Because of things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Quote
"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."
For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer
Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.
"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.
This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.
Why do people elect folk like this? No one in Germany would have an issue if a politician professes faith in God, but something like this would see them dropped off the ballot very quickly. I hope.
Because of an article from March?
And congratulations then Berkie. You've now gone full Marti.
Quote from: Syt on October 28, 2015, 01:46:05 PM
Why do people elect folk like this?
Because there are plenty of people who think he is right, and they vote.
Welcome aboard, Berkut.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 01:47:58 PM
Because of an article from March?
Is the age of the article relevant to whether or not being concerned that the person who heads the Congressional committee responsible for dealing with the climate believes that God won't allow humans to mess anything up is valid?
Quote
And congratulations then Berkie. You've now gone full Marti.
Uhhh, ok. That is a rather weird ad hom.]
Well now you get a bit of my way of thinking. Most religions are full of dangerous or regressive crackpottery. Yet many people seem drawn to religion and spirituality (myself included). So my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.
But the bibble also talks about stewardship of gods creation, you know, taking care of it. Bah, never mind, it also talks about some real crazy stuff.
The danger is retardism, whatever cloak it wears. Many of the most dangerous nutters aren't religious (other than in the "believes in crackpotism" sense).
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2015, 02:03:21 PM
The danger is retardism, whatever cloak it wears. Many of the most dangerous nutters aren't religious (other than in the "believes in crackpotism" sense).
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 01:55:55 PM
So my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.
Strange, yet bizarre.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 28, 2015, 02:03:09 PM
But the bibble also talks about stewardship of gods creation, you know, taking care of it. Bah, never mind, it also talks about some real crazy stuff.
People in general pick the parts they agree with and that support their view.
people say a lot of things. i'm not convinced peoples' actions, at their core, are truly driven by religion as opposed to some other combination of factors.
Quote from: Syt on October 28, 2015, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 28, 2015, 02:03:09 PM
But the bibble also talks about stewardship of gods creation, you know, taking care of it. Bah, never mind, it also talks about some real crazy stuff.
People in general pick the parts they agree with and that support their view.
What?! Nah! Unpossible. It is the Word of God. How could mere mortals pick and choose what parts to follow?
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:07:28 PM
people say a lot of things. i'm not convinced peoples' actions, at their core, are truly driven by religion as opposed to some other combination of factors.
The problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:10:37 PMThe problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
i think it's grounded more in cultural reasons than "religion." i think culture drives religion, not the other way around. that's why a "religious person" depends so much on who that person is rather than anything else. you've got weirdos who have a lot of hate in them that sit around abortion clinics, then you have people that do good work in third world countries. then there's the majority, who simply live their lives in all sorts of different ways. blaming religion for anything is an easy out.
And here's why I have astrong antipathy towards counter-religion
QuoteIt's an extraordinary publishing phenomenon - atheism sells. Any philosopher, professional polemicist or scientist with worries about their pension plan must now be feverishly working on a book proposal. Richard Dawkins has been in the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic since The God Delusion came out last autumn following Daniel Dennett's success with Breaking the Spell. Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscience graduate, has now clocked up two bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Last week, Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything was published in the US. The science writer, Matt Ridley, recently commented that on one day at Princeton he met no fewer than three intellectual luminaries hard at work on their God books.
This rising stack of books has prompted screeds of debate, flushing out all manner of belief and unbelief in blogs, reviews, essays and internet exchanges in the US. The Catholic columnist Andrew Sullivan has just concluded his exchange with Sam Harris on the net, while the philosopher Michael Novak recently took on the whole genre of New Atheism, or neo-atheism. Surely not since Victorian times has there been such a passionate, sustained debate about religious belief.
And it's a very ill-tempered debate. The books live up to their provocative titles: their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief - they want it eradicated (although they differ as to the chances of achieving that). The newcomer on the block, Hitchens , sums up monotheism as "a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events". He takes the verbal equivalent of an AK47 to shoot down hallowed religious figures, questioning whether Muhammad was an epileptic, declaring Mahatma Gandhi an "obscurantist" who distorted and retarded Indian independence, and Martin Luther King a "plagiarist and an orgiast" and in no real sense a Christian, while the Dalai Lama is a "medieval princeling" who is the continuation of a "parasitic monastic elite".
This kind of vituperative polemic sounds a tad odd this side of the Atlantic. Apart from an ongoing anxiety about Islam, the British are pretty phlegmatic about religion. Church attendance continues its steady decline and the Christian evangelical boom has never taken off. The whole New Atheist publishing phenomenon is like eavesdropping on a blistering row in the flat next door: one's response alternates between fascination and irritation, but is it really anything to do with us?
What's clear is that this wave of New Atheism is deeply political - and against some of its targets even a devout churchgoer might cheer them on. What they all have in common is a loathing of an increasing religiosity in US politics, which has contributed to a disastrous presidency and undermined scientific understanding. Dennett excoriates the madness of a faith that looks forward to the end of the world and the return of the messiah. What Dawkins hates is that most Americans still haven't accepted evolution and support the teaching of intelligent design; according to one poll, 50% of the US electorate believe the story of Noah. He argues that "there is nothing to choose between the Afghan Taliban and the American Christian equivalent ... The genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day America."
This is popular stuff - a plague on both your houses - on both sides of the Atlantic after a war on terror in which both sides have used their gods as justification for appalling brutality. But it tips over into something much more sinister in Harris's latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we're familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance.
The danger is that the aggression and hostility to religion in all its forms (moderates are castigated as giving the fundamentalists cover for their extremism) deters engagement with the really interesting questions that have emerged recently in the science/faith debate. The durability and near universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking, one of Britain's most eminent evolutionary psychologists acknowledged to me recently. Scientists have argued that faith was a byproduct of our development of the imagination or a way of increasing the social bonding mechanisms. Does that make religion an important evolutionary step but now no longer needed - the equivalent of the appendix? Or a crucial part of the explanation for successful human evolution to date? Does religion still have an important role in human wellbeing? In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on. If religion declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?
his isn't the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (with the possible exception of Dennett, who in an interview last year was far more open to discussion than his book would indicate); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding. But even on the political front, one has to question whether all the aggression isn't counterproductive. Robert Winston voiced increasing concern among scientists when he argued in a recent lecture in Dundee that Dawkins's insulting and patronising approach did science a disservice. Meanwhile, critics in America argue that the polarisation of the debate in the US is setting the cause of non-deism back rather than advancing it.
Dawkins is an unashamed proselytiser. He says in his preface that he intends his book for religious readers and his aim is that they will be atheists by the time they finish reading it. Yet The God Delusion is not a book of persuasion, but of provocation - it may have sold in the thousands but has it won any souls? Anyone who has experienced such a conversion, please email me (with proof). I suspect the New Atheists are in danger of a spectacular failure. With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts, they've missed the proverbial elephant in the room. These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/may/07/comment.religion (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/may/07/comment.religion)
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:07:28 PM
people say a lot of things. i'm not convinced peoples' actions, at their core, are truly driven by religion as opposed to some other combination of factors.
What is special about religion that it causes you to believe that people are lying when they say they do something because of religion?
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 02:16:59 PMWhat is special about religion that it causes you to believe that people are lying when they say they do something because of religion?
people lie to themselves all the time. it's a very, very basic human feature. we justify anything based on anything we can. religion is one thing people hold onto. if religion didn't exist, there would be something else to take its place. that's what i mean - i've said this before on languish: i don't think religion plays nearly as important a role in peoples' lives as some think.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:10:37 PMThe problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
i think it's grounded more in cultural reasons than "religion." i think culture drives religion, not the other way around. that's why a "religious person" depends so much on who that person is rather than anything else. you've got weirdos who have a lot of hate in them that sit around abortion clinics, then you have people that do good work in third world countries. then there's the majority, who simply live their lives in all sorts of different ways. blaming religion for anything is an easy out.
Fair point. Whatever the reason though, I agree with Berkut that it is dangerous for people to justify bad public policy decisions on interpretations of religious texts rather than science. Of course not all religious people do such a thing and so the Berkut's OP is overly broad. But the basic point he makes is valid.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:10:37 PMThe problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
i think it's grounded more in cultural reasons than "religion." i think culture drives religion, not the other way around. that's why a "religious person" depends so much on who that person is rather than anything else. you've got weirdos who have a lot of hate in them that sit around abortion clinics, then you have people that do good work in third world countries. then there's the majority, who simply live their lives in all sorts of different ways. blaming religion for anything is an easy out.
You are confusing complexity with "blame".
Culture drives religion, and religion drives culture, of course. Religion is one of many factors.
But there are people who make decisions based on their genuinely held religious views. To pretend like they are not is a bit silly.
I know Catholics who go to church on Sunday not because their family expects it, but because they truly and honestly believe that their faith demands that they do so. Some people go because it just what they do, even if they don't really believe.
The existence of the latter does not refute the existence of the former however.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:19:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 02:16:59 PMWhat is special about religion that it causes you to believe that people are lying when they say they do something because of religion?
people lie to themselves all the time. it's a very, very basic human feature. we justify anything based on anything we can. religion is one thing people hold onto. if religion didn't exist, there would be something else to take its place. that's what i mean - i've said this before on languish: i don't think religion plays nearly as important a role in peoples' lives as some think.
So since people lie to themselves all the time about some things, we can conclude that some special case is always lying?
I don't see how that follows.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 01:55:55 PM
Well now you get a bit of my way of thinking. Most religions are full of dangerous or regressive crackpottery. Yet many people seem drawn to religion and spirituality (myself included). So my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.
I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 02:06:10 PM
Strange, yet bizarre.
And young people raised in the West do go off to fight for ISIS. Strange, yet bizarre yet it happened over ten thousand times. And many thousand more people convert to weird religions over here every year.
So I think religion should be embraced, since clearly it fulfills some need that people often go seeking for and leading them to dangerous places otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:10:37 PMThe problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
i think it's grounded more in cultural reasons than "religion." i think culture drives religion, not the other way around. that's why a "religious person" depends so much on who that person is rather than anything else. you've got weirdos who have a lot of hate in them that sit around abortion clinics, then you have people that do good work in third world countries. then there's the majority, who simply live their lives in all sorts of different ways. blaming religion for anything is an easy out.
Fair point. Whatever the reason though, I agree with Berkut that it is dangerous for people to justify bad public policy decisions on interpretations of religious texts rather than science. Of course not all religious people do such a thing and so the Berkut's OP is overly broad. But the basic point he makes is valid.
But some of our very best public policy decisions have been based on interpretations of religious texts. Take the Civil Rights movement, led by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The anti-slavery movements were quite religious in its motivation.
This isn't a question of religion being bad - it's simply a matter of bad policy. And for that matter, bad theology. There are plenty of bible verses about how God has given man stewardship over the earth, and that we must care fot it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:10:37 PMThe problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
i think it's grounded more in cultural reasons than "religion." i think culture drives religion, not the other way around. that's why a "religious person" depends so much on who that person is rather than anything else. you've got weirdos who have a lot of hate in them that sit around abortion clinics, then you have people that do good work in third world countries. then there's the majority, who simply live their lives in all sorts of different ways. blaming religion for anything is an easy out.
Fair point. Whatever the reason though, I agree with Berkut that it is dangerous for people to justify bad public policy decisions on interpretations of religious texts rather than science. Of course not all religious people do such a thing and so the Berkut's OP is overly broad. But the basic point he makes is valid.
But some of our very best public policy decisions have been based on interpretations of religious texts. Take the Civil Rights movement, led by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
The Civil Rights movement had plenty of religious people pushing it, and plenty of religious people using religion to justify teir opposition to it. It hardly seems clear to me at all that one can conclude that the civil rights movement was at all religious in nature, or that in balance civil rights was something that was helped, rather than hindered, by religion.
Given that throughout history, the track of advancing human rights in general tracks with advancing secular human rights, it is a tough sell to convince me that religion overall has been a champion for civil rights, or any human rights for that matter.
Quote
The anti-slavery movements were quite religious in its motivation.
As was the pro-slavery movements - and indeed, throughout human history religion in general is used to justify slavery over and over and over again - and in fact it is still happening today, with ISIS being a prime example.
Again, there were certainly very morally good, deeply religious people in the anti-slavery movement. It is less clear that overall the fight against slavery was about religion, or that religions was necessary to the anti-slavery movement.
Quote
This isn't a question of religion being bad - it's simply a matter of bad policy.
No argument that it is bad policy.
But it is obviously the case that it is bad policy supported by religious beliefs, and seemingly sincerely held religious belief. Indeed, I can even understand the logic behind it - if you accept that there is an active god who has a plan and is willing to intercede, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that he won't let humans mess up his plan too much.
Quote
And for that matter, bad theology.
That is a debate for the religious to have.
As someone who is not religious, I do not agree that you have the inside scoop on what is "bad" theology. In any case, it doesn't even matter to me - Inhofe believes that his theology is better than yours.
Certianly from where I sit, you can all argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin all you want. From my perspective, there isn't anything that clearly states that his views trump yours, or vice versa.
Rather, I would conclude that you both sincerely believe in what you profess to believe. His beliefs are actively dangerous to me, while yours are not. Hence I am not particularly concerned about yours, and am very concerned about his.
Beebs, fundamentally I would say that my OP is not really aimed at you. You are religious, and I know that there is no possible set of arguments that can be made that can convince the religious that religion is bad - that would require you to accept something the denies your own faith. Short of you becoming an atheist, there is no chance that you can accept the premise.
This is more about those who are not religious, yet feel that religion is not really such a bad thing. I used to feel that way, but more and more I am becoming convinced that in fact religion is actively dangerous, and should be actively opposed.
To the extent that said active opposition actually backfires and causes the uncommitted to become MORE religious, then obviously that opposition is tactically unsound and should be modified.
And there were plenty of secular scientific arguments for slavery. I don't think I've ever heard of a religious reason for eugenics or forced sterilization of the disabled.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 02:10:37 PMThe problem arises when justifications for important policies are grounded in narrow religious beliefs that have no scientific merit.
i think it's grounded more in cultural reasons than "religion." i think culture drives religion, not the other way around. that's why a "religious person" depends so much on who that person is rather than anything else. you've got weirdos who have a lot of hate in them that sit around abortion clinics, then you have people that do good work in third world countries. then there's the majority, who simply live their lives in all sorts of different ways. blaming religion for anything is an easy out.
Fair point. Whatever the reason though, I agree with Berkut that it is dangerous for people to justify bad public policy decisions on interpretations of religious texts rather than science. Of course not all religious people do such a thing and so the Berkut's OP is overly broad. But the basic point he makes is valid.
