Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Did you take this aggression from the call to action on Sam Harris' twitter?
But really. I was joking about the "Muslim friend" thing. That's certainly not a requirement for debate. Although it certainly doesn't hurt to be on a name to name basis with a couple people who belong to the religion you're criticizing. I'd be interested in what you learned from those discussions.
Okay, I honestly do want an answer to the question on the last page. It was directed at abagofit but he's overwhelmed with other responses, the poor chap...
That's worded to something he said but the question is basically the same because you've brought this up in your own words.
You've caught me. I really like Sam Harris. I don't have a twitter (so Im unfamiliar with his call to action), but have been influenced pretty greatly by him on this topic. He and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz mainly.
Your question is a great one. My view on a solution to this problem could be swayed pretty easily, but at this point, I do think there needs to be a reformation of sorts. Christianity went through one, Islam has not to that degree.
The phrase "war of ideas" gets thrown around a lot, and I'm not really sure how that looks when implemented. Secular thought, science, etc.. just has to become more relevant.
This is a Harris quote that has always astonished me: "Spain translates more books into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century." Would be hard to win a war of ideas if those ideas never get read.
Again, I don't have a solution I feel confident with. I just wish that, by percentages, Muslims took their religion far less seriously. What do you think?
As an aside, the wall of stats abagofit posted are not up for debate. At least the stats provided by pew. It looked like someone found a problem with one of them, but there is a theme that isn't difficult to recognize.
I was introduced to him through a vid of him having an apologist attitude towards the Neocons. I'm sure he's a smart dude and all. That just set me against him. I'll give him another go at some point. Anyway, He just said something about "if you do nothing else about Brussels, lose your patience to those that lie about Islam." Which seem to fit your response. haha.
The problem with the Reformation idea is that people focus on what came after it. Their expectations are on the Enlightenment that's sure to follow. They forget just how violent the Reformation was and what ideas it helped foster in people(antisemitism being one). So looking at the divides that already exists between the different sects and governments in the Muslim world, this is a dangerous wish.
I think what needs to happen is we focus on things we actually can control. We can't control people's fundamental beliefs. If we try they will push back, and rightfully so. We can help with nation building and working towards a free exchange of ideas. But we can't overstep our bounds. I think @abagofi means well but he's wrong in suggesting we introduce science based education as a way to make people less religious. If we want to help educate them than the goal should be just that. Education so they have a chance at a better future. It should be for the greater good if we are going to do it. To be clear, I think he believes that too but he might not want to lead off with hoping that it makes the people less religious. That's not gonna sell well.
But to be honest, I don't know were the boundaries are in helping with education of foreign populations. It sounds like a slippery slope.
Opening up the free exchange of ideas through internet technology should be one goal. That's on top of some online education initiative? Just a flight of fancy but it's workable and maybe more cost effective then setting up schools in isolated regions. The problem here is stuff being labeled western propaganda by some governments or local sects.
A fair deal between Palestine and Israel would be the long term prize here. I feel it's the right thing to do and it's something that needs to be done for long term peace. If we come through on our promises and start chipping away at the Jihadist ability to paint the West in a negative light we'll be doing ourselves a huge favor long term. I say this knowing that this would be a huge undertaking.
As for what to do about Syria and ISIS.... I've no clue. Not bomb everything because it's never lead to a positive long term effect?
I wish everyone took religious less seriously but it's not going to happen any time soon.
This is just my random outdated thoughts. I've been out of the political loop for a couple years and the Middle East isn't the funnest subject to jump back into.
I was introduced to him through a vid of him having an apologist attitude towards the Neocons. I'm sure he's a smart dude and all. That just set me against him. I'll give him another go at some point. Anyway, He just said something about "if you do nothing else about Brussels, lose your patience to those that lie about Islam." Which seem to fit your response. haha.
The problem with the Reformation idea is that people focus on what came after it. Their expectations are on the Enlightenment that's sure to follow. They forget just how violent the Reformation was and what ideas it helped foster in people(antisemitism being one). So looking at the divides that already exists between the different sects and governments in the Muslim world, this is a dangerous wish.
I think what needs to happen is we focus on things we actually can control. We can't control people's fundamental beliefs. If we try they will push back, and rightfully so. We can help with nation building and working towards a free exchange of ideas. But we can't overstep our bounds. I think @abagofi means well but he's wrong in suggesting we introduce science based education as a way to make people less religious. If we want to help educate them than the goal should be just that. Education so they have a chance at a better future. It should be for the greater good if we are going to do it. To be clear, I think he believes that too but he might not want to lead off with hoping that it makes the people less religious. That's not gonna sell well.
But to be honest, I don't know were the boundaries are in helping with education of foreign populations. It sounds like a slippery slope.
Opening up the free exchange of ideas through internet technology should be one goal. That's on top of some online education initiative? Just a flight of fancy but it's workable and maybe more cost effective then setting up schools in isolated regions. The problem here is stuff being labeled western propaganda by some governments or local sects.
A fair deal between Palestine and Israel would be the long term prize here. I feel it's the right thing to do and it's something that needs to be done for long term peace. If we come through on our promises and start chipping away at the Jihadist ability to paint the West in a negative light we'll be doing ourselves a huge favor long term. I say this knowing that this would be a huge undertaking.
As for what to do about Syria and ISIS.... I've no clue. Not bomb everything because it's never lead to a positive long term effect?
I wish everyone took religious less seriously but it's not going to happen any time soon.
