Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 29, 2010, 10:29:07 pm
-
And so it begins (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheLaw/michigan-christian-militia-hutaree-targeted-law-enforcement/story?id=10228716)
The last of nine people indicted in a plot to kill police officers was arrested this evening at a home in Hillsdale County, Mich.
Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, was captured without incident Monday evening, authorities told ABC News.
Authorities say Stone was one of two sons of David Brian Stone, 45, the alleged ringleader of the Christian militia group called Hutaree.
The anti-government militia allegedly plotted to kill law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices and projectiles before being foiled by FBI raids that started Sunday in three states that netted nine members of an extremist group, federal authorities said today.
This is really messed up and thankfully they didn't have a chance to actually make this happen. Religion does not belong in this century, there I said it. :P
On a side note, since these guys were apocalyptic christians I wonder if they thought Obama was the anti-christ or something.
-
Oh boy... :rolleyes:
-
Let's make this thread better by pointing out that all religious people hate gay people, abortion is the best thing to ever happen to America, FreeSpace 3 would be better on consoles, and Derek Smart makes pretty decent games.
oh and circumcision is great
-
HITLER
lol godwin
-
/sigh
Anyone who tries to link these yahoo's with actual Christians is crazier than they are.
Christians are called to suffer for the faith if necessary. And the Bible says that in the last days, any who do not follow the Anti-Christ will be put to the sword on the spot.
So, since there are no public executions going on, BHO is not the Anti-Christ.
Also, Christians are guided to behave in a reasonable fashion concerning the laws of the lands where they reside, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render unto God what is God's." That's an instruction for Christians to be good citizens, pay taxes, obey the speed limit ect, and to also obey God and do what is right by him in life, IE tithe, go to church regularly, ect. These guys obviously missed that sermon.
-
stone homosexuals too
-
Christians ... will be put to the sword on the spot.
So, since there are ... public executions going on, BHO is ... the Anti-Christ.
Quote mining is fun!
-
I'll admit it, I giggled. :nod:
-
*runs around in circles waving arms and shouting*
-
JESUS LIVES!
:D
-
I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and the rest of the christians:
the bible.
At the very least, there is that common willingness to believe in things that dont make any sense, these guys just took it too far. It was possible for them to do this because the framework was already there in their heads that allowed them to consider true things for which they had no evidence.
-
I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and the rest of the christians:
the bible.
At the very least, there is that common willingness to believe in things that dont make any sense, these guys just took it too far. It was possible for them to do this because the framework was already there in their heads that allowed them to consider true things for which they had no evidence.
So if we extrapolate that to other faiths, then that means there is a pretty prominent link between Al'Quaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the rest of the Muslims in the world: the Koran.
You just make yourself look bad when you say all members of a faith are potential terrorists.
-
What, they're not?
Just because US Christians and their $46,716 GDP per capita don't all fall in line with religious demagogues who promote hate and violence in a country where any jackass can get his hands on a gun, despite somewhat-stringent gun control laws, doesn't mean Christian terrorism doesn't happen, or can't happen.
Religion's just a tool. People with their own goals or ideologies manipulate the downtrodden and poor into acts of terrorism and violence for their own gain. You know, in those countries around the world deeply-affected by a suffering economy, strong racial divide, deliberately misinformed masses, and people in power that they've been led to believe are going to destroy them.
OH **** WAIT!
That's the ****ing problem with us as Americans--it's perfectly okay to assume some Muslim is going to come in and shoot us all up, but the second the federal government starts looking at the people whose rhetoric and movements made the single largest act of domestic terrorism in US history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing) possible, it's all of a sudden a violation of Second Amendment rights, or a liberal conspiracy, or anti-Christian repression.
American Christians are just as capable of terrorism as anybody--Scott Roeder, Timothy McVeigh, Clayton Waagner, Martin Uphoff, Matthew Derosia, and Eric Robert Rudolph are all testaments to that.
All this being fueled by those living, breathing, (somehow still) on-the-air fascists and murderers at Fox. And the rest of the news media for legitimizing Fox as a "news organization." And the people who are mentally-retarded enough to give any credence to the crap that spills out of Beck's or O'Reilly's mouth. And the people who make apologies or defend (outside of the duties of the legal system) those jackasses that perpetrate this ****.
-
Timothy McVeigh,
Wasn't he also from Michigan?
-
Yeah, but he wasn't connected to the Michigan Militia at all.
-
I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and the rest of the christians:
the bible.
I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and you:
you're both humans (possibly you're also both americans)
-
Stop trolling.
-
Geez Nuclear, someone piss in your morning coffee? Are you sure you couldn't cram in any more Glenn Beck-style rage in that post of yours?
To respond to your Liberator-like rant, I never said Christian terrorism couldn't happen, I was getting on Turambar's case for saying all Christians are potential terrorists simply because they read the Bible.
-
But they are. Anybody has the potential to be a terrorist for some cause--the conditions just have to be right. That's the whole point I was making.
-
Christians, Muslims, who cares. They both fly planes into buildings and kill people for luls.
-
introduce skynet, nuke the planet then there will be no humans left to do crazy things
-
so, people i offended, how does it feel? I imagine it's a lot like what my dad feels when people say things like your response "what do they have in common, the qur'an" which happens a lot more often.
(Most) Terrorism is a product of desperation. It could be manufactured, perceived desperation like these inept wackos in the US, or it could be real desperation like they have in the middle east, where they are attacked by an enemy they have no hope of fighting. Most people just put up with it, but a tiny minority will decide that they need to retaliate, somehow, against whatever they perceive is causing the problem.
