User:Sam Spade/Talk:Theoretical Biases/Atheism thread and Talk:Syria: Difference between pages

Revision as of 03:29, 6 July 2005

Revision as of 03:12, 16 November 2005

Line 1:

==Deletion==

You may also be interested in [[Robert Tilton]], a particularly wicked, yet absurdly funny evangelist. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 18:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''213.42.1.165 deleted the following text from the article, without giving a reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)''

Since 1994,

Oh, and [[orgone]] and esp. [http://www.orgoneblasters.com/ orgoneblasters] are hilarious ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 18:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Thats not surprising, I see "wicked evangelist" as an example of [[tautology]] =D - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 18:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Terrorism==

And I think [[Atheism]] = [[Nihilism]] = [[satanism]] = [[blaspheme of the holy spirit]] = [[amalek]], but I thought were were avoiding naughty debate? ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--[[User:151.188.16.45|151.188.16.45]] 20:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)[[Media:[[Image:

== [''[[

== '''Syria''' ==]]''] ==]]]] has been on the official [[U.S.]] list of [[state sponsors of terrorism]].

[[Palestinian Islamic Jihad|Islamic Jihad]], considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and [[Israel]], has its headquarters in Syria.

Some writers advocate the removal of Syria from the U.N. Security Council, on the grounds that its support for terrorism contradicts the stated mission of the council.

: Well I didnt think you would oppose it. Each to their own beliefs.... evangelists go out of their way to convert others. For me, Evangelist == Preacher == Arrogance == Wicked, I am equally apposed to Skeptical Evangelists as I am Religious Evangelists. Talking with others is good, talking ''at'' other is bad. As an aside, I know you cant really believe that all Atheists == Nihilism, Skeptics have several assumptions (ie beliefs) such as the laws of [[negation]] and the laws of [[causality]] just to name two. Atheists who dont believe in causality/negation etc are outside my realm of caring and you can equate them to anything you please. :) - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

----

:Ed, I agree with this removal because, until we cannot expand the article in order to better describe this country (which will certainly have something of important in many other fields too), this (perhaps offensively) seems as if there is nothing to say but this.

Skeptics and atheists are completely different, You sound like an agnostic to me. Atheists deny God based on "faith" (or sheer wickedness) despite abundant evidence to the contrary. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 20:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Also, IMHO we can't report such statement only, without a wider note on the theme and, before, on Syrian politics. A political list, even if credible and of serious origins, is not produced from a NPOV by definition. We can add it as a reference, but it cannot be the main argument. --[[User:Gianfranco|G]]

::I'm going to put back "Islamic Jimad" and "state sponsors of terrorism", both of which are factual. Q or Jacob or someone else can add all the balancing information they like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:24 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

: Incorrect. Your assuming '''Strong [[Atheist]]s''' and '''Weak Atheists''' are the same thing. It is a logical falisy to deny the existance of anything. For example, I dont believe in flying elephants because, I have never seen one, I have never heard of anyone seeing one, theirfore their is no reason for me to conclude they are real. However it is a logical falisy to deny they exist, because their is a possible world where a flying elephant is real but has never been seen (or reported) by humans. Its possible, but until evidence arises of their existance, I dont believe in them. So even though I dont believe in them, it is a logical falisy to deny them. Same goes for God. I dont believe in God, but I dont deny his existance because that would be anti Skeptical and be a logical falisy. When people generally refer to ''Atheists'', they imply a ''weak Atheist''. Their is another term for ''strong atheist'', but the term escapes me. Skeptics are opposed to strong atheists, as should any rational being. Agnostics dont believe in or deny Gods existance, Atheists on the other hand dont believe in God, but dont deny his existance either (or anything else for that matter). - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::The ''"abundant evidence to the contrary"'' only reinforces already existing [[theological]] beliefs, the "evidence" found does not confirm or deny God's existance. As I said, faith is the belief in something despite traditional evidence contradicts it. Belief in God is a faith. When evidence arises of his existance, the existance of God is no longer about faith, but becomes a science. If evidence ever arose that confirmed Gods existance it would be the greatest scientific discover man has ever made! But until such a time, personally as a Skeptic, my belief in Gods existance is as much a wasted exercise as it is to support flying elephants. People who belief in God dont need evidence, because they have the already existant underlying assumption of faith that he is real, and that is admirable. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 21:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

----

The person who thinks he hasn't seen proof of God is you, or another agnostic. Most of us have achieved that "great scientific discovery". As far as all this "proof of existence" bit... I exist. You exist. Even if I was an [[Epiphenomenalist]], you would still exist. Why? Because you are doing things, because I experience you, because someone can imagine you. You are something, even if we are all part of a [[holism|whole]]. All of these imagined animals and other foolishness have nothing to do w God's existence. They exist because you imagine them. You exist because God wills it. I am proof of God, and so is everything else, including you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why isnt it there? Is it fact or not? Surely listing facts is important, and listing reasons is also important. Hiding the truth because noone can explain a fact isnt very open is it? [[User:Paul Weaver|Paul Weaver]] 15:20 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

''"The person who thinks he hasn't seen proof of God is you, or another agnostic."''

