Turkey always has crazy shiznit going on with artists and secularists being threatened with death by Islamic clerical fascists every couple of years. (The Gray Wolves?) Never mind what happens to the Kurds.
We don't hear much about it because Turkey has been such a stable pillar in the US imperial system that they pretty get a free pass to do what they like.
I typically stay away from threads like this, but this is a pretty good point. I remember hanging out with a friend of mine at the apartment of the guy she was seeing at the time. He was having band practice, and I commented that I really dug the song they were practicing at the time. The singer goes on to tell me that he wrote it based on the experiences of a gay friend of his who was visiting Turkey. At the time (and this was around 7 years ago, fairly recent, all things considered) the Turkish authorities were going to bath houses and bars in the (very secretive) gay community in Istanbul, rounding up everyone they could, and throwing them in prison. No trial, no charges, no investigation, just instant guilt by association.
I had a friend when I was in elementary school whose father was from Turkey. I had never heard this side of things before, and had always thought that Turkey was among the more moderate, progressive, Islamic nations, that people had rights and freedoms similar to what we have in the United States (although there are some instances in Texas and other place with police going into gay bars and entrapping people into sodomy cases by hitting on them, I'm from Massachusetts, Texas seems a completely foreign place to me in a lot of ways). It was an eye opening experience, and it still bothers me that we sweep these things under the rug in the interest of political expediency.
Turkey always has crazy shiznit going on with artists and secularists being threatened with death by Islamic clerical fascists every couple of years. (The Gray Wolves?) Never mind what happens to the Kurds.
We don't hear much about it because Turkey has been such a stable pillar in the US imperial system that they pretty get a free pass to do what they like.
Wolves have a different set of opinions about things...
Yup, Grey Wolves.
Turkey always has crazy shiznit going on with artists and secularists being threatened with death by Islamic clerical fascists every couple of years. (The Gray Wolves?) Never mind what happens to the Kurds.
We don't hear much about it because Turkey has been such a stable pillar in the US imperial system that they pretty get a free pass to do what they like.
They're not on the Bad Country list like China.
Yup, Grey Wolves.
From reading this article I discovered that "Turan" is some kind of mythological name for Greater Turkey, which makes reading all those Conan stories easiers. I was having a hard time distinguishing the Turanians from the Hyrkanians. No longer!
|
Yup, Grey Wolves.From reading this article I discovered that "Turan" is some kind of mythological name for Greater Turkey, which makes reading all those Conan stories easiers. I was having a hard time distinguishing the Turanians from the Hyrkanians. No longer!
All, or perhaps almost all, the names he used were for regions that existed.
|
Here's a thought:
If the supernatural were anything more than imaginary, there could be no freedom of religion in any organized, civil society.
Suppose demons and angels were real, that gods interacted with mankind and granted both boon and curse: we'd live in the Warhammer universe--the freedom to worship the Ruinous Powers might destroy the planet.
Here's a thought:
If the supernatural were anything more than imaginary, there could be no freedom of religion in any organized, civil society.
Suppose demons and angels were real, that gods interacted with mankind and granted both boon and curse: we'd live in the Warhammer universe--the freedom to worship the Ruinous Powers might destroy the planet.
That's the scary thing about the inquisition.
If you accept the premises of Christianity it actually makes sense.
That's the scary thing about the inquisition.
If you accept the premises of Christianity it actually makes sense.
To be fair, it isn't just Christianity. Jihad, anyone?
Depends on the individual interpretation of Jihad.
Some Muslims believe it is a philosophical battle to convert people with words.
Some believe it is a physical war.
All my experience has been that the first kind are the most numerous.
Depends on the individual interpretation of Jihad.
Some Muslims believe it is a philosophical battle to convert people with words.
Some believe it is a physical war.
All my experience has been that the first kind are the most numerous.
Mine too. My intention wasn't to beat a group up (Muslims), but rather to avoid a group being beaten up (Christians).
I seem to have failed. :)
Depends on the individual interpretation of Jihad.