Edit: Added a most in there to cover my ass and because Israel's state terrorism doesn't fit.
-
But they are. Anybody has the potential to be a terrorist for some cause--the conditions just have to be right. That's the whole point I was making.
By that logic, anyone who reads: Plato's Republic, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Sir issac Newton: Principia Mathematica, John Sutart Mill: On Liberty, Charles Darwin:The Origin of the Species, etc, etc
Is a potential Terrorist.
-
Origins of Species and Plato's Republic don't condemn homosexuality, require people to put faith in something intangible, or enforce an archaic moral code.
-
I get the feeling that you're saying anyone could be a terrorist... religious or otherwise.
I'm getting mixed messages here.
-
Give people something to believe, let them become desperate, and convince them the only solution is to enforce their beliefs is through violence.
Terrorism.
-
How do characterize rebellion then?
-
Christians, Muslims, who cares. They both fly planes into buildings and kill people for luls.
I am very offended by your misspelling of lulz.
-
How do characterize rebellion then?
It's the *same* damn thing. Although it's more appropriate to call it insurgency.
A successful insurgency - that probably started with terrorist actions - is later called a rebellion.
Terrorism is the gestalt state of insurgency and it's primary aim is to draw attention to itself and their cause and hence recruit people.
(http://m.blog.hu/ka/katpol/image/t%C3%A1bl%C3%A1zat.JPG)
A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/)
Counterinsurgency Field Manual (FM 3-24) (http://www.usgcoin.org/library/doctrine/COIN-FM3-24.pdf)
-
That chart has some fundamental flaws. the Terrorism column should really be Terrorist Cell while the Guerilla column should be Insurgency/Terrorists.
This may REALLY mess with some peoples minds: The Rebellion in Star Wars where acturally Terrorists, no matter what they where fighting for. As where th Colonials in the occupation of New Caprica in Battlestar Galactica (they even used suicide bombs)
-
That chart has some fundamental flaws. the Terrorism column should really be Terrorist Cell while the Guerilla column should be Insurgency/Terrorists.
This may REALLY mess with some peoples minds: The Rebellion in Star Wars where acturally Terrorists, no matter what they where fighting for. As where th Colonials in the occupation of New Caprica in Battlestar Galactica (they even used suicide bombs)
I'm rarely rude, but in this case it's warranted: shut up.
You start nitpicking a chart by people who actually *fought* COIN then you bring up a Star Wars reference.
-
I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and the rest of the christians:
the bible.
I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and you:
you're both humans (possibly you're also both americans)
Stop trolling.
How about no...
Any organized system can fuel heinous acts. Ever think of extreme nationalism or governmental extremists? Those Revolutionary Guards would love to give you a piece of their mind, not to mention sidearm. I also encourage you to consider things like communist Russia, where atrocities commited in the name of the state were far beyond the comprehension of the normal person.
...This anti-religious sentiment is really quite dim upon analysis, especially when you stop to consider actions which very non-religious individuals are capable of. You think governements are innocent of terrorism to achieve some sort of means, wheter good or evil? Systems by their nature are vurnerable to abuse - stating any one system or type of system as the root of this is folly.
As a final note, I quoted TrashMan as he does have a point in abstact: human nature is the critical cause of terrorism. Most religions I know of do not emphasize violence towards others in any form of good consciousness - people, regardless of their beliefs, will bend systems/statements/etc. to meet or fulfill their veiws. Human nature taken a turn for the worse is the enemy here, not faith.
-
So, Thaeris, if you'd read Nuclear's posts, would you have noticed that he already espoused the precise same sentiment?
However he's right to point out that Christianity (via the Old Testament) does advocate violence against homosexuals and women and such, which is problematic.
-
Regardless of semantic games, I think there's a clear difference between "terrorism" that focuses on attacking civilians and "terrorism" that attacks a government. Both can be construed as rebellion, but the means they allow themselves to use is important too. If, for example, the USA turned into a theocratic dictatorship, and you decided your only recourse was to fight back, would you blow up bombs in shopping malls? Or would you be trying to minimize civilian casualties? There is a moral difference here that shouldn't be ignored. Regardless of how it gets labeled, it isn't the same thing.
However he's right to point out that Christianity (via the Old Testament) does advocate violence against homosexuals and women and such, which is problematic.
I think this is a bit disingenuous, at least as written. Obviously, the vast majority of Christians, as well as their leaders, are not advocating violence against homosexuals and women. It's not a part of behavior or doctrine. How many churches can you walk into and find somebody preaching such violence? Sure, there are a few, but they are the minority. And don't try to claim that the Bible defines doctrine: not all churches interpret it the same way, or even literally. It's more complex than that.
At the very least, there is that common willingness to believe in things that don't make any sense, these guys just took it too far. It was possible for them to do this because the framework was already there in their heads that allowed them to consider true things for which they had no evidence.
For those of you claiming that religion does cause these problems, you are deluding yourself about human nature. People come fully equipped with the ability to believe things that make no sense and/or have no evidence. People, unfortunately, are perfectly capable of rationalizing terrible acts with or without religion.
-
It's more complex than that.
I think this is a fairly nice summary of the issue, in fact.
I'm in the camp that argues that any system can be bent to violent ends, religious or not. My only beef with religion is that its rewards are arbitrarily determined and located after death, which means they can be manipulated to give believers incentive to commit violent acts very easily.
-
Sushi is right.
Also a lot of you are simplifying things. People are way more complex than this... at most, your angry about isolated incidents because they get the spotlight. It amazes me that all the talk I see here about the intolerance of Christians and I see more intolerance from people posting here on these forums, all based on generalizations.