But some of our very best public policy decisions have been based on interpretations of religious texts. Take the Civil Rights movement, led by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The anti-slavery movements were quite religious in its motivation.
This isn't a question of religion being bad - it's simply a matter of bad policy. And for that matter, bad theology. There are plenty of bible verses about how God has given man stewardship over the earth, and that we must care fot it.
I think you are conflating public policy that is based on a religious interpretation of whatever holy text is applicable to religious people being involved in wider movements.
For good or ill, we are never going to be able to avoid public policy being influenced by religious views. But that does not address Berkut's basic point that when public policy is based on religious interpretation rather than science we go down a very dangerous road.
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
And young people raised in the West do go off to fight for ISIS. Strange, yet bizarre yet it happened over ten thousand times. And many thousand more people convert to weird religions over here every year.
So I think religion should be embraced, since clearly it fulfills some need that people often go seeking for and leading them to dangerous places otherwise.
I don't think so. There are plenty of people, myself included, who do not embrace religion and do not go off into dangerous places otherwise. Seems odd to indoctrinate your children with the most innocuous form of religion in hopes that it will prevent them from seeking out a 'dangerous' one.
Really strikes me as an overly cynical view on the people your children might turn out to be.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
Basing road construction on engineering principles based on scientific results has yet to be proven to be that dangerous.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 03:21:23 PM
I don't think so. There are plenty of people, myself included, who do not embrace religion and do not go off into dangerous places otherwise. Seems odd to indoctrinate your children with the most innocuous form of religion in hopes that it will prevent them from seeking out a 'dangerous' one.
I am not indoctrinating them. I am simply saying 'this is our spirituality if you need it'. If they do not need it then fine. If they do well here I am providing them with a healthy option.
I don't know what what kind of nazi-esque brainwashing you think I am doing but get back to reality. I am amused you think I am some sort of cult leader.
QuoteReally strikes me as an overly cynical view on the people your children might turn out to be.
What the fuck? I do actually believe these spiritual values, it is not cynical at all. Where did you dream up these delusions?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
The Gravity Act was a shameful episode in our country's history. :(
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 03:22:51 PM
What the fuck? I do actually believe these spiritual values, it is not cynical at all. Where did you dream up these delusions?
I think this might be what you said:
QuoteSo my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.
I don't see anything in there that says 'I'm introducing my kids to my sincerely held beliefs because I think those beliefs are good for them.' You're the one who created the argument that you've made them religious, basically to inoculate you all. :mellow:
In a rare and fruitful coincidence his religion is inoculation.
I love how the crazy people, like Raz, have these little pet causes they run into the ground with their insanity.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
Because of things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Quote
"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."
For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer
Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.
"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.
This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.
The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 03:44:29 PM
I don't see anything in there that says 'I'm introducing my kids to my sincerely held beliefs because I think those beliefs are good for them.' You're the one who created the argument that you've made them religious, basically to inoculate you all. :mellow:
Ah yes I can see why if taken to an extreme that might be misleading.
No I introduced them to a religion to inoculate them from the quackery I found myself becoming susceptible to.
I found a religion which I believe preached truthful spiritual principles free from dangerous nuttery. This has been very good for me and enabled me to embrace that part of myself. If my children have similar urges later in life I have, hopefully, provided them with a home.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:03:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
Because of things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Quote
"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."
For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer
Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.
"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.
This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.
The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.
That was a strange post - even for you.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:03:52 PM
The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.
Well I think most of us are not that fanatical. We can easily be dissuaded with good arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately from the opposition I mostly get crazy conspiracy theories and baseless claims of dangerous fanaticism rather than convincing arguments.
In any case pollution is probably a bad thing. Might as well engineer things to produce less of it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:03:52 PM
The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.
Well I think most of us are not that fanatical. We can easily be dissuaded with good arguments to the contrary. Unfortunately from the opposition I mostly get crazy conspiracy theories and baseless claims of dangerous fanaticism rather than convincing arguments.
In any case pollution is probably a bad thing. Might as well engineer things to produce less of it.
No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence. After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence. Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 02:27:30 PM
I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.
We were discussing this very topic in AP World today: why did religions based on the promise of reward after death rise so dramatically in the 600 years or so after 100AD? Earlier religions (except the Indian ones) pretty much promised a better life on earth for good behavior (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, Greek rationalism, Roman polytheism, Druidism, etc). The conclusion the students reached was that the "reward after death" religions met the needs of people as wealth started to accumulate more and more to the elites, and the poor felt increasingly poor (even if they were not objectively worse off), so they needed a reward system based on what was manifestly not happening around them. That was reward after death.
Their biggest pieces of evidence were the rise of Buddhism in China after the fall of the Han Empire and the turmoil, wars, etc that followed. Buddhism declined after the Tang Dynasty re-established social order. The other evidence was that in India, far before anywhere else, the establishment of the Aryan kingdoms where the Dravidian people were treated very poorly led to the popularity of Hinduism, which promised that virtuous low-caste Indians would be reborn in higher, more privileged castes: reward after death.
Impossible to say if the students were right, but it was a great discussion.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2015, 03:39:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
The Gravity Act was a shameful episode in our country's history. :(
What year did Sweden stop sterilizations? Last year? The year before? I forget.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:14:10 PM
No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence. After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence. Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.
True. the climate models predict that the most recent recent decade would be warmer than the previous decade, and that is what the data shows, so obviously the models are wrong. Spectacularly wrong, because they are inconvenient.
Why believe inconvenient data when you can believe convenient beliefs?
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2015, 03:55:20 PM
I love how the crazy people, like Raz, have these little pet causes they run into the ground with their insanity.
What the fuck are you on about?
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2015, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:14:10 PM
No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence. After all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence. Every model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.
True. the climate models predict that the most recent recent decade would be warmer than the previous decade, and that is what the data shows, so obviously the models are wrong. Spectacularly wrong, because they are inconvenient.
Why believe inconvenient data when you can believe convenient beliefs?
Well, actually the last decade saw no change in global temperatures, while the climatistas predicted an accelerated change in global temperatures. Heck, they predicted the North Pole to be ice free by 2014, which of course proved to be spectacularly wrong.b
Global warming is closely tied to solar cycles, which coincidentally perfectly align wth the global warming experienced from the mid seventies to the late nineties, and also explains the lack of warming since then.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwpf.com%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2Fno-warming-trend.png&hash=7c93bdc19f024df113b49591ff370c6b0ca51ec0)
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 04:07:03 PM
That was a strange post - even for you.
Hans hides his tinfoil side most of the time, but it comes out occasionally, like now. I don't find it strange that he holds such bizarre beliefs. He's a fellow-traveler with the Republican presidential candidate that thinks that we are "in a Gestapo age" and that the US is "very much like Nazi Germany." Wacky shit, and yet that guy actually leads in some polls.
QuoteThe year 2012 was the ninth warmest in a NASA analysis of global temperatures that stretches back to 1880. In itself, that sounds fairly unremarkable. But, as climate scientists note, what's important is the long-term trend. The 10 hottest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998, and nine of the 10 have occurred since 2002.
"What matters is, this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "The planet is warming."
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/)
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:14:10 PM
No, you cannot be persuaded from your beliefs by evidence.
Of course I can.
QuoteAfter all you believe in global warming despite the absence of evidence.
No I don't.
QuoteEvery model peddled by the climatistas has been wrong - spectacularly wrong, and every predicting they've made has failed to come true - spectacularly so, yet still you believe.
I have not yet been shown this evidence so I reject your conclusion. I see you have completely ignored what I said and just made up something I said. That does not bode well for your ability to give me good information but let's see it.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:28:26 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwpf.com%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2Fno-warming-trend.png&hash=7c93bdc19f024df113b49591ff370c6b0ca51ec0)
Explain what I am seeing here. The misspelling of Troposphere does not bode well :P
So that graph Hans posted goes against his belief that the temperature is not rising, no? I mean, if almost all the anomalies are above 0.0C and the trend eerily steady above 0.2C the temperature is clearly rising. Or am I reading his rather suspicious graph wrong?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 04:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2015, 03:39:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
The Gravity Act was a shameful episode in our country's history. :(
What year did Sweden stop sterilizations? Last year? The year before? I forget.
Stop?
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2015, 04:33:02 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6e/29/51/6e29514e2712688ca38bb9394069c295.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 04:35:46 PM
Explain what I am seeing here. The misspelling of Troposphere does not bode well :P
Well the image is hosted here:
http://www.thegwpf.com/
And here's what is says under "Who we are"
QuoteThe Global Warming Policy Forum is a London-based think tank which conducts campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Global Warming Policy Foundation's remit as an educational charity.
This arrangement reflects those used by other organisations with dual structures, such as Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK.
In recent years, the GWPF's influence has grown rapidly, among both UK and international policy makers and the news media and is widely regarded as one of the world's leading think tanks on global warming policy issues.
The Forum is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Key campaigning issues
For balanced science & policy research
Climate science and climate policies are faced by rising doubt and criticism. There is growing concern about the integrity of climate scientists and the maltreatment of sceptical researchers. The Forum will be campaigning for more balanced and more transparent assessments of climate science and policy research.
For open & sceptical science
Climate alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully assessing the quality and reliability of climate data, many climate scientists cherry-pick numbers and interpretations that seem to confirm their alarmist conviction. Reliable and trustworthy science requires a sober and detached consideration of all relevant evidence. The Forum will campaign for an open scientific debate which allows for all reasonable arguments and criticism to be voiced and published.
Against bias and alarm
The coverage of climate change in the news media has been stromgly biased in favour of alarm. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media have failed to give appropriate space to authoritative critics of climate alarmism. The Forum will campaign for more objective media reporting.
For economic scrutiny & realism
European and other governments have burden their countries with unilateral and hugely expensive climate and green energy targets. As a direct result, energy prices and fuel poverty are rising in many countries, making them poorer and less competitive. Rejecting economically damaging climate and energy policies, the Forum will be campaigning for cost-effective alternatives that will help to make our societies more resilient and more competitive.
Against green unilateralism
The international deadlock on a new UN climate treaty shows that unilateral climate policies have failed. The Forum will be campaigning for the development of alternative approaches that are politically realistic and economically feasible.
Funding
The Global Warming Policy Forum will be funded by private donations. In order to make clear their complete independence, neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
Hey, they widely regard themselves as "one of the world's leading think tanks on global warming policy issues," not spelling.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 01:55:55 PM
So my theory is to find the few religions which contain neither dangerous nor regressive crackpottery and support those. Hence why I decided to make my family religious, basically to inoculate us.
Family portrait?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blazingcatfur.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FNiqab-group-of-women.jpg&hash=c78222697998e6b312a09c945628e7131ba47d56)
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 04:06:39 PM
Ah yes I can see why if taken to an extreme that might be misleading.
No I introduced them to a religion to inoculate them from the quackery I found myself becoming susceptible to.
I don't see how it is extreme to take your statement at face value - particularly given that you've just repeated it, though yes, you've softened it with it being beliefs you also hold.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 04:06:39 PMI found a religion which I believe preached truthful spiritual principles free from dangerous nuttery. This has been very good for me and enabled me to embrace that part of myself. If my children have similar urges later in life I have, hopefully, provided them with a home.
I guess that's good though again I think it shows a cynicism about your children / safeguards them against apparently a 'weakness' you detected in yourself. Still, I'm not at all judging, just again find it a bit odd that you are raising your children to be religious to prevent them from the off chance of adopting extremist religious views.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 02:21:06 PMYou are confusing complexity with "blame".
Culture drives religion, and religion drives culture, of course. Religion is one of many factors.
But there are people who make decisions based on their genuinely held religious views. To pretend like they are not is a bit silly.
I know Catholics who go to church on Sunday not because their family expects it, but because they truly and honestly believe that their faith demands that they do so. Some people go because it just what they do, even if they don't really believe.
The existence of the latter does not refute the existence of the former however.
what i'm saying is that in reality people truly base their decisions on whatever factors turned them into the person who decided to "make decisions based on their genuinely held religious views." if religion
caused someone to blow himself up, then that same religion should have caused every follower to blow himself up. what actually caused the person to blow himself up were many other factors than just religion. the person may think he's acting out of his faith, but that's exactly the "lying to themselves" that i meant. does this clarify my original assertion (even if you disagree with it)?
Quote from: Liep on October 28, 2015, 04:37:45 PM
So that graph Hans posted goes against his belief that the temperature is not rising, no? I mean, if almost all the anomalies are above 0.0C and the trend eerily steady above 0.2C the temperature is clearly rising. Or am I reading his rather suspicious graph wrong?
What is the relationship between "temperature anomalies", and average global temperature
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 05:28:04 PM
if religion caused someone to blow himself up, then that same religion should have caused every follower to blow himself up.
I'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:27:59 PM
I guess that's good though again I think it shows a cynicism about your children / safeguards them against apparently a 'weakness' you detected in yourself.
I don't think it is necessarily a weakness. I think a need for spirituality is something alot of humans share. So I want to provide them with an avenue to satisfy that need if necessary.
QuoteStill, I'm not at all judging, just again find it a bit odd that you are raising your children to be religious to prevent them from the off chance of adopting extremist religious views.
Why is it odd one might want to introduce positive values to his children before others with less positive values reach out to them?
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:30:32 PMI'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.
because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb. there are always other factors at play, from peer pressure to insanity to poor upbringing to self (or not) victimization issues, etc. aside from serving as a classification of people, i don't think religion causes much.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 05:36:06 PM
I don't think it is necessarily a weakness. I think a need for spirituality is something alot of humans share. So I want to provide them with an avenue to satisfy that need if necessary.
You said: No I introduced them to a religion to inoculate them from the quackery I found myself becoming susceptible to.
A susceptibility to falling to quackery is what I was thinking you were noting as a weakness.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 05:36:06 PMWhy is it odd one might want to introduce positive values to his children before others with less positive values reach out to them?
I don't see why your children in are in great danger of falling to dangerous religious views. I agree there is nothing odd in promoting positive values which, of course, can be done independently of religion or as part of one's religion. Still, strange to be noting that one is doing so 'basically to inoculate them from dangerous religious views'.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
And young people raised in the West do go off to fight for ISIS. Strange, yet bizarre yet it happened over ten thousand times. And many thousand more people convert to weird religions over here every year.
So I think religion should be embraced, since clearly it fulfills some need that people often go seeking for and leading them to dangerous places otherwise.
Obviously, you do what you want with your own family, so I'm just discussing the general principle here.
I don't think it works that way.
Before the rise of radical Islam, the worst a Quebec family had to fear was a family member joining the Jehova's Witnesses or another similar sect. People would cut family ties to embrace their new religion, refuse to mingle with people not of their religion, and obviously, for the Witnesses, refuse any kind of celebration.
