I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
I'm not so sure. I mean, one of the biggest problems facing us as a species is environmental destruction, so wouldn't it be wise to begin learning, or at least appreciating, ideas of a religious/spiritual nature that are concerned with our relationship to the natural environment, such as paganism and/or animism?
But in general I pretty much agree with your entire post.
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
You sound as proud of your militant and intolerant views as an extremist jihadi or Jew or Christian or Buddhist.
What I am wondering about is, so if people decide on a two-state solution - how will this work out. Will they draw back the borders to what they have been in 1947? The people who had to flee from their land can go back and reclaim it? What will the people do who have lived there since back then? Can something like this happen peacefully? It somehow did in Germany after the country came back together. There were personal tragedies, but they were of course not comparable to what is going on in the Middle East right now. Would there be a peaceful solution that is not going to start another battleground?
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. That's why I keep repeating, what does a real resolution look like? Forcing Israel to back down is using a violent act, and violence only begets violence. It certainly doesn't cause peace. So far, Leeze, you are one of the few really attempting to think what peace would look like. I'm merely attempting to get people to actually start thinking in that direction rather than spinning the wheels of anger and finger pointing. Because, that gets us no where. You'd think more this concept would get into more people's heads.
What are you talking about? We've explained time and time again that there are peaceful ways to force Israel to back down. Why do you keep thinking these are calls for war? To demand that your representatives in the US stop sending military aid to Israel -- that's a call for violence? To boycott products from Israel -- that's a call for violence? To demand companies begin divesting from Israel until they adhere to international law is a call for violence? What exactly do you disagree with here? To demand that Israel ends the occupation is a call for violence? To demand that Palestinian refugees who have been living in refugee camps for over 60 years be allowed the right to return to their homes is a call for war?
I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.
Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?
@dancinacrossthewater, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.
Thanks. Although I feel like owning a smartphone already makes one part of the problem -- and if that sounds judgmental, know that I'm judging myself as well.
At any rate, perhaps this app can help balance that out.
Thanks. Although I feel like owning a smartphone already makes one part of the problem -- and if that sounds judgmental, know that I'm judging myself as well.
At any rate, perhaps this app can help balance that out.
Yes there's definitely some sort of irony there lol
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
As seen here time and time again, shockingly, when you belittle other people ("the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush"), they're significantly less likely to actually read and seek for validity in what you're saying. I also think that you've made a mistake when you've assumed that atheism is the opposite of religion, which I feel is a common notion amongst atheists (at least it was for me, when I used to call myself one). As someone with a non-traditional concept of a god, who from time to time rejects the teachings of Judaism (and all other religions), doubting the absolutism that comes with the guidebooks that apparently deities provided, I would not call myself religious. But I'm certainly spiritual. Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?
As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most: an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct, the incessant desire to spread that among the masses, and the notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist.
I have seen the beauty of religion, and it sounds like something that perhaps you haven't been exposed to. I have been to the Hassan II Mosque in Morocco - which can accommodate 105,000 people gathered together in prayer and seen the pride and admiration of those who have devoted much of their lives to Islam, and enjoyed each haunting call to prayer I have ever heard in the two predominantly Muslim states I have been to (Morocco and Malaysia). I have seen a public cremation in Nepal, where when I thought it was devastating, the smiling man next to me explained it was liberating: the body was merely a carrier, he told me, and the soul would carry on to find its next shell, and partook in the magnificent celebrations with Hindus and Buddhists alike afterwards. I watched a man break down when his twin sister, at the age of 30, died of unknown reasons, and discover Judaism several months later: the only thing that ever was able to give him solace in the loss of his best friend. I listened to a new friend, Sean, in a Buddhist monastery we were learning in, tell me about why he keeps his son's teddy bear (it's because his son passed away, and because Buddhist meditation gave him the wherewithal to acknowledge that death is part of the journey: Sean looked at me and as I started to cry, he consoled me for the loss of his son. That, to me, is indescribable beauty found from - and not in spite of - religion, and I would not wish to take that away from anyone's life, nor to prevent it from further lives. We will learn to coexist in due time, but it won't be from the death of religion.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.
Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?
@dancinacrossthewater, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.
I could give you a clip of Mosan Hasson Yousef if you want...he's all over the news these days.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,770
We are such a remarkable species. Capable of creating beauty. Capable of awe-inspiring advancements. We must be capable of resolving conflicts without bloodshed.
And I do know we are better off when we reach out to each other.