-
Sushi is right.
Also a lot of you are simplifying things. People are way more complex than this... at most, your angry about isolated incidents because they get the spotlight. It amazes me that all the talk I see here about the intolerance of Christians and I see more intolerance from people posting here on these forums, all based on generalizations.
It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.
-
So, Thaeris, if you'd read Nuclear's posts, would you have noticed that he already espoused the precise same sentiment?
However he's right to point out that Christianity (via the Old Testament) does advocate violence against homosexuals and women and such, which is problematic.
The Old Testament is chock full of a lot of rough stuff, which was rather critical when dealing with equally nasty neighbors. The Law was swift and to the point when dealing with problems and dissidents as a means of maintaining order - to an extent, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in today's society (in abstact): I feel you'd not see too many people with a mind to murder another, seeing as the penalty for murder was to be put to death. An ordered society, so long as it's not too rigid is a formidable entity.
If you note the New Testament, I'm going to cite this: from Jesus himself: "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Under such a charge, anyone convinced that violence against another should seriously think again. Love, after all, is the fulfillment of the law...
...and women and such...
Cultural conventions of the region aside, I can think of no particular thing in the Bible anywhere which cites unjust cruelty to women. If you'd like to use that as an argument, please give me something to look at...
I posted the last statement for, as a religious person, I am slightly offended by "religious people are extremist and lack judgement," etc. This wasn't aimed at Nuclear in particular.
-
I remember a quote somewhere of how women were supposed to keep silent, or something. I think that was from the New Testament, too. And as we all know, oppression leads to violence. And usually the violence is directed from the oppressor towards the oppressed.
And Thaeris, I'd like to point out that nobody follows the bible to the letter. They pick and choose the parts that suite them. Jesus can say love they neighbor. But if someone gets uncomfortable at the thought of gay men then they listen to Leviticus rather than Jesus.
-
It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.
Just nitpicking a bit here, remembering something Shamil Basayev said in regards to the Beslan massacre: "This is a war between the descendants of monkeys, about whom your Darwin wrote, and the descendants of Adam, glory be to Allah."
-
Sushi is right.
Also a lot of you are simplifying things. People are way more complex than this... at most, your angry about isolated incidents because they get the spotlight. It amazes me that all the talk I see here about the intolerance of Christians and I see more intolerance from people posting here on these forums, all based on generalizations.
It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.
Actually I think a lot of the sentiments in this thread have been along the lines of 'all systems can be turned to evil', not just religion.
-
It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.
Just nitpicking a bit here, remembering something Shamil Basayev said in regards to the Beslan massacre: "This is a war between the descendants of monkeys, about whom your Darwin wrote, and the descendants of Adam, glory be to Allah."
Well, I expect that Shamil Basayev was also human. Humans have a nack for associating themselves with a particular community and then hating or competing with other ones.
EDIT: Then we seem to be on the same page, Battuta
-
Sushi is right.
Also a lot of you are simplifying things. People are way more complex than this... at most, your angry about isolated incidents because they get the spotlight. It amazes me that all the talk I see here about the intolerance of Christians and I see more intolerance from people posting here on these forums, all based on generalizations.
It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.
Actually I think a lot of the sentiments in this thread have been along the lines of 'all systems can be turned to evil', not just religion.
Could you turn a hippie movement violent? Sure.
Though I would wager few other systems have the ability to indoctrinate its followers into zealots like religion. Religion has the ability to rile people up into thinking they are serving divine will, that all the atrocities they commit will be forgiven and that everlasting rewards await them if they die for the cause. Religion already requires a certain amount of "taking it on faith" it's much easier to take a system like that and push its members into blindly following without question then say a system grounded entirely on fact. Not to mention that religion is one of those things you can drive people to hate each other intangibles.
-
I remember a quote somewhere of how women were supposed to keep silent, or something. I think that was from the New Testament, too. And as we all know, oppression leads to violence. And usually the violence is directed from the oppressor towards the oppressed.
And Thaeris, I'd like to point out that nobody follows the bible to the letter. They pick and choose the parts that suite them. Jesus can say love they neighbor. But if someone gets uncomfortable at the thought of gay men then they listen to Leviticus rather than Jesus.
I'm not going to contest the latter point, as that's what people do (I'll also note that I pretty much said the same thing earlier). What they forget when doing such things, however, is that now they also commit sin when they judge others and weigh the superficial "order-of-magnitude" of sin of what they're about to do to others against whatever transgression the target individual has commited... I know that's a bit of a mouthful...
On the prior point... That's Paul for you. :rolleyes:
Paul was formerly a Pharisee and certainly had various cultural views present in his doctorine, the place of women was undoubtably amongst them. I hate to seem hypocritical about this, but I'd take that with a grain of salt in today's culture and more so understand that statements like that one were focused on promoting working community/relationship dynamics, not surpressing women (at least intentionally). Of all New Testament personalities, Paul is probably the most opinionated.
-
Could you turn a hippie movement violent? Sure.
Though I would wager few other systems have the ability to indoctrinate its followers into zealots like religion. Religion has the ability to rile people up into thinking they are serving divine will, that all the atrocities they commit will be forgiven and that everlasting rewards await them if they die for the cause. Religion already requires a certain amount of "taking it on faith" it's much easier to take a system like that and push its members into blindly following without question then say a system grounded entirely on fact. Not to mention that religion is one of those things you can drive people to hate each other intangibles.
The same could be said for patriotism :p
-
Could you turn a hippie movement violent? Sure.
