Things changing in London, and the world

[Nikolas]

Ok.
We had 9/11, and afterwards Spain and now London.

Where are we now?

I heard lots of different things that give me the creeps:

1. They're taking off every waste basket from the tube, so that there is no danger coming from there.
2. They plan to make transparent bags, so everybody will be able to see what we're carying.
3. The plan to introduce electronic car tags, meaning that everybody will know where we are while driving (with the excuse that they do it to cut down crime).
4. They're planing to introduce a new law, which allows them to see any txt msg, e-mail or even track down where you actually are by using your mobile phone.
5. They're planing to put identity cards, with electronic tags, again...
6. There is a sign in every tube train saying: "For your added security video cameras are being introduced in London Underground system.", fine up to here, but goes on: "Anyone caught vandalizing or threatening our staff will be prosecuted.". I don't feel really reasured with this sign. I know that they will go after anyone who bothers the trains or the staff, but what about me? I actually feel quite threatened by this. The cameras are not there for our added security, but for guarding us against them.

What can I do about it? Nothing, I guess, unless I'm ready to give up my mobile phone, my bank acount, my internet broadband connection, be illegal without a car licence, don't use the tube and actually hide my face, because there are cameras everywhere.
Am I going to do it? No, hell no! But at least I have the right to feel weird about it.
Do I feel safe? No, hell no, again! I feel threatened more by the goverment (and acutally every goverment, not only the Brittish, but Greek also, or American), than by the terrorists. Generally Arabs (if we can assume that it's they who do this terrorists actions) like the Unan (Meaning Greeks in Arab). And actually Greeks, like Arabs... (I think)
Is there something wrong with what they're doing. YES! It's wrong to kill people to pass your point. It's wrong to make war against terrorism generally. Violence brings violence. It's wrong to fight back by killing inocent people.

Sometimes it feels that there is nothing right in this world.

Then I see my son (sorry, but I'm obsessed with him) and think that everything is worth it as long as he's fine...

Just had to take it out. Sorry for the long post...

[BOYD1981]

that is so stupid, transparents bags and lack of bins won't stop suicide bombers from strapping bombs around their bodies.
the reason behind the attacks was religious hatred not the fact that it's easy to do, the only solution to stop the attacks is an outright worldwide ban of religion but that's not going to happen so i guess people are going to continue to kill eachother and generally be stupid.
as an atheist i think it's great that religious people want to kill eachother, proves what loving peaceful people they are...
and i know that will probably piss off some of you "religious" people out there but you're all hypocrits anyway, treating your religion like a pick 'n' mix counter sticking the sweets that you like the taste of in your silly bags and just ignoring the others that are much a part of the selection as the others.

[Paper Carnival]

Don't tell me you didn't see it coming

And BOYD: I won't bother arguing with you

[BOYD1981]

what is there to argue? i'm right

[Vel]

It's all a scenario.

The reason is not religion itself, but rather 'heresy' messing with islamic countries' politics. And nikolasideris, if any of these do happen, that'd be a violation to human rights, and if any of these happened in my country, I would protest against it.

[BOYD1981]

i doubt most of it will actually ever happen, but the cameras should be there anyway because there's been loads of crime happening on the underground for years, but they'll probably just end up getting vandalised anyway.

[Paper Carnival]

what is there to argue? i'm right

You put all religious people in one box leaving no exceptions, that's just as bad as saying "all atheists are without morals". You put the intolerance label on religious people when your attitude shows intolerance against them.

[SSH]

the only solution to stop the attacks is an outright worldwide ban of religion

Yeah, banning guns has stopped gun crime in the UK. Banning nuclear weapon proliferation has stopped India and Pakistan getting them. Banning drugs has stopped drug problems. Banning alchohol really helped things in the 20s in America.

Only the stupid believe that banning things stop them happening.

as an atheist i think it's great that religious people want to kill each other, proves what loving peaceful people they are...

Well, I don't think that Islam makes any claim that Allah is a loving God, anyway. And also tarring all "reilgous" people with the same brush is the same thinking that bunches all people with a particular colour of skin together and demonstrates a particular lack of intelligence.

