Religion

[Konrad]

Well ... I never did claim you're a troll, though of course I was an accomplice in intentionally implying it. Sure, I'll admit that I'm doing a little bit of passive trolling myself.
 
I thought it best to stick to the thread topic - religion. I thought it best to try avoiding further discussions of politics and racism since I am clearly an intolerant ignorant hater anyhow.  Besides, those topics don't even interest me.
 
 
Religion is perfectly free to accept and promote religious doctrine. But religion has no right to impose that doctrine on science with the expectation that science will accept doctrines that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Religion must accept that science will be compelled to confirm or refute the assumed validity of the doctrine.
 
Science deals with observable phenomena that can be reproduced or verified. But science has no authority to categorically decree that only observed phenomena exist while unobserved phenomena do not. Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.

[wellington1869]

Religion is perfectly free to accept and promote religious doctrine. But religion has no right to impose that doctrine on science with the expectation that science will accept doctrines that cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Religion must accept that science will be compelled to confirm or refute the assumed validity of the doctrine.
 
Science deals with observable phenomena that can be reproduced or verified. But science has no authority to categorically decree that only observed phenomena exist while unobserved phenomena do not. Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.

that was basically kant's position. it implicitly supports the separation of church-n-state, creating a truce that has held now for 200 years in the west.  And relegates religion to the personal sphere (preventing theocracy) and relegates science to the public sphere (preventing marxist/atheist dictatorship).  This is how the west avoided (internally anyway) the extremes of (right wing) theocracies and (left wing) dictatorships that have roiled the rest of the world.  I'm all for it too, and have no quarrel with you on that one.

[wellington1869]

our muslim miss usa also thinks the mosque is too close to ground zero.

look konrad, shockers!
-miss usa is a muslim! shocker!
-she doesnt like the 9/11 mosque. shocker!
-she still considers herself a muslim! shocker! despite the swimsuit competition! and her rejection of sharia! how about that.

i'll give you a minute to sit down and let it all sink in.  I know this must be rocking your world-view and your understanding of geo-politics right now.

[Konrad]

Konrad munches on his cereal in third person.  Fruit loops, wheeeeee.

[wellington1869]

Konrad munches on his cereal in third person.  Fruit loops, wheeeeee.

isnt fruit loops made by "american bigots"?  surprised to see you havent boycotted froot loops or something.

I'd rather you eat your words

[Lanx]

that was basically kant's position. it implicitly supports the separation of church-n-state, creating a truce that has held now for 200 years in the west.  And relegates religion to the personal sphere (preventing theocracy) and relegates science to the public sphere (preventing marxist/atheist dictatorship).  This is how the west avoided (internally anyway) the extremes of (right wing) theocracies and (left wing) dictatorships that have roiled the rest of the world.  I'm all for it too, and have no quarrel with you on that one.

didn't wacko's in the south get legislation passed through to teach evolution and creationism in public schools?

[wellington1869]

didn't wacko's in the south get legislation passed through to teach evolution and creationism in public schools?

thats in kansas. Yup, as with any large complex society, we have our share of theocrats who try constantly to usurp government (and we have our share of wacky leftist marxists who try to do the same), both trying to establish dictatorships.  And no, they've not succeeded yet (taking over a school board does not a revolution make). Its being challenged in court (same in texas) and has been the mockery of the rest of the nation.

I hope you're not suggesting that a handful of nutjobs taking over a schoolboard is the same as theocratic saudi arabia or maoist china during the cultural revolution there. Cuz its not

In fact this is precisely what makes america so resilient in the face of extremist challenge (where most of the rest of the world has succumbed to extremists): the checks and balances built into our system of government. Its extraordinarily difficult for one group to take over with increasing levels of challenge from the rest of the system.  Elections, checks and balances, separations of powers, separation of the branches of government, free press, bill of rights for individuals, etc etc, all ensure that takeover attempts have been successfully thwarted for 200 years.  Of course they'll keep trying - like extremists anywhere in the world - they try. They've succeeded elsewhere in taking over entire nations; they've not succeeded here (and wont).  

There's nothing magical about it; the system of govt was designed precisely to make it difficult for one group to take over and written into law that way. You can thank the farsightedness of the american founding fathers, whatever else their flaws (and indeed they were human beings of their time and place), there's no question about their maturity and far sightedness as far as devising the constitution and government goes, not only to prevent usurpation, but additionally, to allow at the same time for government to evolve slowly in response to changing times and unforeseeable challenges.

The west faced the same challenges of modernity that the rest of the world faces: disruptive technologies that obliterate previous social relationships, that continuously equalize power and threaten to result in anarchy or dictatorship. All traditional societies had to change in the face of modernity, and so did the traditional fuedal west. So far only some form of democracy has proven resilient enough, however imperfectly, to continue to meet those challenges.

[wellington1869]

I  think it was this guy.

Isn't he a Muslim?  He LOOKS Muslim.

Show Image

the governor of louisiana. it wasnt him (tho he probably supports it for political reasons). he's not muslim, he's christian (and indian).

[wellington1869]

but this is what i dont get about konrad's nihilism though.
lets say, in some unimaginable nightmarish future, america gets taken over by christian bigots.
my question to konrad is: who's side would konrad be on?

my answer: konrad would side with the christian bigots. Despite his supposed rejection of those values. Why do i say this? not to be a troll. I say this because konrad has, in effect, said just that.

konrad's position:
1. this is a religious war.
2. christian nutjobs holding power in the west would only prove (1)
3. solution: muslims should band together to oppose them.
4. presto! religious war.

My position:
1. if christians were to take over the american govt, why wouldnt konrad support the leftists opposing them in america?
2. Why on earth would he approvingly okay muslims 'banding together' under the banner of islam? If he's a leftist, shouldnt he oppose that there, just like he'd oppose it here?
3. why would he similarly ignore muslim leftists opposing their theocrats? just as he apparently wants to ignore american leftists opposing a christianized ameircan govt?
4. why cant he imagine a scenario where american leftists and muslim leftists make common cause? If he were a real leftist, that is precisely what he ought to do.

instead, he's so enamored with the prospect of global religious war, that he would encourage muslims to join a theocracy (wow) and would 'define' america as one (despite all the american opposition to it).

this is what makes konrad as conservative as hamas - cuz hamas would do precisely the same steps. Make leftists vanish on all sides. pretend they dont exist - or actively persecute them as 'traitors' to their 'nation'.  Thats what konrad wants. and cannot imagine any alternative to it. (he also cant imagine the diversity of thought on the muslim side - just like hamas cant imagine it, just like christian bigots cant imagine it).

thats not leftism, whatever it is. Konrad would be saying (and doing) exactly what hamas would be saying and doing, and exactly what the christian bigots would be saying and doing.  Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. Is a duck.

[wellington1869]

Sure looks Muslim.

wikipedia is your friend

[quadibloc]

Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.

People can apply rational thought to religion.

It isn't just when religions do things like affirming the Genesis account of Creation as literally true that they cross the path of empirical knowledge. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was an event alleged to have been observed; as such, it's a legitimate historical question as to whether or not it happened.

Science can also talk about what people's motivations are for thinking there is likely to be an afterlife, and the mechanisms by which religious belief is propagated.

One doesn't need to be a scientist to note the obvious fact that of the people in the world who profess some religious faith, the overwhelming majority follow the same faith as they were taught in their early childhood by their parents. And there are many different religious faiths in the world, which teach contradictory things.

If that doesn't make it obvious that none of them are worth taking seriously, what does?

And yet... while there may be no reason to take seriously the dogmas of any revealed religion, does that mean that we should deny that we see what we see, we hear what we hear - and this phenomenon, consciousness, can't quite be fully explained in mechanical terms? That doesn't have to imply a spirit world or an afterlife, just that there are aspects of reality we don't quite have a good vocabulary to discuss just yet.

And we can't say exactly why some things are right and other things are wrong, but we still should know that this isn't just an arbitrary choice that we can make any way we please (or which suits our interests).

We need to keep the baby and throw out the bathwater before it drowns us. But hardly anyone seems to be making the distinction.

[Konrad]

didn't wacko's in the south get legislation passed through to teach evolution and creationism in public schools?

thats in kansas. Yup, as with any large complex society, we have our share of theocrats who try constantly to usurp government ...

The strategy of teaching Intelligent Design as a valid theory was very clever. After all, Natural Selection (popularly misnomered as Evolution) is also a theory. ID is argued to merely be another theory which is no more or less legitimate than NS. No matter how obvious and fundamental either theory might appear (to most people), they are each ultimately impossible to categorically prove or disprove by any scientific test.
 
Advocates of ID state it is a compromise between creationist holy canon and modern scientific evidence which doesn't invalidate either. The random mechanism of evolution is shaped by divine guidance so that humans and all other living things in this world exist as the "designer" intended.
 
Advocates of NS criticize ID as simply being a refined version of the genesis creation myth. ID still assumes a divine creator exists and is critical for humanity to exist, while the process of NS is not "random" at all when viewed on evolutionary timescales.
 
Some of the popular respectability for ID theory arises from the general hostility in the scientific community in accepting ID. Supporters of NS state that ID isn't valid because it's based on incomplete and inaccurate understanding of what NS really is. Supporters of IS point at the apparent hypocrisy of scientists unwilling to discard "their" old theory in the face of evidence that ID is a better explanation.
 
Due to ID's official recognition as a valid theory, it is a legally acceptable alternative for those who find the notion of NS difficult to reconcile with creationist dogma. ID provides a legal alternative where schools would prefer to not teach NS.
 

... (taking over a school board does not a revolution make) ...

I agree with you here welly (surprise), and I won't use your quote to undermine your argument.
 
But I wouldn't dismiss the "threat" so casually. Education is the most powerful form of propaganda that exists. Manipulating education allows immense influence on people.  Not only because of the facts they are taught, but the manner of thinking about what they learn.
 
Note that I use the word propaganda here (as before, many many posts ago) as a neutral term, briefly touched upon in the (poorly written) Wikipedia definition. Every nation, every school, every parent, every religion uses propaganda ... indoctrination through the propagation of ideas, values, and beliefs. Cultures cannot exist without propaganda. Propaganda in this context does not carry the same meaning as in the commonly used negative context (as derived from the darker use of propaganda by societies during periods of war, strife, or unrest).

[Lanx]

wikipedia is your friend

lol i remember that guy... republicans go "OMG our black president just addressed us, quick lets find the most un-white republican we have"
republican database search query "non-white, going 1 step over trying to increase race relations,  republic, ..."
1 result found!
Bobby Jindal

[Konrad]

People can apply rational thought to religion.

People can also apply religious doctrine to their science.
 
Done intelligently, this can actually make the intersection of religion and science more robust. Done badly (as happens too often), it casts doubt on the truth or reliability of religious and scientific statements. Scientists reject bad science, believers reject evidence contrary to their beliefs - convincing both groups at once requires perfect adherence to both methodologies.
 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ was an event alleged to have been observed; as such, it's a legitimate historical question as to whether or not it happened.

A miracle that has evidently not been explained away as easily as most with Hume's "principle of minimum astonishment".
 
A variation on "1 billion Chinese can't be wrong" might be "2.1 billion Christians can't be wrong" (assuming the numbers are legit).
 
Enough people have observed UFOs, ghosts, sasquatches and Elvis that we should accept the existence of these things as conclusively valid until rigourously proven otherwise.
 
Of course, history has never been known to lie about important details before. :painkiller:

Science can also talk about what people's motivations are for thinking there is likely to be an afterlife

This strikes me as being psychology (said to be a valid scientific discipline by many). I see the emphasis as being on the thought process itself.
 
If the emphasis was instead on the nature of "afterlife" then I think philosophers and epistemologists and theologicians (and all types between) would be more qualified to provide "facts" than scientists (who don't often get to study people able to talk about the experience of being dead for three days).

[Rajagra]

Cultures cannot exist without propaganda.

The trouble with propaganda is that people wised up to it. So they had to rename it.

[wellington1869]

ripper, are you having a particularly slow night?

or just itching for some trolling?

[Jindal] converted to Christianity while in high school. During his first year at Brown University, he was baptized according to the Roman Catholic rite. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.

[wellington1869]

But I wouldn't dismiss the "threat" so casually.

who's "dismissing" the threat?  The threat has to be met every single time. Democracy doesnt work without participation.  Freedom isnt free. Takes work and vigilance, perpetually, and sometimes our lives. Democracy promises nothing except the chance to fight. It cannot promise the outcome. If we lose our democracy it will have been entirely our own (ie, we citizens) fault. Thats also why we wont, there will always be enough people who care about elections, the bill of rights, the constitution, the separation of powers, the free press, etc etc. We're all invested. If you care about it, jump in and help to stop them, rather than cheering them on as you seem to be doing.

[ch_123]

Science deals with observable phenomena that can be reproduced or verified. But science has no authority to categorically decree that only observed phenomena exist while unobserved phenomena do not. Science cannot properly address the validity of religious statements in which the existence of unobservable phenomena must be admitted.

You're right, science cannot explain things like how the monster under my bed mates with a unicorn. Surely everything I say is now automatically right.

ripper, are you having a particularly slow night?

You sound like you're having a particularly humorless one.

[quadibloc]

or just itching for some trolling?

I think the idea is that if Obama is a Muslim, then Bobby Jindal is a Hindu.

Since Bobby Jindal converted from Hinduism to Christianity... while Obama was raised by a Christian mother who was abandoned by his Muslim deadbeat dad, in fact the notion of Obama being a Muslim makes much less sense than that of Bobby Jindal being, secretly, a Hindu, and just pretending to be a Christian to get along.

[Konrad]

Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant? Regardless of whether this religion is proferred for public appearance, or secretly practiced in private, or even (falsely?) assumed by public consensus?
 
Now, just using examples here - why should Christianity be reserved only for "white" people while "un-white" people automatically identify with non-Christian religions? Why should a Hindu politician be more acceptable than a Muslim one, and why should he be criticized for existing in a traditionally Christian political arena?  Would claiming to be a Pagan, Taoist, Wiccan, or Sith Lord make him more palettable for the masses?
 
I thought someone *coughbeakercough* said this wasn't a religious war, nor a racist one?

[microsoft windows]

Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant? Regardless of whether this religion is proferred for public appearance, or secretly practiced in private, or even (falsely?) assumed by public consensus?
 
Now, just using examples here - why should Christianity be reserved only for "white" people while "un-white" people automatically identify with non-Christian religions? Why should a Hindu politician be more acceptable than a Muslim one, and why should he be criticized for existing in a traditionally Christian political arena?  Would claiming to be a Pagan, Taoist, Wiccan, or Sith Lord make him more palettable for the masses?
 
I thought someone *coughbeakercough* said this wasn't a religious war, nor a racist one?

What about the governments in the Middle East that you keep defending? If I remember correctly, that in some of them, if you're a politician and not a mulsim, you get blown up or shot.

[Konrad]

Criticizing perceived faults of one nation doesn't mean automatically forgiving or endorsing that nation's enemies.
 
Yes, there are countries throughout the world, places like Iran serve as immediate examples, where religious intolerance and oppression are extreme, at least as enforced by their ruling politic.
 
My point is that America states the noblest of goals while liberating countries - say Iran (just to serve as an example) - from religious enslavement. But these goals (which I do happen to largely agree with) are still assumptions based on a perception of moral superiority. Using force to overthrow the existing government and install a more morally amenable one isn't justified; particularly since the moral judgements of the general populace may not be in full agreeance. The logic might be generalized into supporting any nation overthrowing any other to liberate populations from the backwardness, ignorance, oppression and tyranny of a religion that's deeply entrenched into the government. Again just serving as an example, why shouldn't atheist China use the same logic to forcefully liberate America from oppression by its entrenched Christianity-biased government?

[Konrad]

lol, I might too. At least Sith Lords don't take **** and know how to get things done.  Oh wait, I can't vote in America.  Not that it would really matter in this instance.

[EverythingIBM]

Sith Lord.  I'd vote  for that.

Show Image

Pope Wahooka:

[quadibloc]

Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant? Regardless of whether this religion is proferred for public appearance, or secretly practiced in private, or even (falsely?) assumed by public consensus?

I don't think that Sarah Palin's "religion" is irrelevant, or, for that matter, that Mike Huckabee's "religion" is irrelevant.

In the case of Sarah Palin, she expressed doubt about whether life developed through evolution by means of natural selection. To me, that casts doubt about her ability to reason logically, and that's relevant.

In the case of Mike Huckabee, he expressed the intent of making America a Christian nation even if it meant amending, or breaking, the Constitution. If that isn't relevant, I don't know what is.

It's become a cliche to say that only the terrorists were responsible for 9/11, not Muslims in general. That is a fact, as far as it goes... but, sadly, it's also a half-truth. Islam is not just a highly personal faith-based relationship between the believer and God.

One can look at the behavior of Muslims in several majority-Muslim countries with significant non-Muslim minorities to observe that Shari'a Law, which denies equal rights to non-Muslims, is believed to be a part of Islam by a large proportion of Muslims.

You wouldn't blame a black voter for not voting for any white politician who he suspected of believing that black people must "know their place", and who would change the legal system so that the testimony of any black person must be disregarded if that of a white person contradicts it.

This state of affairs existed in some of the southern states of the United States under segregation.

Well, in Islamic countries, that's how non-Muslims are treated. There's something blameworthy in not being willing to be made subject to treatment like that? I don't think so.

Islam is not just another religion. In its two major forms, it exhorts its followers to commit aggression against non-Muslims.

Now, maybe someday an Ahmadiyya Muslim, or even an Ismaili, might be elected President. I suspect however, that this, like the election of a Jewish President, will have to wait until the Middle East situation gets a little less explosive.

Right now, it's also going to be important that the President be able to respond to this particular major area of foreign policy in an unbiased manner that will put American interests first. Not having any personal investment in the situation is, therefore, something not unreasonable to ask for.

[Konrad]

Just curious ... have there ever been any prominent, popular politicians in the states who proudly declare themselves as atheists, or even agnostics? I'll admit my ignorance (and general disinterest) in the background of many US political figures, but at a glance it seems that declaring some sort of pro-Christian affiliation is somewhat mandatory when seeking a political career. No doubt there are many exceptions. Are any of them proud atheists, willing to (politely, tolerantly) issue public commentary which dares to insult religious (including Christian) believers?
 
And before I get mugged by an unknown assailant for these comments, I'd like to reaffirm my statement that as ****ed up as the American political machine is, it's arguably the most successful and best overall government structure available in the modern world. An extension of that statement is that there are other countries with inferior systems. I just personally believe that religion and racist issues are tagalongs which help identify and depict "the enemy" in a less ambiguous manner, and I don't agree with that part at all.

[EverythingIBM]

Now, maybe someday an Ahmadiyya Muslim, or even an Ismaili, might be elected President. I suspect however, that this, like the election of a Jewish President, will have to wait until the Middle East situation gets a little less explosive.

I think the way things are "heating" up that it can only get more explosive. There will *always* be war, and it goes like a sine wave, you'll have peace, then war, then peace, then war. So it's a CONSTANT fight to have freedom.

Oh, and I think Sarah Palin is a freemason:


This whole "I'm a christian" thing is more of a backdoor these days IMO. Supposedly if you say that you become "godly" and "trustworthy". I beg to differ. It would be better if politicians or government leaders had no religion -- as they would be [more?] tolerant to groups such as homosexuals. In theory anyway.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Just curious ... have there ever been any prominent, popular politicians in the states who proudly declare themselves as atheists, or even agnostics? I'll admit my ignorance (and general disinterest) in the background of many US political figures, but at a glance it seems that declaring some sort of pro-Christian affiliation is somewhat mandatory when seeking a political career. No doubt there are many exceptions. Are any of them proud atheists, willing to (politely, tolerantly) issue public commentary which dares to insult religious (including Christian) believers?

Fortney Hillman "Pete" Stark, Jr. - not sure how popular he is, but popular enough to be in the house of representatives.

[quadibloc]

but at a glance it seems that declaring some sort of pro-Christian affiliation is somewhat mandatory when seeking a political career. No doubt there are many exceptions.

There are some prominent Jewish politicians in the U.S., but, yes, you are correct that in general, very few American politicians are openly non-believers.

This has been commented on many times, for example, in the Canadian news media, which has contrasted it with the Canadian political scene. Not that there have been any prominent atheist or agnostic politicians in Canada either that anyone can think of - but because few politicians here have found it de rigeur to make any kind of open profession of faith.

A politician here would not find it advisable to alienate the many Canadians who are Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or Sikhs. In fact, somewhat as Irishmen once were employed in U.S. politics, certain ambitious candidates have found it useful to recruit busloads of Sikhs to attend nominating meetings. (Another clever way our politicians are contributing to anti-immigrant and even racist sentiment in our nation.)

Oh, and I think Sarah Palin is a freemason:

Either that, or a Texas Longhorn fan.

[wellington1869]

I think the idea is that if Obama is a Muslim, then Bobby Jindal is a Hindu.

you're giving ripster too much credit.  ripster wouldnt ever engage in serious point-making. besides i dont think anyone in this thread seriously believes obama is a muslim, so i dont even know to whom ripster inane comments are being addressed.

didnt someone recently get banned for such inanity? would hate for us to have double standards

[wellington1869]

Um, again, shouldn't their religions be irrelevant?

absolutely not, and yes, that still doesnt make this a 'religous war'. Whats impressive about  your arguments is your ability to completely disregard what your opponents have been saying.

Religion is not irrelevant, because if you believe that your religion is telling you to kill people from other religions, then suddently your religion becomes everyone's business.

that still doesnt make this a religious war because there will be others - in your own religion - who will disagree with you, making this a values war, and very often, a civil war within your own religion.  So its first and foremost a values war.

The only way you could so insistently reconfigure it (agianst all the evidence) as a 'religious' war if you yourself are insisting that there is only one kind of muslim, only one kind of christian, only one kind of atheist. Which makes you part of the extremist problem, beacuse that is precisely what these violent extremists are doing.

on top of that you continue to be a moral relativist, just like the extremists, since you refuse to recognize the values conflict that is going on all over the world and within every group, every religion, about how to coexist with others. Since you refuse to recognize the values debate internal to every group, this makes you a moral relativist (ie, even someone who says 'lets coexist' is simply 'imposing' some kind of imperialism on others). On what grounds can you possibly say that? Is it a conflict? yes! But it is not the same conflict; it differs in its goals (and most often in its methods). Goals and methods is what most often differentiate conflict; not the simple fact that there exists a conflict. If you are dreaming of a pure conflict-free world, you are either nihilistic or idealistic to the point of incapacitation, either cynically or idealistically imposing an ideal that you know living humans can never achieve, and you want to do this either because of your own ignorance or because you think its a way to incapacitate your political enemies.
The only person who can equate the fight for democracy with the fight for facism is someone who has lost all sense of perspective, history, or simple facts, and regardless of whehter you've done it out of cycnicism or idealism, either way you've effectively joined the fascists.

While its not my duty to rehabilitate your moral view (its only my duty to expose it, and should you ever run for office, oppose you), you may want to begin by asking yourself why you can only think in 'black and white' terms. Its actually a very 'evangelical' mode of thinking, and that is where your problems begin: Your naturalization of the evangelical world view, your thinking in terms of groups and labels; your "either/or" and zero-sum-game approach to the world's problems.

[wellington1869]

jefferson and lincoln are generally considered deists; jefferson especially.

i also fail to see why having an 'atheist' president is necessary in any way. Only a person who believes all religious people work the same way (ie, someone monumentally ignorant about religious diversity *coughkonradcough*) would ever insist on that. There have been plenty of atheists in history - marxists most spectacularly - who have been genocidal mass murderers just as much as religious people have. I doubt one's "-ism" as a broad label will tell us anything about how they will act; its better to look at the individual and how they see the world (for example, someone like konrad who sees the world as a broad inevitable civilizational conflict, obviously should never, ever, be head of state (or hold any kind of influential institutional position).

To be sure, islam in general today is in civil war and turmoil, and it makes sense to ask extra questions to see where an individual falls on the spectrum, just as it makes sense to question anyone who's had ties with the christian far right (palin has) and those who have marxist ties. Thats just being smart and asking probing questions as we should do with anyone who wants to be president, part of the public vetting process.  

But to declare - as konrad does - that these questions shouldnt even be asked - is moronic, is like third-grade thinking. I have no idea where he's coming from with that, as if such questions are off limits. Luckily in a free society these things are legitimately part of the public debate, even if any one of us doesnt like the questions asked of our favorite candidates. Thank the gods for this system that encourages openness and i'd rather have all the questions asked than persecute people who are asking them.

thats like something ahmedinejad (and konrad) might do.

[Lanx]

the ppl who believe obama is muslim are the same ppl who think he is not a US citizen, these are uniformed idiots, and by nature you can't teach an idiot new information they will stick with what they think they know, which is obama doesn't look black... so he's something else... he also has been called by his middle name by every republican... barrak HUSSAIN obama and he said he was born in Hawaii... thats not a state, that is where ppl goto for vacation just like puerto rico or cuba, so he must be a foreigner.

oh and on the front why ppl have to have some religion in order to get elected? many ppl believe religion=core values/ethics.
if you don't have religion then where do you get your values from?
I'm not saying it's right , just saying this is prolly how ppl think.

[Konrad]

So we'll just add naive wishywashy moral idealist/cynic along with insultingly inflexible "black-and-white" evangelistic imperialist to the list of my previously asserted faults (being a warmongering illiterate uninformed/ignorant intolerant hater, hypocritical Sharia-supporting baptist, moron, tyrannical fascist extremist, and possible enemy of the state). At least I haven't been accused of ugly. I'm obviously a truly despicable individual whose rabid opinions range from merely offensive to blatantly dangerous, eh?
 
I suspect the problem is that I'm mistakenly attempting to argue with logical value assignments. A methodology which leads to results that often disagree with the modes that traditionally dominate arguments in religion (weighing of doctrinal and heretical values) and politics (weighing of popular and rhetorical values). Logical arguments have a long history of failing to accomplish anything productive in religious and political arenas.
 
The stance of your arguments has been largely based on rhetoric, welly. (Inflammatory and confrontational rhetoric, mostly.) It is natural and expected that we disagree. It must pain you to know that when I do get to vote in matters of American policy my voice will carry exactly the same weight as yours.
 
I recall Jefferson is also noted for running a "nail factory" based on the labour of his two badly mistreated black slaves, absolutely offensive (and illegal) in today's more enlightened American society but not particularly outrageous by the standards of the American society he lived in. Using that example as an (imperfect) comparison between social standards of his age and ours, I'm not entirely convinced that his moderate deism would fly today (ie, his being elected as president today seems unlikely to me because of today's expectations in political-religious affiliation).

[quadibloc]

What does that say to a group of believers when a "natural" event levels their sacred building into a pile of ashes and ruin?

I noticed a news item, only a month or so, about a giant statue of Jesus set up by one Christian denomination being struck by lightning.

The news noted that the police were ticketing drivers who stopped or slowed down on the highway in the area to gawk at or photograph the ruins. I was wondering if that was merely to keep traffic flowing, or if there was some attitude on their part that anyone who would do this was clearly a Christ-mocking atheist.

I suspect the problem is that I'm mistakenly attempting to argue with logical value assignments.

This could well be causing problems, because I am not familiar with that mode of argument.

But then, I'm not looking for an unconventional way of thinking that might help me build bridges with the Islamic world. I don't feel I have that luxury right now.

Instead, there is a threat: terrorism.

And so my thoughts are focused on how to deal with and eliminate that threat.

As for Islam itself: a religion is the source of people's fundamental assumptions about right and wrong. So it does influence their actions.

While one starts with the premise that the terrorists themselves are the only ones we know to be our enemy, other facts, such as how U.S. support for Israel is roundly disliked across the Muslim world (not entirely unreasonably, even if I feel the Israelis are not the ones in the wrong in the basic Mideast conflict) and the mistreatment of non-Muslim minorities in many majority-Muslim countries lead me to feel that the terrorists' ideas are likely to have an appeal in the Islamic world.

I don't think the U.S. has the option of "mending its ways" to deal with that. It would be wrong to throw Israel to the wolves. And, in general, people don't like backing down to force unless they have to - and the U.S. is strong enough that it doesn't have to.

So, it may be that Osama bin Laden will get his wish, and the U.S. and the Islamic world are on a collision course. But the United States has the capability of ensuring that Osama bin Laden won't like it when he gets it.

I cannot, with a straight face, say that the United States has overreacted to 9/11, or that its actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong. So instead - although no doubt it's equally hopeless - I ask the Islamic world to mend its ways to prevent a catastrophic confrontation that it will lose.

[Lanx]

Islam has cool
eye for eye
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/eye-for-an-eye-paralyzing-a-criminal-in-saudi-arabia

I support this!

[Parak]

I'll pitch in my 2c, even though this thread seems mostly about preaching to the choir in general (given the natural denizens of geekhack).

All religions suck. Organized religions suck more. Some of those suck further. Some groups and individuals within those suck completely.

The sooner we get rid of these ancient relics and just be humans, the better. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, or if ever. Worse, there's a non-zero chance of another dark age simply due to the fact that despite the advances since the last one, humanity seems insistent on reverting back as much as possible. Something about not remembering the past and being doomed to repeat it.

Doesn't help that rational people breed much slower than non-rational ones

[Konrad]

... police were ticketing drivers who stopped or slowed down on the highway in the area to gawk at or photograph the ruins. I was wondering if that was merely to keep traffic flowing, or if there was some attitude ...

Well, that's just not fair. Traffic jammed for miles, a 2-hour crawl, all because somebody had discarded a stupid fridge on the side of the highway. Omg, a fridge, everybody slow down and gawk! Wtf? Never seen a fridge before? No police in sight, of course.
 

... I ask the Islamic world to mend its ways to prevent a catastrophic confrontation that *it will lose*.

Not to seem callous. But if that's already the inescapably foregone conclusion then why wait to exterminate them?
 
The fact that they haven't already been nuked suggests that there's some merit - some hope - in attempting to repair relations. Or the oil wells are too precious to risk damaging.

[Konrad]

All religions suck. Organized religions suck more. Some of those suck further. Some groups and individuals within those suck completely ... The sooner we get rid of these ancient relics and just be humans, the better

Something I've said before ... natural selection has bred religion into the human species. In ancient societies you either accepted religion (one way or another) or you were killed or damaged or socially outcast and simply unable to procreate. Now we won't be rid of the limits "designed" into the human species until natural competition for resources gives a decisive edge to neo-sapiens over dogma-sapiens.
 

Doesn't help that rational people breed much slower than non-rational ones

An unfortunate weakness in a democratic system that campaigning politicians are well aware of. Stupid inbreeders will always have more voices than educated sophonts.

[quadibloc]

The fact that they haven't already been nuked suggests that there's some merit - some hope - in attempting to repair relations. Or the oil wells are too precious to risk damaging.

It means that even G. W. Bush is a more forgiving person, and a less ruthless person, than I am, I suppose.

But then, because of his experience in the oil industry, he had personal friendships with many Arab Muslims. They were real people to him, not abstract faceless numbers thousands of miles away.

So, while air travel was shut down over North America, Osama bin Laden's sister (or niece or something) was whisked away in an American military airplane out of New York to Sa'udi Arabia. A move I approve of - preventing an innocent person from being killed or abused by a mob is certainly a way to help preserve relations with Sa'udi Arabia in general, and the law-abiding members of the Bin Laden family, who operate Sa'udi Arabia's equivalent of Brown and Root, in particular.

The conspiracy theorists have their own ideas, to which I give no credit.

There's no certainty that things are going to deteriorate so far that we will end up nuking the world's one billion Muslims. What I don't like, though, is that things are heading that way - which means there's a chance that, or something like that, although less extensive, could yet happen. I want to eliminate that possibility, not make it an immediate actuality.

If I could scare the Islamic world into rushing to suck up to the United States, that would be a way of achieving this goal.

[Konrad]

I sincerely believe that America as a nation and as a people are unwilling to nuke the Middle East off the face of the planet. There have been wars, there's one or two right now, there's probably going to be several more. It's enough to sustain hatred but not genocide.
 
Obviously the terrorists cannot hope to battle a superpower with large scale military hardware, naval fleets, armies, cannons, etc. They have to resort to guerilla warfare, fight dirty, snipe cheap shots, kill dishonourably. Their best strategy for demoralizing the enemy and inflicting terror is to attack non-military targets, weak defenseless civilians. It's one thing for a few American soldiers to get killed in the desert, they're in a war zone, that's their job, they volunteered, they died serving their country as heroes. It's quite another thing for civilians safe in the heartland to be bombed or gunned down without apparent provocation.
 
So what would happen if someone (presumably Muslim terrorists) blew up Yankee Stadium, killing 50,000 people? Or set off a "dirty bomb" in Disneyland, exposing tens or hundreds of thousands of people in a large area to harmful/lethal radiation? Or - inspired by the Beltway Sniper - deployed a single platoon of elite military marksmen into America, each charged with the mission of killing one random person in one major city every day without getting caught - the death toll might not be very high but anybody anywhere anytime could be killed, nobody would be safe, so the terror value would escalate as the days and deaths accumulated.
 
Would any event similar to one of the above be enough for America to unlock those nukes and take care of the problem forever, consequences be damned?

[Lanx]

lol america will never nuke first.
we're still trying to get back the ability to make nuclear power plants(cuz of 3mile island new ones aren't built and we're relying on ones built in the 60's to keep making power).
If anything the success of Godzilla(go-jira?)[except for blashpemy of 98 version] tells man that radiation will come back to bite you in the butt, with flame fire.

i think it's something like the combined military budget of all nations doesn't even come close to the US's alone. Desert Storm was a joke, we rolled in and took charge, now we're training kids w/ xbox controllers(they actually are using xbox like controllers) for these predator drones.

Another country will have to nuke first, we never will. Much like in elementary school, if 2 kids get in a fight, the teacher will ask "well who hit first?" and that will be the kid who gets in trouble, the US is the kid waiting to get hit first.

[Konrad]

Using that analogy, the US is probably the biggest kid on the block. Perceived by many of the other kids as being a bully. I think that if you piss that kid off enough, I mean really piss him off so he goes over the edge, then he'll get his daddy's big gun out of the attic and come looking for you.
 
btw, Canada happens to be the world leader in manufacturing nuclear power plants*. Just sayin ...
 
[Edit]
* although some studies suggest North Korea may have stolen first place.

[microsoft windows]

Did you know that "some studies suggest" that we have by far the most nukes and could easily blow North Korea and all their commies off the planet? Just sayin...

[Konrad]

lulz, Kommies?
 
Too bad NK hasn't got any oil.  Or much of any other exploitable natural resource, aside from the human population.
 
The big army has to sit on a big oil well.  Costs too much to redeploy to NK.  It even costs too much to deploy in other places, like New Orleans, when urgently needed.
 
Cheaper to toss a few nukes, yeah.  Especially if you can get away with launching from untraceable and deniable submarine platforms.

[mike]

lol america will never nuke first.

again ?

[Voixdelion]

I think it becomes a moot point who has the most nukes, as it is probably irrelevant once anyone has exhausted a significant supply of them in any case.

[wellington1869]

("I have no beliefs, but you can believe what you want, just don't get pushy or demanding").

religious people can believe that too. buddhists, most polytheists, and left-monotheists are fine with others believing whatever they want so long as they dont go around chopping heads off. Tolerance doesnt 'require' atheism; indeed atheism also has a history of brutal intolerance. So I dont think flying the banner of atheism really solves anything. It has to come down to the individual and their specific personal beliefs, regardless of what 'ism' they belong to.

[wellington1869]

So we'll just add naive wishywashy moral idealist/cynic along with insultingly inflexible "black-and-white" evangelistic imperialist to the list of my previously asserted faults (being a warmongering illiterate uninformed/ignorant intolerant hater, hypocritical Sharia-supporting baptist, moron, tyrannical fascist extremist, and possible enemy of the state).

not enemy of state, enemy of humanity. The rest is correct and i'm glad you're keeping score.

 At least I haven't been accused of ugly.

show me a pic and i'll remedy that

 I'm obviously a truly despicable individual whose rabid opinions range from merely offensive to blatantly dangerous, eh?

yes, based on the views you've expressed so far.

You want to find religious war? Hamas has declared it, go read their manifesto.
but i have a feeling you wont utter a peep against them.

when you start being even handed in your analyses, then you might get more credibility.
 

The stance of your arguments has been largely based on rhetoric, welly. (Inflammatory and confrontational rhetoric, mostly.)

you're so cute when you say this and then declare this to be a "racist, religious, and national war". nah, nothing inflammatory to see there, folks.

It is natural and expected that we disagree. It must pain you to know that when I do get to vote in matters of American policy my voice will carry exactly the same weight as yours.

lol, not at all, i'm glad its the same as mine. If it were more influential than mine, thats when i'd lose sleep.

i'm the one who believes in democracy, remember? You dont. You want to see it destroyed by any means possible.  Ironic that you should use a democracy metaphor to try to score some rhetorical point here.

I recall Jefferson is also noted for running a "nail factory" based on the labour of his two badly mistreated black slaves, absolutely offensive (and illegal) in today's more enlightened American society but not particularly outrageous by the standards of the American society he lived in.

yea, the 18th century was a *****. Whats funny is the groups you're defending *hamascoughhamas* have such exclusionary values today, not 200 years ago, and want to run a nation with them today, and control gaza with them today, not to mention a dozen of their brothers in arms already running governments and regimes across the world today.  And you want to see them in power. How does that make you feel?

 Using that example as an (imperfect) comparison between social standards of his age and ours, I'm not entirely convinced that his moderate deism would fly today (ie, his being elected as president today seems unlikely to me because of today's expectations in political-religious affiliation).

he doesnt need to run for office today; he influenced the constitution and pushed thru the bill of rights. He's already won. Wow, your knowledge of american history is as poor as your grasp of middle eastern politics.

[Konrad]

At least I haven't been accused of ugly.

show me a pic and i'll remedy that

Um ...
 


 
 

vs

 


 
Need I say more?