This is just my random outdated thoughts. I've been out of the political loop for a couple years and the Middle East isn't the funnest subject to jump back into.
Here's what he thinks about Neocons. Overall he doesn't have bad intentions, but certainly does not feel like he owes his mind to a political party or certain ideology. He's said he thinks about every idea and topic through the frame of "what is for the greater good of humanity." When I listen to him I really hear that sincerity in his points. However, I disagree with him on many topics. But I am a fan of where he comes from.
To your second paragraph, it seems like violence will be involved no matter what unfortunately. If we do nothing, and continue to shelter Islam by labeling everyone who questions it an islamaphobe, who knows how much extremists will accomplish in the coming years. How much future violence did the violence of the reformation prevent? lol that is a weird thought.
Third, I didn't read what abagofit said about science based education, but science based education should be everywhere. I'm a little confused by this paragraph of yours, as I've never seen a smart person argue against science based education... so I'm assuming I'm missing something. No religious person would admit that science and religion have a zero sum relationship, but they do. The calming of Christianity over the years has come from absolutely devastating blows from rational thought and science, and the evolving of secular ideas, not religious ones.
Again I'm not sure about setting up schools or whatever, but translating more writing into arabic would be one small way to start. The internet I'm sure has already been a huge help. Not only for Islam, but the decline in religiosity in general over the last decade.
I agree that western intervention plays a role, I just don't think it plays as large a role as the religion does. For instance, I don't see how our foreign policy plays a role in the attack in Pakistan over the weekend.
"I wish everyone took religious less seriously but it's not going to happen any time soon."
As much as I dislike Christianity, I think Christians overall do take their religion less seriously than Muslims do at this moment. When Christians were burning witches and shit, before the reformation... imagine those Christians with modern technology.
Yea I think it's a serious moral dilemma where it's lose-lose either way. You do nothing and horrible shit happens or you do something and everything gets worse.
Post by Rat Tomago on Mar 28, 2016 23:40:35 GMT -5
Religion is one of those things that absolutely cannot be removed by force. Martyrs play heavily for a reason throughout.
I think if you want to take the "Islam is to fault for terrorism in the world" route you are doing yourself a disservice to just say Islam instead of religion in general. Then you are already addressing the biggest US terror groups within your argument and you don't get the inevitable Islamophobia backlash. You'll get different backlash but at least it will stay on topic. I know you've said multiple times that Islam is the highest percentage right now but that's just right now. You're giving up a world of evidence by narrowing your attack
Religion is one of those things that absolutely cannot be removed by force. Martyrs play heavily for a reason throughout. I think if you want to take the "Islam is to fault for terrorism in the world" route you are doing yourself a disservice to just say Islam instead of religion in general. Then you are already addressing the biggest US terror groups within your argument and you don't get the inevitable Islamophobia backlash. You'll get different backlash but at least it will stay on topic.
I know you've said multiple times that Islam is the highest percentage right now but that's just right now. You're giving up a world of evidence by narrowing your attack
That is a great point and I normally don't target Islam specifically, but the whole thing originally started in the context of refugees who are mostly Muslim.
On the whole, it seems religion had been dying a very slow death for a long time, but I think the internet has really accelerated the process.
I think what needs to happen is we focus on things we actually can control. We can't control people's fundamental beliefs. If we try they will push back, and rightfully so. We can help with nation building and working towards a free exchange of ideas. But we can't overstep our bounds. I think @abagofi means well but he's wrong in suggesting we introduce science based education as a way to make people less religious. If we want to help educate them than the goal should be just that. Education so they have a chance at a better future. It should be for the greater good if we are going to do it. To be clear, I think he believes that too but he might not want to lead off with hoping that it makes the people less religious. That's not gonna sell well.
But to be honest, I don't know were the boundaries are in helping with education of foreign populations. It sounds like a slippery slope.
Third, I didn't read what abagofit said about science based education, but science based education should be everywhere. I'm a little confused by this paragraph of yours, as I've never seen a smart person argue against science based education... so I'm assuming I'm missing something. No religious person would admit that science and religion have a zero sum relationship, but they do. The calming of Christianity over the years has come from absolutely devastating blows from rational thought and science, and the evolving of secular ideas, not religious ones.
Full Discluser. Sometimes my dyslexia gets the best of me and I'm not clear. I'll get to your other stuff in a second but to clarify this...
No, I'm not in any way against science based education. I'm for the free exchange of information to the betterment of everyone. I think that's just logical and right.
What I don't feel comfortably with was his stated goal of reducing people's religion through education. It sounds like propaganda. Yeah, that's a likely bi-product of introducing a broader spectrum of ideals and it's one I'm fine with. I was simply saying I don't like that mindset. I don't think it's our place and it shouldn't be our priority. That's what I meant by slippery slope. I don't feel a free and open society should have an agenda when it come's to people's spiritual lives.
It also sounds like something that would backfire quickly.. in this hypothetical situation.
Religion is one of those things that absolutely cannot be removed by force. Martyrs play heavily for a reason throughout. I think if you want to take the "Islam is to fault for terrorism in the world" route you are doing yourself a disservice to just say Islam instead of religion in general. Then you are already addressing the biggest US terror groups within your argument and you don't get the inevitable Islamophobia backlash. You'll get different backlash but at least it will stay on topic.
I know you've said multiple times that Islam is the highest percentage right now but that's just right now. You're giving up a world of evidence by narrowing your attack
That is a great point and I normally don't target Islam specifically, but the whole thing originally started in the context of refugees who are mostly Muslim.
