View Full Version : Holy texts should be respected by scholars
To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.
God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures. He prefers to use non-miraculous natural means if possible. Given the limited scientific knowledge of the early times, the writings of these ancients should not be considered worthless, for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life. The innocence of their form, such as saying "God walked with man in the evening" is also meant to speak to the human heart.
Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny? Poetry and symbol is the language of Myth. These things speak to that mystical part of the human experience which is non-verbal.
Myths also are true, not in the factual sense, but in the way that they speak to Man's divinity and humanity. In scripture, we find not only Yawehistic poetry but also the incorporation of other near eastern myths, such as those of Canaan cult where the divinity is characterized in the storm thunder. This does not invalidate the truth that Israel was God's chosen people. Evidence of synthesis and syncretistism in a religion is no grounds for invalidation. God can use any vehical of inspiration he wishes, and that icludes the contribution of other peoples. These symbols do not identify God with thunder, they do not say "God is thunder" they say,"God speaks also through thunder"
The poetry of scripture must first be examined as a whole, looking at its beginning and end, with a view to its narrative meaning as well as its underlying realities. One must consider the point of view of the one speaking, for he represents the human condition. Thus the psalmist laments the errors of the Israelites in the desert, and is able to tell a human story in much greater depth than if he simply listed asuccession of facts about the bronze age.
The Word of God is living, it still shapes humanity, it is creative. The word has real power. It is covenental also in that it holy scriptures tell the story of salvation, indeed, the scriptures are deeply inbued with God's character. Whatdo find out about God? A character of faithfulness and patience who is ever remembering his beloved. Through myths as well as actual events the word reveals a prophetic God as protagonist, in this mythic and legendary reality God is the hero.
Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.
Crunchy Cat
06-26-06, 03:35 PM
Concerning these thoughts, read my new novel about The Seven Sorcerers of Yeth, entitled
The Fall of Nystol: Notes on Legends, Labyrinths, and the Last Days of the Magi (http://www.lulu.com/content/330534)
Spammer.
To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.
I knew eventually some theist would adapt to science by declaring truth as shallow.
...for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life.
So the claim that 'God' exists wasn't intended to be truth? Too bad those poor shmucks didn't know that. Could have save them a few crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, bombings, etc.
...Evidence of synthesis and syncretistism in a religion is no grounds for invalidation...
A declaration that evidence of something being fiction does not make it fiction. Nice.
baumgarten
06-26-06, 04:36 PM
I knew eventually some theist would adapt to science by declaring truth as shallow.
Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:
We shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
See also the Wikipedia entry on theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories#Theories_as_.22models.22).
Science does not represent the absolute truth. (And neither does anything else, in my opinion.) In this sense it is "shallow."
Crunchy Cat
06-26-06, 05:29 PM
Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:
See also the Wikipedia entry on theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories#Theories_as_.22models.22).
Science does not represent the absolute truth. (And neither does anything else, in my opinion.) In this sense it is "shallow."
Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.
Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.
baumgarten
06-26-06, 05:59 PM
Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.
Yes.
Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.
Well, yes and no. While science is an excellent predictor of nature, what hard, falsifiable claims does theology make? Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach. That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.
Crunchy Cat
06-26-06, 06:47 PM
Well, yes and no. While science is an excellent predictor of nature, what hard, falsifiable claims does theology make?
Let's take christianity as an example. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. Reality was created in a specific sequence over the course of seven days (or thousands of years). 'God' exists. 'Satan' exists. 'Heaven' exists. 'Hell' exists. 'Angels' exists. 'Demons' exist. Just for starters...
Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.
Most theology is highly interpretive and there is no known supernatural phenomenoa that exists.
That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.
Why even have theology at all? On the pro side it's the bullshit that binds people together and on the con side it's the bullshit that promotes death, ignorance, and suffering.
superluminal
06-26-06, 07:08 PM
Lawdog! It's you! Where have you been?
baumgarten
06-26-06, 07:10 PM
Let's take christianity as an example. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. Reality was created in a specific sequence over the course of seven days (or thousands of years). 'God' exists. 'Satan' exists. 'Heaven' exists. 'Hell' exists. 'Angels' exists. 'Demons' exist. Just for starters...
You're talking about mythology here. If you mix mythology and theology and take all of it literally, then you will have obvious conflicts with what science tells us. But this is not the only way to look at religion.
Most theology is highly interpretive and there is no known supernatural phenomenoa that exists.
That depends who you ask. An uncle of mine was a mystic and a healer, and he would surely cite his own experiences as supernatural phenomena. I'm fairly certain the house I used to live in was haunted by a poltergeist, whatever that might be. My family and circle of friends are full of accounts of hauntings and extrasensory perception. Being supernatural phenomena, of course, there would be no way to scientifically test for any of these. It's a matter of perspective.
Why even have theology at all? On the pro side it's the bullshit that binds people together and on the con side it's the bullshit that promotes death, ignorance, and suffering.
Some people, myself included, don't need theology all that much. For others, however, it's a useful interpretation of their religious experiences - not necessarily even miracles or visitations by spirits, but more everyday things that we all experience, like love and awe.
Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.
Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.
So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?
superluminal
06-26-06, 07:15 PM
Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach. That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.
I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach. And what is a "good" theology? If you're going to tell me that theology has all of these benefits for the "spiritual" wellbeing of the individual, why not just call it psychotherapy and be done with it? No. Theologies are just mass delusions propagated by the inertia of controlling overlords and the threat of eternal torture.
Goddamn terrorists.
superluminal
06-26-06, 07:16 PM
So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?
Evolutionary psychology and biology have nice evaluations of the origins and application of ethics.
baumgarten
06-26-06, 07:25 PM
I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach.
Not true. As an easy example, science simply disregards anything smaller than the Planck length; there is nothing preventing the existence of such an object, but it cannot be measured; it is "effectively" nonexistent. Another one: "qualia," as philosophers call them, or qualitative experiences (not their constituent physical processes).
And what is a "good" theology?
Heh... don't ask me.
Evolutionary psychology and biology have nice evaluations of the origins and application of ethics.
And consciousness?
I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach. And what is a "good" theology? If you're going to tell me that theology has all of these benefits for the "spiritual" wellbeing of the individual, why not just call it psychotherapy and be done with it? No. Theologies are just mass delusions propagated by the inertia of controlling overlords and the threat of eternal torture.
Goddamn terrorists.
Isn't it? Science is still limited by the knowledge and tools available. Its rather sweeping to presume nothing is out of its reach
scorpius
06-26-06, 07:29 PM
Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny?
when was the last time POEMS told you STONE bad children or a girl who aint a virgin when you marry her?
www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm
Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.
your god if it existed should be charged with genocide
www.evilbible.com
superluminal
06-26-06, 07:35 PM
Not true. As an easy example, science simply disregards anything smaller than the Planck length; there is nothing preventing the existence of such an object, but it cannot be measured; it is "effectively" nonexistent. Another one: "qualia," as philosophers call them, or qualitative experiences (not their constituent physical processes).
Quibbling. Science does not disregard anything smaller than the PL, it makes a certain claim that given our current physical understanding, a length smaller than the PL has no "meaning".
And "qualia" such as my experience of the color red, can certainly be explained by cognitive science as the self-referential (feedback) mechanisms of complex weighted neural networks. If that isn't satisfactory, tough cookies.
superluminal
06-26-06, 07:40 PM
Isn't it? Science is still limited by the knowledge and tools available. Its rather sweeping to presume nothing is out of its reach
I consider it optimistic.
Look, science is nothing more than a technique that humans have developed to get a handle on the nature of the cosmos (that's rocks, stars, people, slugs, alpha-centaurians...). So far, it has proved to be the best way of gaining reliable information about it. When religion or some other technique can even remotely approach the explanatory power of science, regarding everything, then we'll talk. I'll have my people contact your people. We'll do lunch.
superluminal
06-26-06, 07:42 PM
And consciousness?
A fascinating branch of cognitive science with some interesting theories floating around. Is there some other method of investigation that is even working on a solid predictive model of consciousness? I must have missed it...
A fascinating branch of cognitive science with some interesting theories floating around. Is there some other method of investigation that is even working on a solid predictive model of consciousness? I must have missed it...
No there isn't; and you cannot see hear or evaluate it; so why believe it exists? Or doesn't it?
superluminal
06-26-06, 08:08 PM
No there isn't;
Didn't think so.
...and you cannot see hear or evaluate it; so why believe it exists? Or doesn't it?
Why can't you evaluate it? It's the result of neurochemical processes, so why not? And I believe it exists because:
1) It's defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"
2) I have this sensation sometimes :D
3) So by definition, it exists as defined.
Right?
Didn't think so.
Why can't you evaluate it? It's the result of neurochemical processes, so why not? And I believe it exists because:
1) It's defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"
2) I have this sensation sometimes :D
3) So by definition, it exists as defined.
Right?
A sensation? can I feel your "sensation" too? Is it the same as mine? ;)
How can we tell?
superluminal
06-26-06, 08:18 PM
A sensation? can I feel your "sensation" too? Is it the same as mine? ;)
How can we tell?
Wow... Ummm... Whew! I won't even begin to tell you how that reads... Tingly. Yes. That's all I will say.
Lawdog,
To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.That cannot be true where the statements are being presented as fact.
God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures.Not accurate. This is only an unsubstantiated claim.
Given the limited scientific knowledge of the early times, the writings of these ancients should not be considered worthless, for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life. This is nonsense. Science is about the discovery of knowledge, of what is true and what is false. Either these ancients wrote truthful statements or they wrote fiction. Either way a modern scientific investigation is entirely relevant and independent of whether they understood modern science or not.
The innocence of their form, such as saying "God walked with man in the evening" is also meant to speak to the human heart. The heart is a blood pump – what does your statement mean? You mean – an appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect, right?
Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny? Poetry and symbol is the language of Myth. These things speak to that mystical part of the human experience which is non-verbal.That’s fine providing the intent is not to convey any type of factual truth.
Myths also are true, not in the factual sense, but in the way that they speak to Man's divinity and humanity.How can something be true in a non-factual sense?
The Word of God is living, it still shapes humanity, it is creative.From an objective perspective the essential elements remain fantasy since they lack that factual quality that can be revealed through scientific evaluation.
The word has real power. This is true; it can evoke strong emotions, incite wars and intolerance, as well as encourage love, compassion, and generosity; but then so can many good novels. A truthful basis is not necessary for these things.
Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.Clearly not so for those that see no truth in the claims.
superluminal
06-26-06, 08:24 PM
Ok. Now that I've regained my... composure ... I understand what you're saying. I suppose all you can go on is an educated guess that since we're all incredibly similar in brain structure, that it would be very suprising if your experience of self-awareness was not essentially the same as mine.
Wow... Ummm... Whew! I won't even begin to tell you how that reads... Tingly. Yes. That's all I will say.
You are way too h***y, buster!!! :rolleyes:
superluminal
06-26-06, 08:48 PM
You are way too h***y, buster!!! :rolleyes:
Tell me about it. :rolleyes:
Tell me about it. :rolleyes:
Hello? I just did! :D :m: ?
superluminal
06-26-06, 08:56 PM
It was rhetorical! You know? ;)
charles cure
06-26-06, 10:36 PM
Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:
We shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
\this same exact statement could apply to the concept of "truth" itself. by that logic, the truth must be relatively shallow as well. in fact, the whole universe would lack depth.
TW Scott
06-26-06, 11:03 PM
Science is about Fact, if you want Truth go down the hall to Philosophy.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 12:31 AM
\this same exact statement could apply to the concept of "truth" itself. by that logic, the truth must be relatively shallow as well. in fact, the whole universe would lack depth.
What is "truth," and how does this statement apply to it?
wsionynw
06-27-06, 01:38 AM
God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures. He prefers to use non-miraculous natural means if possible.
Assuming God exists, how do you know what 'he' prefers? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Crunchy Cat
06-27-06, 02:49 AM
You're talking about mythology here. If you mix mythology and theology and take all of it literally, then you will have obvious conflicts with what science tells us. But this is not the only way to look at religion.
Do tell.
That depends who you ask. An uncle of mine was a mystic and a healer, and he would surely cite his own experiences as supernatural phenomena. I'm fairly certain the house I used to live in was haunted by a poltergeist, whatever that might be. My family and circle of friends are full of accounts of hauntings and extrasensory perception. Being supernatural phenomena, of course, there would be no way to scientifically test for any of these. It's a matter of perspective.
If these things are really happening then I don't see why they would be beyond science. If these events aren't really happening then of course they are beyond science because there is nothing to observe / experiment with. It's interesting that you are experiencing 'supernatural' events throughout your life. I have yet to witness one; although, I have have quite a bit of fantastic experiences which were all hallucinatory... but really fuckin' cool.
Some people, myself included, don't need theology all that much. For others, however, it's a useful interpretation of their religious experiences - not necessarily even miracles or visitations by spirits, but more everyday things that we all experience, like love and awe.
Is there a way to interpret fantastic experiences without the 'supernatural', 'God', and all the negative behaviors that come with religion?
Crunchy Cat
06-27-06, 02:50 AM
So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?
You bet!
baumgarten
06-27-06, 11:51 AM
Do tell.
You can interpret it any way you want; that's why you have so many different kinds of religious people, ranging from stark raving fundamentalist lunatics to very kind, intelligent individuals. I can tell you right off the bat that Catholics do not believe that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally. Most Catholics literally interpret their theology, but it is of course possible to interpret Catholic theology in other ways. Many, for example, consider heaven and hell to be states of mind rather than physical places where your soul goes when you die.
If these things are really happening then I don't see why they would be beyond science. If these events aren't really happening then of course they are beyond science because there is nothing to observe / experiment with. It's interesting that you are experiencing 'supernatural' events throughout your life. I have yet to witness one; although, I have have quite a bit of fantastic experiences which were all hallucinatory... but really fuckin' cool.
If something is supernatural, then it should appear to the scientific eye that there is nothing to study. It's a silly concept in its common usage, I think, but so many people use it that it merits discussing. Ghosts and the like may not be supernatural phenomena, but they are at least somewhat subjective. Some people are apparently more sensitive to them than others. My uncle saw them all the time; I have only encountered the unexplained a few times in my life, and many, as you, never have. Whether they are merely the hallucinations of hysterics or something else is difficult to say unless you have experienced them yourself, and even then it is easy to doubt. I heard breaking glass downstairs at night once, but nothing broken was to be found. Could that have been in my head? What about coming home to an empty house and finding the master bedroom and upstairs hallway full of recently sprayed perfume? What about lights and radios turning themselves on in sequence - one turns on in the middle of the night, you get up and turn it off, and then another one turns on - how can that be explained? It is easy to call the first a hallucination. The second and third are much more difficult to explain; science might be able to provide answers to these, but they may sound even more far-fetched than the conclusions of a superstitious person. To me, the question of who to believe depends not on the "truth" of their theories, but how well they work. Superstitions and theology both persist because they somehow agree with the experiences of people. When they are very old, it is an indicator that they work well.
Is there a way to interpret fantastic experiences without the 'supernatural', 'God', and all the negative behaviors that come with religion?
There certainly is. I think people believe what satisfies them. Newton believed that gravitational force was instantaneous action at a distance. While it has been shown that gravitational waves actually propagate at c, it is still practical in many cases to use Newton's formula F = GMm/r^2 today. The most "obvious" interpretation of this formula is Newton's, and indeed it works wherever the formula works. For a time, then, both this formula and interpretation were the final word on gravity, and everyone knew it was the truth. If you lived then, so would you. In the same way, were you to live under different circumstances, you might now "know" for certain who the One True God is. If history is any indicator, we are completely wrong about everything we think we know.
wesmorris
06-27-06, 11:58 AM
'Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.'
I beg to differ.
What is currently considered "the supernatural" is currently beyond the reach of science. I contend that there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because by definition, all that is natural is natural. If there is some facet of the universe that is currently commonly viewed as "supernatural", I contend that it simply the natural that has not been integrated into science's "big picture" as of this time. I presume perhaps incorrectly that it will be integrated into it over time.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 12:04 PM
'Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.'
I beg to differ.
What is currently considered "the supernatural" is currently beyond the reach of science. I contend that there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because by definition, all that is natural is natural. If there is some facet of the universe that is currently commonly viewed as "supernatural", I contend that it simply the natural that has not been integrated into science's "big picture" as of this time. I presume perhaps incorrectly that it will be integrated into it over time.
I agree with you.
If the supernatural is beyond nature, and nature is that which science can study, then the supernatural is beyond that which science can study. But if science can suddenly study it, it isn't supernatural anymore. It's only a semantic distinction, which is why I don't put too much stock in the word.
On the other hand, there are qualitative aspects to life for which science is not the appropriate tool. You could call this "supernatural" as well. (Though that might be stretching it.)
charles cure
06-27-06, 12:16 PM
What is "truth," and how does this statement apply to it?
well, arguably a truth is a theory that is either proven or accepted pervasively. a "law" if you will. everything that can be said about a theory can also be said about the truth. what people believe to be truthful is just an accurate describer or predictor of the behavior of a model.
truth is subjective as truth requires belief. if you believe that a is true, then b must also be true...etc. scientific data does not necessarily work that way. if a can be proved, b might not also be proved under certain conditions, or may only be proved under extremely restrictive conditions. the problem lies with people - each scientific experiment that is conducted produces only situation-specific results; while these results may be applicable under other conditions, the experiment is not a supplier of information as to the ability of the premise to succeed or fail under any other conditions. people however, hear that an experiment has gotten a particular result and often assume that these results will be replicated across the board, thus holding the results up to a misinformed or unrealistic expectation. science is not a provider of truth, but rather a describer of what is possible under given conditions. that's not shallow, it is just necessarily limited.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 12:40 PM
well, arguably a truth is a theory that is either proven or accepted pervasively. a "law" if you will. everything that can be said about a theory can also be said about the truth. what people believe to be truthful is just an accurate describer or predictor of the behavior of a model.
truth is subjective as truth requires belief. if you believe that a is true, then b must also be true...etc. scientific data does not necessarily work that way. if a can be proved, b might not also be proved under certain conditions, or may only be proved under extremely restrictive conditions. the problem lies with people - each scientific experiment that is conducted produces only situation-specific results; while these results may be applicable under other conditions, the experiment is not a supplier of information as to the ability of the premise to succeed or fail under any other conditions. people however, hear that an experiment has gotten a particular result and often assume that these results will be replicated across the board, thus holding the results up to a misinformed or unrealistic expectation. science is not a provider of truth, but rather a describer of what is possible under given conditions. that's not shallow, it is just necessarily limited.
I put "shallow" in quotes because first, it is a very imprecise word to begin with, and second, I didn't mean it literally, whatever it means. You're right, limited is a much better word to describe it.
As well, by your definition of truth, it is quite similar to theory, and so it is not very surprising that the statement should apply to both of them. On the other hand, if we were discussing capital-T Truth, it would not be considered a working model but the absolute, irrefutable, final word on reality, very different from a theory or a truth with a lowercase t (which is really just a highly respected theory, in my opinion).
charles cure
06-27-06, 01:02 PM
I put "shallow" in quotes because first, it is a very imprecise word to begin with, and second, I didn't mean it literally, whatever it means. You're right, limited is a much better word to describe it.
As well, by your definition of truth, it is quite similar to theory, and so it is not very surprising that the statement should apply to both of them. On the other hand, if we were discussing capital-T Truth, it would not be considered a working model but the absolute, irrefutable, final word on reality, very different from a theory or a truth with a lowercase t (which is really just a highly respected theory, in my opinion).
there is no such thing as the capital T truth. in order for any universal truth to be established, there would have to be universal acceptance of its veracity or irrefutable evidence as to its applicability in all situations. i can say with confidence that you will never encounter such a thing.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 01:09 PM
there is no such thing as the capital T truth. in order for any universal truth to be established, there would have to be universal acceptance of its veracity or irrefutable evidence as to its applicability in all situations. i can say with confidence that you will never encounter such a thing.
I sure hope not. It would be a real blow to my world view.
Lawdog! It's you! Where have you been?
hello superliminal,
its good to see that you are still questing, if that is indeed what you are doing.
I hope that you have taken the opportunity to examine some real theology, like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and others, and have not dismissed the discipline outright.
i had to take my leave of sciforums for a while, since, as you know,
kindness is not great here, and after being so cut down by the rationalists so much, I needed to recover.
Assuming God exists, how do you know what 'he' prefers? :confused: :confused: :confused:
I know because I can rely on the doctrines and customs of the universal Church known and visible to all, The Roman Catholic, which, as a whole, cannot decieve nor be decieved. God is not cruel. Christ would not have left his Apostles without an anchor of certitude concerning the Truth, and true doctrines, and the means for discerning them.
Ok. Now that I've regained my... composure ... I understand what you're saying. I suppose all you can go on is an educated guess that since we're all incredibly similar in brain structure, that it would be very suprising if your experience of self-awareness was not essentially the same as mine.
Hmm I missed this post...
Thats rather a broad generalisation, I think, because perceptiveness ( which you may agree or not) is also a kind of "awareness" and there are differences in the kind and degree of perception that individuals experience.
If you think of awareness as a "learned" behavior maybe through genetic imprinting and also through focussed learning, is it not possible that some individuals may experience greater awareness?
Similarly is it not possible for an individual to be more oe less spiritually inclined based on his exposure to spiritual training and his own personal interest and knowledge of it?