----

: Skeptics follow the evidence, no eveidence has confirmed the existance of God, unless you already have the bias he exists to begin with. Its a moot point. You cant prove he exists, and it is a logical falisy to disprove anything. I dont care if their is a god or not, much like I dont care if their are flying elephants, I dont believe they exist until their is evidence. If evidence arises that confirms his existance or the flying elephant give me a call.

Could someone verify the info that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=210.50.112.97 210.50.112.97] is adding? (also on [[Politics of Syria]]) [[User:Evil saltine|Evil saltine]] 17:18, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

''"Most of us have achieved that "great scientific discovery""''

: Incorrect, their is nothing scientific about your belief. What scientific peer reviewed jounal was this discovery published in, that of course survived scientific scrutiny so I can review it? Its not science if the evidence isnt falsifiable. As a Skeptic I am only interest in evidence, your intuition or faith is irrelevant to me.

----

''"As far as all this "proof of existence" bit... I exist. You exist. Even if I was an [[Epiphenomenalist]], you would still exist. Why? Because you are doing things, because I experience you, because someone can imagine you. You are something, even if we are all part of a [[holism|whole]]. All of these imagined animals and other foolishness have nothing to do w God's existence. They exist because you imagine them. You exist because God wills it. I am proof of God, and so is everything else, including you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)"''

I removed the second sentence of this article "Syria is often seen to be in support of terrorism and terrorist groups in the Middle East"? Because of NPOV concerns. Yes, this is an issue with Syria -- but in its current ___location it gives the impression this is the primary item of interest concerning Syria. Other countries accused of harboring terrorism -- [[Libya]], [[North Korea]], [[Iran]] -- do not have a statement in such a prominent position. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 17:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: Double speak, the belief that I exist proves nothing except I believe I exist, it implies nothing else. Show me in clausal form logic or predicate calculus or a semantic net or Aristotelian logic that I exist therefore God exists, and you will find that the logical falsehoods will cancel out all the varibles.

----

This is a wasteful discussion. No scientific evidence exists to prove Gods existance.... nor the existance of flying elephants nor monkeys made of glass...nor an infinite amount of things and it is a logical falsehood to attempt to disprove them. I require scientific evidence, you dont, because you have the undelying assumption that he already exists, whereas I need evidence. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 22:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Copyright==

Notice how the text resembles this web site http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sy/Economy

''Syria's predominantly statist economy'' etc. is the very same. Who borrowed from who?

:Pray. Study. Try hard to be a nice person, and please.. don't make science a dirty word. The farther religion and science grow apart, the more wrong they become. The closer they combine, the more healthy and accurate. In reality science and religion are the same thing: the study and understanding of what is. [[Tat tvam asi]]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 23:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Kstailey|Kstailey]] 14:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::However 'science' studies what we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch with the only assumption being that; what we see and hear is real. It has the assumption of the laws of negation and the laws of consequences etc. Religion on the other hand starts off with one giant underlying assumption, of the existance of God. There is a world of difference between believing in an almight deity and believing that im eating a bowl of cornflakes (I would offend many religious people if I said they were the same kind of belief). For it to be called "science" the process needs to be challenging and re-challenging all assumptions it makes, however for religon, God's existance could never be challenged... it is a faith not a science. For it to be science, everything has to be '''questionable''' and '''verifyiable'''...... religion contains neither of those two things, and those two attributes are the '''only''' reason science is useful. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

----

==Spam?==

Everything is questionable, and most things are verifiable (at least in theory). You can verify God alot of ways, if praying is to difficult, a bullet to the head might work ;) As far as questioning him, thats agnosticism, which doesn't offend me much. Outright denying or rejecting him on the other hand is a mortal sin in my book. Anyhow, science and religion mix nicely, just see [[Monism]]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About the recently added "SYRIA" link pointing to http://www.sptechs.com/ : I don't read Arabic, but I have a strong feeling that it's the home page of a web design company, and - therefore - link-spam. Any Arabic-speaking(+reading) person around? [[User:Tarvin|TroelsArvin]] 13:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: Yeah, it's spam. removed it and several more links. --[[User:Ayman|Ayman]] 12:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''"Everything is questionable (in religion)"''

: No its not, religion doesnt even question whether their is such a thing as sin, nor does it question if their is a God, most dont question their theological dogmatic texts, which often have huge lists of things to believe. Religion doesnt question any of it, therefore it isnt a science. Science is only useful [[Iff]] it's questionable and verifiable, religion isnt. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== External links ==

''"As far as questioning him, thats agnosticism, which doesn't offend me much."''

: Your argueing a different point here. Religion doesnt question him, agnostics see no reason to belief in god (non belief), Atheists require emphirical studies and evidence to believe in anything and conclude it is a non-debate, their is no evidence therefore it is wasteful to believe in God (disbelieve), hard atheists against logic, sit their and try to prove God doesnt exist (its a waist of time, how can you prove nothing?, its a logical fallacy). - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why syriaonline.com ,syriagate.com are still in the External links .while other several usefull links , is considered spam !! .

''"Outright denying or rejecting him on the other hand is a mortal sin in my book. Anyhow, science and religion mix nicely, just see [[Monism]]."''