[BOYD1981]

and believing there's a big invisible man that lives in the sky that controls everything and wants you to go to a certain building on sunday and sing songs and talk to him en masse does show intelligence does it?
the fact of the matter is religion is to blame for the majority of all hatred, killing and war of the last 2005 years.
also there was never much gun crime in the uk before the ban, and the ban only came after a bunch of kids were killed which is another perfect example of the government's "too little too late" mentality.
and drugs aren't banned, they're illegal to make, sell and posess them, it's not illegal to use them, and if they were legal there wouldn't be more of a drugs problem than there already is.
and who the hell gives a shit about 20s america? it happened 85 years ago and alcohol is the least of america's problems.
also, i don't tar all religious (not reilgous) with the same brush, only the pick and mixers that choose to ignore parts of their particular rule book, if every religious person actually followed their faith to the letter and other people realised that the majority of all religions are born from the same story there would be less religious hatred.
and just so you know mr peepwood, all atheists have different ideas, the only thing we have in common is we don't feel the need to believe in any supreme beings to try justify our existence and all the stuff that happens in the world.
but at the end of the day you're going to believe what you want to believe and so am i, and when we die we'll find out who was right or wrong.

[Phemar]

Boyd, sometimes you're really funny -- but other times you can be a complete asshole. I know you're probably feeding like a troll off our angry responses, but fuck you.

Back on topic -- I don't think the tracking stuff and viewing of SMSs is allowed though, it's a violation of rights and invasion of privacy. I seriously doubt it will happen. Maybe the cameras in subways -- but is that really such a big deal? There's cameras in shops all the time, no-one complains about that. Cameras aren't that big a deal, if anything they should have been there from the beginning.

[SSH]

and believing there's a big invisible man that lives in the sky that controls everything and wants you to go to a certain building on sunday and sing songs and talk to him en masse does show intelligence does it?

No, but you'd probably find it hard to find anyone who actually believes that description you just used, anyway. You're setting up a strawman to knock down.

the fact of the matter is religion is to blame for the majority of all hatred, killing and war of the last 2005 years.

The fact of the matter is that religion is used as a tool and excuse by those who want to cause trouble.

also there was never much gun crime in the uk before the ban, and the ban only came after a bunch of kids were killed which is another perfect example of the government's "too little too late" mentality.

the point was that banning guns doesn't stop criminals getting guns

and drugs aren't banned, they're illegal to make, sell and posess them, it's not illegal to use them,

How do you use them without possessing them, exactly?

and if they were legal there wouldn't be more of a drugs problem than there already is.

Well,exactly, that was my point

also, i don't tar all religious (not reilgous) with the same brush, only the pick and mixers that choose to ignore parts of their particular rule book, if every religious person actually followed their faith to the letter and other people realised that the majority of all religions are born from the same story there would be less religious hatred.

So you've chosen to ignore "the letter" where Jesus said "No one can come to the father except by me"? Talk about pick and mix, hypocrite.

and just so you know mr peepwood, all atheists have different ideas, the only thing we have in common is we don't feel the need to believe in any supreme beings to try justify our existence and all the stuff that happens in the world.

I don't have a relationship with my wife in order to "justify my existence". Simililarly, I don't have a relationship with God in order to justify my existence. You really fail to understand what its all about and subsequently get all het up and make a fool of yourself with ill-thought-out rants.

but at the end of the day you're going to believe what you want to believe and so am i, and when we die we'll find out who was right or wrong.

Well, no, if you're right then we wont find out anything at all,as we'll have ceased to exist....

[BOYD1981]

How do you use them without possessing them, exactly?

merely pointing out the use of drugs isn't banned or illegal to illustrate the pointlessnes of laws concerning drugs to back up my earlier comment on outright bans

So you've chosen to ignore "the letter" where Jesus said "No one can come to the father except by me"? Talk about pick and mix, hypocrite.

and santa chose to ignore my letter in 1987 when i asked him for that scalectrix

I don't have a relationship with my wife in order to "justify my existence". Simililarly, I don't have a relationship with God in order to justify my existence. You really fail to understand what its all about and subsequently get all het up and make a fool of yourself with ill-thought-out rants.

i'm not at all het up, i take my atheism as seriously as religious people take their beliefs, therefore i am able to have a religious conversation without getting angry at people that don't share my beliefs.

