Cat Stevens

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:45 am

Holy crap! This guy has a beard and a turban and he changed his name to Islam?!? He must be a terrorist! Get him the [composite word including 'f*ck'] out of the country!!!1one!!1

Post by **snarl** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:16 pm

I was going to post something along the lines of:

Howdy American residents.

In the light of Cat Stevens (a well know and highly successful popular musician) not being allowed to fly on american planes since he is now a Muslim, I put it to you that your government is archaic and racist - as well as incompetant for actually misspelling his name when they placed it on their 'dangerous list', thus allowing him to board the plane in the first place?

Care to discuss?

If you voted for the current administration, is it because you support their [apparent] racist viewpoint?

In light of Cassius Clay's conversion to Islam, would you like to see him banned from flying also?

n.b. If you do, tell your government his new name is spelt:

M - u - h - a - m - m - a - d

A - l - i.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:28 pm

ROFLMAO!!!

Nice one, Snarlos.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:40 pm

What does roflmao mean?

Don't ask me, I think George Bush is a good example of why we should have killed the entire South during the Civil War. The best part is, people love him because he's "got principles" and "is a religious man." His principles are too personal to apply to the world. He doesn't even attend church, which Bill Clinton did. He's a religious demagogue as far as I'm concerned.

Problem is, Kerry hasn't said much to convince me that he's a good choice, other than the fact that he isn't Bush.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm

sprunkner wrote:
Problem is, Kerry hasn't said much to convince me that he's a good choice, other than the fact that he isn't Bush.

Yes, that IS a problem. Still voting Kerry though, simply because he isn't Bush.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:04 pm

sprunkner wrote:What does roflmao mean?

It means that the internet destroys the minds of otherwise literate people.

Alternatively "rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off."

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:33 pm

snarl wrote:I was going to post something along the lines of:

Howdy American residents.

In the light of Cat Stevens (a well know and highly successful popular musician) not being allowed to fly on american planes since he is now a Muslim, I put it to you that your government is archaic and racist - as well as incompetant for actually misspelling his name when they placed it on their 'dangerous list', thus allowing him to board the plane in the first place?

Care to discuss?

If you voted for the current administration, is it because you support their [apparent] racist viewpoint?

In light of Cassius Clay's conversion to Islam, would you like to see him banned from flying also?

n.b. If you do, tell your government his new name is spelt:

M - u - h - a - m - m - a - d

A - l - i.

Tell it how it is, Snarley! Best post in a long time.

As a citizen of the US, I have to ask myself, what the bloody hell is going on?????

Post by **snarl** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:33 pm

The thing is... I cannot fathom why anybody would vote for Bush. Afaict (another for ya sprunksy!) he's a feckless moron who is dragging your country backwards at a rate of knotts.

What has he done that is good?

Can anybody tell me?

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:34 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
sprunkner wrote:
Problem is, Kerry hasn't said much to convince me that he's a good choice, other than the fact that he isn't Bush.
Yes, that IS a problem. Still voting Kerry though, simply because he isn't Bush.

Ditto. ANYBODY but Bush.

Post by **snarl** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:38 pm

Maybe he should run his whole campaign on the fact that he isn't Bush?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:50 pm

"Vote for none of the above!" [/Monty Brewster]

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:59 pm

snarl wrote:What has he done that is good?

Can anybody tell me?

Apparently he "shows great leadership". Oh, and he believes in God and hates queers, and would rather women didn't have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:04 pm

sprunkner wrote:What does roflmao mean?

Don't ask me, I think George Bush is a good example of why we should have killed the entire South during the Civil War.

Um.. what?

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:16 pm

snarl wrote:What has he done that is good?

He's made it cheap for me to import goods by turning the domestic US economy to sh*t.

Oh, you meant for Americans?

By the way, which do you think I should go with as an election sig?

or

(I'll be shrinking down whichever later. Images by Flem Comics.)

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:22 pm

Personally I could do without the abortion issue. It always makes me upset. I support human rights but what does that mean? I support the mothers right for a decision. I also support the babies right to live.

