Taking care to spell correctly is not a sin.
1. Your god made two testaments that are didactically irreconcilable with each other.
2. No doubt true seeing how many flavours there are, but so what?
3. Clearly so, and amply supported by publication and selection biases.
4. Wow, more than ten months to come up with that three-point gem!?
January 26, 2010 at 22:17	Con-tester, wake up and please take not:
1. God, through Jesus has made known that stoning is unacceptable.
2. It is a fact that all religions were not included in the survey.
3. I speak of what I read in the press ect.
January 26, 2010 at 21:23	And this, Hans Matthysen, is your answer!? Well done, indeed!
1. In the bible, you say? That would be the same bible in which your god asks you to exact horrific vengeance, e.g. death by stoning, on various offenders like homosexuals and adulterers and heretics, yes?
2. It wasn’t a survey. It was scientific research. It showed a strong link between religious belief and a particular type of brain activity. As for you and your belief-peers being exempt from it, millions and millions and millions wouldn’t believe you, but I do. 😛 3. Got any proof that the majority of fundamentalists and radicals are from non-Christian religions? Or is that yet another Hans-Matthysen-fact you simply manufactured to suit your laughable ends?
March 17, 2009 at 22:18	Con-tester, I find God’s request’s in the Bible and I am sure I have mentioned it, at time I have agreed with you.
It is clear to me, that those in the same religion than myself, were not part of the survey you are referring to.
Meeste van die fundamentaliste en/of radikales is uit nie Christelike gelowe.
Jy sal natuurlik die uitsondering in die reël aanvaar. wanneer dit jou pas.
March 14, 2009 at 15:46	Hans Matthysen, I take it then that you acknowledge that at least I have said something meaningful at some point in the past. That would be in stark contrast to… oh, never mind.
These requests of your god that you speak of, did s/he e-mail them to you? Did your spam filter not catch them? Do you still have the mails? Because if you do, you can post them here for all to see. Maybe then people will start taking you slightly more seriously. Please include the SMTP headers as well because the sender’s IP address (it should be 66.66.66.66) will add to the plausibility of your claims. See, it’s your “Truth”™® (℗ & © 325 A.D.*) we differ on, and your “Peace” is also looking decidedly tatty, as pointed out by Nathan Bond elsewhere on this blog.
Like it or not, religious believers show much reduced brain activity of the kind that indicates anxiety over making errors. You can read about it yourself here. The upshot is that religious believers are less likely to be honest with themselves because they are less bothered by their own mistakes or repeating them. I think we’ve all seen a blinding demonstration here, so you can put that in your anterior cingulate cortex and ruminate on it.
Al die ander gelowiges sê ook oor hulself dat hulle nie fundamentaliste en/of radikales is nie maar nog steeds is die wêreld vol met hulle, so verduidelik tog asb. vir my van waar af kom so baie van hulle.
Veralgemeen is goeie praktyk. Dit volg uit abstrakte denkery en is waar en hoe ons reëls en wette erken en kry. Maar nee, daar is nie altyd uitsonderings nie. As jy een en een bymekaar tel sal altyd twee kry, behalwe as jy nou gelowig is. In daai geval kry jy enige willekeurige getal behalwe twee, soos ons hier talle kere te sien gekry het.
March 5, 2009 at 10:14	Con-tester, daar is geen fundamentaliste en radikale elemente in die geloof waarin ek my bevind. Jy wil altyd veralgemeen en tog weet jy, dat daar altyd ‘n uitsondering is, in die reëlis.
March 4, 2009 at 23:02	bewilderbeast, I don’t preach lies to my children and you just dont understand the Bible.
March 4, 2009 at 22:57	Con-tester, you agree, then you say something meaningless.
I acceded to the requests of God and serve with understanding. I spread a gospel of peace and truth.
March 4, 2009 at 22:45	Fredericke Adonis, ek hou van jou antwoord en wil jou daarop wys, dat ek nie in bonatuulike dinge glo nie, tog wel in die geestelike en ewiglike. Meeste ander sogenaamde Christenne glo wel in bo-natuurlike dinge en ek beskou dit ook as dom.