Crunchy Cat
06-27-06, 02:59 PM
You can interpret it any way you want; that's why you have so many different kinds of religious people, ranging from stark raving fundamentalist lunatics to very kind, intelligent individuals. I can tell you right off the bat that Catholics do not believe that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally. Most Catholics literally interpret their theology, but it is of course possible to interpret Catholic theology in other ways. Many, for example, consider heaven and hell to be states of mind rather than physical places where your soul goes when you die.
If the content of theology is so ambiguous that such a wide array of interpretations result then it provides a constantly adapting mechanism of self-deceipt.
If something is supernatural, then it should appear to the scientific eye that there is nothing to study. It's a silly concept in its common usage, I think, but so many people use it that it merits discussing. Ghosts and the like may not be supernatural phenomena, but they are at least somewhat subjective. Some people are apparently more sensitive to them than others. My uncle saw them all the time; I have only encountered the unexplained a few times in my life, and many, as you, never have. Whether they are merely the hallucinations of hysterics or something else is difficult to say unless you have experienced them yourself, and even then it is easy to doubt. I heard breaking glass downstairs at night once, but nothing broken was to be found. Could that have been in my head? What about coming home to an empty house and finding the master bedroom and upstairs hallway full of recently sprayed perfume? What about lights and radios turning themselves on in sequence - one turns on in the middle of the night, you get up and turn it off, and then another one turns on - how can that be explained? It is easy to call the first a hallucination. The second and third are much more difficult to explain; science might be able to provide answers to these, but they may sound even more far-fetched than the conclusions of a superstitious person. To me, the question of who to believe depends not on the "truth" of their theories, but how well they work. Superstitions and theology both persist because they somehow agree with the experiences of people. When they are very old, it is an indicator that they work well.
You did a great job of showing a core issue. Superstition/Theology agree with and provide definitive explanation for fantastic experiences and people in general value an agreeable explanation over truth. From an evolutionary perspective this makes alot of sense in a social species.
IMO that value system might be changing as I have seen an increasing number of people whom value truth over what's satisfying. I suspect the results of science might be fueling this and if that value system is held by a majority then evolution might take its course with the resultant environmental pressure.
There certainly is. I think people believe what satisfies them. Newton believed that gravitational force was instantaneous action at a distance. While it has been shown that gravitational waves actually propagate at c, it is still practical in many cases to use Newton's formula F = GMm/r^2 today. The most "obvious" interpretation of this formula is Newton's, and indeed it works wherever the formula works. For a time, then, both this formula and interpretation were the final word on gravity, and everyone knew it was the truth. If you lived then, so would you. In the same way, were you to live under different circumstances, you might now "know" for certain who the One True God is. If history is any indicator, we are completely wrong about everything we think we know.
You might be right, and what was the answer to the original question? Sorry, I wasn't able to discern it.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 03:38 PM
If the content of theology is so ambiguous that such a wide array of interpretations result then it provides a constantly adapting mechanism of self-deceipt.
That's true. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the importance of letting reality dictate to you. Imagine how much better things would be if every religious extremist asked himself if his beliefs were actually helping him. Does it really make sense that being a hateful person would get me to heaven? It is an easily answered question, but I imagine those to whom it most applies can't be honest enough to themselves to do it.
You did a great job of showing a core issue. Superstition/Theology agree with and provide definitive explanation for fantastic experiences and people in general value an agreeable explanation over truth. From an evolutionary perspective this makes alot of sense in a social species.
IMO that value system might be changing as I have seen an increasing number of people whom value truth over what's satisfying. I suspect the results of science might be fueling this and if that value system is held by a majority then evolution might take its course with the resultant environmental pressure.
Well, what to you is the difference between an agreeable explanation and truth? Or rather, what is the explanation agreeing with? I think that some people allow an experience to agree with an explanation they heard, when it would be better to fit an explanation to the experience. In the former case, the "agreeable explanation" is going to agree only with itself and not necessarily the truth, but in the latter, they are pretty much the same thing. Is this what you mean?
You might be right, and what was the answer to the original question? Sorry, I wasn't able to discern it.
Sorry about that. I was trying to illustrate how any interpretation that works suffices, but I lost my point in the process. The answer is yes, if you can find such an interpretation.
Exactly what sort of theology are you looking at? Ambiguous? hardly in my experience!
baumgarten
06-27-06, 04:30 PM
Theologies in general, not any one in particular. But even Christian theology as discerned from holy texts can be quite ambiguous without a good degree of interpretation. The Catholic Church, to whom I believe you refer, is great because it does almost all of the interpretation for you. There's very little room nowadays for violent extremism under Catholicism. On the other hand, many find this restrictive. It is collectively a mixed blessing, I suppose.
superluminal
06-27-06, 04:52 PM
hello superliminal,
its good to see that you are still questing, if that is indeed what you are doing.
I hope that you have taken the opportunity to examine some real theology, like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and others, and have not dismissed the discipline outright.
i had to take my leave of sciforums for a while, since, as you know,
kindness is not great here, and after being so cut down by the rationalists so much, I needed to recover.
Always questing. And I promise not to be unkind.
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:00 PM
Thats rather a broad generalisation, I think, because perceptiveness ( which you may agree or not) is also a kind of "awareness" and there are differences in the kind and degree of perception that individuals experience.
Yes.
If you think of awareness as a "learned" behavior maybe through genetic imprinting and also through focussed learning, is it not possible that some individuals may experience greater awareness?
Definitely.
Similarly is it not possible for an individual to be more oe less spiritually inclined based on his exposure to spiritual training and his own personal interest and knowledge of it?
Of course.
When I said:
...essentially the same...
I mean within some "normal" range. I can say with some confidence that your experience of awareness may be quantitatively different from mine, but not qualitatively. As you said, you may be more "aware" than I am, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind. Si o no?
Yes.
Definitely.
Of course.
:)
I mean within some "normal" range. I can say with some confidence that your experience of awareness may be quantitatively different from mine, but not qualitatively. As you said, you may be more "aware" than I am, but it's a matter of degree, not of kind. Si o no?
Can we place limits on human experience? Que pense tu?
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:13 PM
:)
Can we place limits on human experience? Que pense tu?
Creo que no.
Therefore I suppose that each persons sense of awareness taken as the variation in their perception and experience (qual es no limitado, si?) is unique. Yet is the fundamental sense of awareness that different? Can it be, given the similarity of human brains?
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:14 PM
This is so far off topic it isn't even funny. Well, yes it is. :D
Creo que no.
Therefore I suppose that each persons sense of awareness taken as the variation in their perception and experience (qual es no limitado, si?) is unique. Yet is the fundamental sense of awareness that different? Can it be, given the similarity of human brains?
Well its hard to find an analogy but if you look at the Guiness book of world records :) you might say that we don't know what we are capable of until we aim high enough; some experiences are a result of trying to reach an invisible goal only the person testing himself can determine...
What do you think?
This is so far off topic it isn't even funny. Well, yes it is. :D
Okay to get back on topic, what is your opinion on the sanctity of religious books?
Is anything sacred anymore?
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:22 PM
Well its hard to find an analogy but if you look at the Guiness book of world records :) you might say that we don't know what we are capable of until we aim high enough; some experiences are a result of trying to reach an invisible goal only the person testing himself can determine...
What do you think?
Well sure. I guess I'm saying that I think the qualitative experience of peoples sense of awareness is probably very similar, but I have no way of proving it. But as far as experience goes, and the attainment of that experience, I can imagine that greatly effecting the quantitative sense of awareness and their degree of perceptiveness. Does that make any sense? :confused:
Well sure. I guess I'm saying that I think the qualitative experience of peoples sense of awareness is probably very similar, but I have no way of proving it. But as far as experience goes, and the attainment of that experience, I can imagine that greatly effecting the quantitative sense of awareness and their degree of perceptiveness. Does that make any sense? :confused:
Yes, maybe having lived in a culture which is very intensely spiritual makes me biased, but we have a history of people ( of various religions) who have achieved spiritual fulfillment simply by making it the major focus of their lives; the way a man might gain intellectual fulfillment by making that the major focus in his life.
Which is why it is difficult for me to relate to someone who completely dismisses the possibility of spirituality as mumbo-jumbo :)
wesmorris
06-27-06, 05:33 PM
And as I've said before:
"Without bullshit to bind us in purpose, we'd have been extinct long ago."
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:36 PM
Okay to get back on topic, what is your opinion on the sanctity of religious books?
Is anything sacred anymore?
I don't like the words "sancitity" and "sacred" much. They imply that a force-field of unquestioning sterility surrounds the "sacred" thing. Respect on the other hand implies a willingness to avoid certain things in order to not unduly offend people.
For instance, After reading your posts for a while now, I respect your position as a muslim and will not attack you regarding that anymore (others, however... grrrr). If religion was a private thing for the practioner, I would absolute respect it. But as it is, I find its intrusion into public policy one of the most dangerous things on earth. It's not a big stretch form saying your country was founded on thus-and-such religious philosophy to becoming a theocracy. I'd rathed pour sand in my eyes and record the scraping sounds as I blink for entertainment, than live in a theocracy.
So, no. Things are not sacred (to me) unless they are of immediate personal importance to someone I respect. Si?
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:42 PM
Which is why it is difficult for me to relate to someone who completely dismisses the possibility of spirituality as mumbo-jumbo :)
Mumbo-jumbo? I never said spirituality was mumbo-jumbo! Maybe the wild rantings of a madman, but never mumbo-jumbo. :p
Do you remember a post I made (I think in response to one of yours) that atheists can be just as "spiritual" as theists (even more-so)? I don't dismiss it at all. It's just that my source of "spirituality" is not a god of dubious existence. It's the mysterium tremendum of the cosmos itself.
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:43 PM
And as I've said before:
"Without bullshit to bind us in purpose, we'd have been extinct long ago."
Righto. Maybe it's time to find a better glue?
I don't like the words "sancitity" and "sacred" much. They imply that a force-field of unquestioning sterility surrounds the "sacred" thing. Respect on the other hand implies a willingness to avoid certain things in order to not unduly offend people.
For instance, After reading your posts for a while now, I respect your position as a muslim and will not attack you regarding that anymore (others, however... grrrr). If religion was a private thing for the practioner, I would absolute respect it. But as it is, I find its intrusion into public policy one of the most dangerous things on earth. It's not a big stretch form saying your country was founded on thus-and-such religious philosophy to becoming a theocracy. I'd rathed pour sand in my eyes and record the scraping sounds as I blink for entertainment, than live in a theocracy.
So, no. Things are not sacred (to me) unless they are of immediate personal importance to someone I respect. Si?
But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
I mean who are you more likely to interact with, someone who says "I respectfully disagree because ....." or " You are a f**king mindless pink unicorn, what the f**k are you thinking?"
From what I see on the threads in the religion forum, everyone (theists and atheists alike) are so patronising and intolerant that its hard to see what they achieve except a momentary satisfaction from insulting each other in the most creative way possible ( and some are really creative!) or maybe a couple of points increase in their blood pressure.
The only thing they do NOT achieve is an understanding of the others point of view.
Mumbo-jumbo? I never said spirituality was mumbo-jumbo! Maybe the wild rantings of a madman, but never mumbo-jumbo. :p
Do you remember a post I made (I think in response to one of yours) that atheists can be just as "spiritual" as theists (even more-so)? I don't dismiss it at all. It's just that my source of "spirituality" is not a god of dubious existence. It's the mysterium tremendum of the cosmos itself.
I didn't mean you specifically, I meant youknowwho :)
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:48 PM
I didn't mean you specifically, I meant youknowwho :)
Letter #17 guy?
Letter #17 guy?
Do you want to get us killed ? :eek: ( sneaking uneasy looks around)
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:52 PM
But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
Absolutely.
I mean who are you more likely to interact with, someone who says "I respectfully disagree because ....." or " You are a f**king mindless pink unicorn, what the f**k are you thinking?"
Depends on what you mean by "interact". Is punching in the nose interaction?
From what I see on the threads in the religion forum, everyone (theists and atheists alike) are so patronising and intolerant that its hard to see what they achieve except a momentary satisfaction from insulting each other in the most creative way possible ( and some are really creative!) or maybe a couple of points increase in their blood pressure.
This is an excellent point. You'll notice the change in my avatar for that very reason (not that the occasional awesomely creative insult is not highly tempting).
superluminal
06-27-06, 05:53 PM
Do you want to get us killed ? :eek: ( sneaking uneasy looks around)
Hahaha! :D
Crunchy Cat
06-27-06, 06:14 PM
That's true. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the importance of letting reality dictate to you. Imagine how much better things would be if every religious extremist asked himself if his beliefs were actually helping him. Does it really make sense that being a hateful person would get me to heaven? It is an easily answered question, but I imagine those to whom it most applies can't be honest enough to themselves to do it.
IMO, it's an educational issue. People aren't trained how to think about information, how to relate to themselves, how to relate to others, how to figure out whom they are, etc.
Well, what to you is the difference between an agreeable explanation and truth? Or rather, what is the explanation agreeing with? I think that some people allow an experience to agree with an explanation they heard, when it would be better to fit an explanation to the experience. In the former case, the "agreeable explanation" is going to agree only with itself and not necessarily the truth, but in the latter, they are pretty much the same thing. Is this what you mean?
In one case the explanation is agreeing with the needs of people (i.e. the bullshit binding them in purpose). In the other case reality is agreeing with the explanation.
Sorry about that. I was trying to illustrate how any interpretation that works suffices, but I lost my point in the process. The answer is yes, if you can find such an interpretation.
Perhaps using reality?
baumgarten
06-27-06, 06:27 PM
Perhaps using reality?
You can't use reality to interpret itself. :p
Crunchy Cat
06-27-06, 06:42 PM
You can't use reality to interpret itself. :p
I see no reason why we can't learn from it and better understand how to think about information.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 06:51 PM
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
baumgarten
06-27-06, 08:03 PM
(Oh yeah - if you reverse 'dog' . . . )
superluminal
06-27-06, 08:40 PM
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
Fine. So what does this line of thinking do for you? Besides give you a hard-on for being able to string words together so cleverly? (No offense. This is directed at all of the philosophically inclined out there).
baumgarten
06-27-06, 08:57 PM
Personally, it allows me to avoid the mistake of putting any one model of reality up on a pedestal and giving it authority over another. It enables philosophical pragmatism, if you will. I find this useful, though someone more religious than I may find it exceedingly so.
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
Now look who's making an ass of themselves.
"Not the reality that is Dog."
Get a grip, man, pull yourself together!
Personally, it allows me to avoid the mistake of putting any one model of reality up on a pedestal and giving it authority over another. It enables philosophical pragmatism, if you will. I find this useful, though someone more religious than I may find it exceedingly so.
Wouldn't the single observed reality be the authoritative?
baumgarten
06-27-06, 10:13 PM
It would, but that's not a model.
charles cure
06-27-06, 10:32 PM
But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?
what about cult leaders and pedophiles and everyone else who believes in something patently irrational and damaging to society? do you accord their beliefs respect also in the name of getting along and communicating - no, i don't think so. there is no difference here really, when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it. i don't think that the validity holy books or scriptures or religious beliefs should be entertained by a rational society, so demanding that they be seen as the inaccurate and archaic stories that they are is a sacrifice i would be willing to make even if it damages my ability to communicate with people whose only agenda is to further the acceptance of these ideals and their integration into wider society.
thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?
what about cult leaders and pedophiles and everyone else who believes in something patently irrational and damaging to society? do you accord their beliefs respect also in the name of getting along and communicating - no, i don't think so. there is no difference here really, when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it. i don't think that the validity holy books or scriptures or religious beliefs should be entertained by a rational society, so demanding that they be seen as the inaccurate and archaic stories that they are is a sacrifice i would be willing to make even if it damages my ability to communicate with people whose only agenda is to further the acceptance of these ideals and their integration into wider society.
Of course I do not mean fundamentalists or dictators; but surely you do not mean to say that every theist fits only these two categories?
Thats like saying all white men are racists or all Germans are Nazis.
There are a lot of theists in the world who follow their religion only for spiritual reasons and no other; if you think attacking someone's core belief will change it why all you have to do is examine your own beliefs to know how hard it is to shed what one REALLY believes in. Attacking someone for his/her belief only makes them defensive and may precipitate the very thing you fear, a desire to fight back...so how can you conceive of this as a rational approach? You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.
perplexity
06-28-06, 04:24 AM
[QUOTE=charles cure]thats an interesting thought as it relates to where you draw the line in terms of respect. hitler believed that the jews needed to be exterminated in order for germany to acheive its "destiny". do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?
Was Mein Kampf taken too seriously or not seriously enough?
Heads in sand caused World War II.
....when you give a belief respect, even if you do not share the conviction, you lend validity to it.
To the contrary, if you have not bothered to respect that which you disagree with, your disagreement is invalid.
I am happy enough to be disagreed with when somebody appears at least to have understood my position.
I am not so keen to bother with those who think they know better than I do what my position is.
--- Ron.
You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.
Like Christians do to Muslims and vice versa?
And we all know the extent of tolerism between the two.
And what I find most disturbing is when theists "see" that which has never been shown to exist.
So, please explain, why anyone should be tolerant of that?
It is not necessary to "prove" God. We see with a spiritual eye, Faith.
charles cure
06-28-06, 11:06 AM
Of course I do not mean fundamentalists or dictators; but surely you do not mean to say that every theist fits only these two categories?
what i mean is that irrational ideas that are prone to distortion and abuse are all the same. your criteria for respecting any given idea or ethos should be that it has inherent value and applicability to reality. at one point i believe that christianity may have qualified as such but at this juncture in history it ceases to be useful other than as a framework for people who seek to impose their way of life on others. good morals are good morals whether they derive from logic or a ficticious god, and i have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that nonreligious morals are fundamentally any different than religious ones. there are certain basic moral tenets that society needs to value in order for civilizations to form and function, and these will be necessary as long as humans believe that societies are still necessary, regardless of where they originate, or the minor particulars of the dogmas they are associated with.
Thats like saying all white men are racists or all Germans are Nazis.
well, pay attention because i wasn't saying that. however, you did appear to be saying that beliefs deserve respect if they are accepted by many people. well, i'm asking where do you draw the line? for me, the line is drawn at rationality and reason. if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.
There are a lot of theists in the world who follow their religion only for spiritual reasons and no other; if you think attacking someone's core belief will change it why all you have to do is examine your own beliefs to know how hard it is to shed what one REALLY believes in. Attacking someone for his/her belief only makes them defensive and may precipitate the very thing you fear, a desire to fight back...so how can you conceive of this as a rational approach? You cannot make someone "see" something some way merely because that way appears right to you. It will be resented just as you would resent it if a theist did the same to you. Tolerance and compassion are an integral part of a mixed society; without it, there is no resolution.
there is a difference between attacking and denying. i don't go up to people coming out fo church on sunday and challenge their beliefs, thats ridiculous. however, when some religious conservative is out lobbying for outlawing abortion based on their insane book of rules, i take issue with it and will argue for what i believe is correct based on human reasoning, which - in the end, is all any god that may have ever existed has left us with. the way i see it, there is no possible way for me to force non-belief onto someone, and i don't wish to. i appreciate people's right to be as spiritual as they want to be a long as i don't have to be too. however, i think that there are a lot of people out there, christians especially in the US, who have taken the game to us and try to enshrine the bible in law. that is something that i will never be ok with, and i see working against it as a defense of myself and my own beliefs, because that's what's under attack. so i agree, in my view, christian political attacks on secularism and nonreligious ideals makes me want to defend myself and it is exactly their disrespect for anything but their own religion that requires me to feel that way. i think though that the issue is twisted all around here. as far as religion goes, i may not have any respect for the ideas espoused, but i do have a fundamental respect for the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want to in private, and practice a spiritual lifestyle as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's ability to exercise their own rights.
charles cure
06-28-06, 11:09 AM
It is not necessary to "prove" God. We see with a spiritual eye, Faith.
yeah good luck with that. do you realize how assinine that sounds?
charles cure
06-28-06, 11:32 AM
Was Mein Kampf taken too seriously or not seriously enough?
Heads in sand caused World War II.
how is this relevant at all? mein kampf was popular, and hitler's leadership was taken seriously in germany and privately i'm sure europeans in other countries agreed with him as well.
who cares what caused WWII, that's not even a part of the discussion.
To the contrary, if you have not bothered to respect that which you disagree with, your disagreement is invalid.
do you respect satanism, pedophilia, witchcraft, sado-masochism, human slavery, child prostitution, suicide bombings, cannibalism, rape, torture...etc.? i have no respcet for any of those things and i disagree with them on perfectly rational grounds. i'd say thats pretty valid. so it would seem patently untrue that you can't disagree with something without respecting it. as a matter of fact i would say that disrespect for some act or set of beliefs is a primary reason for disagreement in the first place. maybe you need to reevaluate your statement here, as it fails to make any kind of sense.
Crunchy Cat
06-28-06, 11:53 AM
Sure, we learn from reality. But we deal with it only through interpretations and models. When we discuss a dog, we are actually discussing a common notion of "dog," not the reality that is Dog, so to speak. So there must be an interpretation separate from that which it represents.
