A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.I think you should say 'all terrorists'. If they are Fascist, Marxist, Islamist or Christianist, they somehow feel that their identity, future or way of life is threatened.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Although the way you put it might be incendiary, I believe the data supports your conclusion. In my many year search for the answer to "what is fundamentalism", the only answer I can find is "all of it". Once you cross the line from allowing questions, from examining data, from questioning the answers, to not allowing questions and claiming to have an answer when you don't, then you're a fundamentalist. There is very little difference between a new-age, non-denominational, spiritual but not religious person who says "god is the god beyond god" or "god is energy" and someone from the first century who says Jesus is Lord. There is a difference between someone who is willing to kill to defend their faith and someone who wants to have that faith privately, but there is no difference between the faiths themselves. And the problem is, the private faith is obviously harmless except for the one who holds it, but it eventually becomes the public kind. Whether it's one guy writing manifestos in a cabin then bombing buildings to get attention or a family extorting from their community, or people joining a world wide organization that has been doing that for centuries, they use the same manipulative techniques, they play on the same desires for a better world with absolute values that many people want.
There is very little difference between a new-age, non-denominational, spiritual but not religious person who says "god is the god beyond god" or "god is energy" and someone from the first century who says Jesus is Lord. There is a difference between someone who is willing to kill to defend their faith and someone who wants to have that faith privately, but there is no difference between the faiths themselves. And the problem is, the private faith is obviously harmless except for the one who holds it, but it eventually becomes the public kind. Whether it's one guy writing manifestos in a cabin then bombing buildings to get attention or a family extorting from their community, or people joining a world wide organization that has been doing that for centuries, they use the same manipulative techniques, they play on the same desires for a better world with absolute values that many people want.Have you read Sam Harris' "End of Faith"? He makes a great point about Jainism saying that a fundamental or extremist Jain would be very benign. I think the same could be said of Pantheists or other "God is energy"-type religions. The difference is religious dogma. Christian and Muslim dogma says that their holy books are the perfect, infallible word of God and they are demonstrably wrong. This causes them to view something as basic as evolution as an attack on their religion since their holy books say something different and they can't be wrong. Think about the chaos and bloodshed from communities of Christians, Jews, and/or Muslims living near each other. Now picture communities of Pantheists, Jains, druids, and Wiccans living near each other. I can't imagine a scenario where these groups start fighting with each other over religious differences. I realize that these are similar groups but so is the other example since they all worship the same god, Yahweh.
There is very little difference between a new-age, non-denominational, spiritual but not religious person who says "god is the god beyond god" or "god is energy" and someone from the first century who says Jesus is Lord. There is a difference between someone who is willing to kill to defend their faith and someone who wants to have that faith privately, but there is no difference between the faiths themselves. And the problem is, the private faith is obviously harmless except for the one who holds it, but it eventually becomes the public kind. Whether it's one guy writing manifestos in a cabin then bombing buildings to get attention or a family extorting from their community, or people joining a world wide organization that has been doing that for centuries, they use the same manipulative techniques, they play on the same desires for a better world with absolute values that many people want.
Have you read Sam Harris' "End of Faith"? He makes a great point about Jainism saying that a fundamental or extremist Jain would be very benign. I think the same could be said of Pantheists or other "God is energy"-type religions. The difference is religious dogma. Christian and Muslim dogma says that their holy books are the perfect, infallible word of God and they are demonstrably wrong. This causes them to view something as basic as evolution as an attack on their religion since their holy books say something different and they can't be wrong. Think about the chaos and bloodshed from communities of Christians, Jews, and/or Muslims living near each other. Now picture communities of Pantheists, Jains, druids, and Wiccans living near each other. I can't imagine a scenario where these groups start fighting with each other over religious differences. I realize that these are similar groups but so is the other example since they all worship the same god, Yahweh.I haven't read the book but I'm familiar with the idea. I'm sure there are some benign forms of religion. I was thinking along the lines of the 3 major monotheism and the western concept of god as a single being exclusive to all other god beings. I don't think the new-age versions of that have really purged the absolutism that comes with that. They may seem peaceful now, but Jesus seemed pretty peaceful and talked a lot about including everyone and look how that turned out.
Don’t get me wrong, I think all religions are detrimental to their followers. Even the most passive ones give their followers false hope of an afterlife or rebirth which can shift their priorities from their lifespan to some mythical thing that won’t happen. Given the choice, though, I’d rather live in a community of Buddhists or Jains rather than a community of Muslims. As an atheist, I’d survive for only a short time in a Muslim community since they execute infidels. I’d have no such worry with the Jains since they won’t harm anyone or anything at all.
Belief in god is the root of all evil.
Lois
Belief in god is the root of all evil. LoisAnd I think god, if there was one, would agree. It's like a parent and his child. If my kids constantly sent me gifts, told me how awesome I was, went around the neighborhood telling others what a great parent I was, and my kid wasn't a toddler, I'd be embarrassed and angry. I'd be like "Jesus Christ shut up already and live your life."
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.I think you should say 'all terrorists'. If they are Fascist, Marxist, Islamist or Christianist, they somehow feel that their identity, future or way of life is threatened.And with the religious based groups I do think they share a common trait, that links them with political party, namely their beliefs are Right/conservative. And that's why I always get a chuckle when the Right Wingers of Faux News or wherever denounce things like Sharia law, Muslim terrorists, etc....their underlying beliefs are roughly the same. I want to scream out to them, "wait, you denounce Sharia Law in one breath, then in the next tell me how school prayer should be legal?"