: Monism is fine, but the religous/spiritual version of it has as much to do with science as [[scientology]] and [[christian science]], ie none. Science to be science has to be '''questionable''' and '''verifyiable''' and when being interwined with faith of any kind it loses all usefulness of science, because faith is not '''questionable''' and/or '''verifyiable''' - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: I'm sick of the fight over external links here, and the number of hosting companies links, to end this, we only have 2 links now, SANA and the Syrian Ministry of Tourisim, both are official sites, and can be useful for those interested in more info about Syria. No need for hosting companies links, or local newspapers in Arabic, is everyone happy now? -[[User:Ayman|Ayman]] 01:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't chop up my text. Instead of rewriting it to suit your laughable arguments (religion doesn't question itself, and [[metaphysics]] / [[theology]] / [[philosophy]] has nothing to do with science), please, just read what i said over again, calmly. [[User:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][[User talk:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Sam_Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸] 16:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Instead of calling them laughable, how about you counter any point I have made.

:So you believe religion questions itself? Faith is not questionable by its very definition. You have faith even though their is no evidence to support it, it simply wouldnt be faith if their was evidence, it would be called common sense. The reason its faith is because you believe it for no reason except a personal one. Do you have faith? If you answer "yes", then by its very definition you dont question it, other wise it would just be called reason or common sense.

: And no, philosiphy or any of those have nothing to do with Science. For example, take '''[[String Theory]]''', it is a theory studied by some physicists, it involves suggesting the inside of Atoms components, Eletrons, Neutrons and Eletrons are not spheres like the classical model, but instead are tiny kinetic strings. However since we have never seen, Eletrons, Neutrons or Eletrons we can not verify or deny String Theory.... thus its not verifiable, therefore String thoery is considered a philosiphy, '''NOT A SCIENCE'''. Philosiphy studies the world in a abstract/metaphysical manner that isnt verifiable.... You cant prove philosiphy wrong, thus it isnt a science... Just as Theology in all its forms have nothing to do with science. Science by its very definition is a methodology to study the world that is '''verifiable''' and questionable'''. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 10:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Iskenderun is disputed ==

Philosophy is verifiable, religion questions itself, and I have precious little "faith" in anything. Faith may describe my level of confidence in getting across the street alive in my village, but that would likely be an exaggeration. "Faith" to me implies baseless confidence, and frankly I have nearly none of that. Rather I have absolute knowledge of something’s (my existence and God's existence), and inductive guesswork regarding most other things. You can verify a philosophy by comprehending it. Think about epiphenomenalism for a minute, and if you succeed in putting on that paradigm, you have succeeded in proving that it is an existent philosophy. What religion doesn't question itself? Islam maybe? In Christianity we have figures such as [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Georg Cantor]], [[Blaise Pascal]] and [[William Dembski]], to name a few, and in the east we have untold legions, but [[Adi Shankara]] will suffice ;) All of these men responded to doubts, criticisms, and questions great and small. Your inability or desire not to detect God in no way interferes w the ability of the vast majority to know him readily and personally. Again, I suggest prayer, study, and struggle towards altruism and righteousness. That is where God is to be found. [[User:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][[User talk:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Sam_Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸] 00:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: Sorry was studying for exams. When I say verify, I mean verify using the scientific method (anything else is useless), philosiphy cannot be verified using the scientific method. Philosiphy contains oppinions that cant be cross refferenced with reality, their is no experiment or control that can be done to verify philosiphy. You can personally believe its true, but personal oppinion and all forms of anacdotal evidence are irrelevant..... it cant ve verified. Thats the distinction between science and philosiphy. Science nevers asks the why question... because that is abstract and interpretational and is subject to bias. Science asks the How... Philosiphy asks the Why...

I'm restoring the border dispute with Turkey over [[Iskenderun]] to the opening paragraph (it was previously removed by an anon user). See e.g. this [http://www.syriatourism.org/new/modules.php?op=modload&name=Subjects&file=index&req=viewpage&pageid=834&newlang=eng map] at the official site of the Syrian Ministry of Tourism, which clearly shows Iskenderun as part of Syria. [[User:Uriber|-- uriber]] 12:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: And when I say "questions itself"... I mean questions EVERYTHING.... you cant have religious people that do or dont believe in God... its a contradiction, the existance of God isnt questioned, those that do question it are no longer described as being religious. You mentioned Sin.... you even described an example of what you believe is Sin... but how do you know their is sin? You dont question it... thats what im talking about... Religion doesnt question itself... this lack of questioning is called faith, deal with it :P. Believing in God, Sin, the Bible (or even one page of it) are all examples of faith. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 1 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

:If you look at the [[Hatay Province]] article you'll see that it states that Syria does no longer lay claim to the province. I don't have any sources and no time right now, so perhaps somebody can verify this?

Certainly not. For starters, there is nothing magic about the scientific method. It is a process which helps to evaluate certain phenomena. Sadly, it gets all to little use, but thats a completely different topic. As far as "questions everything", yes, lots of religious people question everything, and religious atheism is extremely common. Even if we ignore buddhism, and focus sheerly on christianity, there are plenty of christian, church going atheists, or questioners of God, existence, and who knows what-all. Sometimes I suspect they are the majority.