I think we should stick to the following labels now:

Pro Death
and
No Choice

now NOONE wants to be on either side.Its easier to pick a side when you make it sound positive, but when you point out what youre REALLY going for, its not so sunny anymore.

Post by **Computron** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:33 pm

*Yellow Alert*

Abortion discussion inbound. Brace for impact and behave yourselves.

Anyways, I'll close with the following...

Now that I've lost everything to you,
you say you want to start something new,
and it's breaking my heart you're leaving,
baby I'm grieving.

But if you wanna leave take good care,
hope you have a lot of nice things to wear,
but then a lot of nice things turn bad out there.

Oh baby baby it's a wild world,
it's hard to get by just upon a smile.
Oh baby baby it's a wild world.

I'll always remember you like a child, girl.
You know I've seen a lot of what the world can do,
and it's breaking my heart in two,
cause I never want to see you sad girl,
don't be a bad girl,
but if you want to leave take good care,
hope you make a lot of nice friends out there,
but just remember there's a lot of bad and beware,
beware,

Oh baby baby it's a wild world,
it's hard to get by just upon a smile
Oh baby baby it's a wild world,
and I'll always remember you like a child, girl.

Baby I love you, but if you wanna leave take good care,
hope you make a lot of nice friends out there,
but just remember there's a lot of bad,
and beware, beware,

oh baby baby it's a wild world,
it's hard to get by just upon a smile.
Oh baby baby it's a wild world,
and I'll always remember you like a child, girl.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:38 pm

Yusuf Islam, just another person to fall victim to the delusion of religion, IMO. The onus is on religious people to prove the existance of their 'God(s)' rather than for "hellbound, unbelieving, infidel" agnostic/atheistic people to disprove said 'omnipotent invisible friend(s)'.

I particularly despise the very numerous calls for Salman Rushdie to be killed 'for his apostatic crime against Islam'. Don't forget. It's only a decade or so ago, and the calls for Salman's head still continue. So, in conclusion

, I'm very much not a fan of Cat Stevens and his ilk (or indeed his music), but I'm also sure he's not a terrorist.

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:46 pm

snarl wrote:Maybe he should run his whole campaign on the fact that he isn't Bush?

Stop it!! You're killing me!

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:24 pm

Dead Head wrote: The onus is on religious people to prove the existence of their 'God(s)' rather than for "hellbound, unbelieving, infidel" agnostic/atheistic people to disprove said 'omnipotent invisible friend(s)'.

Hardly.

Atheist and agnostics, like believers in God, are responsible for their own decisions and beliefs. Why the hell should believers like me prove to you whether God exist? Its your world, bub, live it the way you like.

You can chalk me up as another "victim" as you call it, as a believer in a supreme Creator myself.

Do you believe in radio waves? Why, you don't see them and neither do I? Therefore, they do not exist, according to your logic.

Science is one of the greatest arguments for the existence of a God. Have you studied embryology? Anatomy and physiology? As a physician myself, and therefore one who lives his life according to principles of logic and has studied the sciences, there can be no other conclusion except that "God" exists. Even the greatest of scientists, Albert Einstein, was convinced of His existence, yet so many deny it by the argument that the existence of God defies logic and reason. And yet, so structured is the universe that, if you have studied physics, you will come to find that the order in the universe is such that it can be written down in the form of numerous mathematical equations. And I'm supposed to believe that such order simply just happened?

I believe in God not to have an imaginary friend. Whether He is a friend to me or not does not change the reality that a supreme being exists, IMO.

There is no onus whatsoever on believers in a supreme being to prove to those who don't that He exists. Why should it be? In this world, its every man for himself. So if Yusuf Islam, a man who sings of peace, wants to believe in God, and has not forced his religious belief on anyone else, then let him to continue to do so, I say.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:01 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote: Why the hell should believers like me prove to you whether God exist?