March 4, 2009 at 22:37	Fredericke Adonis, jy laat dit amper klink asof ek geen gelowige familie en/of vriende het nie.
Dit is glad nie die geval nie. Ek het self my geloof jare gelede verwerp en ek verstaan hoe moeilik dit is.
Verder impliseer jy dat my enigste benadering “klippe gebruik en anderkant toe gooi” behels.
Dit is ook nie waar nie, en ek stel voor dat jy dit vir jouself gaan vasstel.
Lees ook asb. weer ’n keer my vorige kommentaar (19 Feb 09 at 11:43 am) want dit lyk my jy het nie my argumente daarin mooi gevolg nie, veral aangaande waar die respekloosheid nou werklik begin. Die enigste verskil is dat ek dit nie probeer vir ander mense wegsteek nie. Dieselfde geld ook vir bewilderbeast se kommentaar (19 Feb 09 at 3:02 pm).
Dit bly die geval dat diegene wat saggies optree teenoor geloof en godsdiens effektief skuiling bied vir meer fundamentalistiese en radikale elemente want hulle sê dat dit aanvaarbaar is om te glo sonder bewyse. Ek wil hê dat gelowiges diep skaam moet voel oor die kak wat hulle in kinders se koppe wil pak. As meer ateïste die belaglikheid van geloof opelik en sonder terughou sou uitwys dan sal dit eventueel ’n verskil maak.
Boonop, verklaar Nathan duidelik wat sy blog se doel is, en dus is dit myns insiens in elk geval die regte plek vir sulke optrede. Die dubbelsinnige “TART Remarks” som dit heerlik op.
February 20, 2009 at 17:47	Con-Tester. Ek stem saam met jou in ‘n mate dat omtrent geen gelowige enige respek het vir ateïste se waardes nie. Ek verstaan egter vanwaar hierdie onredelikheid vandaan kom en ek is seker jy kan dit uitfigure? Al wil ons dit so graag anders hê, is die mens eenvoudig maar so beïnvloedbaar deur sy ouers, medemens, sy kultuur, ens ens. Die realiteit bewys dat daar slegs ‘n klein groepie is wat “bereid” is om die (nodige) paradigma skuif te maak en die feite in die oë te kyk, te bevraagteken en logiese gevolgtrekkings vir hom of haarself te maak. Soos ek gesê het dit is die realiteit – wêreldwyd!
Hoe ek en jy en Nathan en die ander dit hanteer en wil hanteer, is elk se prerogatief. Ek het in ‘n christelike huis groot geword met my hele familie as diep gelowiges. My skoolvriende was almal (ek neem aan almal) ook christene omdat hul in christen huise groot geword het. Meeste van my familie en vriende is steeds gelowiges. Ek moet binne hierdie opset my lewe lewe. Ja, ek raak meer dikwels as wat ek moet, uiters gefrustreerd om na gelowiges se praatjies te moet luister – omdat ek anders weet! Ek glo die gelowiges “verdoesel die onsin” met misplaaste opregtheid. Sekerlik het jy gelowige familie en vriende en verstaan jy ‘waar hul vandaan kom’?
Con-T, jy en Nathan praat met een mond! Ja, ek het jul ‘declarations of reasons to fight the enemy’ gelees. Ek volg Nathan se spoor al lankal – o.a. op Kletskerk. Ek weet van sy ‘warts’ maar ek deel sy frustrasie met religie daarom is sy blog steeds een van my lysie. Natuurlik verskyn jou naam ook dikwels op ander blogs en ek sien dit raak! Soos jy weet staan ek en jy aan dieselfde kant van die draad, maar ek wil nie klippe gebruik en anderkant toe gooi nie! Ek neem aan (eintlik weet ek) dit sal net terug “bounce” van die ‘muur wat groot en onmiskenbaar in die pad van die mensdom se toekoms staan’.
