|
On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though.
Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic.
|
No. Religion is nothing but a justification for your actions. MOST people wouldnt do things that they wouldnt do. Maybe very few would be swayed to do something they normally wouldnt do some degree... but for the most part religion is a justification toward a belief that people already have/want.
You can justify heinous acts secularly if you want. And people do. But its alot easier to justify your actions when authority comes from god.
|
On January 18 2012 10:23 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic.
I never said religion = violence, I said religion IS violence, but never implied violence is religion. and also, I never took on the task of making an argument about religion being violence, In fact, I just mentioned the two words together as recently as in a response to your post. Also, if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.. funny eh?
gotta go now, paper deadline.
|
On January 18 2012 10:33 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:23 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic. I never said religion = violence, I said religion IS violence, but never implied violence is religion. and also, I never took on the task of making an argument about religion being violence, In fact, I just mentioned the two words together as recently as in a response to your post. Also, if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.. funny eh? gotta go now, paper deadline.
This is one of the more absurdly funny attempts to dodge semantically that I've seen. This thread is a gold mine.
Also, how different is saying "if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.." in response to me questioning your logic any different from how a fundamentalist might say, "well, you haven't offered any argument as to why God doesn't exist, have you?"
It's all just mounds of nonsense.
|
On January 18 2012 10:29 NIJ wrote:
No. Religion is nothing but a justification for your actions. MOST people wouldnt do things that they wouldnt do. Maybe very few would be swayed to do something they normally wouldnt do some degree... but for the most part religion is a justification toward a belief that people already have/want.
You can justify heinous acts secularly if you want. And people do. But its alot easier to justify your actions when authority comes from god.
I rest my case.
You might still be able to justify crap like genocides and cutting the clitoris of an infant girl, using secular logic, but it is arguably the case that if you said "god made me do it".. you are definitely gonna have an easy time explaining it to your folks and friends back home, provided they are also as loony as you are, which is the point of religion anyway, i.e., to form a community.
|
On January 18 2012 10:29 NIJ wrote:
No. Religion is nothing but a justification for your actions. MOST people wouldnt do things that they wouldnt do. Maybe very few would be swayed to do something they normally wouldnt do some degree... but for the most part religion is a justification toward a belief that people already have/want.
You can justify heinous acts secularly if you want. And people do. But its alot easier to justify your actions when authority comes from god.
Bowing to the concept of some kind of cosmic super nanny is in all practicality no different from totalitarian indoctrination rooted in a cult of personality. It's the same shit, different asshole. The only difference here is that it's so popular among the disciples of the New Atheists to make the idea of religion into a modern day boogeyman. I find it little different from the sort of fear mongering neoliberals have been doing for decades on the concept of socialism.
|
On January 18 2012 10:39 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:33 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:23 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic. I never said religion = violence, I said religion IS violence, but never implied violence is religion. and also, I never took on the task of making an argument about religion being violence, In fact, I just mentioned the two words together as recently as in a response to your post. Also, if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.. funny eh? gotta go now, paper deadline. This is one of the more absurdly funny attempts to dodge semantically that I've seen. This thread is a gold mine. Also, how different is saying "if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.." in response to me questioning your logic any different from how a fundamentalist might say, "well, you haven't offered any argument as to why God doesn't exist, have you?" It's all just mounds of nonsense.
Err.. I don't even know how to respond to that.. the only thing absurd about our conversation is actually me taking the bait and replying to your post.. but it ends here. good night.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On January 18 2012 10:47 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:39 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:33 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:23 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic. I never said religion = violence, I said religion IS violence, but never implied violence is religion. and also, I never took on the task of making an argument about religion being violence, In fact, I just mentioned the two words together as recently as in a response to your post. Also, if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.. funny eh? gotta go now, paper deadline. This is one of the more absurdly funny attempts to dodge semantically that I've seen. This thread is a gold mine. Also, how different is saying "if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.." in response to me questioning your logic any different from how a fundamentalist might say, "well, you haven't offered any argument as to why God doesn't exist, have you?" It's all just mounds of nonsense. Err.. I don't even know how to respond to that.. the only thing absurd about our conversation is actually me taking the bait and replying to your post.. but it ends here. good night.
...so then a drive by posting. Blame religion and run!
|
On January 18 2012 10:59 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:47 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:39 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:33 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:23 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic. I never said religion = violence, I said religion IS violence, but never implied violence is religion. and also, I never took on the task of making an argument about religion being violence, In fact, I just mentioned the two words together as recently as in a response to your post. Also, if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.. funny eh? gotta go now, paper deadline. This is one of the more absurdly funny attempts to dodge semantically that I've seen. This thread is a gold mine. Also, how different is saying "if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.." in response to me questioning your logic any different from how a fundamentalist might say, "well, you haven't offered any argument as to why God doesn't exist, have you?" It's all just mounds of nonsense. Err.. I don't even know how to respond to that.. the only thing absurd about our conversation is actually me taking the bait and replying to your post.. but it ends here. good night. ...so then a drive by posting. Blame religion and run!