So many of the comments on all these many pages represent verbal bloodshed. They do not read as "reaching out to each other".
I am still anti-war.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,770
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
As seen here time and time again, shockingly, when you belittle other people ("the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush"), they're significantly less likely to actually read and seek for validity in what you're saying. I also think that you've made a mistake when you've assumed that atheism is the opposite of religion, which I feel is a common notion amongst atheists (at least it was for me, when I used to call myself one). As someone with a non-traditional concept of a god, who from time to time rejects the teachings of Judaism (and all other religions), doubting the absolutism that comes with the guidebooks that apparently deities provided, I would not call myself religious. But I'm certainly spiritual. Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?
As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most: an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct, the incessant desire to spread that among the masses, and the notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist.
I have seen the beauty of religion, and it sounds like something that perhaps you haven't been exposed to. I have been to the Hassan II Mosque in Morocco - which can accommodate 105,000 people gathered together in prayer and seen the pride and admiration of those who have devoted much of their lives to Islam, and enjoyed each haunting call to prayer I have ever heard in the two predominantly Muslim states I have been to (Morocco and Malaysia). I have seen a public cremation in Nepal, where when I thought it was devastating, the smiling man next to me explained it was liberating: the body was merely a carrier, he told me, and the soul would carry on to find its next shell, and partook in the magnificent celebrations with Hindus and Buddhists alike afterwards. I watched a man break down when his twin sister, at the age of 30, died of unknown reasons, and discover Judaism several months later: the only thing that ever was able to give him solace in the loss of his best friend. I listened to a new friend, Sean, in a Buddhist monastery we were learning in, tell me about why he keeps his son's teddy bear (it's because his son passed away, and because Buddhist meditation gave him the wherewithal to acknowledge that death is part of the journey: Sean looked at me and as I started to cry, he consoled me for the loss of his son. That, to me, is indescribable beauty found from - and not in spite of - religion, and I would not wish to take that away from anyone's life, nor to prevent it from further lives. We will learn to coexist in due time, but it won't be from the death of religion.
I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.
Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?
@dancinacrossthewater, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.
I could give you a clip of Mosan Hasson Yousef if you want...he's all over the news these days.
Oh you mean Mosab Hassan Yousef? The guy who worked as a spy for Israel for years before being kicked out, fled to the West, converted to Christianity and now makes money bashing Hamas and blaming everything on them? That Mosab Hassan Yousef? Tell me, how is it that someone who is not in Hamas constitutes "the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure"? After all, you said these so-called people are the ones calling "very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews"? So I ask again, who are those in Hamas's apparent "power structure" who do not accept the 67 borders as a guideline for peace with Israel, even though Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, already has done so? Care to enlighten us with some actual evidence on what those inside Hamas are saying, rather than just one kid who has become a talking head on Fox News?
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I'm not so sure. I mean, one of the biggest problems facing us as a species is environmental destruction, so wouldn't it be wise to begin learning, or at least appreciating, ideas of a religious/spiritual nature that are concerned with our relationship to the natural environment, such as paganism and/or animism?
This makes sense to me; a good and healthy start, for sure.
I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.
Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?
@dancinacrossthewater, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.
I could give you a clip of Mosan Hasson Yousef if you want...he's all over the news these days.
Oh you mean Mosab Hassan Yousef? The guy who worked as a spy for Israel for years before being kicked out, fled to the West, converted to Christianity and now makes money bashing Hamas and blaming everything on them? That Mosab Hassan Yousef? Tell me, how is it that someone who is not in Hamas constitutes "the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure"? After all, you said these so-called people are the ones calling "very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews"? So I ask again, who are those in Hamas's apparent "power structure" who do not accept the 67 borders as a guideline for peace with Israel, even though Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, already has done so? Care to enlighten us with some actual evidence on what those inside Hamas are saying, rather than just one kid who has become a talking head on Fox News?
Ya fuck, I was under the impression everyone knew about the story of yousef and his shady doings.
Does anyone find it the least bit interesting that we've spent the last 6 years removing ourselves from world affairs and now the world is on fire? I know we can't and shouldn't be involved in everything. But, perhaps SOME vigilance might be in order to "maintain the peace." (And no I'm not so stupid I think that nothing goes on when we are more involved. I am talking about degrees).
A little preventive measure goes a long way. - Speak softly and carry a big stick. (which does not mean you have to use the stick. Just that folks know you're willing to use it instead of jibber jabbing).
I think it is a good point, but I disagree that the world was not also on fire six years ago.