It's obviously a million times different than waging Jihad on a foreign land by slaughtering infidels, but there are similarities.
These people, they weren't atheist. They were born in a Catholic family. They practised catholicism. For a tiny few of them, they were born in some Protestant family. Before the 60s, Catholic priests would literaly control the life of their Parishoniers. They would tour the houses, reminding women to do their conjugal duties (i.e. make babies, even if it could kill you, even your husband was a violent drunk), admonishing those that did not attend Church at least twice a week, making sure no woman could have a baby unnoticed, outside of wedlock.
So, these people, they were raised in these kinds of families, in this kind of society, where religion was very important and very strict.
And suddenly, we gave them religious freedom.
Some people just could not handle it. For the same reasons as there are people who will never adapt to capitalism. They can not function without any clear rules.
Yet, having a strong religion did not prevent them from joining a religious sect and cutting ties with their families or selling all their belongings because that was what their new Faith asked of them.
Religion is not a shield against extreme religion. Simply being atheist is not a shield either. These kids that go and fight for ISIS, they come from religious families. Omar Kadhr was from a deeply religious family, with a veiled mother&sister professing their hate against occidental values, Canada and America and a father working for Al-Queada. He was and he still is religious.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was raised in a very religious family. Yet, he became a terrorist along with his brother.
We have ample exhibit that moderate religion is not a shield against extremists. Not talking about it is stupid. Religion is out there, just like homosexuality, transgenderism, aids, global warming, etc.
What is important is not teach the kids a religion but to teach about them about religion. Remind them how dangerous it can be when you get confused between scientific reality and beliefes. Teach them critical sense, something most religion avoid like pest. Teach them not to belief blindly, that it is not a blessing to be naive. Teach them to agressively seek evidence of everything they're told. Teach them about logic and how it does not contradict Faith, but always them that their spirituality is their own free choice and it is as private as sex. Some people like having sex in public, some others like to pray in public. There are places for that. It's not ok to have sex at the shopping center, it should not be ok to have your religion at the shopping center either.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:30:32 PMI'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.
because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb. there are always other factors at play, from peer pressure to insanity to poor upbringing to self (or not) victimization issues, etc. aside from serving as a classification of people, i don't think religion causes much.
Well, yes, if you start with the notion that religion isn't (/can't actually be) a stimuli then, sure it is tautological that it has never caused someone to do anything.
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 05:50:12 PM
Teach them critical sense, something most religion avoid like pest. Teach them not to belief blindly, that it is not a blessing to be naive. Teach them to agressively seek evidence of everything they're told.
Seems like a good way to push one's children into not being religious. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 05:50:12 PM
it should not be ok to have your religion at the shopping center either.
:huh:
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 02:45:20 PM
But some of our very best public policy decisions have been based on interpretations of religious texts. Take the Civil Rights movement, led by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The anti-slavery movements were quite religious in its motivation.
The pro-slavery movement was deeply rooted in religious beliefs.
Quote
This isn't a question of religion being bad - it's simply a matter of bad policy. And for that matter, bad theology. There are plenty of bible verses about how God has given man stewardship over the earth, and that we must care fot it.
That's why religion belongs to the private sphere, not the public one.
My problem with religion is that while many religious people will profess religious tolerance (and act accordingly, I must give them that), there is zero tolerance for "not having a belief". You believe that abortion should be illegal because God said so? It kinda kills any argument there when you try to justify a contrary position with science. A religious person would never tolerate that science could contradict what he perceives as a core belief.
That's why religion must be erased from all government spheres. The State can not have a religion and it can not allow any religion to interact with it on a religious basis. Religious people should not be treated differently because they are Chrisitans, Muslims, Jews or Ecologists.
Public policies should be based on science&logic, not what some holy book says. Besides, with so many religions and so many interpretations, who is right?
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:50:39 PMWell, yes, if you start with the notion that religion isn't (/can't actually be) a stimuli then, sure it is tautological that it has never caused someone to do anything.
i mean, i think it's similar to ethnicity. one reason (among many) some might go jihad is because they feel "their people" are under attack. so, in that sense, yeah, it can influence someone to do something - but only if the right ingredients are there to cause that person to act. my main point is that the actual scriptures or whatever don't actually matter. you'd have violent sects emerge from the religion of love. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:52:50 PM
Seems like a good way to push one's children into not being religious. :lol:
No. It teaches them that no one has the right to judge them based on their beliefs or lack there of. My ancestors believed in werewolves and spirites, a view supported by the clergy. How many priests today believes in werewolves and spirits? Beliefs will evolve over time, we believe what we want to believe, but every decision we make must be grounded in reality, not what someone says we should do because that's what God said we should do.
Quote
:huh:
http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i58/2/2/6/pc_3de7f081098af04e911bd12b61e3aa62.jpg
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 05:58:12 PM
No. It teaches them that no one has the right to judge them based on their beliefs or lack there of. My ancestors believed in werewolves and spirites, a view supported by the clergy. How many priests today believes in werewolves and spirits? Beliefs will evolve over time, we believe what we want to believe, but every decision we make must be grounded in reality, not what someone says we should do because that's what God said we should do.
How are they supposed to see evidence of their religious beliefs that should encourage them to have faith?
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 05:58:12 PM
http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i58/2/2/6/pc_3de7f081098af04e911bd12b61e3aa62.jpg
Oh, I forgot about your ridiculous position that it is okay to be religious as long as you act ashamed about it and never bring it up in mixed company.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:50:39 PMWell, yes, if you start with the notion that religion isn't (/can't actually be) a stimuli then, sure it is tautological that it has never caused someone to do anything.
i mean, i think it's similar to ethnicity. one reason (among many) some might go jihad is because they feel "their people" are under attack. so, in that sense, yeah, it can influence someone to do something - but only if the right ingredients are there to cause that person to act. my main point is that the actual scriptures or whatever don't actually matter. you'd have violent sects emerge from the religion of love. :P
None of what you've just said suggests that religion has no role (apart from the simple assertion that the 'actual scripture or whatever don't actually matter'). Once again, different people react differently to different stimuli - much as interpretation of scripture can differ from one person to another.
No cock worship at the shopping center, garbon. FFS.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:06:30 PM
I don't think I've ever heard of a religious reason for eugenics or forced sterilization of the disabled.
No, I don't think I've heard about this either.
I have however heard, more than once, a religion calling for the extermination of believers of another religion. Even now you have religious people calling for active discrimination against members of another religion, some of them maybe you next President, who knows?
I have often heard of priests telling women to continue having sex with their violent husbands and not breakings what God united.
I have often heard of priests telling women to keep on having babies even when the doctor said it would kill them.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 06:03:37 PMNone of what you've just said suggests that religion has no role (apart from the simple assertion that the 'actual scripture or whatever don't actually matter'). Once again, different people react differently to different stimuli - much as interpretation of scripture can differ from one person to another.
see my earlier comments in this thread re: interpretation.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 06:00:09 PM
How are they supposed to see evidence of their religious beliefs that should encourage them to have faith?
You teach them about the various beliefs, you encourage their curiosity to read about it, and you have a frank discussion on the difference between mythology and reality, between legend and history.
Quote
Oh, I forgot about your ridiculous position that it is okay to be religious as long as you act ashamed about it and never bring it up in mixed company.
No, it's not like it's homosexuality ;)
You don't have to be ashamed of your religion, no more than I should be ashamed of my lack of religion.
People are free to have a religion, but we are also free to not have one.
And it's the same about sexual orientation. You're free to bang whomever you want to bang. We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
When and where?
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:48:46 PM
I agree there is nothing odd in promoting positive values which, of course, can be done independently of religion or as part of one's religion. Still, strange to be noting that one is doing so 'basically to inoculate them from dangerous religious views'.
But these are specifically positive religious and spiritual values.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
But these are specifically positive religious and spiritual values.
I'm not sure that there are such things. I've never seen one.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2015, 06:04:13 PM
No cock worship at the shopping center, garbon. FFS.
It's my hot body, I'll do what I want. <_<
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:12:42 PM
We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.
Weird given that, as Marti has pointed out many times, heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality in public on a daily basis.
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:15:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
When and where?
Scientific racism, Eugenics, the forced sterilization I was referring to earlier (which was finally outlawed in Sweden back in 2012). The Soviets believed that history was a science and tried to eradicate religion because it stood in the way of this particular form of science.
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:06:30 PM
I don't think I've ever heard of a religious reason for eugenics or forced sterilization of the disabled.
No, I don't think I've heard about this either.
I have however heard, more than once, a religion calling for the extermination of believers of another religion. Even now you have religious people calling for active discrimination against members of another religion, some of them maybe you next President, who knows?
I have often heard of priests telling women to continue having sex with their violent husbands and not breakings what God united.
I have often heard of priests telling women to keep on having babies even when the doctor said it would kill them.
I've heard of atheists talking about discrimination of people on the basis of religion. Heard right here in fact.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
Uh, no. Do you think you can link me that he says his assertions are pure rhetoric? That would clear thing up quite a bit.
Read what I said again
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:48:43 PM
Read what I said again
I read it again. What exactly did I miss?
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
Because of things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Quote
"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."
For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer
Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.
"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.
This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.
It all depends on the focus of the believer in question.
In the 19th century American evangelicals actively promoted various and vast societal reforms because they believed that only by bringing the world closer to perfection could the second coming of Christ occur. The Kingdom of God had to be established by believers on Earth for Christ to rule over.
Most evangelicals today are premillenials, they believe that Christ will return to a world steeped in sin and he will build the Kingdom himself.
Presumably if Imhoe didn't believe in climate change for some other unrelated reason, such as the fact he represents a State where the fossil fuel industry is important, it would be okay.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 28, 2015, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
Because of things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Quote
"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."
For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer
Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.
"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.
This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.
It all depends on the focus of the believer in question.
In the 19th century American evangelicals actively promoted various and vast societal reforms because they believed that only by bringing the world closer to perfection could the second coming of Christ occur. The Kingdom of God had to be established by believers on Earth for Christ to rule over.
Most evangelicals today are premillenials, they believe that Christ will return to a world steeped in sin and he will build the Kingdom himself.
So we need to start sinning to bring about the second coming? Hmmm :shifty:
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2015, 04:14:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 02:27:30 PM
I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.
We were discussing this very topic in AP World today: why did religions based on the promise of reward after death rise so dramatically in the 600 years or so after 100AD? Earlier religions (except the Indian ones) pretty much promised a better life on earth for good behavior (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, Greek rationalism, Roman polytheism, Druidism, etc). The conclusion the students reached was that the "reward after death" religions met the needs of people as wealth started to accumulate more and more to the elites, and the poor felt increasingly poor (even if they were not objectively worse off), so they needed a reward system based on what was manifestly not happening around them. That was reward after death.
Their biggest pieces of evidence were the rise of Buddhism in China after the fall of the Han Empire and the turmoil, wars, etc that followed. Buddhism declined after the Tang Dynasty re-established social order. The other evidence was that in India, far before anywhere else, the establishment of the Aryan kingdoms where the Dravidian people were treated very poorly led to the popularity of Hinduism, which promised that virtuous low-caste Indians would be reborn in higher, more privileged castes: reward after death.
Impossible to say if the students were right, but it was a great discussion.
Can't it just be the natural progression? Things start out sub-optimal until they get optimized. Better life on earth is disprovable, so religions making disprovable promises are going to be phased out in favor of religions that can keep hope alive for as long as one is alive.
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2015, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2015, 04:14:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 02:27:30 PM
I do think the social (and maybe even biological) utility of religious belief is a fascinating topic of inquiry.
We were discussing this very topic in AP World today: why did religions based on the promise of reward after death rise so dramatically in the 600 years or so after 100AD? Earlier religions (except the Indian ones) pretty much promised a better life on earth for good behavior (e.g. Confucianism, Daoism, Greek rationalism, Roman polytheism, Druidism, etc). The conclusion the students reached was that the "reward after death" religions met the needs of people as wealth started to accumulate more and more to the elites, and the poor felt increasingly poor (even if they were not objectively worse off), so they needed a reward system based on what was manifestly not happening around them. That was reward after death.
Their biggest pieces of evidence were the rise of Buddhism in China after the fall of the Han Empire and the turmoil, wars, etc that followed. Buddhism declined after the Tang Dynasty re-established social order. The other evidence was that in India, far before anywhere else, the establishment of the Aryan kingdoms where the Dravidian people were treated very poorly led to the popularity of Hinduism, which promised that virtuous low-caste Indians would be reborn in higher, more privileged castes: reward after death.
Impossible to say if the students were right, but it was a great discussion.
Can't it just be the natural progression? Things start out sub-optimal until they get optimized. Better life on earth is disprovable, so religions making disprovable promises are going to be phased out in favor of religions that can keep hope alive for as long as one is alive.
QuoteThe foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself
Cliff notes?
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2015, 10:11:51 PM
Cliff notes?
Cliff would be the last person to support the socialists.
Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake. In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided. It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other. Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust. They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world. People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant. In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey. Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made. "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin. The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes. In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting. The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2015, 10:11:51 PM
Cliff notes?
A man who's works would result in more deaths then any religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
As far as I know Economics and Sociology are still seen as sciences. The communists disliked religion because they believed that it caused people to irrationally disagree with them. It's essentially Berkut's beef in the OP.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
Yes. But it was pure rhetoric. There was nothing scientific about it. The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so ;)
Science is an amoral tool, not a guiding philosophy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2015, 11:32:11 PM
Science is an amoral tool, not a guiding philosophy.
Well I still think it should be used to build roads.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
As far as I know Economics and Sociology are still seen as sciences. The communists disliked religion because they believed that it caused people to irrationally disagree with them. It's essentially Berkut's beef in the OP.
In the case of Russian communists, there was a far simpler reason to dislike religion. Russian Orthodox Church has always been a supremely reactionary force in Russian society, and always very closely related to the supremely oppressive governments. It was always going to be opposed to progress, while communists were a logical conclusion of moderate progressive forces being suppressed in the decades preceding the revolution. Yes, Russian Communists were very bad guys, and history bore that out, but the Orthodox church as a victim is not a very sympathetic one.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 11:12:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
Yes. But it was pure rhetoric. There was nothing scientific about it. The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so ;)
Uh, what do you think makes something, "scientific"?
Quote from: DGuller on October 29, 2015, 12:01:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
As far as I know Economics and Sociology are still seen as sciences. The communists disliked religion because they believed that it caused people to irrationally disagree with them. It's essentially Berkut's beef in the OP.
