No problem at all. If nothing else it helps clarify my thoughts on the matter.

As for the moment, however, I have the flu and Im going to go pass out a-drooling.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex He also is of the firm belief that the west should step back and let the Middle-East be the Middle-east

ok. but tell your friend to tell them that flying jets into buildings is bad, mmkay?

___________________
writing lyrics aint what it used to be

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Its a pretty ridiculous statement when you compare it to secular horrors such as Stalin and Mao and the Godless states they created...

the difference being that none of these horrors were committed "for" atheism. nobody has ever fought a conflict or subjugated a people and tried to convert them to atheism. so saying that "godless" people committed heinous crimes isnt a parallel with pointing out conflicts where religion has played a central part.

there is no reason to believe that if the mao or stalinist states were religious, that these horrors would not have occured. whereas, in reference to the original post of this thread- there is NO doubt that these people acted (and were released) due to their particular religious interpretations. i have never seen or heard of such heinous crimes being commited for atheism. why? because we dont feel some greater sense of moral authority that religion can and does imbue people with. we judge things on their merits, NOT on some archaic text written by god knows who, for purposes unknown.

COR version: pointing at the "godless" states is a misnomer when comparing religion to non belief and their respective crimes against humanity.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax what would that generalization be?

Isn't it obvious?
If it isn't, then we have nothing to discuss about.
Well, there isn't anything to discuss one way or another.
You're generalising whole nation based on acts of several individuals.

quote:

Originally posted by Gauss Isn't it obvious? If it isn't, then we have nothing to discuss about. Well, there isn't anything to discuss one way or another. You're generalising whole nation based on acts of several individuals.

No No...you didnt answer the question. I didnt ask what I was doing, I asked which generalization I stated (you have to be explicit here) that you disagree with.

I think the issue is you perceived a generalization and then projected it onto me. Because I made no statement as such in my original post.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the difference being that none of these horrors were committed "for" atheism.

So if I find a quote from Stalin or Mao that says they are doing this to create a Godless state where man can triumph what will happen to your argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Jocker ok. but tell your friend to tell them that flying jets into buildings is bad, mmkay?

i am sure if the west never stepped into the middle east, they wouldn't have crashed airplanes into the world trade center. think about why they did it in the first place (sure its because they are crazy, but also because of what the US is doing and what they are supporting).

quote:

Originally posted by hadi ****** i am sure if the west never stepped into the middle east, they wouldn't have crashed airplanes into the world trade center. think about why they did it in the first place (sure its because they are crazy, but also because of what the US is doing and what they are supporting).

Foreseeable consequences are foreseen only so far in advance.

In court there is the "but for" clause. But for that, this would never have happened.

However true that may be you have to find a way to make a reasonable man believe that that is the primary factor.

Otherwise you could say that if the universe never existed, we wouldnt have this platform for pain and hurt and sorrow...so its the universes fault.

You have to find proximal but for clause otherwise its just kind of a "...yeah thats true...i guess...?"

yikes

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I didnt ask if google worked I wanted your research links. You can simplify it in the future without the BS. I also fail to see how religion is any more at fault than naturalism when you realize youre dead in 60 years why not take whatever you can get from everyone you can? Its a pretty wild claim to make that if we got rid of religion everyones pupils would shrink and their lives would come into focus and everyone would just pull out the rake and start gardening.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T q. why would most people remain moral in an entirely not religious society? a. aside from legislated morality (fear of going to jail/etc), people who know this life is all they have - that there is no afterlife at least from their own prespective will want to live on in some way: in memory, they will behave in particular ways in order to be remembered in particular ways. they will do moral things to be remembered as moral persons, they will do amoral things to be remembered as amoral persons. that (likely subconscious) consideration would guide them and 'keep them in check' as it already does now, except that now, that consideration only takes a prominent role late in a person's life. i'd venture to say it takes prominance even over religious beliefs, exactly because it is usually subconscious.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles "Purity" is the ideal you see popping up again and again in awful, murderous societies. "Racial purity" in Hitler's Germany. "Ideological purity" in Stalinism and Maoism. "Moral purity" in Catholic Europe of the Middle Ages and paternalistic Muslim regimes. This is no accident. The way to achieve these kinds of "purity" is through intolerance of differences -- differences in physiology, differences in political beliefs, differences in sexual practices -- which is what ultimately leads to all the horrors you read about. It seems that, for whatever reason, some people simply cannot live with the fact that other people look, act, and believe differently than they do.

I agree with all of this, and would only add that conflict is caused by the thrusting of promotion of one lifestyle/ideal as somehow "better" than any other lifestyle, practice, or belief structure. In cases where lifestyles or practice cannot be changed, individuals are simply swept aside, as was certainly the case in Nazi Germany.

This can be the case with religion, language, colonial practice, or even government. Certainly violence in the Middle East is at least partially a backlash against the perceived imposition of democracy as superior to previous political practices.

___________________

its interesting. the 2 real major problems with the middle east, or more specifically, muslim/islam governed countries comes down to education and fanaticism. those societies (a lot having to do with the oppression of women) are very intolerant to individualism. they arent able to accept that everyone has their own views mostly because they are blinded by their religious fanaticism. islam is a very tolerant religion in its original form, but this wahidi islam is the fanatical anti-western form of islam, aka islamism, is what is gaining steam very quickly in the middle east.

there was a thing on tv about 6-7 months ago, it was on the discovery channel, and it probed specifically where and when the fanaticism came into play. i dont remember what it was called but it was very good. i wish it was more in depth but considering it was only a 1hr segment it was very good imho.