Again, all relative. I know all's not quiet on the Western/Eastern/Central front then. But, there certainly was a different focus and certain entities were relatively quiet. That doesn't mean what was going on was 100% right and that atrocities weren't still happening. But, again - it's a relativity.
We'd all like World Peace, but it's very clear there are factions that will never abide, so we must always be vigilant and not be so quick to dismiss the need for military intervention (which, of course, comes with it's own difficult decisions of what's right, wrong, effective, etc.). What's clear at least to me is that burying our heads in the sand and saying - now, y'all be good - ok? is not only ineffective but creates an atmosphere that certain groups feel they can fill with greater destruction without caring who gets killed to further their personal agendas. Kind of like this thread. >-
I don't think we have ever buried our head in the sand. I think the push to no longer be the world's policeman is a noble one, but it can never take hold while we are also much of the world's arms dealer. I think we've been plenty involved in some places that have been and are now on fire. That involvement may not always be "boots on the ground", but it is often just as entrenching.
All that said, I'm not sure we are really disagreeing here. I've pointed out in the Iraq thread how horrifying it is to admit that I do believe we need to get involved against ISIS. What they are doing cannot be allowed to continue, not when it is occurring in a power vacuum that we created. We removed Saddam for the worst reasons possible and we do bare a responsibility to the people there. To leave them to be slaughtered by these mad men should not be an option.
I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.
Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?
@dancinacrossthewater, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.
I could give you a clip of Mosan Hasson Yousef if you want...he's all over the news these days.
Oh you mean Mosab Hassan Yousef? The guy who worked as a spy for Israel for years before being kicked out, fled to the West, converted to Christianity and now makes money bashing Hamas and blaming everything on them? That Mosab Hassan Yousef? Tell me, how is it that someone who is not in Hamas constitutes "the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure"? After all, you said these so-called people are the ones calling "very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews"? So I ask again, who are those in Hamas's apparent "power structure" who do not accept the 67 borders as a guideline for peace with Israel, even though Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, already has done so? Care to enlighten us with some actual evidence on what those inside Hamas are saying, rather than just one kid who has become a talking head on Fox News?
Ya fuck, I was under the impression everyone knew about the story of yousef and his shady doings.
No I didn't mean that he's part of Hamas's power structure. I meant that that you providing one Charlie Rose interview as conclusive proof that Hamas wants a viable peace is a little suspect given how much how much media is out there.
I mean, I know this has come up a million times, but they have to change the charter man. I know it's only symbolic but it's incredibly important.
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
1. As seen here time and time again, shockingly, when you belittle other people ("the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush"), they're significantly less likely to actually read and seek for validity in what you're saying. I also think that you've made a mistake when you've assumed that atheism is the opposite of religion, which I feel is a common notion amongst atheists (at least it was for me, when I used to call myself one). As someone with a non-traditional concept of a god, who from time to time rejects the teachings of Judaism (and all other religions), doubting the absolutism that comes with the guidebooks that apparently deities provided, I would not call myself religious. But I'm certainly spiritual. Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?
2. As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most: an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct, the incessant desire to spread that among the masses, and the notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist.
3. I have seen the beauty of religion, and it sounds like something that perhaps you haven't been exposed to. I have been to the Hassan II Mosque in Morocco - which can accommodate 105,000 people gathered together in prayer and seen the pride and admiration of those who have devoted much of their lives to Islam, and enjoyed each haunting call to prayer I have ever heard in the two predominantly Muslim states I have been to (Morocco and Malaysia). I have seen a public cremation in Nepal, where when I thought it was devastating, the smiling man next to me explained it was liberating: the body was merely a carrier, he told me, and the soul would carry on to find its next shell, and partook in the magnificent celebrations with Hindus and Buddhists alike afterwards. I watched a man break down when his twin sister, at the age of 30, died of unknown reasons, and discover Judaism several months later: the only thing that ever was able to give him solace in the loss of his best friend. I listened to a new friend, Sean, in a Buddhist monastery we were learning in, tell me about why he keeps his son's teddy bear (it's because his son passed away, and because Buddhist meditation gave him the wherewithal to acknowledge that death is part of the journey: Sean looked at me and as I started to cry, he consoled me for the loss of his son. That, to me, is indescribable beauty found from - and not in spite of - religion, and I would not wish to take that away from anyone's life, nor to prevent it from further lives. We will learn to coexist in due time, but it won't be from the death of religion.
Thanks. I'll address your paragraphs by numbers.
1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so. Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction. "Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.