In the case of Russian communists, there was a far simpler reason to dislike religion. Russian Orthodox Church has always been a supremely reactionary force in Russian society, and always very closely related to the supremely oppressive governments. It was always going to be opposed to progress, while communists were a logical conclusion of moderate progressive forces being suppressed in the decades preceding the revolution. Yes, Russian Communists were very bad guys, and history bore that out, but the Orthodox church as a victim is not a very sympathetic one.
And the various Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants that were murdered by the Communists, what was their crime?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 11:12:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
Yes. But it was pure rhetoric. There was nothing scientific about it. The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so ;)
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 12:22:11 AM
And the various Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants that were murdered by the Communists, what was their crime?
I don't know, you'll have to look up the archives to get that information.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
That sounds rather harsh. He's just mistaken.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
If we state that science is the result of using the scientific method it's pretty clear that communism isn't remotely a science. It wasn't a matter of testing ideas to determine their validity, just the outright declaration of the truth of Marxist thought with no evidence. In that sense it was much closer to a religion. Just because something claims it is a science doesn't mean it is one.
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 12:38:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
If we state that science is the result of using the scientific method it's pretty clear that communism isn't remotely a science. It wasn't a matter of testing ideas to determine their validity, just the outright declaration of the truth of Marxist thought with no evidence. In that sense it was much closer to a religion. Just because something claims it is a science doesn't mean it is one.
If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian. It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence. Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.
Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid. But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification. The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism. Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics. And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:12:42 PM
And it's the same about sexual orientation. You're free to bang whomever you want to bang. We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.
You know that sexual orientation goes beyond "whomever you bang", right?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake. In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided. It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other. Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust. They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world. People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant. In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey. Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made. "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin. The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes. In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting. The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".
I don't think this analysis is correct. What you are describing is the development of theology and ethics from ancient to classic times that just occurred generally and does not differentiate Christianity from other contemporary faiths. The Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus - and it's not like the Hellenic philosophy was waiting for Christianity to come along before it could feed its ethical teachings into religion - there were many other religions and religious or mystery movements during the classical period that made the same leap as Christianity did - Mithraism, the Eleusian and the Orphic mysteries, Neopythagoreans etc. So your argument does not explain why Christianity was the one to succeed and not the others.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 01:23:05 AM
the Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus.
As portrayed in the New Testament as well.
Btw, Raz, let's compare oranges with oranges - can you show any examples of science or atheism in the today's Western world advocating anything that is evidently dangerous or harmful, in the same way religion does in Berkut's example?
"Do you have any evidence for this god thing?"
"Yes. TEH.BIBOL"
:frusty:
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 01:23:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake. In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided. It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other. Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust. They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world. People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant. In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey. Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made. "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin. The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes. In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting. The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".
I don't think this analysis is correct. What you are describing is the development of theology and ethics from ancient to classic times that just occurred generally and does not differentiate Christianity from other contemporary faiths. The Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus - and it's not like the Hellenic philosophy was waiting for Christianity to come along before it could feed its ethical teachings into religion - there were many other religions and religious or mystery movements during the classical period that made the same leap as Christianity did - Mithraism, the Eleusian and the Orphic mysteries, Neopythagoreans etc. So your argument does not explain why Christianity was the one to succeed and not the others.
Judaism is more ritual centered then Christianity but less so then traditional Greek paganism. The Israelites likely started out polytheistic, shifted towards henotheistic and eventually monotheistic. The books in the Bible seem to allude to it. I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever. I think you miss the most salient point about Judaism, that it is a religion of law. There is a whole bunch of laws regarding what is good and bad, what pleases God and what displeases him. Figures in the Bible are often described as "Righteous" and are praised for adherence to the law. This is uncommon amongst the Greeks. Their heroes are heroes not because of innate goodness, but they can kill things. While Zeus has a few general rules such as being hospitable, not boasting that you are better then the gods, avoiding eating peoples brains and few others, that's not his primary vocation. He's much more whimsical and unpredictable. If Yahweh is like working for a hard task master working for Zeus is like working psychotic meth head carrying a pistol.
The Greeks wanted Zeus to be just and fair. You can find the desire in a lot of Greek writing such as Hesiod. He just never filled that role.
I'm not certain that these other religious cults were "making the same leap" as Christianity at the same time. This uncertainty is in no small part due to lack of knowledge of these cults. A major element of the mystery cults was the fact they kept their secrets well. It doesn't help they were often persecuted. I'm not convinced that Mithraism was realistic competitor of Christianity. The early Christians were often out in the open preaching and happily being martyred. The Initiates of Mithras hid in caves. Again, it's hard to know what they actually believed and how their religion was practiced.
I would say that Neoplatonism was something of a competitor, that was partly absorbed by Christianity and Manichean may have been as well (but again not much is know of that religion). Neoplatonism presumed a single all powerful God and Platonism and Aristotle were similar. In this sense they paved the way for a monotheistic religion like Christianity.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 02:02:40 AM
Btw, Raz, let's compare oranges with oranges - can you show any examples of science or atheism in the today's Western world advocating anything that is evidently dangerous or harmful, in the same way religion does in Berkut's example?
Yeah, I did on page one with my article. Sam Harris argues that it may very well be okay to murder people for thinking the wrong things. That sounds rather dangerous and harmful. Science isn't really an ideology, it is a methodology. It doesn't "advocate" anything. It can be used understand and make things, but there is nothing in it that has a moral character. You can make vaccines and nerve gas using scientific data. You can abuse the scientific method by say testing on human beings, but I'm not sure if that's dig against science. There may even be avenues of science best left alone, due to how the information would be used.
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 12:38:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
If we state that science is the result of using the scientific method it's pretty clear that communism isn't remotely a science. It wasn't a matter of testing ideas to determine their validity, just the outright declaration of the truth of Marxist thought with no evidence. In that sense it was much closer to a religion. Just because something claims it is a science doesn't mean it is one.
Sociology and economics are regarded as science. Marxist theory falls in both categories. It is a softer science then say physics, but it still makes use of the scientific method
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2015, 11:39:32 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2015, 11:32:11 PM
Science is an amoral tool, not a guiding philosophy.
Well I still think it should be used to build roads.
To hell.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 01:15:30 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:12:42 PM
And it's the same about sexual orientation. You're free to bang whomever you want to bang. We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.
You know that sexual orientation goes beyond "whomever you bang", right?
Objectophiles are a pretty marginal group.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 02:21:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 01:23:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
Can't speak for Confucianism, and nobody can speak for Druidic faiths, but lumping "Greek rationalism", with Roman polytheism is a mistake. In fact, Grumbler's question to his students is misguided. It's not a "reward after death" religion vs "reward in life" religion but striving for cosmic justice vs simply subservience to a powerful other. Polytheistic Gods are portrayed by and large as unjust. They reflect tribal chieftains and cultural stereotypes of a pre-civilized world. People lived in a world where tyranny and petty corruption were rampant. In an urban society such as classical Greece, People didn't want bandit gods who robbed, murdered, raped, and ate people. They wanted just laws, laws that all men must obey. Greek Philosophy is in large part an attempt to solve this deficiency. When Christianity came along it fit nicely into the groove that the philosophers had made. "Reward after death", is only one side of the coin. The other is side is that wicked are punished for their crimes. In a world where criminal justice was extremely lacking, the knowledge that a corrupt magistrate or cruel master would be eventually held accountable for their crimes was comforting. The question should be "why did Orthodoxy replace Orthopraxy in Europe and the Near East".
I don't think this analysis is correct. What you are describing is the development of theology and ethics from ancient to classic times that just occurred generally and does not differentiate Christianity from other contemporary faiths. The Christian god, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is just as unjust, arbitrary and brutal as Zeus - and it's not like the Hellenic philosophy was waiting for Christianity to come along before it could feed its ethical teachings into religion - there were many other religions and religious or mystery movements during the classical period that made the same leap as Christianity did - Mithraism, the Eleusian and the Orphic mysteries, Neopythagoreans etc. So your argument does not explain why Christianity was the one to succeed and not the others.
Judaism is more ritual centered then Christianity but less so then traditional Greek paganism. The Israelites likely started out polytheistic, shifted towards henotheistic and eventually monotheistic. The books in the Bible seem to allude to it. I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever. I think you miss the most salient point about Judaism, that it is a religion of law. There is a whole bunch of laws regarding what is good and bad, what pleases God and what displeases him. Figures in the Bible are often described as "Righteous" and are praised for adherence to the law. This is uncommon amongst the Greeks. Their heroes are heroes not because of innate goodness, but they can kill things. While Zeus has a few general rules such as being hospitable, not boasting that you are better then the gods, avoiding eating peoples brains and few others, that's not his primary vocation. He's much more whimsical and unpredictable. If Yahweh is like working for a hard task master working for Zeus is like working psychotic meth head carrying a pistol.
The Greeks wanted Zeus to be just and fair. You can find the desire in a lot of Greek writing such as Hesiod. He just never filled that role.
I'm not certain that these other religious cults were "making the same leap" as Christianity at the same time. This uncertainty is in no small part due to lack of knowledge of these cults. A major element of the mystery cults was the fact they kept their secrets well. It doesn't help they were often persecuted. I'm not convinced that Mithraism was realistic competitor of Christianity. The early Christians were often out in the open preaching and happily being martyred. The Initiates of Mithras hid in caves. Again, it's hard to know what they actually believed and how their religion was practiced.
I would say that Neoplatonism was something of a competitor, that was partly absorbed by Christianity and Manichean may have been as well (but again not much is know of that religion). Neoplatonism presumed a single all powerful God and Platonism and Aristotle were similar. In this sense they paved the way for a monotheistic religion like Christianity.
Like Neoplatonism, all of these religions and cults were tending towards monotheism, despite having roots in polytheism - that's my point in fact. Judaism was unique, back in the Old Testament era, in that it was monotheistic (although there are researchers who argue that early Judaism was polytheistic, only that Hebrews decided to follow one god out of many, but did not believe the other gods did not exist). Christianity was not unique in that it was monotheistic or propagated a belief in a just God - everybody else during that period did something similar.
I would also question whether Judaism being a religion of laws translated into Christianity's success - if anything, I think Christianity (unlike Judaism) gained a wider appeal because it significantly downplayed the "laws" part, replacing it with the Commandment of Love.
If I were to haphazard a theory why Christianity succeeded initially, it's because it was in fact millenarist and populist. All other religions and cults I mentioned were fairly elitist - Mithraism appealed to the army, Neoplatonism and Neopythogoreism required a significant education to process its concepts; Eleusian and Orphic mysteries were, as the name implies, mystery cults, working like freemasonry today. They all were based on self-perfection through gnosis, contemplation, insight, the "autonomic" salvation etc. They were like today's yoga or transcendental meditation classes - clearly, not something for the poor. So they appealed to middle and upper classes.
Early Christianity, on the other hand, promised a complete destruction of the existing world order within the lifetime of the current generation, and "heteronomic" salvaton. It's a little wonder it appealed to the masses.
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:15:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
When and where?
Raz doesn't distinguish between science and pseudo-science. He often tries to use the latter to discredit the former.
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2015, 09:54:15 PM
Can't it just be the natural progression? Things start out sub-optimal until they get optimized. Better life on earth is disprovable, so religions making disprovable promises are going to be phased out in favor of religions that can keep hope alive for as long as one is alive.
Buddhism had a definite rise and fall in China in the late 1st millennium.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
Marx made no effort to disprove his thesis. So, it cannot be scientific What's your basis for rejecting Inhofe's Christianity?
Is Inhofe intelligent enough to be religious? Signs in the OP point to no.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian. It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence. Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.
Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid. But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification. The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism. Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics. And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.
I'm not sure why it should matter to me if Inhofe is Christian or not. I'm sure it matters to you, but that's not the primary problem. He considers himself religious and his beliefs to be religiously motivated. He may not be a Christian but would you say he wasn't religious?
Religion has no method of being verified like science. I can claim something is scientific but unless someone somewhere else (preferably many someones in many other places) can replicate the result it isn't anything of the sort. Religion isn't invalidated because of idiots like Inhofe, but it also isn't validated by someone else being good. It's a potentially powerful and unpredictable motivator of people, but it's the specific purpose towards which it is bent that matters.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 05:30:45 AM
Is Inhofe intelligent enough to be religious? Signs in the OP point to no.
I think the issue isn't/shouldn't be whether Inhofe is a moron, religious moron or not, but whether his casting of the issue in religious terms causes others to support his position. That, I think, is the danger that Berkut referred to. Individual religious nutcases are always going to be with us, just like individual non-religious nutcases.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 02:21:08 AM
I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.
you must have missed the sending of plagues, turning people into salt, flooding the world, commanding genocide-bits then. Old Jahweh is not a nice guy, not one bit.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 11:12:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
Yes. But it was pure rhetoric. There was nothing scientific about it. The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so ;)
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian. Inhofe is definitely representative of the literalist religious nutbars who believe intelligent design is science.
I am not saying Marx was not a communist.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 29, 2015, 06:59:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 02:21:08 AM
I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.
you must have missed the sending of plagues, turning people into salt, flooding the world, commanding genocide-bits then. Old Jahweh is not a nice guy, not one bit.
I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.
Pfft. Religion is not actively dangerous, it's a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver or an alligator.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 11:12:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2015, 08:45:53 PM
You understand that Marx's assertion that his theory was scientific was pure rhetoric right?
The communists seemed to believe it though. They were quite clear that the march of human history had been "proven" to lead to communism.
Yes. But it was pure rhetoric. There was nothing scientific about it. The belief that something is scientific (or for that matter faith that something exists) does not make it so ;)
Sounds like a "No True Scotsman" argument.
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
This argument makes zero sense.
It doesn't matter whether or not Communism is "based on science" or not, unless you are actually making an argument that we should in fact be really worried about the dangers of science. Are you making such an argument? I didn't think so.
If we were talking about this when Communism was a thing to be worried about, I would have zero issue with a thread entitled "Why I am starting to think Communism is actively dangerous".
I sure as hell would not respond that it isn't because religion is dangerous as well.
The thing is Beeb - you making this argument is in fact a concession that my point is correct. If your responses to my noting that religion can be dangerous is to note that something else can be dangerous as well, then...ok. I certainly was never arguing that religion and people like Inhofe or suicide bombers are the only dangerous ideologies.
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 05:33:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian. It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence. Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.
Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid. But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification. The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism. Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics. And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.
I'm not sure why it should matter to me if Inhofe is Christian or not. I'm sure it matters to you, but that's not the primary problem. He considers himself religious and his beliefs to be religiously motivated. He may not be a Christian but would you say he wasn't religious?
This is the crux of the issue.
