| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: January 19 2007 at 15:00 |
 inpraiseoffolly wrote:
If you really look at it, almost everyone is agnostic. Unless you are 100% sure there is a God (or 100% sure there isn't), you are agnostic. It's really a meaningless term that says nothing about your beliefs. |
I wouldn't say almost everyone is agnostic. According to the pie chart above, it's only 16%. If you're thinking in terms of people claiming to belong to a religion who in raelity are more traditionalists rather than deeply religious, add another 30-35%. Yet it hardly constitutes “almost everyone.”
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 14:18 |
Sean Trane wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Sean, You're wrong at the core of your thinking. Religion is opium for the masses, and the masses need it. It’s a tool of controlling those “people in rural areas.” If not religion, there will be another tool. Communists tried to use atheism for the same purpose pushing the idea that a man is his own master and has to make his life better. The bottom line, any ideology, whether religious or atheistic, promotes exploitation. Religion pacifies with the promise of eternal life. Atheism offers emptiness. Being so militant as you are, what could you offer to those peons if you succeed in prohibiting religion? P.S. How did your illegal exchange of fluids go the other day? |
Fine thanks!!
A bit cold (only 15°C instead of the 17°C forecasted) still to do it out in the fields so we did it in my hideout with the window open.
I am eternally damned now. I'm going straight to hell. As if there was anymore a hell than a heaven or a paradise. Not sure about your eternal damnation, it’s for Ivan to decide. In my view, you’re forever blessed as making love, if accepted universally, could rid us of lots of problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my core of thinking, I could be wrong, but it is not likely either.
” If not religion, there will be another tool" >> I never pretended the opposite, but that would be one less tool and this "tool" has been one of the most used one. So removing it, would render troubles a bit more troublesome to reach. How do you know? Could it be a worse tool?
Let's face it, if you are sick of three diseases, (all doctors will tell you that you have to treat all three of them separately) you have to attack the bigger/most disabling one first, right. True, but who said that your diagnosis is right and religion is the most disabling disease? I found it to be quite opposite.
Removing the need of praying for possible deities and therefore creating these communities bound to attack each other
and where I think most people get it wrong is that atheism is not an ideology, since it propopses no direct ideal. It just says that there are no creator, afterlife and heaven/hell.
"Being so militant as you are, what could you offer to those peons if you succeed in prohibiting religion?" >> That could effectively be a problem, since a lot of people have been lead to believe that it would be better in an afterlife.
So this "ban" (this was taken litteraly by Ivàn, but I meant a gradual dephasing of religion) I proposed, can only be disastrous if we are to wake up all those péons and tell them that they've been abused and lied to for centuries. This is what happened in Russia when the communists tried and it provoked disastrous results with most of the bourgeoisie (and christians by principle only since not applying the ideology properly) getting killed or exiled, ending all hopes of coexistence and plunging the country into an abyss of uneducated peasants to run the abandonned industries.
So this gradual de-phasing must take place with the young generations (in schools) and not touch too much the adults (who could become dangerous as I explained) and this is precisely where it hurts Ivàn and consorts, (because this is where their endoctrination takes place). Why do you think those intelligent designers are so adament in getting at the schools? This is where the battle is won. Alright, your militancy is not that militant after all. But explain to me the reason of doing all this. Are you willing to go to battle just to liberate everyone? For the sake of equality and brotherhood of men? Nobody needs it.
As to promise what to replace their hope of better life in a world they will never get to? (Afterlife) This is a toughie, as answering them "nothing" will be almost impossible for them to accept.
Propose a better life for them in this life. How do you plan to achieve this? A better education ? Do you realize that better education is “dispensed” by the capital as needed? Only when there’s a need to better educate the masses, only then a better education is provided. And it is all dictated by prospects of potential profits. If a worker cannot produce without being able to read and write, he is taught exactly that. If he needs to know how to operate a computer to produce maximum profits, he’s given the necessary training. If philosophy may trigger undesirable thoughts in him, he’s deprived of easy access to it. Religion serves the capital well. There is no easy solution, but the actual state of affair must stop.
We are going to global warfare with the partici^pants being the Christian west against the Muslim mid-east. Anyone sensiblecan see this WWIII happening. Back in the early 80's I could sense that the next war would be religious (and with the oil resources being the real motives). You hit the nail in the head. The economic goals are the primary goals. Religion, patriotism, etc. are the cover. So the West wants their oil, and the mullahs want to retain their power in the face of the assault of Western decadence. The cause is economic for both sides. The effect should be a war. Religion is just a tool to promote one’s cause. Anyone who lived the first oil crisis in 73 and how it crippled Europe understood that, even I as a 10 year-old (this year I moved to North America as well >> where reserves stopped the crisis and I came out of religion as well)
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 12:30 |
Sean wrote:
| So yes!!! Ivàn (just like you and I ) has had time to consider his faith (even if in a Catholic-dominated country like his or mine) arbitrarily, but the peon (peasant in Spanish) living fourty Km from Arequipa or the Quechua Amerindian living at 3500 M altitude, can we say that they voluntarily chose their beliefs after careful considerations of all the options available or can we safely assume that they were enforced their beliefs...... >> they represent over 80% of his country (but hopefully less than 20% in mine) |
Sean, that’s not accurate either, the indigenous population in Perú accepted religion in a lower percentage than the Spanish or Creole population in Lima.
When the “cult” (*) population of Lima and Arequipa (The second city in Perú, not a peasants center) celebrated Corpus Christi in the cathedrals, the peasents made fabulous celebrations in Cuzco and Ayacucho, so the Spanish said proudly “The Indians celebrated the same feast, they are Catholics”, but that was false, they celebrated the Inti Raymi (Harvest feast) and the same happened with Christmas (Rain Season), the native Peruvians were hardly forced to accept Christianity.
Arequipa is known as “Cradle of Revolutions” because it’s the strongest and most stubborn people in the country, normally hated by the rest of the nation because each time they don’t agree with something they threaten us to separate to form their own country or start a revolution, so you can’t force this guys to anything.
Christianity found their strongest base in the big cities with a higher percentage of Spanish or Creole population and it’s also important to notice that Perú is a 90% Catholic country and the Catholic Church has hardly an aggressive conversion policy as the Evangelist groups.
BTW: Your demographic data is a bit flawed:
- Quechua speaking population hardly reaches 3 or 4%.
- Peasants or rural population are not remotely 30% (Where did you goit that 80%?) being that Lima alone (97% urban) has 50% of the TOTAL population of the country (15’000,000) and the big cities like Arequipa, Trujillo, Cuzco, Tacna, etc are mainly industrial or commercial centers,.
- Our problem is that the Revolutionary Communist Government of Velazco destroyed the agriculture and Shinning Path forced most of the remaining peasants to escape to the cities, so if we have 20% of peasants it’s maybe too much and that is not enough to support our needs.
That's why Shinning Path and terrorist movements have so much support in Europe, because they say inaccurate things and people believes them without researching.
(*)"CULT" because the Spanish who came to Perú where the scum of Europe, Pizarro recruited homicides, crooks, con-artists and in general criminals from the prisons willing to risk their lives in an unknown territory. They were turned into nobles when they colonized Perú, while the Incas where a highly advanced society that lost mostly because the fear to the loud powder weapons and was almost exterminate.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 19 2007 at 14:51
|
|
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 12:03 |
|
If you really look at it, almost everyone is agnostic. Unless you are 100% sure there is a God (or 100% sure there isn't), you are agnostic. It's really a meaningless term that says nothing about your beliefs.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20403
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 11:56 |
IVNORD wrote:
Sean,
You're wrong at the core of your thinking. Religion is opium for the masses, and the masses need it. It’s a tool of controlling those “people in rural areas.” If not religion, there will be another tool. Communists tried to use atheism for the same purpose pushing the idea that a man is his own master and has to make his life better. The bottom line, any ideology, whether religious or atheistic, promotes exploitation. Religion pacifies with the promise of eternal life. Atheism offers emptiness. Being so militant as you are, what could you offer to those peons if you succeed in prohibiting religion?