2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god. "As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy! "The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist??? "The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.
3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.
Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Gaza...the insistence that Eddie was only referring to a single conflict continues to miss his point.
Too much war, too many warlords, too many conflicts. Worldwide.
Well said, Jimmy V and thanks for pointing this out!
It's so heavily ironic that 98% of this (to now) 55 page thread is off the mark as far as what the thread is about. The opportunity to place those 98% of errant posts found here is in AMT but for some reason, like plaque in unbrushed teeth, the misplaced posts continue to flourish here.
Are you saying that the moderators on this forum don't know how to do their job properly? This thread has been allowed to continue, so can the complaints about it being off topic finally stop? Please? if the mods feel the need to close the thread, then they can choose to do so.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a mod step in on this board for the sole reason that a thread was off topic. Maybe it has happened, but that is not usually what brings in the mods.
There are several threads related specifically to Gaza on AMT. Waging a war to make this one exclusive to a single conflict does nothing to help those in Gaza. Or Syria. Or Iraq. Or Ukraine. Or anywhere else. At some point it just becomes about yelling on the internet, pounding your chest, and screaming "I'm right!" You are free to do that, but brianlux is also free to post whatever he likes as well.
No one is waging a war to make this about one topic. If some people decided to start a completely separate conversation about the Ukrainian situation, why would anyone complain about that? I still maintain that Eddie's initial comment at the show had to do with the number one news story in the world at the moment, namely Israel's assault on Gaza. Of course his words can be applied elsewhere too. That's the point of being a principled person - you maintain consistency on these issues, whenever you see parallels. The thing that I find disingenuous is when people come into this thread and question others' intentions by saying "Why are you not decrying those dead in Syria in the same manner as those in Gaza?" This is meant to only serve as a distraction, and is not productive.
No one is preventing people from talking about other conflicts. I should probably only speak for myself, but I don't believe I've seen others preventing people either, and I also have not seen people like brianlux attempting to talk about anything other than saying things along the lines of 'Stop doing what you're doing, it's wrong, all of it, it's wrong', and then occasionally chiming in the discussion of Israel/Palestine with misguided comments such as "both sides are to blame". People are welcome to participate in a discussion on this conflict, but don't be so sensitive if someone tells you you are wrong and explains why.
Finally, I find your last sentence a bit strange - I never suggested that brianlux is not free to post what he wants. This speaks to a greater problem where people seem to respond to what I write by suggesting I wrote something else. I said I'd ignore his posts - not that he shouldn't post anymore.
When you say "can the complaints about this thread being off topic please stop?", you are indeed trying to regulate what others post. If you are going to ignore posts, fine. Asking other members to stop posting certain things is quite different than ignoring those posts.
I know you don't like me fuck, but I'm really not trying to mislead or deceive anybody. I think supporting Hamas is not good for peace or Palestinians. I also think supporting Israeli settlers or the extreme Israeli right is not good for peace.
I think Hamas's narrative of holy war and revenge is destructive. I think Jews referencing six million every time someone criticizes Israel is destructive. There are two beautiful cultures at war and it sucks. The way out doesn't come through the kind of positions you're espousing, fuck. But I hear your anger man, even if you don't think I take it seriously.
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
You sound as proud of your militant and intolerant views as an extremist jihadi or Jew or Christian or Buddhist.
Hey, thanks man!
It was late so I wasn't sure if I was getting my point across.
I can't compete with (nor would I like to) the amount of death, destruction and misery those other groups inflict upon the world so to know you think my rhetoric at least competes with theirs makes me feel great. Since I'm only fighting with, ya know, words and stuff, I have to make sure they at least live up to the intensity of the enemies of humanity you mentioned.
Thanks again for the encouragement!
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,770
When you say "can the complaints about this thread being off topic please stop?", you are indeed trying to regulate what others post. If you are going to ignore posts, fine. Asking other members to stop posting certain things is quite different than ignoring those posts.
Some times more aggressive people try to kick the kids they don't like off the court. We all have a right to make our statement as long as it isn't a personal attack.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I think there's been a lot of good debate in this thread in addition to some crap. I don't think the articles I've posted are crap, and I don't think all of what you've said is crap either. I do think think the idea that Hamas as an organization would accept peace along the 67 borders is untrue...one or two party officials may have said it at one point, but the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure continue to call very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews.
Would you like to provide some evidence? Did you not watch what Khaled Meshaal, Hamas' leader, said in his interview with Charlie Rose? Also, who is that actually "wields power" in Hamas' "power structure" -- would you care to enlighten us?
