On the Radar: The rise of atheism

I must point out SAM, that (outside of my obvious and well writ sarcasm) your sites are all biased toward Islam.

Hardly the example to set if you wish us to argue from an "unbiased" stance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The references are all from western sites; for some reason its not big in the news media there.

However, you could check out the facts mentioned (all the sites are linked to the original sources) and reach your independent conclusions. Or not.:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say that.
I DO think that many atheists display many of the same traits they claim to despise in religionists.
I also think that the belief systems of many atheists DO require faith.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That may well be true from what I have seen. But strictly speaking they wouldn't be atheists anymore if they required faith to be an atheist.

 

I don't think I mentioned the location of the websites' servers, did I? I said the sites are biased toward Islam.

Therefore, their reporting would be as equally biased toward Islam as CNN, FBI etc would be against it (for this incident).

 

Hmm so would you tell me which of the facts are incorrect or biased?

 

Clearly I cannot tell you which facts are incorrect...or even which are facts. I recently drove a point home in a discussion with co-workers that one must take that which is broadcast on TV with the proverbial pinch of salt. This also applies to print and published media, on both sides of any story.

However, this last site site is "The Wisdom Fund". Its mission statement is and I quote from it's "About TWF" page:

"The mission of The Wisdom Fund is to advance social justice and interfaith understanding by presenting The Truth About Islam. "

(italicized as promised)

Clearly, its entire raison d'etre is to provide any "facts" that brighten the public appearance of Islam or dispel any news item which puts a dark shade on the faith.

Should I highlight one of the sites before this one as well?

 

Like I said, you could separate out the claims and address them:

1. Is there any evidence of bin Laden or al Qaeda involvement in 9/11?

2. Was there an attempt to secure bin laden made by the US?

3. Why did they refuse the Taliban offer to hand him over in exchange for evidence?

To begin with.

 

THAT is an intellectually dishonest statement. Or a lie. Take your pick.

 

Interesting how you ad hom to deny that you ad hom. :shrug:

 

Interesting how you've all but derailed an interesting topic.

 

So anyway, I'm glad to see atheism on the rise. As a non-believer myself, and general despiser of "multiculturalism", I'd much rather be surrounded by more of my own kind.

So sam, what do you think about this?

 

You mean opinion disguised as facts? I think its reprehensible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't you?

 

Yes, yes I do. Clearly you are an atheistc rationalist in disguise, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After all, what's more of an opinion than all of theism?

Yay! I've converted sam!

 

Its obviously a test for atheists and amazingly they all flunked. :bawl:

 

And freakin' glad we did!

 

:crazy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20827350/

 

Ha!

 

Can this discussion be split, please, so Sam can have her spotlight, but the rest of the discussion isn't blinded?

 

SAM...like I said, I don't know either.

It is however the claim of the proper authorities that there is evidence of the Al Qaeda involvement. It is a much more plausible story than "clubbing playboys". OBL's support of the incident, and incitement of additional action is enough for an interrogation.

AND...none of this belies the fact that your references are as biased to your points as those you attack on this forum for their own.