On the whole, it seems religion had been dying a very slow death for a long time, but I think the internet has really accelerated the process.
This is a feeling I used to have but I've come to believe it's mostly something you're seeing because you want to see it. People in general are still quite religious and the Internet may not be helping as much as you think. Consider the cable news epidemic (no other way to phrase it) - there used to be an hour of news on every night that EVERYONE watched and had to form their opinions from (in addition to newspapers and all sorts of hearsay). Any perceived dishonesty or blatant bias would have crushed any of the networks' news divisions. Cable news comes along in the form of entire 24-hour driveldome networks dedicated to hardline stances towards the news they present allowing people to completely ignore the other side of the argument and only get the news they already "know". Newspapers basically don't exist in this country and hearsay is now completely anonymous over the internet where, again, you can pretty much completely ignore opposing arguments if you want to. Sure, you do have access to all the truth you could ever want but that's not really how people use the Internet most of the time.
Religion is one of those things that absolutely cannot be removed by force. Martyrs play heavily for a reason throughout.
I think if you want to take the "Islam is to fault for terrorism in the world" route you are doing yourself a disservice to just say Islam instead of religion in general. Then you are already addressing the biggest US terror groups within your argument and you don't get the inevitable Islamophobia backlash. You'll get different backlash but at least it will stay on topic. I know you've said multiple times that Islam is the highest percentage right now but that's just right now. You're giving up a world of evidence by narrowing your attack
I agree to an extent. Lets extend "religion in general" to "dogma". This way we can include all sorts of tribalism like nationalism all the way down to violence caused by sporting events.
Also, the reason I talk about Islam more often, is because at this moment, Islam causes more harm than Christianity. If I was alive 1000 years ago, I would be saying the opposite.
The problem with your point is that "religion in general" is a term that doesn't tell us much. Religions are very different from each other. Would you look a Jane in the eye and tell them that all religion is equally dangerous? No you wouldn't. If all of the sudden, all Christians and Muslims in the world converted to Jainism, I think we'd both expect to see less violence in the world. Or maybe you wouldn't and I would, and that's where we disagree.
I've already surrendered my influence on this topic, so I just want to share a short video that explains exactly how I feel about the subject:
Third, I didn't read what abagofit said about science based education, but science based education should be everywhere. I'm a little confused by this paragraph of yours, as I've never seen a smart person argue against science based education... so I'm assuming I'm missing something. No religious person would admit that science and religion have a zero sum relationship, but they do. The calming of Christianity over the years has come from absolutely devastating blows from rational thought and science, and the evolving of secular ideas, not religious ones.
Full Discluser. Sometimes my dyslexia gets the best of me and I'm not clear. I'll get to your other stuff in a second but to clarify this...
No, I'm not in any way against science based education. I'm for the free exchange of information to the betterment of everyone. I think that's just logical and right.
What I don't feel comfortably with was his stated goal of reducing people's religion through education. It sounds like propaganda. Yeah, that's a likely bi-product of introducing a broader spectrum of ideals and it's one I'm fine with. I was simply saying I don't like that mindset. I don't think it's our place and it shouldn't be our priority. That's what I meant by slippery slope. I don't feel a free and open society should have an agenda when it come's to people's spiritual lives.
It also sounds like something that would backfire quickly.. in this hypothetical situation.
The stated goal should not be: "We want to make Muslims into Atheists"... although I like that idea. I think that would be a great scenario if it were at all reasonable, but it isn't.
The goal should be to allow people in the middle east to have sufficient access to science and information in general to where they can come to their own conclusions. We should give everyone the chance to think for themselves and see all sides of a debate. This might help to insert just the slightest bit of doubt into the mind of a suicide bomber, or maybe convert a few extremists into merely conservatives.
I'm not challenging you here. I'm just saying I think we probably agree on this small part of it.
Full Discluser. Sometimes my dyslexia gets the best of me and I'm not clear. I'll get to your other stuff in a second but to clarify this...
No, I'm not in any way against science based education. I'm for the free exchange of information to the betterment of everyone. I think that's just logical and right.
What I don't feel comfortably with was his stated goal of reducing people's religion through education. It sounds like propaganda. Yeah, that's a likely bi-product of introducing a broader spectrum of ideals and it's one I'm fine with. I was simply saying I don't like that mindset. I don't think it's our place and it shouldn't be our priority. That's what I meant by slippery slope. I don't feel a free and open society should have an agenda when it come's to people's spiritual lives.
It also sounds like something that would backfire quickly.. in this hypothetical situation.
The stated goal should not be: "We want to make Muslims into Atheists"... although I like that idea. I think that would be a great scenario if it were at all reasonable, but it isn't.
The goal should be to allow people in the middle east to have sufficient access to science and information in general to where they can come to their own conclusions. We should give everyone the chance to think for themselves and see all sides of a debate. This might help to insert just the slightest bit of doubt into the mind of a suicide bomber, or maybe convert a few extremists into merely conservatives.
I'm not challenging you here. I'm just saying I think we probably agree on this small part of it.
Yeah, this right here.
Also, I think just having a broader course of studies would be so helpful for people stuck in slums or areas where they have very little opportunity. The more areas of study the bigger the chance people would find hobbies and interests that would lead them away from situations where they might be recruited or just get into negative situation in general.
The stated goal should not be: "We want to make Muslims into Atheists"... although I like that idea. I think that would be a great scenario if it were at all reasonable, but it isn't.