Though I would wager few other systems have the ability to indoctrinate its followers into zealots like religion. Religion has the ability to rile people up into thinking they are serving divine will, that all the atrocities they commit will be forgiven and that everlasting rewards await them if they die for the cause. Religion already requires a certain amount of "taking it on faith" it's much easier to take a system like that and push its members into blindly following without question then say a system grounded entirely on fact. Not to mention that religion is one of those things you can drive people to hate each other intangibles.
The same could be said for patriotism :p
Very true!!! Or nationalism
-
Patriotism/nationalism - If you don't like 'murica, you can geeeyat out! You're either with us or you're against us!
Racism - If you don't hate blacks, you're a race-traitor.
ISMs seem to be mostly bad... Hooray for Atheism being the exception. Then again, that's because Atheism, by definition, is nothing, I guess.
-
Patriotism/nationalism - If you don't like 'murica, you can geeeyat out! You're either with us or you're against us!
Racism - If you don't hate blacks, you're a race-traitor.
ISMs seem to be mostly bad... Hooray for Atheism being the exception. Then again, that's because Atheism, by definition, is nothing, I guess.
I don't think even atheism is immune to it.
-
case in point: this thread.
-
atheism is a lot easier to understand than religionism (i made up a word!)
there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is no god
vs
there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is a god
-
atheism is a lot easier to understand than religionism (i made up a word!)
there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is no god
vs
there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is a god
What has that got to do with anything?
-
no idea. maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'
-
I think this thread was more about debating whether or not one group of human beings is more predisposed towards violence than another group. Not so much about the merits of atheism vs the merits of institutionalised religion.
p.s. I'm doing a research paper on masculinity and violence. Turns out in modern western society there is a group of humans that is more violent than another: males. But that's a discussion for another thread. :)
-
I think violence can be greatly reduced by the legalization, distribution, and moderate usage of marijuana.
-
no idea. maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'
There is such a thing as "militant atheism," though. The statements of individuals like Richard Dawkins could very easily be spun into a radicalized creed of beliefs, just as Christianity was spun into such by the individuals in the original post. In this thread. The bottom line here is, as multiple people have pointed out, no form of grouping is immune.
-
I think violence can be greatly reduced by the legalization, distribution, and moderate usage of marijuana.
Hallucinogens, too. Nobody comes back from a solid DMT trip with his or her convictions intact.
-
no idea. maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'
There is such a thing as "militant atheism," though. The statements of individuals like Richard Dawkins could very easily be spun into a radicalized creed of beliefs, just as Christianity was spun into such by the individuals in the original post. In this thread. The bottom line here is, as multiple people have pointed out, no form of grouping is immune.
When's the last time Dawkins suggested killing other people was a good way to solve conflict?
-
Patriotism/nationalism - If you don't like 'murica, you can geeeyat out! You're either with us or you're against us!
Racism - If you don't hate blacks, you're a race-traitor.
ISMs seem to be mostly bad... Hooray for Atheism being the exception. Then again, that's because Atheism, by definition, is nothing, I guess.
I don't think even atheism is immune to it.
I'd like to bring more attention to this point, though I'd rather not take a side on it. I prefer to watch people argue rather than do the arguing, but there is a point to be had. A lot of atheists I know are under the impression of "religion is evil, we should get rid of it entirely". It wouldn't be hard to stretch that to extremes (in the case of a group of zealots) and say "religious people are evil, we should get rid of them all to protect everyone else".
Those who are reading this thread may find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_science
-
When's the last time someone was murdered in the name of atheism?
And, yes, atheists tend to talk about killing religion, but how many famous atheists call for killing religious people?
"militant atheist" bah!
Meanwhile, our prisons are disproportionately filled with religious people, and we can't go a week without somebody killing in the name of their religion.
-
When's the last time someone was murdered in the name of atheism?
And, yes, atheists tend to talk about killing religion, but how many famous atheists call for killing religious people?
"militant atheist" bah!
Meanwhile, our prisons are disproportionately filled with religious people, and we can't go a week without somebody killing in the name of their religion.
Uhh, communist revolutionaries ring a bell?
-
this is when religious people like to bring up stalin and mao, or even claim that hitler was an atheist. unfortunately, it's a bit irrelevent because they were killing for their own ends and power, not because the people they were killing were religious. Also, they weren't using atheism as a tool to get others to do their killing.
-
this is when religious people like to bring up stalin and mao, or even claim that hitler was an atheist. unfortunately, it's a bit irrelevent because they were killing for their own ends and power, not because the people they were killing were religious. Also, they weren't using atheism as a tool to get others to do their killing.
Well, seeing as Marxist philosophy often includes tenants derived from the philosophy of Karl Marx including such things as, oh...
"RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE"
...and thus makes for an unproductive state, etc., yeah, atheism does in fact factor into a reason for killing people.
It's also key to remember that the maniacal leader does have subordinates, who have their own subordinates, etc., etc... These people often share similarly extreme and often further abstracted beliefs based on those of the leader...
...After all (as an abstract argument), Buddha never claimed to be a deity, yet some forms of Buddhism view him as such. The leader is nothing without the subordinate - devoted followers make the world go round (and fill the mass graves as well).
I want a better argment than the one you've given.
-
When's the last time someone was murdered in the name of atheism?
And, yes, atheists tend to talk about killing religion, but how many famous atheists call for killing religious people?
"militant atheist" bah!
Meanwhile, our prisons are disproportionately filled with religious people, and we can't go a week without somebody killing in the name of their religion.
When's the last time someone was murdered for money? For status? I imagine that some atheists can and have killed people, if not directly because the people were religious. The problem isn't religion, it's the random retards who claim to follow a religion and do stupid **** like killing people. That can happen with any group.
