[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Enlighten us then about this “extremist Islam”.
Because I sure never heard of any religion that privileges blood over actions.
Here’s that hijack I was afraid of.
What religion do you consider Osama Bin Laden and his ilk to be? I highly doubt you want to be lumped into that group. That’s why I make a distinction.
[/quote]
Same as the one he practices. He has made his support for their actions quite clear in many many posts. Don’t be fooled.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
…
Ben Laden? Spelling error, or is that how it’s meant to be spelt?
…[/quote]
That is what his buddies call him. Big Ben.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
It doesn’t matter one tiny bit what I consider Osama’s religion to be. I have never heard of any religion where lineage trumps actions (well, maybe capitalism, but that’s another story).
Since times immemorial, religions grew by guaranteeing equality and ensuring the low-status casts that they are no different than the big shots in the eyes of God/deities. I don’t know that much about Ben Laden, but from accounts of people who met him firsthand, he doesn’t seem like the racist type. In fact, it is the whole “holy lineage” crap the Al-Sauds are pulling off that is partly to blame for his movement.
So please, make your case or retract your statement.
Ben Laden? Spelling error, or is that how it’s meant to be spelt?
[/quote]
I think the correct spelling is: not-ben-laid-en-a-very-long-time-en
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.
I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.
I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.
I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia
Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.
So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.
No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?
That’s a good point. But science is not all that open to new ideas either. Just looking at history will show that. We just happen to live in a time where people are somewhat more open to new ideas. That is why science is able to move at a faster pace. But that wasn’t always the case. And even today most of science is slow (IMO) to accept new concepts, which is funny to me because most of science is based on theory, not repeatable demonstration. So what they are arguing about is really just someone’s ideas vs someone else’s ideas, just like religion.
Well said, but, the science we see in the general media is usually something to appease the masses. The science that is being done by students or other scientist with years of unrecognized study and is being done through the want to solve a problem they feel can be solved will always be there.
These people do it because they want to continue the growth of what can be achieved and take it as far as they are able. That is then a platform for another to continue their work in a direction that the preceding person never even thought possible. This is purely for the advancement of the needs they feel are required.
You are right in your comment about science being more open now. Again though it has been shown through history that anyone who worked in the field of science was persecuted for their actions by the more powerful religious sects that ruled the masses.
Hundreds of years ago you were thought of as a witch and put to death, all because you went against the teachings of God.[/quote]
I think you have a romanticized view of the scientific community. Most motives are not as pure as you are asserting. Most fall prey to the company that is sponsoring the research and as such do not strictly adhere to 100% ethical practices in their research. So it’s quite more self-serving than you might imagine.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Thomas Aquinas was a terrible philosopher because he spent all his time creating poorly crafted arguments to support his faith.
I’m just curious. Did you get this by actually reading & spending time with the Summa Theologica? With a competent tutor, guide or teacher? Or did you acquire your rather glib judgement by way of second hand materials? [/quote]
You’re not the only one who took a philosophy class in college :).
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Thomas Aquinas was a terrible philosopher because he spent all his time creating poorly crafted arguments to support his faith.
I’m just curious. Did you get this by actually reading & spending time with the Summa Theologica? With a competent tutor, guide or teacher? Or did you acquire your rather glib judgement by way of second hand materials?
You’re not the only one who took a philosophy class in college :). [/quote]
I’ll take that as a “no.” If you haven’t read him, don’t judge him. Fair enough?
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
There is no fear in my statements, merely observations.
The use of violence in the name of god is an “Excuse” for the actions that they have taken or are about to take.
There are many different levels of belief. Some will follow “The Book” to the letter, some will refer to it and some will merely acknowledge its existence in the hope that in their death they will be accepted into “Heaven”. Choice they make either consciously or not, there is still belief in something more holy than themselves. Why belittle yourself over the unknown???[/quote]
Don’t you think thats a little far fetched to say that if you believe in something, for instance you think is unknown, is belittling yourself? It’s UNKNOWN how bee’s are able to fly (credit to my grade 9 i believe science teacher, and “Big bee movie”), am i still belitttling myself?
Saying someone is belittling themselve when they believe in the unknown is a pretty bold statement.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Saying someone is belittling themselve when they believe in the unknown is a pretty bold statement.
[/quote]
Yes indeedee. It’s not only bold, but - as you suggest - it misses a very important aspect of human reality: every single one of us holds beliefs in things that neither can be proven nor rationally explained. There’s no escaping this.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
There is no fear in my statements, merely observations.
