Wtf?

[Qfwfq]

My skin is thick enough and I wasn't offended, it's just that in my stomping grounds it might be said by someone who holds they are "teaching" and might not be accepted by someone who doesn't hold that they are being "taught", I was simply making clear.

 

I also didn't want to get into a pointless discussion about that book and I meant to say that I also remember what the author calls "Quality" and it's that which is the interface between our mind and what it perceives. A quite subtle thing.

 

Your freedom of speech hasn't been negotiated to placate a delusion. And who are "they"? It wasn't exactly someone who chose Jyllands amongst other options. I'm weary of pointing out things that you refuse to understand. :confused:

[motherengine]

boerseun:

 

i think that i can understand your hostility concerning this issue. but i also think that your emotions have affected your judgment. the british zoologist richard dawkins has made a crusade out of the idea that religion is inherently dangerous. the problem is that his whole campaign is based on a supposition, not empirical fact. there are a vast amount of variables being ignored in his theory, and i cannot imagine that this kind of lax reasoning would be tolerated in the scientific community unless emotional bias ruled the day. it is a kind of selective perspective similar to the logic that "guns kill people, people don't kill people". it is easier to think this is true because it makes the problem seem solvable; get rid of the gun and violence goes away. unfortunately this is not the case in reality. television (talk about an "evil" invention) doesn't cause violence, and neither does religious text. people cause violence.

 

paradoxically, mr. dawkins view of the natural world is simply that of judea christianity without the god aspect: nature is evil and cruel and civilization is the best thing going. this is probably the kind of thinking that led the europeans to decimate the tribal people of the americas, politicized racism, not religious influence. likewise, i see the events of 9/11/01 being more a repercussion of the bullying of third world countries by the united states government (helped by technological advances), not the result of an 'evil' religion. it is philosophical naiveté to suggest that the lunatic actions of a minority of believers somehow represent the core of a religion. this is not to mention the arrogance (this is not a personal attack, i mean generally) of insisting that, because one man can function with an atheistic mindset, all men should be able to.

 

call me crazy but i see technological progression as having made life easier for some and more difficult and dangerous for all. despite turf wars the 'uncivilized' native american seems to have functioned in a kind of balance with the 'evil' natural world. and, yes, they were religious. just an opinion. take it as you will.

[Boerseun]

i think that i can understand your hostility concerning this issue. but i also think that your emotions have affected your judgment.

Thanks for your concern, mother engine, but frankly, the mere fact that I don't exactly see the world the way you do, doesn't necessarily imply anything being wrong with my judgment. The mere fact that I don't agree with you also doesn't make me in the wrong. You are presupposing the existence of God, therefore I must be wrong. This is not how philosophical arguments and debates are run.

The british zoologist richard dawkins has made a crusade out of the idea that religion is inherently dangerous. the problem is that his whole campaign is based on a supposition, not empirical fact. there are a vast amount of variables being ignored in his theory, and i cannot imagine that this kind of lax reasoning would be tolerated in the scientific community unless emotional bias ruled the day.

You gotta be kidding me. Divorcing cold reason from myth and fairytales seen as 'supposition'? As 'lax reasoning'? I haven't been following mr. Dawkins' 'crusade', but thanks for the tip - it seems a worthwhile crusade to support! Get off your pedestal for a moment and look at the camp you're defending: Mythology, fairytales, hellfire and brimstone presented in a self-contradictory volume a thousand-odd pages long, which, by the way, exists as the only evidence for what's contained inside. This is the flakiest evidence imaginable! And you accuse Dawkins of 'lax reasoning' and 'supposition'? Gimme a break!

it is a kind of selective perspective similar to the logic that "guns kill people, people don't kill people". it is easier to think this is true because it makes the problem seem solvable; get rid of the gun and violence goes away. unfortunately this is not the case in reality. television (talk about an "evil" invention) doesn't cause violence, and neither does religious text. people cause violence.

We unfortunately live in a world where a well-educated engineer will meticulously learn how to fly a boeing in order to kill himself and as many people as possible in order for him to receive 78 vestal virgins in heaven. This is religion pumping people's heads full of bullshit. Don't give me any of that "neither does religious text cause violence" crap. Let's enumerate only the most well-known issues in very recent history:

 

The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians).

 

The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the gist of it. In the above places, religion and your innocent 'religious texts' have been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years alone. Religion is not only bunk, but it is a seriously dangerous, lethally dangerous, form of bunk.