@dancinacrossthewater, I see you have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that you've been asked to provide evidence to support your claims.
I could give you a clip of Mosan Hasson Yousef if you want...he's all over the news these days.
Oh you mean Mosab Hassan Yousef? The guy who worked as a spy for Israel for years before being kicked out, fled to the West, converted to Christianity and now makes money bashing Hamas and blaming everything on them? That Mosab Hassan Yousef? Tell me, how is it that someone who is not in Hamas constitutes "the vast majority of those who wield power in Hamas's power structure"? After all, you said these so-called people are the ones calling "very openly for the destruction of Israel and annihilation of Jews"? So I ask again, who are those in Hamas's apparent "power structure" who do not accept the 67 borders as a guideline for peace with Israel, even though Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas, already has done so? Care to enlighten us with some actual evidence on what those inside Hamas are saying, rather than just one kid who has become a talking head on Fox News?
Ya fuck, I was under the impression everyone knew about the story of yousef and his shady doings.
No I didn't mean that he's part of Hamas's power structure. I meant that that you providing one Charlie Rose interview as conclusive proof that Hamas wants a viable peace is a little suspect given how much how much media is out there.
I mean, I know this has come up a million times, but they have to change the charter man. I know it's only symbolic but it's incredibly important.
So you just ignored the fact that you made a claim that the "majority" of those high up in "Hamas's power structure" allegedly continue to call for the "destruction of Israel" and the "annihilation of Jews"? I also find it weird that you consider an interview with the leader of Hamas where he very clearly calls for everything I said in a coherent manner as "one Charlie Rose interview" despite the fact that he has done this in many other venues and formats, the Charlie Rose interview being but one recent example. Although it was obvious to me from the start, it should be obvious to everyone by now that you said something that was just plain untrue, and clearly a result of your adherence to mainstream media in the West which takes the Zionist news line as fact from the start without any real critical research.
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories. The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.
The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state and instead takes a more ambiguous position by saying that Hamas had decided to compete in the elections because it would contribute to "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem"....
However, on top of this, there is something to be said for what "destruction of Israel" even implies. It does not mean "annihilation of all Jews", a phrase which is not even present in the Hamas charter to begin with. It means the dismantlement of a Zionist state, i.e., a state in which non-Jews are discriminated against in apartheid-like conditions, and a Jewish-majority population must be preserved to the point where non-Jews are murdered or forced out of their homes. There is a problem with equating "Jews" (which is a religious people) and "Zionists" (which are people who follow a specific political ideology). This is more obvious to those of us in the West who see non-Zionist Jews and non-Jewish Zionists. But there is an issue where Israel claims to act on behalf of Judaism and Jews as a "Jewish state", and simply refer to themselves as "Jews of Israel" -- this is what I and others meant in this thread, where we said that committing crimes in this name will naturally lead to a growth of anti-Jewish hatred. I don't think it is or will be anything like the anti-Semitism of 19th and 20th century Europe, but when Hamas or other groups/individuals you see in the Middle East refer to "Jews", it should not be taken too seriously as an attempt to commit genocide. Especially when the ones who are often saying these things are ideologues with no real influence, while the political actors are those who publicly say "We don't have a problem with Jews, we have a problem with occupation".
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
You sound as proud of your militant and intolerant views as an extremist jihadi or Jew or Christian or Buddhist.
Hey, thanks man!
It was late so I wasn't sure if I was getting my point across.
I can't compete with (nor would I like to) the amount of death, destruction and misery those other groups inflict upon the world so to know you think my rhetoric at least competes with theirs makes me feel great. Since I'm only fighting with, ya know, words and stuff, I have to make sure they at least live up to the intensity of the enemies of humanity you mentioned.
Thanks again for the encouragement!
You're not competing with them, you're running side-by-side with them. Those who promote tolerance and pluralism are your competitors.
1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so.
Semantics are a powerful tool that you can use to your advantage, or you can choose the other route: to pound someone into submission (via an ad hominem attack) to ensure that their voice's quality is degraded. You have chosen the latter, and by doing so, you degrade your own voice. It is incredulous to me that so many are willing to neglect basic civility to get a point across, when it is detrimental to do so in this way.
Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction.
Religion is just another demographic for one position of power to say unto another that someone else is worth less than us. It is no different than any nationalism, which, again, I believe in - but not if it conflicts with basic humanitarian instincts which I put the onus on each individual to check for conflicts and choose accordingly which to follow. Something I vehemently oppose is justification and rationalization of inhumane acts via religion, or any 'grouping' of society for that matter.
"Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.
I'll take the blame for this one - I should have been clearer. I'm not proposing an all-or-none acceptance or denial of religious law: I'm saying before a human does something in the name of religion, that's the question they should act. I agree that the god of the Bible is brutal and heavy-handed, but that's a personal opinion.
2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god.
Again, my fault, and I'm happy to clarify. What I should have said is that, based on the words you wrote, I would never be content to call myself an atheist. It is a group (and yes, 'everyone else' aka non-believers, indeed form a cluster) which I would want no participation within, based on the concepts which tend to hold true independently of which atheist you speak to. I did actually mention that I do believe in a god (just an atypical concept of one), so I suppose I would be ineligible to join the party anyways.
"As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy!
Not to be technical here, then, but wouldn't this make you an agnostic?
"The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist???
I am personally disgusted by 'mission'-related concepts typically designed to exploit a lack of knowledge or inherent ignorance in people. I have told Christian missionaries that to their faces when one began to preach about Jesus Christ while teaching Buddhist children with me, and I have done the same to Jewish preachers (including two rabbis in different occasions) who try and belittle my 'Jewishness' and try and recruit me for their ultra-Orthodox sects too.
"The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.
I don't think I used the word dick, did I? Pretty sure I suggested intolerance was a notion highly visible within atheism (just as it is within religion, which I gather you have no regard for), and one I was unwilling to support.
3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.
The end result may be the same whether I arrive at happiness from a sandwich or a religious experience, but the religious experience to arrive there is a bridge I would not propose burning.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I just wish that as a fellow atheist, Ed would go further.
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
You sound as proud of your militant and intolerant views as an extremist jihadi or Jew or Christian or Buddhist.
Hey, thanks man!
It was late so I wasn't sure if I was getting my point across.
I can't compete with (nor would I like to) the amount of death, destruction and misery those other groups inflict upon the world so to know you think my rhetoric at least competes with theirs makes me feel great. Since I'm only fighting with, ya know, words and stuff, I have to make sure they at least live up to the intensity of the enemies of humanity you mentioned.
Thanks again for the encouragement!
You're not competing with them, you're running side-by-side with them. Those who promote tolerance and pluralism are your competitors.
I appreciate what you're saying, fuck, but I think we see tolerance a little differently. My idea of tolerance simply means that I believe you've the right to believe whatever you'd like without having your head chopped off. It doesn't mean that I won't speak up when an idea completely sucks.
1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so.
Semantics are a powerful tool that you can use to your advantage, or you can choose the other route: to pound someone into submission (via an ad hominem attack) to ensure that their voice's quality is degraded. You have chosen the latter, and by doing so, you degrade your own voice. It is incredulous to me that so many are willing to neglect basic civility to get a point across, when it is detrimental to do so in this way.
Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction.
Religion is just another demographic for one position of power to say unto another that someone else is worth less than us. It is no different than any nationalism, which, again, I believe in - but not if it conflicts with basic humanitarian instincts which I put the onus on each individual to check for conflicts and choose accordingly which to follow. Something I vehemently oppose is justification and rationalization of inhumane acts via religion, or any 'grouping' of society for that matter.
"Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.
I'll take the blame for this one - I should have been clearer. I'm not proposing an all-or-none acceptance or denial of religious law: I'm saying before a human does something in the name of religion, that's the question they should act. I agree that the god of the Bible is brutal and heavy-handed, but that's a personal opinion.
2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god.
Again, my fault, and I'm happy to clarify. What I should have said is that, based on the words you wrote, I would never be content to call myself an atheist. It is a group (and yes, 'everyone else' aka non-believers, indeed form a cluster) which I would want no participation within, based on the concepts which tend to hold true independently of which atheist you speak to. I did actually mention that I do believe in a god (just an atypical concept of one), so I suppose I would be ineligible to join the party anyways.
"As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy!
Not to be technical here, then, but wouldn't this make you an agnostic?
"The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist???
I am personally disgusted by 'mission'-related concepts typically designed to exploit a lack of knowledge or inherent ignorance in people. I have told Christian missionaries that to their faces when one began to preach about Jesus Christ while teaching Buddhist children with me, and I have done the same to Jewish preachers (including two rabbis in different occasions) who try and belittle my 'Jewishness' and try and recruit me for their ultra-Orthodox sects too.
"The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.
