^An awful piece indeed. simply put , it's an invitation of an I-Block ( like NGONGE)? to the top office.

^There you said it Abti. War aan yaraynaa ii yaala, on the other hand, what we've to deal with virtually online were'nt in anyway more formidable either. you remeber Sheikh Nur's gaffe of circumcising girls to skip (among other things ) Jamaican boyfriends . Abti , that our Somali "wadads" are on the extreme right of everything is not the problem , it's their theological education that scares me. Your awowe and my old man , once told me that the Somali culture was held uppright by the "waranle", while the "wadads" were the weak link of if because of the indoctriniation.

^ Turning and twisting it won't change the REALITY at hand. The Freeman clearly asked the question to the non-religious, be they Atheists or agnostics. That some of you accuse him of bad-timing the question ( i guess due to Ramadan ) or equating his payment of "lip-service" to him being "a Coward" is not of any significance, as it goes without saying that at "Ramadan" we "non-religious Somalis" have to put up with family and friends' high religious sensibilties. In short all you seem to be demanding of him is to extend that generousity of safeguarding religious-sensibilities to you and the Fora,which is in my view more like a choice for him to make but not a right for you to demand. To answer you fellow Freeman i'd say yes it all depends on the person(s) i am dealing with, sometimes its both rationally and morally justified to pay lip-service to Ramadan safeguarding family & friends' sensibilities, and / or delay eating and not infront of them, but for an everyday Farax or Xalimo i'd have no problems enjoying my meal infront of them. Case in point. i can't leave this thread without having the urge of saying " ramadan karim" to Abtigis , Norf and Che`for that matter. And you're right regarding the misplaced demand of respect, i don't have to respect the use of "marjuana" though millions believe in it being good and use it.

Or How can a moral person accept "god" ?

Che -Guevara;830940 wrote: Connection is bad. Johnny, I thought you be in Xamar by now? I thought YOU be there .

I'm so excited !!

Soon enough we'll be discussing the president's hat-colour. So much for Sol political analystis.

Alpha Blondy;830038 wrote: she looks like one of those nazi concentration camp nurses. an old lady suffering from dementia cannot be taken seriously. only 9 yrs in norway? and to probably come back to the occupied house that her militia son took from an innocent person in the early 1990s. the loudest ones are usually the worst. the reporter was a little aggressive too and asked leading questions - shows the standards of journalism in xamari-caddey. All this hatred just because she is back from Norway to Mogadishu's Lido beach,and you're wallowing in the dust of Hargeisa? Here is an advice for you. "Learn from your parents mistakes - get sterilized" .

^If all one has against president Sharif is flying often, then he must be the best president Somalia had since Adam Abdulle Osman. flying often means being politicaly successful. and a performance of duties,reviving the failed state.

What an old and hard-worked staleness, a disgusting product of the rotten minds somewhere in "the land of misery". First it was "Mogadishu settlement ", then it was "Degmada Muqdisho", wrapped in what is supposed to be a news article . Imprisoned in the wretched Somali politics of clan-hatred, our Dr_Osman stewed it in the juice of deliberate journalistic dirty-mindedness. Vulgar in tone and invariably sterile in artistic invention, only a "boowe" with a life so pinched and narrow could of have been interested. Oy Vey. Even with the news being true, the chance of harvesting a political point whatsoever with this improper propaganda is next to NULL.

N.O.R.F;819863 wrote: Johnny boy, its one thing to disbelieve in a claim due to, as you say, a lack of evidence but quite another to believe in the opposite of that claim without any evidence Sound reasoning I'm sure Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or disbelieved. Now, if you pay attention, I'd like to thread the ground so hang on here . Case 1: A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief. B states that another Deity by the name Eingana rules the Universe. --> Another Belief. Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence doesn't per automatic make belief in Eingana's rule of the Universe more right/correct, it simply doesn't follow. An evidence for Einganas rule of the Universe is equally demandable. case 2: A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief. B states that Akea's rule of the universe lacks evidence. - -> A Disbelief. Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence is already the position of B. Now demanding an evidence for an evidence that Akea's rule of the Universe lacks evidence is simply wrong. B is the negation of A , and as long as there is no evidence for A , B remains necessarily true. NORF: Windows is the best OS around. JOHNNY: There is no evidence for that. NORF: Disbelieving that Windows is the best OS around due to lack of evidence is one thing , but believing in there is no evidence for Windows being the best OS without evidence is another. JOHHNY: But that there is no evidence for windows being the best OS around IS my evidence. Q:E:D sharma-arke451;819773 wrote: For a conclusion to be acceptable as true, there must be evidence to support it. your statements represent a false dichotomy. You're improving , read NORF's demand for the reason of rejection , despite non convincing evidence. sharma-arke451;819773 wrote: this amounts to insult, and LSt has to act. No i was wrong , you are not improving, appealing to authority is a fallacy, argue as to why the attributes of Allah are not self-refuting and you may learn or teach us something.