I agree. What is preventing us from using reality to refine how we interpret reality?
perplexity
06-28-06, 01:07 PM
how is this relevant at all? mein kampf was popular, and hitler's leadership was taken seriously in germany and privately i'm sure europeans in other countries agreed with him as well.
who cares what caused WWII, that's not even a part of the discussion.
You put the question "do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?"
do you respect satanism, pedophilia, witchcraft, sado-masochism, human slavery, child prostitution, suicide bombings, cannibalism, rape, torture...etc.?sense.
"Respect" does not necessarily infer agreement or deference.
c.f.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1075318#post1075318
--- Ron.
charles cure
06-28-06, 01:13 PM
You put the question "do you accord his belief respect in order to better communicate with him?"
right, so i'm asking where the line is drawn in terms or respecting a particular belief in order to facilitate communication.
"Respect" does not necessarily infer agreement or deference.
c.f.
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1075318#post1075318
--- Ron.
from merriamwebster.com
Main Entry: 2respect
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD
it means at the very least to see something in a positive light.
what i mean is that irrational ideas that are prone to distortion and abuse are all the same. your criteria for respecting any given idea or ethos should be that it has inherent value and applicability to reality. at one point i believe that christianity may have qualified as such but at this juncture in history it ceases to be useful other than as a framework for people who seek to impose their way of life on others. good morals are good morals whether they derive from logic or a ficticious god, and i have never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that nonreligious morals are fundamentally any different than religious ones. there are certain basic moral tenets that society needs to value in order for civilizations to form and function, and these will be necessary as long as humans believe that societies are still necessary, regardless of where they originate, or the minor particulars of the dogmas they are associated with.
How does intolerance reflect secularism?
well, pay attention because i wasn't saying that. however, you did appear to be saying that beliefs deserve respect if they are accepted by many people. well, i'm asking where do you draw the line? for me, the line is drawn at rationality and reason. if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.
No I said we live in a mixed society; if the beliefs are illegal, there are laws to take care of it; if not, everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to practise them.
there is a difference between attacking and denying. i don't go up to people coming out fo church on sunday and challenge their beliefs, thats ridiculous. however, when some religious conservative is out lobbying for outlawing abortion based on their insane book of rules, i take issue with it and will argue for what i believe is correct based on human reasoning, which - in the end, is all any god that may have ever existed has left us with. the way i see it, there is no possible way for me to force non-belief onto someone, and i don't wish to. i appreciate people's right to be as spiritual as they want to be a long as i don't have to be too. however, i think that there are a lot of people out there, christians especially in the US, who have taken the game to us and try to enshrine the bible in law. that is something that i will never be ok with, and i see working against it as a defense of myself and my own beliefs, because that's what's under attack. so i agree, in my view, christian political attacks on secularism and nonreligious ideals makes me want to defend myself and it is exactly their disrespect for anything but their own religion that requires me to feel that way. i think though that the issue is twisted all around here. as far as religion goes, i may not have any respect for the ideas espoused, but i do have a fundamental respect for the idea that people should be allowed to believe what they want to in private, and practice a spiritual lifestyle as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's ability to exercise their own rights.
Yes you are right; you have a right to your belief as much as anyone else and you are fully justified in your defense.
perplexity
06-28-06, 03:13 PM
[Respect] means at the very least to see something in a positive light.
Did you ever attend a funeral?
People respect death, and not usually in what I would call a positive light.
--- Ron.
charles cure
06-28-06, 03:20 PM
How does intolerance reflect secularism?
tolerance and respect are two different things. we were discussing respect and i was discussing why i think religious belief has outlived its usefullness and applicability and why it does not deserve respect. tolerance is an entirely different subject.
No I said we live in a mixed society; if the beliefs are illegal, there are laws to take care of it; if not, everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to practise them.
first of all, hitler's beliefs were enshrined in law at the time that he was leader of germany, that still does not make them right or deserving of respect. slavery was also once legal here, and i think we all know that the basis for that practice - the belief that blacks were inferior - was not deserving of respect either.
secondly, the debate about religion's place in western society often revolves around whether religous beliefs and religiously based moral arguments can be used as a basis for defining law. in some cases, practices that were once legal have become illegal because a religious agenda is favored by those in power. so freedom can be eroded easily if you stand by and let others take it from you, as many religious people in the west would like to.
Yes you are right; you have a right to your belief as much as anyone else and you are fully justified in your defense.
i dont have a belief. thats the beauty of it. i want the right to not be bombarded by the beliefs of certain sects in the public square, and i would like to retain the secular nature of our laws and values as a society.
charles cure
06-28-06, 03:24 PM
Did you ever attend a funeral?
People respect death, and not usually in what I would call a positive light.
--- Ron.
no they don't. the respect you show at a funeral is twofold. respect for the family who has lost a loved one, because you view the family or members of it in a positive light and you wish to soothe their pain. you also go to show respect for the person who has died. people attend a funeral to show that they respected who that person was in life because they saw them as good or worthy of respect.
did you not think before you posted that?
tolerance and respect are two different things. we were discussing respect and i was discussing why i think religious belief has outlived its usefullness and applicability and why it does not deserve respect. tolerance is an entirely different subject.
So intolerance is the wave of the future? what does that achieve, exactly?
first of all, hitler's beliefs were enshrined in law at the time that he was leader of germany, that still does not make them right or deserving of respect. slavery was also once legal here, and i think we all know that the basis for that practice - the belief that blacks were inferior - was not deserving of respect either.
What's the obsession with Hitler? And was he not called to account for his actions ? Intolerance by ANYONE is not to be condoned.
secondly, the debate about religion's place in western society often revolves around whether religous beliefs and religiously based moral arguments can be used as a basis for defining law. in some cases, practices that were once legal have become illegal because a religious agenda is favored by those in power. so freedom can be eroded easily if you stand by and let others take it from you, as many religious people in the west would like to.
And in how many places has it actually been implemented?
i dont have a belief. thats the beauty of it. i want the right to not be bombarded by the beliefs of certain sects in the public square, and i would like to retain the secular nature of our laws and values as a society.
Not having a belief is also a belief
belief:Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Like Christians do to Muslims and vice versa?
Some Muslims and some Christians; you might be surprised to know that a lot of it has to do with politics and not much else.
And we all know the extent of tolerism between the two.
Who's we? ( tolerism??)
And what I find most disturbing is when theists "see" that which has never been shown to exist.
And this is important because...?
So, please explain, why anyone should be tolerant of that?
Because compassion and understanding is better than intolerance and invective?
Because we (?) live in a secular society?
Because everyone has a right to his beliefs?
charles cure
06-28-06, 03:43 PM
So intolerance is the wave of the future? what does that achieve, exactly?
where are you getting this bullshit about intolerance? here, i try to make a distinction between respct and tolerance and it somehow escapes you. you can tolerate something that you don't have respect for. having respect for something and allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief as ok for everyone, including yourself. i am saying that the more people say "oh its ok for people to take the bible seriously because its somewhat accurate or because its story could be real" the more it becomes acceptable to assume that we can base our cultural norms and values upon it. by saying "look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story" you do not take away people's ability to believe in it, but you relegate it to a private belief instead of an insidious cultural guideline. in this way, you may tolerate without respecting.
What's the obsession with Hitler? And was he not called to account for his actions ? Intolerance by ANYONE is not to be condoned.
he was, but not by the german people who he lead, and not before he had already killed 6 million people. imagine if the germans had condemned his idiocy before he ever came to power, there would have been no holocaust.
And in how many places has it actually been implemented?
well let's see...the entire arab world for starters. in our country, for years and years religious belief has dictated laws regarding sexual norms, including a ban on gay marriage, a prohibition against gays in the military, the Texas law banning abortion that led to the Row v Wade decision by the supreme court, laws banning euthanasia/assisted suicide...etc.
so i guess all over the place.
Not having a belief is also a belief
belief:Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
listen to yourself: "not believing is the same thing as believing". is it? do you realize what a contradiction in terms that is? i don't believe in a religion, nor do i favor a particular spiritual or moral belief system that is not fact based. to believe means to accept the validity or truth of something in the absence of empirical proof or evidence. i don't do that. whether or not i agree with a doctrine espoused by a praticular religion or not is a matter of coincidence and personal morality for me and i decide issues like that based on their merits - ie: whether a particular position is logical or has any factual basis to begin with, and to what extent the effects of any act can be forseen and viewed as positive or negative based on what is known at present. that's not belief at all. that's informed decision making.
perplexity
06-28-06, 03:45 PM
no they don't. the respect you show at a funeral is twofold. respect for the family who has lost a loved one, because you view the family or members of it in a positive light and you wish to soothe their pain. you also go to show respect for the person who has died. people attend a funeral to show that they respected who that person was in life because they saw them as good or worthy of respect.
did you not think before you posted that?
Yes I did.
What does "respect" mean here then?
To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
(Hamlet, Act 2, 1.)
This to my mind is the greatest respect of all.
--- Ron.
charles cure
06-28-06, 03:49 PM
oh you mean to respect the power of death out of fear? yeah i don't do that. so you keep on quoting shakespeare's middle english and i'll continue to use respect the way it is meant today.
where are you getting this bullshit about intolerance? here, i try to make a distinction between respct and tolerance and it somehow escapes you. you can tolerate something that you don't have respect for. having respect for something and allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief as ok for everyone, including yourself. i am saying that the more people say "oh its ok for people to take the bible seriously because its somewhat accurate or because its story could be real" the more it becomes acceptable to assume that we can base our cultural norms and values upon it. by saying "look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story" you do not take away people's ability to believe in it, but you relegate it to a private belief instead of an insidious cultural guideline. in this way, you may tolerate without respecting.
And this is your idea of tolerance?
he was, but not by the german people who he lead, and not before he had already killed 6 million people. imagine if the germans had condemned his idiocy before he ever came to power, there would have been no holocaust.
You have read some strange history books.
well let's see...the entire arab world for starters. in our country, for years and years religious belief has dictated laws regarding sexual norms, including a ban on gay marriage, a prohibition against gays in the military, the Texas law banning abortion that led to the Row v Wade decision by the supreme court, laws banning euthanasia/assisted suicide...etc.
so i guess all over the place.
You might want to travel the world a bit; regardless of popular opinion the US and ME are not the extent of the world.
listen to yourself: "not believing is the same thing as believing". is it? do you realize what a contradiction in terms that is? i don't believe in a religion, nor do i favor a particular spiritual or moral belief system that is not fact based. to believe means to accept the validity or truth of something in the absence of empirical proof or evidence. i don't do that. whether or not i agree with a doctrine espoused by a praticular religion or not is a matter of coincidence and personal morality for me and i decide issues like that based on their merits - ie: whether a particular position is logical or has any factual basis to begin with, and to what extent the effects of any act can be forseen and viewed as positive or negative based on what is known at present. that's not belief at all. that's informed decision making.
Is that a direct quote? I've lived in several multicultural societies but this is the most non-secular society I have ever seen; even the atheists are fundamentalists!!
charles cure
06-28-06, 04:32 PM
And this is your idea of tolerance?
explain how it isn't tolerance. in fact, why don't you try refuting the things i say instead of just weaseling out of them by asking more questions.
You have read some strange history books.
oh really, its accepted history now that the german people stopped hitler before he came to power and averted the holocaust? interesting.
You might want to travel the world a bit; regardless of popular opinion the US and ME are not the extent of the world.
i've been to 10 countries and every state in the US except for 3. so i think i have been around a little, however, that seems irrelevant considering i answered the question you posed and now you don't think that those were valid examples because i didn't explain how it has happened historically everywhere else in the world. you're wasting both of our time. try arguing it instead.
Is that a direct quote? I've lived in several multicultural societies but this is the most non-secular society I have ever seen; even the atheists are fundamentalists!!
who cares where you lived? you made a stupid statment. you said non-belief is a belief. where do you get an idea like that? on top of it, i'm going to bet that you view any protest against religion in the public square here as an atheist intolerance of religion, which it's not. there are some people here that are religious but value the ideals on which our country was founded highly enough to be angered when someone tries to circumvent constitutional law and shove a religious belief into our midst as a public institution. those issues are purely legal and have nothing to do with intolerance of one idea because another is favored; they instead are based on the premise that if no one belief is accorded preferential treatment, then all beliefs will have equal opportunity to flourish.
baumgarten
06-28-06, 07:18 PM
I agree. What is preventing us from using reality to refine how we interpret reality?
Nothing. That's what learning is.
[QUOTE]explain how it isn't tolerance. in fact, why don't you try refuting the things i say instead of just weaseling out of them by asking more questions.
You might have noticed, I'm not exactly agreeing with you here.
...allowing it to be seen as valid go beyond toleration and extend into a tacit approval of the practice or belief....
How exactly does this equal tolerance to you? I am curious to know...also you seem conflicted between tolerance and accepting two completely separate concepts
oh really, its accepted history now that the german people stopped hitler before he came to power and averted the holocaust? interesting.
I would think you would recognize the power of self delusion...
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection2.htm
i've been to 10 countries and every state in the US except for 3. so i think i have been around a little, however, that seems irrelevant considering i answered the question you posed and now you don't think that those were valid examples because i didn't explain how it has happened historically everywhere else in the world. you're wasting both of our time. try arguing it instead.
And you think all the countries were fighting about religion? not about power?
who cares where you lived? you made a stupid statment. you said non-belief is a belief. where do you get an idea like that?
How about "you believe in the absence of theism?"
Are you familiar with semantics?
on top of it, i'm going to bet that you view any protest against religion in the public square here as an atheist intolerance of religion, which it's not. there are some people here that are religious but value the ideals on which our country was founded highly enough to be angered when someone tries to circumvent constitutional law and shove a religious belief into our midst as a public institution.
No but I do view violent opposition of theists ( on the sole ground that they are theists) as anti-theism, which is completely separate from atheism.
Atheists disbelieve in the presence of a deity; anti-theists are convinced all theists are irrational.
those issues are purely legal and have nothing to do with intolerance of one idea because another is favored; they instead are based on the premise that if no one belief is accorded preferential treatment, then all beliefs will have equal opportunity to flourish
all beliefs? like this you mean?
"look, lets see the bible for what it is - a ficticious story"
How naive.
Crunchy Cat
06-28-06, 08:26 PM
Nothing. That's what learning is.
Then it would appear that reality can be used to interpret reality.
baumgarten
06-28-06, 09:01 PM
No, re-read it. I've been very specific in my wording.
Crunchy Cat
06-28-06, 09:41 PM
As have I. We're not exactly seperate from reality hence by default we are points of reality interpreting reality. Reality can provide these points with knowledge that might let them learn how to interpret reality better.
baumgarten
06-29-06, 01:13 AM
I see. I misunderstood you at the outset, then.
Some Muslims and some Christians; you might be surprised to know that a lot of it has to do with politics and not much else.
Horsepucky, it has everything to do with religion.
Who's we? ( tolerism??)
Everyone.
And this is important because...?
Because they see things that aren't there, you don't find that disturbing? Is that normal for you?
Because compassion and understanding is better than intolerance and invective?
But, your religion is intolerant, that makes Muslims hypocrites.
Because we (?) live in a secular society?
Unfortunately, we do not.
Because everyone has a right to his beliefs?
A right yes, but when people believe in myths and fairy tales, that is a different story because it is offensive.
charles cure
06-29-06, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE=charles cure]
You might have noticed, I'm not exactly agreeing with you here.
who cares if you disagree, you have put forth no reason as to why my assertion is incorrect. if you came here just to disagree without any real reasoning, then i'll see you later.
How exactly does this equal tolerance to you? I am curious to know...also you seem conflicted between tolerance and accepting two completely separate concepts
i knew i would have to do this - from www.merriamwebster.com
Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
notice that the definition does not contain any necessary respect for anyone elses belief, only an allowance of it. if something is allowed legally, then i don't take that right away by speaking out against it. but if i think it is wrong it is my right to attempt to persuade people as to why its wrong. i would argue that i can do that and still tolerate the belief although i don't agree with it. intolerance would be attempting to eradicate it through violence or through a change in the law that would criminalize the practice of religion. i was never advocating something like that. i don't know how you have gotten so confused.
I would think you would recognize the power of self delusion...
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection2.htm
how exactly is that relevant? hitler espoused his beliefs about the jews in literature and in speeches before taking absolute control of the country. you can only blame so much on charisma and propaganda. the german people agreed with hitler to an extent, and those that didn't may still have seen him as the antidote to their troubles and so they accepted his bad qualities as a necessary evil. so what? let's not belabor the point, the germans knew that he had an intolerant agenda and they went along with it. they failed to speak out and stop hitler from coming to power. self-delusion or not is irrelevant. in fact the hitler aspect of this conversation is irrelevant. the original point is that people believe in dangerous and irrational ideas sometimes and have reaped the negative consequences repeatedly. religious belief is no less irrational than the beliefs that form the basis of ideas about racial supremacy and the fact that holy books claim to be authoritative, but are left open to interpretation and distortion by a slew of hacks, ambitious politicians, demagogues, and the like makes them potentially extremely dangerous when taken seriously by the majority of society.
And you think all the countries were fighting about religion? not about power?
when did a fight even enter the discussion? i was talking about how religious belief forms a basis for law in society, and specifically how christian belief has influenced lawmaking in the united states and how muslim religious law plays a huge role in the formation of legality in the middle east. are you even paying attention to the conversation or are you just trying to misdirect it because you can't come up with a proper counterargument?
How about "you believe in the absence of theism?"
Are you familiar with semantics?
yeah i am, but apparently you aren't. this isn't a semantic distinction at all. i don't believe in an absence of anything, i simply refuse to believe that something is there without evidence. there are a ton of things i don't believe in because they seem totally unlikely, even impossible, and there is no reason to believe that they exist. superman for example, or smurfs. there are books written about them, yes, even tv shows, but there is still no evidence for their existence, so i consider them made up. now, do i believe that they don't exist - no, i have precluded myself from even wondering if they do because there is absolutely no reason to think that they ever would.
by the way, i don't believe in an absence of theism either, i'm well aware that theism exists.
No but I do view violent opposition of theists ( on the sole ground that they are theists) as anti-theism, which is completely separate from atheism.
Atheists disbelieve in the presence of a deity; anti-theists are convinced all theists are irrational.
good for you, when did we start talking about violent opposition to theists?
How naive.
yeah, i bet. enlighten me then, and while youre at it bring all the proof that you can find that corroborates the core story of christianity.
please try harder next time.
who cares if you disagree, you have put forth no reason as to why my assertion is incorrect. if you came here just to disagree without any real reasoning, then i'll see you later.
Hmm
i knew i would have to do this - from www.merriamwebster.com
Main Entry: tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
notice that the definition does not contain any necessary respect for anyone elses belief, only an allowance of it. if something is allowed legally, then i don't take that right away by speaking out against it. but if i think it is wrong it is my right to attempt to persuade people as to why its wrong. i would argue that i can do that and still tolerate the belief although i don't agree with it. intolerance would be attempting to eradicate it through violence or through a change in the law that would criminalize the practice of religion. i was never advocating something like that. i don't know how you have gotten so confused.
Try using a better dictionary: ( Websters)
Tolerance
Noun
1. The power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions.
2. A disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
3. The act of tolerating something.
4. Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.
5. A permissible difference; allowing freedom to move within limits.
how exactly is that relevant? hitler espoused his beliefs about the jews in literature and in speeches before taking absolute control of the country. you can only blame so much on charisma and propaganda. the german people agreed with hitler to an extent, and those that didn't may still have seen him as the antidote to their troubles and so they accepted his bad qualities as a necessary evil. so what? let's not belabor the point, the germans knew that he had an intolerant agenda and they went along with it. they failed to speak out and stop hitler from coming to power. self-delusion or not is irrelevant. in fact the hitler aspect of this conversation is irrelevant. the original point is that people believe in dangerous and irrational ideas sometimes and have reaped the negative consequences repeatedly. religious belief is no less irrational than the beliefs that form the basis of ideas about racial supremacy and the fact that holy books claim to be authoritative, but are left open to interpretation and distortion by a slew of hacks, ambitious politicians, demagogues, and the like makes them potentially extremely dangerous when taken seriously by the majority of society.
I really do not have time for a comprehensive history lesson here; so I'll give you some pointers to start with:
1. World War I effects on Germany, Britain and France
2. Economic conditions in Germany during World War II
3. Oh what the heck! here's some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_were_the_causes_of_World_War_2
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/intro_e.html
http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIIcauses.htm
http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html
I'll address the rest of your post a little later.
when did a fight even enter the discussion? i was talking about how religious belief forms a basis for law in society, and specifically how christian belief has influenced lawmaking in the united states and how muslim religious law plays a huge role in the formation of legality in the middle east. are you even paying attention to the conversation or are you just trying to misdirect it because you can't come up with a proper counterargument?
If christian law forms a basis for law in the US, and Islamic law a basis for law in the ME, it is a reflection of the political mindset of the people and is based on majority opinion.
yeah i am, but apparently you aren't. this isn't a semantic distinction at all. i don't believe in an absence of anything, i simply refuse to believe that something is there without evidence. there are a ton of things i don't believe in because they seem totally unlikely, even impossible, and there is no reason to believe that they exist. superman for example, or smurfs. there are books written about them, yes, even tv shows, but there is still no evidence for their existence, so i consider them made up. now, do i believe that they don't exist - no, i have precluded myself from even wondering if they do because there is absolutely no reason to think that they ever would.