 

paradoxically, mr. dawkins view of the natural world is simply that of judea christianity without the god aspect: nature is evil and cruel and civilization is the best thing going. this is probably the kind of thinking that led the europeans to decimate the tribal people of the americas, politicized racism, not religious influence.

Nope. True believing Christians are explicitly ordered to carry forth the Message. They are burdened with the heavy responsibility of evangelization, and carry that responsibility with zeal. If it leads to war, well, so be it. The Bible said they had to do it.

likewise, i see the events of 9/11/01 being more a repercussion of the bullying of third world countries by the united states government (helped by technological advances), not the result of an 'evil' religion. it is philosophical naiveté to suggest that the lunatic actions of a minority of believers somehow represent the core of a religion.

You should keep in mind that the hijackers in the 9/11 crashes were for the most part well-off engineers and tertiary-educated professionals. They were willing to kill themselves because they were offered 70-plus virgins in the afterlife as martyrs. It is the pure naive simplistic and childish belief in such religion-inspired lunacy that caused them to volunteer for the job.

this is not to mention the arrogance (this is not a personal attack, i mean generally) of insisting that, because one man can function with an atheistic mindset, all men should be able to.

No worries, I didn't take it personally. But if you see this approach as arrogance, don't you think your assumption that most people won't be able to function without a psychological crutch in the form of an imaginary patriarch with enormous superpowers is telling of a lack of trust in mankind, or just slightly presumptious, in the least?

call me crazy but i see technological progression as having made life easier for some and more difficult and dangerous for all. despite turf wars the 'uncivilized' native american seems to have functioned in a kind of balance with the 'evil' natural world. and, yes, they were religious. just an opinion. take it as you will.

I have no idea what you tried to say here, nor what the relevance of it might be. Please enlighten me.

[motherengine]

Thanks for your concern, mother engine, but frankly, the mere fact that I don't exactly see the world the way you do, doesn't necessarily imply anything being wrong with my judgment. The mere fact that I don't agree with you also doesn't make me in the wrong. You are presupposing the existence of God, therefore I must be wrong. This is not how philosophical arguments and debates are run.

 

You gotta be kidding me. Divorcing cold reason from myth and fairytales seen as 'supposition'? As 'lax reasoning'? I haven't been following mr. Dawkins' 'crusade', but thanks for the tip - it seems a worthwhile crusade to support! Get off your pedestal for a moment and look at the camp you're defending: Mythology, fairytales, hellfire and brimstone presented in a self-contradictory volume a thousand-odd pages long, which, by the way, exists as the only evidence for what's contained inside. This is the flakiest evidence imaginable! And you accuse Dawkins of 'lax reasoning' and 'supposition'? Gimme a break!

 

 

are you intentionally misreading me? the supposition is that religion is inherently harmful, not whether it represents 'truth'. i never said that god exists. dawkins reasoning that religion is 'evil' and should be eliminated because of terrorist acts is about as scientific as saying that one should burn all copies of "walden" because someone was blinded by a tree spike. how about you give me a break.

[motherengine]

The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians).

 

The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the gist of it. In the above places, religion and your innocent 'religious texts' have been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years alone. Religion is not only bunk, but it is a seriously dangerous, lethally dangerous, form of bunk.

 

is there a fact somewhere in here?

[motherengine]

You should keep in mind that the hijackers in the 9/11 crashes were for the most part well-off engineers and tertiary-educated professionals. They were willing to kill themselves because they were offered 70-plus virgins in the afterlife as martyrs. It is the pure naive simplistic and childish belief in such religion-inspired lunacy that caused them to volunteer for the job.

 

the majority of bombing are carried out by very young people who are depressed, disillusioned with life or out right suicidal. they are recruted by others who promise them that their relatives will be compensated IN THIS WORLD if they help the terrorist cause. my information comes from actual interviews with people who decided not to carry out bombings. i don't what specific reasons those on the planes on 9/11 had, do you, or are you just assuming what those reasons were to fit your argument?

[motherengine]

No worries, I didn't take it personally. But if you see this approach as arrogance, don't you think your assumption that most people won't be able to function without a psychological crutch in the form of an imaginary patriarch with enormous superpowers is telling of a lack of trust in mankind, or just slightly presumptious, in the least?