Beeb can say he isn't "Christian" based on his own definition of Christianity, but that is largely lost on those of us who are neither religious or Christian. It is like Muslims saying ISIS is not Muslim. Whatever.
There is no doubt that HE thinks he is Christian, and there is no doubt that he is religious, and there is no doubt that his actions, behavior, and as he is a politician, his stance on specific policy issues is motivated by his faith. Whether he is wrong (or ISIS is wrong, for that matter) about what his religion actually informs about those behaviors is largely uninteresting to me, and completely irrelevant to my argument. He can be the best Christian ever, or the worst, and it makes no difference at all.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb. there are always other factors at play, from peer pressure to insanity to poor upbringing to self (or not) victimization issues, etc. aside from serving as a classification of people, i don't think religion causes much.
You are correct. Except that religion teaches their followers to obey without question or God will not be pleased.
-You can't have abortion!
-Why?
-Because it's a sin!
-Why?
-Because God tells us so! End of debate.
There's this absolutism in religion where "we" are right, and the others are obviously wrong, without requiring any kind of proofs other than your sincerely held beliefs, even worst, when facts&science contradicts a religious position (the Earth orbiting around the Sun, not the opposite), religions are extremely resistant to any kind of change or contradiction. The people freed themselves of their religion before it was pushed toward evolution, like any kind of big organization.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 07:11:31 PM
Weird given that, as Marti has pointed out many times, heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality in public on a daily basis.
We have all the rights, you don't! :menace:
:P
I just don't see it that way. I show pictures of my goddaughter to other people, yet, it has nothing to do with sexuality. I often talk about my young nephew and his love for tractors and ATVs, again, it has nothing to do with flaunting my sexuality in public, since I had nothing to do with their conception. If I had kids of my own, I'd likely show pictures of them to some people and talk of their accomplishements, I just don't see it as anything like a gay pride parade with guys dressed as if it was Halloween parading in the streets of a tolerant city just to piss off the few homophobic people that are left ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 08:46:06 PM
I've heard of atheists talking about discrimination of people on the basis of religion. Heard right here in fact.
The moment you prevent radical religious people from indoctrinating other people, they cry out loud about their freedom of religion, something they wish to deny everyone else. Ironic. Especially when it comes from someone supporting Erdogan.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 12:22:11 AM
And the various Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants that were murdered by the Communists, what was their crime?
Many were murdered by the very religious Tsarist russia too. The first wave of Jewish to immigrate toward Palestine were from the Russian Empire. I don't think they left because they felt free under a religious state not of their own.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
They said communism was based on science. If you get to disregard Marx, I get to disregard Inhofe as not being a true Christian.
I can say X is based on science. But I need to prove it. This is where communism and nazism failed both. They both claimed to be based on science and produced bogus science reports to "prove" it. Yet, none of it resisted to any serious analysis. If you can't reproduce your experiment's results, it's hard to qualify as science. And yes, I know, many economis studies can not be reproduced independantly, the same goes for psychology. But not all of them, and at least, they try to develop mathematical models to predict societal behaviors.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 28, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2015, 05:30:32 PMI'm not sure why that would be true. Different people react to stimuli in different ways. That doesn't mean the stimuli plays a sidelined role...or even insignificant one.
because i don't think there's been a single case where religion has literally caused someone to suicide bomb.
I don't really see where there is anywhere to go with a comment like this.
It is rank apologism, and I don't understand the motivation for it.
You can go any number of places in the world today, interview people who have attempted Islamic suicide bombing, their victims, their families, those who enabled them, those who actively recruit more of them, and those who claim to want to be suicide bombers.
They will all tell you that they are doing so because of their religion, because that is what their god wants them to do. Yet no matter what they say, or how many of them say it, you are going to dismiss what the people who best understand their own motivations (themselves) and categorically simply refuse to believe them about what motivates their actions.
Do you do this for any other actions humans take? If you ask me why I went to the store, and I say it is because I wanted bread to make a sandwich, will you refuse to believe me, and instead insist there is some other motive?
What is special about religion that causes people to categorically deny that milllions of people are doing things for the exact reasons that they say they are doing things?
I can certainly understand in particular instances pointing out that sometimes the reasons people give for their actions are not always true, but you are saying that in EVERY SINGLE CASE that some person takes ANY action that they claim is taken because their faith says they ought to do so, they are lying or deluded, and there is really some other reason.
Not all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, of course, but damn sure that vast majority of them are - and the idea that there is some foundational economic or political reason behind it is refuted by the fact that there are numerous examples of people who have engaged in these and other horrific acts who had no such economic or political background. the 9/11 suicide bombers were mostly affluent, middle class men, as one example.
To argue that they did what they did for reasons other than religion is simply baffling. It is a mental contortion that is just...well, bizarre.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2015, 04:55:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:15:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
Public policy drawn solely from science has already proven to be a dangerous road.
When and where?
Raz doesn't distinguish between science and pseudo-science. He often tries to use the latter to discredit the former.
Okay, so Sociology is a pseudo science now.
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2015, 08:29:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2015, 08:46:06 PM
I've heard of atheists talking about discrimination of people on the basis of religion. Heard right here in fact.
The moment you prevent radical religious people from indoctrinating other people, they cry out loud about their freedom of religion, something they wish to deny everyone else. Ironic. Especially when it comes from someone supporting Erdogan.
You never did catch on about the Democracy thing did you?
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 07:38:46 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 29, 2015, 06:59:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 02:21:08 AM
I disagree with the notion that Old Testament God is a cruel as Zeus, there is no stories of Yahweh raping women, eating people, turning people into bugs or whatever.
you must have missed the sending of plagues, turning people into salt, flooding the world, commanding genocide-bits then. Old Jahweh is not a nice guy, not one bit.
I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.
Oh right, you're a fuckwit. I forgot.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 10:06:28 AM
Okay, so Sociology is a pseudo science now.
It is a Social Science. Same thing really.
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
That hurts. :(
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
Reddit style upvote / downvote system.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
Grumbler's not that bad, but I'm out. The same basic argument you made could argued if you replaced "religion" with "economics" or "politics". Both are things that influence people into saying things that you disagree with and doing things that harm you. I'm guessing you don't understand that, and with the vice-like lock your ass has on your head, you damned well won't learn from anyone here. Hell, you don't even want to read people who disagree with you, and day dream about simply shutting them out of the thread.
You're out? Some defender of the faith you are.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 10:38:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
Grumbler's not that bad, but I'm out. The same basic argument you made could argued if you replaced "religion" with "economics" or "politics".
Well yes. And that is why we actively reject things like communism (politics/economics). Biblical literalists are not a neutral force in the world. They create real world harm that replaces scientific fact with myth. Just as a communist regime would create real world harm. Btw I am using Communism as a comparator because that is the one you brought up :)
Has Raz posted his Cristero War photo yet? That's de rigueur.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:03:52 PM
The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.
Oh, look! The village idiot is back! :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 10:21:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
That hurts. :(
You can *always* post in my threads.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 29, 2015, 01:32:03 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 28, 2015, 04:03:52 PM
The funny thing is that global warming/climate change is in itself an actively dangerous religious cult. Unlike Christianity it is very aggressive in trying to impose its fanatic doomsday belief upon others, kinda like ISIS.
Oh, look! The village idiot is back! :lol:
We would never call you that Hami. :console:
:P
I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.
The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.
If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.
And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 29, 2015, 01:36:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 10:21:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
I wish there was a way for each Languish poster to designate one other poster who just isn't allowed to post in their threads.
That would really be great.
That hurts. :(
You can *always* post in my threads.
Thanks! :)
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2015, 05:11:46 PM
Hey, they widely regard themselves as "one of the world's leading think tanks on global warming policy issues," not spelling.
That's Timmy's gig. He should sue.
I'm not sure all Christians (and certainly not all religious) would agree with that logic chain. There's the extent to which free will is a factor, exactly what is considered "God's creation" and whether God is benevolent enough to save us from our own screw-ups.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 12:58:01 AM
If we state that Christianity is the result of reading the Bible it's pretty clear that Inhofe isn't remotely Christian. It wasn't a matter of looking at what the entire gospel says, just an outright declaration of the truth of Christian thought with no evidence. Just because someone claims their belief is based on Christianity doesn't mean it is.
That doesn't really matter if he's Christian or not. He's using his religion to justify public policies and that is scary to me.
Quote
Look - Inhofe's claim is stupid. But lots of people have believed in stupid ideas for lots of stupid reasons. Just because someone has believed in a stupid idea, it doesn't invalidate the entirety of whatever their justification. The idea of the division of powers isn't invalidated just because some racists used "state rights" to justify racism. Science isn't invalidated just because some people used it as a justification for eugenics. And religion isn't invalidated because some people try to use it as justification for ignoring global warming.
While I am certainly not pro-religion, I agree with you. However, I think religion must be kept as far away as possible from government and I believe it is not the State's mission to promote religion in any way, especially when it comes to extremist beliefs.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 01:15:30 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 28, 2015, 06:12:42 PM
And it's the same about sexual orientation. You're free to bang whomever you want to bang. We don't have to see it in public for you to be free.
You know that sexual orientation goes beyond "whomever you bang", right?
Really? Reading you guys here I thought it was all there is... ;)
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 02:02:31 PM
I'm not sure all Christians (and certainly not all religious) would agree with that logic chain. There's the extent to which free will is a factor, exactly what is considered "God's creation" and whether God is benevolent enough to save us from our own screw-ups.
It doesn't matter that they don't ALL agree - enough DO agree that people like Inhofe get elected and make policy based on those beliefs.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.
The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.
If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.
And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
The wider issue is the merit or otherwise of making policy based on baseless assertion. Baseless assertion exists in all fields but in religion it is a dominant concept.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 02:09:00 PM
The wider issue is the merit or otherwise of making policy based on baseless assertion. Baseless assertion exists in all fields but in religion it is a dominant concept.
Certainly religion has no monopoly on stupid ideas.
The problem with stupid religious ideas is that they are not really amenable to reason among the religious. Inhofe's position, while obviously moronic for anyone not sharing his religion, is very defensible, even logically more consistent in some ways than Beebs position, for those who do share it.
Such is, by definition, the very nature of faith.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 03:44:46 AM
If I were to haphazard a theory why Christianity succeeded initially, it's because it was in fact millenarist and populist. All other religions and cults I mentioned were fairly elitist - Mithraism appealed to the army, Neoplatonism and Neopythogoreism required a significant education to process its concepts; Eleusian and Orphic mysteries were, as the name implies, mystery cults, working like freemasonry today. They all were based on self-perfection through gnosis, contemplation, insight, the "autonomic" salvation etc. They were like today's yoga or transcendental meditation classes - clearly, not something for the poor. So they appealed to middle and upper classes.
Early Christianity, on the other hand, promised a complete destruction of the existing world order within the lifetime of the current generation, and "heteronomic" salvaton. It's a little wonder it appealed to the masses.
Early Christianity (50-200 AD) was a niche religion and didn't really have special appeal to the masses. It took quite a long time for there to be a significant following. Christianity was a disproportionately an urban phenomenon and it appears was led by literate property owners, who would also convert their retainers and clients. The very extensive evidence of "gnostic" type belief and practices in early Christianities refutes a fundamental opposition to neoplatonic thinking and perfectionism. Indeed as late as the 4th century, those concepts are still very much present as indicated by Arius and Arianism.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:11:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 02:09:00 PM
The wider issue is the merit or otherwise of making policy based on baseless assertion. Baseless assertion exists in all fields but in religion it is a dominant concept.
Certainly religion has no monopoly on stupid ideas.
The problem with stupid religious ideas is that they are not really amenable to reason among the religious. Inhofe's position, while obviously moronic for anyone not sharing his religion, is very defensible, even logically more consistent in some ways than Beebs position, for those who do share it.
Such is, by definition, the very nature of faith.
But BB is right - imperviousness to reason is a trait that can and does exist independent of religious belief. If religion didn't exist and Inhofe was an atheist, he would still be equally obtuse.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.
The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.
If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.
And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
On the contrary, this particular religion contains myths in which human actions directly lead to widespread destruction at the hands of a vengeful God - Noah's Flood, for example. ;) Or Sodom and Gehmorrah.
Debatable which myth would apply to Florida's impending immersion in the sea ... :D
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 07:38:46 AM
I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.
I think he tricked a woman or two making them believe he was someone else (their husband, usually). Isn't that how he created Hercules?
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:07:57 PM
It doesn't matter that they don't ALL agree - enough DO agree that people like Inhofe get elected and make policy based on those beliefs.
But I think that's a more general problem, abdication of responsibility, that's not specifically religious. Conspiracy theorists, New Age beliefs, Mono's cult of "nothing should change, and nothing will" are just as dangerous. It's easy and quite relaxing to say that either nothing can be done or that someone else more powerful will take care of it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 10:08:49 AM
You never did catch on about the Democracy thing did you?
Assad claims he is a democratically elected leader, and he has election score to prove it. Ergo, Syria is a democracy. Same with Saddam Hussein pre-invasion. Castro supporters often claim there are elections, more than in Canada, so Cuba is a democracy.
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2015, 02:23:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 07:38:46 AM
I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.
I think he tricked a woman or two making them believe he was someone else (their husband, usually). Isn't that how he created Hercules?
As long as he didn't tell them he was Jewish it wasn't rape.
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 02:02:31 PM
I'm not sure all Christians (and certainly not all religious) would agree with that logic chain. There's the extent to which free will is a factor, exactly what is considered "God's creation" and whether God is benevolent enough to save us from our own screw-ups.
You do not need all Christians to agree with him. I do not think even a majority of US Christians agree with him. You never need a majority of extremists to create problems. Just a vocal minority. Muslims who support ISIS are a tiny fraction of the global muslim population. But they're just enough to create problems for everyone else.
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 02:24:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:07:57 PM
It doesn't matter that they don't ALL agree - enough DO agree that people like Inhofe get elected and make policy based on those beliefs.
But I think that's a more general problem, abdication of responsibility, that's not specifically religious. Conspiracy theorists, New Age beliefs, Mono's cult of "nothing should change, and nothing will" are just as dangerous. It's easy and quite relaxing to say that either nothing can be done or that someone else more powerful will take care of it.
I don't see conspiracy theorists or New Age people running the US Congress, so no, I don't consider them "just as dangerous".
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2015, 02:19:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.
The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.
If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.
And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
On the contrary, this particular religion contains myths in which human actions directly lead to widespread destruction at the hands of a vengeful God - Noah's Flood, for example. ;) Or Sodom and Gehmorrah.
But peopple like Inhofe would simply point out that those were in response to people defying God - and he is doing exactly the opposite of defying God, hence the comparison simply does not apply.