P.S. How did your illegal exchange of fluids go the other day?
|
Fine thanks!! 
A bit cold (only 15°C instead of the 17°C forecasted) still to do it out in the fields so we did it in my hideout with the window open.
I am eternally damned now. I'm going straight to hell. As if there was anymore a hell than a heaven or a paradise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my core of thinking, I could be wrong, but it is not likely either.
” If not religion, there will be another tool" >> I never pretended the opposite, but that would be one less tool and this "tool" has been one of the most used one. So removing it, would render troubles a bit more troublesome to reach.
Let's face it, if you are sick of three diseases, (all doctors will tell you that you have to treat all three of them separately) you have to attack the bigger/most disabling one first, right.
Removing the need of praying for possible deities and therefore creating these communities bound to attack each other
and where I think most people get it wrong is that atheism is not an ideology, since it propopses no direct ideal. It just says that there are no creator, afterlife and heaven/hell.
"Being so militant as you are, what could you offer to those peons if you succeed in prohibiting religion?" >> That could effectively be a problem, since a lot of people have been lead to believe that it would be better in an afterlife.
So this "ban" (this was taken litteraly by Ivàn, but I meant a gradual dephasing of religion) I proposed, can only be disastrous if we are to wake up all those péons and tell them that they've been abused and lied to for centuries. This is what happened in Russia when the communists tried and it provoked disastrous results with most of the bourgeoisie (and christians by principle only since not applying the ideology properly) getting killed or exiled, ending all hopes of coexistence and plunging the country into an abyss of uneducated peasants to run the abandonned industries.
So this gradual de-phasing must take place with the young generations (in schools) and not touch too much the adults (who could become dangerous as I explained) and this is precisely where it hurts Ivàn and consorts, (because this is where their endoctrination takes place). Why do you think those intelligent designers are so adament in getting at the schools? This is where the battle is won.
As to promise what to replace their hope of better life in a world they will never get to? (Afterlife) This is a toughie, as answering them "nothing" will be almost impossible for them to accept.
Propose a better life for them in this life. A better education ? There is no easy solution, but the actual state of affair must stop.
We are going to global warfare with the partici^pants being the Christian west against the Muslim mid-east. Anyone sensiblecan see this WWIII happening. Back in the early 80's I could sense that the next war would be religious (and with the oil resources being the real motives). Anyone who lived the first oil crisis in 73 and how it crippled Europe understood that, even I as a 10 year-old (this year I moved to North America as well >> where reserves stopped the crisis and I came out of religion as well)
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 11:05 |
Sean Trane wrote:
SolariS wrote:
Plus in terms of INTELLIGENTS adults (not brainwashed and able to overcome their superstitions and fear of the unknown), Atheist and agnostics represent at least half the population especially that you seem to be talking for the whole of religious people (which let's face it 85% would not agree to your words).
Since when has blindly following a self-proclaimed group of intellectuals become an acceptable form of personal intellectual and belief oriented satisfaction? There are inevitably two sides to every coin, and comments like this clearly show that you are quite ignorant of one side (I'll let you guess which one). You put yourself on the same level as fundamentalists who dogmatically insist on a single view without rationally investigating the other. You embarass yourself with comments like this and offend intelligent people like Ivan who have CLEARLY not taken their own beliefs lightly. It's a HUGE blunder to think that anyone who is religious has not spent a lot of time in careful consideration. |
Hang on a second here you are taking two sentence in a heated debate and bringing them out of context.
You, Ivàn and I are participating in a fairly elitist site's forum on a website. Given that we are some of the rare people that can use the web (regular web access is only readily available for less than 10% of world population around the world) and we choose to talk of religion on a musically advanced site, this makes us rather intellectuals (even elitists of sorts) and we do not represent the average humans on this planet, who are scraping their meals of the street's pavement and being told to thank the deity for it.
I was clearly referring to the huge mass of "religious" people in rural areas which have been endoctrined (like I was also subjected) by the texts, without being explained the alternatives. Religions grab you by the throat at birth with baptism (or equivalent rites in other currents) and start inculquing you with this "god" as soon as you are able to walk, read, play etc... >>>Yes, i call this brainwashing!!!! I was subjected to it and I was a middle class boy in an advanced country in the 60's and 70's. Only the revolutionary spirit of the late 60's was able to break this stranglehold I was held in, or else, if not going to mass every sunday, I'd be part of this Christian pack ready to dislike Muslims or any other sect contradicting my (force-fed) faith. *** shudders uncontrollably at this horrible thought***
You (as a follower) are almost force-fed these texts and if you accept them, fine. If you have you no question, they are glad not to express the need to further explain what they figure (and rightly so) as ingested (but not digested) and absorbed as "normality" to the impregnated fellowship >> read Roger Waters' lyrics of Sheep.
But according to your (the followers) intellectual levels, of course, you will challenge this "education" and ask questions, there are plenty of answers (they were written hundreds of years ago) to keep you in the boundaries. They will actually correct your questions by the ever-present "See it this way", "Ask yourself the question this way (ie: not your way...)" or "this is the question you should ask yourself" . And instead of giving you the full picture right off the bat, they start out with fairytales (just an expression here) to keep you interested, (if you are not interested, then you're not listening, right?). The chances of escaping this "faith" are few (they've had thousands of years to prepare this) and for centuries those managing an escape, they were discredited (sent to asylums) expelled (excommunicated) or tortured (exorcised) or killed (sometimmes all four). This is the machine that is automatically still endoctrining most of its followers.
And yes, I do say an important numbers of religious followers in all currents were not offered any other possibility than to be followers. The are never told of other possibilities (such as god does not exist). These are usually poor rural masses, uneducated as they are and kept so (and not just by the clergies , but all kinds of authorities), as to be more malleable when the needs be necessary.
So yes!!! Ivàn (just like you and I ) has had time to consider his faith (even if in a Catholic-dominated country like his or mine) arbitrarily, but the péons (peasant in Spanish) living fourty Km from Arequipa or the Quechua Amerindian living at 3500m altitude, can we say that they voluntarily chose their beliefs after careful considerations of all the options available or can we safely assume that they were enforced their beliefs...... >> they represent over 80% of his country (but hopefully less than 20% in mine)
I gather you will agree with me, now!!!
|
Sean,
You're wrong at the core of your thinking. Religion is opium for the masses, and the masses need it. It’s a tool of controlling those “people in rural areas.” If not religion, there will be another tool. Communists tried to use atheism for the same purpose pushing the idea that a man is his own master and has to make his life better. The bottom line, any ideology, whether religious or atheistic, promotes exploitation. Religion pacifies with the promise of eternal life. Atheism offers emptiness. Being so militant as you are, what could you offer to those peons if you succeed in prohibiting religion?
P.S. How did your illegal exchange of fluids go the other day?
