Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, but although Americans hate the Muslims and Muslims hate the Americans, there are few on either side that believe so strongly in the mindset that they are willing to kill each other.
It would appear that many do support it on both sides. If the situation were as you say, these movements wouldn't get off the ground.
I dont see how you regard tolerance as apathy. Maybe you misunderstand me. Tolerance is not as full-blown as love, but it is better than hatred or even neutrality. If I tolerate you, to me that means that I ackowledge the valididity of your opinion even though I disagree. How can you see that as apathy? Opinions will differ. Tolerance allows people to ackowledge that you cant force everyone into your own mindset, and that you have to accept them even though they may be different.
If both opinions are equally valid, neither one is any more true than the other. If opposite values are equally valid, neither one is actually any better than the other. If there is no true and no best, there is no opportunity to care about what happens to another. Love cares passionately because it has something to care about. Mere tolerance eliminates any basis for love. Love will not finally force the other into choosing rightly, since such force would be destructive to the other's very being, but it will insist that a wrong choice is wrong. You see, what is good in tolerance is subsumed under love, but from love's perspective, tolerance is hardly better than hatred, since neither one is working towards the best for the other.
It has been proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. It has been proven that Earth is not flat. It has been proven that the universe is filled with billion of stars and galaxies, and that when we look upwards, we see the universe and not heaven. I could go on and on.
And any one of those runs contrary to religious belief how? The question of the Earth revolving around the sun was a debate between those who followed Aristotle and those who followed Copernicus. The flat earth bit is a myth: the Greeks had already demonstrated the sphericality of the Earth long before Christianity came on the scene (and the Bible says nothing on the subject anyway). How does the existence of billions of stars and galaxies contradict
anything in religious belief? I can't even imagine what you think that one is supposed to conflict with.
To this day, people have commited more acts of brutality in the name of faith than in the name of reason.
Nazism justified itself with plenty of rational explanation. You are making an unsupportable generalisation based on nothing more than your own opinion.
When faith and reason cross paths, you must chose one. ... I regard reason as "better", simply becuase it can be disproven. If a man believes in God, theres nothing you can do that will change his mind.
What you need are some proper philosophy classes. Reason is a process which moves from a given premise to a conclusion. What first posits that premise is always some sort of faith.
The process of reasoning always runs thus: "I am going to take it on faith that A and B are true. If A and B are both true, then C must also be true." So this whole business about faith and reason crossing paths is a red herring. There is only one path, which moves from faith through reason to a conclusion. If people come to different conclusions it is either because someone has a faulty reasoning process, or else because they did not start out with the same premises.
But if they start from different premises, which is to say they believe different things initially, they can either try to find some common belief to work from and see whether they can from there move on to justify one or the other of their original premises, or else they can simply say to each other "I think you are wrong, and there is no way to bridge the gulf between us." However, when you get right down to the bottom of it, we all have beliefs that are foundational, that we just plain believe. God's existence or non-existence is one of those foundational beliefs: you can neither prove nor disprove it on the
basis of any other belief. The only thing you can do is explore the
consequences of each option and see which one confroms better to reality as you experience it.
And I'm not an athiest.
Ah, my bad. What are you?
...Faith compels great acts of kindness in individuals, but also great acts of violence in groups. A monk is kind, compassionate and caring. The Church is anything but. ...
Religious beliefs also compel great acts of kindness in groups and great acts of violence in individuals. The Church is also kind, compassionate, and caring, and many a monk anything but. As I said, you will find both good and bad mixed thoroughly together anywhere that humans are found this side of Judgement Day.
When before has the concept of charity existed? Or the antiwar movement. A hundred years ago, these were outrageous ideas. Look at how widespread they are now.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:43-44) "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:29-31)
I dont pretend to have studied in great depth (beyond the scope of highschool history class and my own research into subjects that interested me) any of the people or events which you mention.
Then I suggest you learn more before you begin theorising, because as you may have noticed, those who have all disagree with you.
As I've said, a person is good, people are bad. The actions of a few do not excuse the actions of many. ... If killings persists, it is because the majority of the world does not know about it, not becuase they support it. ... Yes, there are mass killings in Sudan and in other places, but what part of the populace supports this? I would guess that most of the people suffer at the hands of such regimes, and thefore do not suport them. ... The news shows us what the government wants us to see. ... stuff in the Sudan, in Chechnyia etc. ... caused not by some freaky, scary hatred, but rather by the conditions that exist. ... So instead of genocide, we find the effects of a geurilla war fought between two enemies of comparable might. ... So when the Serbs do it, its prtrayed as the next Nazi empire, but when the US does it, no one flinches.
You make my argument for me. There is evil and good in abundance to be found on the earth, still and always.
I might also point out that your window for when we suddenly started getting better is getting smaller and smaller. A few hundred years ago, then 100 years ago, then a few decades... Soon you'll reach the point when you are arguing that humanity has been improving since lunchtime.
Would one man's struggle for peace be more important than the actions of thousands, at the hands of which tens if not hundreds of thousands of people died? ... You're intentionally misunderstanding my point. You know what I meant.
I know precisely what you meant. I am pointing out that it is rationally incoherent. Evil is not numerical. Bigger numbers are more spectacular, not more evil. One single murder is an unspeakable abomination.