The goal should be to allow people in the middle east to have sufficient access to science and information in general to where they can come to their own conclusions. We should give everyone the chance to think for themselves and see all sides of a debate. This might help to insert just the slightest bit of doubt into the mind of a suicide bomber, or maybe convert a few extremists into merely conservatives.
I'm not challenging you here. I'm just saying I think we probably agree on this small part of it.
Yeah, this right here.
Also, I think just having a broader course of studies would be so helpful for people stuck in slums or areas where they have very little opportunity. The more areas of study the bigger the chance people would find hobbies and interests that would lead them away from situations where they might be recruited or just get into negative situation in general.
Yea I didn't mean to imply a forceful takeover of religion by science. I meant that religious doubt is a natural byproduct of science.
Religion is one of those things that absolutely cannot be removed by force. Martyrs play heavily for a reason throughout.
I think if you want to take the "Islam is to fault for terrorism in the world" route you are doing yourself a disservice to just say Islam instead of religion in general. Then you are already addressing the biggest US terror groups within your argument and you don't get the inevitable Islamophobia backlash. You'll get different backlash but at least it will stay on topic. I know you've said multiple times that Islam is the highest percentage right now but that's just right now. You're giving up a world of evidence by narrowing your attack
I agree to an extent. Lets extend "religion in general" to "dogma". This way we can include all sorts of tribalism like nationalism all the way down to violence caused by sporting events.
Also, the reason I talk about Islam more often, is because at this moment, Islam causes more harm than Christianity. If I was alive 1000 years ago, I would be saying the opposite.
The problem with your point is that "religion in general" is a term that doesn't tell us much. Religions are very different from each other. Would you look a Jane in the eye and tell them that all religion is equally dangerous? No you wouldn't. If all of the sudden, all Christians and Muslims in the world converted to Jainism, I think we'd both expect to see less violence in the world. Or maybe you wouldn't and I would, and that's where we disagree.
I've already surrendered my influence on this topic, so I just want to share a short video that explains exactly how I feel about the subject:
I'm with you here. I think it was Hitchens who said, "All religions are equally ridiculous, but not all religions are equally dangerous". Might be misquoting him a bit, but that was the general idea.
And I'm a big fan of Sam Harris as well. He seems to get a bad rap from people labeling him a bigot, islamophobe, etc., but when I hear him speak and read his writings, he just seems about as reasonable and thoughtful as it gets when it comes to this stuff. And he has always been able to keep his emotions in check and stay relatively mild-mannered when debating these topics, which I can't always say about some other nonbeliever/free-thinkers. I don't agree with him on everything, but I have a lot of respect for the guy.
Full Discluser. Sometimes my dyslexia gets the best of me and I'm not clear. I'll get to your other stuff in a second but to clarify this...
No, I'm not in any way against science based education. I'm for the free exchange of information to the betterment of everyone. I think that's just logical and right.
What I don't feel comfortably with was his stated goal of reducing people's religion through education. It sounds like propaganda. Yeah, that's a likely bi-product of introducing a broader spectrum of ideals and it's one I'm fine with. I was simply saying I don't like that mindset. I don't think it's our place and it shouldn't be our priority. That's what I meant by slippery slope. I don't feel a free and open society should have an agenda when it come's to people's spiritual lives.
It also sounds like something that would backfire quickly.. in this hypothetical situation.
The stated goal should not be: "We want to make Muslims into Atheists"... although I like that idea. I think that would be a great scenario if it were at all reasonable, but it isn't.
The goal should be to allow people in the middle east to have sufficient access to science and information in general to where they can come to their own conclusions. We should give everyone the chance to think for themselves and see all sides of a debate. This might help to insert just the slightest bit of doubt into the mind of a suicide bomber, or maybe convert a few extremists into merely conservatives.
I'm not challenging you here. I'm just saying I think we probably agree on this small part of it.
Really I just want to live in a world where everyone thinks about this stuff for themselves and with an open mind, and doesn't believe in things that they can't prove. It seems like such a simple way of doing things and the obvious way to go about forming one's opinions, yet sadly, that scenario seems like a long ways away. Partly for the reason you mentioned, unfortunately a bunch of people just aren't presented with all the available information, and/or don't have the freedom to access that information.
I was introduced to him through a vid of him having an apologist attitude towards the Neocons. I'm sure he's a smart dude and all. That just set me against him. I'll give him another go at some point. Anyway, He just said something about "if you do nothing else about Brussels, lose your patience to those that lie about Islam." Which seem to fit your response. haha.
The problem with the Reformation idea is that people focus on what came after it. Their expectations are on the Enlightenment that's sure to follow. They forget just how violent the Reformation was and what ideas it helped foster in people(antisemitism being one). So looking at the divides that already exists between the different sects and governments in the Muslim world, this is a dangerous wish.
I think what needs to happen is we focus on things we actually can control. We can't control people's fundamental beliefs. If we try they will push back, and rightfully so. We can help with nation building and working towards a free exchange of ideas. But we can't overstep our bounds. I think @abagofi means well but he's wrong in suggesting we introduce science based education as a way to make people less religious. If we want to help educate them than the goal should be just that. Education so they have a chance at a better future. It should be for the greater good if we are going to do it. To be clear, I think he believes that too but he might not want to lead off with hoping that it makes the people less religious. That's not gonna sell well.
But to be honest, I don't know were the boundaries are in helping with education of foreign populations. It sounds like a slippery slope.
Opening up the free exchange of ideas through internet technology should be one goal. That's on top of some online education initiative? Just a flight of fancy but it's workable and maybe more cost effective then setting up schools in isolated regions. The problem here is stuff being labeled western propaganda by some governments or local sects.