Edited by IVNORD - January 19 2007 at 11:06
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 10:14 |
SolariS wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
omnipotent doesnt entail knowledge of all time. i can agree that an ageless God would know all past; however, i dont believe that time exists. That’s heavy. What’s the reasoning behind it? The fact that we can’t touch or feel time doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We can’t explain what thought is either, or how the brain produces it for that matter. Does it exist? by saying that God can see the future you have already assumed that the future is a structured set of events. thus human beings in your view of time have no free will which violates your second premise. time is not an entity. nothing exists except right now. How would you like a world structure like this one:
Throngs of parallel history time-lines exist in time, each of them repeating the world history from the beginning of time into the immeasurable, unknown to us future exactly, second by second, differing only by one second (or a most miniscule time period possible) where you and I are arguing as we are in one of those time layers, and in the next two adjacent time layers you and I are still doing something we did a second ago, and something we will be doing in the next second respectively??? Ever thought of something like that? God cannot know the future because the future does not exist. it would be a logical impossibility to have knowledge of something that "is not". Is it a logical possibility that we’re just guessing?
I've shown that God is not limited by your claim of time if indeed time is natured as I say it is. The only limitation on God that I can see is that God cannot do something that cannot be done. It doesn’t sit well with the status of omnipotence. Is this a limitation on God? I dont think so, but you may see it as one if you wish. Either way, God still has free will to do whatever he can do. If God is all-powerful (meaning he can do anything that is able to be done) and has free will, then you might ask how humans can also have free will. In other words, how can humans impose their will if it is contrary to God's will? The answer would have to be that God's ultimate will is to give humans a choice of their own. This is called Compatibilism. It doesn’t really explain the nature of things, rather a convenient tool to promote one idea or the other.
As for myself, you'll never actually figure out what I believe, but I can tell you that I never believe the whole of what anybody claims to be true. I am a Christian, Athiest, Buddhist and Agnostic, yet I am none of them. In other words, we don’t know anything. |
sorry to get back to you so late on this. but you're right, i do look at this in terms of physics. but hey, i am a physicist and few other academic institutions have as much to say about the subject of time. anyway, i'll pose this question to you. why should anyone actually believe that this thing called time exists in the first place? Nobody has to believe it exists, as nobody has to believe God exists. Note, that I hold those notions identical for the purpose of this discussion. When it comes to understanding the being, the notions like God, Infinity, Time (BTW I’ve never thought of time in this aspect before) are beyond man’s comprehension. You as a physicist, thus most likely a materialist, tend to split the being into two parts – material and spiritual, while I think of the material being as a particular case of the entire Being which is unknown to men. It all comes to a personal choice what to believe in sure you can remember the past, but that doesn't mean the past is concurrently existing. does that mean that time cannot exist? no, but if it does exists as a constantly splitting reality, then if the realities always split and never rejoin, the theory is untestable. when a theory cannot be tested, it is out of the realms of scientific proof. Again you’re talking as a materialist scientist. I offered you a theory of parallel timelines existing in time and space independently and duplicating each other to a fraction of the tiniest time fraction. And this is something a human can picture in his head. What if Time exists in some form and shape which is totally out of the realm of human imagination? in this case, i'm more inclined to occam's razor which says if there are two equal competing theories, the simplest case is most often correct. that's how we see it in nature anyway. principle of least action and things of that sort.
that whole subject can be a HUGE can of worms and i actually have a lot to say about it from perspectives of quantum mechanics and relativity. the purpose of my point was not necessarily to state fact though. i merely wanted to create an alternative possibility which is scientifically and logically plausable (and even something that i see as probable based on my own intuition). Of course, it’s scientifically and logically plausible. It’s possible that you are right. It’s possible that I am. But it’s also possible that neither one of us is. We just don’t know.
I've shown that God is not limited by your claim of time if indeed
time is natured as I say it is. The only limitation on God that I can
see is that God cannot do something that cannot be done. It doesn’t sit well with the status of omnipotence. |
For me, I find it quite acceptable to say that an omnipotent being cannot do something that cannot logically be done. Your alternative is to disagree and fight with circular reasoning. Can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it? What we're really discussing is whether or not God is limited by logic. I don't think the answer is yes or no by the way. The argument is that God among other things IS logic and God as an unchanging being does not act outside of His own character. It’s not an argument. We don’t know and most likely will never know because it’s not for us to know that.
| In other words, we don’t know anything. |
I believe quite the contrary actually. If so, let me repeat my question I have asked earlier in this thread – Where did the first particle of the matter come from? If you couldn’t ascertain that nothingness produced something and abandon the unsustainable promises that some day we’ll learn, the only logical explanation of the matter is God, i.e. we don’t know anything.
I just don't think that any one line of thinking has a monopoly on truth. Agreed fully. |
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20403
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 04:09 |
SolariS wrote:
Plus in terms of INTELLIGENTS adults (not brainwashed and able to overcome their superstitions and fear of the unknown), Atheist and agnostics represent at least half the population especially that you seem to be talking for the whole of religious people (which let's face it 85% would not agree to your words).
|
Since when has blindly following a self-proclaimed group of intellectuals become an acceptable form of personal intellectual and belief oriented satisfaction? There are inevitably two sides to every coin, and comments like this clearly show that you are quite ignorant of one side (I'll let you guess which one). You put yourself on the same level as fundamentalists who dogmatically insist on a single view without rationally investigating the other. You embarass yourself with comments like this and offend intelligent people like Ivan who have CLEARLY not taken their own beliefs lightly. It's a HUGE blunder to think that anyone who is religious has not spent a lot of time in careful consideration.
|
Hang on a second here you are taking two sentence in a heated debate and bringing them out of context.
You, Ivàn and I are participating in a fairly elitist site's forum on a website. Given that we are some of the rare people that can use the web (regular web access is only readily available for less than 10% of world population around the world) and we choose to talk of religion on a musically advanced site, this makes us rather intellectuals (even elitists of sorts) and we do not represent the average humans on this planet, who are scraping their meals of the street's pavement and being told to thank the deity for it.
I was clearly referring to the huge mass of "religious" people in rural areas which have been endoctrined (like I was also subjected) by the texts, without being explained the alternatives. Religions grab you by the throat at birth with baptism (or equivalent rites in other currents) and start inculquing you with this "god" as soon as you are able to walk, read, play etc... >>> Yes, i call this brainwashing!!!! I was subjected to it and I was a middle class boy in an advanced country in the 60's and 70's. Only the revolutionary spirit of the late 60's was able to break this stranglehold I was held in, or else, if not going to mass every sunday, I'd be part of this Christian pack ready to dislike Muslims or any other sect contradicting my (force-fed) faith. *** shudders uncontrollably at this horrible thought***  
You (as a follower) are almost force-fed these texts and if you accept them, fine. If you have you no question, they are glad not to express the need to further explain what they figure (and rightly so) as ingested (but not digested) and absorbed as "normality" to the impregnated fellowship >> read Roger Waters' lyrics of Sheep.
But according to your (the followers) intellectual levels, of course, you will challenge this "education" and ask questions, there are plenty of answers (they were written hundreds of years ago) to keep you in the boundaries. They will actually correct your questions by the ever-present "See it this way", "Ask yourself the question this way (ie: not your way...)" or "this is the question you should ask yourself" . And instead of giving you the full picture right off the bat, they start out with fairytales (just an expression here) to keep you interested, (if you are not interested, then you're not listening, right?). The chances of escaping this "faith" are few (they've had thousands of years to prepare this) and for centuries those managing an escape, they were discredited (sent to asylums) expelled (excommunicated) or tortured (exorcised) or killed (sometimmes all four). This is the machine that is automatically still endoctrining most of its followers.
And yes, I do say an important numbers of religious followers in all currents were not offered any other possibility than to be followers. The are never told of other possibilities (such as god does not exist). These are usually poor rural masses, uneducated as they are and kept so (and not just by the clergies , but all kinds of authorities), as to be more malleable when the needs be necessary.
