Omar

@Shiny: not a fan of the scarf, especially inside; I would replace it with a pocket square. Wouldn't wear jeans with this outfit, either. Nice colors though. Not sure about the vest (or is that a cardigan?) from the picture.

That's good. Do some research; what you're looking for is a set of cardio exercises you can do at home without any equipment, so the weather won't get in your way. Jumping rope is really good, apparently. I assume you can do it with anything similar to a rope, but I wouldn't know. [Edit] I'm not sure if everyone here will have the necessary references to understand this (if you don't, don't worry, you're not missing much), but this is a very interesting "meta-style" blog post. The comments might make things clearer.

And the Coke?

This isn't a matter of taste, Sorator; there are just rules. As with most people, whoever is coordinating the clothing for your concerts is not aware of them (although tuxedos are fine). @Tim: Cut on the soda and go for a run.

Looks a bit big in the shoulder, but you should definitely have it taken in at the waist. Also, never button the bottom button.

There's no real way to go through life.

I thought the idea was to have lots of sex and get money, not to ignore the doleful sound coming from your underpants... Is that a misinterpretation?

^This is correct. I feel like I only turn my thoughts into words when I talk to myself in the same way I would if I was talking or arguing with someone else. When I do, it's English or French, depending on the subject matter. I'll think about Runescape or TIF in English, but I'll think about school in French.

Post a picture of the fit!

Honestly, that comes as no surprise. Are all Koreans this horny?

Could it not be that the aforementioned model of the world is false in the same way euclidean geometry is in certain cases (strong gravitational fields)?

I'm fluent in English and French, I sort of speak Spanish, I used to be fluent in German and Arabic (which means if I went to Morocco or Germany again it would come back very quickly), and I can translate Latin. I'd like to learn to speak Russian.

So some "X factor" could exist, but our mathematical system can't get to it because it isn't representative of reality? As I was saying earlier I don't think we're capable of answering this question.

Hooray for quantum mechanics! I know little about physics, so all I can say is that just because we don't know how something is determined, doesn't mean it isn't. I think a similar argument was made about the decay of radioactive particles in the "are we free" thread.

Saddam Hussein: ~200,000 kurds and other minorities Pol Pot: pretty much a quarter of the population of his country Hitler: millions of Jews and other minorities I think you might have missed the (apparent) correlation between third world dictatorships and genocides. Another important thing the West can do: cancel the Third World's debt. That and getting rid of subsidies should already give them a boost.

I don't think that's a choice either (but then again, I think everything is determined and I don't believe in free will; we can go back and forth forever on this issue). The abstract of this paper would seem to suggest the same thing. When it comes to converting, once you have lost faith and are weighing other beliefs, a priori you're not leaning towards anything. If you are, something has caused it.

These posts are getting too long, so I'll just join all your quotes into one and address each paragraph. Paragraphs numbered with an X are not addressed. [hide] [/hide] 1,2,5,10: There is no best interpretation of a text; no one is ultimately justified in saying his interpretation is best. Interpretation can never be truly objective; this is why Spinoza's pantheism is as legitimate as literal interpretations than the Bible. There are Muslims who use Bergson's philosophy to interpret (and continuously reinterpret) the Qur'an. He wasn't even alive when it was written. Additionally, religious texts were written by men; over time they may have been corrupted or had odd parts added to them (Ecclesiastes is a good example). 3: Yes, they are misled by poor teaching; they are taught that their religion is justification enough for actions which have impacts on others; this is meta-religious more than it is religious. Parents and such have much more influence than direct exegesis does in this meta-religion domain; the reason why Kant and Randox are not fanatics is that they were taught to be faithful yet rational. 6: I've only been to one sermon (I went two years ago for a Christmas sermon with a friend and his family), and the preacher (my terminology is probably shit) said it was absolutely normal to doubt the existence of God... Not a great sample, but according to Randox this isn't an exception. 9: As you said yourself, this won't be the case with all of them. Something must be causing the nutjobs to become nutjobs and the rational ones to be rational. Don't you agree that if people were clever enough to refuse religion as an argument, religion would be a total non-issue? 12: Because people aren't particularly clever. Saying religion is harmful is like saying chainsaws are harmful. It is the use of it we make (cutting trees [ecological issues aside] or cutting up people) which matters. 14: (b) You don't choose to believe in God. You have faith taught to you. (a) That sounds super likely. Parents thinking being religious is a good way to live for their children has nothing to do with it.