A fair deal between Palestine and Israel would be the long term prize here. I feel it's the right thing to do and it's something that needs to be done for long term peace. If we come through on our promises and start chipping away at the Jihadist ability to paint the West in a negative light we'll be doing ourselves a huge favor long term. I say this knowing that this would be a huge undertaking.
As for what to do about Syria and ISIS.... I've no clue. Not bomb everything because it's never lead to a positive long term effect?
I wish everyone took religious less seriously but it's not going to happen any time soon.
This is just my random outdated thoughts. I've been out of the political loop for a couple years and the Middle East isn't the funnest subject to jump back into.
Here's what he thinks about Neocons. Overall he doesn't have bad intentions, but certainly does not feel like he owes his mind to a political party or certain ideology. He's said he thinks about every idea and topic through the frame of "what is for the greater good of humanity." When I listen to him I really hear that sincerity in his points. However, I disagree with him on many topics. But I am a fan of where he comes from.
Yeah, I didn't take it as him being a member of a party. I usually don't even care about party affiliation until they say crazy shit.I like his point on how our election cycle disrupts long term nation building. I find it's weird that he didn't take a side or couldn't make a decision on if the Iraq war was the right call or not. That's not a slight. It just seems weird that someone so focused and knowledgeable on the region couldn't decide if it was the right call. I'll have to look up what else he has to say about that.
To your second paragraph, it seems like violence will be involved no matter what unfortunately. If we do nothing, and continue to shelter Islam by labeling everyone who questions it an islamaphobe, who knows how much extremists will accomplish in the coming years. How much future violence did the violence of the reformation prevent? lol that is a weird thought.
I wasn't really speaking to the violence as much as to the fact that their can't be a Muslim Reformation without some sects losing and being resentful. The sides are just way to entrenched. Which will have repercussions in the future. But yeah, it's the same thing I guess. Violence either way. The best thing to hope for is that the different sects evolve individually over time but that's not happened yet so...
Shelter Islam how, in a figurative scene? I just don't think many people will agree with the assessment that it's mostly Islam's fault. At the very least, people seem to view calling out the "flawed" teachings as being counterproductive. Which we can assume is not to alienate a good portion of the planet.
I don't really know the best solution. That's just the way I see it.
Again I'm not sure about setting up schools or whatever, but translating more writing into arabic would be one small way to start. The internet I'm sure has already been a huge help. Not only for Islam, but the decline in religiosity in general over the last decade.
Again, I was just spitballing I wasn't suggesting setting up schools ourselves, as much as finding a way to subsidize them. Which is the main reason I brought up the internet because spreading educational materials online seems the most cost effective and far reaching.
The net has done a fuckton for humanity. The amount of knowledge at our fingertips is staggering. I remember watching livestreamers on the ground when the Syrian civil war broke out. It was fascinating how hard they had to work just to get feeds out. Of course Twitter has played a big role in dissident coordination in the Arab word. The tech is there it's just heavily monitored at the moment.
I agree that western intervention plays a role, I just don't think it plays as large a role as the religion does. For instance, I don't see how our foreign policy plays a role in the attack in Pakistan over the weekend.
I have a feeling that if someone bombed my hometown and killed my family, that would make me a lot more inclined to turn to militant action than a holy book. No one should believe this is all about our foreign policy but we've certainly played a large role in this mess over the last century. A lot of the propagandist just remix local footage and spin whatever narrative they want on it. I remember Syrian propaganda that would show the same hospital in videos meant blaming the regime and the separatist.
It looks like the jihadist are trying to draw the Pakistan military out into the mountains where they have somewhat of an advantage in guerilla fighting. That's just an assumption. These asshole are typical interested in protracted skirmishes to unsettle the region.
As much as I dislike Christianity, I think Christians overall do take their religion less seriously than Muslims do at this moment. When Christians were burning witches and shit, before the reformation... imagine those Christians with modern technology.
I don't think people in Christian countries have done much better than the witch burners before them. They just justify it differently and have more advanced goals than getting rid of a neighbor they didn't like or whatever those dumbasses were really doing. In a lot of ways the lead up to the Iraq war and the endless lies that got us involved were a witch hunt. Would it be worse if we once again bombed Iraq into the stone age under a Christian regime? We still did it and hundreds of thousands of people died all the same. Bush sprinkling his lies with Bible verses wouldn't have changed anything. Humans doing shitty things is just that.
I'm with you here. I think it was Hitchens who said, "All religions are equally ridiculous, but not all religions are equally dangerous". Might be misquoting him a bit, but that was the general idea.
And I'm a big fan of Sam Harris as well. He seems to get a bad rap from people labeling him a bigot, islamophobe, etc., but when I hear him speak and read his writings, he just seems about as reasonable and thoughtful as it gets when it comes to this stuff. And he has always been able to keep his emotions in check and stay relatively mild-mannered when debating these topics, which I can't always say about some other nonbeliever/free-thinkers. I don't agree with him on everything, but I have a lot of respect for the guy.
Yeah Hitchens is/was someone else I admire a lot.
Harris gets labeled as a bigot, white supremacist, etc... because its the easiest move in the world. You don't have to engage in an actual discussion of ideas if you just smear someone instead. I'd invite you to read much of what went on in the political thread if you want to see how that works first hand.