So yes!!! Ivàn (just like you and I ) has had time to consider his faith (even if in a Catholic-dominated country like his or mine) arbitrarily, but the péons (peasant in Spanish) living fourty Km from Arequipa or the Quechua Amerindian living at 3500m altitude, can we say that they voluntarily chose their beliefs after careful considerations of all the options available or can we safely assume that they were enforced their beliefs...... >> they represent over 80% of his country (but hopefully less than 20% in mine)
I gather you will agree with me, now!!!
Edited by Sean Trane - January 19 2007 at 10:30
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
SolariS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 891
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 00:33 |
Plus
in terms of INTELLIGENTS adults (not brainwashed and able to overcome
their superstitious and fear of the unknown, Atheist and agnostics
represent at leasdt half the population especially that you seem to be
talking for the whole of religious people (which let's face it 85%
would not agree to your words).
|
Since when has blindly following a self-proclaimed group of
intellectuals become an acceptable form of personal intellectual and
belief oriented satisfaction? There are inevitably two sides to every
coin, and comments like this clearly show that you are quite ignorant
of one side (I'll let you guess which one). You put yourself on the
same level as fundamentalists who dogmatically insist on a single view
without rationally investigating the other. You embarass yourself with
comments like this and offend intelligent people like Ivan who have
CLEARLY not taken their own beliefs lightly. It's a HUGE bluder to
think that anyone who is religious has not spent a lot of time in
careful consideration.
Edited by SolariS - January 19 2007 at 00:34
|
|
|
|
SolariS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 891
|
Posted: January 19 2007 at 00:18 |
IVNORD wrote:
omnipotent doesnt entail knowledge of all time. i can agree that an ageless God would know all past; however, i dont believe that time exists. That’s heavy. What’s the reasoning behind it? The fact that we can’t touch or feel time doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We can’t explain what thought is either, or how the brain produces it for that matter. Does it exist? by saying that God can see the future you have already assumed that the future is a structured set of events. thus human beings in your view of time have no free will which violates your second premise. time is not an entity. nothing exists except right now. How would you like a world structure like this one:
Throngs of parallel history time-lines exist in time, each of them repeating the world history from the beginning of time into the immeasurable, unknown to us future exactly, second by second, differing only by one second (or a most miniscule time period possible) where you and I are arguing as we are in one of those time layers, and in the next two adjacent time layers you and I are still doing something we did a second ago, and something we will be doing in the next second respectively??? Ever thought of something like that? God cannot know the future because the future does not exist. it would be a logical impossibility to have knowledge of something that "is not". Is it a logical possibility that we’re just guessing?
I've shown that God is not limited by your claim of time if indeed time is natured as I say it is. The only limitation on God that I can see is that God cannot do something that cannot be done. It doesn’t sit well with the status of omnipotence. Is this a limitation on God? I dont think so, but you may see it as one if you wish. Either way, God still has free will to do whatever he can do. If God is all-powerful (meaning he can do anything that is able to be done) and has free will, then you might ask how humans can also have free will. In other words, how can humans impose their will if it is contrary to God's will? The answer would have to be that God's ultimate will is to give humans a choice of their own. This is called Compatibilism. It doesn’t really explain the nature of things, rather a convenient tool to promote one idea or the other.
As for myself, you'll never actually figure out what I believe, but I can tell you that I never believe the whole of what anybody claims to be true. I am a Christian, Athiest, Buddhist and Agnostic, yet I am none of them. In other words, we don’t know anything. |
sorry to get back to you so late on this. but you're right, i do look at this in terms of physics. but hey, i am a physicist and few other academic institutions have as much to say about the subject of time. anyway, i'll pose this question to you. why should anyone actually believe that this thing called time exists in the first place? sure you can remember the past, but that doesn't mean the past is concurrently existing. does that mean that time cannot exist? no, but if it does exists as a constantly splitting reality, then if the realities always split and never rejoin, the theory is untestable. when a theory cannot be tested, it is out of the realms of scientific proof. in this case, i'm more inclined to occam's razor which says if there are two equal competing theories, the simplest case is most often correct. that's how we see it in nature anyway. principle of least action and things of that sort. that whole subject can be a HUGE can of worms and i actually have a lot to say about it from perspectives of quantum mechanics and relativity. the purpose of my point was not necessarily to state fact though. i merely wanted to create an alternative possibility which is scientifically and logically plausable (and even something that i see as probable based on my own intuition).
I've shown that God is not limited by your claim of time if indeed
time is natured as I say it is. The only limitation on God that I can
see is that God cannot do something that cannot be done. It doesn’t sit well with the status of omnipotence. |
For me, I find it quite acceptable to say that an omnipotent being cannot do something that cannot logically be done. Your alternative is to disagree and fight with circular reasoning. Can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it? What we're really discussing is whether or not God is limited by logic. I don't think the answer is yes or no by the way. The argument is that God among other things IS logic and God as an unchanging being does not act outside of His own character.
| In other words, we don’t know anything. |
I believe quite the contrary actually. I just don't think that any one line of thinking has a monopoly on truth.
Edited by SolariS - January 19 2007 at 00:18
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 18 2007 at 12:30 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Sean in Green......Iván in Red
Religion is a drug just like tobacco is
Would it be too much asking you for an argument and not just your partial opinion?
Those ten commandments existed long before this Moses guys received via satellite
I don't think so, and even if that was true, the Israelites adopted them and this already is positive.
>> as long as you do what you preach, which we all know is not the case >> there are 15 christians priests in Belgium arrested for child molesting and/ spreading racial/religious hatred. There is about that many imams as well , all of them for religious hatred
How many non religious persons are imprisoned for child molesting? How many of this priests have been condemned? (Arrested doesn't mean guilty) Please give specific information.
>> the others answered this.
For what I read only two answered this issue and one of them thinks as me that it's ridiculous to blame religion for something that is only a fight for power.
Atheists are the future of mankind, we are precursors. Religions only mean destructions (at the hands of radicals only, but since the moderates are not acting against the radicals) and the end of mankind. Those 4% (and much much much more in intellectual circles) are visionaries of sorts.
Again, moderates are limited by the law, we can't organize raids and burn the places of reunion of those fanatics, we do WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS US TO DO, we excomunicate them (When Catholics, we don't have many fanatic sects lately) but any further action against them has to be taken by the Civil society with an order of a Judge and a probable cause, if we did soomething we would be comiting a crime.
>> no we are not being like fanatics, you are just refusing to see the light about your religion beliefs, therefore calling fanatics those who are putting your beliefs in balance
You are not putting our beliefs in YOUR balance, even that would be easy to admit because we have our arguments...You are trying to declare illegal our natural right to believe, and that my friend is against divine and human law.
Great term you are using about seing the light!!! It's very common in some preachers.
>> you are just playing with your numbers. In terms of decision making atheists and agnostics are much more than 4% and you've got to stop this. Most of China is atheists and they represent one fifth of world population.
Not playing with numbers, all the sources I checked throw the same cold number, 240'000,000 of Atheists, which represent the 4% of humanity, 16% of Agnostics and not followers (As I said in my previous post). China is only formally atheist, because a raduical and anti democratic governmemnt has banned religion, but most of them have a religion.
Even lower that the sources I checked yesterday.
Plus in terms of INTELLIGENTS adults (not brainwashed and able to overcome their superstitious and fear of the unknown, Atheist and agnostics represent at leasdt half the population especially that you seem to be talking for the whole of religious people (which let's face it 85% would not agree to your words).
This is arrogant offensive, and ridiculous, you're saying that the intelligent are Atheists and the idiots are religious, I didn't expected this kind of arguments from you, being that you realize that you represebnt an infimopus pecentage of humanity you call yourselves an elite...How do you dare to call Opus Dei elists (They are IMO) if you are acting in the exact way?