The use of violence in the name of god is an “Excuse” for the actions that they have taken or are about to take.
There are many different levels of belief. Some will follow “The Book” to the letter, some will refer to it and some will merely acknowledge its existence in the hope that in their death they will be accepted into “Heaven”. Choice they make either consciously or not, there is still belief in something more holy than themselves. Why belittle yourself over the unknown???
Don’t you think thats a little far fetched to say that if you believe in something, for instance you think is unknown, is belittling yourself? It’s UNKNOWN how bee’s are able to fly (credit to my grade 9 i believe science teacher, and “Big bee movie”), am i still belitttling myself?
Saying someone is belittling themselve when they believe in the unknown is a pretty bold statement.
[/quote]
Yes Belittle may be a bit strong, but it depends on to what extent you are talking about. Believing that a bumble bee can fly even though it hasn’t been shown or proven as to how it is actually possible is a different level. You can see that the bee can fly, the only question left is how it manages to.
What i was implying is that there is nothing there to back up the statements and teachings to the followers. It is the other way around to an extent, it is telling you how it works but there is nothing to show for it other than the individuals own understanding of how it should be.
Where is the little window into the promised land that shows you that what they are telling you is actually there. physical proof of the promised better life so that you know that you aren’t being lead blindly along by those that want to control you.
I know that people just need something to get them through life, but why is it that those that don’t, have to be caught up in it all. There is no way to avoid being involved. It is so overwhelming that it encompasses all, willingly or not.
I say belittling from an outside looking in point of view.
I can understand there needs, which makes it even sadder to see people being lead by the visions of those that follow the unknown.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.
I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.
I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.
I challenge you to re-read what you have just written here and apply it to humanistic ideals such as science. The fact is that many people have been hurt in the name of science and that has been used as an excuse, just like religion. I.e. the Tuskegee experiments: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia
Religious people have faith in God, etc and hopefully that governs their lives and actions. The same is said for humanists who believe that man is the highest authority and typically look to science to answer their questions of life etc.
So both religion and science operate from faith or belief and both have done damage to others.
No denying it, and that would make a thread in it’s self.
Science has definitely got a religious structure to it. But, do you not think that because science is an ever evolving thing that it differs in so many way to the static and constantly regurgitated theories of religion?
That’s a good point. But science is not all that open to new ideas either. Just looking at history will show that. We just happen to live in a time where people are somewhat more open to new ideas. That is why science is able to move at a faster pace. But that wasn’t always the case.
And even today most of science is slow (IMO) to accept new concepts, which is funny to me because most of science is based on theory, not repeatable demonstration. So what they are arguing about is really just someone’s ideas vs someone else’s ideas, just like religion.
Well said, but, the science we see in the general media is usually something to appease the masses. The science that is being done by students or other scientist with years of unrecognized study and is being done through the want to solve a problem they feel can be solved will always be there.
These people do it because they want to continue the growth of what can be achieved and take it as far as they are able. That is then a platform for another to continue their work in a direction that the preceding person never even thought possible. This is purely for the advancement of the needs they feel are required.
You are right in your comment about science being more open now. Again though it has been shown through history that anyone who worked in the field of science was persecuted for their actions by the more powerful religious sects that ruled the masses.
Hundreds of years ago you were thought of as a witch and put to death, all because you went against the teachings of God.
I think you have a romanticized view of the scientific community. Most motives are not as pure as you are asserting. Most fall prey to the company that is sponsoring the research and as such do not strictly adhere to 100% ethical practices in their research. So it’s quite more self-serving than you might imagine.
[/quote]
Fair statement about the way i wrote my response. I do however know that it isn’t all “Disney” science out there. A high majority of things have been done in the name of science that are reprehensible. This however doesn’t change the fact that what is done is done in a practical sense where the result are obvious. Whether for good or bad. They are not theoretical, they exist, they are real.
Your comment about ethics and self serving can just as easily be put to religion…extremist’s are totally self serving and from an outsiders view very unethical. By extremist, I mean those that translate the readings of their belief to the full extent of it’s meanings or twist it to suit a cause.
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
bluefloyd wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Yes Belittle may be a bit strong, but it depends on to what extent you are talking about. Believing that a bumble bee can fly even though it hasn’t been shown or proven as to how it is actually possible is a different level. You can see that the bee can fly, the only question left is how it manages to.
