Religulous

JDawg said:
What would you call the situations in Afghanistan and Iran? Why are death tolls the only way to measure the cruelty of a regime?
Click to expand...
That's a good issue. I need to point out that in context Skinwalker seemed to agree that they were the worst. (or actually he mentions Pol Pot and Stalin). His point was that atheism could not be a factor, that there was nothing to back this up. So I don't have to build my case in relation to him that these were the worst.

But in relation to you. I don't think death tolls is necessarily the best guide. But these regimes were good competition in every other category I can think of. People lived in fear, secret trials, torture chambers, no democracy, arbritrariness - which raises stress and terror levels up more notches, and so on.

Also, as we've seen with Islam, I think it's fair to say that the holy texts provide plenty of justification for killing what we might consider innocents. I recall an event on September 11th, 2001...
Click to expand...
I am not contesting that religious 'reasoning' has led to millions of deaths.
 
Simon Anders said:
That's a good issue. I need to point out that in context Skinwalker seemed to agree that they were the worst. (or actually he mentions Pol Pot and Stalin). His point was that atheism could not be a factor, that there was nothing to back this up. So I don't have to build my case in relation to him that these were the worst.

But in relation to you. I don't think death tolls is necessarily the best guide. But these regimes were good competition in every other category I can think of. People lived in fear, secret trials, torture chambers, no democracy, arbritrariness - which raises stress and terror levels up more notches, and so on.


I am not contesting that religious 'reasoning' has led to millions of deaths.
Click to expand...

It just seems that people like SAM want to make it sound as if so-called atheistic regimes were the only ones to do anything wrong. As far as I can tell, Stalin and Pol Pot are gone, and yet atrocities derived from religious rule continue.
 
JDawg said:
It just seems that people like SAM want to make it sound as if so-called atheistic regimes were the only ones to do anything wrong. As far as I can tell, Stalin and Pol Pot are gone, and yet atrocities derived from religious rule continue.
Click to expand...
SAM's approach IS to provoke. I am not saying it is her only motivation and personal agendas slide into her stuff, just like the rest of us, but she posts in a different way than other people here. She is playing chess and other people are expressing themselves. You could look at this as a cultural split, though there's many a Brit who use language in that way also - it could even be British influence via colonialism in India that lies at the root of it in SAM - ha, ha SAM, deal with that irony. In fact some of my irritation at her, when it comes up, is not unlike the American vs. Brit irritation I can get talking to certain members of the well educated upper classes there.

I am quite sure this will not make you like or respect her, somehow suddenly, but as a bit of practical advice, do not treat her posts like you do other people or you might as well put her on ignore. Think of it as a fencing match: the other person is not going to spend breath saying

'Oh, nice parry, you nearly had me there.' Nope just the next thrust.

(and I will not return to the SAM topic here.)

As far as the topic. There seem to be some atheists who think that religion is the root of evil and that once we move past religion - as we must in our evolution, they seem to assume - violence will reduce. Often examples and lists of the sins of religious people are listed, without seeming to realize that, at least officially, everyone was religious before, so of course religious people were responsible and of course religious reasoning was used. It seems like post-religious regimes and religions do just find reasoning there was to orgies of violence, so perhaps religion was not causal.

I hope I have made it clear that I am not a big fan of organized religions. For me communism is a religion. And so is Neo-conservatism.
 
Simon Anders said:
SAM's approach IS to provoke. I am not saying it is her only motivation and personal agendas slide into her stuff, just like the rest of us, but she posts in a different way than other people here. She is playing chess and other people are expressing themselves. You could look at this as a cultural split, though there's many a Brit who use language in that way also - it could even be British influence via colonialism in India that lies at the root of it in SAM - ha, ha SAM, deal with that irony. In fact some of my irritation at her, when it comes up, is not unlike the American vs. Brit irritation I can get talking to certain members of the well educated upper classes there.

I am quite sure this will not make you like or respect her, somehow suddenly, but as a bit of practical advice, do not treat her posts like you do other people or you might as well put her on ignore. Think of it as a fencing match: the other person is not going to spend breath saying

'Oh, nice parry, you nearly had me there.' Nope just the next thrust.
Click to expand...

Oh, please don't give her brand of debate any credibility. You overestimate it so much. Her plan is to mock and to duck. That is her M.O. She has yet to answer a question with anything other than another question, and a sarcastic emoticon. She's intellectually bankrupt.

And if I could put her on Ignore, I would have five years ago. Problem is that somehow, some way, someone decided that she would make a good moderator. And guess what? Being a moderator makes you immune to the Ignore List.

As far as the topic. There seem to be some atheists who think that religion is the root of evil and that once we move past religion - as we must in our evolution, they seem to assume - violence will reduce. Often examples and lists of the sins of religious people are listed, without seeming to realize that, at least officially, everyone was religious before, so of course religious people were responsible and of course religious reasoning was used. It seems like post-religious regimes and religions do just find reasoning there was to orgies of violence, so perhaps religion was not causal.
Click to expand...