BTW I clarified my points about sports:
| I'm not talking about healthy sport or as recreation I'm talking about organized armies of Hooligans destroying everything before them, I'm talking in Mike Tysons that hardly are able to read but receive US$ 40'000,000 for breaking the head of another man while people who has studied all their lives can't dream with that. |
And of course you ignored them conviniently because you don't have an answer.
. >> I don't understand how a lawyer like you can be so against civil right watchers >> every lawyer should 100% behind these group defending the rights of the individuals against the state, the dominating churches and other uniformity authority.
By the contrary Sean, I posted how one of this atheist associations respect the right of people to believe, something you are trying to fight against.
>> Us atheism is definitely not the norm amonst atheism >> Atheism is not an American value , god is. So what do they know??
Let me get you, Religious are wrong and Atheists are wrong unless they agree with your specific branch of Atheism, if they are from USA..they are wrong, ony the SEANIST ATHEISTS are right, the rest of humanity is wrong.
. >> this very recent (40 years at most after centuries of repressions) and if you see the new pope and his Opus Dei backers, this could easily be turned around, right
But we have achieved it, again you attack the Opus Dei (I don't like them either) but I don't see that you mention any violent or illegal act they have comitted, they only have strong beliefs but haven't harmed anybody
Again used another argument to prove the desire of a group of Churches that represent 70 or 80% of the Christians to reunite:
| About 15 years ago, the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans are having meetings to stop the differences and join again, because we're have more in common (Jesus faith) than any difference. |
But again you ignore it because again..you don't have an argument.
>> you mean bullying at school did not exist in Renaissance times
Then don't blame religion for the violence, blame bully guys, another point for my theis about human evil nature.
The funny thing is that if there's religion and violence..you blame religion, if religion is banned you argue that there were always bullies....then why don't you agree that it's in human nature to be bully or in other words abuse of power?
>> well after centuries of unjust one way, could we not have one or two decade of reverse discrimination?
So according to you, discrimination is OK if you agree with it, so I get your concept of justice, everything is wrong unless it goes with your beliefs.
Man as an individual is not necesarilly evil, but humanity is:
- What other specie kills for greed? >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction
That's not greed, that could be called lust bad reply.
- What other specie starts wars for territory >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction
That's not fight for territory, that could be called lust, bed reply.
- What other specie dresses in their best clothes and goes to a Colloseum to watch how an animal is tortured. >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction and their females just stand, watch and wait for the victorious to screw them silly to recreate the "cycle"
That's not the example I gave and you know it, I'm talking of torture as a "valid" form of FUN agaim you're changimg the issue.
- What oher specie pays US$ 10,000 for a ringside ticket to watch two humans hitting their brains to death? >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction and the non contending males for supremacy hopîng to gain some better placement in the pyramid of their society.
That's not the example I gave, you are talking about the fight between two species for survival, not about paying to watch two humans kill themselves, bad reply.
Mankind is not evil, power is and since religion is one of the ways to get to it....
Sports, politics, education, universities, science, everything is designed to get more power, people is trained to get more power
well I believe Vatican often went further than fiction allowed to take its fantasies. Imperious motoive and repeated killings were (and are) frequent and even inside the Vatican walls >> how many popes and cardinals were poisoned over the centuries???? Fiction? BS
Can you talk about today? Catholic Church has accepted their past guilts, but when you mention the Opus Dei (Again I don't like them) you don't give a single example of their violence or hatred, you just accuse without a single argument.
Just like they hid hundreds of Nazi criminals and send them in South America to fight burgeoning comunnists movements >> Surprised I know that, uh?
That was not the Catholic Church, give some facts, that was the Swiss Government who had the control over the money of those criminals
Ivàn, do you even know what happens in the Vatican caves/cellars. I have a great aunt who worked there (she was of course never paid and we had to feed her on her holidays back in Belgium) and she told us how it was working. she finally got booted out of there by pension time and given a job a the Belgium Nunciate, but although she received pityful money, she was told not to come >>
I believe you're wrong, according to the OIT, the Vatican has one of the highest salary status for civil workers (Priests and Nuns don`t receive a salary), I don't know the case of your aunt and I don't know what she did or what he worked in.
Anyway, there are hundreds of rooms forbidden access to most. Vatican is a state run like one and looking on how it will survive in centuries ahead. They prepare the future (as much as they can) and try to provoke unrest where needed and believe me Opus Dei is not about to disappear... Do you actually believe they pray in there.... more like they prey ....
The Vatican is both, the see of a Church and a STATE, with issues that must be discussed with the people they trust, probably your aunt didn't had that level of trust.
Every country (The Vatican is also a country) has private issues, diplomatic affaires that can't be public (Specially with your aunt who is obviously willing to talk about them with you) so what's so strange about that? You are talking about information given by a person who obviously knows nothing because her clearence was low.
She saw nothing, she told you nothing but you want to think that secret rituals or paramilitar trainings are happening isn those mysterious rooms, you should write a book as Dan Brown, your imagination is wonderful, you see a conspiracy only because your aunt wasn't allowed to enter to certain rooms.
I NEVER heard of a CRW org that stopped anyone from praising a god in public, and if they defend sects , they defend religions. What you don't like
That's what they say, but even them accept the free faith right, you're the one who wants to ban religions, but yes at least in USA paying in public is banned.
- But you want to ban Religion, in other words believe in what you want but you can't organize. >>Why organize and make your god beliefs into a pressure group than a lobby >> essentially religions are lobby groups.
It's a community of people who share the same beliefs as there are every kind of communities, nobody is forced to join and everybody is free to leave.
>> that would be nice!!! Could you please obligez and let us work to global peace. Thanks
Could you allow us to exist in peace, fight the fanatics but let those of us who believe in peace (The huge majority) do our life, you are part of a minority, accept it democracy is the only possible way.
I would never allow a person who believes owns the only truth to decide what's better for the rest of the world.
>> invoke your god to tell them they are wrong, if he does not act and fanaticism persists it mens two things : 1- god is a fanatic himself, since he will not have those fanatics see the light 2- god does not exist
God allows us to have free will, you can believe, be a fanatic or not believe, that's the difference with you, being that your solution is that everybody must think like you pr be banned because you are self denominate a precursor. 
>> conveniently retreating to Peru's safety but waiting for the next occasion to give world examples.
Everywhere is the same, Churches are less popular today than before, I talk for almost 1.5 billions of Catholics and for the statistics, there are 50% less priests than 20 years ago, the Churches are empty, because people prefer to believe in their houses.
Once again, CRW are not atheists, they must be neutral
They MUST but they AREN'T
True!!!!! all forms of power race is evil including the religious ones.
Then ban all, not only the one you don't believe in.
>> but atheist are not communist and atheists fought against communism as well.
The official "religion" of every communist Government is atheism, that's a common denominator.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 18 2007 at 15:27
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20403
|
Posted: January 18 2007 at 07:29 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sean in Green......Iván in Blue
Why is Religion as Tobacco? Because you say so? or because a small part of 4% believes so? Religion is a drug just like tobacco is
Isn't a moral code good even if you don't want to believe in the Religious part? Those ten commandments existed long before this Moses guys received via satellite
Isn't teaching to do to others as you want them to do to you good? >> as long as you do what you preach, which we all know is not the case >> there are 15 christians priests in Belgium arrested for child molesting and/ spreading racial/religious hatred. There is about that many imams as well , all of them for religious hatred
Mass destruction weapons were more dangerous than today when weere in hands of an Atheist country as USSR, so don't blame Religion for this. >> the others answered this.