Here's what he thinks about Neocons. Overall he doesn't have bad intentions, but certainly does not feel like he owes his mind to a political party or certain ideology. He's said he thinks about every idea and topic through the frame of "what is for the greater good of humanity." When I listen to him I really hear that sincerity in his points. However, I disagree with him on many topics. But I am a fan of where he comes from.
Yeah, I didn't take it as him being a member of a party. I usually don't even care about party affiliation until they say crazy shit.I like his point on how our election cycle disrupts long term nation building. I find it's weird that he didn't take a side or couldn't make a decision on if the Iraq war was the right call or not. That's not a slight. It just seems weird that someone so focused and knowledgeable on the region couldn't decide if it was the right call. I'll have to look up what else he has to say about that.
To your second paragraph, it seems like violence will be involved no matter what unfortunately. If we do nothing, and continue to shelter Islam by labeling everyone who questions it an islamaphobe, who knows how much extremists will accomplish in the coming years. How much future violence did the violence of the reformation prevent? lol that is a weird thought.
I wasn't really speaking to the violence as much as to the fact that their can't be a Muslim Reformation without some sects losing and being resentful. The sides are just way to entrenched. Which will have repercussions in the future. But yeah, it's the same thing I guess. Violence either way. The best thing to hope for is that the different sects evolve individually over time but that's not happened yet so...
Shelter Islam how, in a figurative scene? I just don't think many people will agree with the assessment that it's mostly Islam's fault. At the very least, people seem to view calling out the "flawed" teachings as being counterproductive. Which we can assume is not to alienate a good portion of the planet.
I don't really know the best solution. That's just the way I see it.
Again I'm not sure about setting up schools or whatever, but translating more writing into arabic would be one small way to start. The internet I'm sure has already been a huge help. Not only for Islam, but the decline in religiosity in general over the last decade.
Again, I was just spitballing I wasn't suggesting setting up schools ourselves, as much as finding a way to subsidize them. Which is the main reason I brought up the internet because spreading educational materials online seems the most cost effective and far reaching.
The net has done a fuckton for humanity. The amount of knowledge at our fingertips is staggering. I remember watching livestreamers on the ground when the Syrian civil war broke out. It was fascinating how hard they had to work just to get feeds out. Of course Twitter has played a big role in dissident coordination in the Arab word. The tech is there it's just heavily monitored at the moment.
I agree that western intervention plays a role, I just don't think it plays as large a role as the religion does. For instance, I don't see how our foreign policy plays a role in the attack in Pakistan over the weekend.
I have a feeling that if someone bombed my hometown and killed my family, that would make me a lot more inclined to turn to militant action than a holy book. No one should believe this is all about our foreign policy but we've certainly played a large role in this mess over the last century. A lot of the propagandist just remix local footage and spin whatever narrative they want on it. I remember Syrian propaganda that would show the same hospital in videos meant blaming the regime and the separatist.
It looks like the jihadist are trying to draw the Pakistan military out into the mountains where they have somewhat of an advantage in guerilla fighting. That's just an assumption. These asshole are typical interested in protracted skirmishes to unsettle the region.
As much as I dislike Christianity, I think Christians overall do take their religion less seriously than Muslims do at this moment. When Christians were burning witches and shit, before the reformation... imagine those Christians with modern technology.
I don't think people in Christian countries have done much better than the witch burners before them. They just justify it differently and have more advanced goals than getting rid of a neighbor they didn't like or whatever those dumbasses were really doing. In a lot of ways the lead up to the Iraq war and the endless lies that got us involved were a witch hunt. Would it be worse if we once again bombed Iraq into the stone age under a Christian regime? We still did it and hundreds of thousands of people died all the same. Bush sprinkling his lies with Bible verses wouldn't have changed anything. Humans doing shitty things is just that.
1. I think its refreshing to see someone admit to struggle on a topic. Again, I don't even agree with him here, I just find him to be a respectable thinker who doesn't just parrot the views of a particular party. Its much like what I would say of Hitchens. You legitimately could never tell what side of an argument Hitchens would land on because he was so pure and unconstrained in his thought. This is something I admire and am trying to get better at. For years, when an issue would come up, I'd scramble to find the liberal argument and not even consider the other side.
2. When I say "shelter Islam" I mean a couple of things. Moderates of all religions have made it taboo to criticize religions. This is a problem when fighting wacko ideology. I think religion should be the least taboo subject in the world. If you believe your cracker is actually the body of Jesus Christ, you need to be laughed at and that idea needs to be criticized. We aren't even allowed to start the conversation and "war of ideas" because when someone merely mentions that there is a lot of garbage in the Holy Books, they will quickly be labeled a bigot or just an asshole. This is so counterproductive and hurtful to the cause IMO. And btw, I'm extremely grateful that you've been able to disagree with me here without completely ruling me out as a bad person. Its more rare than you think.
3. I'm comfortable leaving this here, unless you wanted to go further with it.
4. But why would you be motivated to kill Christian Pakistan women and children along with yourself? They had nothing to do with those bombings. In fact, they are dealing with THE SAME OPPRESSION as you. I know you said something about unsettling the region, but come on. They literally said "we did this because they were Christian. My line of thinking is as follows: They are carrying out actions that are explicitly promoted in their holy texts. They are doing things that Mohammed himself would more than likely approve of. AND they are saying that these are the exact reasons they are doing it. That is just overwhelming for me.
5. Again I just don't see the stats where Christians are doing as much harm in the world at this point in time. Are you saying our foreign policy on Christianity?