To the extent that they feel a possible disaster based on Gods wrath, they are supporting Kentucky clerks in their efforts to avoid it - not demanding that we burn less fossil fuels.
Quote
Debatable which myth would apply to Florida's impending immersion in the sea ... :D
Of course - that is the point - it is debatable. And if Florida DOES end up under 6 feet of water, Inhofe will simply point out that it is punishment for letting gay people get married, not a result of human activity.
In the flood and S&H, those were terrible things that happened not because humans made them happen, but because GOD made them happen to punish humans.
That is not even remotely similar to the idea that human activity can result in a flood even if God doesn't want said flood to happen.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2015, 10:38:59 AM
Grumbler's not that bad, but I'm out.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Cristeroscolgados.jpg)
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2015, 02:33:14 PM
But they're just enough to create problems for everyone else.
Everyone? :yeahright:
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2015, 02:23:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2015, 07:38:46 AM
I am also not sure whom Zeus did rape - unless you apply the modern definition - in which case making Mary pregnant at the age of 13 must also count as statutory rape.
I think he tricked a woman or two making them believe he was someone else (their husband, usually). Isn't that how he created Hercules?
Even today some people do not consider it to be rape - I am sure during the ancient Greek times it wasn't.
I am basically with Steven Weinberg on this issue:
Quote:
QuoteReligion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 29, 2015, 02:50:07 PM
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Mr Weinberg sounds rather naive.
Well if you're in the "you are what you do" camp (which isn't unreasonable), that kind of miracle would indeed require divine intervention.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:36:08 PM
I don't see conspiracy theorists or New Age people running the US Congress, so no, I don't consider them "just as dangerous".
There's no anti-vacciners in Congress? How about truthers of various flavors? Religious nuts might predominate, but I think it's the wrong problem to target.
I enjoy Disney World, but I can deal with Florida sinking into the ocean.
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:36:08 PM
I don't see conspiracy theorists or New Age people running the US Congress, so no, I don't consider them "just as dangerous".
There's no anti-vacciners in Congress?
Not that I am aware of, and they don't seem to be having much success formulating any policy that matters.
Quote
How about truthers of various flavors?
Same. If they are there, they don't seem to really matter in any practical sense.
Quote
Religious nuts might predominate, but I think it's the wrong problem to target.
There are certainly a lot of problems that need targeting, and of course not all of them are driven by religion. That doesn't speak to my point though - what DOES speak to my point is the basic religious idea that there is a final authority out there who takes an active role in human affairs. That means that no matter what, things can't get TOO bad, because God can always fix it.
Are the super rich getting more and more super rich? Sure. Probably because god wants it that way.
God wants it that way. Tell me why.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 03:13:14 PM
God wants it that way. Tell me why.
God works in mysterious ways.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 03:11:09 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:36:08 PM
I don't see conspiracy theorists or New Age people running the US Congress, so no, I don't consider them "just as dangerous".
There's no anti-vacciners in Congress?
Not that I am aware of, and they don't seem to be having much success formulating any policy that matters.
Quote
How about truthers of various flavors?
Same. If they are there, they don't seem to really matter in any practical sense.
Quote
Religious nuts might predominate, but I think it's the wrong problem to target.
There are certainly a lot of problems that need targeting, and of course not all of them are driven by religion. That doesn't speak to my point though - what DOES speak to my point is the basic religious idea that there is a final authority out there who takes an active role in human affairs. That means that no matter what, things can't get TOO bad, because God can always fix it.
Are the super rich getting more and more super rich? Sure. Probably because god wants it that way.
Speaking as a Christian, I don't understand the attitude at all. I mean, if I felt that way, I'd be a stupid Calvinist.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
I think that is more reflective of the kind of Christianity which has come to dominate North America. And I agree with you that version of Christianity is a problem. However, there are other forms of Christianity which encourage believers to act in this world. BB has used some examples of religious people who act in this world to create positive changes. I will give a more personal anecdote. My aunt is a very religious person. She was a school teacher and is now a widow. She had the benefit of marrying a fairly wealthy man and unfortunately they had no children. She now uses her resources and skills to personally fund and oversee the construction of schools in Kenya for the education of girls. She also assists in the training of the teachers for the schools and funds the supplies and equipment needed in the schools. She also often visits to see how things are going and to provide any other assistance that might be required.
For a time she did the same thing in Afghanistan but it has become too dangerous for her there.
She certainly isn't doing this because she believes that God will look after it if she doesn't. She does it because she believes that is the purpose God chose for her. I tell her that she does it because she is a kind caring person. But I am not sure she accepts my explanation as valid.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 03:13:14 PM
God wants it that way. Tell me why.
You and me together
Fighting for our love
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 29, 2015, 03:10:14 PM
I enjoy Disney World, but I can deal with Florida sinking into the ocean.
Much of Puerto Rico will sink with it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
I think that is more reflective of the kind of Christianity which has come to dominate North America. And I agree with you that version of Christianity is a problem. However, there are other forms of Christianity which encourage believers to act in this world. BB has used some examples of religious people who act in this world to create positive changes. I will give a more personal anecdote. My aunt is a very religious person. She was a school teacher and is now a widow. She had the benefit of marrying a fairly wealthy man and unfortunately they had no children. She now uses her resources and skills to personally fund and oversee the construction of schools in Kenya for the education of girls. She also assists in the training of the teachers for the schools and funds the supplies and equipment needed in the schools. She also often visits to see how things are going and to provide any other assistance that might be required.
For a time she did the same thing in Afghanistan but it has become too dangerous for her there.
She certainly isn't doing this because she believes that God will look after it if she doesn't. She does it because she believes that is the purpose God chose for her. I tell her that she does it because she is a kind caring person. But I am not sure she accepts my explanation as valid.
No argument from me - I am certainly NOT trying to make the claim that all people are like Inhofe or radical Islamic terrorists. Of course there are good people who are also motivated to do good by their faith.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 02:40:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2015, 02:19:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
I think the discussion has strayed from where my original point was, which is fine of course, but I want to get back to it myself.
The issue is not about whether Inhofe is really a Christian or not - it is about the particular concept of responsibility and religion, and how the common view of a deity as a patriarchical figure with infinte power and a plan influences how humans think.
If I believed, as many Christians do, that God exists, is infinitely (or effectively infinitely) powerful, and he has a plan for the world, then it certainly follows that we can be somewhat assured that our own actions are not going to ruin that plan in the whole. Sure, we can argue biblical interpretation of Inhofe's quote versus the quotes that call on humans to be stewards, but I don't think Inhofe, for example, would argue that he is NOT being a steward - of course he would argue that the stewardship demand is made in the context of this overall plan.
And if that plan does not include human activity warming up the planet until it becomes inhabitable, then he is right to dismiss concerns about human global warming. It either cannot happen, because as he says god would not allow it, or even if it does happen, it can't be so bad since it would still be part of God's plan anyway.
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
On the contrary, this particular religion contains myths in which human actions directly lead to widespread destruction at the hands of a vengeful God - Noah's Flood, for example. ;) Or Sodom and Gehmorrah.
But peopple like Inhofe would simply point out that those were in response to people defying God - and he is doing exactly the opposite of defying God, hence the comparison simply does not apply.
To the extent that they feel a possible disaster based on Gods wrath, they are supporting Kentucky clerks in their efforts to avoid it - not demanding that we burn less fossil fuels.
Quote
Debatable which myth would apply to Florida's impending immersion in the sea ... :D
Of course - that is the point - it is debatable. And if Florida DOES end up under 6 feet of water, Inhofe will simply point out that it is punishment for letting gay people get married, not a result of human activity.
In the flood and S&H, those were terrible things that happened not because humans made them happen, but because GOD made them happen to punish humans.
That is not even remotely similar to the idea that human activity can result in a flood even if God doesn't want said flood to happen.
Letting gays get married is a human activity ... :D
It just happens that, in modern times, God's wrath is activated by the sin of pollution, not failure to recognize guest-rights like in ancient Sodom. Evidently, God wants humans not to pollute. ;)
Of course guys like this won't buy that, but his position isn't hardwired into the religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
I think that is more reflective of the kind of Christianity which has come to dominate North America. And I agree with you that version of Christianity is a problem. However, there are other forms of Christianity which encourage believers to act in this world. BB has used some examples of religious people who act in this world to create positive changes. I will give a more personal anecdote. My aunt is a very religious person. She was a school teacher and is now a widow. She had the benefit of marrying a fairly wealthy man and unfortunately they had no children. She now uses her resources and skills to personally fund and oversee the construction of schools in Kenya for the education of girls. She also assists in the training of the teachers for the schools and funds the supplies and equipment needed in the schools. She also often visits to see how things are going and to provide any other assistance that might be required.
For a time she did the same thing in Afghanistan but it has become too dangerous for her there.
She certainly isn't doing this because she believes that God will look after it if she doesn't. She does it because she believes that is the purpose God chose for her. I tell her that she does it because she is a kind caring person. But I am not sure she accepts my explanation as valid.
So you *do* have wealthy relations. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2015, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 29, 2015, 03:10:14 PM
I enjoy Disney World, but I can deal with Florida sinking into the ocean.
Much of Puerto Rico will sink with it.
It will sink, but not with it, it is at a different spot. Not that I expect some gringo to know where some little insignificant island is.
BTW, when half of Puerto Rico sinks, most of the rum distilleries are on the coast, they better move up the mountains and compete with the coffee plantations.
Hey, maybe I'll finally convince Mom to move out of there.
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 29, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
This is my point - that belief in a deity like this necessitates a certain abjection of responsibility. THere is a god out there who is, at the end of the day, the final authority on what is going to happen at a global scale, and concerning oneself about the idea that humans could actually, on their own accord, destroy Gods creation is in fact the height of hubris, and a rejection of the humility that faith in an omniscient god demands.
I think that is more reflective of the kind of Christianity which has come to dominate North America. And I agree with you that version of Christianity is a problem. However, there are other forms of Christianity which encourage believers to act in this world. BB has used some examples of religious people who act in this world to create positive changes. I will give a more personal anecdote. My aunt is a very religious person. She was a school teacher and is now a widow. She had the benefit of marrying a fairly wealthy man and unfortunately they had no children. She now uses her resources and skills to personally fund and oversee the construction of schools in Kenya for the education of girls. She also assists in the training of the teachers for the schools and funds the supplies and equipment needed in the schools. She also often visits to see how things are going and to provide any other assistance that might be required.
For a time she did the same thing in Afghanistan but it has become too dangerous for her there.
She certainly isn't doing this because she believes that God will look after it if she doesn't. She does it because she believes that is the purpose God chose for her. I tell her that she does it because she is a kind caring person. But I am not sure she accepts my explanation as valid.
So you *do* have wealthy relations. ;)
Yeah, but she married him well after Mrs. CC and I were married. So I still grew up poor. :P
Think I should join the Episcopal Church? The denomination that's "Protestant, yet Catholic" (as they self-describe)? Incense, confession, WASPs, and gay-married priests? :hmm:
I just got back in touch after a couple of years with an old Craigslist roommate who I became good friends with, and I guess he's going in for a full-immersion baptism sometime soon. Not that it's Episcopalian, of course.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 29, 2015, 04:11:57 PM
Think I should join the Episcopal Church? The denomination that's "Protestant, yet Catholic" (as they self-describe)? Incense, confession, WASPs, and gay-married priests? :hmm:
Go to a service and check it out. If it speaks to you, go to some more. :)
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
So you *do* have wealthy relations. ;)
CC is the "wealthy relations", I'm pretty sure.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2015, 04:33:02 PM
QuoteThe year 2012 was the ninth warmest in a NASA analysis of global temperatures that stretches back to 1880. In itself, that sounds fairly unremarkable. But, as climate scientists note, what's important is the long-term trend. The 10 hottest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998, and nine of the 10 have occurred since 2002.
"What matters is, this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "The planet is warming."
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/10/)
That the Republicans try to defund MASA's earth science programs is probably just a coincidence in this context.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/republicans-outraged-over-nasa-earth-science-programs-that-reagan-began/
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 08:47:48 AMTo argue that they did what they did for reasons other than religion is simply baffling. It is a mental contortion that is just...well, bizarre.
you're focusing way too much on "lying to themselves." that was poor explanation on my part. i thought i explained myself in my other posts. a person who suicide bombs says to himself: i'm doing this for god. this is obvious. what i'm talking about is what led that person to say "i'm doing this for god." you could replace god with almost anything in a thousand other examples. that's my point - nothing is unique about religion. that's why i disagree with your original argument that
religion is dangerous (implying that it's special)
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 06:05:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 08:47:48 AMTo argue that they did what they did for reasons other than religion is simply baffling. It is a mental contortion that is just...well, bizarre.
you're focusing way too much on "lying to themselves." that was poor explanation on my part. i thought i explained myself in my other posts. a person who suicide bombs says to himself: i'm doing this for god. this is obvious. what i'm talking about is what led that person to say "i'm doing this for god." you could replace god with almost anything in a thousand other examples. that's my point - nothing is unique about religion. that's why i disagree with your original argument that religion is dangerous (implying that it's special)
My impression is that many suicide bombers believe in an afterlife. Non-religious concepts generally have a hard time in this area.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:23:17 PMMy impression is that many suicide bombers believe in an afterlife. Non-religious concepts generally have a hard time in this area.
how do you know belief in afterlife actually has much of an impact?
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:23:17 PMMy impression is that many suicide bombers believe in an afterlife. Non-religious concepts generally have a hard time in this area.
how do you know belief in afterlife actually has much of an impact?
Know? I can see how it might influence the decision to become a suicide bomber. Do you think it doesn't?
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:36:12 PMKnow? I can see how it might influence the decision to become a suicide bomber. Do you think it doesn't?
i didn't say i thought it has no impact. immaterial impact v. material impact are different, though.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:36:12 PMKnow? I can see how it might influence the decision to become a suicide bomber. Do you think it doesn't?
i didn't say i thought it has no impact. immaterial impact v. material impact are different, though.
I think we can safely leave immaterial impact out of the discussion without losing anything.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:23:17 PMMy impression is that many suicide bombers believe in an afterlife. Non-religious concepts generally have a hard time in this area.
how do you know belief in afterlife actually has much of an impact?
Given that virtually every suicide bomber had such a belief, it's not much of a stretch.
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 06:45:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:36:12 PMKnow? I can see how it might influence the decision to become a suicide bomber. Do you think it doesn't?
i didn't say i thought it has no impact. immaterial impact v. material impact are different, though.
I think we can safely leave immaterial impact out of the discussion without losing anything.
Damn! I wish I'd said that!
