Vexen

Why did you quote MigL? Your comment wasn't related to MigL's post. Yes, people do commit oppressive behaviour and violence in the name of Christianity. But, is this as prevalent as it is in the Islamic religion? I would like evidence for that.

Scientifically, ZVBXRPL may be correct and both studiot and MigL may be wrong. "The Suicide Terrorism Database at Flinders University in Australia, which documents all suicide bombings committed in the Middle East between 1981 and 2006, demonstrates that it is politics, not religious fanaticism that leads terrorists to blow themselves up. This is supported by research conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, which was partly funded by the Defense Department’s Threat Reduction Agency. The authors, Robert A. Pape and James K. Feldman, examined more than 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to present. Their research reveals that more than 90 percent of suicide attacks are directed at an occupying force." "When the U.S. removed Saddam and put 1 million Sunnis on the unemployment line, the 20th-century Western-manufactured country of Iraq disappeared, and Iraqis reached back for older identities: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd." - CJ WERLEMAN, ALTERNET You may have your own opinion but not your own facts.

He further explains how Islam may not be a tertiary motive of radical behaviour but an inherent consequence of Islam. "The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms. The problem is especially acute in the Arab world. Consider: According to the United Nations’ Arab Human Development Reports, less than 2% of Arabs have access to the Internet. Arabs represent 5% of the world’s population and yet produce only 1% of the world’s books, most of them religious. In fact, Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century."

This is what Sam Harris said about the link between the Muslim community and radical ideology: "It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. The truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world."

That statement implies that there is no central ideology that motivates radical Muslims. All individuals are motivated by different circumstances . Islam, as a religion, cannot be blamed for terrorism in its name. Is this what you are implying? My interest in this topic occurred when I read Sam Harris. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-reality-of-islam

I want to deal with your premise.Many people completely disagree with your premise. What is your basis for claiming that the text are causing any sort of radical behaviour? I know there are many causes but what mainly motivates radical Muslims?

2014 was a bad year for Islam. It saw radical Islamic groups including ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, taliban, al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab commit unthinkable crimes. What is the connection between the Islamic faith and these groups? Have these groups hijacked a peaceful religion? "Bin Laden's ideology and interpretation of Islam led to the creation of al-Qaeda in response to perceived threats against the Muslim community by the Soviet Union, the U.S. in particular due to its troop presence in Saudi Arabia, and American support for Israel." "Recently, there have been incidents on a global scale, where certain hardline Islamic groups have started advocating beheading and enslaving in the name of religion and caliphate against other sects of Muslims and non Muslims (non believers)." What is the fundamental motivation of radical Islamic groups? Could it be: Western foreign policy Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith Culture Economics Ideology

I recently had a conversation with a person who expressed that wealthy people are "immune" to many life threatening diseases. My antagonist used Steve Jobs as an example. He said that Steve Jobs could have survived if he used his wealth to gain proper treatment. Personally, I think money cannot guarantee your "immunity" against life threatening diseases as medicine has not advanced to that stage. What do you think?

100% votes for the legalization of marijuana. Why is does everyone think this?

"So, in a way, Christianity is just as correct as Athiestism." That is a bad logical deduction. The conscious disbelief in a doctrine is not the same as a belief in one. All religions can't be all true at the same time. Many of them have mutually exclusive concepts. There are many other explanations for NDE and the experience is not well defined.

I'm quite sure that the Koran plagiarized many teachings and concepts straight from the New Testament. Additionally, Christianity and Islam are both cults created by man and not inspired by an omnipotent being. Thus, we should expect similarities about the myths proposed by each cult.

Anybody who does biology, the science that has saved billions of lives, knows that it is impossible to do certain biological experiments without animal models. Hopefully, we will be able to master the growth of human organs and avoid the use of some animal models. The types of animals that we use depends on the experiment and the consciousness of the animal. For example, few people oppose engineering glowing mice but many would for glowing apes. Also, we decide what is moral and our decisions change with time.

In Dekan's early days, Dekan was probably a friendly and tame user. Then Dekan's reputation become negative. Thereafter, all inhibition was lost and Dekan was no longer compelled to behaviour friendly to fellow users. Dekan's reputation was negative. And so we observe, in the present day, a Dekan ready to espouse his true opinion even though, at times, they may be ill informed.

My advice : personally apologise to the member you insulted. Don't let your ego cause to leave this forum you have enjoyed for so many years.

I do understand what you mean. This reality is the only one we know. We probably disagree with the grammar of my answer. Maybe I should have said fascinating instead of strange. But, I'm talking about the point when you just take it all in. Don't you ever say to yourself, "what the hell is going on"? Why wasn't I a unicorn or something? Reality seems more like fiction the more I understand it. I don't find it strange that an apple falls to the ground and that an object is in one place at a time because I've known these principles all my life. When I found out that fundamental particles disobeyed the principles I knew, I found it strange.

Honestly, I feel like you wrote your reply in know-it-all manner. As if your opinion is dominant over most people. I feel like you conveyed a smug emotion. What does my text convey about my disposition?

I respectfully disagree. Have you ever read modern physics? When I first started reading about quantum mechanics and special relativity I was "blown-away" by the fact that the quantum and high speeds do not reflect reality I thought I knew. We all woke up 13.8 billion years after the big bang. The universe will continue to expand indefinitely. All of us exist for a brief interlude between the start of nothing and the infinite.This seems strange when I consider my daily life.

Yes it does. Exercise will cause an increase/decease in the expression of certain genes of specific cells. When you exercise various hormones are released within your body such as epinephrine. These hormones bind to receptors on a cell's surface causing signal transduction. This results in the expression of a gene(s). However, it far more complex than I explained.

Sounds like an intriguing philosophical view. Anyway, I don't understand your premise that atheists are as mentally disordered as psychopaths. You should further explain this idea.

Yeah, consciousness and the nature of reality are strange things. My thoughts on consciousness are limited. But consciousness does fall into the realm of science. Altered brain function does influence the way we experience consciousness. So, it does seem that consciousness can be described scientifically.

Okay, I probably didn't articulate my question correctly (apologies to everyone). I'm new to forum life. I'm not saying anything about the positive or negative impacts of anonymity. I want to know what the opinion of an anonymous person reflects. I was hoping people would discuss whether your online opinion is a true representation of who you are. If I'm blatantly rude, racist and bigotry on the Internet but I don't remotely mimic this in my "real" life, which of the two represents me most accurately? Is this some sort of personality dissonance? Side Question: What do we think about the ability of text to correctly convey emotions?

"Why you cry and who sees you do it appear to make a difference in whether crying helps or hurts your emotional state ( Journal of Research in Personality, 2011). In the study, she and colleagues found that crying was more likely to make people feel better when they had emotional support (such as a close friend nearby), if they were crying due to a positive event, or if their crying led to a resolution or new understanding of the situation that led them to cry in the first place. Criers felt worse if they felt embarrassed or ashamed of crying, if they were with unsupportive people or if they cried because they saw suffering. Overall, participants were more likely to feel better if they cried alone or around one other person, but felt worse or didn't experience a mood change if they were with two or more people."

I don't understand anything here. Can someone explain in a less technical way?

I'm studying biochemistry. The study includes mainly the metabolism of the four main biomolecules, nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. In addition we study, in detail, enzymes, immunology and metabolic regulation.