What is God?
- Thread starter baumgarten
- Start date
KennyJC:
"The same way they fight in the Middle East?"
I would hope more effectively and brutally. I am disappointed in the weakness of American resolve in the Middle East.
"It won't happen. The US would never drop bombs in the UK no matter what organisation they are aiming for. There is a double standard, thats why I'm confused. "
Whether they would or would not I do not know. But if we did not, it would be because America counts the UK as allies, and trusts the UK would deal with the problem. If such should not happen, we might well take matters into our own hands.
"The same way they fight in the Middle East?"
I would hope more effectively and brutally. I am disappointed in the weakness of American resolve in the Middle East.
"It won't happen. The US would never drop bombs in the UK no matter what organisation they are aiming for. There is a double standard, thats why I'm confused. "
Whether they would or would not I do not know. But if we did not, it would be because America counts the UK as allies, and trusts the UK would deal with the problem. If such should not happen, we might well take matters into our own hands.
Wow, I am stunned at your gung ho'ness about dealing with threats to your country. The world is already in shit street because of Bush, and you don't think he is going far enough?
You are fighting a faceless enemy that blends in with civilians. To get to the terrorist means causing mass destruction to civilians, hence turning more civilians into terrorists. The safe way to fight this enemy is to defend against it when a threat emerges. Attacking just makes more enemies than you can keep up with, and more of your allies turn against you.
Right wing religious thoughts on foreign policy are not the answer... as you can see when opening a news paper.
You are fighting a faceless enemy that blends in with civilians. To get to the terrorist means causing mass destruction to civilians, hence turning more civilians into terrorists. The safe way to fight this enemy is to defend against it when a threat emerges. Attacking just makes more enemies than you can keep up with, and more of your allies turn against you.
Right wing religious thoughts on foreign policy are not the answer... as you can see when opening a news paper.
KennyJC:
"Wow, I am stunned at your gung ho'ness about dealing with threats to your country. The world is already in shit street because of Bush, and you don't think he is going far enough?"
Shit street? How?
"You are fighting a faceless enemy that blends in with civilians. To get to the terrorist means causing mass destruction to civilians, hence turning more civilians into terrorists. The safe way to fight this enemy is to defend against it when a threat emerges. Attacking just makes more enemies than you can keep up with, and more of your allies turn against you."
Machiavelli tells us that if we cannot rule by love, then it is better to rule by fear. The Moslems are, in general, a cowardly lot that respond well to violence and desecration of their religious values. Saddam Hussein ruled by such fear. The Americans in the late 19th/early 20th century, stopped an Islamist movement in the Philippines through burying the dead enemies with bigs facing East away from Mecca.
It can be done, but we cannot do it in the aura of present "morality" in our fighting.
"Right wing religious thoughts on foreign policy are not the answer... as you can see when opening a news paper."
Whom supports this in our government explicitly?
"Wow, I am stunned at your gung ho'ness about dealing with threats to your country. The world is already in shit street because of Bush, and you don't think he is going far enough?"
Shit street? How?
"You are fighting a faceless enemy that blends in with civilians. To get to the terrorist means causing mass destruction to civilians, hence turning more civilians into terrorists. The safe way to fight this enemy is to defend against it when a threat emerges. Attacking just makes more enemies than you can keep up with, and more of your allies turn against you."
Machiavelli tells us that if we cannot rule by love, then it is better to rule by fear. The Moslems are, in general, a cowardly lot that respond well to violence and desecration of their religious values. Saddam Hussein ruled by such fear. The Americans in the late 19th/early 20th century, stopped an Islamist movement in the Philippines through burying the dead enemies with bigs facing East away from Mecca.
It can be done, but we cannot do it in the aura of present "morality" in our fighting.
"Right wing religious thoughts on foreign policy are not the answer... as you can see when opening a news paper."
Whom supports this in our government explicitly?
Prince_James said:
Do you honestly think the world is a safer place after America's multiple invasion of the Middle East which has not only caused the deaths of upwards of 50,000 innocents, but wrecked the structure of the country, causing civil war, and creating more enemies for your country to deal with, as well as wrecking your credibility among your allies.
Oh and what did Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks?
No you can't do it at all. The 'war against terror' is impossible to win because there will always be terrorists. Giving them something to fight against only makes recruitment very easy for them. So then you must ask why such a war exists in the first place. Is it really because of terrorism? Most of the world see's America has nothing more than a watered down Nazi movement.
It's not just about who supports it in your government (although your president reguarly invokes God), but the supporters. You yourself are clearly a right wing religious nutjob who will go to any length to defend your ideologies and national pride, even if it means the deaths of dozens of thousands of civilians. Bush would never have been able to gain local support for such wars if it were not for the backing of the religious right.
I only thank God that secular Europe is there so that America could not get away with worse atrocities... because given the chance, you know they would.