First of all, "cherry-picking" is actually interpretation. Calling it that is like saying that if you don't understand a poem in its literal sense, you're being disingenuous. In fact, because of this freedom of interpretation, scripture is not rigid at all. Second, the question is not whether they are representative of the group or not. The question is "how can religion be to blame if some religious people are not nutjobs". What is to blame is parents teaching their kinds to be close-minded; if it wasn't for that, religion and rationality could coexist. Not necessarily, look at Kant and Randox again. They don't have to follow them to the letter (again, interpretation). For example, halal meat needs to be prepared by a qualified butcher, but during Eid al-Kbir, since so many sheeps are getting killed, a temporary license is distributed. Again, scripture is actually not rigid at all; you can make of it whatever you want to. As Ginger pointed out, a lot of Muslims place an emphasis on integration within cultures that aren't theirs. Of course, there are some who don't. But those people were taught to act in this way, and as such people are responsible for this, not ideologies. Again, not religion's fault. It's the fault of close-minded people who happen to be religious. Yes, there is a tendency to perpetuate the issue amongst these groups but eradicating religion won't solve the issue. The best we can do is say people are not allowed to impose principles upon others, encourage open-mindedness, etc. Anti-religious discourse goes against this very notion. Confused, can't reply. Oh yeah, for sure. People can have whatever faith they want though, they just shouldn't use it to justify immorality. Nope, they're very supple. Nope, that's a characteristic of certain people (and not just those who believe in a deity), not of religion. Historically it has been the case because it's been used to justify political action. In general this doesn't have to be the case. Not necessarily. Again this has more to do with the way religion is taught than religion itself. Same thing... We're essentially disagreeing on this: you think religion is harmful because it changes the way you act according to irrelevant principles, whereas I think this modification is not a characteristic of religion, and that it is rather caused by the way it is taught.

Could mean both being bound to God or being bound to others of the same creed. But you're just going into semantics; she calls it religion because everyone else does, and since language is meant to carry a message to others, it's not worth it to distinguish between the two (if there is a distinction to be made) because no one will understand. What you're trying to do is distinguish the two so that you can rant about religion (whatever it means).

I was answering Randox, in case that wasn't clear.

This approach tends to cause world wars though. In addition, you don't just become a military power, especially when your "enemies" and you are mutually dependent.

Other than issues deriving from colonization, I would say subsidies in First World agriculture is a huge issue too. Goes to show we only use liberal arguments when they come in handy; we can't allow ourselves to think nationally in a globalized context. I can't make any sense of anti-WTO protests; how do people expect this problem to be solved in another way? I would expect this to be the most important step towards development if it wasn't for the border issues. Maybe growth and economic alliances could solve the problem, ECSC style. I don't see capitalism as a problem here; the entire Asian continent is developing in waves thanks to it, whereas Africa is going nowhere precisely because it is not exploitable (save for natural resources, which don't necessarily create jobs). Paying Lee 10$/day is better than not paying him at all.

I think other people are very important. We tend to value independence, but it doesn't make sense.

But that's the entire point--there is no characteristic of religion which applies to every religious person! Some Christians are very rational (again, Kant). Your misconception is that because a number of referents (an infinite amount of different beliefs and ethical systems) are tied to a single word (religion), then there must be a shared essence to all these referents. This is not necessarily true: (more here, including a refutation of possible essences of games one might think of) Not all religions work the same way... There are plenty of people who believe in God and who don't use this belief as a foundation for their interactions with other people (legislation is one example of such interaction). I'm not talking about people who try to conciliate religion and science. I'm talking about people who don't make it necessary, because the truth-value of their belief is irrelevant. You've missed the point. You have first established that it's human nature to impose values/ethics/judgements upon others, so I'm suggesting that if its an intrinsic part of human nature that we cannot control with any ease, then the first step towards progression is determining which values is worthwhile to impose before imposing them. I never said it was "human nature" to impose values upon others; calling upon human nature is something people do to justify actions they don't want to feel responsible for. In fact, if I thought it was impossible to stop, I wouldn't have told you to do so. All you need to do is say that religion and irreligion belong in the private sphere and that it cannot be used to justify imposition of something on another person; this is what I would say to someone who would want to impose or ban halal meat in any country. People are free to have whatever religious belief they may want (if at all), but if the question isn't private and individual, then it has nothing to do wih it. So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem. Of course it can be true on both sides. Religious values are just so much more prone to it, because morality by divine command is reliant on the word of scripture. It is not based on whether the actions/decisions of others affects others (which I'd argue is the objective of morality, to reap what society deems to be the most benefit, whatever that may entail), so in terms of whether they are of any use - I'd argue that religious values have none. Again, Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." This is an ethical imperative which: a) isn't based on religion b) is based on the effect of action on yourself and others Kant is religious, but the Bible is not where he gets his morals; in fact, later in his reasoning, his morals justify his religion (I'm sure you've sensed the resemblance). It's a purely rational system. I was not going to argue Christian values are useful for ethics. Just because they are unnecessary in ethics and science doesn't mean religions are altogether useless, and it doesn't mean they are bad. Again, religion is fine in the private sphere.

And we don't use them because of their religious connotation, in the exact same way we don't mean to talk about poop when we say "aw shit". You're telling me Al-Qaida's terrorists and my dad have the same ideology? We've already been through this--religious texts require interpretation, and as such there is no unifying characteristic to beliefs tied to these texts other than the fact that they are bound to them. Spinoza was a pantheist, and he got this idea out of Abrahamic texts (Christian or Jewish, I'm not sure). We agree; all I'm saying is philosophy and ethics are not worthless. And what is religion if not metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? This "if at all" allows you to ask a question you shouldn't be asking... let people do what they want. It's none of your business. So can values which are not based on religion (which I understand is not the same thing as values based on atheism). Kant's ethics are based on reason and Eichmann used them to defend himself after WW2. Atheism isn't to blame, of course; but if the people twisting religious ethics to fit their actions hadn't been disrespectful of others, then religion wouldn't have been an issue. Disrespect is the problem.