Atheists are the future of mankind, we are precursors. Religions only mean destructions (at the hands of radicals only, but since the moderates are not acting against the radicals) and the end of mankind. Those 4% (and much much much more in intellectual circles) are visionaries of sorts.
You're talking as those fanatics that you criticize so much, you are trying to tell us that your way is the only one, that you are a precursor when as a fact even Governments have failled in their attempt to destroy religion. >> no we are not being like fanatics, you are just refusing to see the light about your religion beliefs, therefore calling fanatics those who are putting your beliefs in balance
And again don't claim the representation of that 4% of Atheists, just a few posts ago another Atheist told you that he doesn't support your claims, that he is in favour of freedom of faith as most civilized world. >> you are just playing with your numbers. In terms of decision making atheists and agnostics are much more than 4% and you've got to stop this. Most of China is atheists and they represent one fifth of world population. Plus in terms of INTELLIGENTS adults (not brainwashed and able to overcome their superstitious and fear of the unknown, Atheist and agnostics represent at leasdt half the population especially that you seem to be talking for the whole of religious people (which let's face it 85% would not agree to your words).
Well while your examples are not exactly to the point, I am getting at, you are bound to get hit by god's wrath with bad faith by using bad examples; sports and medicine is good for human health, exploitation of it as a spectator's sport or medicine as an industry is not acceptable either. Let's just say that god, medicine and sports can be good; Religions, pharmaceutical empires and hooligans are evil.
I'm not talking about healthy sport or as recreation I'm talking about organized armies of Hooligans destroying everything before them, I'm talking in Mike Tysons that hardly are able to read but receive US$ 40'000,000 for breaking the head of another man while people who has studied all their lives can't dream with that.
Lets say Religions are Good, fanatics are evil (The same argument can be used by both parts)
>> yes those very same civil rights association that you so conveniently call atheists (and they are not) are responsible of that.
I don't say it, the Atheist organizations claim to have the lead in Civil rights, read what the San Francisco Atheist Organization says while they take the credit of being the main Civil Rights watchers in USA. >> I don't understand how a lawyer like you can be so against civil right watchers >> every lawyer should 100% behind these group defending the rights of the individuals against the state, the dominating churches and other uniformity authority.
They are the first to disagree with you Sean. >> Us atheism is definitely not the norm amonst atheism >> Atheism is not an American value , god is. So what do they know??
I would hint that most religious think that only their religion is not obscurantist and that all other religions are obscurantist. Most Christians would love seeing Islam disappearing (and the opposite is true too) off the face of the earth. And from what I judge over half the Christians and Muslims would like to see the other obliterated from this planet
Today Catholic Church messes with nobody, we don't even claim to have the exclusivity of salvation, we believe it's an open path for all just men. >> this very recent (40 years at most after centuries of repressions) and if you see the new pope and his Opus Dei backers, this could easily be turned around, right
About 15 years ago, the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans are having meetings to stop the differences and join again, because we're have more in common (Jesus faith) than any difference.
religions are not banned but in order to accommodate everyone (and avoid religious taking schools as battlegrounds), they are told to take in private. Private matters are not to be taught publicly. In most Western countries there are moral classes discussing religions and this is just fine.
Casually the rate of violence has increased in schools since the days in which Religious expressions were not banned. >> you mean bullying at school did not exist in Renaissance times
Even though I believe Religion is private or a mnatter of a congregation, why should we be silenced if Atheism can be mentioned everywhere? Isn't this inverse discrimination? >> well after centuries of unjust one way, could we not have one or two decade of reverse discrimination?
speak for yourself , I am not evil and I don't think you are. I categorize humans as basically good, but they have a self-destructing gene and their willingness to affirm themselves as superior to their neighbours (hence the rat race for power) are to be seen also in other animals realms >> alpha reproductive males etc… But your religious beliefs and dogmas (all religious tendencies) are the ones I see creating problems.
Man as an individual is not necesarilly evil, but humanity is:
- What other specie kills for greed? >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction
- What other specie starts wars for territory >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction
- What other specie dresses in their best clothes and goes to a Colloseum to watch how an animal is tortured. >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction and their females just stand, watch and wait for the victorious to screw them silly to recreate the "cycle"
- What oher specie pays US$ 10,000 for a ringside ticket to watch two humans hitting their brains to death? >> all animals reigns where alpha males only allowed for reproduction and the non contending males for supremacy hopîng to gain some better placement in the pyramid of their society.
Don't blame religion for this, this is human nature. Mankind is not evil, power is and since religion is one of the ways to get to it....
>>> Come on  Ivàn, why would the Vatican kill Opus Dei, the same way Islam is not about to do anything to stop their god's little soldiers >> they come way tooooooooo handy for so many dirty jobs.,
I'm not an Opus Dei fan but they have never done anything illegal or violent, unless you believe in the Da Vinci Code and albino monks trying to kill their enemies >> well I believe Vatican often went further than fiction allowed to take its fantasies. Imperious motoive and repeated killings were (and are) frequent and even inside the Vatican walls >> how many popes and cardinals were poisoned over the centuries???? Fiction? BS
Yesterday another member who accused the Catholic Church of doing nothing during WWII had to accept the cold facts of at least 40,000 humans from a different religion saved inside the walls of the Vatican. Just like they hid hundreds of Nazi criminals and send them in South America to fight burgeoning comunnists movements >> Surprised I know that, uh?
People talk without knowing,. i don't agree with Opus Dei, but they are far from violent. Ivàn, do you even know what happens in the Vatican caves/cellars. I have a great aunt who worked there (she was of course never paid and we had to feed her on her holidays back in Belgium) and she told us how it was working. she finally got booted out of there by pension time and given a job a the Belgium Nunciate, but although she received pityful money, she was told not to come >> Anyway, there are hundreds of rooms forbidden access to most. Vatican is a state run like one and looking on how it will survive in centuries ahead. They prepare the future (as much as they can) and try to provoke unrest where needed and believe me Opus Dei is not about to disappear... Do you actually believe they pray in there.... more like they prey ....
. >> again this trash of civil rights group being atheists. Please correct you views on those, because you are wrong. Those civil rights groups are usually constructed on the profile of the country they are in. If there may be some unreligious appearance, it is because of NEUTRALITY's sake. Because to ensure everyone's fallacies are free to express (privately) , the atheists (who are about as neutral as they can get) are often activating CRW defence to stop one religious faction exterminating another. Atheist could EASILY do without having to stop religion factions exterminating each other…..
It's not trash, the Atheist Organizations boast to have the lead in human rights, read any page like Atheists for Human Rights. US atheists know dick about zilch.
What neutrality? You can't praise God in Public but you can proclaim your atheism, in other words 96% of the people has to do what less than 4% wants, that's not neutrality. I NEVER heard of a CRW org that stopped anyone from praising a god in public, and if they defend sects , they defend religions. What you don't like
- But you want to ban Religion, in other words believe in what you want but you can't organize. >>Why organize and make your god beliefs into a pressure group than a lobby >> essentially religions are lobby groups.
- Because religion is a form of power used to eradicate the others not agreeing with them Again, don't talk about all of us for a bunch of fanatics, we don't care for Power as a Religion, by the contrary in the case of Catholuic and Orthodox Churches, priests are forbidden to accept political positions.
- act for the good of humankind, because we are precursors You act for WHAT YOU
Think KNOW IS GOOD FOR HUMANITY AND WE POOR STUPID FANATICS MUST ACCEPT YOUR POSITION >> that would be nice!!! Could you please obligez and let us work to global peace. Thanks
>> so you admit most moderates are powerless to help prevent your fanatics, yet you would like me to keep trusting the religions with man's future.Our limits are where the law marks it (CIVIL LAW), we aren't allowed to close a fanatic sect without being sued, only the law can do that, so don't blame us. >> invoke your god to tell them they are wrong, if he does not act and fanaticism persists it mens two things : 1- god is a fanatic himself, since he will not have those fanatics see the light 2- god does not exist
>> Then since those fanatic's votes are so important, it is because they are much more numerous than you care to admit. I say roughly half the religious are fanatics or activists (and this is likely to grow in coming years) but not all in a bad manner.