KennyJC:
"Do you honestly think the world is a safer place after America's multiple invasion of the Middle East which has not only caused the deaths of upwards of 50,000 innocents, but wrecked the structure of the country, causing civil war, and creating more enemies for your country to deal with, as well as wrecking your credibility among your allies."
America's "credibility" shall return as soon as our allies require us to intervene in one of their wars. Another Kosovo will come along soon.
Moreover, the Iraqi "civil war" i s mostly low-level intensity fighting based on terrorist tactics and which a tactical change could see all but stopped. The fact is our officers are idiots and our generals don't know squat about how to deal and destroy an insurgency.
"Oh and what did Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks?"
America does not have to attack countries on the foundation of their connection to 9-11.
"No you can't do it at all. The 'war against terror' is impossible to win because there will always be terrorists. Giving them something to fight against only makes recruitment very easy for them. So then you must ask why such a war exists in the first place. Is it really because of terrorism? Most of the world see's America has nothing more than a watered down Nazi movement."
I do not believe any sane, rational individual, views AMerica as "a watered down Nazi movement". Perhaps insane Leftists of a European persuasion that add to it "and Stalin wasn't such a bad guy!", but besides those, no.
It is beyond ridiculous.
Similarly, it is impossible to win a "war against terrorism" as a military tactic, you are correct. It is not impossible to crush Al'qaeda or various other terrorist organizations, and ontop of that, it is a defense imperative that is necessary for all Western countries to accomplish. We cannot simply respond through ignoring the problem. And, as noted, Moslems respond well to violence. They understand it and get in line.
Again, look at Saddam Hussein.
"It's not just about who supports it in your government (although your president reguarly invokes God), but the supporters. You yourself are clearly a right wing religious nutjob who will go to any length to defend your ideologies and national pride, even if it means the deaths of dozens of thousands of civilians. Bush would never have been able to gain local support for such wars if it were not for the backing of the religious right."
This is what I am reading:
"You are clearly a right wing reigious nutjob because I disagree with you, therefore I shall launch an ad hominem attack on you without even considering reading the mountains of evidence present on this forum which would refute the religious monniker."
There is such a thing called "rational debate" that you ought to investigate. It is of great utility.
But yes, the "tens of thousands" of civilians which American troops go to great length and expense to avoid striking. THat is why we spend millions on precision munitions instead of simply carpet bombing entire cities to reach one objective, as we often did in WWII?
"I only thank God that secular Europe is there so that America could not get away with worse atrocities... because given the chance, you know they would. "
The secular Europe which is increasingly becoming irrelevant due to its incapacities to deal with the internal problems resulting from its policies on the Middle East. Do Danish cartoon protests and French riots ring a bell?
Or how about the London bombings and the assassination of Van Gogh's grandson?
"Do you honestly think the world is a safer place after America's multiple invasion of the Middle East which has not only caused the deaths of upwards of 50,000 innocents, but wrecked the structure of the country, causing civil war, and creating more enemies for your country to deal with, as well as wrecking your credibility among your allies."
America's "credibility" shall return as soon as our allies require us to intervene in one of their wars. Another Kosovo will come along soon.
Moreover, the Iraqi "civil war" i s mostly low-level intensity fighting based on terrorist tactics and which a tactical change could see all but stopped. The fact is our officers are idiots and our generals don't know squat about how to deal and destroy an insurgency.
"Oh and what did Iraq have to do with the 9/11 attacks?"
America does not have to attack countries on the foundation of their connection to 9-11.
"No you can't do it at all. The 'war against terror' is impossible to win because there will always be terrorists. Giving them something to fight against only makes recruitment very easy for them. So then you must ask why such a war exists in the first place. Is it really because of terrorism? Most of the world see's America has nothing more than a watered down Nazi movement."
I do not believe any sane, rational individual, views AMerica as "a watered down Nazi movement". Perhaps insane Leftists of a European persuasion that add to it "and Stalin wasn't such a bad guy!", but besides those, no.
It is beyond ridiculous.
Similarly, it is impossible to win a "war against terrorism" as a military tactic, you are correct. It is not impossible to crush Al'qaeda or various other terrorist organizations, and ontop of that, it is a defense imperative that is necessary for all Western countries to accomplish. We cannot simply respond through ignoring the problem. And, as noted, Moslems respond well to violence. They understand it and get in line.
Again, look at Saddam Hussein.
"It's not just about who supports it in your government (although your president reguarly invokes God), but the supporters. You yourself are clearly a right wing religious nutjob who will go to any length to defend your ideologies and national pride, even if it means the deaths of dozens of thousands of civilians. Bush would never have been able to gain local support for such wars if it were not for the backing of the religious right."
This is what I am reading:
"You are clearly a right wing reigious nutjob because I disagree with you, therefore I shall launch an ad hominem attack on you without even considering reading the mountains of evidence present on this forum which would refute the religious monniker."