Some Muslims believe it is a philosophical battle to convert people with words.
Some believe it is a physical war.
All my experience has been that the first kind are the most numerous.
My understanding was that there are both the "greater jihad" (a struggle against evil within oneself) and the "lesser jihad" (warfare against unbelievers, both with words and by the sword) to be fulfilled -- it's not a "pick one" scenario, scripturally-speaking.
That said, the more Muslims break with scripture and reject the lesser in favor of the greater, the happier I'll be.
And then if they can break with scripture regarding the role of Jews and Christians (meh), Hindus (very bad), and atheists (unconscionable), and the role of women in society, and about a hundred other things, I'll consider them very enlightened indeed. But by then, the religion would be Ba'hai, rather than Islam...
The original interpretation of the Jihad was indeed that of a personal, inner struggle to become a better Muslim. It only took onto an external dimension during the age of the Crusades, pioneered mostly by scholars and theologians attempting to understand whether the doings of Imad Al-Din, Nur Al-Din and later Salah Al-Din, the primary leaders in the battle for Holy Land on the Muslim side, constituted acts that were acceptable or not to God.
As far as I understand, the debate still continues as to whether that interpretation is acceptable or not. The only interpretation of Jihad that is shared by all Muslims and that has existed since the beginning is that of a fight with one's own flaws and misdeeds.
Christianity's case was a bit different into how it came to accept the concept of Holy War for a while, but occured at about the same time.
The troll thread that WILL. NOT. DIE.
Yay!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original interpretation of the Jihad was indeed that of a personal, inner struggle to become a better Muslim.
Not buying that one.
Look, I've read the Qu'ran twice (in English) spent three months living in a moderate Muslim country. Its nice that for large swaths of its history that Islam HAS shoe horned jihad into a personal struggle, but Mohamed did a fair bit of proselytizing with sharp pointy objects.
Here's a thought:
If the supernatural were anything more than imaginary, there could be no freedom of religion in any organized, civil society.
Suppose demons and angels were real, that gods interacted with mankind and granted both boon and curse: we'd live in the Warhammer universe--the freedom to worship the Ruinous Powers might destroy the planet.
That's the scary thing about the inquisition.
If you accept the premises of Christianity it actually makes sense.
Bugley is right. Pretty much any religion with an afterlife that gets preferred access to those in the flock is in the same boat, and can't really leave while it maintains that doctrine.
Of course even religions without that particular line go through enthusiastic holy war phases. It's how you get a successful world religion instead of just one among many. Shintoism isn't really a salvation religion, but it proved its holy war credentials pretty well between 1870 and 1945. So did a strain or two of Japanese Buddhism.
It only took onto an external dimension during the age of the Crusades
(2.191) And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
That's pretty unambiguous. Granted, it's not in the original Arabic, so it doesn't "count," but come on.
(4.89) They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (4.90) Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them. (4.91) You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.
Hm, I might have to re-check my sources when I get home. I was pretty sure to have read a quite reasonable understanding that among the key modern historians of the subject, it was agreed that the holy war version of Jihad only took form after the 1,000's.
Perhaps I got it wrong.
The original interpretation of the Jihad was indeed that of a personal, inner struggle to become a better Muslim.Not buying that one.
Look, I've read the Qu'ran twice (in English) spent three months living in a moderate Muslim country. Its nice that for large swaths of its history that Islam HAS shoe horned jihad into a personal struggle, but Mohamed did a fair bit of proselytizing with sharp pointy objects.
That doesn't mean Jihad isn't a personal struggle, it just means some people got stabbed during said personal struggle. :P
Serious version: At this point I'm fairly sure that Jihad isn't an easily translated concept. The most obvious Christian equivalent I can think of is Crusade, but I doubt that fits the bill, meaning by meaning and connotation by connotation.
And yes, I had to decide whether or not to capitalize jihad and crusade, which is sort of my point.
Where'd you live, BNW?