I don't think we expect violence to reduce, I just think we expect that kind of violence to reduce. Will we see less violence overall? I don't know. But I do know that there would no longer be that justification for it. In my mind, I believe that does reduce it.

Even the war in Iraq is a good example. It may be based on things that have nothing to do with terrorism, or the betterment of our situation in the region, but the only excuse for it was religion. Because the extremist Muslims declared war against this country. Without that, we would have no cause to invade Iraq.

I hope I have made it clear that I am not a big fan of organized religions. For me communism is a religion. And so is Neo-conservatism.
Click to expand...

I think Neo-conservatism is just as dangerous as religion, since it also involves recruiting people that aren't that smart, and can't think for themselves (read: easy to propagandize).
 
JDawg said:
I don't think we expect violence to reduce, I just think we expect that kind of violence to reduce. Will we see less violence overall? I don't know. But I do know that there would no longer be that justification for it. In my mind, I believe that does reduce it.
Click to expand...
And that's where the communist regimes should make one very skeptical about this reduction.
Even the war in Iraq is a good example. It may be based on things that have nothing to do with terrorism, or the betterment of our situation in the region, but the only excuse for it was religion. Because the extremist Muslims declared war against this country. Without that, we would have no cause to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
Then it was (cough, cough) very convenient that members of the Bush Administration and close friends had been trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq and even wrote down ideas around a Pearl Harbour excuse. I leave that can of worms right there.

I think Neo-conservatism is just as dangerous as religion, since it also involves recruiting people that aren't that smart, and can't think for themselves (read: easy to propagandize).
Click to expand...
That seems like a good step in the direction of a defintion. And I agree.
 
Simon Anders said:
And that's where the communist regimes should make one very skeptical about this reduction.
Well, that is true, at least on the surface.

Then it was (cough, cough) very convenient that members of the Bush Administration and close friends had been trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq and even wrote down ideas around a Pearl Harbour excuse. I leave that can of worms right there.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate the entire neo-conservative movement, they didn't really "write down ideas". The manifesto in question simply stated that without something akin to Pearl Harbor, there would be no way of achieving their plans quickly. If at all. Which is promising, since there is no need for such an excuse in religion.


That seems like a good step in the direction of a defintion. And I agree.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Good Sir. Now if we could only take a step in the direction of wiping them from the face of the planet!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Then why bother?
Click to expand...

Because I learn what they believe, of course! I had never had a discussion on religion with anyone to this extent before coming to this board. I still don't. I thought of atheists as people who don't believe in God but I never imagined they wrestled so much with it. When I was growing up, religion was just a part of everyday life. In India this means you have a Christian living on one side and a Hindu on the other and like people wearing different clothes and speaking different languages, its perfectly reasonable to have differing beliefs. If someone did not believe in God, it was no big deal, like the occasional nudist sadhu going down the street. So its interesting to listen to people telling you all the things they think you need to learn, earnestly holding only their point of view as truth. Futile, in my opinion, but very compelling. Most people make up their own minds about religion, regardless of what their family does, in my experience. I personally do not care at all what people do or do not believe :)
 
JDawg said:
Simon Anders said:
As much as I hate the entire neo-conservative movement, they didn't really "write down ideas". The manifesto in question simply stated that without something akin to Pearl Harbor, there would be no way of achieving their plans quickly. If at all. Which is promising, since there is no need for such an excuse in religion.
Click to expand...
The Catholic church certainly had meetings where they searched the Bible or developed other strategies for labelling certain people threats. Then they went public with their thesis and pressured leaders or sent out Inquisitions to hurt or kill people based on some justification or other.

Thank you, Good Sir. Now if we could only take a step in the direction of wiping them from the face of the planet!
Click to expand...
Them?
Click to expand...
 
JDawg said:
Simon Anders said:
I'm not sure how this relates to the neo-con movement.
Click to expand...
People with power have, generally, had to come up with a way to get the masses to go to war for them. They must come up with reasons. Religions can offer reasons and so meetings, not unlike think tanks or admistrative gatherings, happened and a marketing campaign for the violence was brainstormed, planned and then executed. So my point was that in form it has not changed, but the 'reasons' have. Not the real reasons, but the justifications. Power, control, fear of difference, the desire to make everything like yourself, competition for resources...these underlying reasons run through our history. Over the surface run the various kinds of lies we use to justify actions based on these urges.

Neo-cons.
Click to expand...
OK
Click to expand...
 
Simon and JDawg,

A little off topic here, more political but addresses some of the neo-cons positions before Sept 11.

Was wondering if either of you ever came across the "project for a new american century" Back in the late 90's. After 9/11 they used plain old fear tactics to scare the crap out of everyone using that fear to justify every thing they did.

To me this "project" proves how powerful Cheney was in the Bush presidency because all you have to do is look at the list people who signed on to these positions and those who ended up in powerfull positions that could have influence in the push for war. Please note that George Bush is not on the list.

Interesting that in the "project" they are claiming a need to push for such intervention even as Bush and Cheney were campaigning around the country against such a world view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top