This is not about you or your beliefs; it is about generalising your personal assumptions and analysis of experience for others with different beliefs.
by the way, i don't believe in an absence of theism either, i'm well aware that theism exists.
OK
good for you, when did we start talking about violent opposition to theists?
Hmm, was I mistaken about the sentiment here?
if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.
If so, I stand corrected.
yeah, i bet. enlighten me then, and while youre at it bring all the proof that you can find that corroborates the core story of christianity.
It is not my desire to enlighten you about religion, merely to point out that all people have a right to their beliefs, including you. I reread your posts; it seems your focus is on fundamentalists rather than theists; since I share these concerns about extremism, I believe we are on the same page here. I too do not agree with religion as a tool to promote divisiveness and terrorism.
please try harder next time.
Hope I was able to clarify my position.
Horsepucky, it has everything to do with religion.
I respectfully disagree; and you may call me Sam, I like it better than Horsepucky. :)
Everyone.
Hmm, self delusion.
Because they see things that aren't there, you don't find that disturbing? Is that normal for you?
Are you disturbed by all individuals who disagree with you? Is this normal for you?
But, your religion is intolerant, that makes Muslims hypocrites.
Says the person who is intolerant of all who do not agree with him/her?
Unfortunately, we do not.
Hmm, explains your attitude.
A right yes, but when people believe in myths and fairy tales, that is a different story because it is offensive.
Sounds like you have a REAL problem (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/intolerant)
charles cure
06-29-06, 05:46 PM
If christian law forms a basis for law in the US, and Islamic law a basis for law in the ME, it is a reflection of the political mindset of the people and is based on majority opinion.
so? majority opinion isn't always right. in fact, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. as a coroallry to that, in the middle east it is sometimes not the majority opinion, rather it is forced upon the people by those who weild the biggest guns. in the US, the constitution is still more important than any one majority's opinion at any given time, so unless they amend it, there is still a law against giving preferential treatment to a religion in the public square, and there is still separation of church and state regardless of how certain groups would try to erode it.
This is not about you or your beliefs; it is about generalising your personal assumptions and analysis of experience for others with different beliefs.
on the contrary it was about you saying that my non-allegiance to religion and non-belief in god were actually a fanatical belief system, an interesting theory which has clearly been debunked and that you are now trying to weasel out of because you were wrong.
and as per your above statement, all i have said is that i don't think that religion deserves my respect, nothing about attempting to forcibly alter anyone else's way of thinking.
OK
well, you said i believed in an absence of theism. maybe you should pay closer attention to the words you type and what they actually mean.
Hmm, was I mistaken about the sentiment here?
If so, I stand corrected.
clearly you are as it says nothing whatsoever about violence or fighting or forcing anyone to do anything.
here's what i said, maybe try reading it again, and this time try to understand it:
if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.
i guess you stand corrected.
It is not my desire to enlighten you about religion, merely to point out that all people have a right to their beliefs, including you. I reread your posts; it seems your focus is on fundamentalists rather than theists; since I share these concerns about extremism, I believe we are on the same page here. I too do not agree with religion as a tool to promote divisiveness and terrorism.
well, i'm not really talking about extremism exclusively. every extremist is at one time a run-of-the-mill believer. every extremist is allowed to exist by virtue of the fact that there is a ready made framework for which to implement their vulgar ideas that is supported by thousands or millions of people who share at least some of that core belief. if no one took the koran seriously, then no one could ever use its verses to convince people to blow themselves up on a bus. if no one took the bible seriously, there would have been no basis upon which to twist its doctrines to justify witch burnings, closeted homosexuals, crusades, the torture of the inquisition, women being harrassed and threatened at abortion clinics, hitler's germany, black slavery, and countless other wars, skirmishes and genocides commited throughout the course of history by what you would now call extremists.
the problem is though that people respect the bible even sometimes when they only moderately believe in it, or they respect it thinking that their interpretation is the only correct one and that other harmful interpretations will either never exist, or will just work themselves out over time. that is truly naive. the backbone of any religious extremist organization is the church or the mosque or the temple that lends the possibility of authority to their interpretation of a holy text to begin with.
so? majority opinion isn't always right. in fact, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. as a coroallry to that, in the middle east it is sometimes not the majority opinion, rather it is forced upon the people by those who weild the biggest guns. in the US, the constitution is still more important than any one majority's opinion at any given time, so unless they amend it, there is still a law against giving preferential treatment to a religion in the public square, and there is still separation of church and state regardless of how certain groups would try to erode it.
on the contrary it was about you saying that my non-allegiance to religion and non-belief in god were actually a fanatical belief system, an interesting theory which has clearly been debunked and that you are now trying to weasel out of because you were wrong.
and as per your above statement, all i have said is that i don't think that religion deserves my respect, nothing about attempting to forcibly alter anyone else's way of thinking.
well, you said i believed in an absence of theism. maybe you should pay closer attention to the words you type and what they actually mean.
clearly you are as it says nothing whatsoever about violence or fighting or forcing anyone to do anything.
here's what i said, maybe try reading it again, and this time try to understand it:
if a belief is untenable in terms of logic or reason or seems to have a basis in fantasy, i don't accept its validity. so in that regard i do lump religious belief in with naziism...et al. although, i am wondering what exact distinction you would make - is it that religious belief is ok because it doesn't harm anyone, irrational as it may be? well a case could be made that roman catholicism has resulted in far more death and despair than naziism ever did. i'm just curious about why you think that something like the christianity or islam would deserve respect when these other things wouldn't.
i guess you stand corrected.
well, i'm not really talking about extremism exclusively. every extremist is at one time a run-of-the-mill believer. every extremist is allowed to exist by virtue of the fact that there is a ready made framework for which to implement their vulgar ideas that is supported by thousands or millions of people who share at least some of that core belief. if no one took the koran seriously, then no one could ever use its verses to convince people to blow themselves up on a bus. if no one took the bible seriously, there would have been no basis upon which to twist its doctrines to justify witch burnings, closeted homosexuals, crusades, the torture of the inquisition, women being harrassed and threatened at abortion clinics, hitler's germany, black slavery, and countless other wars, skirmishes and genocides commited throughout the course of history by what you would now call extremists.
the problem is though that people respect the bible even sometimes when they only moderately believe in it, or they respect it thinking that their interpretation is the only correct one and that other harmful interpretations will either never exist, or will just work themselves out over time. that is truly naive. the backbone of any religious extremist organization is the church or the mosque or the temple that lends the possibility of authority to their interpretation of a holy text to begin with.
You seem to imply that religion is a major force in inciting violence; I believe its just another excuse used by those who want to justify their propensity for violence. People use many excuses to justify their behavior, discrimination is an unavoidable part of the human psyche. We notice differences among people before we notice any similarities; ultimately its all about power or perceived power whether it is over women, over slaves or over "minorities". There are a whole lot of people in the world who follow their religion peacefully; they do not make headlines however and are usually forgotten when religion is criticized. If you consider that around 80% of the world is theist , how many of them can you really accuse of being fundamentalist? Economics plays a very important role in perceived miscarriages of justice, second only to power hungry governments ( some of whom become very rich in the bargain). They need to justify their anger and greed and mislead people by using religion. People cannot be fooled forever, however, and dissent is good, it leads to a reexamination of core values. But its important to be objective as well, reform works better with kindness than force. It is sometimes easier to get something by asking for it than by trying to forcibly take it away.
Most people want nothing more than to lead peaceful lives with their families and have too much to worry about on a daily basis to think of the impact of world events. They only take things pesonally whey perceive themselves as misunderstood or criticized. Fundamentalists bank on the emotions of such people and use them to their perverted ends. I believe it is important to focus on education as a means of offering people a wider perspective to make decisions which are not rooted in emotion. For this to succeed, it is imperative to recognize the sensitivities and weaknesses of people in order to help them effectively.
I understand what you are trying to say, but IMHO, people respond much better to understanding than they do to opinion.
That's all.
lightgigantic
06-29-06, 06:36 PM
A friend (western bodied) had personal experience backpacking through pakistan and afghanistan - he said how he had numerous occassions when he was asking for directions and strangers (muslims bythe way) would personally escort him to the location or hail down a cab or rickshaw, tell the driver where to go and pay the fare for him. Apparently there is some injunction about receiving a guest or stranger in islam that encourages people to be helpful - now who do you think that is going to make headlines?
You could take this a step further and compare this to western civilisation -
When asked what he thought of western civilisation gandhi replied "Yes, wouldn't it be nice if it was?"
When asked what he thought of western civilisation gandhi replied "Yes, wouldn't it be nice if it was?"
Sorry to be picky, lightgigantic, what Mahatma Gandhi actually said was:
"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
- Mohandas Gandhi
lightgigantic
06-29-06, 07:30 PM
Sorry to be picky, lightgigantic, what Mahatma Gandhi actually said was:
"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."
- Mohandas Gandhi
lol - sorry - I had the drift though
I respectfully disagree; and you may call me Sam, I like it better than Horsepucky.
You may disagree.
Hmm, self delusion.
And who is the one that believes in invisible sky daddies? You're one to talk of delusion.
Are you disturbed by all individuals who disagree with you? Is this normal for you?
When they see and talk to things that aren't there, that is disturbing.
Says the person who is intolerant of all who do not agree with him/her?
Intolerant of religion, get it right.
Hmm, explains your attitude.
What attitude?
Sounds like you have a REAL problem
Religion is a serious problem. It has infected the minds of millions of people like a virus. It needs to be stopped before it becomes the end of us all.
You may disagree.
And who is the one that believes in invisible sky daddies? You're one to talk of delusion.
When they see and talk to things that aren't there, that is disturbing.
Intolerant of religion, get it right.
What attitude?
Religion is a serious problem. It has infected the minds of millions of people like a virus. It needs to be stopped before it becomes the end of us all.
I'm done here.
I'm done here.
The "fear" of asking the hard questions about your religion has defeated you, not I.
The "fear" of asking the hard questions about your religion has defeated you, not I.
Whatever.
superluminal
06-29-06, 09:05 PM
Whatever.
Hey sam. How's it going? Frustrating, isn't it?
Hey sam. How's it going? Frustrating, isn't it?
Not really, I was just disappointed that there was so much of a gap in understanding- I guess I had had enough.
superluminal
06-29-06, 09:46 PM
People need other people.
If I was the only atheist in a small tribe of theists, this could make me an outcast and vastly reduce my chances of survival, let alone procreating.
Evolution has made us this way. It's unavoidable.
Ideologies (common ways of thinking) bind people.
Evolution has made us this way.
Religion, nationalism, racism, atheism, communism, wiccans, the boy scouts, my astronomy club.
Can we look at an ideology and declare it "good" or "bad"?
How can we classify ideologies?
Can we look at the cost/benefit over time to individuals and society and the world?
Can we objectively state that racism is "bad"? Bad for whom? If your goal is to maintain your group identity at all costs, is racism bad? No. If, however, your goal is to maximize the prosperity of all humans, since we now all share the entire planet, is racism then bad? Yes.
Is my astronomy club and our values bad? If our goal is to learn about our universe and share our interests with other like-minded people, is amateur astronomy bad? No. If our goal is to forcibly promote astronomy as the national hobby and have astronomy conformance written into the constitution, is my astronomy club bad? Yes.
Is nationalism bad? If your goal is to protect your soverignty while respecting the soverignty of other nations, is nationalism bad? No. If your goal is to forcibly promote your government on others and bend them to your will, then is nationalism bad? Yes.
Is religion bad? If your goal is to find your personal reason for existence and share that search with other like-minded people, is religion bad? No. If your goal is to forcibly promote religion as the "correct" way for all people to find their path, is religion bad? Yes.
So we see, like anything, there are usually two distinct aspects. If fire good or bad? Is killing good or bad? Is chocolate-toffe ice cream good or bad?
I guarantee you can answer either way to almost any question of this nature.
From this I conclude that religion is good and bad. Many, many people find great comfort in their certainty of a permanent father figure. Of a higher purpose to their lives. Of eternal continuance of their consciousness.
Others feel the same things and cannot tolerate anyone who does not, and must bend them to their will. Others see an easy way to control masses of people.
The holding of any ideology is an open invitation to abuse and manipulation.
Therefore, weak-minded wiccans, communists, atheists, patriots, theists, boy scouts, and astronomers can be easily swayed to good or bad applications of their ideologies.
The vast majority of people are not control hungry megalomaniacs. We are the vast majority. Strengthen your minds. No matter what your ideology. Keep the prosperity of all foremost in your planning. Don't seek to control and dominate, and laugh at those who would.
superluminal
06-29-06, 09:54 PM
superluminal:
I agree.
I thought you might. :)
looking_forward
06-29-06, 09:58 PM
Isn't it? Science is still limited by the knowledge and tools available. Its rather sweeping to presume nothing is out of its reach
I think it would be better said "nothing will be out of science's reach." True, today science is limited by the knowledege and tools of this age, so the areas that science cant touch are taken up by religion, such as consciousness, creation, etc. But in ancient times, science was limited to a much greater extent, hence the false gods created to account for these unknowns, like thunder and the rising of the sun and the harvest. As of now, yes, science is limited and can not give definite answers on some subjects, but looking at the past pattern of the growth of science, and considering the knowledge of science is growing exponentially, i do not think it is pretentious at all to say that science will have a much much bigger, and eventually practically infinite grasp on the reality of our universe as time progresses.
lightgigantic
06-29-06, 10:29 PM
I think it would be better said "nothing will be out of science's reach." True, today science is limited by the knowledege and tools of this age, so the areas that science cant touch are taken up by religion, such as consciousness, creation, etc. But in ancient times, science was limited to a much greater extent, hence the false gods created to account for these unknowns, like thunder and the rising of the sun and the harvest. As of now, yes, science is limited and can not give definite answers on some subjects, but looking at the past pattern of the growth of science, and considering the knowledge of science is growing exponentially, i do not think it is pretentious at all to say that science will have a much much bigger, and eventually practically infinite grasp on the reality of our universe as time progresses.
Actually science (or more specifically an empirical approach to knowledge) can only flourish in an atmosphere of ignorance - dreaming of the end of knowledge acquired by science is just like dreaming of peace in the material world - it inspires a lot of people to act but the end result is never achieved
wesmorris
06-30-06, 12:52 AM
Goddamnit super. I told you not to say that. Now I have to take one of your cookies away.
*invokes nerdly powers*
OBEY!
looking_forward
06-30-06, 10:37 AM
But doesn't according respect to someone's opinions (regardless of whether you believe in them) actually enable better communication?
Maybe if this respect went both ways but it does not. First, most atheists such as myself do not believe that there is no God, they just personally dont believe it (I am generalizing here i know that some atheists outright say there is no god but i believe there are far more like myself who just do not believe things until they see evidence, so god is just like a pending subject that we disregard in this evidence-lacking state) Therefore, an atheist's viewpoint does not attack a theist's. But the theist's viewpoint that there is a god directly disagrees with the atheist viewpoint.
The atheist says, "i do not believe in god. he may exist and you may believe in him but i do not."
The theist says "There is a god, it is not that i personally believe there is a god, it is reality that god exists, therefore your belief is wrong"
In my own experience, such as with my brother who is a theist, i will tell him that i can see how and why he would believe in god, but that i personally do not. On the contrary, i have never heard him once say that he understands the reasons for my skepticism, he is outright offended that i do not blindly accept silly beliefs. Theists believe that we are constantly trying to invalidate their beliefs, but it is by the theist's very nature and belief that he is contantly trying to invalidate the viewpoint of the atheist. I guess im waiting to get some respect for using modern evidence and logic to form my beliefs rather than ancient myth.
Maybe if this respect went both ways but it does not. First, most atheists such as myself do not believe that there is no God, they just personally dont believe it (I am generalizing here i know that some atheists outright say there is no god but i believe there are far more like myself who just do not believe things until they see evidence, so god is just like a pending subject that we disregard in this evidence-lacking state) Therefore, an atheist's viewpoint does not attack a theist's. But the theist's viewpoint that there is a god directly disagrees with the atheist viewpoint.
The atheist says, "i do not believe in god. he may exist and you may believe in him but i do not."
The theist says "There is a god, it is not that i personally believe there is a god, it is reality that god exists, therefore your belief is wrong"
In my own experience, such as with my brother who is a theist, i will tell him that i can see how and why he would believe in god, but that i personally do not. On the contrary, i have never heard him once say that he understands the reasons for my skepticism, he is outright offended that i do not blindly accept silly beliefs. Theists believe that we are constantly trying to invalidate their beliefs, but it is by the theist's very nature and belief that he is contantly trying to invalidate the viewpoint of the atheist. I guess im waiting to get some respect for using modern evidence and logic to form my beliefs rather than ancient myth.
My point is no one can force anyone to believe or disbelieve; your brothers strength of conviction may equal your own. I dislike the idea of anyone determinig what's right for others; thats a slippery slope which only goes downhill and leads to no long term resolution.
My point is no one can force anyone to believe or disbelieve; your brothers strength of conviction may equal your own. I dislike the idea of anyone determinig what's right for others; thats a slippery slope which only goes downhill and leads to no long term resolution.
But, your religion demands belief, therefore it has been going down that slippery slope for centuries.
You should therefore denounce your religion immediately for the reasons YOU have provided.
How do you justify the killing of apostates yet have on many occassions claimed you have no problem with your religion?
But, your religion demands belief, therefore it has been going down that slippery slope for centuries.
All affiliations demand loyalty.
You should therefore denounce your religion immediately for the reasons YOU have provided.
You should refrain from deciding what other people should do.
How do you justify the killing of apostates yet have on many occassions claimed you have no problem with your religion?
There is no punishment of death for apostacy in the Quran or the Shariah; the basis for death in apostacy in Islam is by Islamic jurists in countries which are predominantly Islamic. This in turn is based on a Hadeeth attributed to the Prophet. However the Quran clearly states that death is only recommended for murder or terrorism; which cleary contradicts the Hadeeth. Death sentencing for apostacy is a political decision since it is not applicable to all Muslims everywhere, only those within their country. So it is not a universal law. The problem of death in apostacy is a social problem not a religous one.
All affiliations demand loyalty.
Exactly! And with those demands, religion determines whats right for you, the very thing you claim to dislike!
You should refrain from deciding what other people should do.
I'm only pointing out the next logical step. Sorry if you thought I was trying to force you into doing something you disliked.
There is no punishment of death for apostacy in the Quran or the Shariah; the basis for death in apostacy in Islam is by Islamic jurists in countries which are predominantly Islamic. This in turn is based on a Hadeeth attributed to the Prophet.
Round and round she goes, where she stops, no one knows. Do you honestly read what you write? Look at it and then tell me what part of that is not Islamic?
However the Quran clearly states that death is only recommended for murder or terrorism; which cleary contradicts the Hadeeth.
So, why would one doctrine contradict another? Who dropped the ball?
Death sentencing for apostacy is a political decision since it is not applicable to all Muslims everywhere, only those within their country. So it is not a universal law.
Don't be silly, it wouldn't possibly be allowed in non-Islamic states, it's utterly barbaric, and I'm shocked you find it acceptable.
The problem of death in apostacy is a social problem not a religous one.
It wouldn't be a problem at all if not for the religion, since one is meeting their death as a result of leaving the religion. What is the social/political problem with that and what exactly is being done about it?
Exactly! And with those demands, religion determines whats right for you, the very thing you claim to dislike!
Not if its my choice.
I'm only pointing out the next logical step. Sorry if you thought I was trying to force you into doing something you disliked.
:m:
Round and round she goes, where she stops, no one knows. Do you honestly read what you write? Look at it and then tell me what part of that is not Islamic?
Here:
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan (Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986) ISBN 068618551X) examined and concluded that there was no death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.
Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed (Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Ashgate Publishing, (March 30, 2004), ISBN 0754630838) argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam and with the modern concept of the freedom to choose one's religion. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment.
So, why would one doctrine contradict another? Who dropped the ball?
The Hadeeth is based on sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet.
Most modern Muslims, however, believe that the Quran is the last word not the Hadeeth.
Don't be silly, it wouldn't possibly be allowed in non-Islamic states, it's utterly barbaric, and I'm shocked you find it acceptable.
Countries have death penalties for murder, for treason.
They kill millions of people for policy and on baseless premises.
I do not approve of them either.
Laws, however are political decisions not religious.
It wouldn't be a problem at all if not for the religion, since one is meeting their death as a result of leaving the religion.
That logic is specious, since you presume that human nature is dictated by religion, when it is human nature that distorts religion (among other things) to justify violence.
What is the social/political problem with that and what exactly is being done about it?
The problem?
1. Mismatch between philosophy and practice in Islam
2. Overcoming foreign policy by developed countries which promotes and sustains such behavior to fulfill their vested interests.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0109/S00196.htm
The solution? education and reform.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Esposito/esposito-con4.html
superluminal
06-30-06, 09:24 PM
Goddamnit super. I told you not to say that. Now I have to take one of your cookies away.
*invokes nerdly powers*
OBEY!
Wwwww...whad I do?
*averts eyes - hunkering down against the inevitable beating*
Wwwww...whad I do?
*averts eyes - hunkering down against the inevitable beating*
Don't worry super. I'm a good fighter and I'm in your camp :D
(*bringing out WMD* )
superluminal
06-30-06, 09:34 PM
Don't worry super. I'm a good fighter and I'm in your camp :D
(*bringing out WMD* )
Awesome! Thanks! That wes though, he's one badass nerdlord. :eek: Obviously my last long post threatened his plans for world domination!
wesmorris
07-01-06, 01:32 AM
Awesome! Thanks! That wes though, he's one badass nerdlord. :eek: Obviously my last long post threatened his plans for world domination!