 

i have no such assumption. as an atheist who would rather believe in "fairy tales" i have my own internal truth to rely on. now i guess when i shuffle off this mortal coil, its party time for the 'enlightened ones'. and as far as trust in 'mankind'...call me cynical, but i can't find a reason to do so. but its funny that you would suggest that i have a lack of trust in humanity when you seem to think that humanity is not even functional enough to have faith without being violent.

 

you also seem to think that someone elses behavior gives licence to others. arrogance is arrogance. misdirection is not proof of innocence.

[motherengine]

Nope. True believing Christians are explicitly ordered to carry forth the Message. They are burdened with the heavy responsibility of evangelization, and carry that responsibility with zeal. If it leads to war, well, so be it. The Bible said they had to do it.

 

ordered by whom? there is no 'they'. some atheists are fanatical, some are not. some christains are fanatical, some are not. are you suggesting that there are no atheistic zealots? or are they just concerned ambassadors of truth? were the two students who went on a killing spree in columbine representatives of the atheist movment? come on man. if you ignore the psychological elements in the actions of individuals who carry out radical actions because you have 'seen the truth' and need to preach it from the rooftops then god/science/truth/whatever help you.

[motherengine]

I have no idea what you tried to say here, nor what the relevance of it might be. Please enlighten me.

 

that is probably an impossibilty. what exactly is truth? i don't know. if it is bleak egoism in an indifferent universe then i will take a "fairy tale" any day. 'right' or 'wrong', here's hoping tolerance prevails.

[motherengine]

Where are we going to draw the line? I bet anything you do between waking up and going to bed will piss some religious nut somewhere off, from some looney obscure religion that you haven't even heard of yet. But if you want to be consistent, you shouldn't be doing that.

 

i would personally draw the line at going out of my way to offend someone as in the cartoon in question.

[Racoon]

i would personally draw the line at going out of my way to offend someone as in the cartoon in question.

 

I don't think a "cartoon" should be the Basis for killing people and Burning buildings!

 

So what if it was insensitive? :)

 

If they are "really" God-Loving Muslims, then they would turn a blind eye, and merely hold a grudge...

 

But like Boerseun has said from the Beginning of this thread, Many Religious people cannot think rationally apparently...

 

Because if someone proved a Scientific Theory wrong, there would not be BloodShed - but rather more inquiry, and communication...

 

I am beginning to agree...WTF???

 

When Tinkerbell Fornicates,

Racoon

[motherengine]

technology allowed certain individuals within the united states government to deliberately cause an atomic holocaust in two cities in Japan killing an estimated one to over two-hundred thousand people (the majority being civilians)* thanks to the influence of science and without religious influence. according to your own logic this would make science and technology the most heinous installations in human history. personally i can't see how anyone can directly equate religion or science with acts of violence. PEOPLE are violent. the multitude of reasons why are all but incidental. aggression and resulting violent actions come from our nature, not our beliefs.

 

*wikipedia

[Boerseun]

Mother Engine,

 

The Crusades stand out as a prime example of religion leading to violence.

The recent case over the weekend of the guy in Afghanistan who got sentenced to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity says the same thing. Here, it's not a case of individual violence, its a case of the imams or whoever ordering someone to go and kill someone else because of religious BS.

I agree with you - humans are violent. That being the case, we shouldn't give them extra ammo, or bring them under the illusion that there might even be a justification of sorts for their inbred aggressivenes. Religion is just strengthening their existing aggression.

 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,

Boerseun

[Qfwfq]

I agree with you - humans are violent. That being the case, we shouldn't give them extra ammo, or bring them under the illusion that there might even be a justification of sorts for their inbred aggressivenes. Religion is just strengthening their existing aggression.

They will use any excuse. Look at the excuses Golf Whisky Bravo found. What was the real reason for the Crusades?

[Boerseun]

They will use any excuse. Look at the excuses Golf Whisky Bravo found. What was the real reason for the Crusades?

:eek2: True!

 

It should be kept in mind, however, that back in the Crusade days, the world haven't yet invented a use for petra oleum, it was simply a stinky, sticky substance. In leiu of automobiles, their excuse for invading the Holy Land in order to retake the Holy Land from the non-believers, might actually be the real reason they did it! Back then, they lacked autos and spindoctors.

 

Over,

Boerseun

[Qfwfq]

In leiu of automobiles, their excuse for invading the Holy Land in order to retake the Holy Land from the non-believers, might actually be the real reason they did it!

:eek2:

Think a bit more carefully...

[Boerseun]

:eek2:

Think a bit more carefully...

Nope. You got me there.