-
This is aimless.
We're a FreeSpace community. Does this in any way help that? No. Does it possibly harm it? Yes.
Let's derail this thread to a new topic. I say we close GenDisc and ban political/religious discussions. Many other successful community forums have this policy.
-
what's freespace
-
It would be nice to get along... I tire of the same angry arguments. That NEVER get anywhere except an arbitrary line between the psycho deist and rational atheist.
-
This is aimless.
We're a FreeSpace community. Does this in any way help that? No. Does it possibly harm it? Yes.
Let's derail this thread to a new topic. I say we close GenDisc and ban political/religious discussions. Many other successful community forums have this policy.
That's why this is in the Non-FreeSpace discussion forum. While many other successful community forums have the policy of banning political/religious discussion, it does not follow that the ban has any bearing on that. We may be a FreeSpace community, but the people who visit it obviously do not want to talk about solely FreeSpace. I mean no offense when I say this, but if you dislike the political/religious bickering, you could always just abstain from GD. That would serve the same purpose on an individual level, rather than closing any possibility of discussion not related to FreeSpace for everyone.
It would be nice to get along... I tire of the same angry arguments. That NEVER get anywhere except an arbitrary line between the psycho deist and rational atheist.
I beg your pardon?
-
I beg your pardon?
Did I stutta? :P
-
Personally, what makes the HLP such a fascinating place is that we're open to discussion of all sorts, for better or for worse even. Even through our disagreements, these subjects do tend to expand our horizons and teach us about each other - the HLP is a pretty tight-knit community because we know so much about each other and how we feel about issues. This is much more than a forum about a decade+ old space sim. :D
-
I beg your pardon?
Did I stutta? :P
Just a little put off by the lumping in with the "psycho deist" crowd. :P
-
This is aimless.
We're a FreeSpace community. Does this in any way help that? No. Does it possibly harm it? Yes.
Let's derail this thread to a new topic. I say we close GenDisc and ban political/religious discussions. Many other successful community forums have this policy.
That's why this is in the Non-FreeSpace discussion forum. While many other successful community forums have the policy of banning political/religious discussion, it does not follow that the ban has any bearing on that. We may be a FreeSpace community, but the people who visit it obviously do not want to talk about solely FreeSpace. I mean no offense when I say this, but if you dislike the political/religious bickering, you could always just abstain from GD. That would serve the same purpose on an individual level, rather than closing any possibility of discussion not related to FreeSpace for ever
My comfort isn't the issue. The problem is that this is a huge waste of time with no benefit. Run a C/B analysis or a Pascal's gambit: it can't possibly do any good for the community aims and it frequently does harm.
The aim here is not to make me happier with GenDisc, the aim is to close off any possibility of discussion not related to FreeSpace for ever (unless it wasn't a political or religious debate.)
Much nicer that way, I'm starting to think!
-
I beg your pardon?
Did I stutta? :P
Just a little put off by the lumping in with the "psycho deist" crowd. :P
I'm sure your not a psycho. :D
I just can't remember a time I posted here when I didn't feel I wasn't in that crowd. I did bring it upon myself, but whatever I was young and had very different beliefs.
Reputation is like fine china once broken it's very hard to repair. ~ Abraham Lincoln
-
Noooooo don't close GenDisc! You'll be ending an era :p
EDIT: New topic! Obama wants to close GenDisc :p
-
The problem is that this is a huge waste of time with no benefit.
So's this entire site. What's your point?
-
this is when religious people like to bring up stalin and mao, or even claim that hitler was an atheist. unfortunately, it's a bit irrelevent because they were killing for their own ends and power, not because the people they were killing were religious. Also, they weren't using atheism as a tool to get others to do their killing.
Well, seeing as Marxist philosophy often includes tenants derived from the philosophy of Karl Marx including such things as, oh...
"RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
-
I beg your pardon?
Did I stutta? :P
Is What a country? They speak English in What? Say 'what' again, melon-farmer...
-
The problem is that this is a huge waste of time with no benefit.
So's this entire site. What's your point?
This is a tangential waste of time that distracts us from the waste of time we're all here to waste our time on! (Which does have a benefit, at least in terms of our enjoyment.)
Now what would be really meta-silly is if we started wasting time arguing about whether arguing about off-topic things was a waste of time. So I think I'll just pursue this line of inquiry on me own.
-
/me head asplosion
-
this is when religious people like to bring up stalin and mao, or even claim that hitler was an atheist. unfortunately, it's a bit irrelevent because they were killing for their own ends and power, not because the people they were killing were religious. Also, they weren't using atheism as a tool to get others to do their killing.
Well, seeing as Marxist philosophy often includes tenants derived from the philosophy of Karl Marx including such things as, oh...
"RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE"
...and thus makes for an unproductive state, etc., yeah, atheism does in fact factor into a reason for killing people.
It's also key to remember that the maniacal leader does have subordinates, who have their own subordinates, etc., etc... These people often share similarly extreme and often further abstracted beliefs based on those of the leader...
...After all (as an abstract argument), Buddha never claimed to be a deity, yet some forms of Buddhism view him as such. The leader is nothing without the subordinate - devoted followers make the world go round (and fill the mass graves as well).
I want a better argment than the one you've given.
The thing to remember is that communism ended up becoming its own religion of a sort, complete with "holy" books, "enlightened" leaders, rampant brainwashing, and general intolerance for other schools of thought.
Now what would be really meta-silly is if we started wasting time arguing about whether arguing about off-topic things was a waste of time. So I think I'll just pursue this line of inquiry on me own.