Wildebees – jy wil nou net moedswillig wees. My “gelowiges is meesal goed” is sekerlik van toepassing op meeste mense – gelowiges al dan nie – without the intent to do harm. Sien my kommentaar aan Con-T hiervoor. Mense, gelowiges do not “feel the need to lie to their children”. They only tell and repeat stories and fables what they see as to be true! I believe you also have religious family and friends and their religious actions surely are not mala fide?
February 20, 2009 at 14:25	Hans and Fredericke, you’re missing the main point (this is what religion apologists do routinely – it’s part of the dishonesty. I’m putting you with them, Fredericke – see why).
You’re missing the point that all religious people ALLOW fundamentalists to exist. By ignoring evidence and (worse) preaching lies, the “mild” “good” religious allow the more radical faith-idiots to spread fear and war in the name of (insert your favourite mythical best friend here).
If your “Gelowiges” are truly “meesal goed”, Fredericke, why do they feel the need to lie to their children??
Why can’t they say “I believe in this nonsense, but I must admit I have no evidence, and there is in fact quite a lot of evidence that it just isn’t true. You should investigate it all for yourself”?
February 19, 2009 at 15:02	Fredericke Adonis skryf (19 Feb 09 at 8:39 am):
“Nathan en Con-Tester is nie juis die beste voorbeelde van Ateïste nie – trouens na my mening gee hul ons Ateïste ‘n slegte naam.”
Hoekom? Omdat ek meen dit is baie belangriker om ernstig na die waarheid te streef as om idiotiese idees te respeketeer? Give me a break, please! Fredericke Adonis, laaik dit of nie, as jy ’n bietjie dink en oopoog kyk sal jy dalk sien dat omtrent geen gelowige enige respek vir ’n ateïs se waardes het nie, soos b.v. logika, bewyse en konsekwente redenasie. Sou hulle dit wel hê, dan sal hulle die argumente wat voor hulle neuse gesit en uiteengesit word eerlik en opreg oorweeg in plaas daarvan om dit te probeer met nog onsin te verdoesel. En dít is waar die respekloosheid nou rêrig begin, nie met ateïste nie.
Ek wonder in elk geval of jy die bydraes gelees het oor hoekom ons so aggresief teenoor geloof en godsdiens optree. ’n Duitse spreekwoord lui, “Wer nicht hören will muss fühlen” (Die wat nie wil luister nie moet voel), en as hulle met kak kom en nie wil luister nie dan sal ek hulle dit laat voel want skok terapie werk soms waar mooi praat gevaal het. Dit is die werklikheid van die situasie.
Maar intussentyd have it your way, en ek sal maar wag om te sien hoe jy jouself in ’n ruk gedra – nadat jy agtergekom het hoe lekker dit is om met ’n muur te probeer redineer – ’n muur wat groot en onmiskenbaar in die pad van die mensdom se toekoms staan.
February 19, 2009 at 11:43	Hans Matthysen wrote (18 Feb 09 at 11:20 pm):
“Con-tester, if you are attacked, you will naturally defend yourself and that cannot be considered as bad.”
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that I will strike the first blow to spill the blood of others over the competing contents of fairytales. Hans Matthysen wrote (18 Feb 09 at 11:20 pm):
“This blog proves, that Atheists are generally worse behaved towards the religious.”
It does? How? Maybe you’d read the situation a little differently if the religious actually acceded to the requests of atheists instead of carrying on regardless and without pause with the unchecked spreading of their unsustainable manure. But probably not.
February 19, 2009 at 09:39	Hans, ja ek wil met jou saamstem dat op HIERDIE blog skyn dit asof die Ateïste “are generally worse behaved towards the religious”. Ek dink dit is juis wat Nathan in gedagte gehad het met die blog – om die onlogiese geloof van gelowiges (ALLE gelowe!) uit te wys en aan te val. Nathan en Con-Tester is nie juis die beste voorbeelde van Ateïste nie – trouens na my mening gee hul ons Ateïste ‘n slegte naam. ‘n Ateïs is ‘n doodnormale goeie ou wat net nie aan bonatuurlike wesens glo nie! Dit is slegs ‘n klein groepie Ateïste wat kras woorde en kras stellings maak om hul sienswyse oor te dra! Gelowiges is meesal goed maar myns insiens naief dom! Wil nie dink en bevraagteken nie!