N.O.R.F;819743 wrote: So, essentially, your rejection is based on nothing more than doubt whilst at the same time leaning towards the opposite of religion without considering the same evidence based proof you claim to have looked for in makin g your decision to reject. Johnny, You're not convinced because you simply didn't bother Is is sad that we've to walk you through the labyrinths of sound reasoning at this age , but we can always try . tertium non datur, as it were. (A) Life should be conducted according to someone who claims to have talked to a Deity. (B)Life should not be conducted according to anyone who claims to have talked to a Deity. If (A) is not convincing,or untrue (B) can not be non-convincing or untrue, and vice versa. AYOUB, The argument of Atheism being another Religion has been addressed.

N.O.R.F;819345 wrote: ^what I'm asking you is, if you're not convinced, why the rejection? And there we've the fundamental difference in the rationale, accepting everything you're not convinced about leaves you at the mercy of gullibility, is that what you're asking us to do? . In my view , the non-convincing and the non-existent look very much alike. "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

Afro hashemite ?

^^ Give it a rest Mario, display no more Cognitive distortions. Hitler in his autobiography (Mein Kampf ) stated: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.". The underlying argument of Atheists too commit atrocities is but a meek acceptance of the atrocities committed in the name of the gods.

^ I've no idea, and I've ample reason to believe that neither do you KNOW , given that imagination is an equal opportunity business.

^Neither did i know you'd increase the percentage after we're 100% dead.

^^ aha, so Theists are so obsessed with Atheists , they even take them to an afterlife, who is really obsessed with who?

^^ It's been ages since i saw someone praying, so update me , you still read quranic verses under prayers, verses like "Our Lord! Oh, give them double torment and curse them with a mighty curse" , five times a day right?

^ It's good that you think , but share with me what you think of a Theist ( a Muslim if you like ) who curses,wishes all bad things imaginable to both Atheists and anybody who doesen't share his Faith, everyday?!

It is highly regrettable that all the Theists can do is accuse the Atheists of an inability to let be a Theist's particular Religion, forgetting, in their non-questioning hollier-than-thee certitude, their own inherent obsession with Atheism or any non-belief in their particular Religions, while all They do in their daily rituals is criticize,curse and threaten Atheists and Theists who don't share their particular Faith, with all the bad things imaginable, in this and in an afterlife. "Ayaandarro" indeed. :cool:

Any man who'd choose the Tent on the left over the hottie on the right needs his head examined.

burahadeer;817346 wrote: atheism is religion too.They believe in non- believing. And what is the name of the Deity they worship?, what are their rituals ? what is the name of their church/mosque/ temple? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods( Deities), claiming Atheism is some sort of Religion is like claiming nakedness is some some sort of modelling or ball-headedness is some sort of hair-styling. Rebutting Senior Che's and Mr Sharmarke's blunders . Che -Guevara;817358 wrote: The irony here world religions facilitated advances in science and culture. That is no so exactly so , and the number of human beings(many scientists among them) who lost their lives after having questioned a religious mantra (in a way or another) witnesses to the contrary. Every Religion has gone against natural Science whenever it contradicted it's scriptures. Science is "Nullius in verba" while Religion is in the name of some prophecy. sharma-arke451;817431 wrote: ,,,,,, no one can define '' atheism '' without religion. so i wonder, why the pretence. Really?, Atheism is lack of belief in god or gods, just the opposite of Theism which means having belief in god or gods. Atheism doesn't need particular Religion to be defined as you patently claim , it simply is the opposite of Theism. You 're a Theist and i am an Atheist Now that you prefer to believe in Islam ( for whatever reason , beside childhood indoctrination ) rather than Xtianity or vice versa does not change that , you remain a Theist.

N.O.R.F;816597 wrote: Atheists haven't read scriptures but rely on 3rd parties for their info. A classic lack of understanding the basics is apparent in this thread. Since there never was a single and common understanding of the so called different divine scriptures of the Abrahamic Religions, evolving exegesis has always been what was thrown towards every rational inquiry, The rejection of religious myths by the Agnostics / Atheists is not based on people not reading the scriptures as you carelessly claim ,in fact the argument of Atheists knowing more about Religions than Theists is valid, since most theists carry on whatever Religion their parents passed on, but Agnostics / Atheists dig deeper, hence , they're more versed. N.O.R.F;816597 wrote: Maadeey's last post is quite interesting in terms of the title of the thread. Its been quiet since Not exactly, There is nothing interesting about the meger attempt of finding Scientific proofs in the Quran, while we know it is Science that is being used to bloster the evolving exegesis of the Quran. You seem to have it coming so why not unleash it on us?!