You can say that about pretty much any human social activity.
Debates are how we learn from others and refine our own ideas, as an academic you should know that.
-
Debates are how we learn from others and refine our own ideas, as an academic you should know that.
Au contraire - debates are generally pointless. As a cognitive scientist, I've learned that humans don't form opinions by rational discourse; we settle on ideas that 'feel right' to us for subconscious reasons, then selectively recruit evidence to confirm our own biases.
After so many years on debate teams and in academia I've learned how futile the whole endeavour is. In many cases debates just entrench existing divides.
-
Strange, commenting on how debate is pointless, and then debating on it...
That might apply to a "stagnant person," but a learning individual can and certainly does benenefit and "evolve" from intelligable debate. When hard facts or logic is presented and tested by the individual, there will be some revelation achieved by analysis - the order of magnitude of which is dependant on what the individual does with that information.
...I'd like to think if nothing else this thread demonstrated certain fallacies of human nature which are really just linked to the social nature of man, as well as the fact that "religious people" are not the sole origin of violence or malevolence in the modern world (or... something like that...). Was I perhaps a little annoyed at some of what was said? Maybe. But, we succeeded in discussing the issue without incident and hopefully learned something from it.
-
I don't know anything about the cognitive processes at work in debates, but what I will agree with Battuta on is that these ridiculous arguments that tend to break out in here significantly detract from my enjoyment of this site as a whole. It's something that's hardly exclusive to here, though, as I came back to another forum I frequent after a hiatus only to almost immediately get involved in a similar discussion. (Hoo boy, I'd pay to see the earth-shaking clash of political standpoints that would occur if a select few of you guys ventured there. :D) It's easy to say "Just don't read GenDisc," but that ignores the fact that there are also plenty of lighthearted, generally-amusing threads posted in here that have little to no danger of turning into flame wars. I don't want to cut myself off from the fun stuff just to avoid the facepalm stuff.
I don't remember if it worked out very well at all, but maybe we could try resurrecting the Rants folder concept for this sort of thing.
-
Strange, commenting on how debate is pointless, and then debating on it...
That might apply to a "stagnant person," but a learning individual can and certainly does benenefit and "evolve" from intelligable debate. When hard facts or logic is presented and tested by the individual, there will be some revelation achieved by analysis - the order of magnitude of which is dependant on what the individual does with that information
Sorry, but the data doesn't support your claim to exceptionalism.
Your analysis of hard facts and logic is a superficial and faulty system hastily patched over a much deeper cognitive system you're not aware of and can't control.
And I'm fully aware of the irony of the situation, thanks.
Anyway, I'm with Mongoose.
-
Sorry, but the data doesn't support your claim to exceptionalism.
We have an entire movement based on the exceptionalism which you claim doesn't exist.
Your analysis of hard facts and logic is a superficial and faulty system hastily patched over a much deeper cognitive system you're not aware of and can't control.
People can override it, and many have done so. The problem is people aren't trained to think in a rational manner, which makes it more difficult than it needs to be.
-
Data to support your claim?
Remember that I'm talking from the standpoint of a behavioral scientist here, and we're mostly of the opinion that people don't know anything about how they think.
Folk psychology isn't going to fly here.
-
Data to support your claim?
The entire skeptical movement is my evidence. You say that people can't change or evolve their viewpoints based on evidence and intelligent debate, but that is exactly what skepticism is about. Try (http://www.randi.org/) it sometime (http://www.theness.com/).
-
So you're suggesting that as a scientist I'm not a skeptic?
What I'm telling you is that even the most devoted skeptic suffers heuristic biases which badly compromise purely rational thought.
The links you provided are movements I'm very much in favor of, but they do not change the fact that human cognition is a funny beast.
Most of your heuristics are inaccessible to conscious thought and thus cannot be altered no matter how hard you try.
You say that people can't change or evolve their viewpoints based on evidence and intelligent debate
No, I didn't say that. What I said was that it's an unreliable process that goes wrong as often as not.
Of course many people aren't aware of their own failings in this respect, which is why we have to insist on ignoring people's bull**** self-perceptions and actually gathering data on how they act.
So, any data?
-
And in fact this debate is a great case in point.
It's more about ego posturing and not liking what the other person says than any desire to communicate new information or evaluate on fair grounds.
Skepticism and rationality are the way to go, but unfortunately humans are (with our current neural setup) pretty poor amateurs at those tasks.
-
So you're suggesting that as a scientist I'm not a skeptic?
Based on your posting I would have to say not really. Being a scientist doesn't automatically make you a skeptic, although there certainly is a greater tendency towards that.
What I'm telling you is that even the most devoted skeptic suffers heuristic biases which badly compromise purely rational thought.
The links you provided are movements I'm very much in favor of, but they do not change the fact that human cognition is a funny beast.
Most of your heuristics are inaccessible to conscious thought and thus cannot be altered no matter how hard you try.
None of them claim to be perfect, but they try and are generally much more successful than others. Part of the problem is very few were ever raised to be one, often times people "woke up" when they were in their 20's, often well away from our education system. Personally I used to be one of those people who firmly believed in ESP, space aliens coming here, and quite a few ideas, etc, until I realized there was no evidence to support any of it.
No, I didn't say that. What I said was that it's an unreliable process that goes wrong as often as not.
"As a cognitive scientist, I've learned that humans don't form opinions by rational discourse; we settle on ideas that 'feel right' to us for subconscious reasons, then selectively recruit evidence to confirm our own biases." That statement sounds pretty concrete to me.