What i was implying is that there is nothing there to back up the statements and teachings to the followers. It is the other way around to an extent, it is telling you how it works but there is nothing to show for it other than the individuals own understanding of how it should be.
Where is the little window into the promised land that shows you that what they are telling you is actually there. physical proof of the promised better life so that you know that you aren’t being lead blindly along by those that want to control you.
I know that people just need something to get them through life, but why is it that those that don’t, have to be caught up in it all. There is no way to avoid being involved. It is so overwhelming that it encompasses all, willingly or not.
I say belittling from an outside looking in point of view.
I can understand there needs, which makes it even sadder to see people being lead by the visions of those that follow the unknown.[/quote]
Religion can be seen just as the bee when pertaining to the unknown. As you said, seeing the bee fly is not the unknown, but how it works. In my opinion this is just like religion.
Miracles, self-actualization, enlightenment, and other religious phenonemons are observed very regularly. I’m going out on a limb here, but whether these are acts of (G)(g)od or not does not make it significant.
Until a scientific or provable explanation to those unknowns arises for each and every case, I really don’t feel believeing in them is belittling or even contradicting on your character.
What’s wrong with following something that isn’t 100% provable?
And for the statement about not being let blindly by those who want to control you, those people who are religious and make choices that directly go against their religious teachings would have been led by something other than religion if it weren’t there in the first place; it’s their personality.
Do you really think there wouldn’t be suicide bombers if there wasn’t religion or mass suicides in the name of god? Those people that perform or order those acts aren’t the majority of religious people, is going into politics is bad because certain politicians abuse their powers?
[quote]Do you really think there wouldn’t be suicide bombers if there wasn’t religion or mass suicides in the name of god? Those people that perform or order those acts aren’t the majority of religious people, is going into politics is bad because certain politicians abuse their powers?
[/quote]
This might fly in the face of the thoughts of some, but without some type of “higher power” to condone it, it is difficult to justify putting so many people in the way of pain and suffering.
Having a inarguable all-encompassing authority require it of you is a way to bypass our own built in sense of right and wrong.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Do you really think there wouldn’t be suicide bombers if there wasn’t religion or mass suicides in the name of god? Those people that perform or order those acts aren’t the majority of religious people, is going into politics is bad because certain politicians abuse their powers?
This might fly in the face of the thoughts of some, but without some type of “higher power” to condone it, it is difficult to justify putting so many people in the way of pain and suffering.
Having a inarguable all-encompassing authority require it of you is a way to bypass our own built in sense of right and wrong.[/quote]
My point was that suicide bombers and mass suicide would for example still continue if there wasn’t religion. And by higher power I’m pretty positive you meant god of some sort.
So assuming you were disagreeing with my point (please correct me if I’m wrong), but when the germans were ordered to kill jews, homosexuals, catholics, the disabled, ect, was there a higher power condoning it? Nope, it was hitler, who for one did not only condemn religion, but spirituality in itself.
Also when the Jap. suicided their planes into american war ships was there a higher power condoning it? Nope, it was Communist Japan, and everybody knows one of the core beliefs to communism is the lack of religion, but loyalty for the state. Thus proving my point that such actions would occur if there wasn’t a religion to blame or not.
I disagree with the statement that the Japanese suicide Pilots did it only because they were told to. They were lead to believe that they were to go to a better place after life and were being Martyred. They were only taught how to take off…would you send your sons to do this knowing they were to never return???
Plz correct me if I"m wrong, i have limited knowledge on the pilots, and have said it as i understand it…
Where is it that says Communism isn’t a form of religion.
It is one person taking total power over his “Followers”
They do it for the “Emperor” not the cause, they do it because he has said it must be so…in my eyes no different to following “Gods Word”.
A “higher power” does not have to be a religious one.
Loyalty to some cause or belief, especially one that is given exceptional importance or authority, is a higher power – it absolves the follower from having to think and use personal judgment.
Similarly, a mob mentality can grab hold of individuals and pull them into what they see happening around them.
Frankly, I’d suggest that blind allegiance to any “ism” is dangerous. This is true whether it is communism or “with us or against us ism”.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
vroom wrote:
Do you really think there wouldn’t be suicide bombers if there wasn’t religion or mass suicides in the name of god? Those people that perform or order those acts aren’t the majority of religious people, is going into politics is bad because certain politicians abuse their powers?
This might fly in the face of the thoughts of some, but without some type of “higher power” to condone it, it is difficult to justify putting so many people in the way of pain and suffering.