Because God/religion is used to justify people's actions, circumstances, irrationally elevated 'chosen' status, and other's worthiness (or lack thereof). If I claim that three-headed 10-foot tall purple aliens from Mars have control over our appetites, then the overwhelming burden of proof lies with me to concretely prove the claim, not for others to disprove it.

Commander Shockwav wrote: Do you believe in radio waves? Why, you don't see them and neither do I? Therefore, they do not exist, according to your logic.

No, that's a knackered argument. The phenomenon of "radio waves" are widespread and observable (oscilloscope) like in my radio alarm clock and the microwave I use to cook my dinner with. Don't tell me you've already invented the godoscope, have you?

Commander Shockwav wrote: Science is one of the greatest arguments for the existence of a God. Have you studied embryology? Anatomy and physiology? As a physician myself, and therefore one who lives his life according to principles of logic and has studied the sciences, there can be no other conclusion except that "God" exists.

An argument yes, but a useless 'argument' that still does not have a shred of fact to show Mister God over there really exists. There can be no other conclusion, eh? How's about this: We live, we die, no more.

Commander Shockwav wrote: Even the greatest of scientists, Albert Einstein, was convinced of his existence, yet so many deny it by the argument that the existence of God defies logic and reason. And yet, so structured is the universe that, if you have studied physics, you will come to find that the order in the universe is such that it can be written down in the form of numerous mathematical equations. And I'm supposed to believe that such order simply just happened?

Strawmanesque 'argument' again. Just because good ole Einstein (with that lovely scientific brain of his, hence his opinion on religion must be equally exalted. not.) had a similar feeling in his bones that God existed, that still doesn't even scrawl one score on the fact scoreboard over there.

Commander Shockwav wrote: I believe in God not to have an imaginary friend. Whether He is a friend to me or not does not change the reality that a supreme being exists, IMO.

Reality? Delusion. And as long as this delusion of religion afflicts humanity's minds, we'll continue to have extra big reasons to tear proverbial chunks out of each other in the name of doing "God's will".

Commander Shockwav wrote: There is no onus whatsoever on believers in a supreme being to prove to those who don't that He exists. Why should it be? In this world, its every man for himself.

You know when you go to the store to buy something and end up forgetting the one thing you meant to buy? That's the mischief of those darn pesky three-headed 10-foot tall purple aliens from Mars again. It's not crazy talk. It's not your God you should believe in - believe in those pesky purple aliens instead. They exist and they work in mysterious ways. Honest.

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:28 pm

Dead Head wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote: Why the hell should believers like me prove to you whether God exist?
Because God/religion is used to justify people's actions, circumstances, irrationally elevated 'chosen' status, and other's worthiness (or lack thereof).

I see. And politics, money, lineage, and the such are never used to further ones ends? Give me a break. If its the use of religion that you have a problem with, congratulations, you're not alone. To blame religion in and of itself as a propagator of all that is wrong with the world is not only shortsighted, its ridiculous. I guess everyone needs a scapegoat. Yours must be religion.

Commander Shockwav wrote: Do you believe in radio waves? Why, you don't see them and neither do I? Therefore, they do not exist, according to your logic.
No, that's a knackered argument. The phenomenon of "radio waves" are widespread and observable (oscilloscope) like in my radio alarm clock and the microwave I use to cook my dinner with. Don't tell me you've already invented the godoscope, have you?

There are things you have never seen in your life of which would stake your mothers life on that they exist. Your heart. Your brain. Air. Yet you accept their existence. Why? And yet, the creation of the world and the universe and the order to which it is subservient cannot suffice as evidence for you as a possibility? The fact that your alarm clocks goes off in the morning and the fact that you can tune into your favorite rock station are proof enough to you that radiowaves exist because some scientists got into a lab with some physicists and proved it. You take their word for it. In other words, you put your trust in human achievement, in human explanation. Tell me then. Is it human achievement that your heart has been beating for years on end without you ever thinking about it, without a single concious thought? No, its not. The achievement of what then? Science, I guess you would say. Science is nothing but a means to an end. It is the process by which all things happen. Yet, with any process in life, a catalyst is necessary. What is the catalyst in your theory?

Commander Shockwav wrote: Science is one of the greatest arguments for the existence of a God. Have you studied embryology? Anatomy and physiology? As a physician myself, and therefore one who lives his life according to principles of logic and has studied the sciences, there can be no other conclusion except that "God" exists.
An argument yes, but a useless 'argument' that still does not have a shred of fact to show Mister God over there really exists. There can be no other conclusion, eh? How's about this: We live, we die, no more.

Too simplistic. If you are uninformed, let me be the first to tell you that life is not simplistic by any means. And no matter how much we know, there will always be a megafold more we don't Once again, you are willing to so easily accept to words of others. You believe all the laws of physics because someone taught you of them. Why not get into a lab yourself and prove it? Because you can't. You are limited in your knowledge of those things, and so you defer to other, more knowledgeable persons. But even the most wise of men once upon a time thought the world flat. Had you lived then, you would have believed the same, not based on reason or logic or science. No, you would have believed it because you were told that was the case. Your atheistic belief is as poorly founded by your own way of looking at things as mine would be.
Commander Shockwav wrote: Even the greatest of scientists, Albert Einstein, was convinced of his existence, yet so many deny it by the argument that the existence of God defies logic and reason. And yet, so structured is the universe that, if you have studied physics, you will come to find that the order in the universe is such that it can be written down in the form of numerous mathematical equations. And I'm supposed to believe that such order simply just happened?
Strawmanesque 'argument' again. Just because good ole Einstein (with that lovely scientific brain of his, hence his opinion on religion must be equally exalted. not.) had a similar feeling in his bones that God existed, that still doesn't even scrawl one score on the fact scoreboard over there.

Commander Shockwav wrote: I believe in God not to have an imaginary friend. Whether He is a friend to me or not does not change the reality that a supreme being exists, IMO.
Reality? Delusion.

Yeah, thats what everyone said when Copernicus was hung for saying the sun was the center of the galaxy and not this world, that was delusion too. Mankind was of a different opinion, so they killed the man, thinking him delusional.
Someday, as Copernicus was proven correct, so shall those who do in fact believe in God. It is just a matter of time.
Commander Shockwav wrote: There is no onus whatsoever on believers in a supreme being to prove to those who don't that He exists. Why should it be? In this world, its every man for himself.
You know when you go to the store to buy something and end up forgetting the one thing you meant to buy? That's the mischief of those darn pesky three-headed 10-foot tall purple aliens from Mars again. It's not crazy talk. It's not your God you should believe in - believe in those pesky purple aliens instead. They exist and they work in mysterious ways. Honest.

Guess what? It is entirely possible that pesky three-headed 10-foot tall purple aliens from Mars do in fact exist. Just because none of seen it does not disprove it. Thats my point entirely.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:25 am

Dead Head wrote:Yusuf Islam, just another person to fall victim to the delusion of religion, IMO. The onus is on religious people to prove the existance of their 'God(s)' rather than for "hellbound, unbelieving, infidel" agnostic/atheistic people to disprove said 'omnipotent invisible friend(s)'.

Straight up. But Yusuf Islam has as much right to be in the US as George "pray then bomb the [composite word including 'f*ck'] out of another country" Bush. Or anywhere else for that matter.

....But let's not have another religious debate on Transfans, it's soooooo 2003. Some of us are atheists and believe in nothing, and some of us believe in deities who watch over us. If everyone was the same it'd get boring round here. Besides, picking holes in Commander Shockwav's arguments would be like shooting fish in a ******* barrel.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:49 am

Optimus Prime Rib wrote:Pro Death
and
No Choice

now NOONE wants to be on either side.Its easier to pick a side when you make it sound positive, but when you point out what youre REALLY going for, its not so sunny anymore.

No, I'm "pro-death" and cheerful about that position. I'm pro- allowing people to kill things which aren't people, but which do happen to be parasitising their uteruses.

Let the sun shine. Over people rather than romanticised foetal tissue.

Commander Shockwav wrote:Why the hell should believers like me prove to you whether God exist?

Refrain from making laws based on personal psychoses and I'll have no cause to care what you believe.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:26 am

Denyer wrote:
Optimus Prime Rib wrote:Pro Death
and
No Choice

now NOONE wants to be on either side.Its easier to pick a side when you make it sound positive, but when you point out what youre REALLY going for, its not so sunny anymore.
No, I'm "pro-death" and cheerful about that position. I'm pro- allowing people to kill things which aren't people, but which do happen to be parasitising their uteruses.

Let the sun shine. Over people rather than romanticised foetal tissue.

I remember when I thought that way. Now I have kids and my whole world has changed. I used to refer to kids as an "STD". Now I cant imagine my life without em.

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:18 am

Denyer wrote:
Refrain from making laws based on personal psychoses and I'll have no cause to care what you believe.

Making laws? You give me too much credit, me thinks. Its my belief, and I didn't see myself as shoving it down your throat.

Personal psychoses? Call it what you like. Nothing of the above can be proven one way or the other.

The figments of one's imagination are the reality of others.

And this is the last I will say of this. What is it, I often wonder, that stirs up such dislike and anger in others, when someone claims belief in a supreme being, so much so that they would insult them by labeling them as delusional psychotics? And yet, make a derogatory statement about how a man's penis cleverly slinks its way ever so stealthfully into anothers man's defecation unit and that will get you not only a slap on the wrist, but a threat of message board disqualification?

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:19 am

@ Optimus Prime Rib:

Nah, kids can be great. However, as far as their development goes, they don't gain awareness of themselves as individuals (one of the conditionals of personality) until a fair old time after birth.

I place people who exist now far ahead of potential for people to exist in the future. And I believe the choice is for each woman to make as an individual, whether I agree or disagree with each specific instance.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:34 am

Commander Shockwav wrote:Making laws? You give me too much credit, me thinks. Its my belief, and I didn't see myself as shoving it down your throat.

You are if you vote for a candidate who sponsors and supports that legislation at a federal level. If you aren't, we have no quarrel.

Commander Shockwav wrote:Personal psychoses? Call it what you like. Nothing of the above can be proven one way or the other.

"Any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted."

Faith is antithetical to empiricism. I have my share of personal psychoses also; you seem to interpret this as a derogation. Mine run along the lines of: any supreme being which may have created us understands its creations implicitly, and what we cannot forgive in our limited earthbound framing it both can and will. I didn't take much away from Christianity asides from the concept that God is love. In short form: I don't credit the idea that a supreme being is as vengeful and petty as us.

Commander Shockwav wrote:What is it, I often wonder, that stirs up such dislike and anger in others, when someone claims belief in a supreme being, so much so that they would insult them by labeling them as delusional psychotics?

Wars, lynchings, ostracism, intimidation, threats, abuse, justification of bigotry, self-lauding, appeal to normalised/historicised/eternalised principle, division, judgement rendered, definition by dualistic antagonism...

Commander Shockwav wrote:And yet, make a derogatory statement about how a man's penis cleverly slinks its way ever so stealthfully into anothers man's defecation unit and that will get you not only a slap on the wrist, but a threat of message board disqualification?

Hmm? We can have a conversation about anal sex if you wish. I'd suggest referring to this board's archives, but they're long gone. There's a similarly long and in-depth discussion still extant at the Archive though, I seem to recall.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:51 am

Commander Shockwav wrote: And this is the last I will say of this. What is it, I often wonder, that stirs up such dislike and anger in others, when someone claims belief in a supreme being, so much so that they would insult them by labeling them as delusional psychotics? And yet, make a derogatory statement about how a man's penis cleverly slinks its way ever so stealthfully into anothers man's defecation unit and that will get you not only a slap on the wrist, but a threat of message board disqualification?

religion is at the end of the day an adopted philisophy - ideas that are open to discussion and criticism. You choose your faith, therefore your choice is open to discussion. It is not a criticism of what you are, but of what you think. Whilst people might like to delude themselves that the fact their philosophy includes an aspect of faith makes it 'special' from a rational perspective stating that you are a christian is the same as saying you are republican, a utilitarianist or a nazi - it links you to a set of ideas that are there to be challenged.

pejerotive comments about peoples sexuality on the other hand are a critcism (and an unwarrented one to anyone with half an ounce of decency) of something that is a fundamental aspect of someone. You are not saying their ideas are wrong you are saying they are wrong.

Personally i would have thought that this distinction was mind numbingly obvious.

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:11 pm

Best First wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote:pejerotive comments about peoples sexuality on the other hand are a critcism (and an unwarrented one to anyone with half an ounce of decency) of something that is a fundamental aspect of someone. You are not saying their ideas are wrong you are saying they are wrong.

Personally i would have thought that this distinction was mind numbingly obvious.

That depends how you look at it.

I personally feel that homosexuality is a behavior, not something innately inherent in a person. Its considered the "in" thing now to adopt the belief that homosexuals are akin to a race of people. They are made that way, and as such, they are due the same consideration as, say, the African American race. I feel it is a choice, like abortion, a behavior that is adopted, not predetermined. And therefore, like any subjective belief or behavior, open to criticism and personal opinion. If one subscribes to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, then the trait of homosexuality would have long ago been weeded out of the gene pool because it is a threat to the existence of human kind, meaning, if all people were gay, then the human race would cease to exist. Of course, Darwin could be wrong, but he makes sense.

Social pressures and tendencies spawn many different kinds of behaviors. I know a guy who wanted to hug his guy friend, and was concerned that he might be gay because of this. The problem is that affection from the male sex upon another male is looked upon as a weakness. It creates self doubt in the person. Its the restriction on a male showing another male affection that is the problem. In many different societies around the world, men hold hands or kiss, despite being heterosexual. This particular person, despite his love of women, because he wanted to hug another guy, began to call himself bisexual.

Homosexuality is not a straightforward issue. I believe it is a result of certain types of social tendencies that arise in society, the result of one's experiences with the opposite sex as they grow as a person that shapes what they become.

I need hard evidence that it is something more than a behavior, that the individual is bound to it because he or she has no choice, to make me think otherwise. Research is ongoing, with little in the way of proof to aspouse the current mainstream belief. Sure, there are little tidbits of information gleaned from research around the world, but no hard genetic or physiologic data to support the belief.

Commander Shockwav · Post by **Commander Shockwav** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 2:25 pm

Denyer wrote: Mine run along the lines of: any supreme being which may have created us understands its creations implicitly, and what we cannot forgive in our limited earthbound framing it both can and will. I didn't take much away from Christianity asides from the concept that God is love. In short form: I don't credit the idea that a supreme being is as vengeful and petty as us.

And mine does not run very different from yours. The attributes of the "creator" cannot be fathomed by us. In other words, we cannot even begin to understand the true nature of such a power. Time itself is His creation, yet can we think of existing without time? I can't. I don't believe that "God" is a being like anything we have witnessed, not a man, not an elephant, etc. He is unlike anything else. I say "He" not to ascribe gender to Him, but simply because I don't know any other way to address Him. As you do, I do believe that this supreme being is loving, but more importantly, I believe that He is just. As such, I am a proponent of the belief that "what comes around goes around" and that everyone will receive exactly what they have earned.

It is a fact that the dark arts exist. Witchcraft, sorcery, etc. exists even today. Even those who have participated in Ouiji boards sessions by themselves will eventually come to understand that, whether you aspouse to believe in a God or not, there is something "Unseen" that exists, whether it be ghosts or souls or spirits or whatever you want to call. If it is possible that they exist, then the possibility of "God's" existence become more likely and easier to swallow.

TransFans.co.uk

Cat Stevens

Is Cat Stevens a terrorist?