Cool. Glad more people like that exist. Hopefull I'll meet more of them tomorrow!

9/19/2006 1:36:24 AM

man we'd fuck some people up so bad in ww3

9/19/2006 1:41:11 AM

lets look closer at the question posed:

Quote :

" Are people afraid of peaceful speculation by others who don't care about or buy into mythologies for whatever reasons?"

By referring to religion as "mythology," you're insinuating that it is just that, myth. It presents a disregard for the fact that the religious don't see it as myth at all. In their reality, it is the very foundation upon which they base everything that they believe. To call it myth is at the very least de-emphasizing it, and at its height, attempting to destroy its meaning in peoples lives.

What exactly is "peaceful speculation," and where can that line be drawn as not to shake the foundation, and thus interfere with the inalienable rights, of the religious? If we are to refer to religion as "mythology" than it certainly isn't peaceful, as it implies a disdain for religion, and thus can be considered anything but an act of peace towards such.

Finally, I question whether or not people are truly afraid of such speculation. Keeping in mind the foundational beliefs, I don't think it's fear so much as anger, and a want to maintain the status quo. You can't blame them. Judeo-Christian philosophy is often credited with the invention of freedom, and the application of that into the marketplace and society. To say that it's rooted in nothing more than "myth" is an attack on the foundation.

Now, I do concede that peaceful speculation is possible, so I shot too quickly there. Look no further than Jefferson's relationship with Adams to see how speculation of one (a deist) can spawn both debate and rivalry while establishing a deep respect for another (a Christian).

Christians, on the other hand, don't help the cause. Referring to non-believers as "the damned," and other phrases, serves only to alienate them from the debate, and cheapen the cause for which they fight. Remember, an essential aspect of Christianity is that of free-will. Christians must learn to respect anothers decision to deny God, or flat out reject his existence period... in hopes that God is all-powerful, and that His will is done, regardless of the affairs of free-willed, fallen, imperfect humans.

I see what you're saying, I just try as hard as I can to lobby for a fair, respectful debate on both sides. Seems more often than not that both, or all three, or every infinite side of the debate places too much emphasis on what is "right," while completely ignoring the "how can we come to an agreement" part of it.

9/19/2006 1:51:49 AM

I'd refer to my thread On Anecdotes. I've already gone through the philosophical underpinnings of why I use the word "myth."

9/19/2006 1:53:58 AM

yes, but intent is a different animal than perception.

9/19/2006 1:55:13 AM

^i agree...i want the us to fuck up some countries in world war 3

my intent is so that we can be the best power and have control over more of the world, the perception is that i want to kill innocent people

9/19/2006 1:58:54 AM

To buttress the point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14894187/

Quote :

"Some healthy people hear voices — and enjoy it More have auditory hallucinations than previously thought For some people, hearing voices in their heads is a positive experience, not a sign of mental illness or cause for distress. Researchers at the University of Manchester are aiming to find out why. Traditionally these auditory hallucinations, as psychologists call them, are associated with mental illness. They can be a symptom of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and sometimes depression. But studies by Dutch researchers that began in the 1990s found that some healthy people also regularly hear voices. The scientists ran a program on Dutch television asking for volunteers who heard voices, and they got a surprising response. Many of the people who contacted them did not find the voices disruptive and had never felt the need to consult mental health services. Some even said they found the experience to be positive or inspirational. The resulting studies found that more people might hear voices than psychologists had thought, perhaps around 4 percent of the population. Aylish Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Manchester, is hoping to expand on the Dutch study by investigating why peoples' reactions to hearing voices vary so widely. Campbell has just begun looking for study participants in Britain. "We're looking for people who hear voices who have a range of experiences," she said. Campbell and her colleagues suspect the variation could be caused by different life experiences. Childhood traumas, beliefs that other people are untrustworthy or dangerous, and feelings of vulnerability might react with fear to cause people to hear voices. The experience might be enjoyed by people who have positive outlooks, they figure. Campbell thinks anyone can hear voices, particularly when stressed. For example, those who are grieving over the recent loss of a loved one might hear that person's voice. "It might just be a normal human experience," she said. "People are susceptible to different degrees." Campbell hopes that learning what triggers different reactions could help develop new psychological therapies to help people—at least those who don't like the phenomenon—to cope with the voices. "If we can understand a bit more about the factors, we might be able to use that knowledge to help people who do find it distressing," Campbell said. © 2006 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved."

Socrates was guilty of experiencing, or professing belief that he experienced the following phenomena, thus judged by moderns to be experiencing something we could agree was "not" reality. So are people in mental wards who claim to hear angels talk to them. Or aliens commanding them to change the world in wild ways.

9/19/2006 2:01:50 AM

In a postmodernist society, defining "reality" is a very dangerous thing.

And perhaps Socrates was professing the voices of conscience, or perhaps, although a pagan, the voice of God.

Or perhaps he was schizo.

9/19/2006 2:06:52 AM

Quote :

"In a postmodernist society, defining "reality" is a very dangerous thing."

agree...any of you ever walk in to crabtree and see all those like 10 and 12 year old looking sluts?

i think parents have no clue how deep their kids are in shit now a days

9/19/2006 2:08:14 AM

Quote :

"so therefor christianity is a peaceful religion becuase it all stopped 10 years ago? how come you dont call the IRA christian terrorists whenever they are in the news?"

Christianity is a peaceful religion, the members of the IRA are not peaceful people. I do call the members of IRA terrorists... I don't call them "Christian Terrorists" specifically because their beef was not about religion, its was about sovereignty. The IRA operates to further an Irish cause, not a Christian cause.