There is such a thing called "rational debate" that you ought to investigate. It is of great utility.
But yes, the "tens of thousands" of civilians which American troops go to great length and expense to avoid striking. THat is why we spend millions on precision munitions instead of simply carpet bombing entire cities to reach one objective, as we often did in WWII?
"I only thank God that secular Europe is there so that America could not get away with worse atrocities... because given the chance, you know they would. "
The secular Europe which is increasingly becoming irrelevant due to its incapacities to deal with the internal problems resulting from its policies on the Middle East. Do Danish cartoon protests and French riots ring a bell?
Or how about the London bombings and the assassination of Van Gogh's grandson?
Prince_James said:
This assumes American allies will start wars of their own, which won't happen any time soon. Without America, the 'allies' have military capabilities that could deal with current foreseable threats.
And you do?
The dangerous thing is that America can literally invent reasons to invade a country as that is what happened with Iraq. Parallels with Hitler in 1939?
Stalin is not in question, but America's handling of foreign policy over the last 5 years which has been wreckless to world security. I don't think you actually answered me when I asked if you thought the world was a safer place due to American action in the Middle East.
It's not impossible to crush Al'qaeda? Well I disagree with that since there is no reasonable action that could be taken to kill off such a widespread and hidden enemy. Take a look at the Taliban, they were effectively removed from power, but without the continued presence of troops in Afghanistan, they would simply come back. Indeed they are coming back, but are the troops going to stay there forever? Effectively, you are getting nowhere, and causing great instability and destruction in the process.
Being ignorant would suggest no defence. But defence is all that is needed. Attack in the case of the Middle East is not the best form of defence.
Danish cartoon protests, riots and london bombings are all due to the increased tensions between east and west thanks to this lovely war you started. Violence breeds violence.
Oh! Both Hitler and Bush parallels more than meets the eye, scary really when one really gets into the details.
click
click
BTW there are more than just similarities.
Bush's Nazi Ties..
Yea! we can say we got the next "ati-christ" for pres.. LOL...
Anti-Christ
Godless
GOD is an ideological meme in the psychic supermind of humanity, spread virally by the morphogenetic field reverberating across our genotype as a successful epigenetic paramutation since the dawn of modern man.
MORALITY is a reciprocal memetic device and counter-anthropological distinction that serves as both egg and offspring to the god concept.
RELIGION is a by-product of morality and self-awareness, comprised of the recurring metanarratives in oral tradition from Mithras to Muhammad, springing from the deific fruit of our morphogenetic resonance. These powerful distinctions allowed the Homo sapien to persist the behavioral constructs that in turn enabled it to surplant the godless Homo neanderthalensis, evolve, and prosper as the dominant humanoid lifeform of this planet.
ATHEISM is the nascent, entropic self-actualization of man, predicated on the dissolution of the god-concept, eventually leading to the culmination of Homo sapien dominance, the total extinction of mankind, and the evolutionary opening for a new parabiologically areligious species of human life.
It does not matter whether god exists. It doesn't matter that we know the nature of god. All that matters is that we believe in god, or we will gradually undo an evolutionary construct that has allowed us to survive as a species.
In my honest opinion, everything else is simply idle speculation.
MORALITY is a reciprocal memetic device and counter-anthropological distinction that serves as both egg and offspring to the god concept.
RELIGION is a by-product of morality and self-awareness, comprised of the recurring metanarratives in oral tradition from Mithras to Muhammad, springing from the deific fruit of our morphogenetic resonance. These powerful distinctions allowed the Homo sapien to persist the behavioral constructs that in turn enabled it to surplant the godless Homo neanderthalensis, evolve, and prosper as the dominant humanoid lifeform of this planet.
ATHEISM is the nascent, entropic self-actualization of man, predicated on the dissolution of the god-concept, eventually leading to the culmination of Homo sapien dominance, the total extinction of mankind, and the evolutionary opening for a new parabiologically areligious species of human life.
It does not matter whether god exists. It doesn't matter that we know the nature of god. All that matters is that we believe in god, or we will gradually undo an evolutionary construct that has allowed us to survive as a species.
In my honest opinion, everything else is simply idle speculation.
Last edited:
Yup. Authority doesn't make it otherwise.
Fair enough. Just giving you an opportunity to be more than contrarian by noting that the concept of a meme is significantly more than idle assertion. While healthy cynicism is the natural state of the adult mind, merely being contrary is the antithesis of rational dialog.
Sure but just because a lot of people say something is real doesn't make it rational, does it?
Just popular and attractive as a concept that defines preconceived ideas.
Theists who have, over years, allowed themselves to become deluded about their religious memes would like to be able to so casually dismiss the term, but it isn't as simple as assigning "meme" to the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, particularly not when the credulous aren't willing to apply the same standards to their theistic delusions.