I've always had the impression, both from the scientists I know in person (mostly from the physics department at my university) and scientists I know by reputation that debate was an important part of academic life and the scientific method in general. Is that not the case in your field?
-
Debate is certainly an important part of scientific life.
That doesn't mean human beings are any good at it, just that we do the best we can.
Honestly, you're not making much sense:
Based on your posting I would have to say not really.
My position is based on scientific evidence gathered through rigorous methodology. I haven't seen any evidence of similar data from you?
-
no idea. maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'
There is such a thing as "militant atheism," though. The statements of individuals like Richard Dawkins could very easily be spun into a radicalized creed of beliefs, just as Christianity was spun into such by the individuals in the original post. In this thread. The bottom line here is, as multiple people have pointed out, no form of grouping is immune.
When's the last time Dawkins suggested killing other people was a good way to solve conflict?
Of course Dawkins never suggested killing other people. Neither did Jesus. Yet people how used his words to carry out horrible things in his name. The potential is there for every human being to carry out evil and commit crimes no matter what the belief or cause is. Why? Because were human. Atheism is not immune to this. Atheism does not have a special splace above religion making it exempt from the problems of humankind.
-
If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.
-
Commanded it, even. Genocide to the last infant and tree. (Except the women, they count as spoils of war.)
-
My position is based on scientific evidence gathered through rigorous methodology. I haven't seen any evidence of similar data from you?
I've only ever seen you post any sort of evidence one time, so I am a little skeptical of that assessment.
This is not evidence:
Troll.
(Unless you're actually not aware of the reasons why Africa is in such a state of chaos...and who's responsible.)
Debate is certainly an important part of scientific life.
When you said it was pointless, and referring to your experiences in academia, I got the impression you viewed all debate as being useless, including scientific. Perhaps I was mistaken, but to be fair your statement was very broad reaching.
If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.
Part of the problem with people trying to down play the old testament is that the ot is still church canon, and still part of "the word".
-
Check out Bar-Hillel 1980, most stuff by Kahneman and Tversky, or Nisbett et al. 1976 for some starters. And that's what I pulled up at random - there's a massive body of work.
-
If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.
Part of the problem with people trying to down play the old testament is that the ot is still church canon, and still part of "the word".
Part of canon, yes, but not without context. The ignoring of said context is blatantly irresponsible.
-
If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.
Part of the problem with people trying to down play the old testament is that the ot is still church canon, and still part of "the word".
Part of canon, yes, but not without context. The ignoring of said context is blatantly irresponsible.
You mean the context that it's a collection of myths and legends of the region?
-
No (or, I suppose, more generally), the context of when specific segments were written, and for what purpose. Even limiting oneself to the Old Testament, the Bible's books represent a variety of different literary types, composed at different points in the Jewish people's history. For instance, Genesis 1 is an allegorical myth, with the repeated structure of each day used to reinforce the central theological concept. Leviticus and Deuteronomy largely consists of legal and religious statutes. Psalms is a grouping of spiritual songs. Kings is a largely historical account. Extending into the New Testament, the Gospels represent a more direct narrative structure, while Paul's letters address various theological and evangelical issues in the communities they were aimed at. And all of these were originally generated, and then eventually written down, over a period of several hundred to a few thousand years. To paint every single book of the Bible with the same brush is a massive oversimplification, and doing something like quote-mining from a single book without context demonstrates ignorance of the historical purpose of that portion. It's the same sentiment that leads ignorant people to look at a few lines from the Koran and proclaim, "All Muslims are terrorists!"
-
If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.
If you accept the doctrine of the Trinity and believe that, then you don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity. God isn't actually the same person as Jesus. If that doesn't make sense to you, that's okay. Think of them as being manifestations of a singular concept or idea. (Or just accept you don't understand. Either way.) The full Trinitarian doctrine is complex and ugly and has no useful parallel in reality with which to explain it, so you more or less need a theology degree to claim true understanding of what you're saying.
However as it has been given to me to understand from someone with such a degree, the doctrine of the Trinity was originally developed to A: prevent Christianity from taking on a polytheistic nature where you prayed to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit seperately, and B: by so doing ensure all three of them were prayed to rather just Jesus, since he was the only one who was ever physical and thus much easier to relate to.
Note it hasn't been entirely successful since Christians usually mention Jesus a lot more than God. And named their religion after him.
(Judaism's God shortchanged its prophets by giving them nothing to assist their work save a very vague warning that Bad Things Will Happen. Islam incorporates the same people and Jesus but seems to prefer what could very loosely be described as a system of avatarship to them and The Prophet in that they have limited divine inspiration and power with which to accomplish their work, but it's only on loan and they're not divine themselves.)
-
The problem is when people quote-mine their own religion, and end up with a cross between the loving god that had his kid killed in order to guilt us into behaving and the pissed off god that murdered entire cities for "bad behavior" and lead the hebrews on a rampaging genocide into the holy land.
-
Firstly, Jesus wasn't forced to do anything, he willingly allowed himself to be hung on that cross because it's was the only sacrifice that would allow Man to live through God's Judgement. God is the ultimate judge, as the Creator of everything, he is uniquely qualified to pronounce judgement on something. We are all sinners, unworthy of the slightest measure of grace, damned to be out of his presence for all eternity unless you Jewish*, by birth or conversion, or you accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice into your heart and allow Him to guide you.
*By Jewish, I don't mean you go to temple once a week, I mean OT Jewish by keeping Kosher and the blood sacrifices and all that.
-
Good ol' Mithras cults done gone grown up.
-
What on earth are you guys still talking about
-
he thinks that jesus's actions were voluntary, when god probably knew exactly what he was ****ing doing when he impregnated some poor palestinian woman.