I think we need to talk more about your last sentence. It promotes the talking point used a bunch here that "bad people do bad things." This implies that certain people are somehow inherently bad. What does that even mean? Do you think people come out of the womb "bad" and ready to blow up civilians.
People are conditioned in many, many ways. One major conditioner is Religion in my opinion. This idea of "bad people" is starting to make less and less sense to me the more I type. What about Nazis? Was every Nazi just randomly a bad person? Or were they influenced and conditioned by a dogmatic set of values and ideas? Surely, those people weren't just born bad.
Finally, if bad people are just doing bad shit, and more Muslims are currently doing the worst shit, wouldn't THAT be a tad bit racist. Before I go on, I understand you are going to clarify why I'm not understanding that viewpoint and am not calling you a racist at all. I'm just going through this in my head. But wouldn't you be saying that, at this moment, more Muslims are inherently bad people since they are carrying out most of the terror attacks? When the stats show that Christians and Muslims are far more likely to be anti-gay, are we saying that Atheists are just "good people" inherently, or that Atheists just don't have to struggle with being raised with an awful ideology?
I was on date #2 with a girl who had told me she didn't go to church often, mostly because she didn't think religion needed to be organized, but she had a strong belief in the Christian God and it was a big part of who she was as a person. I told her that I was not religious (avoiding using the term atheist because I wanted to go on more dates with her, which all sounds stupid as I type it) and didn't believe in her God. She didn't know how to handle the idea that I didn't need dogma or religion in my life, but this wasn't the part that bothered her the most. She didn't know if she wanted to continue to go on dates with someone if she didn't think she could have kids with that person. And this wasn't so much about whether the kid would follow her religion or my lack of religion (let's try to ignore the talking about kids on the second date for a moment).
Her key point was as follows: She asked me what I would do if my mom went into a coma. I could tell she trying to see if I would say anything about praying for my mom to survive. I told her that I would hope that the medical professionals did their best and hoped that my mom would make it out or that she wasn't suffering. It was at this point that she said "well, see that is why I would be afraid to ever have kids with someone who isn't a Christian. If our kid got hurt or sick, I wouldn't view you as doing everything you possibly could to save our kid because you wouldn't be praying that God heals our kid."
So let's go back over this. She doesn't hardly ever go to church. She doesn't think religion requires organization. She thinks the Bible is symbolic and not to be taken literally. She questions what kind of parent I would be. She talks about possibly having children with me one day on date #2.
But above all of that, the thing that fucks me the most is that she obviously believes that praying to her God has an actual impact in the life or death outcome of a dying young child. She thinks that if I didn't pray to her God, that her God would allow our child to die. And despite all of this, she still thinks this God is "love" and that this God is a huge part of her life.
Post by Jake Jortles on Mar 29, 2016 17:33:29 GMT -5
I dont even know what my face would look like if someone said something that stupid to me. Ive had plenty of girls say they couldnt date me because of how they want to raise their kids, but this is almost creative. I want to give her props on some level.
I was on date #2 with a girl who had told me she didn't go to church often, mostly because she didn't think religion needed to be organized, but she had a strong belief in the Christian God and it was a big part of who she was as a person. I told her that I was not religious (avoiding using the term atheist because I wanted to go on more dates with her, which all sounds stupid as I type it) and didn't believe in her God. She didn't know how to handle the idea that I didn't need dogma or religion in my life, but this wasn't the part that bothered her the most. She didn't know if she wanted to continue to go on dates with someone if she didn't think she could have kids with that person. And this wasn't so much about whether the kid would follow her religion or my lack of religion (let's try to ignore the talking about kids on the second date for a moment).
Her key point was as follows: She asked me what I would do if my mom went into a coma. I could tell she trying to see if I would say anything about praying for my mom to survive. I told her that I would hope that the medical professionals did their best and hoped that my mom would make it out or that she wasn't suffering. It was at this point that she said "well, see that is why I would be afraid to ever have kids with someone who isn't a Christian. If our kid got hurt or sick, I wouldn't view you as doing everything you possibly could to save our kid because you wouldn't be praying that God heals our kid."
So let's go back over this. She doesn't hardly ever go to church. She doesn't think religion requires organization. She thinks the Bible is symbolic and not to be taken literally. She questions what kind of parent I would be. She talks about possibly having children with me one day on date #2.
But above all of that, the thing that fucks me the most is that she obviously believes that praying to her God has an actual impact in the life or death outcome of a dying young child. She thinks that if I didn't pray to her God, that her God would allow our child to die. And despite all of this, she still thinks this God is "love" and that this God is a huge part of her life.
Wow that's pretty intense for a second date.
Harvard did an experiment on the effects of prayer a few years ago that I found extremely interesting, although the results didn't really surprise me. They took 1800 surgery patients from 6 hospitals, and placed them into 3 groups. Group 1 were told that they may or may not be prayed for, and were actually prayed for. Group 2 were told that they may or may not be prayed for, and they weren't prayed for. Group 3 were told that they were going to be prayed for, and were prayed for. The group that had the highest percentage of complications was Group 3 at 59%, with Group 1 at 52% and Group 2 at 51%.
Basically they concluded that prayer didn't help with the success of the surgery, and that those told they were going to be prayed for experienced more complications.
There has been quite a few other studies on the subject as well. I could provide some links, but I'm lazy and you guys can just google it if you want find out more. Pretty fascinating stuff whether you're religious or not.
Harvard did an experiment on the effects of prayer a few years ago that I found extremely interesting, although the results didn't really surprise me. They took 1800 surgery patients from 6 hospitals, and placed them into 3 groups. Group 1 were told that they may or may not be prayed for, and were actually prayed for. Group 2 were told that they may or may not be prayed for, and they weren't prayed for. Group 3 were told that they were going to be prayed for, and were prayed for. The group that had the highest percentage of complications was Group 3 at 59%, with Group 1 at 52% and Group 2 at 51%.
Basically they concluded that prayer didn't help with the success of the surgery, and that those told they were going to be prayed for experienced more complications.
There has been quite a few other studies on the subject as well. I could provide some links, but I'm lazy and you guys can just google it if you want find out more. Pretty fascinating stuff whether you're religious or not.
I think a study similar to that was cited in Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. I guess the reason may be that the people who knew they were being prayed for didn't feel they needed to fight as hard, since they had so much help? Bizarre.
Either way, I'm sure the girl in question will forgive jaikicker as soon as she reads those studies.
Post by Radius Claus on Mar 29, 2016 21:13:46 GMT -5
I'm not trying to convince anyone to think a certain way. Just hoping to be respected as much as I try to respect those around me. If you want something specific, check the title. It's nothing but love from my side.
It doesn't matter much, but in case you didn't notice, this thread is like 4 years old and the most recent post before we revived it was 2 years old. This current stuff we're talking about was a carry over from the political thread and is of a slightly different nature than the original topic.
1. I think its refreshing to see someone admit to struggle on a topic. Again, I don't even agree with him here, I just find him to be a respectable thinker who doesn't just parrot the views of a particular party. Its much like what I would say of Hitchens. You legitimately could never tell what side of an argument Hitchens would land on because he was so pure and unconstrained in his thought. This is something I admire and am trying to get better at. For years, when an issue would come up, I'd scramble to find the liberal argument and not even consider the other side.
True. That's why I said I wanted to hear more of what he had to say on it. The part on Hussain was a very succinct point on the problems in the Middle East. That being the idea that the if best thing to do is to let a brutal dictator keep power.
2. When I say "shelter Islam" I mean a couple of things. Moderates of all religions have made it taboo to criticize religions. This is a problem when fighting wacko ideology. I think religion should be the least taboo subject in the world. If you believe your cracker is actually the body of Jesus Christ, you need to be laughed at and that idea needs to be criticized. We aren't even allowed to start the conversation and "war of ideas" because when someone merely mentions that there is a lot of garbage in the Holy Books, they will quickly be labeled a bigot or just an asshole. This is so counterproductive and hurtful to the cause IMO. And btw, I'm extremely grateful that you've been able to disagree with me here without completely ruling me out as a bad person. Its more rare than you think.
Would laughing at someone for believing in the communion not be hurtful to the cause and counterproductive? I say this as someone who grew up in the Bible Belt. Mocking someone's religion doesn't get them to open up to your ideas. The real hardcore ones will just think you're "lost," which implies the devil has influence over your life. They're not going to listen to you. Take this from someone that's made fun of a lot of bible thumpers. It doesn't get you anywhere.
But yes, I agree that there should be more open debate about religion's role in events. The thing atheist don't seem to get is mocking someone's religion shuts you out really fast. and who care's if someone believes a cracker is symbolic of the body of Christ? If you're going to debate someone keep it on topic and if religious dogma stands in the way debate the specifics then. If you want a "war of ideas" learn to pick your battles.
That's not really aimed at you. It's just something very common among atheist. Taken cheep shots just to take them. It gives them this air of superiority which isn't at all conducive to open dialogue.
4. But why would you be motivated to kill Christian Pakistan women and children along with yourself? They had nothing to do with those bombings. In fact, they are dealing with THE SAME OPPRESSION as you. I know you said something about unsettling the region, but come on. They literally said "we did this because they were Christian. My line of thinking is as follows: They are carrying out actions that are explicitly promoted in their holy texts. They are doing things that Mohammed himself would more than likely approve of. AND they are saying that these are the exact reasons they are doing it. That is just overwhelming for me.
Is it not obvious? Christianity is a symbol of the West and Western intervention. I'd imagine they'd also justify it as a way to get "non-believers" out of their country. I wasn't trying to argue otherwise. I was speaking in much broader terms because you are arguing that foreign policy has less effect than religion. On a worldwide scale I don't think that's true. The majority of the attacks we are seeing are politically motivated and have at least some connection to foreign intervention. Not just by the west-- Iraq, China and India all stick their beak in Pakistan. Geopolitics do have a massive factor here. It leads people that feel helpless to feel that violence is justified in making their point or reaching their ends.
As to the recent attack in Pakistan. i wasn't trying to downplay those they attacked. Bad wording on my part. I brought up the military tactic more as an observation but it does fit in with their stated goal to establish themselves as the most aggressive and violent group in Pakistan. They are an offshoot of the Pakistan Taliban. remember those guys? Who's rise was partially funded by US aid. Then you have the overflow of fighting from the Afgan war and thousands of drone attacks in northern Pakistan. Which has been highly criticized by every aspect of Pakistan society.
Living in this kind of environment and having it effect your life seems more of a factor to cause someone to react violently. Much more than badly interpreted scripture. The scripture doesn't help. It absolutely can be used to brainwash people and give them a sense that what they are doing is justified. I just think saying this is mostly because of religion is being blind to many other factors that actually have a tangible affect on these people's lives.
To clarify, I'm talking about the suicide bombers and young people they recruit into their ranks. Not the propaganda pushers or leader that wants to be a Caliphate. Which usually has to do with their ego and need for power in these cases.