Boyd, sometimes you're really funny -- but other times you can be a complete asshole. I know you're probably feeding like a troll off our angry responses, but fuck you.

as far as i can tell this is the only angry response so far, why would anyone adult enough to have this kind of conversation get angry?
stick to watching cartoons and wash your mouth out with soap.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

So you've chosen to ignore "the letter" where Jesus said "No one can come to the father except by me"? Talk about pick and mix, hypocrite.


and santa chose to ignore my letter in 1987 when i asked him for that scalectrix

*coughcough* Jesus has existed. The person, Jesus Christ, did exist.

[Bernie]

the reason behind the attacks was religious hatred not the fact that it's easy to do, the only solution to stop the attacks is an outright worldwide ban of religion but that's not going to happen so i guess people are going to continue to kill eachother and generally be stupid.

Even if we could make all religions disappear in a big bang, the crazy maniac fanatics (aka terrorists) would still remain. They'd find another way to fuel their agendas and hatred; politics, for example. If they can be so obsessive with their religion, why not with something else, too?

I'm not sure if there is a solution to this problem at all. Maybe it would help if we could change the way humans tick, but that sounds sort of hard to do. Humans tend to change rather slowly, if at all.

Where are we now? I heard lots of different things that give me the creeps:
1. They're taking off every waste basket from the tube, so that there is no danger coming from there.
2. They plan to make transparent bags, so everybody will be able to see what we're carying.
3. The plan to introduce electronic car tags, meaning that everybody will know where we are while driving (with the excuse that they do it to cut down crime).
4. They're planing to introduce a new law, which allows them to see any txt msg, e-mail or even track down where you actually are by using your mobile phone.
5. They're planing to put identity cards, with electronic tags, again...
6. There is a sign in every tube train saying: "For your added security video cameras are being introduced in London Underground system.", fine up to here, but goes on: "Anyone caught vandalizing or threatening our staff will be prosecuted.". I don't feel really reasured with this sign. I know that they will go after anyone who bothers the trains or the staff, but what about me? I actually feel quite threatened by this. The cameras are not there for our added security, but for guarding us against them.

Now, it would be a shame if our world turned into something like Orwell's 1984 because of terrorists. If some of these things (especially those electronic tags for tracking people's position) would actually become reality, it wouldn't be a nice world to live in. The growth of tolerance pales in comparision to the growth of science.

[TheYak]

The items mentioned that 'give me the creeps' aren't all downsides.  There might actually be some reduction in crime or potential for terrorism.  I certainly wouldn't opt for giving up freedoms in order to dissuade terrorists from using the same methods twice, but at least the governments would be doing it out in the open versus the asinine methods they're using currently (Terrorism alert level is high today kids, remember to apply plenty of sunblock!), including manipulations and outright denial (I compromised a secret (ex-secret) agent out of nothing more than stupidity, but get no punishment because I'm fighting the good fight). 

How, why, and WTF?  Religion? I thought we'd gone over this one enough times.  An atheist will never convert a religious person unless they were already losing their faith.  I have to wonder why you'd want to.  You'd have an easier time getting rid of terrorists that use religion as a mask than you would getting rid of religious people altogether (violent or otherwise).   

I think BOYD's a little quick to jump to the offensive, and I don't agree with all of his points.  However, there are a number of items and analogies addressed by people of the religious persuasion that are *cough* Horseshit Logic (TM).  If you're going to refute an attempt at a logical argument, don't muck it all up with faith-based ideals.  Or at least choose the standard faith argument and say, "I believe and it works for me.  I have faith that I've chosen the right path, and have no current plans to blow myself up in the presence of others."   For all the "Religious intolerance" people have to put up with, those who aren't religious get it in kind.  We can't even claim a lack of faith without using terminology that automatically says we're against god, religious people and religion in general. 

I'm a Fundamentalist of the Church of Apathy.  I don't really feel the need to claim the existence of a god, or the lack of one.  It's really not an issue that's bugged me enough.  Maybe that's why I can debate the topic with friends over beer without any of us getting butt-hurt.  Theological (or atheological) arguments are fine but not if all sides can't avoid becoming bitter or overly defensive because of something written on El InterWeb.

[Nikolas]

Ok. I'm offline for like 7 hours and look at this!