I realize that the term "delusion" offends many, if not most, believers, but it is the most accurate and parsimonious term for what is going on with believers and their beliefs when it comes to theology. A delusion is simply a false idea, which typically originates from misinterpretation but is firmly believed and strongly maintained regardless of evidence to the contrary.
A meme is simply a unit of cultural transmission. In 1976, when Richard Dawkins introduced the term, he alluded to the notion that the meme was somehow a discreet unit that could be transmitted from one generation to the next without direct observation. I don't think Dawkins holds to this any longer, and has joined the rest of the world in using the term "meme" to refer to intra-societal and cross-societal ideas that transmit laterally and vertically. Trends. Fads. Even the term "meme" itself. Ideas as basic as gender expectations in behavior and dress; musical preference; team spirit; internet buzz terms (LOL); political opinions; and -gasp- religious beliefs, ideas, and notions.
One thing the elites of any society have demonstrated their willingness and ability to do is exploit memes for personal and corporate gain. Slogans like "have a Coke and a smile," "reach out and touch someone," and "just do it" abound. Politicians use a few key issues to influence their constituencies: "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," "the right to life," "pro choice," and "no new taxes."
And like viruses, memes are transmitted by replication and affected by mutation. An example is the folktale that gets passed from generation to generation, affected by embellishment and cultural adaptation as it replicates -something the Brothers Grimm discovered as they researched the folktales of Europe. Evolutionary pressures that affect memes are typically other memes that are similar or even very basic to the society in regards to political, religious, technical, and economical. Indeed, each of these are very powerful memes, sometimes at odds with each other but flourish best when able to be complementary.
Homo Machina
Setting aside idle criticisms of the root node, the eventual assertion of the original logic stated above is that Homo machina is in fact the parabiologically areligious descendant that will be born of atheism, and will eliminate the dominance of the Homo sapien... regardless of notions popularized in recent science fiction programs that the Homo machina will also subscribe to the god meme.
Of course, but given that the concept of a meme is a meme in and of itself, it is clearly a candidate for being self-proving. If we were to decry the merit of our own observation and subsequent nomenclature on "popularity" alone (it is popular, ergo it should be dismissed), we might as well remove the word "science" from the dictionary and reclaim our clubs and spears. Even as an aggregator of "preconceived ideas", it clearly represents a useful device in parsing concepts of cultural evolution, unless the implication is that those collective "ideas" are in fact misguided and factually inaccurate.Sure but just because a lot of people say something is real doesn't make it rational, does it?
Just popular and attractive as a concept that defines preconceived ideas.
Setting aside idle criticisms of the root node, the eventual assertion of the original logic stated above is that Homo machina is in fact the parabiologically areligious descendant that will be born of atheism, and will eliminate the dominance of the Homo sapien... regardless of notions popularized in recent science fiction programs that the Homo machina will also subscribe to the god meme.
Interesting, you use an assumption to arrive at an inference which you then use to support further assumptions on the basis that the inference is not based on an assumption.
That, my dear, is called faith.
The Nature of the Threat
Cutting to the chase, if you are an atheist, I can understand my hypothesis is one that is threatening, and can no more be discussed by yourself than a priest wishes to discuss why good people die. Rather than a statement of "faith", my hypothesis presupposes that even discussing it, is in fact, just as much an act of self-actualization as atheism and as such, is equally damning to human survival were it to be followed through to its logical conclusion. Given all of this, my hypothesis "threatens" everyone, whether believer or non-believer.
The best tactic regarding this hypothesis, will ever be to change the subject from its target to baseless criticisms surrounding of the framework of the hypothesis itself.
I certainly agree.
Hardly. I am only using an assumption to counter your assumption which you've masqueraded as fact by way of unqualified declaration (that a "meme" is a "figment of the imagination"). My original message is simply a hypothesis rooted in preexisting studies, one I think deserves more than a contrarian response. The conjecture regarding homo machina, as noted in my previous post, is basic speculation that is entirely disconnected from the original question about the nature of "god".Interesting, you use an assumption to arrive at an inference which you then use to support further assumptions on the basis that the inference is not based on an assumption.
That, my dear, is called faith.
Cutting to the chase, if you are an atheist, I can understand my hypothesis is one that is threatening, and can no more be discussed by yourself than a priest wishes to discuss why good people die. Rather than a statement of "faith", my hypothesis presupposes that even discussing it, is in fact, just as much an act of self-actualization as atheism and as such, is equally damning to human survival were it to be followed through to its logical conclusion. Given all of this, my hypothesis "threatens" everyone, whether believer or non-believer.
The best tactic regarding this hypothesis, will ever be to change the subject from its target to baseless criticisms surrounding of the framework of the hypothesis itself.
I certainly agree.