Don't forget the Hadith as well:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.
etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be clear, the Old Testament also commands people to do some pretty evil stuff. Thankfully, most Christians reject those as being either metaphorical and/or somehow superseded by the New Testament. They manage to be good people -- some of them very good people indeed -- largely by ignoring whole swaths of scripture and/or rationalizing not following it. Muslims in my acquaintance are no different, using their own moral compasses as a means to disregard some or all of the immoral stuff they're commanded to do.
Where'd you live, BNW?
Africa, all the way to the left, third country down. The Islamic republic of Mauritania with the peace corps. Its not particularly Islamic, definitely not a republic, to the point that I question that whole Mauritania part...
Where'd you live, BNW?Africa, all the way to the left, third country down. The Islamic republic of Mauritania with the peace corps. Its not particularly Islamic, definitely not a republic, to the point that I question that whole Mauritania part...
Oh, cool. Or rather, I hope it was, I've never been to Africa.
I guess my point was that it's good you've seen other nations with your own eyes; the news reports give us only the most obvious details, and few of those are salient.
When you go to another country and actually see it for yourself, the difference between media portrait and experience thereof stays with you for a lifetime, right?
|
|
Here's a thought: If the supernatural were anything more than imaginary, there could be no freedom of religion in any organized, civil society.
Suppose demons and angels were real, that gods interacted with mankind and granted both boon and curse: we'd live in the Warhammer universe--the freedom to worship the Ruinous Powers might destroy the planet.
That's the scary thing about the inquisition.
If you accept the premises of Christianity it actually makes sense.
I mean to say, if the supernaturally were really, actually, physically real, there could be no reasonable concept for freedom of religion; that freedom of religion is only possible because it doesn't matter how much I invoke Satan, I can't hex my neighbor and cause their car to implode into a singularity; no matter how much I pray to God, I can't smite the heathens with my mighty warhammer simply with Rays of Holy Light--it takes actual people doing actual things, like pulling triggers and dropping bombs.
In Warhammer, 'the daemon incursions' actually happen, with monstrous entities laying waste to whole cities all because a handful of cultists said the right prayers, danced in the right direction, and drew the right geometry on the back wall of an abandoned slaughterhouse.
If this kind of thing actually happened (if the supernatural were actually real) no sane civilization could allow free worship. The only reason we can allow the Cult of Cthulhu to worship freely is because it's all a load of imagination.
I mean to say, if the supernaturally were really, actually, physically real, there could be no reasonable concept for freedom of religion; that freedom of religion is only possible because it doesn't matter how much I invoke Satan, I can't hex my neighbor and cause their car to implode into a singularity; no matter how much I pray to God, I can't smite the heathens with my mighty warhammer simply with Rays of Holy Light--it takes actual people doing actual things, like pulling triggers and dropping bombs.
You can't hex your neighbor, or smite heathens? Well, you must not be very magic, then. :P
If this kind of thing actually happened (if the supernatural were actually real) no sane civilization could allow free worship. The only reason we can allow the Cult of Cthulhu to worship freely is because it's all a load of imagination.
I think you're dead-on and that's why relative religious freedom has been so rare in human history. As long as people actually believe that, say, Zeus is real and if you don't worship him he might nuke the whole damned town then an a-Zeus-ist would be guilty of reckless endangerment of large numbers of people by his or her very nature. One might be quite justified in calling such a person a terrorist, even.
But of course if the supernatural were actually real, would we have that category at all? Right now it's a literary genre identified by the presence of certain tropes. But if you could hex your neighbors with any kind of degree of success, we'd put science to it and find out what hexes worked best on who and when just like we use science to find out what firearms are more accurate.
Oh, cool. Or rather, I hope it was, I've never been to Africa.
Didn't work out so well. My degree is in forestry, they wanted me to teach people how to farm. They showed me how to do it witha pick, a shovel, and a bucket, the village had tractors.
I knew i was going to be a publicity stunt, but i thought I'd at least be able to do SOME good. On top of that they gave me a faulty filter that was letting sand through. Still hurts my side.