Having a inarguable all-encompassing authority require it of you is a way to bypass our own built in sense of right and wrong.
My point was that suicide bombers and mass suicide would for example still continue if there wasn’t religion. And by higher power I’m pretty positive you meant god of some sort. So assuming you were disagreeing with my point (please correct me if I’m wrong), but when the germans were ordered to kill jews, homosexuals, catholics, the disabled, ect, was there a higher power condoning it? Nope, it was hitler, who for one did not only condemn religion, but spirituality in itself. Also when the Jap. suicided their planes into american war ships was there a higher power condoning it? Nope, it was Communist Japan, and everybody knows one of the core beliefs to communism is the lack of religion, but loyalty for the state. Thus proving my point that such actions would occur if there wasn’t a religion to blame or not.
[/quote]
Hitler is a prime example of the power of persuasion.
No, he didn’t claim to be following “Gods” word but he had the power to effect peoples views on life. He may have seen himself as a “God” in a deluded kind of way. He was trying to change the world to his personal ideology. He succeeded for years in bullying people into living how he saw the world should be.
How is he any different to other religious icons in how he tried to do it other than he chose violence to enforce it. It was reacted to with violence. Others chose peaceful methods and they to were confronted with violence. It was the lack of understanding and fear of change that perpetuated it. Especially all those centuries ago.
Outside thinking was frowned upon, it was “Evil” because it went against the word of the all knowing…
[quote]vroom wrote:
A “higher power” does not have to be a religious one.
Loyalty to some cause or belief, especially one that is given exceptional importance or authority, is a higher power – it absolves the follower from having to think and use personal judgment.
Similarly, a mob mentality can grab hold of individuals and pull them into what they see happening around them.
Frankly, I’d suggest that blind allegiance to any “ism” is dangerous. This is true whether it is communism or “with us or against us ism”.[/quote]
I agree…
Were on the same page on that point, I had the impression that you were implying that there had to be a god or religious figure of some sort to cause that built in right or wrong reason to be broken (on a larger mass scale), but i was simply giving the history against that sort of reason.
I agree that the mob mantality is to blame, but i just don’t feel if a mob mantality is used with religion to cause harmful actions, religion should be blamed. Only because no religion in all actuality condomes such acts.
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
I disagree with the statement that the Japanese suicide Pilots did it only because they were told to. They were lead to believe that they were to go to a better place after life and were being Martyred. They were only taught how to take off…would you send your sons to do this knowing they were to never return???
Plz correct me if I"m wrong, i have limited knowledge on the pilots, and have said it as i understand it…
Where is it that says Communism isn’t a form of religion.
It is one person taking total power over his “Followers”
They do it for the “Emperor” not the cause, they do it because he has said it must be so…in my eyes no different to following “Gods Word”.[/quote]
The pilots were not led to believe that they were going to a better place. Your thinking of martyrs of Christianity and Islam. The pilots were told it was for the better of the nation, and their sacrifice in life suceeded with the thought of Japanese victory.
And are you really saying communism is a religion? If you have any history in socialism, you would known that Marx stated “religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand”, and “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”. Now does communism in any way sound like it endorses traditional religious views? No, not at all.
Communism is defined by wiki as, “Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production”. In that definition does it state an ultimate being or high power should be worshiped in any way or form? Communism is a economic society structure.
You said communism is when one takes control of many. This is not the case at all, communism theortically is powered by equality so that everyone is equal and no one rules them all.
Your original topic was on how religion caused people to behave in a negative way, and i replied with saying people would be taken advantage of if there wasn’t or was a religion, for example communism and the hitler comments. By you agreeing that communism does take advantage of people, even though you are classifying communism as a religion, you are strengthening my argument. THERE doesn’t have to be a higher power to blame for people doing negative actions, people will be taken advantage in all different situations. To say religion is to blame is pretty ignorant.
BTW i am in know way a communist or fundamental religious individual, far from each actually, just trying to state the facts. Only saying this since im new to the board and i really don’t want to be labeled into something i don’t believe in aka communism.
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Were on the same page on that point, I had the impression that you were implying that there had to be a god or religious figure of some sort to cause that built in right or wrong reason to be broken (on a larger mass scale), but i was simply giving the history against that sort of reason.
I agree that the mob mantality is to blame, but i just don’t feel if a mob mantality is used with religion to cause harmful actions, religion should be blamed. Only because no religion in all actuality condomes such acts.[/quote]
Fair comment