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 06:31:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 29, 2015, 06:23:17 PMMy impression is that many suicide bombers believe in an afterlife. Non-religious concepts generally have a hard time in this area.
how do you know belief in afterlife actually has much of an impact?
Because people who have been suicide bombers, or say they want to be suicide bombers, or recruit suicide bombers all say that is has an impact.
It also made many a man throughout history feel very bad about masturbating. :(
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2015, 08:21:35 PMGiven that virtually every suicide bomber had such a belief, it's not much of a stretch.
that's not proof, though. is suicide bombing by muslim radicals a fairly recent tactic? (seems like it is). if afterlife were a big reason, why wouldn't muslims have always committed suicide attacks on a frequent basis? what about those who commit suicide attacks without afterlife being a factor? etc. that's why i'm asking how much of an impact does religion/afterlife
really have, to an extent that it creates something unique that should be condemned.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 09:06:05 PMBecause people who have been suicide bombers, or say they want to be suicide bombers, or recruit suicide bombers all say that is has an impact.
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 29, 2015, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 29, 2015, 04:11:57 PM
Think I should join the Episcopal Church? The denomination that's "Protestant, yet Catholic" (as they self-describe)? Incense, confession, WASPs, and gay-married priests? :hmm:
Go to a service and check it out. If it speaks to you, go to some more. :)
:) :hug: :bowler:
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 09:06:05 PMBecause people who have been suicide bombers, or say they want to be suicide bombers, or recruit suicide bombers all say that is has an impact.
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar.
Except that they don't. Plenty of people in the world do NOT blow themselves up with the promise of eternal paradise on their lips.
Hell, plenty of religious people don't do that, even if they are in fact in terrible conditions.
I simply do not understand this idea.
Religions are not all the same - belief systems are not all the same. They have actual content that define their followers behaviors.
Mormons don't blow themselves up. Nor do Tibetan monks. I cannot help but think that their religious strictures that say "Don't blow yourselves up" compared to "Blowing yourself up is the will of God" might have some kind of significant effect on their actions.
Quote
there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause,
Yeah, it is called fanaticism, and it is driven by either
a) Abject hopelessness, or
c) The belief that it will result in real and tangible rewards such that there is considerable personal and social pressure to engage in those activities.
There are many, many examples of people in case A who do not engage in suicide bombing. Contrary to that, in nearly every case of suicide bombing, those engaging in the act (and their families) would be telling you that it is sanctioned and rewarded by their god.
Pretending like this is not so...I don't understand that.
Quote
and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
Who said it is a necessary ingredient?
Nobody is claiming that religion is the sole cause of extremism in the world, just that it is a common cause we should recognize that.
Your argument is like saying we should not care about drunk driving, because sometimes people are in car accidents where there isn't any alcohol involved at all.
Quote from: garbon on October 29, 2015, 02:42:08 PM
Everyone? :yeahright:
Well, generally, where a minority of extremists manage to take over a country, things go bad for everyone else, yes.
See, the Nazis took power with about 1/3 of the German's support, and I'm not sure their rule was in the best interest of Germany.
The Hamas does not represent a majority of Palestinians, yet, they make life difficult for every other Palestiniens.
ISIS supporters aren't the majority of mulsims, far from it, but there's enough of them to create problems for a lot of people, if left to grow unchecked. Or you're telling me that a country more radical then Saudi Arabia would be a nice place to live in? :)
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:11:13 PM
that's not proof, though. is suicide bombing by muslim radicals a fairly recent tactic? (seems like it is). if afterlife were a big reason, why wouldn't muslims have always committed suicide attacks on a frequent basis? what about those who commit suicide attacks without afterlife being a factor? etc. that's why i'm asking how much of an impact does religion/afterlife really have, to an extent that it creates something unique that should be condemned.
technology wasn't there to allow suicide bombing before the mid-20th century. Blowing yourself up with barrels of black powder wasn't very convenient to do tons of damages other than to yourself in the 17th-18th century. Though Dollard des Ormeaux could tell us a bit more about that if we meet him in the afterlife ;)
Now, suicide bombing is recent, but suicide-attacks are not. In the case of Islam, it's been documented for some sects since the middle ages, and there were specific references to the after-life, namely that paradise with so many virgins.
In the case of Christians, I'm not so sure there are exceptions to suicide being considered a sin. Murdering for God has been totally justifiable though, despite the "Thou shall not kill" thingie. I do not know the Jewish view on suicide, but killing for God does not seem to be a problem for Israeli hardliners, so I'm guessing they're similar to radical Christians there.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 09:06:05 PMBecause people who have been suicide bombers, or say they want to be suicide bombers, or recruit suicide bombers all say that is has an impact.
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
yeah, I kinda am with you on this. Promoting atheism and forbidding religions would not push people toward science&logic by itself. I think we go about it the wrong way. We need to push people toward science and logic first if we aim to remove the negative influence some beliefs can have. And we must make it clear that religion has nothing to do with public policies.
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2015, 10:44:23 PM
forbidding religions...
I don't think anyone anywhere is advocating any such thing.
What a delightful thread.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2015, 01:42:38 PM
Because of things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/jim-inhofe-genesis_n_6815270.html
Quote
"I take my religion seriously," Inhofe writes. "[T]his is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains."
For those still skeptical of his climate change skepticism, Inhofe quotes from the source material, "one of my favorite Bible verses," Genesis 8:22:
As long as the earth remains
There will be springtime and harvest
Cold and heat, winter and summer
Inhofe was asked about this particular piece of Scripture during a radio interview when his book came out. The passage, he said, is so conclusive that it's simply outrageous that scientists continue to address the matter.
"The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said.
This is not just quaint - it is actively dangerous. And this idea that God is running things, hence we don't really have to take responsibility ourselves extends beyond just climate change, but it active in many, many aspects of public policy and at multiple levels.
Looney tune for sure. No doubt a republican and a reason why this party is no good.
Quote[Re: Why I've started to believe that religion is actively dangerous[\quote]
Pretty broad brush there.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 11:52:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2015, 10:44:23 PM
forbidding religions...
I don't think anyone anywhere is advocating any such thing.
Having recently spent a week in Albania, I can testify that they have, and it didn't turn out well.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:11:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2015, 08:21:35 PMGiven that virtually every suicide bomber had such a belief, it's not much of a stretch.
that's not proof, though. is suicide bombing by muslim radicals a fairly recent tactic? (seems like it is). if afterlife were a big reason, why wouldn't muslims have always committed suicide attacks on a frequent basis? what about those who commit suicide attacks without afterlife being a factor? etc. that's why i'm asking how much of an impact does religion/afterlife really have, to an extent that it creates something unique that should be condemned.
There's no such thing as "proof" of motivations, so arguing that something isn't "proof" is silly. You are trying to shift the argument to attack an assertion that no one has made. No one says that belief in an afterlife causes people to become suicide bombers. The argument is that it facilitates people becoming suicide bombers.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 03:11:09 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 29, 2015, 03:06:46 PM
There's no anti-vacciners in Congress?
Not that I am aware of, and they don't seem to be having much success formulating any policy that matters.
Quote
How about truthers of various flavors?
Same. If they are there, they don't seem to really matter in any practical sense.
Quote
Religious nuts might predominate, but I think it's the wrong problem to target.
There are certainly a lot of problems that need targeting, and of course not all of them are driven by religion. That doesn't speak to my point though - what DOES speak to my point is the basic religious idea that there is a final authority out there who takes an active role in human affairs. That means that no matter what, things can't get TOO bad, because God can always fix it.
Are the super rich getting more and more super rich? Sure. Probably because god wants it that way.
Anti-Vaccine Hearing (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/12/03/congress-holds-an-anti-vaccination-hearing/)
Benghazi hearings
Climate Change hearings where they invite the one climate scientist who doesn't think it is happening
Yes, religion is a part of the problem, but the ridiculous hot air that Congress generates about issues generally isn't motivated primarily by religion. It's motivated by a desire to score political points or to push personal agendas. Most of the climate change deniers in Congress aren't Inhofe and don't have a religious reason for their head in the sand approach.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2015, 05:04:33 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.
Lots of Palestinian groups use suicide bombings - some are expressly religious, and some are not. For example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Marxist group, and it has used the tactic.
QuoteThe PFLP in which Habbash secured his control defined its ideology as revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. Habbash has said that a future state of Palestine would have Marxist-Leninist principles, and that the PFLP would be the leader of the revolution. Habbash supported the view that a revolution must eventually occur throughout the Arab world; for example, he said that after Palestine's liberation (a process he said will take from 20 to 30 years), not only will Palestine be free of Zionism, but Lebanon and Jordan will be free of "reaction" and Syria and Iraq of their petit bourgeoisie.
QuoteThe PFLP stepped up its operational activity during the Second Intifada. This was highlighted by at least two suicide bombings since 2003, multiple joint operations with other Palestinian terrorist groups, and the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi in 2001, to avenge Israel's killing of the PFLP Secretary General earlier that year. In 2008 and 2009, the PFLP was involved in several rocket attacks launched primarily from Gaza against Israel, and claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza, including a December 2009 ambush of Israeli soldiers in central Gaza. The PLFP claimed responsibility for numerous mortar and rocket attacks fired from Gaza into Israel in 2010, as well as an attack on a group of Israeli citizens. In October 2011, the PFLP claimed responsibility for a rocket attack that killed one civilian in Ashqelon.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/pflp.htm
Seems to me that this group has a totally different ideology (Marxism, as opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism), yet uses the same tactics. So there is at least some proof that having a religious ideology does not dictate tactics.
Which makes a certain amount of sense - dying for a cause isn't something unique to religious folks, and certainly murderous cruelty isn't either.
I suspect 100% of PFLP suicide bombers think they are going to paradise/virgins/etc.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2015, 08:54:34 AM
I suspect 100% of PFLP suicide bombers think they are going to paradise/virgins/etc.
:hmm:
If you can't trust a Marxist revolutionary to be motivated by something other than religion, who can you trust? Sneaky devils, those Marxists. I guess we can call them ... no true Marxists. :D They sure as hell aren't
Scotsmen, given that they are from the middle east and all.
The PFLP expressly defines itself, and is described by others, as a "secular Marxist" organization, and often explicitly denies a "religious" motivation for its attacks - evenh when killing people in a Synagogue. I have no particular reason to disbelieve them, as I don't understand what they have to gain from denying they are religious - in a population where religion is quite popular.
http://www.ibtimes.com/jerusalem-synagogue-attack-motivation-was-not-religion-revenge-1948-massacre-says-1725894
I did not claim that they are not Marxist, I just said that they are rather likely Muslims, and hence motivated by a belief that their attacks, even if politically motivated, will still result in a religious reward.
I don't really know much about PFLP, but this nugget from wiki is interesting:
QuoteAccording to Politburo member and former aircraft hijacker Leila Khaled, the PFLP does not see suicide bombing as a form of resistance to occupation or a strategic action or policy and no longer carries out such attacks.
That stands in contrast to several mentioned suicide bombings the group has engaged in in the early 2000s.
In any case, my position has never been that suicide bombing is a uniquely religious phenomenon. It is enough to note that it is *mostly* one, and even in the example you provide where the stated objectives are not religious, it is still being executed by religious people who, as I noted, almost certainly believe that they will enjoy eternal paradise as a result of their actions.
Hell, I would guess that you can actually come up with examples of absolutely non-religious suicide attacks - that Tamil Tigers, for example? But that doesn't really disprove my point.
For some reason I now want to watch Achmed The Dead Terrorist signing Jingle Bombs.
Quote from: Berkut on October 30, 2015, 09:31:08 AM
I did not claim that they are not Marxist, I just said that they are rather likely Muslims, and hence motivated by a belief that their attacks, even if politically motivated, will still result in a religious reward.
I don't really know much about PFLP, but this nugget from wiki is interesting:
QuoteAccording to Politburo member and former aircraft hijacker Leila Khaled, the PFLP does not see suicide bombing as a form of resistance to occupation or a strategic action or policy and no longer carries out such attacks.
That stands in contrast to several mentioned suicide bombings the group has engaged in in the early 2000s.
No doubt they found that the opprobrium earned from such attacks was counter-productive to their propaganda efforts.
QuoteIn any case, my position has never been that suicide bombing is a uniquely religious phenomenon. It is enough to note that it is *mostly* one, and even in the example you provide where the stated objectives are not religious, it is still being executed by religious people who, as I noted, almost certainly believe that they will enjoy eternal paradise as a result of their actions.
Hell, I would guess that you can actually come up with examples of absolutely non-religious suicide attacks - that Tamil Tigers, for example? But that doesn't really disprove my point.
Their founder, George Habash, was by background from a Christian family, not Muslim. Not all Palestinians are Muslim. In fact, he was a former church choirboy! :lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Habash
It strikes me as a somewhat ... unusual claim that an avowedly secular, Marxist group created by a (former) Christian (choirboy or not ;) ) would be composed of believing Muslims motivated by an eternal heavenly reward of virgins.
If you won't accept this as an example of an "absolutely non-religious suicide attack", it strikes me that you won't accept any. Tamil Tigers? Hindu. Vietnamese Communists? Buddhist ...
I can't "disprove" your point because it is, evidently, not disprovable by evidence. All I can do (all I tried to do) was to answer the challenge posed - to find a non-religious group that used suicide bombing tactics. There is, of course, no way to prove whether the individuals involved were or where not religious (despite belonging to a non-religious group), because they are mostly unknown - at least, as far as their private devotions go.
By the same token, one could argue that many members of avowedly religious terrorist groups aren't, personally, motivated by religion. That may even be true, but there is no way of proving it.
Suicide bombing would be "mostly" a "religious" tactic today even if religion was not a particular motivator, because right now the majority of really active terrorist groups are religious and Muslim. This wasn't always true - for example, in the Palestinian case, in the 40s through 70s most active Palestinian terrorist groups were not religious, but Arab nationalists and Marxists. That was the era when Palestinian groups gained their rep for terrorism. Similarly, most active terrorist groups world-wide used to be marxist and/or nationalist. That did not stop them from using terror tactics. The reasonable conclusion is that fanaticism in such groups is pretty indistinguishable in its effects, whether the source of that fanaticism is religious, nationalist, marxist, something else, or some combination of the above: that as groups change their express motivation (or are succeeded with groups with different motives), their tactics don't change a lot.
At least the Communists do not tell you you are going to burn forever for masturbating.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2015, 10:07:09 AM
At least the Communists do not tell you you are going to burn forever for masturbating.