:)
This in particular:
Don't seek to control and dominate, and laugh at those who would.
I'm a contrarian. It's pathetic.
Not if its my choice.
So, you dislike it unless you like it? :rolleyes:
Here:
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan (Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986) ISBN 068618551X) examined and concluded that there was no death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.
4.089 from the quran:
~~~~~
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them."
Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed (Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Ashgate Publishing, (March 30, 2004), ISBN 0754630838) argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam and with the modern concept of the freedom to choose one's religion. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment.
I wonder if you noticed the words 'conflict' and 'religio-political'? In other words, a religious contradiction. And that's just one of them. And it exists despite your claim of not finding any contradictions in Islam.
Are you ready to strip down Islam to find more contradictions?
The Hadeeth is based on sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet.
Most modern Muslims, however, believe that the Quran is the last word not the Hadeeth.
So what? It's a glaring contradiction in Islam, like many others. I suppose though, that you'll most likely defend your religion and not acknowledge the contradiction exists?
Countries have death penalties for murder, for treason.
They kill millions of people for policy and on baseless premises.
But which country will kill you for leaving your faith? I'm listening...
I do not approve of them either.
Laws, however are political decisions not religious.
Actually, if you look at the origins of written law, they were used to establish social classes.
That logic is specious, since you presume that human nature is dictated by religion, when it is human nature that distorts religion (among other things) to justify violence.
Is it in your human nature to be violent, your parents, family, friends, anyone you know at all?
You WILL find that it is religion that will make those who are not of a violent nature justify violence for their religions. Those people would never do so based on your logic.
And of course, you'd have to show what violent acts those who do justify their violent acts with religion would commit if religion didn't exist and why? They are committing those acts for their beliefs, so if the beliefs didn't exist, what reason would they commit the acts?
The problem?
1. Mismatch between philosophy and practice in Islam
You'll need to explain and quantify that claim as it suggests that Muslims are hypocrites or they design their own religions.
2. Overcoming foreign policy by developed countries which promotes and sustains such behavior to fulfill their vested interests.
Ah yes, blame your own problems on someone else, typical. Sorry, that doesn't fly in the least.
The solution? education and reform.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Esposito/esposito-con4.html
From the link:
"there are many Muslims who see Islam holistically, that religion is related to politics and society"
That would preclude your argument that the problems are political in nature when the politics of the religion ARE the religion.
Further:
"There's an enormous difference between Islamist practice in Saudi Arabia and Islamist practice in many parts of Africa, and certainly in Malaysia and Indonesia."
It would appear that Islam, as a religion whose intent was to establish an absolute way of life, has failed and that those who claim to practice it only use it to design their own brand of religion. Nothing new here.
Lastly:
"The reality of it is that while there are reformers that are pushing for these reforms, democracy is a messy game, as I try to tell people. We forget that the American Revolution was followed by the Civil War, even bloodier. We forget the French Revolution and the post-French Revolution. So we shouldn't be surprised, particularly when coming out of authoritarian cultures, to see a lot of failures along with gradual success. It's going to be a struggle both at the intellectual level and at the political level. We forget when we talk about the Reformation and the Enlightenment, we tend to think that it was just intellectual conversation -- "Luther, and the Pope, and Calvin sat around...." There were religious wars!"
Are we to also expect religious wars in your reform?
And it also appears that your version of education is not the same as mine. You appear to want to "educate" people on Islam, which is essentially an oxymoron.
So, you dislike it unless you like it?
:rolleyes:
4.089 from the quran:
~~~~~
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them."
I wonder if you noticed the words 'conflict' and 'religio-political'? In other words, a religious contradiction. And that's just one of them. And it exists despite your claim of not finding any contradictions in Islam.
Are you ready to strip down Islam to find more contradictions?
I did not realize you were an authority on the Quran and Islamic law.
If you like I can send you the books.
So what? It's a glaring contradiction in Islam, like many others. I suppose though, that you'll most likely defend your religion and not acknowledge the contradiction exists?
Gasp! people actually are capable of misremembering/misinterpreting?
You don't say!!!!
But which country will kill you for leaving your faith? I'm listening...
Ones that have laws saying so?
Actually, if you look at the origins of written law, they were used to establish social classes.
I bow to your superior knowledge
Is it in your human nature to be violent, your parents, family, friends, anyone you know at all?
You WILL find that it is religion that will make those who are not of a violent nature justify violence for their religions. Those people would never do so based on your logic.
And of course, you'd have to show what violent acts those who do justify their violent acts with religion would commit if religion didn't exist and why? They are committing those acts for their beliefs, so if the beliefs didn't exist, what reason would they commit the acts?
Actually if we REALLY want to rid the world of violence, there is an easier way (http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37b00701.htm) .
You'll need to explain and quantify that claim as it suggests that Muslims are hypocrites or they design their own religions.
Thats been the practice so far, with disastrous results.
Ah yes, blame your own problems on someone else, typical. Sorry, that doesn't fly in the least.
Neither does putting your head in the sand.
From the link:
"there are many Muslims who see Islam holistically, that religion is related to politics and society"
That would preclude your argument that the problems are political in nature when the politics of the religion ARE the religion.
Further:
"There's an enormous difference between Islamist practice in Saudi Arabia and Islamist practice in many parts of Africa, and certainly in Malaysia and Indonesia."
Two words: Islamist practice.
It would appear that Islam, as a religion whose intent was to establish an absolute way of life, has failed and that those who claim to practice it only use it to design their own brand of religion. Nothing new here.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
--Martin H. Fischer
Lastly:
"The reality of it is that while there are reformers that are pushing for these reforms, democracy is a messy game, as I try to tell people. We forget that the American Revolution was followed by the Civil War, even bloodier. We forget the French Revolution and the post-French Revolution. So we shouldn't be surprised, particularly when coming out of authoritarian cultures, to see a lot of failures along with gradual success. It's going to be a struggle both at the intellectual level and at the political level. We forget when we talk about the Reformation and the Enlightenment, we tend to think that it was just intellectual conversation -- "Luther, and the Pope, and Calvin sat around...." There were religious wars!"
Are we to also expect religious wars in your reform?
What do you think is happening right now?
And it also appears that your version of education is not the same as mine.
I would be very surprised if we had any identical opinions at all.
You appear to want to "educate" people on Islam, which is essentially an oxymoron.
And your estimable suggestion is .....?
P.S. I gather you have already culled these tedious arguments from previous posters; ergo, is there a point to this?
:rolleyes:
You may roll thine eyes, but that does not preclude the fact that what you said is hypocritical.
I did not realize you were an authority on the Quran and Islamic law.
If you like I can send you the books.
I don't consider myself an authority on Islam, I seriously doubt anyone can make that claim for any religion. Didn't you say yourself that religion is open for interpretation?
And of course, its been shown time and again that most here who disagree with religion are far more knowledgable on it than most theists who attempt to defend it.
Gasp! people actually are capable of misremembering/misinterpreting?
You don't say!!!!
And, as has been shown time and again with Islam and every other religion, people tend to ignore the blatant contradictions of their religion, as you have done. This has nothing to do with misremembering/misinterpretation and everything to do with cotradictions.
And judging by your response, you are once again ignoring those contradictions.
Ones that have laws saying so?
I see, you wish to chase your tail again. Islamic states IS the correct answer, the one and only answer. And it is shocking that you accept such a barbaric doctrine as a way of life.
I bow to your superior knowledge
Funny, I thought it was common knowledge? Perhaps not so under Islamic rule?
Actually if we REALLY want to rid the world of violence, there is an easier way (http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37b00701.htm) .
From the link:
"Natural selection has outfitted males with the tools for success in male-male competition, much of it violent.
Among vertebrates in particular, males tend to be relatively large, conspicuous in color and behavior, and endowed with intimidating weapons (tusks, fangs, claws, antlers, etc.) and a willingness to employ them, largely because such traits were rewarded, over evolutionary time, with enhanced reproductive success.
At the same time, since the sex ratio is one to one, for every harem master, there are 39 disappointed bachelors. As a result, some males will be immensely successful and others will be failures.
In addition, the greater the difference in reproductive payoff (variance in numbers of offspring), the greater the difference in aggressiveness among males. With reproductive success more variable, males are more competitive.
Before the cultural homogenization that came with Judeo-Christian colonial (and marital) doctrine, polygyny was the preferred marital system for more than 80 percent of human societies.
Larger size and heightened aggressiveness were likely to lead to more surviving children, especially in the long evolutionary childhood of the human species.
Reproduction, after all, lies at the root of why living things live, and why they seek to dominate.
This is not to claim that females aren't aggressive in their own way. There are interesting cases of vigorous female-female competition in animals... I predict, in fact, that further research will reveal that female-female competition among animals is more widespread than currently recognized.
When it comes to the most serious violent crime, homicide, men are far and away the most frequent perpetrators. They are also most likely to be the victims, precisely as evolutionary theory predicts.
Thus, even though a 13th-century Englishman was 20 times more likely to be murdered than an Englishman is today...
From an evolutionary perspective, therefore, it is not surprising that young men, especially those from disadvantaged social and ethnic groups, are overrepresented among drug addicts, violent criminals, prisoners, and death-row inmates. And that angry and alienated men make up the overwhelming majority of violent terrorists.
So people grow up that way, it is claimed, meeting the expectations that society imposes on them.
All of the above is not meant to imply that biology is the sole explanation for the gender gap in human violence. We cannot do a thing about our evolutionary bequeathal; hence, we had better do all we can to ameliorate those conditions that predispose people to violence."
Religion would be a good start as it has nothing to do with the evolutionary instincts of human reproduction, but instead provides reasons to commit violent acts.
Thats been the practice so far, with disastrous results.
Yet, you whole-heartedly accept those results since you accept your religion and have claimed to have found no contradictions.
The plot thickens.
Neither does putting your head in the sand.
Very well, when will Muslims be doing so?
Two words: Islamist practice.
Hence, the failure of the religion.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
--Martin H. Fischer
HA! Martin also had this quote to offer:
"Education is the process of driving a set of prejudices down your throat."
What do you think is happening right now?
Religious wars? :rolleyes:
I would be very surprised if we had any identical opinions at all.
If your opinions are driven by religious dogma, how credible are they? If you claim that religion is interpretive, then your opinions are based on YOUR personal interpretations of that religion. In other words, they are only valid with those who agree with your personal interpretations, hence not valid with other members of your faith who don't, members of any other faiths and those who have no faith at all - a very large percentage of the population.
And your estimable suggestion is .....?
Education, pure and simple.
P.S. I gather you have already culled these tedious arguments from previous posters; ergo, is there a point to this?
The point is to show that you whole-heartedly accept your religion as true and that you find no contradictions in interpretive doctrines that show glaring contradictions, which up to now, you've refused to acknowledge. And even though you now appear to be acknowledging them, you continue to defend your religion and are now accepting those contradictions. What's worse, is that you also accept the barbaric nature of those doctrines as if they were perfectly natural.
You accept the killing of apostates.
You accept the violence of your religion and the wars generated by it.
You accept the past campaigns and wars that provided the fundamental building blocks of your religion.
You may roll thine eyes, but that does not preclude the fact that what you said is hypocritical.
Actually they were your rolled eyes; I just used them.
I don't consider myself an authority on Islam, I seriously doubt anyone can make that claim for any religion. Didn't you say yourself that religion is open for interpretation?
And of course, its been shown time and again that most here who disagree with religion are far more knowledgable on it than most theists who attempt to defend it.
You mean what they have in common with fundamentalists is a selective interpretation of of a few verses, ignoring the rest of the hundreds that make up the entire philosophy.
And, as has been shown time and again with Islam and every other religion, people tend to ignore the blatant contradictions of their religion, as you have done. This has nothing to do with misremembering/misinterpretation and everything to do with cotradictions.
And judging by your response, you are once again ignoring those contradictions.
See previous comment
I see, you wish to chase your tail again. Islamic states IS the correct answer, the one and only answer. And it is shocking that you accept such a barbaric doctrine as a way of life.
Yes I can imagine you are pretty shocked.
Funny, I thought it was common knowledge? Perhaps not so under Islamic rule?
Why don't you tell me?
From the link:
"Natural selection has outfitted males with the tools for success in male-male competition, much of it violent.
Among vertebrates in particular, males tend to be relatively large, conspicuous in color and behavior, and endowed with intimidating weapons (tusks, fangs, claws, antlers, etc.) and a willingness to employ them, largely because such traits were rewarded, over evolutionary time, with enhanced reproductive success.
At the same time, since the sex ratio is one to one, for every harem master, there are 39 disappointed bachelors. As a result, some males will be immensely successful and others will be failures.
In addition, the greater the difference in reproductive payoff (variance in numbers of offspring), the greater the difference in aggressiveness among males. With reproductive success more variable, males are more competitive.
Before the cultural homogenization that came with Judeo-Christian colonial (and marital) doctrine, polygyny was the preferred marital system for more than 80 percent of human societies.
Larger size and heightened aggressiveness were likely to lead to more surviving children, especially in the long evolutionary childhood of the human species.
Reproduction, after all, lies at the root of why living things live, and why they seek to dominate.
This is not to claim that females aren't aggressive in their own way. There are interesting cases of vigorous female-female competition in animals... I predict, in fact, that further research will reveal that female-female competition among animals is more widespread than currently recognized.
When it comes to the most serious violent crime, homicide, men are far and away the most frequent perpetrators. They are also most likely to be the victims, precisely as evolutionary theory predicts.
Thus, even though a 13th-century Englishman was 20 times more likely to be murdered than an Englishman is today...
From an evolutionary perspective, therefore, it is not surprising that young men, especially those from disadvantaged social and ethnic groups, are overrepresented among drug addicts, violent criminals, prisoners, and death-row inmates. And that angry and alienated men make up the overwhelming majority of violent terrorists.
So people grow up that way, it is claimed, meeting the expectations that society imposes on them.
All of the above is not meant to imply that biology is the sole explanation for the gender gap in human violence. We cannot do a thing about our evolutionary bequeathal; hence, we had better do all we can to ameliorate those conditions that predispose people to violence."
Religion would be a good start as it has nothing to do with the evolutionary instincts of human reproduction, but instead provides reasons to commit violent acts.
Interesting how you focus on the one line which suits your purpose.
Considering you place so much value on the validity of scientific research:
"The purpose of Mr. Wrangham and Mr. Peterson is to argue for evolutionary continuity of male violence from apes (or earlier ancestors) to humans, and to use a similar kind of Darwinian explanation to understand male violence in all these species. Of course, human violence has cultural causes too, and these authors sensibly dismiss the simple biology-culture division. Thus, the high homicide rate in American, as compared to European, cities, has an obvious nonbiological cause -- guns. But homicide rates in different societies have a rather constant sex ratio (men kill at about 20 times the rate that women do) and age-distribution profile, even though the absolute rates vary more than a thousandfold. It is tempting to see an evolutionary signal in those regularities, notwithstanding cultural variation."
"We have been so unsuccessful in controlling violence, and the problem is so important, that it is foolish to ignore any clues, particularly if they come from a theory as well worked out as evolution. Evolutionary theory also suggests factors that influence the level of violence. The genetic relatedness between individuals is about the first thing an evolutionary theorist would look at, but it was ignored until 1988, when two evolutionists turned to the problem."
Demonic males (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E0DB1230F934A15753C1A9609582 60&pagewanted=all)
Yet, you whole-heartedly accept those results since you accept your religion and have claimed to have found no contradictions.
Now you are doing my thinking for me too; pretty soon I'll be completely superfluous. How nice.
The plot thickens.
:)
Very well, when will Muslims be doing so?
Hence, the failure of the religion.
They are trying; unfortunately they are not interesting as the terrorists.
HA! Martin also had this quote to offer:
"Education is the process of driving a set of prejudices down your throat."
Why am I not surprised that you know this one?
Religious wars? :rolleyes:
If your opinions are driven by religious dogma, how credible are they? If you claim that religion is interpretive, then your opinions are based on YOUR personal interpretations of that religion. In other words, they are only valid with those who agree with your personal interpretations, hence not valid with other members of your faith who don't, members of any other faiths and those who have no faith at all - a very large percentage of the population.
As compared to atheism which has a world wide following?
Education, pure and simple.
And this pure and simple education would be determined by?
The point is to show that you whole-heartedly accept your religion as true and that you find no contradictions in interpretive doctrines that show glaring contradictions, which up to now, you've refused to acknowledge. And even though you now appear to be acknowledging them, you continue to defend your religion and are now accepting those contradictions. What's worse, is that you also accept the barbaric nature of those doctrines as if they were perfectly natural.
You accept the killing of apostates.
You accept the violence of your religion and the wars generated by it.
You accept the past campaigns and wars that provided the fundamental building blocks of your religion.
There there, its off your chest now. You must feel vindicated, having proven what an evil duplicitous creature I am. You'll finally be able to sleep at night. Don't forget to change out of the superhero costume.
Q:
So violence is all religions fault? (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/so-violence-is-all-religions-fault/2006/06/16/1149964733312.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)
You mean what they have in common with fundamentalists is a selective interpretation of of a few verses, ignoring the rest of the hundreds that make up the entire philosophy.
Being very new here, you didn't read the past several years of arguments in which many atheists here began to read and understand the Quran, as well as other doctrines of Islam. An event occured almost 5 years ago which initiated that process for many of us, do you remember that event?
See previous comment
A moot comment.
But, maybe some of your own kind could better explain it:
"What is our goal?
We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Yes I can imagine you are pretty shocked.
Hence, since you completely accept the atrocities of your religion, you are part of the problem and not the solution. You're opinions are based on the atrocities of your religion, as you nonchanlantly sweep those atrocities under the carpet hoping no one will notice.
Shameful, really.
Why don't you tell me?
Perhaps others could tell you:
"Who we are:
We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Interesting how you focus on the one line which suits your purpose.
I didn't, I focused on the other paragraphs and quoted them, but emphasized the conclusion.
Considering you place so much value on the validity of scientific research:
(men kill at about 20 times the rate that women do) and age-distribution profile, even though the absolute rates vary more than a thousandfold.
The previous article you linked suggested a 3-4:1 ratio, now you bring another article claiming 20 times the rate. Your research appears somewhat incompatible.
We have been so unsuccessful in controlling violence
Religion has failed. It's time for something new. How about education?
Now you are doing my thinking for me too; pretty soon I'll be completely superfluous. How nice.
They were your words, are you now claiming something else? Backpeddling?
Why am I not surprised that you know this one?
Because it's utter BS, as was his previous quote.
As compared to atheism which has a world wide following?
Ah yes, the Argumentum ad Populum. Let's all jump on the Islamic bandwagon - everyones doing it!
And this pure and simple education would be determined by?
By the same educational standards now accepted the world over. I would doubt that mathematics in one country will be any different than another.
How about this:
"Mankind’s biggest challenge:
Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
There there, its off your chest now. You must feel vindicated, having proven what an evil duplicitous creature I am.
Not really, indoctrination into a religion is very effective. It allows literally anyone to justify doing harm to others over the most trivial of matters, even nice people such as yourself.
But, there are those who break the cycle of indoctrination:
"Why Mohammed was not a prophet:
One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50)"
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Here's something interesting for you
The site http://www.apostatesofislam.com/ links to its main site isis (http://www.secularislam.org/) which is run by Irfan Khwaja and Ibn Wirraq, also members of Jihadwatch.org (http://www.jihadwatch.org/), the director of which is Robert Spencer , who is (guess what?) a Christian! And he currently runs the site with Christians, Jews and atheists (moonlighting, (Q)?).
"I have not performed an exhausive survey of all of Spencer's "works". However, in his Guide for Catholics, I did find the following that I think provides an interesting insight into Spencer's view of Islam :
Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation which, in many ways, directly contradicts what God has revealed through the prophets of the Old Testament and through his Son Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh... For several reasons... Islam constitutes a threat to the world at large.
You are free to draw your own conclusions about his biases."
http://watchjihadwatch.blogspot.com/
lightgigantic
07-01-06, 07:11 PM
From Q -How about this:
"Mankind’s biggest challenge:
Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."
Erm ..... Q? Have you ever been to a muslim country before?
The only reason Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise is because they have a symbiotic relationship with western gov't - draconian western gov't requires terrorists so they can maintain the support of voters and fundamentalists require conservative countries to wage war on them so they can get an unlimited supply of martyrs. in other words its a social phenomena that the media blows out as religious (something the above statement fuels ...). Instead of answering the questions related to foreign troop deployment in anothers country (which is a social/political issue) they deflect it and say "well to answer this you have to look at god"
From Q -How about this:
"Mankind’s biggest challenge:
Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."
Erm ..... Q? Have you ever been to a muslim country before?
The only reason Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise is because they have a symbiotic relationship with western gov't - draconian western gov't requires terrorists so they can maintain the support of voters and fundamentalists require conservative countries to wage war on them so they can get an unlimited supply of martyrs. in other words its a social phenomena that the media blows out as religious (something the above statement fuels ...). Instead of answering the questions related to foreign troop deployment in anothers country (which is a social/political issue) they deflect it and say "well to answer this you have to look at god"
Thanks lightgigantic, I too believe that current surge in Islamic terrorism is a political and not a religious phenomena.