:In any case, I would have to say that the border at Bab al-Hawa looks very permanent.

As far as all this sin business, of course it doesn't require faith. Some things are bad, and I know it. I don't believe it despite evidence to the contrary, rather it is an obvious perceptual fact. Maybe you don't think anything is bad. I have a friend who feels that way. He believes that everything is great, perfect even, and that some people just don't realize it. Apparently this awareness of perfection would be enlightenment. Maybe he's right, but in my paradigm there is bad stuff (like denying God, existence, and other obvious truths) and I oppose it. [[User:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][[User talk:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Sam_Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸] 2 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

: You cant have Sin without faith. Bad does not equal Sin... My morality for me determins whats good and bad, whereas other people use Religious texts and the concepts of sin to define their morality. Sin only exists in this realm of faith, outside of those that are religious we dont call it sin... we call it common sense mixed with a good upbringing.

:--Stefan [[User:63.243.163.194|63.243.163.194]] 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

: Also you didnt address my point on the distinction between Science and Philosiphy/Theologigy... The two groups are the complete opposite, Science requires empirical evidence via the scientific method and the other does not. Philosiphy / Theology that survives the scientific method would no longer be Philosiphy or Theology, they would be a science, so the two groups could never be the same.

== Syria was not always an Arab country. ==

: Religious Atheists dont use the scientific method nor do they question everything, their outside my realm of caring. Someone who questions EVERYTHING, questions all assumptions and has only the bare minimum such as what we see/smell/touch/hear is real, anyone who is religious has a lot more assumptions then those bare minimum, therefore they dont question everything. These extra assumptions are faith. You have it, belief in God is one of assumptions/faith; not one of reason. - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 4 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

:: I have a ligitmate question. How do you know God isnt a super intelligent monkey or an Alien? - [[User:UnlimitedAccess|UnlimitedAccess]] 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Syria and Lebanon, just like many other countries in the Middle East, were invaded by the Arab's and Muslims who forced the natives to convert to Islam or suffer. The real native people are not Arabs, they are of mixed Syriac (Aramaic), Greek, Roman, and Crusader blood. CHRISTIANS WHO ARE SYRIANS AND LEBANESE ARE NOT ARABS!

This is getting silly ;) That is your personal definition of [[sin]]. I don't use religious texts to tell me what is right and wrong, I just know. My [[inner light]] / [[super conscious]] tells me. Similarly, I see no sensible division betwixt science, philosophy, religion and logic. They all run together for me. Look in to [[Ayurveda]], or [[Traditional Chinese medicine]]. As for the [[demiurge]], [[pink unicorn]] or supermonkey, that’s not my God. My God is the foundation of existence, not some anthropomorphized caricature. Phantasms and cartoonish amusements are indeed real, there is a material basis even in imaginings (I am a monist, so even thought is real to me), but have little relevance in a discussion of this sort. Sure, maybe there is Zeus on mount Olympus, and maybe he hides behind a cloud when modern men go to look for him. But Zeus is not my God, nor any other singular aspect, but rather existence itself. My God is the foundation of being. He is here, now and always, proving himself to you, by your very existence and experience. [[User:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][[User talk:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Sam_Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸] 6 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

:Thank you for your comment: it has been noted. [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 11:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::What an ignorant comment. I really take offense when people try to tell me what or who i am or where i belong. Syrians are a mix of all those people, yes, but there is an ARAB component in them too. Check out the [[Ghassanids]], the [[Nabataeans]]. Please don't try to tell us what we are, and whether we want to be associated as arabs or not. There is no such thing as "real native people" of a land when so much mixing occurs. And i hope i have proven you wrong that there are christian arabs, yes, RACIAL ARABS. Your bigoted comments about islam are stupid.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 05:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::I have never made a bad or bigoted statement on Islam. I only said that the Arabs forced the Byzantine Christians to convert to Islam, in addition, the invading Arabs gave the non-Arab Christians another choice to pay a 10% tax which is reffered to as the Jizyah. Syria and other countries in the Levant were under the Byzantine Empire, the Arabs invaded the non-Arab Syrians and Lebanese during the Arab Conquest of the 7th Century. You say that there are Christians that are racially Arab, show me one. Don't tell me about the Christians in Syria and Lebanon, they are not Arabs, were never Arabs, and will never be Arabs. I'm talking about countries like Saudi Arabia (who are the real Arabs). Not one Saudi is a Christian. By the way, many Muslims in Syria and Lebanon are non-Arabs as well. There are "real native people (Even if they're mixed)." For example, in the United States, many American Indians, who are the natives of America are mixed with the whites, but that doesn't take them out of the Native American category. Whether you consider yourself an Arab or not is entirely up to you, but I know for sure that the Syrians and Lebanese are not Arabs. I'm so sorry to say that you did not prove anything. No effence, the only thing you were doing was just ranting. Before you dispute anybody or anything, check your references and most importantly check your history. Let's not be hostile, call each other names, and accuse one another of being ignorant, bigoted or stupid. [[Byzantine Empire]], and the [[History of Greece]] will show you where I'm at.--[[User:66.81.173.40|66.81.173.40]] 08:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::Arab culture and history is more than just Islam. The people of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq etc are clearly Arabs (whether they are christians, muslims or do not follow a religion): They use the Arabic language, they share the same history and destiny and they see themselves as Arab etc etc.