February 19, 2009 at 08:39	Con-tester, if you are attacked, you will naturally defend yourself and that cannot be considered as bad.
This blog proves, that Atheists are generally worse behaved towards the religious.
Rick, so what you now imply is, that there are no good Atheists.
February 18, 2009 at 23:20	Tester, in support of what you have written above, it would only be appropriate to add the following: “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.”
February 3, 2009 at 16:54	Oh, I see. The argument now shifts from unwarranted feelings of persecution – still unacknowledged – to denying the evidence-disdaining and bankrupt intellectual core at the heart of every religion.
So, Hans Matthysen, having previously established that there are good and bad religious believers and your aforegoing admission that “[t]here are also good atheists and bad one’s,” the inescapable conclusion is that religion can make little difference to one’s goodness or badness. In point of fact, religious people are generally worse behaved towards their fellows than the irreligious.
February 3, 2009 at 08:48	Con-tester, you get bad apples on every apple tree and that does not mean, that the whole tree is bad. I didn’t put my foot in it, as I knew you were pinning it on all religions, Christians included. There are also good atheists and bad one’s.
February 2, 2009 at 22:53	Hans Matthysen, you should look up “persecution complex” before putting your foot in your mouth, proverbially or otherwise.
Hans Matthysen wrote (23 Jan 09 at 4:42 pm):
“I would suggest, that when you mention religion, you should rather say what religions are excluded…”
That’s easy. Not one of them. They’re all rotten. No exceptions.
“[O]r mention the religions you are referring to and so avoid unwanted comment.”
Or maybe you could do a little research of your own. Then you might discover that Mumbai hardly involves Christians and thereby avoid putting your foot in your mouth.
“You have automatically, indirectly, pined such incidents to Christianity, by generalizing.”
No, I have directly and quite deliberately pinned such occurrences as Mumbai on all religions because they all derive from and exploit the same basic human frailties. I won’t do any one of them any special courtesies by singling it out as better or worse than the remainder. They’re all rotten. No exceptions.
January 23, 2009 at 23:25	Con-tester, you should look up the meaning of the word “persecution”, as I have in no way, resorted to the slightest manner of persecution and have merely expressed my perception of you guys.
I would suggest, that when you mention religion, you should rather say what religions are excluded, or mention the religions you are referring to and so avoid unwanted comment. You have automatically, indirectly, pined such incidents to Christianity, by generalizing.
January 23, 2009 at 16:42	Hans Matthysen wrote (22 Jan 09 at 10:28 pm):
“So you are still trying to pin it on Christians. Should we intervene you have a problem and should we not, you also have a problem.”
Your persecution complex is showing, not to mention a propensity for reading too much into a piece of text (c.f. “theology”). Please point out where anyone here has attempted to blame Christians for the events in Mumbai. Yours is the first mention of “Christians” on this page. The issue is religion as a whole, not any one particular creed. Mumbai just illustrates the general point, as your response above illustrates my specific one.
January 23, 2009 at 09:05	So you are still trying to pin it on Christians. Should we intervene you have a problem and should we not, you also have a problem. I am beginning to get the idea, that you guys are not so bright after all. You are so busy criticizing, that you render yourselves worthless.
January 22, 2009 at 22:28	Yeah, right indeed.
“Their” religion is the problem. As for us, we’re just agoin’ to church e’ery Sunday. Don’t look at us!
November 30, 2008 at 21:23	But, Nathan, don’t you see? It’s not my religion!
November 30, 2008 at 18:37	Leave a Reply Cancel reply	Enter your comment here...