I don't know where you take this data, I live in a 95% Catholic country, and Churches are empty every sunday, I believe barely 5% are activists or faithful religious. >> conveniently retreating to Peru's safety but waiting for the next occasion to give world examples.
Once again, CRW are not atheists, they must be neutral
I will believe that when Atheist Organizations stop claiming they take the lead in Civil Rights. US atheist know dick about zilch.
True!!!!! all forms of power race is evil including the religious ones.
Then why ban religion exclusively for a bunch of fanatics? The moderates will not
>> you confuse communism with atheism and you pertinently know you are, just to score goals with the hand (of god >> right Diego? )
No, I have my mind clear, I know Communism is Atheist >> but atheist are not communist and atheists fought against communism as well.
|
I had to cut short and had to actually work!!! Friggin employers always needing me to do something.
Will try to respond to the rest later.
Edited by Sean Trane - January 18 2007 at 10:39
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Chus
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
|
Posted: January 17 2007 at 13:19 |
bluetailfly wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
bluetailfly wrote:
I appreciate Ivan response but couldn't help becoming aware that the problem is not religion. It's so curious to me how in society religion becomes the most fundamental identifying factor. We call them "the Jews" and "the Arabs" and "the Christians," but the bottom line is that religion, at heart, is really is a pacifying sense of self-awareness.
But all of a sudden when a group is threatened (or a group threatens), everyone is immediately pigeon-holed into which religious culture they are in, instead of what the real issue is---usually that the "other religion" is on land that we want.
I really think an attempt should be made to really identify the cause of the hatred between warring groups and call it as it is. Not the "Jews and the Arabs," but those people who are on land that used to belong to us, and damn it we want it back.
I'm just throwing this thought out there, because it becomes so dispiriting (no pun intended, well may be partially) to see terrorists associated with religious beliefs that have very little to do with what they are fighting for.
Now excuse me, I have to get back to insulting "The T."
|
I beg to differ. Spirituality is a pacifying sense of self-awareness. Religion is something else, and where the trouble begins.
|
Hmmm...I'll have to meditate on that one. But the point I was making is still the same. It appears to me that "religion" is always used in a euphemistic way to hide what is always a non-religious quest for land and social power. It seems to me that in the public discourse that we're all immersed in, we just blithely and unquestionalby buy into these terms like "the muslim fundamentalists", "the jews," "the christians" etc. and thus we allow all the attendant baggage of those terms to define the situation.
The reality to me is: it's primarily about land and social power and we should use terms more accurate to the situation to define it, so that we always remember what the real problem is. Its not the jews against the muslims. It's the people primarily of muslim faith (not that that is necessary) who want the group of jews (again not that that is a necessary distinction) out of their land. Get the f**k off our land.
The real trouble is not really about religion, what the Koran says or what the Bible says, or how it's interpreted. It's just basic irrational emotion-based tribalism, like the freaks vs. the jocks. But for some odd reason, religion is the flag that gets waved the most in our faces.
I'm just advocating for more accurate terms in how we disucss the troubles in the world. It's just people fighting for land, wealth, and raw social power. We need to define it that way in the media. Maybe then, everyone will become aware of the greed and lust for power that drives these men, and then get profoundly disgusted to a point of real nausea that he or she can no longer tolerate... |
This is, perhaps, the best answer in this thread IMO 
|
|
Jesus Gabriel
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 17 2007 at 00:22 |
bluetailfly wrote:
Hmmm...I'll have to meditate on that one. But the point I was making is still the same. It appears to me that "religion" is always used in a euphemistic way to hide what is always a non-religious quest for land and social power. It seems to me that in the public discourse that we're all immersed in, we just blithely and unquestionalby buy into these terms like "the muslim fundamentalists", "the jews," "the christians" etc. and thus we allow all the attendant baggage of those terms to define the situation.
Agree with you, the constant search of humans for power is the responsible, take religion from scenery and you will have patriotism, race, strenght, military power, etc.
Religion is used as an excuse for violence as Patriotism is used as an excuse to bomb your neighbor country.
The reality to me is: it's primarily about land and social power and we should use terms more accurate to the situation to define it, so that we always remember what the real problem is. Its not the jews against the muslims. It's the people primarily of muslim faith (not that that is necessary) who want the group of jews (again not that that is a necessary distinction) out of their land. Get the f**k off our land.
The UN gave territory to Israel in a conflictive region where an ethnic group was located already, I don't say it's a right or wrong choice, but the reaction is not because of religion but because of soberany over that land.
The real trouble is not really about religion, what the Koran says or what the Bible says, or how it's interpreted. It's just basic irrational emotion-based tribalism, like the freaks vs. the jocks. But for some odd reason, religion is the flag that gets waved the most in our faces.
Every doctrine has manipulators, followers and fanatics, people believe in USA that everybody is entitled to have a weapon, if you take that right, the honest and average follower of the law will say nothing, but you will always find a manipulator and a couple of fanatics that will make a big deal about it.
There are millions of good priests, reverends, rabines, etc but you will find a bunch hungry for money or power who will lead people to a wrong interpretation of a sacred text for their own benefit, the real religious people won't fall in their game, but the fanatics will follow their new Messiah.
And you will find this people any activity, Presidents willing to change the Constitution to stay in the peak for the rest of their lives, people who define themselves as activists of anything you can imagine only because they will have a priviledge position and a great salary, people organizing ONG's for preservation of the rainforest willing to manipulate some fanatics to blow Petrol companies or laboratories because they will have more power.
No normal person will throw paint on a woman with a fur coat because he/she believes in animal rights, I hate the use of animal fur but the most I would do is protest and refuse to go to a fashion exhibit, maybe boycott it at the most, but if a crazy girl or kid throws paint or even acid (In a couple of cases), a leader (Who will accept no responsability) will make personal appearences supporting (in spirit or maybe with a bit of money) the person who is in jail but not for love to the animals, but because he/she will be famous.
Name any activity, you just need a manipulator and a bunch of fanatics to cause problems.
For God's sake, there was a war in 1969 between Honduras and El Salvador because of a fu**ing soccer game!!!
Anybody reasonable will say how can anybody have a war for a soccer game?
The answer is simple, the game was the excuse, the real reason was because Honduras deported Salvadorean peasants back to their country because a land policy.
In the same way people blame Religion when the source of the violence is different in 99% of the cases
I'm just advocating for more accurate terms in how we disucss the troubles in the world. It's just people fighting for land, wealth, and raw social power. We need to define it that way in the media. Maybe then, everyone will become aware of the greed and lust for power that drives these men, and then get profoundly disgusted to a point of real nausea that he or she can no longer tolerate..
Iván
. |
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 17 2007 at 00:38
|
|
|
|
bluetailfly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
|
Posted: January 16 2007 at 23:47 |
bhikkhu wrote:
bluetailfly wrote:
I appreciate Ivan response but couldn't help becoming aware that the problem is not religion. It's so curious to me how in society religion becomes the most fundamental identifying factor. We call them "the Jews" and "the Arabs" and "the Christians," but the bottom line is that religion, at heart, is really is a pacifying sense of self-awareness.
But all of a sudden when a group is threatened (or a group threatens), everyone is immediately pigeon-holed into which religious culture they are in, instead of what the real issue is---usually that the "other religion" is on land that we want.