-
Holy Hell! This thread has gone full circle!
-
he thinks that jesus's actions were voluntary, when god probably knew exactly what he was ****ing doing when he impregnated some poor palestinian woman.
First, she was Hebrew. You say she was impregnated like some kind of carnal act took place. And yes, He knew exactly what he was doing. God, in His perfection, cannot abide imperfection into his presence. But, also, in His perfect love he cannot bear to remove us from His presence. So He gave us an out, by sacrificing His Son in a similar manner to how he had instructed the Jews to sacrifice lambs for the thousands of years prior to the crucifixion.
Second, how can they not have been when the Bible says that he begged and pleaded to not to have to go through with it the night of his arrest, as any man would, but that when the time came, he went quietly the only bloodshed coming from an apostle who cut the ear from one of the officers in his anger. After Jesus ended the scuffle, he retrieved the ear and reattached it. These are hardly the acts of a man who had to be forced to do something.
Lastly, I suggest you study that which you are so quick to dismantle and denigrate.
-
atheism is a lot easier to understand than religionism (i made up a word!)
there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is no god
vs
there's no proof of a god -> there's probably no god -> belief that there is a god
That is only from your point of view. Different starting conditions.
See, if I were to change that starting statement to "There's proof of God", then atheism suddenly becomes harder to understand, no?
-
no idea. maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'
Who needs quotes. Atheism is partially about having no quotes - altough eehre are guidelines and beliefs.
Beliefs that you are rational, sensible and methodical (scientific), while that crazy theistic rabble is dilluded, stupid, dense.
It doesn't really take much more than "I'm better than you,. I'm smarter then you. I'm more enlightened than you." And 99% of all atheists I know are like that.
-
A lot of people here have walked into a trap - Assuming that Jesus was real. Stuff like whether Mary was a Palestinian or a Hebrew is just silly when we don't even know whether Jesus was real or not. Also, you can't throw out the old testament. If you call yourself a Christian, and believe in the bible, but not the old testament, then you are a heretic and you will burn in hell. Same goes for Islam says the same. Jesus himself said(there I go, falling into the trap) that he didn't come to replace the old testament, but just to fulfill it/amend it. Sorry I'm a bit rusty on the religious nonsense front, but that's it in a nutshell. So when people say the old testament doesn't count, but still call themselves Christian, it's a sign of moral conflict, because most people know that the God of the old testament is Hitler, Stalin, Mao times a million as far as cruelty and sheer evil goes. You can rationalize it, as many do, by saying that the Lord moves in mysterious ways, and/or he's God, so he can do whatever he wants. The old testament still counts unless you're a new-age Christian.
Edit: Found some info that might be relevant here... The leader is apparently a follower of the Ron Paul cult: http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2010/03/hutaree-militia-and-ronrand-paul.html
It explains perfect all their insane paranoia, conspiracy-theorism, big-government lunacy, and all that. And paint me surprised that the Paulbots are supporting these guys. I don't think it's as much about Christianity as it's about libertarian right-wing lunacy here.
-
HSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-
A lot of people here have walked into a trap - Assuming that Jesus was real. Stuff like whether Mary was a Palestinian or a Hebrew is just silly when we don't even know whether Jesus was real or not.
Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure, as documented by a few separate (and non-Christian) contemporary sources. Whether or not you believe in the Gospels' account of his life is a separate issue entirely.
As for the issue of the Old Testament, this is an area where a little bit of understanding goes a long way. Christ himself called out the scribes and Pharisees of his time as utter hypocrites, concerning themselves with the minutiae of Jewish law while ignoring its true spirit and intent. As you said, Christ stated that he came as the "fulfillment" of the Scriptures, not as their "replacement"...but at the same time, he distilled them down to their essence. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself"--in Christ's own words, that statement is the Old Testament's commandments in a nutshell.
Besides all of this, the question of whether or not Jewish law even applied to Gentiles who became Christian was one that was addressed in the very early Church. Specifically, the apostles decided that non-Jewish men did not need to be circumcised as a prerequisite for entering the Christian community; the same can be said to hold true for the other aspects of Jewish cultural life. The fact that Christians today don't follow kosher dietary standards is but one example of this.
(Also, does Godwinning a theological discussion count for double points? :p)
-
Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure, as documented by a few separate (and non-Christian) contemporary sources. Whether or not you believe in the Gospels' account of his life is a separate issue entirely.
There's no real contemporary documentation of Jesus. He starts appearing in documentation seventy-five to one hundred years after his death. We do have contemporary documents, like Pilate's official correspondence, but even if he was real it's unlikely he would have been mentioned in the things we actually have.
The historical nature of Jesus of Nazareth is very debateable.
-
You say she was impregnated like some kind of carnal act took place.
When Mary said, "My pain is God's love," what did you think she meant?
-
/backhand
Don't blaspheme.
-
It's not blasphemy, it's heresy.
-
/backhand
Don't blaspheme.
Remember that time that saint had a dream about an angel thrusting a burning spear deep into her entrails, causing intense religious ecstasy?
Yeah.
-
Ïa! Ïa! Azathoth, fhtagn!
-
Check out Bar-Hillel 1980, most stuff by Kahneman and Tversky, or Nisbett et al. 1976 for some starters. And that's what I pulled up at random - there's a massive body of work.
And where might I find them?
-
Google Scholar should to the job. Web of Science if you've got access.
Anyway, the upshot of my argument is that even amongst the most rigorously disciplined and 'rational', debate is often as much about personal factors and heuristic biases as about information exchange and assessment.