Didn't you know? All the cool kids are doing it!
Serious derail going on, of which I am partly to blame. Apologies thread! More importantly, when in the next primary? IIRC we have had Iowa and NH? What's next?
|
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right)
|
The scope of this thread is quite amazing. I openly admit to pointing it several times in the direction of Austrian economics, but now we're delving into the role of religion in terrorism.
Not a bad thing, just interesting.
|
When will people start to realize that the Anglo-New Atheist method of broken logic and polemic rhetoric is little different from the fundamentalism that plagues the same nations?
but more on topic, I find it incredibly interesting how Santorum has suddenly surged recently just because of how desperately anti-Romney so much of the Republican base is.
|
On January 18 2012 10:59 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 10:47 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:39 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:33 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:23 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 10:16 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote:On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote:
You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. Again, you propose basically no real argument as to why religion = violence is axiomized at all. This is the problem with the entire discourse in the West. There is no substance. It's just pure polemic. I never said religion = violence, I said religion IS violence, but never implied violence is religion. and also, I never took on the task of making an argument about religion being violence, In fact, I just mentioned the two words together as recently as in a response to your post. Also, if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.. funny eh? gotta go now, paper deadline. This is one of the more absurdly funny attempts to dodge semantically that I've seen. This thread is a gold mine. Also, how different is saying "if anything the only person so far in the last three pages that has not make a single argument about anything is.. you.." in response to me questioning your logic any different from how a fundamentalist might say, "well, you haven't offered any argument as to why God doesn't exist, have you?" It's all just mounds of nonsense. Err.. I don't even know how to respond to that.. the only thing absurd about our conversation is actually me taking the bait and replying to your post.. but it ends here. good night. ...so then a drive by posting. Blame religion and run!
Hmm.. if by running you mean, replying to pretty much all the relevant posts except for the angry guy who cannot read and write .. sure I am.
|
On January 18 2012 06:54 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 04:57 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
@zalz So, are you going to tell me that intellectuals like chomsky are wrong in foreign policy? What about the three generals from the USA saying the same thing as Ron Paul in regards to his foreign policy. Are they wrong too? What about the ex CIA guy who went after Bin Laden too...
So, tell us why we should believe your foreign policy is whats best for the whole world? Forcing your beliefs onto others~ I already adressed this. If you want to have a name throwing competition then i am not interested. If you want to have a real debate you are going to have to actually enage on the points brought forth. Actually adress the points. Giving (yet another) youtube clip of [input famous name] is not in the least bit interesting. I can flood this topic with Christopher Hitchens clips, you flood them with another intellectuall of your choice. You don't really believe that is what a debate looks like do you? You will have to argue your own points, refute my points, stop thinking that because a famous person said something it goes from opinion to fact.
Your larger point about arguments from authority is obviously correct. But it would be remiss if I failed to note that Hitchens is an intellectual insect compared to Chosmky. They really don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence.
|
On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right)
Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense?
|
Canada11350 Posts
On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense?
No he can be quite extreme- at least when he isn't running for government. There's some old debates with him wanting to get rid of the FBI and instead try and have state police try and coordinate with each other everytime a criminal hops the border. I wouldn't be surprised if he still held this view as he doesn't change very often (death penalty being one).
Some situations arise that requires a change in government beyond what is strictly laid out by the constitution. One of those was mass transportation that allowed bootleggers and kidnappers to easily elude police by hopping jurisdiction.
But obviously these aren't the issues he's going to be campaigning on.
|
On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense?
I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme.
|
On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense?
By definition, adhering strictly to a narrow point of view -- that the constitution has a divine character, i.e., somehow it is and it WILL be infallible in the future -- is an extreme position. Changes are part of growing up or dying down, this is true for individuals as well as societies.
|
On January 18 2012 11:43 s4life wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? By definition, adhering strictly to a narrow point of view -- that the constitution has a divine character, i.e., somehow it is and it WILL be infallible in the future -- is an extreme position. Changes are part of growing up or dying down, this is true for individuals as well as societies.
This is a strawman for the strict constitutionalist position. You can probably find the best (still probably not good enough) defense of it in Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.
|
On January 18 2012 11:21 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? I may be wrong but I think what he means is that basing your policy on a strict interpretation of a document that is hundreds of years old is an extreme way to govern in the 21st century. There is much to love in the US constitution but disregarding the fact that we don't live in the 18th century anymore is a tad extreme.
The values expressed in the United States constitution were not and are not specific to any point in time. What I mean is that these values are still completely valid today, and these are the core fundamental values that should always be there, especially the values expressed in the Bill of Rights. Whether or not we are in the 18th century, the 21st century, or the 30th century, these are the values that must be protected. How old of a document the constitution is is completely irrelevant in determining its value. Old is not always bad. Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean it is outdated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