I guess my point was that it's good you've seen other nations with your own eyes; the news reports give us only the most obvious details, and few of those are salient.
Yeah. Something i wasn't expecting was the cell phones: Its very odd to see someone on a donkey cart made out of the scavenged car Axel texting while "driving".
You expect everyone to be really religious, when its a mix just like it is in the states. Some people pray 5 x per day some people pay it no mind. At 5 AM the call to prayer over the town loudspeaker and the opening song from the lionking sound eerily similar.
When you go to another country and actually see it for yourself, the difference between media portrait and experience thereof stays with you for a lifetime, right?
I'd never heard of the place before I went. After i get back you hear about slavery, but you'll never see anyone there in chains. Its half hired servant half serfdom
[Ahem]
Pardon me.
[In-coming spillage from other thread]
It looks like the British imperial admin promoted schemes for Jewish emigration to Palestine as far back as the 1830s.
EDIT: Link
Which I assume is what Ex-Comrade Inaros is talking about. Looks like there are churches with that name, too.
Pardon moi, I mean, obviously.
|
|
The original interpretation of the Jihad was indeed that of a personal, inner struggle to become a better Muslim.Not buying that one.
Look, I've read the Qu'ran twice (in English) spent three months living in a moderate Muslim country. Its nice that for large swaths of its history that Islam HAS shoe horned jihad into a personal struggle, but Mohamed did a fair bit of proselytizing with sharp pointy objects.
That seems to be the way of all monotheisms from that region.
|
|
Yeah. Something i wasn't expecting was the cell phones: Its very odd to see someone on a donkey cart made out of the scavenged car Axel texting while "driving".
I've heard that Africa actually has pretty good cell phone coverage, on the whole. As I understand it, somebody figured out how to recycle cell phone components to construct inexpensive cell towers, and since then they've gone up in a lot of remote and impoverished parts of the globe.
I've heard that Africa actually has pretty good cell phone coverage, on the whole. As I understand it, somebody figured out how to recycle cell phone components to construct inexpensive cell towers, and since then they've gone up in a lot of remote and impoverished parts of the globe.
Yeah. Something i wasn't expecting was the cell phones: Its very odd to see someone on a donkey cart made out of the scavenged car Axel texting while "driving".
Towers are also easier and a bit cheaper to install than a landline network just in general.
I settled on which emblem is going on my headstone when I die.
Gah! Darn necromancers. Almost got me!
Aaanyway. I always found the Marvel Thor's brick-onna-stick hammer hilariously bad.
But if the approved symbol is the photo sketch, that's pretty cool.
The full list of approved emblems is here.
Both my grandfathers and one grandmother are buried at the nearby national cemetery (Fort Snelling), my father and mother plan to be interred there and I do as well. I like it, simple, yet evocative... and it's not a cross.
Doodlebug Anklebiter--Able to scan mountains of text and narrow in on his obsessions with the blink of an eye:
Those scenes in Hannah and Her Sisters where he converts to Catholicism are frickin' hilarious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strange Notions
The arguments are bad. They would not be (and are not) convincing for any other notion, but for some reason they're good enough for faith. (copy pasting from a similar previous discussion)
1) The cosmological argument – the universe came from something rather than nothing.
-Everything came from something... except god (for some reason). Nothing can be eternal... except god (for some reason). An unintelligent force cannot have created the universe.. for some reason.
The argument is completely arbitrary and its own special pleading undermines its case.
2) The teleological argument – the complexity in the universe presents the case for an intelligent designer.
Then what designed the designer?
3) The moral argument – true morality comes from God.
Horribly circular. You need to argue that morality is something beyond what it is (respect for living thinking beings), that it is somehow "higher" than that. That higher level then requires a god.
Evolutionary biology provides a LOT of insight as to the benefits of a social species being moral.
4) The resurrection of Jesus – the evidence of the resurrection has not been refuted.
The short argument is that you don't have enough evidence for something that bizarre.
