The "Militant" or "New Atheists" are not only a bunch of jerks, but I find their "movement" indistinguishable from a religion. They have their own rigid dogma, they are intolerant of others, they are developing their own ceremonies and I know of one group that is even saving up to buy it's own building (an abandoned Christian church). It's why I really prefer to be called an Unbeliever, but Atheist is more recognizable, and easier to spell.[MENTION=38990]jabeady[/MENTION] If you do not mind my asking, what is your view on people like Richard Dawkins and the "militant atheist" movement? If you'd prefer not to say here that's just fine.
If he says he doesn't want to convert to Islam, that's his will.
Just making sure and for the others
When you notice that time progresses by addition, it is clear that time cannot be infinite. So, there is a beginning of times. From there, it is not a stretch to say that there must be a first cause at the beginning of times, which is the principle of causality to everything else. In that sense, subscribing to a first-cause theorem is a very rational point of view. You will also find this rather abstract first-cause theorem in Aristotle, Physics, book 7 and 8. Hence, first-cause beliefs are absolutely rational. People will naturally come to the concept of a first cause, i.e. a creator of the universe, just by experiencing how the phenomenon of time works.
The problem is not what atheists believe about the abstract first-cause theorem. They obviously believe what they want. The problem is rather a political one. We believe that there cannot be any other legitimate source of freedom restrictions than external ones. No such freedom restrictions can legitimately be man-made. It is forbidden onto humanity to redesign its own blueprint and invent new freedom restrictions to that effect. Humanity did not originally design its own blueprint, and therefore, is not qualified to modify it.
Yes, and they invent new forbidden behaviours. I subscribe to the Islamic view that mankind is not competent to invent its own list of forbidden behaviours. It must always be treated as an external factor. There is something dangerous about players reinventing the rules of the game all the while they are playing.
I personally believe in reducing the power of the State inasmuch as such power exploits newly-invented forbidden behaviours. I don't know how much State should be left after the exercise, but certainly not much. With bitcoin we are proving -- black on white -- that we do not need a State to print our money. We can probably prove that we do not need the State for many other things. I also do not like elections. They just give a veneer of otherwise false legitimacy to increasingly exploitative State power. Since the election system nowadays even has the temerity to claim that it has the authority to overrule Divine Law, it has to go now.
In fact, it does not matter who is the president; and it should not matter. It also does not matter who is sitting in Congress. What matters is that they must not be allowed invent new laws. The system can be corrected in a relatively simple way. It should have a Natural Law Council that verifies if any decision that comes out of the president's office or Congress extends, overrules, modifies or otherwise abrogates Divine Law, and then stop its implementation. At the same time, it should look at the entire body of active laws and on the same grounds throw out everything that is or could be in conflict with Divine Law. The Natural Law Council would not have any other prerogative than stopping, blocking, opposing, and arresting what everybody else is doing. It would not have any other power. From there on, I couldn't give a flying fart who becomes president or who exactly sits in Congress. It would not matter at all.
