Shakey-Lo on 13/1/2007 at 06:40
i really cannot be bothered with another (a)theism debate but
Quote:
Imagine a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money, no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.
This is
retarded.
the act and idea of suicide bombing has nothing to do with religion.
Quote:
“In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly,
only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.
“What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was
not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hezbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.”
(
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/08/03/cult-of-the-suicide-bomber/)
I admit I am not completely familiar with every other item on his list, but the gunpowder plot was just a plot to overthrow the monarchy? Sure, it had religious ties, but is Dawkins suggesting that without religion we would never have people trying to overthrow the government? Even if that were the case, who's to say it's a good thing? I can think of several governments that could do with an overthrowing.
The 'Northern Ireland' troubles I appreciate is a bit more contempory, complex and sensitive, but wasn't it more about reclaiming the entirety of Ireland from British rule? more about politics than religion.
The crusades were terrible, sure, but they did lead to the modern courtroom system we have today and helped the spread of technology and science from the arab world to europe. much of modern european (and therefore, american) science is heavily dependent on the spread from the arab world during this time. and of course, there's banking and trade routes and so on that were set up to support the war effort. modern western astronomy was informed by medieval efforts to calculate the christian judgement day.
as for the televangelists that try to 'fleece people from their money'
(
http://atheistalliance.org/aai/donations.php)
SD on 13/1/2007 at 07:01
Is there any chance we can all get back to the main thrust of the book, rather than pedantically picking apart a single throwaway sentence contained within? I'm sure debating the fine details of what does and does not constitute a religiously-motivated atrocity has some merit above petty forum point-scoring, but it's not really what the book is about.
And Shakey-Lo, are you really trying to compare an atheist organisation requesting donations with the likes of Pat Robertson?
Convict on 13/1/2007 at 07:06
But if he makes those kind of mistakes because of his prejudice then it casts doubt upon his ability to have avoided making mistakes in his analysis because of his prejudice.
But petty point scoring is what we do here... You know that as well as I do. ;)
doctorfrog on 13/1/2007 at 07:08
Probably not. The book sounds like one massive troll post, written by a troll, and thumped mightily upon in this forum by yet another.
SD on 13/1/2007 at 07:18
He's provocative, yes, but that's not really the same thing as "trolling". If you try to raise the awareness and intelligence of the population, and you happen to offend silly (albeit deeply-held) beliefs at the same time, then that's too bad. It can't be considered in the same realm as deliberately setting out to piss people off.
BlackErtai on 13/1/2007 at 07:30
Quote:
God to be God is the Creator of the known universe. Because of that he is above and beyond that which he creates, so any scientist that thinks he can disprove His existence is a fool because the normal laws of the known universe don't apply to Him-he's outside the loop so to speak.
God must be co-equal with at least some certain things in order to be the god discussed in Judaeo-Christian-Islamic texts, as by definition God must, as the creator, in some sense 'create', but if God is perfect, and outside of time (a fundamental idea in theology, as God is not temporal in any sense of the word), then he cannot 'create', because to create implies that at some point he was not creating, and therefore God changed, and change requires time, yet God cannot be both inside and outside of time simultaneously, as that would be a logical impossibility. If God is unaffected by time, therefore God must either always have been creating (i.e., existence is co-equal with God in terms of eternality), or God is not, in fact outside time. If this is so, one must redefine the entirety of Judeao-Christian-Islamic theology, as one may not at liberty discard the properties of God without explaining how/why that property is not required for God to be the most perfect being. If one cannot solve this logical problem (and yes, God must be co-equal with the laws of logic themselves, because there is no conceivable action without logic, because to make any claim to the non-existence of logic, one must use logic, which then means for God to have done or be doing or do anything, logic must, along with existence, be co-equal with God). In a sense then, mathematics must also be co-equal with God, and the fact that God is not, therefore, the only pre-existence entity requires a redefinition of the fundamental language of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic foundational material, which then causes one to throw out the entire ordeal.
Just saying. This, by the way, is not completely fleshed out. I don't have time to write a thesis here or anything. If you don't believe me, too bad.
Printer's Devil on 13/1/2007 at 07:33
Quote Posted by MrDuck
Must be an interesting read, though I doubt it'll shatter anytime soon my faith in what I believe. Still, I should probably read it sometime :).
Cheers and lets discuss the book more, plz. Not who is right/wrong 'coz it'll eventually turn into a bonfire that GeeBee will have to pee down and close it.
Indubitably. Submit it to the monthly book club thread (if it's still alive) where it can get a proper shakedown. Still, it's amusing to see the latest episode of: "GOD--is he real or fake? WE HAVE THE PROOF!"
Random_Taffer on 13/1/2007 at 07:36
Read the sci-fi short story entitled Twilight by John W. Campbell.
It'll hopefully be good medicine for the science driven brain.
Or not.
Just a suggestion.
Renzatic on 13/1/2007 at 07:53
Mark my words, people. In 10 years time, a guy driving a VW Beetle with a Pro-Choice sticker pasted on the bumper will drive up to your house during dinner time, knock on your door, smile, and hand you a pamphlet while saying "are you aware that everything you believe in is a lie?".
In much the same way that any organization inspires it's zealots, the Atheists will have their crazy creepy missionaries. They might hold their meetings at the local courthouse annex instead of a church, but they'll set neighborhood routes and end up going door to door just like the Mormon elders and the Seventh Day Adventists.
Think I might be exaggerating? Just about everyone knows that one guy who's so attached to the concept of Atheism that if he hears someone say "god bless you" in response to a sneeze, he'll go on an hour long tirade about evolution and the evils of religion. Yeah...you can see the future in those people.
BlackErtai on 13/1/2007 at 07:58
There's a difference with them, though. I may think you're an idiot for believing in something without any shred of evidence, but I don't think that just because you refuse to accept the truth of the matter that you're any worse of a person. Ask many religious people about the moral status of atheists, and you'll get a rather unpleasant answer. Just because you're stupid doesn't mean I'm condemning you to a painful existence for all eternity, it just means I think you're stupid. There's a vast, vast difference.
I'll take the crazy atheists any day. At least to them, their lives are worth something here.