The slightly longer argument is that other religions and supernatural events in history have much if not more evidence for them as the resurrection. Once you prove the supernatural other than jesus, then jesus' evidence becomes meaningless: it doesn't verify his divine origins, only supernatural ability.
1) It is an eyewitness account
2) Said eyewitness accounts were preserved
3) Said eyewitnesses were reliable
4) The bible backs itself through archeology
Now, if Christians are being consistant with their methodology any work of history that meets these criteria would be deemed historical. After all, the amount of evidence required is generally proportional to the level to which the potentially true event falls outside of our experiences and against our expectations. The idea that there was a Particular blacksmith named Tiberius in Rome wouldn’t require much evidence. As Rome had a large number of blacksmiths and Tiberius was a common name all that would probably be required would be a receipt, work order, or a sign etc. The idea that he personally made and fitted 50,000 horse shoes a day is a lot further outside of our expectations and would require much further evidence to be accepted as fact.
Similarly, people rising up after being genuinely dead for three days falls FAR outside of our observations and expectations. There have been roughly 12 billion people on the planet and to all appearances dead people stay dead. It is perhaps the most universal and well-observed fact of our existence. Any evidence that said universal constant had been altered or written an exception would require an extra ordinary amount of evidence. Certain sectors of Christianity think their level of evidence meets this requirement but do they evaluate other extraordinary claims in the same and consistent manner?
So here we go… Do any Christians arguing for the historicity of the resurrection event believe in magic? You know, witch craft, Satanism, people flying through the air, causing men’s members to disappear, sex with demons, shape shifting, the ability to control the weather.. the whole nine yards?
If not I have to ask why, the historical evidence of such events appears to meet if not exceed the criteria used for the bible.
It is an eyewitness account
Here is an excerpt from a book entitled THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM, hammer of witches. The book was written as a handbook for hunting witches, the authors being authorized to conduct such hunts under the Pope Innocent the XIII under a papal bull. It describes at great length the powers, abilities, limitations of witches, and the means to root out and destroy them.
WE must not omit to mention the injuries done to children by witch midwives, first by killing them, and secondly by blasphemously offering them to devils. In the diocese of Strasbourg and in the town of Zabern there is an honest woman very devoted to the Blessed Virgin MARY, who tells the following experience of hers to all the guests that come to the tavern which she keeps, known by the sign of the Black Eagle.
Now this is at least as much information, if not more, than we have of the authors of the bible. Finding this woman would have been a piece of cake. All you need to do is find the female owner of the black eagle inn in Zabern. If such a woman or inn did not exist then the local priests should have reported back on it.
And to make the matter clear we will quote a case which occurred at Spires and came to the knowledge of many. A certain honest man was bargaining with a woman, and would not come to terms with her about the price of some article; so she angrily called after him, "You will soon wish you had agreed." For witches generally use this manner of speaking, or something like it, when they wish to bewitch a person by looking at him. Then he, not unreasonably being angry with her, looked over his shoulder to see with what intention she had uttered those words; and behold! he was suddenly bewitched so that his mouth was stretched sideways as far as his ears in a horrible deformity, and he could not draw it back, but remained so deformed for a long time.
www.malleusmaleficarum.or...3_13a.html
Now this is certainly more information than we have on the 500 who supposedly saw Jesus, without a single name, town, time, or even country given.
1 Corinthians 15:6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
2) Said eyewitness accounts were preserved
An original copy of the 1496 edition is in the Lea Library at Penn, and is described by John Shea: " looks harmless enough from the outside. Barely five inches wide and eight inches tall, its spine has grown bare... Although its light-brown leather covers are mottled and worn, they are supported by two robust blocks of wood that suggest hard, frequent use." (The Pennsylvania Gazette, May-June 2003, p. 30)
Found at www.dailyreprobate.com/wo...bles_2.htm
Such evidence far exceeds that for the chain of knowledge of biblical events. There is no risk of false authorship, false accreditation, translation, editing or the inclusion of unoriginal materials. You have an original copy you can pick up, hold in your hand, and compare against any modern copy to check for errors at your leisure. Whatever the preservation of biblical texts implies for the truth of the resurrection event it applies more so here.