Don't get me wrong, I think all religions are detrimental to their followers. Even the most passive ones give their followers false hope of an afterlife or rebirth which can shift their priorities from their lifespan to some mythical thing that won't happen. Given the choice, though, I'd rather live in a community of Buddhists or Jains rather than a community of Muslims. As an atheist, I'd survive for only a short time in a Muslim community since they execute infidels. I'd have no such worry with the Jains since they won't harm anyone or anything at all.Good to know, the "all religions are detrimental" thing. I sometimes wonder if I had stayed in the big city of Minneapolis if I would have either stuck with my friendly, liberal, gay-welcoming Christian community or perhaps moved a little more toward Buddhist. In the little town I'm in now, Buddhism is not an option, the liberals aren't as active as I'd like, and the fundamentalists have a lot of control. That has no doubt contributed to how anti-theist I am. I do keep track of reform within the churches and it is encouraging, it is also so unbelievably slow that the glaciers are now moving faster than it is. I don't think religion has the tools for change. They are structured toward tradition and preventing change. Even Buddhism. Look a little closer at how it is practiced back in India and how it was cleansed as it was brought to the west. Then once it got here, the new-age movement put all the magic and ignorance right back in it. There are parts of it that I like, but there are parts of Locke and Hume that I like and don't like. We all should learn from all of the wisdom of the ages and create a modern philosophy that discards the garbage.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however.
Belief in god is the root of all evil. LoisPunish yourself.
As an atheist, I'd survive for only a short time in a Muslim community since they execute infidels. I'd have no such worry with the Jains since they won't harm anyone or anything at all.Pardon??? http://vimeo.com/26921384 http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_otherrel.shtml http://www.truejihad.com/pages/true-jihad.php http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
And that's why I always get a chuckle when the Right Wingers of Faux News or wherever denounce things like Sharia law, Muslim terrorists, etc....their underlying beliefs are roughly the same. I want to scream out to them, "wait, you denounce Sharia Law in one breath, then in the next tell me how school prayer should be legal?"Ditto :) On a similar note https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6przuCU822w
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago? Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. Lois
Belief in god is the root of all evil. LoisPunish yourself. What is that supposeed to mean? Lois
As an atheist, I'd survive for only a short time in a Muslim community since they execute infidels. I'd have no such worry with the Jains since they won't harm anyone or anything at all.Pardon??? http://vimeo.com/26921384 http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_otherrel.shtml http://www.truejihad.com/pages/true-jihad.php http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/ Isn't blasphemy a crime that warrants death in many Islamic countries? What could be more blasphemous than saying there is no Allah or that Mohammad was just a man? I know there are many passages in the Quran that state non-violence and tolerance for other religions, but there are also many passages that are far less tolerant. The Bible is also full of contradictions and passages of intolerance of other religions but, in practice, if I was blasphemous in a Christian country I think I wouldn't be worried about being arrested, let alone executed.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago?Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. LoisYou can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well.
A recent new report says that just like Christian wing-nuts, ISIS says it wants the teaching of evolution baned. Aparently neither has evolved much past the bronz age.Christian wing nuts aren't killing tens of thousands of people, however. But they have in the past. Do they get a pass because they did it a long time ago?Some Christians are still fighting over religion, and dying for it. The problem with Muslims is that their religion is still stuck in the 15th Century. They never had an enlightenment. But, IMO, all theistic religions are responsible for many deaths, of their own believers and of people theirreligion thinks of as apostates. Theistic religions hold people back from developing a rational mind and a moral compass. LoisYou can't look past your anti-theism and learn that biology is the cause of religious violence, not religion itself. I need to amend myself here, by pointing out that biology is the cause of religion as well. Please explain how biology causes war, violence and religious violence, so that we may develop a vaccine. I would think that while you were typing that, then amending it, you would have figured how your argument falls apart. You are talking about nature/nurture, something thoroughly studied, yet with very little results of solid causes and affects. Also studied are how to educate people, how to keep the peace, how to have arguments without getting angry, how to include the disenfranchised, the value of valuing all people regardless of race or what religion their parents were. Religion has done a horrible job at all of those things. Logic and reason led to democracy and the scientific method. Secular philosophers came up with "all men are created equal". Look it up, it's history, just don't use a school book approved by the Texas board.
Isn't blasphemy a crime that warrants death in many Islamic countries? What could be more blasphemous than saying there is no Allah or that Mohammad was just a man? I know there are many passages in the Quran that state non-violence and tolerance for other religions, but there are also many passages that are far less tolerant. The Bible is also full of contradictions and passages of intolerance of other religions but, in practice, if I was blasphemous in a Christian country I think I wouldn't be worried about being arrested, let alone executed.You bring up an interesting point Scott. We agree that freedom of speech and beliefs is fundamental need of any society. But who defines when that freedom has been realized Take Europe for example while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf page 2-3 But this is not the case in the US. As US holocaust museum website states: ...in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. http://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion So even if we agree (for sake of arguement) that some countries may be oppressive because of how they deprive people of freedom of speech, how do we decided when that freedom has been met? By US standards, the Europeans are deprived of speech, because holocaust denial is illegal. I look forward to your comments :)