Here is an excellent article by Robert Elias, which elaborates on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism
http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm
KennyJC
07-01-06, 10:06 PM
If it has nothing to do with religion, then would there still be the SAME amount of terrorism if most people in the Middle East woke up atheist tommorrow?
I doubt it.
edit: Have there been any atheist suicide bombers btw?
lightgigantic
07-01-06, 10:21 PM
Not sure what you are asking - I mean if a culture or society is particularly religious the suggestion that they wake up the next morning as an atheistic poulation is a bit of a rhetorical statement - Its just like saying that america wake up tommorrow and cease to be interested in recreational sex. In other words such a radical change, if it were to happen at all would be very gradual - and in the course of that gradual change other social issues would present themselves. I mean they would probably still question what foreign troops were doing tearing through their streets in AV's - just like americans, or anyone really, would probably be curious in the same way in a reversed situation
If it has nothing to do with religion, then would there still be the SAME amount of terrorism if most people in the Middle East woke up atheist tommorrow?
I doubt it.
I don't know, would they still have oil?
hmm, Kuwait does not have any terrorists, do they?
And Saudi Arabia, inspite of the fact that the terrorists originated there, was there ever even any thought of an action against it?
Why? Wouldn't have anything to do with its oil contracts, does it?
What about Iraq? Who put Saddam in power?
Not to mention the dictator in Iran, who put him in power, removing the democratically elected president only because he negotiated oil prices?
Who sold WMD to both Iraq and Iran?
Who funded the mujahideen and the Taliban?
Where did Osama get his training and by whom?
edit: Have there been any atheist suicide bombers btw?
Have there been atheist countries?
Lets see: Atheist government would be one with no religious beliefs held by those in power, right?
USSR?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/affirmative_atheism.html
"There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of Communism. Atheism is the force that brought the Russian nation up from being one of the most backward, primitive and religious nations in Europe in 1917, to the point of being one of the most advanced, scientific and technological, nations in the world today, Whether we like it or not, we must admit that Communist Russia is a powerful modern force, and a very dangerous potential enemy."
How about death count of USSR?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
China-
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM
What do you think?
KennyJC
07-01-06, 11:10 PM
Not sure what you are asking - I mean if a culture or society is particularly religious the suggestion that they wake up the next morning as an atheistic poulation is a bit of a rhetorical statement - Its just like saying that america wake up tommorrow and cease to be interested in recreational sex. In other words such a radical change, if it were to happen at all would be very gradual - and in the course of that gradual change other social issues would present themselves. I mean they would probably still question what foreign troops were doing tearing through their streets in AV's - just like americans, or anyone really, would probably be curious in the same way in a reversed situation
Ok, point taken. If they were atheist by slow gradual process would we still see 'terrorism' suicide bombing etc on a similar scale?
I don't know, would they still have oil?
hmm, Kuwait does not have any terrorists, do they?
And Saudi Arabia, inspite of the fact that the terrorists originated there, was there ever even any thought of an action against it?
Why? Wouldn't have anything to do with its oil contracts, does it?
What about Iraq? Who put Saddam in power?
Not to mention the dictator in Iran, who put him in power, removing the democratically elected president only because he negotiated oil prices?
Who sold WMD to both Iraq and Iran?
Who funded the mujahideen and the Taliban?
Where did Osama get his training and by whom?
We have been through all this before samcdkey... and no doubt the west has a lot to answer for politically. However the question was regarding religious extremism in the Middle East. The above has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. You simply evaded my question with something totally irrelevant.
Lets see: Atheist government would be one with no religious beliefs held by those in power, right?
An 'Atheist' government is nothing more than a dictatorship. This can't be compared to secular democracies as dictatorship of any kind is obviously not a rational or a good thing. It is therefor not the people of a dictatorship who can be questioned, but only the government.
I am not referring to government in the west or the Middle East, I am referring to the actions of PEOPLE in countries filled with strongly religious people.
The questions raised in my last post have yet to be answered directly.
We have been through all this before samcdkey... and no doubt the west has a lot to answer for politically. However the question was regarding religious extremism in the Middle East. The above has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. You simply evaded my question with something totally irrelevant.
I don't know why you find it irrelevant; there is no excuse for terrorism; nothing anybody says or does can justify that it is simply wrong. What I am trying to show you (unsuccessfully) is the abundance of terrorists in countries which have a sort of symbiotic relationship with certain Western governments. The fundamentalists need the "foreign power" to indoctrine impressionable young men about the "cause for poor economic and political conditions in their country" and they do so by using religion as a lever; similarly conservatives need such fundamentalists to "wage war" and they do so using "nationalism" as a lever. Its a political war that uses religion as a tool; but even if there were no religion there would still be country- people are as willing to die for their country as they are to die for their religion ( see the Palestinians)
Check out this link :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4757861.stm
lightgigantic
07-02-06, 02:51 AM
Ok, point taken. If they were atheist by slow gradual process would we still see 'terrorism' suicide bombing etc on a similar scale?
.
I doubt it - there are stacks of terrorist organisations that have apparent religious affiliation - Like the IRA for instance (but they have recently toned down their operations to something more like a social body, which indicates their actual platform of activity)
I think the first suicide bombers were kamikazee japanese pilots - and japan was a buddhist country at the time -lol - the teachings of buddha (ahimsa = nonviolence) were hybridized with the way of the samurai to give something called bushido - How's that for strange bedfellows? -
The point is that if a society has social issues they will meet them through whatever exists in the way of authority - you see that with communist russia, the deployment tactics of the vietnamese cong, the tamil rebels of Sri Lanka etc etc - if religion is not the dominant authority structure then there will be appeals made to ideas of race, nationalism, gender etc to achieve the same goals (ie political resistance to an enemy)
In the case of the middle east it may appear that religion is stirring up problems but that is only because the local people identify with religion
If you take away religion from the middle east you will still be left with local people angry why there is foreign innvolvement in their homeland.
And if you want to see what the usa has done in the way of "foreign innvolvement" post ww2 just check out the tanbou link sam gave. Its ludicrous to think that terrorism is a muslim thing - its a predictable response from underhanded political manouvers
perplexity
07-02-06, 04:20 AM
I doubt it - there are stacks of terrorist organisations that don'y have a religious afffiliation - Like the IRA for instance ......
Huh?
You never yet heard of the Catholics and the Potestants?
--- Ron.
lightgigantic
07-02-06, 05:08 AM
Huh?
You never yet heard of the Catholics and the Potestants?
--- Ron.
apologies for my misuse of language :o
[QUOTE]Being very new here, you didn't read the past several years of arguments in which many atheists here began to read and understand the Quran, as well as other doctrines of Islam. An event occured almost 5 years ago which initiated that process for many of us, do you remember that event?
A moot comment.
I was not born yesterday; and I find it quite revealing that you studied the religion for the source of the terrorism. Do you think that following Pearl Harbor, all Americans studied Japanese Buddhism for the source of kamikaze pilots?
But, maybe some of your own kind could better explain it:
"What is our goal?
We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Hence, since you completely accept the atrocities of your religion, you are part of the problem and not the solution. You're opinions are based on the atrocities of your religion, as you nonchanlantly sweep those atrocities under the carpet hoping no one will notice.
Shameful, really.
Perhaps others could tell you:
"Who we are:
We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
I didn't, I focused on the other paragraphs and quoted them, but emphasized the conclusion.
This is what you consider evidence?
Maybe you run that site for all I know. :bugeye:
Most apostates who leave Islam ( e.g. in KSA, I lived there for 4 years, so I know this is true) leave their country with their families and move to neighbouring countries (Tunisia or Morocco) which are less conservative. Not exactly headline news, is it?
The previous article you linked suggested a 3-4:1 ratio, now you bring another article claiming 20 times the rate. Your research appears somewhat incompatible.
You're getting sloppy, my dear.
1st article: " Daly and Wilson found that a man is about 20 times more likely to be killed by another man than a woman is by another woman."
2nd article: "men kill at about 20 times the rate that women do"
Religion has failed. It's time for something new. How about education?
So has capitalism, socialism, communism and multicultaralism ; lets just wipe the whole slate clean and start over with prehistoric; no wait ! guess what! they were violent too!
http://www.online-archaeology.co.uk/Default.aspx?PageContentID=90&tabid=105
(don't miss the link for causes at the bottom)
They were your words, are you now claiming something else? Backpeddling?
No just marvelling at your intellectual talents.
Because it's utter BS, as was his previous quote.
It was based on your "conclusion"
Ah yes, the Argumentum ad Populum. Let's all jump on the Islamic bandwagon - everyones doing it!
No! no ! its the atheist bandwagon everyone is jumping on; remember?
The "everyone" who have decided that religion is a failure?
By the same educational standards now accepted the world over. I would doubt that mathematics in one country will be any different than another.
The same one taught right now, you mean?
"Mankind’s biggest challenge:
Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer."
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Not really, indoctrination into a religion is very effective. It allows literally anyone to justify doing harm to others over the most trivial of matters, even nice people such as yourself.
Damned with faint praise indeed! I DO NOT approve the use of violence as a punishment by anyone; pointing out that it is political does not give it my approval.
But, there are those who break the cycle of indoctrination:
"Why Mohammed was not a prophet:
One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50)"
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Yes, I can see where you get your inspiration; truly, I have no words.
To get an objective view, you might try something other than internet propaganda; if you ever get interested ( which I doubt, having seen your abhorrence to anything that counteracts your cherished opinions), let me know.
KennyJC
07-02-06, 08:52 AM
samcdkey & lightgigantic:
Religion is clearly not the only reason someone uses to blow themself up and take innocent civilians out with them. A lot of the time it's not the prime motive, if not THE motive, but it acts as a strong backup.
Nobody can deny that without religion, America would have no support to invade Iraq.
The IRA probably would not have formed if not for the division of Catholic and Protestant's mixed with strong religious beliefs.
So I am not picking on the Middle East here, however they do make my point pretty well... and I'm still waiting for an example of an atheist suicide bomber.
The Middle East's problems would not be solved overnight if half the population became atheist (like in Europe), but when you see the parts of the world that are causing so much trouble and the strong nature of religious belief that plays a big role in it... you can only put two and two together. Just take a look at the levels of religion in America and the Middle East, and understand how dangerous that is.
samcdkey & lightgigantic:
Religion is clearly not the only reason someone uses to blow themself up and take innocent civilians out with them. A lot of the time it's not the prime motive, if not THE motive, but it acts as a strong backup.
So does racism and ethnicity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres
Nobody can deny that without religion, America would have no support to invade Iraq.
read the link I gave lightgigantic yesterday in this thread; the US needs no excuse for foreign involvement ( 200 engagements in 200 years). Scroll down to see a list of involvements where there was no religion involved.
The IRA probably would not have formed if not for the division of Catholic and Protestant's mixed with strong religious beliefs.
The IRA fought for their country; same as the Scots; its just that the Scots were more divided into clans, some of whom were loyal to the British, so nobody cared what religion they were. The Irish incidentally happened to be Catholic ( which the British used as an excuse). This was about fighting for freedom, same as any country would do (like mine did, India for 200 years)
So I am not picking on the Middle East here, however they do make my point pretty well... and I'm still waiting for an example of an atheist suicide bomber.
Atheists do not have a country yet; but tell me how do YOU feel if you hear about an atheist being stoned or killed? If there was a country of people like that and they were bombed by a theist country ( richer, more advanced ) how do you suppose they would defend themselves ( if they had no money, support from the world or technology)?
The Middle East's problems would not be solved overnight if half the population became atheist (like in Europe), but when you see the parts of the world that are causing so much trouble and the strong nature of religious belief that plays a big role in it... you can only put two and two together. Just take a look at the levels of religion in America and the Middle East, and understand how dangerous that is.
America is less than 9% of the world's population ( say all Christians, for a moment), the middle east less than 15% of all Muslims (the fundamentalist countries less than 2% of all Muslims). You do the math. Besides as Snakelord pointed out to me, all Americans are not in support of the war, just as all Muslims are not supporting AlQaida; heck the Iraqis were not even supporting Saddam and Osama had been kicked out of his own country.
The war is political and economic; its about power and greed. By playing the religion card, both sides are ensuring the war carries on, it provides more fuel for the fire. Too many educated Americans are getting sucked into the rhetoric fed to them by the media; its not so bad in Europe. Read the BBC news sometimes and compare it to American news sites; you'll see the different news angles.
[QUOTE=(Q)]
I was not born yesterday; and I find it quite revealing that you studied the religion for the source of the terrorism. Do you think that following Pearl Harbor, all Americans studied Japanese Buddhism for the source of kamikaze pilots?
:rolleyes:
This is what you consider evidence?
Maybe you run that site for all I know.
Oh I see, this is the first time you've ever heard of apostates and their blight. I guess the state of Islam IS all strawberries and cream.
To you, the thought of leaving Islam is ridiculous? Who could ever want to leave such a perfect religion?
Please note, that I don't run Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Islam:_Apostates_Speak_Out
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/065930.php
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Prince-fights-for-Muslim-apostates/2004/12/18/1103312783217.html
http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm
Most apostates who leave Islam ( e.g. in KSA, I lived there for 4 years, so I know this is true) leave their country with their families and move to neighbouring countries (Tunisia or Morocco) which are less conservative. Not exactly headline news, is it?
If it made headline news, those people would probably now be dead.
So has capitalism, socialism, communism and multicultaralism ; lets just wipe the whole slate clean and start over with prehistoric; no wait ! guess what! they were violent too!
We're concerned about religion, if you wish to be refuted on those other topics, feel free to start a thread.
The same one taught right now, you mean?
Yes, education, are you familiar with it?
Damned with faint praise indeed! I DO NOT approve the use of violence as a punishment by anyone; pointing out that it is political does not give it my approval.
Calling it political is BS as it is entirely a religious issue, which you defend.
Yes, I can see where you get your inspiration; truly, I have no words.
To get an objective view, you might try something other than internet propaganda; if you ever get interested ( which I doubt, having seen your abhorrence to anything that counteracts your cherished opinions), let me know.
You see, you refuse to accept the atrocities of your religion. Clearly, you can no longer be seen as having any credibility if you consider the killing of apostates as mere propaganda.
Yes, I abhor it, who wouldn't abhor killing people simply because they no longer share your faith, other than an indoctrinated Muslim, of course.
[QUOTE=samcdkey]
:rolleyes:
Oh I see, this is the first time you've ever heard of apostates and their blight. I guess the state of Islam IS all strawberries and cream.
To you, the thought of leaving Islam is ridiculous? Who could ever want to leave such a perfect religion?
Please note, that I don't run Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Islam:_Apostates_Speak_Out
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/065930.php
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Prince-fights-for-Muslim-apostates/2004/12/18/1103312783217.html
http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm
If it made headline news, those people would probably now be dead.
We're concerned about religion, if you wish to be refuted on those other topics, feel free to start a thread.
Yes, education, are you familiar with it?
Calling it political is BS as it is entirely a religious issue, which you defend.
You see, you refuse to accept the atrocities of your religion. Clearly, you can no longer be seen as having any credibility if you consider the killing of apostates as mere propaganda.
Yes, I abhor it, who wouldn't abhor killing people simply because they no longer share your faith, other than an indoctrinated Muslim, of course.
Grr! I DO NOT support the killing of apostates by the countries that condone it; I was merely pointing out to you that it is a misrepresentation of Islam. It is politically condoned by the countries that practice it. It is WRONG!!!!
As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to practice any religion ( or nonreligion ) they want.
I can't believe you do not get this!
[QUOTE=(Q)]
Grr! I DO NOT support the killing of apostates by the countries that condone it; I was merely pointing out to you that it is a misrepresentation of Islam. It is politically condoned by the countries that practice it. It is WRONG!!!!
Yes, it is wrong, it continues, and you defend it with every fiber of your being, to the point of defending it with propaganda. It is a religious issue, as the politics of Islam are governed by the religion, hence it is religious, no matter how much you refuse to accept it, along with all the other problems of Islam you've refused to accept and continue to defend.
And since you continue to defend it, you are obviously doing nothing about it, hence you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Only someone completely indoctrinated into a religion would continue to follow it regardless of the horrors the religion exhibits.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to practice any religion ( or nonreligion ) they want.
I can't believe you do not get this!
Are they free to kill people for leaving the religion? Are they free to treat people like second-class citizens having no human rights?
I can't believe you do not get this!
Yes, it is wrong, it continues, and you defend it with every fiber of your being, to the point of defending it with propaganda. It is a religious issue, as the politics of Islam are governed by the religion, hence it is religious, no matter how much you refuse to accept it, along with all the other problems of Islam you've refused to accept and continue to defend.
And since you continue to defend it, you are obviously doing nothing about it, hence you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Only someone completely indoctrinated into a religion would continue to follow it regardless of the horrors the religion exhibits.
Are they free to kill people for leaving the religion? Are they free to treat people like second-class citizens having no human rights?
I can't believe you do not get this!
Yes I do agree it is wrong and there are several moderate Muslims who are concerned about this and other human rights issues in the Middle East
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=122&id=4112&t=Indonesian+leader+speaks+out+on+Islamic+extremis m
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013650.php
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1255
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/689
The total corruption and hegemony in the Middle East as well as the political turmoil makes it increasingly difficult to initiate any social reform.
Here is something I got off a blog that expresses it very accurately:
"Therefore, in transparent regimes what is regarded as 'corruption,' is the essence of the regime in just about all Arab lands. In transparent regimes, the borders between [public] and private funds are clear, and the rules for financial dealings are defined. The ruler is no more than an official of the people, and a defined salary is set for him in exchange for his services. The budget is known, and is widely published, and the people determine its clauses through their representatives in the elected parliament."
"The people demand accountability from the ruler, the ministers, and the other officials on their function, through parliament, the courts, and an independent oversight apparatus. The press, the media, and civil society institutions carry out additional oversight of [government] function, and uncover every suspicion of mixing public and private [funds]. While serving his term, the ruler must not perform private work for gain..."
"Yet the Arab regimes that claim to be fighting corruption customarily destroy the oversight apparatuses. New laws are enacted to suppress the press, which is from the outset obedient. Similarly, they falsify parliamentary elections, destroy civil society institutions, and silence any free voice. In this framework, accusations of corruption, treason, and bribe-taking serve to silence 'deviant' voices and those who violate the pact with the ruler and start demanding freedoms and so on, and similar forbidden and abhorrent things." .
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3757
I do not deny that Islam is in urgent need of reformation and that it will have to be Muslims who will need to bring about this change; but anti-Islam propaganda by some of the Western media destroys all credibility for the moderate Muslims who endeavor to educate and eliminate fundamentalists. There is a real need for people in Western countries to recognize the difference between Islam and militant Islam and that they are incompatible in principle. Fuelling the fire gains nothing and loses what ground is covered.
Can you understand what I am trying to say here?
If not, what is your solution to this problem? Remember every fifth person in the world is Muslim and they are not going to disappear overnight.
Yes I do agree it is wrong and there are several moderate Muslims who are concerned about this and other human rights issues in the Middle East
What you don't appear to understand is that the doctrines of Islam require serious changes, which ultimately means they are false, which means they are not the words of a god, but are the words of men.
The total corruption and hegemony in the Middle East as well as the political turmoil makes it increasingly difficult to initiate any social reform.
Please make it clear that anything 'political' in an Islamic state is religious in nature as the religion dictates the politics.
I do not deny that Islam is in urgent need of reformation and that it will have to be Muslims who will need to bring about this change; but anti-Islam propaganda by some of the Western media destroys all credibility for the moderate Muslims who endeavor to educate and eliminate fundamentalists. There is a real need for people in Western countries to recognize the difference between Islam and militant Islam and that they are incompatible in principle. Fuelling the fire gains nothing and loses what ground is covered.
Can you understand what I am trying to say here?
Of course, but you are also mired in religious propaganda, as you attempted to put forth here on a number of occassions only to be refuted. You don't appear to want to connect the problems of Islam with the doctrines of Islam, you seem to think they are unrelated.
If not, what is your solution to this problem? Remember every fifth person in the world is Muslim and they are not going to disappear overnight.
We've been a society ruled by religion for centuries. It is only recently that people are beginning to realize the folly of religion and the fact that it is all myth and fairy tales. Most of the people who still believe in such things are poorly educated. It has been shown that the more one is educated, the less likely they are to be religious.
Educating people instead of indoctrinating them into religion IS the answer. It may take generations to shed the bonds of religion, but it MUST be done if mankind is to survive.
And please remember, no one is interested in doing harm to Muslims or any other religious person, it is not people which are the issue, it is the religion, and that is what needs to dissapear.
I abhor harming people, for any reason, especially reasons as trivial as leaving a faith, which imo, is one of the lowest forms of barbarism currently existing on the planet. And anyone who is foolish enough to follow such a faith has no place to further the existence of mankind, but instead, defends its extinction.
Can you understand what I am trying to say here?
Please make it clear that anything 'political' in an Islamic state is religious in nature as the religion dictates the politics.
We are clearly never going to agree on this.
Of course, but you are also mired in religious propaganda, as you attempted to put forth here on a number of occassions only to be refuted. You don't appear to want to connect the problems of Islam with the doctrines of Islam, you seem to think they are unrelated.