3) The eyewitness accounts were reliable.
These authors had the official sanction of the Roman Catholic Church, one of the most sophisticated organizations on the planet at the time. A papal bull signed by innocent VIII gave the authors the right and obligation to root out heresy and witchcraft using the local church and state officials as well as any an all methods, the "particular methods" (torture) not excluded. Reasonable, thinking people would not have handed over that kind of power to people who were not reliable and trustworthy enough to root out fanciful rumor from extraordinary fact. The authors themselves would not have risked life and limb gallivanting about the countryside without reliable evidence that they were doing the right thing. They were well-educated respected men and professors of theology. If any action they were undertaking was against the biblical precepts or reason they would have been aware of it.
www.malleusmaleficarum.org/mm00e.html
They were not spotting witches behind every rock and tree and executing on a whim. They state that
THE second method of delivering judgement is to be employed when he or she who is accused, after a diligent discussion of the merits of the case in consultation with learned lawyers, is found to be no more than defamed as a heretic in some village, town, or province
www.malleusmaleficarum.or...3_21a.html
These were people who knew the serious implications and burdens of their job and conducted themselves as such.
4) Archeological evidence
In the diocese of Strasburg and in the town of Zabern
For in the diocese of Constance, twenty-eight German miles from the town of Ratisbon in the direction of Salzburg
Not long ago in the town of Ratisbon
There lived in a town of Wiesenthal
Quite lately a witch was detained in the Castle of Königsheim near the town of Schlettstadt in the Diocese of Strasburg
.. as well as the aforementioned black eagle inn.
Historians have cooperated these towns all existed at the time where they were indicated, showing that these people were traveling about in the course of their duties and acquiring the local knowledge that can only come from first hand experience.
In short… The reasoning and methods used by those wishing to have the resurrection event considered historical would also render the witchcraft phenomenon of the European as real events that actually happened. If the methods are an acceptable and valid
way to determine history then we must also accept the reality of European witches possessing supernatural powers or risk falling victim to special pleading.
If you accept witches and witchcraft as real, then what is there to prevent Jesus having faked his death or returned after the event through sorcery, illusion, or trickery? The exclusiveness , uniqueness and very reason for believing that Jesus is god on the basis of his ability to resurrect himself goes right out the window if other people posses the supernatural ability to either confuse the eye witnesses or perform the event for real.
5) The immediate experience of God – experience as evidence for God.
I have an immediate and ineffable experience of the non existance of god. Buddists have the immediate experience of the budda nature/oneness with the universe etc.
The problem is your God is exclusive: if your experience is evidence that you're right then their experience is evidence that you're wrong.
|
|
Strange NotionsThe arguments are bad. They would not be (and are not) convincing for any other notion, but for some reason they're good enough for faith. (copy pasting from a similar previous discussion)
It is just a link for a better location to have a more thoughtful exchange.
Being dogmatic and unable to show an open mind is not a good way to express yourself or to discuss deeply held conviction from either side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being dogmatic and unable to show an open mind is not a good way to express yourself or to discuss deeply held conviction from either side.
Nor is insulting someone by saying they have a closed mind for having the temerity to reach a conclusion based on the arguments and information they've seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! CRD is active again!
The satanists were one thing, but furries!?!?!?!? :)
|
|
Nor is insulting someone by saying they have a closed mind for having the temerity to reach a conclusion based on the arguments and information they've seen.
Being dogmatic and unable to show an open mind is not a good way to express yourself or to discuss deeply held conviction from either side.
Yet you come to this thread to have a discussion and state that the conclusion has been found and that we can all go home as you have won the interwebs.
instead of simply seeing it as an invitation to a serious and informative discussion so that maybe, just maybe you can see that looking at the same information others have come to a different conclusion. one that not only embraces reason but adds faith. One as strong as your own.