I don't think I used the word dick, did I? Pretty sure I suggested intolerance was a notion highly visible within atheism (just as it is within religion, which I gather you have no regard for), and one I was unwilling to support.
3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.
The end result may be the same whether I arrive at happiness from a sandwich or a religious experience, but the religious experience to arrive there is a bridge I would not propose burning.
Thanks for your response. I still disagree with you but I really appreciate what you wrote. You're an intelligent guy (or gal?) but I just don't see what your clinging to. It seems you're an atheist by another name. There is no atheist club that you or anyone else wouldn't be allowed into. You're smart enough to know that but your just being stubborn about labeling yourself. The funny thing is that we probably agree on the real world application of our philosophies but not so much on their descriptors. Anyway, thanks for writing me back.
I'm not so sure. I mean, one of the biggest problems facing us as a species is environmental destruction, so wouldn't it be wise to begin learning, or at least appreciating, ideas of a religious/spiritual nature that are concerned with our relationship to the natural environment, such as paganism and/or animism?
But in general I pretty much agree with your entire post.
No. Science alone would be good enough to help solve those problems, Byrnzie. Paganism and animism can continue to be taught in history or social studies alongside Jesus, Zeus and other myths.
Comments
I see a lot of these flair-ups in the world as religion buckling in it's final death throws and that's a great thing. For all of these faith-based wars I hold personally responsible, to one degree or another no matter how small, every religious person and those who support any religion as an acceptable belief system. Every time you hear someone talk about their faith and you sit quietly without challenging them, you're somewhat responsible for allowing this nonsense to continue. It's no different than someone making racist remarks in your company. You have a moral obligation to not sit quietly by and tolerate that shit. You're providing fertile ground for insanity to take root.
There is no short term solution to the problems in the Middle East and other religious conflicts, but there is a long term solution to them; teaching all of our children naturalism, humanism and an atheistic world-view.
I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of you will tear me apart for this because modern liberalism has turned your brains to mush. I'm still interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and if you ever teach your children that they're in any way one of "god's chosen people"...well then, fuck you.
But in general I pretty much agree with your entire post.
At any rate, perhaps this app can help balance that out.
As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most: an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct, the incessant desire to spread that among the masses, and the notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist.
I have seen the beauty of religion, and it sounds like something that perhaps you haven't been exposed to. I have been to the Hassan II Mosque in Morocco - which can accommodate 105,000 people gathered together in prayer and seen the pride and admiration of those who have devoted much of their lives to Islam, and enjoyed each haunting call to prayer I have ever heard in the two predominantly Muslim states I have been to (Morocco and Malaysia). I have seen a public cremation in Nepal, where when I thought it was devastating, the smiling man next to me explained it was liberating: the body was merely a carrier, he told me, and the soul would carry on to find its next shell, and partook in the magnificent celebrations with Hindus and Buddhists alike afterwards. I watched a man break down when his twin sister, at the age of 30, died of unknown reasons, and discover Judaism several months later: the only thing that ever was able to give him solace in the loss of his best friend. I listened to a new friend, Sean, in a Buddhist monastery we were learning in, tell me about why he keeps his son's teddy bear (it's because his son passed away, and because Buddhist meditation gave him the wherewithal to acknowledge that death is part of the journey: Sean looked at me and as I started to cry, he consoled me for the loss of his son. That, to me, is indescribable beauty found from - and not in spite of - religion, and I would not wish to take that away from anyone's life, nor to prevent it from further lives. We will learn to coexist in due time, but it won't be from the death of religion.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Capable of awe-inspiring advancements. We must be capable of
resolving conflicts without bloodshed.
And I do know we are
better off when we reach out to each other.
So many of the comments on all these many pages represent verbal bloodshed. They do not read as "reaching out to each other".
I am still anti-war.
And benjs, beautiful post all around.
All that said, I'm not sure we are really disagreeing here. I've pointed out in the Iraq thread how horrifying it is to admit that I do believe we need to get involved against ISIS. What they are doing cannot be allowed to continue, not when it is occurring in a power vacuum that we created. We removed Saddam for the worst reasons possible and we do bare a responsibility to the people there. To leave them to be slaughtered by these mad men should not be an option.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I mean, I know this has come up a million times, but they have to change the charter man. I know it's only symbolic but it's incredibly important.