The problems in the Muslim world are more social construct than they are religious base. Islam is a religion of peace but too many cultures in the muslim world have perverted its principles into something destructive and against so much of what it teaches. These societies are borderline obsessed with aggression and violence to the point of abandoning their original focus. I can say a very similar thing about the perversion of Christian principles (though present day there isn't the violence angle like there was in the times like the Crusades and Inquisition). Muslim cultures will simmer down over time.


Using Deuteronomy for your basis of a view of Christianity is laughable.

9/19/2006 2:12:57 AM

QUOTE BOMB TIME!!11

Quote :

"It presents a disregard for the fact that the religious don't see it as myth at all."

Who cares whether they see it as myth or not? Belief does not equal knowledge, nor should it. Not even in a "postmodernist" society, should this idea come to pass. Either a believer's ideas are close to reflecting reality, or not. All reasonable accounts show that they are not.

Quote :

"To call it myth is at the very least de-emphasizing it, and at its height, attempting to destroy its meaning in peoples lives."

This is too bad, but it's about time we reconstructed our ethics.

Quote :

"What exactly is "peaceful speculation," and where can that line be drawn as not to shake the foundation, and thus interfere with the inalienable rights, of the religious?"

What inalienable right? The right to be coddled? The right for me to not say something that might keep them up at night?

Quote :

"If we are to refer to religion as "mythology" than it certainly isn't peaceful, as it implies a disdain for religion, and thus can be considered anything but an act of peace towards such."

Absolutely right. The funny part is, while philosophers will fire first with ideas, the religious will respond with physical violence.

Quote :

"Finally, I question whether or not people are truly afraid of such speculation. Keeping in mind the foundational beliefs, I don't think it's fear so much as anger, and a want to maintain the status quo. You can't blame them. Judeo-Christian philosophy is often credited with the invention of freedom, and the application of that into the marketplace and society. To say that it's rooted in nothing more than "myth" is an attack on the foundation."

Are you actually claiming that attacking the foundations of religion (specifically Judeo-Christian tradition) undermines the concept of freedom? I want to make sure that this is honestly what you're claiming. I hate to attribute such a statement to you, but I don't see how else to interpret what you've written.

Quote :

"Christians, on the other hand, don't help the cause. Referring to non-believers as "the damned," and other phrases, serves only to alienate them from the debate, and cheapen the cause for which they fight. Remember, an essential aspect of Christianity is that of free-will. Christians must learn to respect anothers decision to deny God, or flat out reject his existence period... in hopes that God is all-powerful, and that His will is done, regardless of the affairs of free-willed, fallen, imperfect humans."

Can you halt for a minute and examine that statement? This is why a lot of nonbelievers have a serious problem with your ideology. Not only have you failed to present good, coherent reasons to accept God, but you have also beaten the living hell out of yourself in that statement! Not everybody agrees with the degradation of humanity like that. When you provide no good reasons to believe what you do, and then claim that we're fallen and corrupt, why should I accept your statements at all? It seems sad to me that you're so willing to beat yourself up here. It's not very becoming, and honestly, does little to persuade the unconvinced from an emotional angle (lacking reason, this is your only recourse).

Quote :

"Seems more often than not that both, or all three, or every infinite side of the debate places too much emphasis on what is "right," while completely ignoring the "how can we come to an agreement" part of it."

However, there IS a right. We SHOULD make policy based on what is right. If there's a big bad God out there ready to smite us if we do something wrong, then we SHOULD act in accordance with that. However, if there ISN'T (or functionally isn't), then we should act differently. Claiming that nobody can know what's right, and then using that as a smokescreen with which to justify your religious beliefs is tenuous at best. I doubt you want that conclusion.

Quote :

"In a postmodernist society, defining "reality" is a very dangerous thing."

Just because we color our reality doesn't mean that reality has no actual nature. What we want to develop here is a criterion for justified belief. The absense of a clear criterion, at the moment, does not mean we can conclude whatever we'd like and "get away with it".

Quote :

"And perhaps Socrates was professing the voices of conscience, or perhaps, although a pagan, the voice of God. Or perhaps he was schizo."

And perhaps we're all brains in a vat -- but even then, there are things we can and cannot know about our existence.

9/19/2006 7:35:34 AM

im not gonna read all this, but i want to say that the muslims are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. muhammed knows theyd be fucking flipped out if someone went through their book and pulled out only the bad parts.... like they did to DAT CRACKA DA POPE go figure, religious people being hypocrites!!!1 fuck ur religion fag0ts lol

9/19/2006 7:46:24 AM

Quote :

"I'm a little bit behind the enlightened curve with some of this stuff, is the radical islam typically coming form poorer segments of the Arab population or is it a mix? I realize Osama is(was?) wealthy, but do we have it nailed down yet as to the type of individual that gets caught up in this movement? Are very many wealthy/well off Arab's shirking their plush lifestyles for this movement?"

Most of the radical muslims in Europe, France in particular, have had a reality check in culture/economics over the last 15 years. Many of them moved to Europe in order to find jobs but found out that they can't progress up the ladder because of their uneducated/non-citizen status. Alot of them have adopted the secular lifestyle of many European countries only to feel "letdown" because of Europeans' attitudes towards them as cheap labor/low class. (which they are in Europe)

Many muslims in Europe are into some kind of underground/criminal activity to supplement their incomes and so the prisons are full of them too. Self proclaimed "Imams" in these prisons are taking it upon themselves to "educate" these poor, criminals about the "reason" they are in prison and can't get ahead.

In Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries, there is a strong anti-Western sentiment but it is more political than militant (except for a portion who choose to go the other route)

Many of the suicide bombers/pawns are newly-converted and eager young men imported from places like Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan. These kids are taught in militant-like mosquese throughout Saudi Arabia (as the govt turns a blind eye) and trains these guys to carry out their missions.

9/19/2006 1:28:01 PM