But porn didn't officially exist! :(
QuoteWe in Eastern Europe have a strange relation with sex. First, during the communist years, in many countries within the Soviet Bloc, 'anti-sex' was one of the anti-capitalist propagandistic weapons. On many newsreels you can see the accusation of the West of being spoiled, lazy, and therefore somehow 'sleazy', and our cinematography after the sexual revolt of the 60s especially was much more prudish when it came to depiction of sex. Pornography didn't officially exist (and prostitution was ardently fought with), and if at all, was usually smuggled from the West, mostly West Germany.
http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19776/1/do-communists-have-better-sex
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2015, 05:04:33 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.
Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.
Anarchists carried out suicide attacks back the day.
I also agree with Malthus' point -- terrorist tactics, including suicide attacks, have a long regional history at this point, and what we are seeing in recent years is more of an adaptation and incorporation of those tactics to a religious ideology rather than something arising uniquely and naturally out of religious expression.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 08:47:47 AM
Lots of Palestinian groups use suicide bombings - some are expressly religious, and some are not. For example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a Marxist group, and it has used the tactic.
Yes, PFLP used the tactic five (possibly six, though this is disputed) times in 2002-2004, and then dropped the tactic (while Islamic and Tamil Hindu organizations increased their use of it). So, religion is not necessary to attempt to use the tactic, but religious organizations seem to be the ones who can continue to get volunteers to carry it out. It certainly isn't clear that the five or so PFLP suicide bombers did not believe in an afterlife, even if they were members of a Marxist organization.
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2015, 11:44:27 AM
Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.
Tamil Tigers were Hindus.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2015, 11:44:27 AM
Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.
Tamil Tigers were Hindus.
So was the Sinhalese government. That was not a conflict over religion.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2015, 11:44:27 AM
Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.
Tamil Tigers were Hindus.
Most Tamils are Hindus for sure but the LTTE was a separatist group, with Marxist leadership.
Indeed - there is a difference between something a religious person does, and something a person does because of their religion.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2015, 12:34:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2015, 11:44:27 AM
Tamil tigers? Not any more of course.
Tamil Tigers were Hindus.
So was the Sinhalese government. That was not a conflict over religion.
Sinhalese are largely Buddhist but I agree religion had little/nothing to do with the conflict though perhaps relevant as a background aggravating factor as per Serbia/Croatian conflicts.
Quote from: Berkut on October 29, 2015, 10:21:10 PMExcept that they don't. Plenty of people in the world do NOT blow themselves up with the promise of eternal paradise on their lips.
Hell, plenty of religious people don't do that, even if they are in fact in terrible conditions.
I simply do not understand this idea.
Religions are not all the same - belief systems are not all the same. They have actual content that define their followers behaviors.
Mormons don't blow themselves up. Nor do Tibetan monks. I cannot help but think that their religious strictures that say "Don't blow yourselves up" compared to "Blowing yourself up is the will of God" might have some kind of significant effect on their actions.
Yeah, it is called fanaticism, and it is driven by either
a) Abject hopelessness, or
c) The belief that it will result in real and tangible rewards such that there is considerable personal and social pressure to engage in those activities.
There are many, many examples of people in case A who do not engage in suicide bombing. Contrary to that, in nearly every case of suicide bombing, those engaging in the act (and their families) would be telling you that it is sanctioned and rewarded by their god.
Pretending like this is not so...I don't understand that.
Who said it is a necessary ingredient?
Nobody is claiming that religion is the sole cause of extremism in the world, just that it is a common cause we should recognize that.
Your argument is like saying we should not care about drunk driving, because sometimes people are in car accidents where there isn't any alcohol involved at all.
your final point really shows how much we differ on this. what i've been saying in this whole thread is that religion isn't like alcohol at all. you think it is. give people some religion and they'll suddenly change and do bad things. disagree. it's not the religion that does it but the groups associated with that religion.
this isn't about poor conditions. tibetan and mormon groups seem pretty peaceful. a destitute mormon growing up in el salvador has no basis to blow himself up or go on some "religious-driven" killing spree because there's no one sponsoring it. violent groups come into existence not because of religion but because of whatever culmination of factors exist that give birth to violent groups.
do you really believe the (mostly) lack of religious violence in the US exists because the bible says something different? we have "religious fanatics" left and right who, while annoying, do their own thing peacefully. why is this - is christianity an objectively peaceful religion? i think that's a ridiculous notion.
also, most people who suicide bomb in the middle east seem to do it for financial reasons. the violent groups in the middle east have set up a great reward system. if you studied the reasons why each modern, middle eastern suicide bomber decides to suicide bomb, you'd likely find that afterlife isn't as important a factor as some seem to think.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 30, 2015, 03:09:25 PM
also, most people who suicide bomb in the middle east seem to do it for financial reasons. the violent groups in the middle east have set up a great reward system. if you studied the reasons why each modern, middle eastern suicide bomber decides to suicide bomb, you'd likely find that afterlife isn't as important a factor as some seem to think.
maybe they wouldn't do it without financial reward, but maybe they wouldn't do it without religious support either.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 30, 2015, 03:09:25 PM
also, most people who suicide bomb in the middle east seem to do it for financial reasons. the violent groups in the middle east have set up a great reward system. if you studied the reasons why each modern, middle eastern suicide bomber decides to suicide bomb, you'd likely find that afterlife isn't as important a factor as some seem to think.
As I understand it, there are frequently also some mental health and/ or social reasons behind it.
Personally, I think there are likely significant parallels between suicide bombers in the Middle East and people who go on mass shooting sprees in the US.
Of course, there are significant differences as well.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2015, 04:13:50 PM
Of course, there are significant differences as well.
The most obvious being that a shooting spree is the ultimate act of alienation whereas a suicide attack is an act of belonging.
Belonging? They end up all over the place.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2015, 04:10:19 PMmaybe they wouldn't do it without financial reward, but maybe they wouldn't do it without religious support either.
that assertion doesn't make sense, and thanks to the many example provided by people in this thread, there's evidence they just might.
Quote from: JacobAs I understand it, there are frequently also some mental health and/ or social reasons behind it.
sure, that makes sense. maybe a combination of all sorts of different factors.
but it's so easy to say "
godreligion did it."
One major motive is that it is considered heroic. Lots of people want to be heroes to the group they identify with, and are willing to die to do so. Our culture is not really so very different in that respect - it honours as heroes people who willingly die achiving some goal our culture considers praiseworthy.
The odd part is not that people are willig to die for a cause, but that the "goal considered praiseworthy" is blowing up a bunch of random civilians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2015, 04:13:50 PM
Of course, there are significant differences as well.
The most obvious being that a shooting spree is the ultimate act of alienation whereas a suicide attack is an act of belonging.
I don't think the difference is that stark on that count, though I do see where you're coming from.
When it comes to the shooters, they often seem to imagine it's an act of belonging to some home-cooked militant philosophy, whether it's half-baked IRA sympathizers, delusional mens-right-advocates lashing out at feminists, white power types or so on. They're still grasping at belonging as they lash out, though it eludes them.
The suicide bombers, of course, have an available infrastructure to offer them defacto belonging, to coax them, and to use them as actual military assets. But I'd hypothesize that the basic structure of individual alienation leading to embracing some violent philosophy that justifies acting out as a form of belonging is common to both types.
... at least IMO, of course.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2015, 04:48:22 PM
One major motive is that it is considered heroic. Lots of people want to be heroes to the group they identify with, and are willing to die to do so. Our culture is not really so very different in that respect - it honours as heroes people who willingly die achiving some goal our culture considers praiseworthy.
Yeah, and I think being shot while perpetrating a killing spree seems like "going out in a blaze of glory" to the people who undertake them (at least when they decide to start).
QuoteThe odd part is not that people are willig to die for a cause, but that the "goal considered praiseworthy" is blowing up a bunch of random civilians.
Not so odd when you consider that there are cynical people deliberately telling them that to use them, alas :(
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2015, 04:20:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2015, 04:13:50 PM
Of course, there are significant differences as well.
The most obvious being that a shooting spree is the ultimate act of alienation whereas a suicide attack is an act of belonging.
I don't think the difference is that stark on that count, though I do see where you're coming from.
When it comes to the shooters, they often seem to imagine it's an act of belonging to some home-cooked militant philosophy, whether it's half-baked IRA sympathizers, delusional mens-right-advocates lashing out at feminists, white power types or so on. They're still grasping at belonging as they lash out, though it eludes them.
The suicide bombers, of course, have an available infrastructure to offer them defacto belonging, to coax them, and to use them as actual military assets. But I'd hypothesize that the basic structure of individual alienation leading to embracing some violent philosophy that justifies acting out as a form of belonging is common to both types.
You would enjoy Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer". An oldie but goodie, I've plugged it before.
http://www.amazon.ca/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446241970&sr=8-1&keywords=the+true+believer
It's a shame Raz isn't reading this thread anymore, here is some news that will reinforce his concerns about the dangers of secularists: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/31/453404826/bangladeshi-man-who-published-slain-blogger-s-work-is-killed.
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2015, 11:58:26 AM
It's a shame Raz isn't reading this thread anymore, here is some news that will reinforce his concerns about the dangers of secularists: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/31/453404826/bangladeshi-man-who-published-slain-blogger-s-work-is-killed.
Ethnic bloggers?
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2015, 05:04:33 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on October 29, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
and i'm saying if you removed religion and replaced it with something else, they'd be doing something similar. there's a mentality that celebrates killing yourself for a cause, and through propaganda they've convinced people to do sign on. i see that as having had a far larger impact on convincing people to kill themselves. religion doesn't appear to be a necessary ingredient for any of it.
Now all you have to do is find examples of a movement of non-religious people that uses suicide bombing, and you will have some evidence that your guess has a basis in reality.
Wait, are you actually saying that noone but religiously motivated people use suicide (terrorist) attacks? Because that's patently untrue - from Russian anarchists, to nazis and Japanese soldiers in WW2, to Tamil Tigers, to Kurds. While Chechens are Muslims, it is questionable whether many of their attacks against Russians were also religiously motivated.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 30, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
do you really believe the (mostly) lack of religious violence in the US exists because the bible says something different? we have "religious fanatics" left and right who, while annoying, do their own thing peacefully. why is this - is christianity an objectively peaceful religion? i think that's a ridiculous notion.
the country has been shaped by and for Chrisitans, the dominant religion. There is no need to resort to violence, chritian integrists are in a position of power in many places or not to far removed from power that they can't effect any changes, and I believe that was Berkut's motivations. One crazy spouting crap is one crazy spouting crap. But many crazies voting for other crazies because they are crazy is a problem.
Most people want to live in a State that conforms to their ideals. For religious people, those ideals are derived from their sacred texts. Sometimes, they conform to societal norms, other times they do not. This is why religion must be kept out of the State at all cost.
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Not enough female virgins at Yasukuni to go around I think.
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2015, 12:26:51 PM
Wait, are you actually saying that noone but religiously motivated people use suicide (terrorist) attacks? Because that's patently untrue - from Russian anarchists, to nazis and Japanese soldiers in WW2, to Tamil Tigers, to Kurds. While Chechens are Muslims, it is questionable whether many of their attacks against Russians were also religiously motivated.
Wait, are you saying you read my assertion as "no one has ever committed a suicidal attack except from 'religious motivation'?" You need to re-read my statement, and then you will understand why your argument doesn't respond to mine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
Yeah what the hell were you thinking, Yi?
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
I thought the suicidal element was relevant, not whether they were using a bomb. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
I thought the suicidal element was relevant, not whether they were using a bomb. :huh:
wut
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
I thought the suicidal element was relevant, not whether they were using a bomb. :huh:
And I thought we were discussing suicide bombers (who overwhelmingly target civilians in terrorist attacks) and not men trying desperately to defend their homelands at all costs.
The argument that no all suicidal behavior is undertaken with some assurance that one will be rewarded in an afterlife has not, insofar as I know, ever been made.
All suicidal behaviour is undertaken with some assurance that one will be rewarded in an afterlife.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2015, 12:23:03 PM
All suicidal behaviour is undertaken with some assurance that one will be rewarded in an afterlife.
There you go, Marti. Have at it!
*pops popcorn*
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2015, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
I thought the suicidal element was relevant, not whether they were using a bomb. :huh:
wut
Berkut and grumbler were arguing that people are more likely to be suicidal bombers if they are religious - surely the suicidal part is relevant to this argument, not whether they use bombs, knives or planes? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 12:54:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2015, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
I thought the suicidal element was relevant, not whether they were using a bomb. :huh:
wut
Berkut and grumbler were arguing that people are more likely to be suicidal bombers if they are religious - surely the suicidal part is relevant to this argument, not whether they use bombs, knives or planes? :huh:
Try reading what you are arguing against, rather than assuming you already know. "Suicide bomber" has a specific meaning. "Suicidal bombers" is a general term that could include Torpedo Eight at Midway, or 825 NAS during the Channel Dash, and they are a far different case than some Hamas guy blowing up a market.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 12:54:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2015, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
I thought the suicidal element was relevant, not whether they were using a bomb. :huh:
wut
Berkut and grumbler were arguing that people are more likely to be suicidal bombers if they are religious - surely the suicidal part is relevant to this argument, not whether they use bombs, knives or planes? :huh:
AFAIK many kamikaze pilots used bombs.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2015, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2015, 03:02:58 PM
Very easy to argue that kamikaze pilots had a religious aspect to their motivation.
Kamikaze attacks weren't suicide bombings.
Apparently, though obviously I didn't check the veracity, but saccording to wiki ome of the first uses in English of the term suicide bombings referred to kamikaze attacks.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2015, 01:07:03 PM
Apparently, though obviously I didn't check the veracity, but saccording to wiki ome of the first uses in English of the term suicide bombings referred to kamikaze attacks.
I just looked up "suicide bomber" on wikipedia, which redirected to "suicide attack." the term "suicide bomber" is used 72 times in that article. 72 of those times, it refers to someone who straps on explosives and detonates them to kill other people. Dunno where you are getting your info, but I have never, in any of the hundred or so books I have read that dealt with WW2 in the Pacific, seen the Kamikazes referred to as suicide bombers.
Is this happening?
I think I clearly stated where I got my info. :hmm:
In Russian, suicide bombers are called kamikaze terrorists.
This discussion = :bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
Reading this thread could be enough for motivation to strap some explosives to one's chest.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 01, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Reading this thread could be enough for motivation to strap some explosives to one's chest.
:lol:
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 01, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Reading this thread could be enough for motivation to strap some explosives to one's chest.
Only if you believed in life after Languish.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2015, 06:54:36 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 01, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Reading this thread could be enough for motivation to strap some explosives to one's chest.
Only if you believed in life after Languish.
:o :hmm:
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 01, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Reading this thread could be enough for motivation to strap some explosives to one's chest.
:lol: