156 replies to this topic

[nefastor]

but what makes something a Christian country.

Very good question. My answer is : a Christian country is a country which would have chosen Christianity, in the same way Armenia did : of their own accord, not by force. In that sense, there are actually very few Christian countries. Another way to define a Christian country is a country which has been Christian for the majority of its history.

Interestingly, North America fits neither criteria. And much as it saddens me the oldest Christian country on record is... Armenia, since the first century (you can find the details here). The Armenian church was founded by two apostles and Christianity became the state religion more than 1,700 years ago. I believe that makes it a Christian country.

As for Spain, even if it had been Muslim for 7,500 years instead of "just" 750 that still wouldn't make it a Muslim nation : Islam was imposed manu militari AND later eliminated the same way.

The beauty of being an atheist is you can safely say that you are your own island, that your morality and rational follow your own doctrines rather than the doctrines of a mass of people. The only common grounds is the belief in no god, what you choose to do with that is your own choice. What this means is that you can judge from the safety of your own actions, knowing that the actions of any other cannot be rationally represented within you.

Excuse me ? Are you saying my moral values are only limited by what I want them to be ? I'm sorry but most atheists, myself included, definitely share a LOT more values than "no belief in a deity". I like to think most of us consider killing, raping, torture, wife-beating to be bad things and freedom of expression and of will to be good thing. We do not make each our own doctrine, we adhere to things that any mentally healthy person would agree on.

Religious people LOVE to define Atheists in terms of what they lack, especially morality. Truth is, we are far more complex than that because unlike believers we don't take directions from a bunch of crude, contradicting fairy tales which can be interpreted any way.

Atheists have to work with reality, where no God is going to tell us which is the right way, and where there is no such thing as fate to make sure we don't fuck up or that our errors eventually turn out to be good things.

There is no one and nothing in the universe to ever forgive an atheist unconditionally. We have no one to whom confess our errors, and unless they can be repaired, they may hunt us forever. You'll find that NOT having the safety net a benevolent God provides means you have to set for yourself a lot more rules and higher standards than someone who (subconsciously) knows that at least God will always love him no matter what. Shit, that's the reason priests can have sex with kids and keep a straight face before their flock.

I hope you don't see me as insulting you, i just get bothered when people make so many generalizations, especially when it fuels hatred rather than understanding. This demonstrates a pervasive need within individuals to simplify their worlds rather than accept the complexities inherent in any system.

First, I don't think you were insulting me.

Second, I happen to know a thing or two about complexity : I've worked on the design of microchips which can only be fully described by 2,500 pages of technical data, which no one knows by heart (cell-phone processor, in case you're wondering). Managing complexity was actually a course I took in college, and I've taken refreshers for my work on AI.

Fact is, no human being can grasp all the nuances of reality. Our reality is defined by 6.5 billion people, among other things, and anyone knows, at best, a few hundreds of them personally. Even those you know personally might be hiding from you their exact stance on things like religion, if only because they don't want to hurt your feelings.

So you are bound to make generalizations. In fact it's the way the mind processes information, a form of optimization. Perhaps a better way to call it is "inference", as in "inference engine" (expert systems lingo) : you have learned something from a given event and apply that lesson to predict the outcome of similar events in the future. Such as : fire burn ! or water wet !

Life is all about generalization. Take elections for instance : suppose there are two candidates for an election: the stance of those who voted for the loser will be ignored, it will be assumed the choice of the people as a whole was the winner. That is a generalization in the name of which wars are started. If you're American and haven't voted Bush, you should know what I mean.

Generalization is not a bad thing, it's inevitable given the limitations of the human brain. And it will always be unfair : it's basic information theory but a fair generalization is a contradiction in terms. I can explain if you want.

Nefastor

Nefastor

[nefastor]

I'm an American. Most Americans I know criticized a lot of things that are happening in our country (so do I). But don't be mistaken. Given I choice they (and I) will rather stay in the US than anywhere else in the world.
I saw you refer many times to the Americans lack of education. In the US we do it to try to improve the education standards. I don't know why you do it, does it make you feel superior?
For instance, you cited Sun Tzu several times, was that to impress us ignorant Americans? The Art of War was even recommended years ago by companies in the US to their employees. We know that Napoleon read that book while planning the Russian campaign. The one he started with 470 thousand men and came back with 4 thousand.

When you say you wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world : is that because you've visited the entire world and found no better place to live ? I have visited the USA, among other countries, and it's quite obvious to me there are better places to live. Starting with places with socialized medicine, for instance.

I don't need to do anything to feel superior to the average American. I've been called upon to work for some of the biggest American companies because they couldn't find anyone better in the US, in my area of expertise. And in a broader sense, it's quasi-natural to feel superior to people who would elect oil executives as their leaders and then wonder why they are starting a war with the country with the second largest oil resources (Iraq). That day you really all looked like Homer Simpson when he goes "D'oh !"

If Americans are so smart, tell me why they seem to think a blow-job in the Oval Office is worse than starting a 5-year war under false pretense. Tell me why they elected Bush for a second term and there has been no talk of impeaching him.

I have nothing against Americans. I think it'd be great if the USA could actually be the beacon of civilization they think they are, because the world needs one, and the USA is a good potential candidate. You just gotta get rid of the religion in politics : France did, a long time ago, and it hasn't exactly killed us, if you haven't noticed.

About the Art of War... as a US management fad it was little more than shameless exploitation, based, IIRC, on the convenient fact that there's no copyright nor any royalties due on a book 2,500 years old. As for Napoleon's few defeats, you can attribute them more to overconfidence than anything else. By comparison, Hitler was stupid for not remembering Napoleon when he chose to commit forces into USSR.

My mentions of Sun Tzu have nothing to do with showing off : the whole point of culture and education is to make use of it, not keep it to yourself for fear of looking like a show off. And if mention Sun Tzu quite often it's probably because military strategy is one of my hobbies. So of course Emile Zola and the Rougon-Macquart saga don't come to my mind quite as often.

I would have thought that in this forum we are too mature to engage in the childish "my country is better than your country and my countrymen are smarter than yours ...".

Unfortunately, it's not childish at all. And you can actually measure very accurately which country is better than which, on pretty much any topic that matters, including education. Just have a look at this site, for instance.

It appears the USA ranks 19 and France 15 for "child well-being in a rich country." Zing ! Every country ranked above the USA is European, and Canada.

As for the non-measurable stuff : no one knows what the term "intelligent design" means, in France. I think that tells you all you need to know about which country has the better education system. And by the way, ours is free all the way to graduate school. You don't even need to buy the textbooks, they are on loan. No strings attached. No student ever needs to work or become a loan-slave. Sorry if I seem to rub it in your face, but it's only because I really want to annoy you enough about it you'll go see your governor and start lobbying to imitate us and put France in its place. Call it tough love.

Be warned Nefastor will write paragraph after paragraph to out word you, and put your views down

Cute. I wasn't aware this was the "hugs and kisses" forum. If we all agree everyone's point of view is valid, then why would we have a forum to debate things ?

Like the Americans say, if you can't take the heat, stay out the kitchen.

By and large, journalism in the US is dead. It is simply a shadow of its former self. Those few journalists and public intellectuals that dare to bring up such facts are derided as "Liberals" or "America Haters". It's an ugly situation.

Tell me about it. When I was in West Virginia I was actually called an "America Hater" because I would dare say Bush should never have been re-elected. I said that in 2007, while Bush was selling the Surge.

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 08 April 2008 - 03:31 AM.

[nefastor]

I really need to find a way to write shorter posts. Damn, that's what happens when you're too passionate about what you're talking about. I'll make an effort, I promise.

Nefastor

[senseix]

I really need to find a way to write shorter posts. Damn, that's what happens when you're too passionate about what you're talking about. I'll make an effort, I promise.

Nefastor

Yeah thats been my major issue with you, and the fact you're racist against Americans and others who don't do things like you do. Other than that i'm sure you're a nice guy. Btw, i have no problems with debates and people thinking differently, umm been online since 91, and have been a member to various forums, for many many years, well aware of how things work, thanks for trying to explain what i already know tho, as if you're helping LOL So anyways, Nefastor, i hope you get it finally, i'm afraid you won't tho:)

Edited by senseix, 08 April 2008 - 04:40 AM.

[mentatpsi]

I really need to find a way to write shorter posts. Damn, that's what happens when you're too passionate about what you're talking about. I'll make an effort, I promise.

Nefastor

nah i do quite enjoy a more thorough post than a short one that examines only short aspects... this is of course within limits but i think it is conditional .. as for yours i have found them to be rather historical and informative.

If you don't mind i'll take your next post in short bursts since it is awfully large and with many layers...

but what makes something a Christian country.

Very good question. My answer is : a Christian country is a country which would have chosen Christianity, in the same way Armenia did : of their own accord, not by force. In that sense, there are actually very few Christian countries. Another way to define a Christian country is a country which has been Christian for the majority of its history.

Interestingly, North America fits neither criteria. And much as it saddens me the oldest Christian country on record is... Armenia, since the first century (you can find the details here). The Armenian church was founded by two apostles and Christianity became the state religion more than 1,700 years ago. I believe that makes it a Christian country.

As for Spain, even if it had been Muslim for 7,500 years instead of "just" 750 that still wouldn't make it a Muslim nation : Islam was imposed manu militari AND later eliminated the same way.

I suppose this is one of the best definitions one can offer... one must see, though, that as time flows the majority adhere to the norm unless given great reason and ability to alter it, for instance the French Revolution. As for the 7,500 years... i think that increases the probability it would become muslim, that's a lot of time to instill and enforce a belief in people...

The beauty of being an atheist is you can safely say that you are your own island, that your morality and rational follow your own doctrines rather than the doctrines of a mass of people. The only common grounds is the belief in no god, what you choose to do with that is your own choice. What this means is that you can judge from the safety of your own actions, knowing that the actions of any other cannot be rationally represented within you.

Excuse me ? Are you saying my moral values are only limited by what I want them to be ? I'm sorry but most atheists, myself included, definitely share a LOT more values than "no belief in a deity". I like to think most of us consider killing, raping, torture, wife-beating to be bad things and freedom of expression and of will to be good thing. We do not make each our own doctrine, we adhere to things that any mentally healthy person would agree on.

Kind of, i did not mean to be taken as it was however. What i was saying is that you are given time to make your own doctrines which you support due to your rationality and own moral system. In no manner must you alter your own mind to, as you later say, "crude, contradicting fairy tales". To me, this independence is liberating, and that there in is the beauty of atheism and agnosticism.

I was not using this argument to say atheism is wrong, i'm just saying that much the same way one shouldn't generalize an atheist one shouldn't generalize any other religious member, humanity is too diverse for generalization, though i do agree with the later claim you make, it being a form of optimization.

Please do consider your last sentence, however, I am not sure how aware you are at the fickleness of morality. How often does it fall under the grips of authority... look at bureaucratic evil, for instance. If the separation between individuals is large enough, mankind can do many evils to his fellow man without even a flinch, by a mere stroke of a key. We have already discussed how buying oil equates to helping these countries fuel more terrorism... yet what other choice is given, how does one support his family?

Even those whom you may call mentally healthy are capable of a daily living which may cause suffering to others, as long as they are not aware. If they are aware, then he can place psychological guards, this is true for the theist as it is for the atheist. This is a side effect of modern society. Though i personally think on average a moral system of someone who follows their own beliefs is much more developed than a religious follower.

There is no one and nothing in the universe to ever forgive an atheist unconditionally. We have no one to whom confess our errors, and unless they can be repaired, they may hunt us forever. You'll find that NOT having the safety net a benevolent God provides means you have to set for yourself a lot more rules and higher standards than someone who (subconsciously) knows that at least God will always love him no matter what. Shit, that's the reason priests can have sex with kids and keep a straight face before their flock.

Once again another beauty to Atheism... this is going to sound cheesy but once an individual accepts themselves unconditionally... what becomes the difference. Personally i have found myself more likely to help others for the sake of reducing suffering...
Also what happens when you remove benevolent from that equation...

I hope you don't see me as insulting you, i just get bothered when people make so many generalizations, especially when it fuels hatred rather than understanding. This demonstrates a pervasive need within individuals to simplify their worlds rather than accept the complexities inherent in any system.

First, I don't think you were insulting me.

Second, I happen to know a thing or two about complexity : I've worked on the design of microchips which can only be fully described by 2,500 pages of technical data, which no one knows by heart (cell-phone processor, in case you're wondering). Managing complexity was actually a course I took in college, and I've taken refreshers for my work on AI.

Fact is, no human being can grasp all the nuances of reality. Our reality is defined by 6.5 billion people, among other things, and anyone knows, at best, a few hundreds of them personally. Even those you know personally might be hiding from you their exact stance on things like religion, if only because they don't want to hurt your feelings.

So you are bound to make generalizations. In fact it's the way the mind processes information, a form of optimization. Perhaps a better way to call it is "inference", as in "inference engine" (expert systems lingo) : you have learned something from a given event and apply that lesson to predict the outcome of similar events in the future. Such as : fire burn ! or water wet !

Life is all about generalization. Take elections for instance : suppose there are two candidates for an election: the stance of those who voted for the loser will be ignored, it will be assumed the choice of the people as a whole was the winner. That is a generalization in the name of which wars are started. If you're American and haven't voted Bush, you should know what I mean.

Generalization is not a bad thing, it's inevitable given the limitations of the human brain. And it will always be unfair : it's basic information theory but a fair generalization is a contradiction in terms. I can explain if you want.

Nefastor

Nefastor

Well it's good to hear you can take critiques impersonally, i have recently developed a habit of being more direct in my debates which i hope offends no one but is in itself inevitable given how tight we hold our beliefs. I do recall you yourself (in your introduction) are given to change, so is perhaps the best route a human can take... dynamic and free flowing... I hope one day i will gain the same knowledge necessary to engage in such interesting projects, perhaps another time we will discuss those since my interests are also in computing and i'm finding myself looking towards computer engineering with more curious eyes.

I agree generalization are inevitable, however one must always look at the errors inevitable in generalizations, especially if it is the basis of action. There is a difference in making generalizations in a computer project than a human being, one allows for progress while the other keeps a perpetual ignorance of his fellow man. This ignorance can be the basis of hate crimes, and is one of the reason that there is still fundamentalism... I suppose what i mean to say is generalizations should be within reason...

[nefastor]

Mysticpsi, sorry for the miscommunication about atheism. It was late when I replied, I think I misunderstood what you wrote.

As for Spain, even if it had been Muslim for 7,500 years instead of "just" 750 that still wouldn't make it a Muslim nation : Islam was imposed manu militari AND later eliminated the same way.

(...) As for the 7,500 years... i think that increases the probability it would become Muslim, that's a lot of time to instill and enforce a belief in people...

Actually 750 years was quite enough : the Reconquista was not some sort of 750-year long internal revolution, that would be impossible. What happened was, several Christian nations expanded militarily into Spain over the Moors during that period. These nations still exist today in vestigial form, you may know them as Castilla, Asturia, Aragon... nowadays only one remains as a sovereign nation : Portugal, the others form Spain.

So in fact, it doesn't matter how long the Moors would have stayed in Spain. That's why I put this number 7,500 years.



A great book everyone should read, and which unfortunately isn't taught in school anywhere AFAIK, is Machiavelli's "The Prince". Written 500 years ago, this book will tell you pretty much all there is to know about conquering a country, getting away with it and then ruling it. It can be regarded as the political counterpart to the Art of War. Once you've read it, you'll never see history (or world news) the same way again. It's kinda like the end of the first Matrix movie : instead of seeing bloodshed and random acts of violence on the TV news, you'll see streams of numbers

Once you've read it you'll also know who has and who hasn't read it. Here's a hint : the whole Bush administration hasn't. Hitler did.

If the separation between individuals is large enough, mankind can do many evils to his fellow man

I couldn't agree more. But I'll say it again : there's 6.5 billion people on this planet, and they are all wildly different from each other. Just like you say, this difference justifies a lot of evil. Unfortunately, unless all 6.5 billion of us make the effort to learn about all 6.5 billion of us, there will always exist a divide with people we respect on one side, and people we want to work for us in sweatshops on the other side.

For not all evil involves weapons and rape and violence. The way "modern civilization" shamelessly relies on cheap Chinese labor for profit's sake is one of the greatest evils in the world right now, on par with the war in Iraq. In the spirit of keeping this post short, I won't say anymore on that topic, except that we all make unfair generalizations : to most white people, all Chinese people are the same, and they are only good to work in a factory spraying lead-paint on our toys.

We have already discussed how buying oil equates to helping these countries fuel more terrorism... yet what other choice is given, how does one support his family?

Even those whom you may call mentally healthy are capable of a daily living which may cause suffering to others, as long as they are not aware. If they are aware, then he can place psychological guards, this is true for the theist as it is for the atheist. This is a side effect of modern society.

First, there's ALWAYS a choice. No one is forcing you at gun-point to use a car and burn oil. Case in point : myself. I'm a well-paid engineer who's worked for many high-profile corporations, and I haven't owned a car in 10 years. Not even rented one. That's because I will not spend a cent on oil. This has placed a few burdens on my life : I'm dependent on public transportation, and I've had to move twice in the last 10 years to find a place close to my workplace.

That means I have made sacrifices to live in accordance with my views of this world. I even carry a certain stigma because "engineers are supposed to have a car".

Now when you say a mentally healthy person is capable of unwittingly causing suffering to others, you're talking about people who are mentally healthy but LAZY. It's as simple as that. They know about the problem, they know about the solutions, but the solutions require more effort than turning a blind eye to the problem. And doing any sort of effort ? In this day and age ? Forget it !

That's how you end-up with people who sort their trash (which is useless) but also drive a big SUV alone, in a city. It's not so much hypocrisy as it is laziness and self-indulgence.

Now, I'm not saying you should go out of your way to make your own life difficult on account of someone else's suffering. I recognize sometimes you don't have a choice. But in modern civilization there are many alternatives to anything we do or use. Not choosing the best alternative is laziness. Here's an example :

You're a big CEO and your corporation spends millions on your factories' CO2 emissions. Yet you require your engineers and office-workers to come work in your offices, which puts thousands of cars on the road everyday... when you could just as well invest in telecommuting equipment, leave people and their cars at home, thus cutting your corporation's CO2 emissions a lot further AND making some cash by selling the office space you don't need anymore.

The reasons no CEO is doing that are greed and laziness : the CO2 emissions of employee cars aren't counted as part of the CO2 emissions of a corporation, so you (the CEO) don't gain anything tangible by removing them from the roads. Plus, telecommuting requires learning different management techniques than what you already know, and learning is hard, you can make mistakes that will cost you some money. You may not be able to afford that third private jet as soon as you wish.

Even when the air gets so polluted by your employees' cars that YOU can't even breathe without a gas mask anymore, you still won't get the clue. It's not that you'll think breathing is less important than making money (you're a CEO, you're not stupid), you'll just be exhibiting a human being's natural tendency towards maintaining a status quo that favors him. Same reason why you'd vote Republican even though in your heart you know that'll probably cause another war... but you could really use Republican tax-cuts to fund that fourth private jet.

It's what I mean whenever I say we will fail in whatever we plan (as a civilization) unless we take into account the human animal and its basic instincts. I'm just sorry I can't seem to make my points more directly. Idealizing humans is one the most dangerous mistakes we all make.

Well it's good to hear you can take critiques impersonally, i have recently developed a habit of being more direct in my debates which i hope offends no one but is in itself inevitable given how tight we hold our beliefs. I do recall you yourself (in your introduction) are given to change, so is perhaps the best route a human can take... dynamic and free flowing...

Well, I'm an engineer. I spend almost half my time taking critiques on the solutions and approaches I take. Comes with the territory. If you do become a computer scientist, you'll learn that on your first "code review"

And it's always good to be direct. I attribute most of the world's problems to the fact most people would tiptoe for years around an issue rather than be direct about it. If people didn't treat religion with so much undue respect, for instance, imagine how different the world would be. In my personal life (and at work) I have found that being direct will put off some people, but will also make you friends in equal numbers. It will also save you a LOT of time.

We live on a dynamic planet, not a Creationist monolithic image. It's been through ice ages, probably will again, features many random "acts of God" from quakes to typhoons to asteroids which could change it dramatically with no warning at all. It's important to be dynamic ourselves. People who think they can go through life without ever questioning their own behavior are like stones at the bottom of a flowing river : they won't be going anywhere.

perhaps another time we will discuss those since my interests are also in computing and i'm finding myself looking towards computer engineering with more curious eyes.

Sure, why not ? We do have a computer science section on this forum.

Looks like I haven't been able to keep my promise yet... this is one big post

Nefastor

Edited by Lazarus Long, 09 April 2008 - 01:34 PM.
removed ad hominem

[Lazarus Long]

Alright that's enough.

I and others have repeatedly asked everyone to refrain from the personal attacks and ad hominem replies to positions. Either this conduct stops or this thread does.

Stick to the issues and be forewarned the moderators will be going back through this thread to remove the interpersonal distractions. If someone wants to give lengthy historical background to positions fine. If you seek to support a position with rational, ethical argument fine, but stop attacking each other because you disagree or worse, "agree violently" but think the other person is not sufficiently committed, informed, etc.

Obviously this is a contentious subject and has been from the beginning so either all the participants in this discussion cooperate on solutions (at the very least to keep the thread open and on topic) or I will exercise unilateral authority and end the problem through collective punishment by closing the thread.

The power to keep this debate ongoing, informative, and on topic with an eye towards a constructive outcome is yours collectively.

The power to end a fractious immature contest of egos devoid of relevance, is mine or any navigator's.

Use your power more wisely or I will use mine.

BTW don't bother to reply to me on this warning here in the thread. Simply change the character of the dialog and if you feel a comment to me is warranted then communicate by PM. If anyone replies by personally attacking me or anyone else with an attempt at blame, insults, or whining I will not reply further. I will simply act.

Consider this the final warning.

[happy]

FITNA felt like the Euro-"Zeitgest"

[abolitionist]

Islamic regimes would be forced to evolve into democracies if the world ceased to buy their oil - as they would become less competitive and increasingly reliant on imports from other countries over the long term.

Their citizens would see how much happier, longer-lived, and better off the rest of the world is and they would be compelled to jump ship.

Oh wait.. we're not really any better off and have our own bioluddite authoritarian government that treats us like fodder for GNP...

No wonder we need to pressure them with military and economic power to be more like us...

[niner]

Islamic regimes would be forced to evolve into democracies if the world ceased to buy their oil - as they would become less competitive and increasingly reliant on imports from other countries over the long term.

Their citizens would see how much happier, longer-lived, and better off the rest of the world is and they would be compelled to jump ship.

Oh wait.. we're not really any better off and have our own bioluddite authoritarian government that treats us like fodder for GNP...

No wonder we need to pressure them with military and economic power to be more like us...

Good point, abolitionist.

If those Islamic regimes that were oil states were suddenly deprived of their oil revenue, their governments would not be able to pacify the citizens with free handouts, and would soon have a lot of angry people on their hands. Those governments would need to become a lot more free, as they wouldn't be able to buy off the citizenry any longer. Oil wealth tends to be a curse more than a blessing as far as the health of a society is concerned. Don't forget, though, that not all Islamic nations are oil economies.

[abolitionist]

Islamic regimes would be forced to evolve into democracies if the world ceased to buy their oil - as they would become less competitive and increasingly reliant on imports from other countries over the long term.

Their citizens would see how much happier, longer-lived, and better off the rest of the world is and they would be compelled to jump ship.

Oh wait.. we're not really any better off and have our own bioluddite authoritarian government that treats us like fodder for GNP...

No wonder we need to pressure them with military and economic power to be more like us...

Good point, abolitionist.

If those Islamic regimes that were oil states were suddenly deprived of their oil revenue, their governments would not be able to pacify the citizens with free handouts, and would soon have a lot of angry people on their hands. Those governments would need to become a lot more free, as they wouldn't be able to buy off the citizenry any longer. Oil wealth tends to be a curse more than a blessing as far as the health of a society is concerned. Don't forget, though, that not all Islamic nations are oil economies.

Considering how little we are investing in algae-based fuel production

(algae is the only sensible transitional solution for the fuel crisis)

I think it's likely that key members of our own government are interested in keeping us dependent on oil for their own profit. There's a mountain of evidence showing US government links to oil producing countries. We even give military equipment directly to Islamic nations. Religious and environmental war profiteering.

If Islam is evil, what does that make the US - a nation of evil philanthropists?

---------

Algae-based fuels can make Islam obsolete assuming we keep our support with the UN for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and stop supporting Israel with weapons.

Islamic people do not hate our freedom - they could care less as long as we don't meddle with them.

Bush is evil. Cheney is evil. Halliburton is evil. - these people who have long ignored the need to develop alternative energy for their own profit are the root of the problem.

We are in no position to judge their human rights policies - our own freedoms are trivial and quickly eroding while we are fodder for the profiteering of the rich and secretive.

If we got serious about self-sufficiency we could be making our own fuel and selling the infrastructure technology to the Arabs within a few years.

So much for capitalism breeding efficient solutions and making us all better off.

Edited by abolitionist, 12 April 2008 - 06:19 AM.

[nefastor]

Don't forget, though, that not all Islamic nations are oil economies.

You know what I think is a real problem : anything a country could base an honest, wealthy economy on (like high-tech, bio-tech, heavy industry) has already been claimed by our "modern" nations and we protect it with our own laws (such as patenting, trade sanctions...). So in the end, if a country wants to make big bucks, what else is there but drugs, weapons or oil ?

It would help a lot if we shared our intellectual wealth with the rest of the world. My country has been "helping" its former colonies in Africa "get out of the Third World" forever. It's still not happening. Because my government would rather they didn't develop the technology to make their own tanks and warplanes. Or even their own cars. It would be counterproductive since we sell them our own products.

It's undeniable western civilization wants to keep its dominant position in the world. That implies looking down on the rest of the world. I think that's one of the key reasons why it's so easy for extremist religious leaders to stay in power.

What makes it all worse, is most often the financial help our countries give to the Third World are used to buy our own products. I can't count anymore the billions France has given Africa, but I know it was tax-money that went directly into the pockets of two-bit dictators and French industrialists.

Perhaps we're overdue for another French Revolution. And you Americans, how about you remember what that Second Amendment was meant for ? 'Cause it clearly looks like your government has gotten our of hand and you can't talk it into behaving nice anymore :

I think it's likely that key members of our own government are interested in keeping us dependent on oil for their own profit. There's a mountain of evidence showing US government links to oil producing countries.

Likely ? Hello ? Bush and Cheney have OIL INDUSTRY written in their resumes and it's not like they ever tried to hide it. The Bush family is Texas oil, they are notorious friends of the royal Saudi family, and Cheney was on the board of Haliburton !

I blame the US people for leaving these two in power more than 5 seconds after they proposed to attack Iraq. It was a matter of common sense that the only real reason they wanted to get in Iraq was money. That's not even open for debate, given their resumes.

Nefastor

[niner]

I blame the US people for leaving these two in power more than 5 seconds after they proposed to attack Iraq. It was a matter of common sense that the only real reason they wanted to get in Iraq was money. That's not even open for debate, given their resumes.

Money isn't the only reason. It's more complicated than that. Joe Lieberman has publicly stated that the war in Iraq (and eventually Iran and Syria) is about ensuring the safety of Israel. It's that, it's money for arms makers, it's control of oil, maybe even a little bit about a naive dream of exporting democracy. It's about many things, but the safety of the American people sure as hell isn't one of them, and never was.

[nefastor]

Money isn't the only reason. (...). Joe Lieberman has publicly stated that the war in Iraq (and eventually Iran and Syria) is about ensuring the safety of Israel. It's that, it's money for arms makers, it's control of oil, maybe even a little bit about a naive dream of exporting democracy.

Like I was saying : it's only about money. The US sells weapons to Israel, which it couldn't if Israel ceased to exist. Call it "protecting the market from outside forces, like the will of the people". Of course, arms and oil mean money. As for exporting democracy, that means exporting the US "business model". Call it "expanding the market".

Fear&Obey : someday, someone will have to explain to me (a Frenchman) how Americans could see socialized healthcare as being worse than anything Bush has done during his first term.

Somehow, I find it hard to believe the majority of 300 million American people is stupid enough to think that a bigoted warmongering retard at the controls can't be worse than using tax money to keep everyone healthy.

Please, somebody explain. Are the Democrats proposing to eat your children alive or something ? It's like I'm stuck inside an episode of the Twilight Zone every time I hear Americans talk of the "evils" of socialized medicine.

And you can't possibly be serious when you say you've pretty much won in Iraq. The US definition of victory has changed so often since the start of the war, no one really knows what it is. What I do know is you've lost a lot of people and a lot of money, and only managed to make more enemies. In any general's book that's called a defeat, and when you're defeated you should cut your losses and plan your next move. It's only the Japanese who used to fight to the bitter end, and then again, they stopped that nonsense after WW-2. Even the freaking Nazi generals eventually turned on Hitler.

I don't know what to say... except stop avoiding the facts, and maybe grow a pair ?

It would be a blow to their dignity.

Oh really ? You mean to tell me the mother of an American soldier would rather her son died, than the US lost a war started under false pretense ?

Or are you talking about some rare breed of morons who take any affront to their country personally but are too scared to do anything about it themselves ? Like join the army ?

And what about the Iraqis ? Is it OK to kill a few thousand more so America can avoid a blow to its dignity ?

Maybe the USA deserves a blow to its dignity. In addition to starting a war under false pretense, we had Abu Graib. And Gitmo.

The US won't respect the Geneva Convention but it should be entitled to dignity ? Does that sound fair to you ? If so, I'm petitioning for Adolf Hitler to be called "a benefactor of rocket science" and a "champion of civil engineering", which in all fairness he actually was, instead of "dangerous madman" and "blemish on mankind's collective soul", we he was also. And why not stop there ? Mussolini was a great infrastructure planner and visionary. There you go.

If Americans wanted dignity, maybe they'd keep Britney Spears away from the cameras. Americans want FREEDOM, and that's an entirely different thing. Usually, dignity limits your freedom. Ask Elliot Spitzer, he knows what I'm talking about.

EDIT : this thread is getting on my nerves. I'm not posting in it anymore. Not sure I'm even gonna read it anymore. You have any questions, PM me.

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 14 April 2008 - 03:41 AM.

[brokenportal]

There is a lot of really creepy sh*t in the Bible. If you focus on that, you could make all Christians look pretty bad. Most Europeans and Americans seem to realize that there are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, and they don't damn the whole religion on the basis of the bad ones. The important question is: What fraction of Muslims believe that killing Infidels is appropriate?

Has anybody stated this already? It seems like the answer is really really simple. I could be wrong, but it goes like this, Islam is "evil" / "violent" because they dont have a band aid book in place to cover up for all the stuff in the first edition that didnt work.

Some sect of catholics finally realized that they dont like all this killing that is virtually unstoppable because god says go ahead and do it so they wrote the new testament.

The muslims forgot to do that, or maybe the author of their band aid book was killed or forgot to make a copy or something.

Anyways, it has always seemed to me that that is the blaringly right there to see reason why Muslims kill and you cant stop them.

What fraction of muslims think killing infadels is inappropriate? Its sort of irrelevent because if they dont, they arent following their bible. If they actually ever do go and really read their "rulebook" then they would have to admit that yes they should be killers too.

[Lazarus Long]

The subject not only of this movie, but the underlying social dilemma faced by western culture internally was the point of focus for this week's radio show, "On The Media."

It is definitely worth listening to.

Listen to: War of Worlds

On The Media

Listening to it I was instantly reminded of the discussion here because they highlight so many of the underlying issues that are impacting how we are, and are not reacting to the cultural interaction. They also go beyond the "us and them" to what creates the tension among ourselves (here) for how we respond to each other.

[niner]

There is a lot of really creepy sh*t in the Bible. If you focus on that, you could make all Christians look pretty bad. Most Europeans and Americans seem to realize that there are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, and they don't damn the whole religion on the basis of the bad ones. The important question is: What fraction of Muslims believe that killing Infidels is appropriate?

Has anybody stated this already? It seems like the answer is really really simple. I could be wrong, but it goes like this, Islam is "evil" / "violent" because they dont have a band aid book in place to cover up for all the stuff in the first edition that didnt work.

Some sect of catholics finally realized that they dont like all this killing that is virtually unstoppable because god says go ahead and do it so they wrote the new testament.

The muslims forgot to do that, or maybe the author of their band aid book was killed or forgot to make a copy or something.

Anyways, it has always seemed to me that that is the blaringly right there to see reason why Muslims kill and you cant stop them.

What fraction of muslims think killing infadels is inappropriate? Its sort of irrelevent because if they dont, they arent following their bible. If they actually ever do go and really read their "rulebook" then they would have to admit that yes they should be killers too.

OK, so if I understand this correctly, the "band aid" book, the New Testament, which was written by a bunch of Catholics, as opposed to God, who wrote the Old Testament, lets Christians off the hook for what God (the real one) told them to do. Muslims, on the other hand, have no band aid, so they are all evil. What should we do then, kill them all? I guess that would be the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War. Or... maybe we should look a little harder at the reality of the situation before we follow my Christianist Warmonger inclinations. There is a book called "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think" that talks about the results of polls of large numbers of both Muslims and Christians. They found pretty similar attitudes between the two groups of people. Is it possible that Muslims are human, and not really all that different from Christians? Or would genocide be a better approach? Tough choice. What would Jesus do?

[inawe]

OK, so if I understand this correctly, the "band aid" book, the New Testament, which was written by a bunch of Catholics, as opposed to God, who wrote the Old Testament, lets Christians off the hook for what God (the real one) told them to do. Muslims, on the other hand, have no band aid, so they are all evil. What should we do then, kill them all? I guess that would be the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War. Or... maybe we should look a little harder at the reality of the situation before we follow my Christianist Warmonger inclinations. There is a book called "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think" that talks about the results of polls of large numbers of both Muslims and Christians. They found pretty similar attitudes between the two groups of people. Is it possible that Muslims are human, and not really all that different from Christians? Or would genocide be a better approach? Tough choice. What would Jesus do?

Guess the "band aid" would be something like the Book of Revelation: nice, uplifting.
On the other hand, there is a difference with the Koran which is so
obvious that I don't understand how people don't see it. Unless they
never read it.
So I'll make it personal for niner. A 12 y/o neighbor is learning from
a book. One day he's rushing somewhere and drops the book. You take a
look and see it's the history of his people. How 2000 years ago god
helped them kill the inhabitants of Smersh ... God will come back and
god himself will punish the sinners.
Similar story with another 12 y/o. This time the book is different.
You read that it repeatedly contains the exhortation: "I, your god, order you to kill
niner".
Niner, read the Koran.
My first choice would be to make all religious books irrelevant. That
wont be that easy. Meanwhile, peaceful coexistence requires that
exhortations to kill niner be taken out of the Koran. It's
not impossible. The angel Gibraele could drop by once again and do
some editing.

Edited by inawe, 21 April 2008 - 10:59 PM.

[niner]

You read that it repeatedly contains the exhortation: "I, your god, order you to kill
niner".

Wow. Now that look I always get from the guy at the bagel shop makes a lot more sense...

[VictorBjoerk]

What is this religious leader shouting?I don't know anything about his movie but it has been circulating on youtube a lot and he sems quite mad...maybe a little off topic I don't know

[niner]

What is this religious leader shouting?I don't know anything about his movie but it has been circulating on youtube a lot and he sems quite mad...maybe a little off topic I don't know

Oh, that's just Hillary Clinton's pastor.

[inawe]

What is this religious leader shouting?I don't know anything about his movie but it has been circulating on youtube a lot and he sems quite mad...maybe a little off topic I don't know

He's having a fit na.

[brokenportal]

There is a lot of really creepy sh*t in the Bible. If you focus on that, you could make all Christians look pretty bad. Most Europeans and Americans seem to realize that there are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, and they don't damn the whole religion on the basis of the bad ones. The important question is: What fraction of Muslims believe that killing Infidels is appropriate?

Has anybody stated this already? It seems like the answer is really really simple. I could be wrong, but it goes like this, Islam is "evil" / "violent" because they dont have a band aid book in place to cover up for all the stuff in the first edition that didnt work.

Some sect of catholics finally realized that they dont like all this killing that is virtually unstoppable because god says go ahead and do it so they wrote the new testament.

The muslims forgot to do that, or maybe the author of their band aid book was killed or forgot to make a copy or something.

Anyways, it has always seemed to me that that is the blaringly right there to see reason why Muslims kill and you cant stop them.

What fraction of muslims think killing infadels is inappropriate? Its sort of irrelevent because if they dont, they arent following their bible. If they actually ever do go and really read their "rulebook" then they would have to admit that yes they should be killers too.

OK, so if I understand this correctly, the "band aid" book, the New Testament, which was written by a bunch of Catholics, as opposed to God, who wrote the Old Testament, lets Christians off the hook for what God (the real one) told them to do. Muslims, on the other hand, have no band aid, so they are all evil. What should we do then, kill them all? I guess that would be the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War. Or... maybe we should look a little harder at the reality of the situation before we follow my Christianist Warmonger inclinations. There is a book called "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think" that talks about the results of polls of large numbers of both Muslims and Christians. They found pretty similar attitudes between the two groups of people. Is it possible that Muslims are human, and not really all that different from Christians? Or would genocide be a better approach? Tough choice. What would Jesus do?

1. Yes, exactly, the new testament lets them off the hook so they dont have to keep say, killing whole towns because they let like 5 homosexuals live there or something like that. Im not saying that God wrote the old testament though. Im on the agnostic branch of this.

2. Muslims on the other hand have no band aid book, right. So they are all evil? No. They just forgot to develop a band aid book. So now they are stuck having to admit that their rule book tells them they have to do all kinds of rediculous crap.

Im open to this, I mean, this seems like how it is to me, but maybe you can tell me something that explains why its not.


Im sure that Muslims and Christians do have similar attitudes, because people are mostly good at heart. Religion though is pushed on impressionable kids, they throw all those "faith" arguements, and "god works in mysterious ways" arguements in there, and it becomes tradition and deeply embeded in cultural stuff and so it can be hard for people to let go of their rule book even if its all messed up. In the end though these good muslims, most of them probably, have to admit that they dont follow their rule book.

So why adopt it as their rule book to begin with? Its like they are playing monopoly with scrabble instructions.

[niner]

There is a lot of really creepy sh*t in the Bible. If you focus on that, you could make all Christians look pretty bad. Most Europeans and Americans seem to realize that there are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, and they don't damn the whole religion on the basis of the bad ones. The important question is: What fraction of Muslims believe that killing Infidels is appropriate?

Has anybody stated this already? It seems like the answer is really really simple. I could be wrong, but it goes like this, Islam is "evil" / "violent" because they dont have a band aid book in place to cover up for all the stuff in the first edition that didnt work.

Some sect of catholics finally realized that they dont like all this killing that is virtually unstoppable because god says go ahead and do it so they wrote the new testament.

The muslims forgot to do that, or maybe the author of their band aid book was killed or forgot to make a copy or something.

Anyways, it has always seemed to me that that is the blaringly right there to see reason why Muslims kill and you cant stop them.

What fraction of muslims think killing infadels is inappropriate? Its sort of irrelevent because if they dont, they arent following their bible. If they actually ever do go and really read their "rulebook" then they would have to admit that yes they should be killers too.

OK, so if I understand this correctly, the "band aid" book, the New Testament, which was written by a bunch of Catholics, as opposed to God, who wrote the Old Testament, lets Christians off the hook for what God (the real one) told them to do. Muslims, on the other hand, have no band aid, so they are all evil. What should we do then, kill them all? I guess that would be the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War. Or... maybe we should look a little harder at the reality of the situation before we follow my Christianist Warmonger inclinations. There is a book called "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think" that talks about the results of polls of large numbers of both Muslims and Christians. They found pretty similar attitudes between the two groups of people. Is it possible that Muslims are human, and not really all that different from Christians? Or would genocide be a better approach? Tough choice. What would Jesus do?

1. Yes, exactly, the new testament lets them off the hook so they dont have to keep say, killing whole towns because they let like 5 homosexuals live there or something like that. Im not saying that God wrote the old testament though. Im on the agnostic branch of this.

2. Muslims on the other hand have no band aid book, right. So they are all evil? No. They just forgot to develop a band aid book. So now they are stuck having to admit that their rule book tells them they have to do all kinds of rediculous crap.

Im open to this, I mean, this seems like how it is to me, but maybe you can tell me something that explains why its not.

Im sure that Muslims and Christians do have similar attitudes, because people are mostly good at heart. Religion though is pushed on impressionable kids, they throw all those "faith" arguements, and "god works in mysterious ways" arguements in there, and it becomes tradition and deeply embeded in cultural stuff and so it can be hard for people to let go of their rule book even if its all messed up. In the end though these good muslims, most of them probably, have to admit that they dont follow their rule book.

So why adopt it as their rule book to begin with? Its like they are playing monopoly with scrabble instructions.

I'm not enough of a scholar of religions to be able to answer with any authority. I'm just speaking from the idea that people everywhere are pretty much the same, and basically good at heart. Considering that only a vanishingly small percentage of Muslims seem bent on killing, and even then, it doesn't seem as though the target is "Infidels", but rather Americans, or occupiers, or people that they have legitimate grievances against, it would appear that almost no Muslims are following the "rules". This leads me to believe that either we've misinterpreted the passage in the Quran that supposedly instructs them to kill Infidels, or we are wrong to consider it a "rule". By that I mean maybe Islam doesn't even consider the Quran to be a book of rules, but rather something else. I just think that this is something we should get to the bottom of before we set off on a new Crusade.

[Heliotrope]

why is islam evil?

who said it's evil? so-called "christians" can be evil, atheists can be evil, many people are capable of very evil deeds, ha, evil indeed

[Heliotrope]

i think innate human nature is may be "evil" too , and we need help with the parenting, schooling , etc to set us straight. religion is not to blame here

[brokenportal]

Ya it would be awsome to get to the bottom of it. I mean, Im pretty sure that the Koran, and the old testament too, both say everywhere in them that we should all definently kill for all kinds of rediculous reasons, like not killing sheep at every tenth day after every half moon or something. Dropping your bible in the dirt, here, I just went and looked up Koran verses, heres one

"IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

or this

"9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

or this

"Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39"


And the old testament says the same kind of stuff as Im sure youve seen.

Ok I didnt find any ones about killing sheep but Im pretty sure they are in there, these are bad enough arent they?

I think your saying here pretty much that muslims keep to their book because they probably have great reasons and rationalizations to stick by it. I think that its mostly as I said before, because:

""Religion though is pushed on impressionable kids, they throw all those "faith" arguements, and "god works in mysterious ways" arguements in there, and it becomes tradition and deeply embeded in cultural stuff and so it can be hard for people to let go of their rule book even if its all messed up.""

Most people just want something to beleive in. Look at die hard sports fanatics. Tons of people get all pissed off when you dont agree that the random ball thrower that they chose is the best.

Look at lots of your chevy or ford lovers, democrats or republicans, some of them research this stuff, but most of them pick a side just for the hell of it. I picked chevy and democrats and the color green when I was a kid for pretty much no reason, and guess what I would still say those are my favorites if somebody asked, even though deep down I know its just some kind of want to choose one and stick with it.

So the point is that muslims kill because they forgot to give their rule book a band aid book when it got out of control, but the catholics did. Although, its all just a bunch of rediculous stuff anyways. We are all playing "Monopoly" here, they should all get rid of their "scrabble" instructions and trade them in for the ones that are alligned with reality.

Its either that or they are going to need to stage a big farce and bring a new messiah or whatever down from the hills and have it say a bunch of crap so they can have a band aid book too, and keep their books, but well, its comical for me to think this, but I guess they could do that. Otherwise we have to live with the idea that impressionable young people, many of them psycologically imbalanced just like anywhere, are brought up with a rulebook for war and killing.

[nefastor]

I came across this video on Youtube and thought it would be perfect for this thread. It's an anti-Christianity version of Fitna, if you will. Since I don't know anything about the author and it wasn't made with the same level of resources as Fitna, I'll abstain from making comparisons or indeed any form of comment (breathe easy, guys ) except to say that I've verified the accuracy of the Bible quotations via this site.

Nefastor

EDIT : here's the Youtube page for that video.

Edited by nefastor, 28 May 2008 - 12:36 PM.