1. I do think liberalism has turned people's brains to mush. Should I not say that? If that's so cripplingly belittling to others that they can't scrape themselves off the floor, then I guess my analysis is more accurate than I thought. I'm not here to be polite. If I have little or no respect for an idea or ideology, I'll say so. Also, I never claimed atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, no more, no less. It's not the end-all-be-all solution to the world's problems but I do think it's a step in the right direction. "Rather than telling the world why they should abandon their concept of a god - why not ask them if their moral compass as set by their god aligns with the humanitarian that resides within everyone?" Um...because it doesn't. By definition. I've read the bible so I know that if you're referring to any of the Abrahamic religions, I can toss those out in a second. A god who floods the earth killing millions of innocent men, women, and children? I'd say that god doesn't exactly "align with the humanitarian that resides in everyone." Thanks, you've now, in one easy swipe, just allowed me to add billions of people to my list of those I don't have to ask stupid questions to.
2. "In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Wow. I'd no idea how impactful my words could be. To repeat, being an atheist simply means that you don't believe in god. I find it astounding that in a couple paragraphs I've somehow accidentally shown you that there is cause to believe in a god. "As an aside, ironically, one of the major reasons I would hesitate to call myself an atheist, is that being an atheist seems to involve the parts of religion that I dislike most." Again, it just means one who doesn't believe in a god but please continue..."an irrefutable belief that one's ideas are correct." Nope, not irrefutable. Show me one shred of evidence for the existence of god and atheism is refuted. It's easy! "The incessant desire to spread that among the masses." So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the marketplace of ideas is one in which atheists should not compete. Why is that exactly? Shouldn't we encourage anyone with an idea or world-view to express it? To put it up for criticism and give it's fair shot? Why do you find this so upsetting? So, because atheists believe they are correct in their assessment that there is no god and want to tell others about it, it somehow has made YOU "hesitant" to call yourself an atheist??? "The notion that tolerance begins with people outside of your set of beliefs, rather than within. In a few paragraphs, you showed me that, indeed, I am not an atheist." Your evidence for a deity which supports your belief in your "nontraditional god and spirituality" is that some or all atheists are dicks... Good one, man.
3. I'll sum this one up. Big mosque = people feel good. Cremation + mumbo jumbo about the soul = people feel good. Man tragically loses sister + becomes a Jew = man feels good. Man loses son + teddy bear + two men crying = men feeling good. All cute stories but heartstring-tugging anecdotes do not evidence make. Why can't you see that at the core of all the stories you told was the reality that it's US who can be so beautiful at times? Religion was our invention and if some people use it for heartwarming moments some of the time, that doesn't make it anymore valid or anymore truthful.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think Hamas's narrative of holy war and revenge is destructive. I think Jews referencing six million every time someone criticizes Israel is destructive. There are two beautiful cultures at war and it sucks. The way out doesn't come through the kind of positions you're espousing, fuck. But I hear your anger man, even if you don't think I take it seriously.
It was late so I wasn't sure if I was getting my point across.
I can't compete with (nor would I like to) the amount of death, destruction and misery those other groups inflict upon the world so to know you think my rhetoric at least competes with theirs makes me feel great. Since I'm only fighting with, ya know, words and stuff, I have to make sure they at least live up to the intensity of the enemies of humanity you mentioned.
Thanks again for the encouragement!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
As for your call for Hamas to "change the charter man", welcome to 8 years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories.
The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.
The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state and instead takes a more ambiguous position by saying that Hamas had decided to compete in the elections because it would contribute to "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem"....
However, on top of this, there is something to be said for what "destruction of Israel" even implies. It does not mean "annihilation of all Jews", a phrase which is not even present in the Hamas charter to begin with. It means the dismantlement of a Zionist state, i.e., a state in which non-Jews are discriminated against in apartheid-like conditions, and a Jewish-majority population must be preserved to the point where non-Jews are murdered or forced out of their homes. There is a problem with equating "Jews" (which is a religious people) and "Zionists" (which are people who follow a specific political ideology). This is more obvious to those of us in the West who see non-Zionist Jews and non-Jewish Zionists. But there is an issue where Israel claims to act on behalf of Judaism and Jews as a "Jewish state", and simply refer to themselves as "Jews of Israel" -- this is what I and others meant in this thread, where we said that committing crimes in this name will naturally lead to a growth of anti-Jewish hatred. I don't think it is or will be anything like the anti-Semitism of 19th and 20th century Europe, but when Hamas or other groups/individuals you see in the Middle East refer to "Jews", it should not be taken too seriously as an attempt to commit genocide. Especially when the ones who are often saying these things are ideologues with no real influence, while the political actors are those who publicly say "We don't have a problem with Jews, we have a problem with occupation".
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1