I really think an attempt should be made to really identify the cause of the hatred between warring groups and call it as it is. Not the "Jews and the Arabs," but those people who are on land that used to belong to us, and damn it we want it back.
I'm just throwing this thought out there, because it becomes so dispiriting (no pun intended, well may be partially) to see terrorists associated with religious beliefs that have very little to do with what they are fighting for.
Now excuse me, I have to get back to insulting "The T."
|
I beg to differ. Spirituality is a pacifying sense of self-awareness. Religion is something else, and where the trouble begins.
|
Hmmm...I'll have to meditate on that one. But the point I was making is still the same. It appears to me that "religion" is always used in a euphemistic way to hide what is always a non-religious quest for land and social power. It seems to me that in the public discourse that we're all immersed in, we just blithely and unquestionalby buy into these terms like "the muslim fundamentalists", "the jews," "the christians" etc. and thus we allow all the attendant baggage of those terms to define the situation.
The reality to me is: it's primarily about land and social power and we should use terms more accurate to the situation to define it, so that we always remember what the real problem is. Its not the jews against the muslims. It's the people primarily of muslim faith (not that that is necessary) who want the group of jews (again not that that is a necessary distinction) out of their land. Get the f**k off our land.
The real trouble is not really about religion, what the Koran says or what the Bible says, or how it's interpreted. It's just basic irrational emotion-based tribalism, like the freaks vs. the jocks. But for some odd reason, religion is the flag that gets waved the most in our faces.
I'm just advocating for more accurate terms in how we disucss the troubles in the world. It's just people fighting for land, wealth, and raw social power. We need to define it that way in the media. Maybe then, everyone will become aware of the greed and lust for power that drives these men, and then get profoundly disgusted to a point of real nausea that he or she can no longer tolerate...
|
|
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 16 2007 at 23:38 |
bhikkhu wrote:
I beg to differ. Spirituality is a pacifying sense of self-awareness. Religion is something else, and where the trouble begins.
|
Wouldn't be more accurate saying Fanatism is where trouble begins:
Look at our case:
- We can speak of God or pray anywhere.
- The President goes to the street and carries (With 40 persons more because it weights several tons) an image of Jesus Christ through the streets.
- We can teach religion anywhere
- The official network celebrates Christmas and every Religious feast.
- We have Religious hollydays, nobody works.
- Every Religion is allowed to praise their God wherever they want.
- Constitution recognizes officially the importance of Catholic Church despite there's no official religion.
- The Congressmen swear before God.
Despite all this situations:
- We don't have religious problems
- We never had a religious riot Davidians style
- No other religion memeber or Atheist complain.
- We never had a shooting or a prooblem cause by religion at schools.
- We never had Religious terrorism, the obnly terrorism we had is Communist Atheist.
- Nobody makes problems about people's beliefs.
- Nobody care if each and every Evangelist on TV insults the Catholic Church despite we're 90%.
So tell me, even if you believe your system is more fair, Constitutional, etc, etc, etc.....Which system works better?
Then why blame Religion if it works perfectly here and in many parts of the world?
Iván
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: January 16 2007 at 23:25 |
bluetailfly wrote:
I appreciate Ivan response but couldn't help becoming aware that the problem is not religion. It's so curious to me how in society religion becomes the most fundamental identifying factor. We call them "the Jews" and "the Arabs" and "the Christians," but the bottom line is that religion, at heart, is really is a pacifying sense of self-awareness.
But all of a sudden when a group is threatened (or a group threatens), everyone is immediately pigeon-holed into which religious culture they are in, instead of what the real issue is---usually that the "other religion" is on land that we want.
I really think an attempt should be made to really identify the cause of the hatred between warring groups and call it as it is. Not the "Jews and the Arabs," but those people who are on land that used to belong to us, and damn it we want it back.
I'm just throwing this thought out there, because it becomes so dispiriting (no pun intended, well may be partially) to see terrorists associated with religious beliefs that have very little to do with what they are fighting for.
Now excuse me, I have to get back to insulting "The T."
|
I beg to differ. Spirituality is a pacifying sense of self-awareness. Religion is something else, and where the trouble begins.
|
|
|
|
bluetailfly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
|
Posted: January 16 2007 at 22:39 |
|
I appreciate Ivan response but couldn't help becoming aware that the problem is not religion. It's so curious to me how in society religion becomes the most fundamental identifying factor. We call them "the Jews" and "the Arabs" and "the Christians," but the bottom line is that religion, at heart, is really is a pacifying sense of self-awareness.
But all of a sudden when a group is threatened (or a group threatens), everyone is immediately pigeon-holed into which religious culture they are in, instead of what the real issue is---usually that the "other religion" is on land that we want.
I really think an attempt should be made to really identify the cause of the hatred between warring groups and call it as it is. Not the "Jews and the Arabs," but those people who are on land that used to belong to us, and damn it we want it back.
I'm just throwing this thought out there, because it becomes so dispiriting (no pun intended, well may be partially) to see terrorists associated with religious beliefs that have very little to do with what they are fighting for.
Now excuse me, I have to get back to insulting "The T."
Edited by bluetailfly - January 16 2007 at 22:39
|
|
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: January 16 2007 at 22:20 |
Selkie wrote:
I don't see why you're dragging the USSR into this. Communism functioned more or less as a religion, leading to much poor descision making and failed experiments. Atheism does not necessarily make for rational rulers, and the USSR had some remarkably flawed ones to boot. Perhaps you're forgetting Stalin, who murdered more of his own people than were killed by the Atomic bombs? |
Good point, the centre of the issue is that being scared exclusively of religious people with weapons is misleading.
I'm scared of anybody with nukes, religious, atheist or agnostic, all the same, as you mention Stalin with Nukes was as dangerous (In bigger scale) as a monkey with a 9 mm Luger Parabellum.
People has terrible memory, in the70's (I have memory about this issues since then) we waked every morning asking ourselves if this was going to be the day when an idiot from the Kremlin and his counterpart from some safe bunker 300 Mts under a mountain in USA will blow us in pieces without having part in their problems.
Now people is scared of terrorism and blames religious fanatics, for God's sake the war caused by Shinning Path was responsible of more than 30,000 casualties decades before 9/11 and they were not remotely religious, the same with the Kmer Rouge, Baader Meinhoff or Red Brigades, but USA is scared now of Moslems so we all must be scared also.
Here in Perú the situation is different, the Jewish and Arab communities have business in common, they are even friends (Most of them are wealthy), why must we be afraid of religious people that done nothing here, maybe the problem is not caused by Religion but it's another different reason?
- We are a 90% Catholic country (Just checked the percentages)
- We have a small but very active Protestant minority (5.7%) that has bought spaces in all stations.
- Only 1.4% of Atheists
But we never had shootings in school, religious discrimination or anything similar and some of this Evangelists are very offensive with the Church of 90% of the Peruvians.
In October and November we have the "Procesión del Señor de los Milagros"
Millions of all the races and ecoomic status follow the image during the several days and not even the thiefs assault people in that human crowd.
Even the President presents his respects to God, and nobody says a word about this, there's not political correct notion, people can pray in schools, but again nobody makes an issue about this.
Couldn't the problem be caused by the people in the affected countries and not by the Religion?
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 16 2007 at 22:25
|
|
|
|
bluetailfly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
|
Posted: January 16 2007 at 22:02 |
I totally agree with the post above, what does the USSR have to do with this discussion? If anything, the USSR should be commended for trying to keep the church and its attendant imbecilities out of the realms of power.
Edited by bluetailfly - January 16 2007 at 22:03
|
|
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist Thread