:::This is not to say people may also have other identities. As for your allegations of forced conversion, you need to provide sources before making such a statement. The process of change in the religious makeup in the region took place over many centuries and involved many different groups (Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols etc). Most likely a complicated picture emerges. The tax referred to is of course a fact, part of history. Many of the leading figures of Arab Nationalism like for instance Michel Aflaq are from 'Christian' families. Aflaq was Syrian by the way. You might want to read some of the books on Arab history: The books by Albert Hourani and Philip Hitti are the introductions most widely read.. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 11:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::66.81.173.40, i have already shown you that there were arabs in the area that is syria over 800 years before the coming of Islam. The [[Ghassanids]] were Yemenis who arrived in southern syria and adopted christianity. The [[Nabataeans]] arabic people who moved north to Syria and settled down and built a great civilization. Therefore there were racial Arab christians, and i don't really care about your claim that not one Saudi is christian because that has nothing to do with the topic. Also, to your claim that i was just ranting, it seems that you did the same. At least i provided sources.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 14:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying that there were real Arabs who were at the time Christians, but that was many centuries ago. It's kind of interesting to see that the Ghassanids and the Nabataeans settled in Horan. You forgot to mention Busra, which happened to be a great Christian Byzantine city that was the first to fall to the Arab invasion, and the Christians of that city ran away far to the mountians which is known as Wada Nassara, and what were these Christians, for sure they were not Arabs, they were Byzantine Greco-Roman-Aramaic Christians. Michel Aflaq, who was a famous Arab Nationalist was Greek Orthodox which happens to indicate that he was ethnically Greek. Arab today defines people who just mostly speak Arabic, nothing else. Just because somebody speaks English does not mak him English, just because somebody speaks French does not make him French, and most importantly just because somebody speaks Arabic does not make him an Arab. Please wake up! There my have been real Arab Christians in the past, such as the Ghassanids and the Nabataeans, just like you pointed out Yuber, but eventually these real Arab Christians converted to Islam and there decendants are no longer Christians.--[[User:66.81.174.130|66.81.173.40]] 21:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Your argument has degenerated from "There are no racial arabs in syria and lebanon", to "There are no racial arab christians in Syria and Lebanon", to "There might have been racial arab christians but all their descendants converted to Islam". And i'm sorry to say that your last claim is in fact false as well. There are still christian communities in southern syria parts of lebanon whose inhabitants are clear racial arabs that speak arabic and wear traditional arab clothing. This argument is moot, trying to group a certain race with a certain religion and divide the middle east never works out, especially when you don't have your facts straight.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Yuber, the only false claims around here are the comments you have made. I don't know whether at this point and time if there are still real Arab Christian communities in Syria and Lebanon, if there are they are a minority in the Christian community. The main Christians throughout Syria and Lebanon are non-Arabs. When the day comes that you stop being stubborn and hard headed and start to have an open heart in who the real people of Syria and Lebanon are, I'll start to respect your comments. Until then, just check your history correctly from the right sources, then you will discover that you are the one who is false and wrong.

Regards, .--[[User:66.81.173.40|66.81.173.40]]

Just because you speak Arabic, it does not mean you are an Arab! The people of Brazil speak Portugese, does that mean that they are not Brazilians? The people of Argentine speak Spanish, does this mean they have the same culture as those from Spain? Australians speak English, does this make them American? NO. Therefore, Lebanese people who speak Arabic, are right in believing and claiming that they are Lebanese, with a distinct voice and culture.

I am not sure it is the right way to get my posting on the matter. There are several Arabic tribes that are Christians in Syria and Jordan. Even Koweit has a couple of Christian Koweiti families. One of the family members was actually the Koweiti Ambassador in Japan. HE

This is totally fucked up. Why must it be controversial every time ethnicity is being questioned.--[[User:140.144.175.147|140.144.175.147]] 20:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Gareth Hughes has stated in the discussion below, "Syria has been such a historical crossroads for nations of east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial." By the way 140.144.175.147, whoever you are, I would suggest that you don't use any profanity in the talk page. Talk pages here in Wikipedia are for educated discussions, not street talk.--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 23:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Vaccinations? ==

I was wondering, if I was to travel to Syria (Damascus in particular), do I need any vaccinations. Many friends of mine said they did not get sick when they went to Syria, and of course many of them did get sick. So what kind of vaccinations should I take if I were to travel to Syria?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 05:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Proof of vaccinations is not required to enter Syria. As a general rule, it is always best to make sure that your boosters for things like tetanus and hepatitis are all up to date before going travelling. If you are travelling a long way from home, you will be exposed to various bugs that your body isn't familiar with. When in Damascus, eat locally made live yoghurt (not pasteurised): not only is it delicious, but it is a safe way to expose your system to small amounts of the local bacteria. Fruit and vegetables sold in Syria, especially those sold in street markets, often are sprayed with a light disinfectant: it's best to wash fruit and veg before eating or cooking. Otherwise, don't worry too much about it: if you get sick, you get sick. -- [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 14:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::Make sure your meningococcal booster is up to date as well. Last time i went, all my boosters were up to date, i only drank bottled water, and i still got sick. It's hard to avoid sometimes, but it was only a stomach sickness that lasted about a day.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Demographics ==

I think we need to be more specific about the demographics section in the article. When people read that Syria's people are a mix of Semitic and Indo-European peoples, I think we should include what kind of Semitic and Indo-European people. For example, the Semites would be the Arabs, Aramaic people such as Syriac and Assyrian, many Semites in Syria are of Hebrew ancestry. For the Indo-Europeans, we should say that we have Greeks, Romans, etc. Just a thought.--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 09:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:As evidenced in the discussion above, ethnicity is a tough political question in the Syrian Arab Republic. Being ''Souri'' is considered being Arab, at least by the powers that be. I think it would be better to make the section on Syrian demography a little less specific. Syrian citizenry is mainly a mixture of Arab and Aramaean ancestries, but Syria has been such a historical crossroads for nations of east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::This is the first time I see anyone refer to ethnicity in Syria as 'tough', it is an Arab country. May I ask why you have this focus? Is there a political point you are trying to make? 'At least by the powers that be', are you implying people do not really identify as Arab in Syria? Thanks. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 22:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::It's not so much that ethnicity is "tough", almost all Syrians identify as Arabs (except for obviously Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians). The discussion above was heated because of a claim that there were no racial arabs in Syria. I disproved this claim very easily with links on Wikipedia itself. As for what Syrians themselves think, there is no question that they feel they are different from your average Saudi, Yemeni, or Algerian. Indeed, there is some racism among Syrians against other arabs such as Khalijiay (Gulf Arabs), as there is racism against Palestinians that inhabit many of the refugee camps. So the question is not so much "do Syrians identify as Arab", but rather it is the pre-islamic history of Syria that is a tough question. For example, queen Zenobia of Palmyra (featured on some Syrian currency) is referred to as an "Arab Queen" in Syria. However, it is obvious to anyone who has read the history of Palmyra, that she was a Roman woman who had nothing to do with Arabs.Yuber 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syrians are a mix of a variety of diffent people, nobody is pure blooded. Most people in Syria, identify as Arabs (even a quite number of Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians identify as Arabs). Yuber, the anon you had the heated debate with, I'm afraid there are many more people who think the exact same way as the person you argued with. I found a webstite called "We Are Not Arabs" which is a website that collects signatures from many ethnic Maronites, Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. signing to make the petition to the Arab American Institute that they're not Arabs. You guys can visit this website [http://www.petitiononline.com/NotArab/petition.html if any of you wish].--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 00:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there aren't people (especially the Maronites, though they are in Lebanon) who deny the Arab label. However, these people are a minority among residents of Arab countries. Also, the person I had the debate with didn't sound like a Syrian at all, and they made ridiculous claims about there being no Arabs in the region that is Syria today. Are you Syrian, by the way?Yuber 00:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, many Syrians and Lebanese, don't identify themselves as Arabs. Many of them say that they're Neo-Byzantine, and refer to themselves as non-Arabs who are Arabic speaking White people.[[User:66.81.185.13|66.81.185.13]] 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The overwhelming majority of Syrians and Lebanese do identify themselves as Arab (regardless of religion), the term 'Neo-Byzantine' is not even widely known. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 19:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Most Syrians do identify themselves as Arab; however, there are many Syrians who don't. Demographic terminology is influenced by the politics of the day, and being or not being Arab is as much a political statement as an ethnic one. Kurds, Aramaic-speaking Christians, Armenians and Druze are thus often in a difficult political situation: if they emphasize non-Arabic character, they can be seen as being non-patriotic. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 19:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:You've got a point Gareth, but Druze? If I'm not mistaken, are'nt the Druze ethnically Arabs, I mean did'nt their ancestors come from the Arabian Peninsula?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I'm a Syrian, and I'm 100% non-Arab (but I don't hate Muslims or Arabs). I also describe myself as Neo-Byzantine. The person who was declaring in the discussion above that the Syrians and Lebanese are non-Arabs is very correct. So the users who disputed this person, the only thing I have to say is don't let your hatred towards Christians blind you. Isn't enough Christians have suffered in the Middle East by the hands of Muslims!?

::How do you say "Neo-Byzantine" in Arabic ;)?[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 12:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Homs ==

'''"Major cities include the capital Damascus in the southwest, Aleppo in the north, and Homs."'''

As everyone can see, we all know that Damascus is located in the southwest of Syria, and Aleppo is in the north. Yet, this statement does not say were the city of Homs is located. I used to think that Homs was located in central Syria, after looking at the Syrian map, it seems that Homs is near the Lebanese border. So does anyone know how to classify the region of where Homs is located?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 06:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I think ''central Syria'' is best avoided; I know what you mean by it, but it equally mean the middle of the Syrian Desert. It is about halfway between Damascus and Halab, at the foot of the northern end of the Anti-Lebanon mountains. Perhaps it would be POV to say "This is the least interesting city in Syria". --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 11:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Souria.com ==

I added the English version home page for Souria.com in the External links section. There is an Arabic version for this website, but my reading in Arabic is not that good. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I think it's best just to have the English version. Anyway, if any of you fluent Arabic readers want to see the [http://www.souria.com/ar/home.asp Arabic version] of Souria.com, go ahead.--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 06:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, that's a good site. However, the discussion forums tend to get pretty heated, right now on the english forums there's a lebanese invasion and topics full of profanity.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 06:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Politics of Syria ==

Hi,

I just came wandering through looking for information on the politics of Syria today. The section here is very good (better than the Encyclopedia Britannica, in fact) but when I followed the link to [[Politics of Syria]] I discovered that it's basically identical; in fact it's probably a [[bit rot]]ted version, with a few CIA Worldbook facts stuck on the end.

This isn't necessarily a problem, but it does mean people's edits are going to get divided between the two pages (and probably most will edit this page).

Something similar happened at [[Nuclear weapon]] and [[Nuclear explosion]], and the solution taken there (still in progress) is to strip down the section in [[Nuclear weapon]] until it's really a summary, so that it's obvious one should go to the effects page to make improvements.

The other possibility is to get rid of [[Politics of Syria]] by folding its information in here.

Anyway, the pieces I've read of the article are great. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 15:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, fixed links

:Hmm, I really have no idea what to do with that article. Perhaps a summary can just be included here.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 16:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

::That seems to be the right solution (well, I suppose that article could go away and this article could be the only one); [[Montreal]] and [[History of Montreal]] had the same problem and it has been more or less fixed by drastically summarizing the section in [[Montreal]] (and making sure that any facts removed from [[Montreal]] were in [[History of Montreal]]). It would be easier if [[Politics of Syria]] were longer. I could try to write a sumary, but I don't know very much about the current political situation (just about what's in the article now), so any summary I wrote would necessarily be extremely brief and probably not fair or neutral. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 20:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, [[Economy of Syria]] and [[History of Syria]]have the same problem - they have sen almost no edits this year, while [[Syria]] has seen far more. I would be tempted to drastically summarize those sections of [[Syria]]; the laborious part is merging the current texts of [[Syria]] and its subarticles. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

:It seems that those articles were created when this article was being expanded and people were trying to bring this article up to the standards of other countries. I think a summary would be good, I'll see what I can do. I disagree about the History of Syria article, however, as there is much more information in that than in this. I also intend to add a lot more about Syria's history in the future.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 23:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

::I have summarized the section on politics after looking at the two separate versions. There's still some work to be done on wiki'ing both versions and adding more info.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 03:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::That's great - a big improvement. I think the key idea is to make the section here obviously only a summary so that people who want to add information add it to the full article. I think your changes do that very well.

:::I think that country articles are usually divided up into subarticles according to some Wikiproject, and perhaps based on the CIA world factbook, so the people who did it may not have put the care and attention that we would like. In any case, I think this article is good and getting better. My only concern is to avoid duplicated effort (improving this version and the full articles). --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 21:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

== Links ==

In the "External links" section, we have some sites that are linked to Looksmart, and Yahoo. Those sites are search engines, which means that anybody can go to these sites and search for articles that's related to Syria. I personally think, that we need to eliminate the Yahoo and Looksmart sites. What does everyone think?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 04:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

== Syrian ethnicity ==

This line doesn't make sense: "Ethnic Syrians are a mix of Semitic and Indo-European peoples that have occupied the region over time."

Semitic and Indo-European aren't ethnicities but language groups, so what does it have to do with anything?

"Ethnic Syrians" are just Arabised Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and so on, not non-existing Semitic and Indo-European ethnicities.

- Habibo

:I agree, I've said the same in Lebanese demograpy article. Fist of all there's no 'ethnic Syrian'. You have a big Arab group, and smaller Armenian/Kurdish/Jewish/Syriac group. Syrian identity is not/racial it's an ethnic§ one, it's a cultural one. This is typically an American bias to try to classify group according to 'ethnic difference'. In middle East, identity is related to other things: language, and/or religion.

--[[User:Equitor|equitor]] 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

==Introduction==

Given;

*Hafez al-Assad had been grooming his son, Basil al-Assad to be the country's next president

*Basil al-Assad died in an accident

*Bashar al-Assad, his younger son, ('''with no previous political experience''') then became the ''heir apparent'' & ultimately the President,

is it true to say that the office is a Presidency? Isn't a hereditary presidency, a monarchy? [[User:Avalon|Avalon]] 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

'''Well, no.''' It's a corrupted Presidency, an institution subjected to the one-man (or one-family) dictatorship which presently rules Syria. I think this is clear from the article. In theory, and constitutionally, and in official Syrian propaganda especially, no bloodline is necessary to become President, whereas this is the basis of Monarchy. It is also not clear that Bishar would be followed by a family member (especially since he has no grown-up son :-), in the event of his death, although that is of course a possibility. [[User:Arre|Arre]] 23:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

:Yes I appreciate that the system claims to be a republic, but so did the Roman Empire for some time. Bishar al-Assad is still young. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ...... [[User:Avalon|Avalon]] 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

::I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the system has been hijacked by the Assads, but there is an important difference between a monarchy and a republic, technically and also in how the regime presents itself (there's kind of a conflict line between "progressive" republics and monarchies in the Arab world, for example). Also, the Assads didn't create this institution. They inherited it from previous governments and constitutions, and Syria once had a very different way of filling the presidential post (mainly by military coup :-). It'll change again.

::[[User:Arre|Arre]] 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

==Syrian workers==

I hope the compromise I've suggested is acceptable. However: I don't think there was ever 1,5 million Syrians in Lebanon. More probably somewhere around half a million, rising to 1 million during the summer season. Although there has of course been at least a couple of millions in Lebanon over the years, but I guess the text refers to a given point in time. Is it okay to change this? [[User:Arre|Arre]] 02:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

:I changed a few things on your version. First off, there is no single Syrian or Lebanese view. Second, it is not a "view" that Syrian workers helped with reconstruction, because they DID help with reconstruction. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 02:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

::* '''I don't agree''' that the Syrian presence was supported by the US and the Arab League. It was briefly accepted and supported by both of them at various points in time, but since then, and before that, there was controversy within the AL and outright opposition by the US. I assume you are referring to the Arab Deterrent Force and US acceptance of the ousting of Aoun, and I do agree these things must be mentioned. But when it's written like this, it gives a faulty impression of continuous support for the Syrian presence, and that was certainly not the case.

::* '''True about''' Syrian/Lebanese views; not so about the motivation for the Syrian workers going there. They went there simply to get a job, not as part of a humanitarian crusade (I don't blame them, I would have too). Now, the Syrian government claims it accepted/encouraged this to help Lebanon's reconstruction, and this should be pointed out (as should the opposite view). But the workers themselves didn't go there "to help Lebanon", just as Mexicans don't cross the border "to help USA", even though their hard work for crap wages has been very beneficial to America. Do you see my point, and would you agree to a change here? ''Salaam'', [[User:Arre|Arre]] 04:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

::::I think what I had meant to say was they went to get jobs in the reconstruction of the country, not that they went into the country solely to reconstruct it because they felt pity for the Lebanese. Hopefully my latest change emphasizes this.

:::::This is fine with me, the part about the workers is very well formulated. Thank you. I still think the US/Arab support for Syria in Lebanon is - well, not wrong, but overemphasized. However, since there's so little on the subject, I'll just leave it until we can add more overall on Lebanon, instead of deleting what little we have. [[User:Arre|Arre]] 05:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

while you guys guess about what exactly happened in Lebanon and how many workers are there, Yuber keeps deleting sourced information and the link it comes from! now hes got a buddy Parmilo! read this information, it all comes from this source: Lebanese scholar Habib C. Malik has called the influx of Syrian workers into Lebanon "nothing short of a movement toward Syrian colonization of Lebanon." (Between Damascus and Jerusalem: Lebanon and Middle East Peace (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997), p. 42). In 1994, under pressure from Syria, the Lebanese government granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrians resident in the country. Syrian nationals make up at least one-third of Lebanon's resident population. http://www.meib.org/articles/0102_l1.htm

:Quotes from right-wing authors are not needed in a general history section. And your POV terms such as "flooded" are not needed either. That source is wrong, by the way. There is no way 30 % of Lebanon's population is Syrian. Please find a better source. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

::Or you could just continue reverting on 5 different articles. Please do mind the [[3RR]]. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

why do you get to decide which authors are "right-wing" and which sources are "wrong"? the article doesn't say "flooded" any more, if that was your real reason you could have changed that word. I'm not the reverter, I brought properly sourced information, all you do is revert. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

:Look at any good wikipedia article about a country. Take the [[USA]] one for example. There are no quotes let alone POV quotes in the general history section of the article. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 01:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

oh, now a new excuse. is it really true that Wikipedia does not allow quotes in history articles with links and references, instead it only allows whatever you have made up and decide fits? I don't believe that, prove it, show me where Wikipedia says that. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:I don't have to prove anything. As long as there are 3 editors who are in agreement about this on this page, your protests don't mean anything. Please try to accept the compromise instead of pushing your version. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

you have to prove you didn't lie about that. who agrees with you? have them name themselves. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

'''Quote & numbers'''

* I agree about the quote, it doesn't fit the article. I do think, however, that the viewpoint that the influx of workers had political implications (and motives) should be better represented. Now the article says that their presence in Lebanon is "controversial", but it doesn't say why or to whom.

* Regardless of that, I have changed the "1,5 million workers" into "about one million workers", which is what the CIA factbook and some other sources say. I still think that is on the high side. [[User:Arre|Arre]] 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:i gave a link to someone who says it, but yuber keeps reverting it. how can you guys take out information that comes directly from a source, and just make up other stuff and put it in instead? does Wikipedia really allow this? [[User:John McW|John McW]] 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

:John McW, consensus has been reached. Please respect it. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]^{<small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small>} 11:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::you don't know what "consensus" means. "consensus" is not whatever Yuber says. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)