BOYD: I would really like to call you all sort of names but I won't bother. I'm actually a non religious man. I don't believe in any religion, but I do believe that something exists, that we cannot explain. It is my way of keeping myself sane somtimes. You know, I don't believe I'm so big, great, or superman (By Niche), or Conan or anything to think I can do all this on my own. I have a need for something bigger. Maybe if I grow older I will start believing that I'm the master of the world, maybe not.
But as you can see I'm still thinking about it, not calling names to anybody and I don't hate anybody who believes in something. Stop being so absolute (and so naive).

Rui: Jesus, historicaly existed, that's for sure. We don't really know what he did, or if he had "powers" (sorry for that) but one major problem is that for a Messiah he left no writtings whatsoever. The writtings come from people who wrote them 30 years later...

Bernie: I think that this is already happening. The goverment is trying to pass the law about the identity cards and put it in national effect by 2008. And the cameras in the tube station and everywhere else are already there. Everywhere you turn your head there is a sign saying :" Smile you're on CCTV (Closed Curcuit Television)" My problem with the cameras is that, I've never given permission to anyone to take my whole life into a video and second point is that I've never seen a camera helping or saving anybody. Cameras are there just to warn and bring fear not to help really.
Now after the terrorists attack I see lots of cups running around here and there, which means that they know that the cameras won't stop anybody, trying to do harm, and it is a bad time to be a cup.

Epsecially after killing an innocent man from Brazil, just because we has feeling cold, so he had a lot of clothes on (?) This seems a lot like 1984...

as an atheist i think it's great that religious people want to kill eachother, proves what loving peaceful people they are...

Believing that anybody wanting to kill somebody else is great, IS STUPID and shows a lot of HATRED

[Vel]

Both Mohammed and Jesus existed, but

Could Mohammmed move a mountain
Or was that just PR?

Religion is, and has always been a way to manipulate the folk. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for selfish deeds.

[EldKatt]

Experience has taught me that discussing religion on the Internet is pointless and doomed to fail miserably, so I won't take sides with anyone on that subject. If anything, I should take sides against you all for even trying.

One thing I can afford to say, though: saying that religion per se is responsible for terrorism is like saying a house is responsible for what the people who live in it might do. The problems lie elsewhere.

[SSH]

Boyd is a skillful exponent of careful editing to avoid answering the poits he cant find an answer to and to make it look like he's got an answer when he hasn't. e.g.

So you've chosen to ignore "the letter" where Jesus said "No one can come to the father except by me"? Talk about pick and mix, hypocrite.

and santa chose to ignore my letter in 1987 when i asked him for that scalectrix

But actually, your example is the wrong way around. Are you trying to say that YOU are fictional, Boyd? And its a red herring anyway. I was pointing out that you had pick-and-mixed by saying that people who believe in Jesus should not beleive that he was the only way to god, ignoring that an essential part of Christian teaching is that he said the opposite himself.

It's like your argument on drugs laws being pointless. I had made the same point myself first to point out the fallaciousness of your idea that all religions should be banned. Banning drugs doesn't work, so why should banning religion?

Basically, you are het up about religion and want to blame it for all the problems of the world, so you rant on about it without being self-consistent, factual or convincing.

I'm not trying to argue that Christianity is true right now. I'm just pointing out that your arguments against it are a load of hogwash.

[BOYD1981]

the point i'm trying to make with the santa claus letter reference is that just because a letter is supposedly written by or to somebody doesn't mean that person exists or that the events took place, i could write a series of fictional letters right now and bury them somewhere and in 1000 years time somebody could discover them and jump to the conclusion that because they're dated back 1000 years that they must be real and the events actually happened because they're ignorant as to what actually did happen.

and do you still really not understand the point i'm trying to make about why drugs laws don't work?
they don't work because the use of drugs carries no consequences other than the associated good feelings and eventual addiction.

i suggest you do some research on the origins of religion and stop accusing me of being het up about religion when it's obvious that what i'm saying is pissing you off more than what you're saying is pissing me off.

also i am not pick and mixing anything and didn't even say anything about jesus, and i'm not blaming religion for all the problems in the world, i'm just blaming it for a majority of all terrorism, fighting and warfare that has taken place in the last two millenia, most of which can be proved just by picking up a history book.