This is not fact, yet. Even the Christian Science Monitor says the research that that conclusion is based on is ‘patchy’ and appears to have come from the French security forces (Renseignements Généraux), already criticised by the Monde Diplomatique and the Canard Enchaîné for their exaggerated assessment of French Islamicism, if Wikipedia is to be believed.

I’m not sure where you get your information about women electing left wing governments in Europe, either, and your argument about supporting immigration from Muslim countries and thereby doing harm to European women through rape and harassment from Muslims is fallacious: It is not immigration from Muslim countries specifically that is supported, just freedom to travel from any one country to another and settle (subject to quotas and other provisos). Muslims are no more likely to ‘rape and harass’ Europeans than anyone else is: you are (perhaps deliberately) confusing illegal immigration, with its links to marginalisation and crime, with mandated immigration, which bears no such evidence of anti-social behaviour.

The general tone of your posts is misogynistic and offensive. I suspect you bat for the Eurabian conspiracy theorists, or some other right-wing nut-jobs, yes?

So my questions to the feminists and perhaps your gender in general are; how would a woman explain, that those europeans (~women), who should really fight islam, are those most likely to support islam (women becomming the first victims, should islam take Europe)? Do women secretly like to be subdued by the man, in spite of what most of them say and the history of suffragation? What else could explain these facts, that those europeans, who fight the islamization and hereby the loss of womens rights are, almost without exception, men?

http://jesusandmo.net/2006/01/02/lobe/

Confidence suggests I’m comfortable with my position and can support it as required. Faith simply says I’m going to support a point of view despite my own doubts about its feasibility.

A supernatural explanation for the existence of the world has been a part of almost every society we have records for. It appears to be the default condition for Homo sapiens (communism ignored for brevity). That theism is not logical and ideally should not exist may be so, but ’should not’ isn’t ‘does not’. In practise, atheism does follow from theism and there may never be a day when theism ceases to exist.

I identify as an atheist. It is definitely a loaded word and comes with a lot of baggage. Some would like it to mean devil worshipper or hedonist or sociopath. Others claim that it can only be used by someone who knows no gods can exist, which is not logically possible to conclude. My position is pretty much as Richard Dawkins has put it.

I always have to wonder about non-believers who seek to avoid the atheist label for themselves. The religious have long tried to make it such a hateful term that no-one would want to accept it. Now, agnostic, there’s a word I would argue is redundant and really just a euphemism when analysed.

Finally, it has to be said, “Atheism is a religion in the same way as baldness is a hair colour.”

*runs like hell

I don’t like him.

I think the boys have accused the barmaid of being strident a time or two, haven’t they? Well they would, wouldn’t they.

What I am trying to say is, that if someone asked me “do you believe that such a guy exists, yes or no?”, the best answer I could give was “what?”

No wonder, that religions find their members mainly amongst children and retarded, those who know nothing will be believe in anything.

Who’s in revolt against anything? Not considering the notion of a deity or deities to acceptable, I am atheist, or ‘godless’.
Where’s the revolution in that?

Well, the thing about religion atheism is that they don’t exclude each other. I am neither nor, for if I was an atheist, this would mean that I thus had recognized religion (you have to recognize something before you can revolt against it). I do not recognize religion as a guiding line for human life and behaviour, since there were obviously people on this planet before there were gods, therefore I can not be an atheist.

It seems to me, that atheism isn’t really an opposition to religion, atheism is just another religion. To disagree with someone because you believe they are wrong is still a belief.

Believer: “I believe in god”
Atheist: “I believe that you’re wrong”

To me, to answer a question like “is there a guy with supernatural power that created the universe and all people etc. ” is rubbish, just asking the question. Double rubbish if you answer it, whatever answer you might choose.