And I cannot seem to make you understand that politically motivated hegemonies use Islam as a tool to enforce laws which will maintain their absolute control over a populace; this is true not only for law but also for education, freedom of expression and freedom of religion
We've been a society ruled by religion for centuries. It is only recently that people are beginning to realize the folly of religion and the fact that it is all myth and fairy tales. Most of the people who still believe in such things are poorly educated. It has been shown that the more one is educated, the less likely they are to be religious.
You are an atheist and you are entitled to your belief; but eradication of religion does not guarantee that wars will no longer occur or that people will stop discrimination on the basis of color, sex and ethicity. Moreover, the world is limited in resources and whoever has the ability to control these resources has power.
Educating people instead of indoctrinating them into religion IS the answer. It may take generations to shed the bonds of religion, but it MUST be done if mankind is to survive.
Education is a must, I agree. All educated people are free to choose what they believe, is something you must understand as well.
And please remember, no one is interested in doing harm to Muslims or any other religious person, it is not people which are the issue, it is the religion, and that is what needs to dissapear.
Can you see the irony in that statement?
I abhor harming people, for any reason, especially reasons as trivial as leaving a faith, which imo, is one of the lowest forms of barbarism currently existing on the planet.
Absolutely ( OMG I agreed with you :eek: )
And anyone who is foolish enough to follow such a faith has no place to further the existence of mankind, but instead, defends its extinction.
Sorry we change paths here.
Can you understand what I am trying to say here?
Yes and thank you.
We are clearly never going to agree on this.
No, you refuse to accept it. Big difference.
And I cannot seem to make you understand that politically motivated hegemonies use Islam as a tool to enforce laws which will maintain their absolute control over a populace; this is true not only for law but also for education, freedom of expression and freedom of religion
More reason to rid the world of Islam, but you'll continue to defend it, nonetheless.
If you can show the separation of state and church in your argument, I'll change my tune.
You are an atheist and you are entitled to your belief; but eradication of religion does not guarantee that wars will no longer occur or that people will stop discrimination on the basis of color, sex and ethicity. Moreover, the world is limited in resources and whoever has the ability to control these resources has power.
You're living in the past. Eradication of religion will bring an end to religious based wars, most of which now and in the past have plagued mankind. If we can eliminate those wars and begin educating people, perhaps all wars will come to an end. But, with religion in place, wars will never end.
And at least, changes are occuring in regards to color, sex and ethicity, which I'm not surprised you failed to mention.
Education is a must, I agree. All educated people are free to choose what they believe, is something you must understand as well.
Or disbelieve, which is the point. Educated people don't believe in myths.
Can you see the irony in that statement?
The irony being religion is manmade? Yes, I see it.
Absolutely ( OMG I agreed with you :eek: )
Sorry we change paths here.
No, this is where you refuse to accept the realities of your religion, and the doctrines of Islam that are meant to harm people. So, it appears you don't agree.
KennyJC
07-02-06, 12:12 PM
You are an atheist and you are entitled to your belief; but eradication of religion does not guarantee that wars will no longer occur or that people will stop discrimination on the basis of color, sex and ethicity.
Isn't descrimination based on ethnicity, sex, colour of skin one of the key factors in a country with strong religious beliefs? Isn't Intolerance of new ideas, new people, new beliefs and a progressive integrated society a key factor in conservative religious values?
If you can show the separation of state and church in your argument, I'll change my tune.
I have no contention with that.
You're living in the past. Eradication of religion will bring an end to religious based wars, most of which now and in the past have plagued mankind. If we can eliminate those wars and begin educating people, perhaps all wars will come to an end. But, with religion in place, wars will never end.
I wish I could believe that, but history negates you.
And at least, changes are occuring in regards to color, sex and ethicity, which I'm not surprised you failed to mention.
Yes, and are being replaced by economic differences.
No, this is where you refuse to accept the realities of your religion, and the doctrines of Islam that are meant to harm people. So, it appears you don't agree.
If you believe the doctrine of Islam is to harm people, then you are right.
SnakeLord
07-02-06, 12:16 PM
If not, what is your solution to this problem? Remember every fifth person in the world is Muslim and they are not going to disappear overnight.
The solution can only ever be the death of religion. You won't find atheists going to war over the 'belief' of their unbelief. "Which god is it that you don't believe in? Damn, I disbelieve in a different god you heathen!". No my friend, the intolerance, the war, the damnation and evil comes from those that believe in one sky daddy or another.
Isn't descrimination based on ethnicity, sex, colour of skin one of the key factors in a country with strong religious beliefs?
Are you claiming it is absent in secular societies?
Isn't Intolerance of new ideas, new people, new beliefs and a progressive integrated society a key factor in conservative religious values?
No only in fundamentalist societies.
The solution can only ever be the death of religion. You won't find atheists going to war over the 'belief' of their unbelief. "Which god is it that you don't believe in? Damn, I disbelieve in a different god you heathen!". No my friend, the intolerance, the war, the damnation and evil comes from those that believe in one sky daddy or another.
No but they can still go to war for money power land resources and against theist societies.
So, (Q), Snakelord and KennyJC, if this hypothetical atheist society were to be formed and all were atheist and suddenly one day a man decided he believed in God and wanted to "educate" other people about it; what would be the position of this man in your society?
(Just Curious...)
KennyJC
07-02-06, 12:43 PM
So, (Q), Snakelord and KennyJC, if this hypothetical atheist society were to be formed and all were atheist and suddenly one day a man decided he believed in God and wanted to "educate" other people about it; what would be the position of this man in your society?
(Just Curious...)
Firstly a secular society does not consist of all atheist, although the percentage of non-religious is certainly high. Since non-religious values are tolerant, a person would be free to be religious. This would also result in a stable society which would not be prone to starting wars for questionable reasons like the war in Iraq.
Don't confuse secular society with communism here.
Firstly a secular society does not consist of all atheist, although the percentage of non-religious is certainly high. Since non-religious values are tolerant, a person would be free to be religious. This would also result in a stable society which would not be prone to starting wars for questionable reasons like the war in Iraq.
Don't confuse secular society with communism here.
I asked about a hypothetical atheist society not a secular ot communist one; or do you mean that the atheist society would include agnostics?
I still want to know the position of a man who wanted to propagate an organized religion
KennyJC
07-02-06, 01:13 PM
An ideal society for me would be one were although people are free to be religious, religion must not indoctrinate children in state schools, be involved with politics, law or intruding on everyone else's freedom. People would be religious through their own choice, and not be forced on defenceless children.
We are pretty close to that in Europe right now so I'm not even considering a society were everyone is atheist.
KennyJC:
One more question. You say that people will be free to follow their religion ( or be religious) yet (Q) says all religion must be eradicated. How do you square the two concepts?
An ideal society for me would be one were although people are free to be religious, religion must not indoctrinate children in state schools, be involved with politics, law or intruding on everyone else's freedom. People would be religious through their own choice, and not be forced on defenceless children.
We are pretty close to that in Europe right now so I'm not even considering a society were everyone is atheist.
Well surprise! surprise! this woud be my ideal society too. :)
Do you live in Europe?
KennyJC
07-02-06, 01:42 PM
One more question. You say that people will be free to follow their religion ( or be religious) yet (Q) says all religion must be eradicated. How do you square the two concepts?
I think by banning the indoctrination of children that would be the first step in erradicating religious fundamentalism as a serious threat. But that means nothing if there are still other parts of the world were regions like America and the Middle East see it ok to encourage fundamentalism... which is dangerous.
Well surprise! surprise! this woud be my ideal society too.
If the Quran is anything to go by, then you have given in to the infidels. And that is most certainly not encouraged by Allah if my knowledge of the Quran is correct.
Do you live in Europe?
Yes, I live in Scotland.
[QUOTE]I think by banning the indoctrination of children that would be the first step in erradicating religious fundamentalism as a serious threat. But that means nothing if there are still other parts of the world were regions like America and the Middle East see it ok to encourage fundamentalism... which is dangerous.
True
If the Quran is anything to go by, then you have given in to the infidels. And that is most certainly not encouraged by Allah if my knowledge of the Quran is correct.
There are no rules against living in a mixed society and there are certainly no rules against following the law of the land.
"In the modern era, Europe and America have been regarded by the vast majority of Muslim scholars as the Dar al-Sulh , or “the abode of treaty.” This means that a Muslim can engage with this world on many levels and should abide by the laws of the land if he or she chooses to live there or to visit. Using this distinction, Muslim scholars have even declared that Muslims can serve in the Army, even when combating other Muslim countries. "
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue-15/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-moderate-islam-3.html
Yes, I live in Scotland.
Its a beautiful country; I know about Edinburgh and Glasgow, but is the rest of the country as multi-cultural?
SnakeLord
07-02-06, 04:38 PM
No but they can still go to war for money power land resources and against theist societies.
I guess so, but at least they would be honest about it. Theist wars - which constitutes pretty much all of them - were about money, power, land and resources, they just claimed it was the will of gods.
if this hypothetical atheist society were to be formed and all were atheist and suddenly one day a man decided he believed in God and wanted to "educate" other people about it; what would be the position of this man in your society?
It's exactly that way now, except instead of one its's a billion or two. However, the outcome is still the same. We ask for evidence to support those claims. Why is this always too much for a believer? Hell, I'm sure you'd be the very first asking for evidence if a few billion people claimed the flying spaghetti monster was real. Imagine your disgust if this person, (or two billion), wanted to then "educate" your children about the reality of the flying spaghetti monster. You'd rightfully be appalled.
I guess so, but at least they would be honest about it. Theist wars - which constitutes pretty much all of them - were about money, power, land and resources, they just claimed it was the will of gods.
Well its still the small percent of people in power who decide what the majority should do.
I wish I could believe that, but history negates you.
Hahaha! That is by far the most ridiculous thing you've said.
Yes, and are being replaced by economic differences.
I'm not disagreeing there are other problems in the world, but let's just consider the religious aspect for now, shall we?
If you believe the doctrine of Islam is to harm people, then you are right.
Are you being sarcastic?
SnakeLord
07-02-06, 04:52 PM
Well its still the small percent of people in power who decide what the majority should do.
Most certainly, but I would rather that small percent focus their efforts on health and education than space fairies.
Most certainly, but I would rather that small percent focus their efforts on health and education than space fairies.
Unfortunately, its not the space fairies you need to be concerned about, as much as greed and the struggle for power
perplexity
07-03-06, 04:32 AM
Unfortunately, its not the space fairies you need to be concerned about, as much as greed and the struggle for power
It is when the space fairies are elected to office.
If SnakeLord or anybody else here reckons to know how to do better, maybe they'd do better to have a go at it.
--- Ron.
It is when the space fairies are elected to office.
If SnakeLord or anybody else here reckons to know how to do better, maybe they'd do better to have a go at it.
--- Ron.
But do you think religion makes a difference to a greedy or power hungry man; in my opinion, there's plenty of excuses where that came from.
lightgigantic
07-03-06, 05:07 AM
But do you think religion makes a difference to a greedy or power hungry man; in my opinion, there's plenty of excuses where that came from.
Religion can make a difference - that's why there is a whole thing about formal receptions - like whatever humility, charity or good being a person can muster they are encouraged to come before god with that and by the process of investing that in bonafide religious practices those qualities increase. The victory of the modern age although is that people have no idea what is bonafide religion (how many arguments against religion do you face in forums like these which use the worst example as a basis for definition) nor the qualities of a bonafide practioner, so they inevitable make bad investments of whatever they can muster and sour their endeavour for spiritual life.
Religion can make a difference - that's why there is a whole thing about formal receptions - like whatever humility, charity or good being a person can muster they are encouraged to come before god with that and by the process of investing that in bonafide religious practices those qualities increase. The victory of the modern age although is that people have no idea what is bonafide religion (how many arguments against religion do you face in forums like these which use the worst example as a basis for definition) nor the qualities of a bonafide practioner, so they inevitable make bad investments of whatever they can muster and sour their endeavour for spiritual life.
Yes but the majority of people in the world do not lead these spiritually decrepit lives; its just that the media is focused on the sensational, the repugnant and the scandalous. The everyday ordinary seems invisible.
SnakeLord
07-03-06, 05:34 AM
Unfortunately, its not the space fairies you need to be concerned about, as much as greed and the struggle for power
Unfortunately it's not really upto you to tell me what I need to be concerned about.
If SnakeLord or anybody else here reckons to know how to do better, maybe they'd do better to have a go at it.
I tried, but unfortunately there's a very long waiting list.
perplexity
07-03-06, 05:34 AM
But do you think religion makes a difference to a greedy or power hungry man; in my opinion, there's plenty of excuses where that came from.
The power is an illusion anyway.
The creation of money rules the World.
I tried, but unfortunately there's a very long waiting list.
So did I.
It was the sense of sheer embarassment that put me off.
--- Ron.
Unfortunately it's not really upto you to tell me what I need to be concerned about.
My mistake; I thought we were trying to explore the problem.
The power is an illusion anyway.
The creation of money rules the World.
--- Ron.
Yes the power is an illusion; but its a very powerful illusion.
Its the direct cause of all the misery in the world today.
perplexity
07-03-06, 06:00 AM
Yes the power is an illusion; but its a very powerful illusion.
Its the direct cause of all the misery in the world today.
That is a relief then.
They'd almost had me thinking that I was direct cause of all the misery in the world today.
--- Ron.
That is a relief then.
They'd almost had me thinking that I was direct cause of all the misery in the world today.
--- Ron.
Hmm I didn't consider that...you might not want to be complacent so soon.
SnakeLord
07-03-06, 07:29 AM
My mistake; I thought we were trying to explore the problem.
"Exploring problems" equates to you telling me what I need to do or not do? Bizarre.
"Exploring problems" equates to you telling me what I need to do or not do? Bizarre.
Like I said my mistake; it was not intended to be projected as such.
Unfortunately, its not the space fairies you need to be concerned about, as much as greed and the struggle for power
Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power.
-Eric Hoffer
So, which do you think there are more of, greedy and power-hungry theists or atheists?
Is there a trend that sees secular nations having less greedy and power-hungry individuals/groups then more religious states?
What nations sport the most dictators, religious or secular?
Could it be that space fairies have some influence here?
perplexity
07-03-06, 09:16 AM
So, which do you think there are more of, greedy and power-hungry theists or atheists?
Pol Pot and Stalin spring immediately to mind.
--- Ron.
But do you think religion makes a difference to a greedy or power hungry man; in my opinion, there's plenty of excuses where that came from.
Yes, it makes all the difference:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora21.htm
Yes, it makes all the difference:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora21.htm
I wish you all the best.
I wish you all the best.
Didn't read the article? Too bad, it argues greed and power are the result of religious thought processes over some of mankinds evolution. Had mankind not embraced religion, we might have evolved an entirely different society, devoid of greedy and power-hungry people.
Didn't read the article? Too bad, it argues greed and power are the result of religious thought processes over some of mankinds evolution. Had mankind not embraced religion, we might have evolved an entirely different society, devoid of greedy and power-hungry people.
I skimmed through it, I'll read it later, I MUST finish my research proposal today.
It sounds nice, but everything does in theory; I know what you think of religion so I'm not going to flog a dead horse, but if you look at the complete history of the world, no matter what the religion, people have always struggled for power. I don't see how taking away religion will change that.
Anyway, that's all. I apologise if I hurt your feelings. It was not intentional.
Q:
Hmm just thought of this; if theism is the reason for power and greed, how does that explain the evidence for deliberate murder in the apes?
I skimmed through it, I'll read it later, I MUST finish my research proposal today.
Is it on Islam?
It sounds nice, but everything does in theory; I know what you think of religion so I'm not going to flog a dead horse, but if you look at the complete history of the world, no matter what the religion, people have always struggled for power. I don't see how taking away religion will change that.
As the article argues, religious thought WAS the history of the world and directly shaped the concepts of power and greed.
Anyway, that's all. I apologise if I hurt your feelings. It was not intentional.
No need to aplogise, I have no feelings. :p
Is it on Islam?
No.
As the article argues, religious thought WAS the history of the world and directly shaped the concepts of power and greed.
Argument is not evidence. See my later post.
No need to aplogise, I have no feelings.
If you say so.
I still want to know how old you are. I'd pegged you as reasonably older but if you're in your 20s ( which seems more likely now) I'll extend you some latitude.
Hmm just thought of this; if theism is the reason for power and greed, how does that explain the evidence for deliberate murder in the apes?
Are you refering to the "Demonic Ape" theory?
It's actually chimpanzees.
The theory suggests that the only two species who kill for pleasure are chimpanzees and humans, and that we are sadistic and cruel because we share these traits from similar ancestry?
Are you refering to the "Demonic Ape" theory?
It's actually chimpanzees.
The theory suggests that the only two species who kill for pleasure are chimpanzees and humans, and that we are sadistic and cruel because we share these traits from similar ancestry?
You have to admit its interesting that a species we share 98% of our DNA with shares violent tendencies with us.
Besides, there are other animals that kill for pleasure and toy with their victims, sometimes not even finishing the job; leaving them to die in agony as it were.
And you are mistaken that the history of human beings is the history of religion.
Let me put it this way ( I'm going to assume you're 21 unless you tell me otherwise :) ); a married man walks into a bar. He sees a beautiful woman.
He may:
1. look at her and look away
2. continue ogling her
3. want her desperately and do nothing
4. walk up to and talk to her
5. have an affair with her
6. leave his wife for her.
In other words, there's all kinds of men and everyone sets different limits on what they consider right. Its the same for violence or power. Everyone wants different things. There will ALWAYS be men ( and of course some women) who want it ALL. That is never going to change, no matter what you call it. Its only a few men in this world, but they have the drive, ambition, luck and ruthlessness to direct the course of history.
I saw a documentary showing killer whales killing blue whales, and not eating the remains, as if it were for pleasure.
All creation groans on account of the fall of Man.
You have to admit its interesting that a species we share 98% of our DNA with shares violent tendencies with us.
It's not interesting at all - the Demonic Ape Theory is complete bunk.
Besides, there are other animals that kill for pleasure and toy with their victims, sometimes not even finishing the job; leaving them to die in agony as it were.
Such as? And of course, please explain how you know they are killing for pleasure?
And you are mistaken that the history of human beings is the history of religion.
One would have to be a creationist to believe that nonsense - wait a minute - you ARE a creationist!
a married man walks into a bar. He sees a beautiful woman.
In other words, there's all kinds of men and everyone sets different limits on what they consider right. Its the same for violence or power.
It has already been shown that violence and reproduction are inherent in all species. Violence due to power and greed is linked to religious/mystic thought processes going back thousands of generations.
Everyone wants different things. There will ALWAYS be men ( and of course some women) who want it ALL. That is never going to change, no matter what you call it. Its only a few men in this world, but they have the drive, ambition, luck and ruthlessness to direct the course of history.
It's interesting where religious thought and decision making processes have brought us over the centuries. It's time for a change.
Crunchy Cat
07-03-06, 03:34 PM
Besides, there are other animals that kill for pleasure and toy with their victims, sometimes not even finishing the job; leaving them to die in agony as it were.
I'm not aware of any mammals that don't.
All creation groans on account of the fall of Man.
A good example of the thought process I was referring, sam.
It's not interesting at all - the Demonic Ape Theory is complete bunk.
Why ? :rolleyes:
Such as? And of course, please explain how you know they are killing for pleasure?
I haf seeen wid mhy vhery eeice.
One would have to be a creationist to believe that nonsense - wait a minute - you ARE a creationist!
One of these days you'll jump too far.
It has already been shown that violence and reproduction are inherent in all species. Violence due to power and greed is linked to religious/mystic thought processes going back thousands of generations.
I didn't realize all species had mystic thought processes; the plague is worse than you thought (*nodding head in sympathy*)
It's interesting where religious thought and decision making processes have brought us over the centuries. It's time for a change.
Yes, but can you be certain that where you end up will be where you intended to reach?
A good example of the thought process I was referring, sam.
You don't cut off your head if you have a crooked nose, Q; you fix the nose.
In the January 1999 issue of Natural History, marine biologists Robert L. Pitman and Susan J. Chivers described an event they had witnessed on the high seas. A pack of about fifty killer whales attacked a pod of nine sperm whales, killing one and maiming the rest.
“All may die from wounds received this morning…” the authors observe. “The killer whales killed more this morning than they could possibly eat: hundreds of tons of flesh are left behind. We are struck by the tremendous waste.”
Waste is normal for killer whales. These predators, “are well known for their habit of eating just the fleshy lips and tongues of minke whales, then leaving their victims to die,” write Pitman and Chivers.
Dolphins are even nastier. They kill for pleasure, without taking a bite.
“Dolphins have been found to bludgeon porpoises to death by the hundreds,” reports the New York Times (July 6, 1999). “Unlike most animal killers, which eat their prey, dolphins seem to have murderous urges unrelated to the need for food.”
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/Flipper.html
Domestic cats stalk more often than they attack, attack more often than they kill, and kill more than they eat. You can explain this as practice or simply as fun. Mountain lions seem to have the same idea of fun. One of them killed 30 sheep in one night.
My cat ( called Apache because she is very blood thirsty ) kills solely for pleasure. (This is general behavior in cats, you can ask around)
<img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7413/106d7mu.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />
I have owned several cats. I prevent them from hunting the local wildlife as far as possible. For example, my current cat is kept indoors at night. Why? Because my cat doesn't need to hunt native animals to eat. She is already well fed. She only hunts for fun, and that results in cruelty to other animals.
Weirdomandude
07-03-06, 03:59 PM
Why even have theology at all? On the pro side it's the bullshit that binds people together and on the con side it's the bullshit that promotes death, ignorance, and suffering.
Damn straight! Religion is understanding and accepting change. That is it..
wsionynw
07-03-06, 04:10 PM
Domestic cats stalk more often than they attack, attack more often than they kill, and kill more than they eat. You can explain this as practice or simply as fun. Mountain lions seem to have the same idea of fun. One of them killed 30 sheep in one night.
My cat ( called Apache because she is very blood thirsty ) kills solely for pleasure. (This is general behavior in cats, you can ask around)
<img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7413/106d7mu.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />
Some animals have no choice but to kill to survive, they are therefore very good at it. To say Dolphins are nasty is a bit strange coming from a human (humans are guilty of the worst cruelty and needless infliction of death and suffering imaginable). Sure, an animal such as a cat, dog, fox, whatever, will kill more than they can eat if the opportunity presents itself. But animals are never sure where their next meal is coming from (even if they are domesticated), they don't have shops like humans do, so sometimes a large amount of waste occurs. Killing seemingly for fun could be for several reasons, such as a form of practice and keeping the predatory instincts and skills sharp, and protecting it's own feeding ground from animals that share or threaten their prey.
Some animals have no choice but to kill to survive, they are therefore very good at it. To say Dolphins are nasty is a bit strange coming from a human (humans are guilty of the worst cruelty and needless infliction of death and suffering imaginable). Sure, an animal such as a cat, dog, fox, whatever, will kill more than they can eat if the opportunity presents itself. But animals are never sure where their next meal is coming from (even if they are domesticated), they don't have shops like humans do, so sometimes a large amount of waste occurs. Killing seemingly for fun could be for several reasons, such as a form of practice and keeping the predatory instincts and skills sharp, and protecting it's own feeding ground from animals that share or threaten their prey.
Please note: The dolphins don't eat the porpoises they merely bludgeon them to death.
Yup, just saying that violence for power is not exclusive to humans; you must be aware of the territorial fights seen among male animals, right? Most male animals, domesticated or wild, mark their territory, to declare sovereignty over it. They fight bitterly to keep it and also fight to extend it. This is also a fight for resources but it proves that the instinct for territory and for hunting are inbred in all mammals. Just saying that religion causes power and greed is ridicuous. A brief study of the animal kingdom will tell you that power struggles are about resources and survival. They are instinctive.
wsionynw
07-03-06, 04:23 PM
Yup, just saying that violence for power is not exclusive to humans; you must be aware of the territorial fights seen among male animals, right? Most male animals, domesticated or wild, mark their territory, to declare sovereignty over it. They fight bitterly to keep it and also fight to extend it. This is also a fight for resources but it proves that the instinct for territory and for hunting are inbred in all mammals. Just saying that religion causes power and greed is ridicuous. A brief study of the animal kingdom will tell you that power struggles are about resources and survival. They are instinctive.
I agree, but you must undersatand that animals fight for feeding territory and breeding rights as a means of basic survival and the instinct to reproduce (I. Humans have this also, but we have distanced ourselves from our wild roots in many ways.
I don't think religion is to blame for all greed (apart from televangalists), I just think organised religion does more harm than good because it promotes fear, hate and irrational beliefs.
wesmorris
07-03-06, 04:24 PM
Yup, just saying that violence for power is not exclusive to humans; you must be aware of the territorial fights seen among male animals, right? Most male animals, domesticated or wild, mark their territory, to declare sovereignty over it. They fight bitterly to keep it and also fight to extend it. This is also a fight for resources but it proves that the instinct for territory and for hunting are inbred in all mammals. Just saying that religion causes power and greed is ridicuous. A brief study of the animal kingdom will tell you that power struggles are about resources and survival. They are instinctive.
Definately.
Religion can be a powerful tool in this struggle, but it is not the reason for the struggle except to those for whom the tool has been employed. In this context, religion is only a "motivator" or "propaganda" or "mind control device" so to speak. The reason for the struggle is survival, as people come to know it - and the somewhat random distribution of personality characteristics, wherein the alphas claim authority to implement whatever tools necessary to assert their control.
People are nothing more than complicated apes who are pretending to be something more.
I agree, but you must undersatand that animals fight for feeding territory and breeding rights as a means of basic survival and the instinct to reproduce (I. Humans have this also, but we have distanced ourselves from our wild roots in many ways.
Why? don't we protect our homes, our country?
I don't think religion is to blame for all greed (apart from televangalists), I just think organised religion does more harm than good because it promotes fear, hate and irrational beliefs.
Do you mean to say that all people in the world ( except the 14% atheists) are afraid hateful and irrational?
redarmy11
07-03-06, 04:29 PM
Do you mean to say that all people in the world ( except the 14% atheists) are afraid hateful and irrational?
Of course not. You're not all hateful.
Of course not. You're not all hateful.
I'll get you later buster :mad:
wsionynw
07-03-06, 04:31 PM
Why? don't we protect our homes, our country?
Do you mean to say that all people in the world ( except the 14% atheists) are afraid hateful and irrational?
What's your point, are you trying to distance humans from animals or show their similarities? To what effect?
No, I didn't say all religious people are full of hate and fear, etc, but their belief in God(s) is irrational. In the same way people that fear Friday 13th have an irrational fear of that day.
What's your point, are you trying to distance humans from animals or show their similarities? To what effect?
I'm debating the claim that power and greed in humans is caused by religion
No, I didn't say all religious people are full of hate and fear, etc, but their belief in God(s) is irrational. In the same way people that fear Friday 13th have an irrational fear of that day.
So, 86% of the world is irrational?
wsionynw
07-03-06, 04:38 PM
I'm debating the claim that power and greed in humans is caused by religion
So, 86% of the world is irrational?
Their belief in God(s) is irrational. They might be perfectly rational in others ways, in fact I'm sure most of them are. If you truely believe in God, be you Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever, then what difference does it make to you if there are millions who believe as you do, or just you on your own?
redarmy11
07-03-06, 04:38 PM
So, 86% of the world is irrational?
Religious thinking is, in one sense, a rational response to our fear of death - a way of cheating our inevitable demise. But it's irrational in that there's no evidence to support the belief system that this fear has produced.
So, yes, I'd say that most people are fearful and irrational.
Their belief in God(s) is irrational. They might be perfectly rational in others ways, in fact I'm sure most of them are. If you truely believe in God, be you Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever, then what difference does it make to you if there are millions who believe as you do, or just you on your own?
Religious thinking is, in one sense, a rational response to our fear of death - a way of cheating our inevitable demise. But it's irrational in that there's no evidence to support the belief system that this fear has produced.
So, yes, I'd say that most people are fearful and irrational.
May God have mercy on your souls :D
Yup, just saying that violence for power is not exclusive to humans; you must be aware of the territorial fights seen among male animals, right? Most male animals, domesticated or wild, mark their territory, to declare sovereignty over it. They fight bitterly to keep it and also fight to extend it. This is also a fight for resources but it proves that the instinct for territory and for hunting are inbred in all mammals. Just saying that religion causes power and greed is ridicuous. A brief study of the animal kingdom will tell you that power struggles are about resources and survival. They are instinctive.
Powerful words from a Muslim. Allah should have struck you dead by now for such utterences. Perhaps you're a wannabee Muslim? Nonetheless...
You are a confused little theist. From the link you never read:
"Faith in the existence of god was useful to the primitive man. It satisfied his curiosity. He thought that all things and events were god's creations and dispensations. Surrender to god satisfied his slave mind. As the concept of god was fashioned after human form, god was attributed the human qualities of righteousness, love and mercy. Obedience to a righteous god, however imaginary, served him at that stage to establish moral conduct in social groups. Faith in a god of love and mercy kept up hope amid troubles. Further, worship of god with song, dance and ritual satisfied man's aesthetic cravings. Thus the concept of god answered the several needs of the primitive man in a primitive way. And man stuck to god with intense faith.
Along with god, man fancied the existence of soul as a detachable part of the body. Dreams were supposed to be soul's rambles in strange lands during man's sleep and death as its permanent escape from the body. Imagination of the existence of other-worlds, like heaven and hell, and of rebirth, followed the need to provide disembodied souls with a habitation. Faith in the existence of soul and ancestral worship dispelled man's fear of death.
Belief in the existence of god and of soul and the influence of the belief on man's conduct constituted religion. And the essence of religion was man's surrender to god. Therefore, in terms of god (theos), which was the first one to which man surrendered, the attitude of surrender has come to be known as 'theism'.
Religion was the early phase of the attitude of surrender. Surrender absolved man of the sense of responsibility and afforded him the security and tranquility of a caged bird. Within the quietude of religious belief, theists started thinking and grew rational. So the analogical method of understanding yielded place to the advanced ways of causal logic and epistemological inquiry. Consequently, the concept of god gradually changed from the primitive fetish to a metaphysical notion of 'being and becoming.' The noisy ritual, blood sacrifices and ancestral worship of early religious belief were replaced by the silent meditation of later religion."
Powerful words from a Muslim. Allah should have struck you dead by now for such utterences. Perhaps you're a wannabee Muslim? Nonetheless...
I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you.
You are a confused little theist.
I'm a big girl
From the link you never read:
"Faith in the existence of god was useful to the primitive man. It satisfied his curiosity. He thought that all things and events were god's creations and dispensations. Surrender to god satisfied his slave mind. As the concept of god was fashioned after human form, god was attributed the human qualities of righteousness, love and mercy. Obedience to a righteous god, however imaginary, served him at that stage to establish moral conduct in social groups. Faith in a god of love and mercy kept up hope amid troubles. Further, worship of god with song, dance and ritual satisfied man's aesthetic cravings. Thus the concept of god answered the several needs of the primitive man in a primitive way. And man stuck to god with intense faith.
Along with god, man fancied the existence of soul as a detachable part of the body. Dreams were supposed to be soul's rambles in strange lands during man's sleep and death as its permanent escape from the body. Imagination of the existence of other-worlds, like heaven and hell, and of rebirth, followed the need to provide disembodied souls with a habitation. Faith in the existence of soul and ancestral worship dispelled man's fear of death.
Belief in the existence of god and of soul and the influence of the belief on man's conduct constituted religion. And the essence of religion was man's surrender to god. Therefore, in terms of god (theos), which was the first one to which man surrendered, the attitude of surrender has come to be known as 'theism'.
Religion was the early phase of the attitude of surrender. Surrender absolved man of the sense of responsibility and afforded him the security and tranquility of a caged bird. Within the quietude of religious belief, theists started thinking and grew rational. So the analogical method of understanding yielded place to the advanced ways of causal logic and epistemological inquiry. Consequently, the concept of god gradually changed from the primitive fetish to a metaphysical notion of 'being and becoming.' The noisy ritual, blood sacrifices and ancestral worship of early religious belief were replaced by the silent meditation of later religion."
I read it.
Total hogwash! This guy is a wannabe fiction writer; obviously never read the Quran.
Q:
So you did not tell me, do you still believe that power and greed is due to religion?
I'm a big girl
Like, BIG big, or just big big?
obviously never read the Quran.
Bwahahaha! Nice comeback. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/laugh2.gif
So you did not tell me, do you still believe that power and greed is due to religion?
Of course, power and greed is due to Allah.
Like, BIG big, or just big big?
That would be telling my dear, which is not going to be a one way street.
Bwahahaha! Nice comeback. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/laugh2.gif
Always nice to make someone happy; its what I live for.
Of course, power and greed is due to Allah.
O ye of little faith! Of course all things are from Allah (SWT); he sends you challenges to make you stronger. You will get through this. I shall pray for you.
O ye of little faith! Of course all things are from Allah (SWT); he sends you challenges to make you stronger.
Yes, what are we to do about those 17,000 children who die of starvation each day? That's quite the challenge he's sent us. Will he keep increasing the count until we fix it or will he just stop one day and start feeding them himself?
O ye of misplaced faith!
I shall pray for you.
And to honor that wonderful gesture, I shall not pray for you.
Yes, what are we to do about those 17,000 children who die of starvation each day? That's quite the challenge he's sent us. Will he keep increasing the count until we fix it or will he just stop one day and start feeding them himself?
O ye of misplaced faith!
And to honor that wonderful gesture, I shall not pray for you.
In Islam, if you have, you MUST give. All muslims give 2% of their discretionary income ( over and above that which they need for their personal needs and business) in charity. If you are eating and someone passes by or visits, you MUST offer them a meal. If you know someone in your neighborhood who is poor and has financial difficulties, you MUST help them. It does not matter what religion they belong to.
The example is given of Abraham; after he became a monotheist, he used to share every meal with someone. One day he could not find anyone, so he went out to look for someone to share the meal with. He came upon an old man in the desert and invited him. As they were walking, Abraham asked him, "do you believe in God?" The man said "No, I am an atheist". Abraham turned away in disgust. He had only walked two steps when God called to him, "O Abraham! We tolerated him for seventy years and you could not tolerate him for seven minutes?" Abraham realized his error and went back to the man.
You have probably never visited a Muslim country. It is commonplace to help people in need. If you go to any mosque, you will find well-to-do people distributing food and clothes regularly. In Ramadan, when all are fasting, huge parties are organized for breaking the fast for the poor people in the community. All Muslims and non-Muslims join in. There is no division due to religion. This is ( or should be ) true in all Muslim countries. It is certainly true in Saudi Arabia as well.
In addition, when you have a happy occasion at home like a birth or a wedding and even for funerals, you must feed as many poor people as you can afford to.
In Islam, if you have, you MUST give. All muslims give 2% of their discretionary income ( over and above that which they need for their personal needs and business) in charity. If you are eating and someone passes by or visits, you MUST offer them a meal. If you know someone in your neighborhood who is poor and has financial difficulties, you MUST help them. It does not matter what religion they belong to.
Then, clearly there shouldn't be a single starving Muslim child, or any child living in an Islamic state? Are they fed with propaganda too?
You have probably never visited a Muslim country.
How very incorrect of you.
It is commonplace to help people in need. If you go to any mosque, you will find well-to-do people distributing food and clothes regularly. In Ramadan, when all are fasting, huge parties are organized for breaking the fast for the poor people in the community.
It is commonplace without religion too.
In addition, when you have a happy occasion at home like a birth or a wedding and even for funerals, you must feed as many poor people as you can afford to.
All very nice, but hardly anything we'd have to learn through religion.
Getting back to the starving children, many of them Muslim, I might add, does Allah watch each one die an agonizing death? How does that make us stronger, as a challenge?
[QUOTE]Then, clearly there shouldn't be a single starving Muslim child, or any child living in an Islamic state? Are they fed with propaganda too?
If there are, it is wrong wrong wrong.
No buts about it.
How very incorrect of you.
Which one ( or is that classified too?)
It is commonplace without religion too.
I can only speak what I know about.
All very nice, but hardly anything we'd have to learn through religion.
Quite right.
Getting back to the starving children, many of them Muslim, I might add, does Allah watch each one die an agonizing death? How does that make us stronger, as a challenge?
Why do we fast 30 days in Ramadan? To know what hunger and thirst is.
I do what I can, but I know its not enough. I wish I could do more.
We all should; if we spent all the money we do for war in feeding the children, there would be more than enough. Human beings are selfish; and nowadays, they have lost sight of what is imporatnt in life.
You are right about the children. We should help them; it is our responsibility as human beings. What can I say? There are no easy answers.
Isn't it past your bedtime?
[QUOTE=(Q)]
If there are, it is wrong wrong wrong.
If? Haven't you been paying attention? Thousands... every day...
Which one ( or is that classified too?)
There are several, stretching from Morrocco, all along the northern part of Africa to Syria, Iraq, Saudi and Turkey. I'm sure many have been to Islamic countries. Perhaps I've been more than you?
I can only speak what I know about.
Yes, that has been a problem.
Why do we fast 30 days in Ramadan? To know what hunger and thirst is.
I do what I can, but I know its not enough. I wish I could do more.
Substitute less prayer for more action. It's always worked for me.
We all should; if we spent all the money we do for war in feeding the children, there would be more than enough. Human beings are selfish; and nowadays, they have lost sight of what is imporatnt in life.
You are right about the children. We should help them; it is our responsibility as human beings. What can I say? There are no easy answers.
You're right, the answers are hard - hard to accept.
[QUOTE=samcdkey]
If? Haven't you been paying attention? Thousands... every day...
didn't mean it that way. Sorry :rolleyes:
There are several, stretching from Morrocco, all along the northern part of Africa to Syria, Iraq, Saudi and Turkey. I'm sure many have been to Islamic countries. Perhaps I've been more than you?
Yes, you have. ( Hmm, so not 21; 25?)
Yes, that has been a problem.
I'm sure you'll fill in the gaps :cool:
Substitute less prayer for more action. It's always worked for me.
I do believe in action; I've always believed that work IS worship.
( and I dislike that you make assumptions about who or what I am)
You're right, the answers are hard - hard to accept.
The tragedy of life.
I have a question; if I am following the philosophy of my religion in a good way and encouraging others to do the same, why do you insist on trying to "convert" me? Surely if I can do good as a human being, it should not matter whether I profess a faith or not? I work hard, lead a clean life, get along with most people, stand up for myself and my principles and try to help people when and as much as I can. I don't care what color, nationality, sexual orientation or affiliation people are.
So what does it matter if I believe in sky fairies or the jolly green giant or God?
lightgigantic
07-03-06, 11:20 PM
I have a question; if I am following the philosophy of my religion in a good way and encouraging others to do the same, why do you insist on trying to "convert" me? Surely if I can do good as a human being, it should not matter whether I profess a faith or not? I work hard, lead a clean life, get along with most people, stand up for myself and my principles and try to help people when and as much as I can. I don't care what color, nationality, sexual orientation or affiliation people are.
So what does it matter if I believe in sky fairies or the jolly green giant or God?
I guess people have a problem with it when you represent a catergory that threatens their catergory - the threat could be imaginary or real but it culminates in the same phenomena - namely discrimination
LiveInFaith
07-04-06, 12:02 AM
rationalities, and irrationalities.
Why push everyone to live in fully rational life when people also have irrational things? As long as no proof showing non-existence of irrationality, then forcing everyone to be fully rational is a violation against free will.
I have faith, I know it is irrational. Since none can convince me how to change it into rationality, or to rationalise the substance of which I faith in, then I live with it. Part of my live is irrational, and I believe, it boosts my large portion of rationality into maximum level. No one get hurts because of that, instead they get my hand to lend when they need. I try to live by the "holytext".
It gets me ill to think beyond ratio, then the medicine for my soul is my faith. I believe there are things beyond ratio, while atheist may think all things should be within ratio to think about. Well, why not keeping that differences while there is no proof to show which one is true.
lightgigantic
07-04-06, 02:35 AM
rationalities, and irrationalities.
Why push everyone to live in fully rational life when people also have irrational things? As long as no proof showing non-existence of irrationality, then forcing everyone to be fully rational is a violation against free will.
I have faith, I know it is irrational. Since none can convince me how to change it into rationality, or to rationalise the substance of which I faith in, then I live with it. Part of my live is irrational, and I believe, it boosts my large portion of rationality into maximum level. No one get hurts because of that, instead they get my hand to lend when they need. I try to live by the "holytext".
It gets me ill to think beyond ratio, then the medicine for my soul is my faith. I believe there are things beyond ratio, while atheist may think all things should be within ratio to think about. Well, why not keeping that differences while there is no proof to show which one is true.
The problem with this is that faith without philosophy becomes fanatcism, just as science without a sense of the absolute is a waste of time ....
I have a question; if I am following the philosophy of my religion in a good way and encouraging others to do the same, why do you insist on trying to "convert" me?
Who said anyone is trying to convert you? All that has been asked is to question your religion and expose its contradictions.
Surely if I can do good as a human being, it should not matter whether I profess a faith or not? I work hard, lead a clean life, get along with most people, stand up for myself and my principles and try to help people when and as much as I can. I don't care what color, nationality, sexual orientation or affiliation people are.
Then, why do you need religion?
So what does it matter if I believe in sky fairies or the jolly green giant or God?
Why don't you believe in the jolly green giant? Or unicorns? Or flying pink dragons?
The problem with this is that faith without philosophy becomes fanatcism, just as science without a sense of the absolute is a waste of time ....
Then, according to your logic, science IS a waste of time.
Will you be moving back to a cave anytime soon?
Didn't think so.
[QUOTE]Who said anyone is trying to convert you? All that has been asked is to question your religion and expose its contradictions.
But the contradictions are imposed by people's perceptions, which are not restricted to religion and which can be changed by education and reform
Then, why do you need religion?
Because that IS my philosophy.
Why don't you believe in the jolly green giant? Or unicorns? Or flying pink dragons?
I might for all you know; my question is why is it anyone else's business?
If my philosophy helps me to lead the kind of life that is desirable to me (and not undesirable to society), it makes no difference what I do or do not believe in. Otherwise, it is plain and simple discrimination.
rationalities, and irrationalities.
Why push everyone to live in fully rational life when people also have irrational things? As long as no proof showing non-existence of irrationality, then forcing everyone to be fully rational is a violation against free will.
Why be irrational about only your faith, why not everything else? Why one god over another? Why not believe in Zeus?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.