Why is your religion/spiritual belief correct?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Sorry to break it to you, but Pat Robertson is feeding you a load of BS.
.

Again, you're showing your patent ignorance of my views- and lumping all 'religous people' into


"Here's one biggie: the best countries to live in these days are also the most secular. There was even a story about this in the media recently."


I can personally vouch for this having lived and travelled aboard for about 2 decades of my life.)
you can live another two and still be ignorant.

As far as someone with an agenda to push cherry-picking one historical figure who is in agreement with him, whoop-dee-doo. It proves nothing.
the fact that you are showing so little understanding of that 'one historical figure' is a pretty good indicator you're not terribly well informed about history in general. No one, especially anyone in an English speaking country, who knew the most basic fundementals of anglo-american history - would call citing locke (and his second treatise on civil government) 'cherry picking'.
you claim 'religious people' (whom you lump into one simple minded category)
are ignorant. Well son. you're ignorant of history. Nothing wrong with that. Many people are, there are 'histories' i am largely ignorant of. The difference between me and you, however, is that I wouldn't go making judgments, or applying my ideology (as you have) or 'occlums razor' to something I was categorically ignorant of, as you just have. And you make fun of people who have faith? You have faith in your ideology, and as demonstrated by your mischarectirzaiton of me (I think pat robertson is in many ways, an idiot) that your beliefs shape your perception to the point where you pre judge...
still no comment about the physicist minister -how are you applying your razor to him>

[Antiventurecapital]

As I stated above, one is better off trying to debate the radio.

Have a great day.

[Narz]

Originally Posted by dor

Just blew right by that physicist-minister didn't you?

It wasn't of interest to me.

I'm sure there were some good Maoists too, doesn't mean the Chairman has the right ideas. People can find good in anything.

Originally Posted by dor

Another 'humanist' twisting reality to fit his pet theories.

WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by dor

Open a history book. The Renaissance was followed by a resurgence in religious belief, known as the protestant reformation.

A spliting of one religion into two is hardly a "resurgence in religious belief".

Originally Posted by dor

resurgence in religion led to freedom foundations of the US and UK -since mans right were God, not King given, the king could not impede them (please see John Locke).

God is just a convenient way to say "nature given" or man is born with such rights. By the way not all the founding fathers were as gung-ho about religion as you.

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson on Christiaity and Religion

Originally Posted by dor

Those 'more religious' countries actually soared past the less religious catholic ones - intellectually, scientifically (the scientific method has its roots in Christianity, Kepler and newton, for example were seeking god's order ) - in which the church had been corrupted.

Protestantism is "more religious" than Catholicism? You just get goofier and goofier.

Originally Posted by dor

Oh, i do have two examples of enlightened rational beings rejecting religion 1789 France (known as the Reign of Terror) and the various Communists regimes that left 120 + million people dead.

That's nice. Two versus thousands.

Originally Posted by dor

I called you a sophomore because, well, look up the meaning. You make , sweeping statements - and baseless assertions about religion going the way of the dodo bird....under the guise of being rational , but it's really just a thin veneer for your own irrational hatred and excuse to feel 'superior' to those ignorant 'religious peoplel' sounds like you just picked up Richard Dawkins latest 'masterpiece' .

Nah, I haven't read Dawkins.

Why are you such an angry person? Why resort to personal attacks? What you Jesus think of your bitchy attitude?

Originally Posted by dor

as for it "fu¢king" mattering, yes it does, if you're a product of any US school system, - for example 'kids' graduating today have had 10+ years of diversity /sensitivity indoctrination, which makes them very different fish, on average than those who went to school pre-PC.

As opposed to the divine wisdom being taught pre-80's, like homosexuality being a mental illness, the four food groups (to they still teach that crap) and other such garbage. I wouldn't know much about high school "indoctrination" though, I dropped out of public highschool when I was fourteen.

Originally Posted by dor

and yes you are making sweeping judgments, where my statement was a reflection in sweeping changes in the US educational system with the asendence of the sixties (hippie/baby boomer generation) into positions of power, particularly in educational fields - which has directly effected education.

Just admit you're a hypocrite. It's alright, even your man JC contradicts Himself sometimes.

Cheers,
Narz

[Narz]

Originally Posted by dor

Fire away. The lesson here is not make idiotic assumptions about where I am getting my information.

You've made plenty of "idiotic" assumptions as well. Address the thread issue (maybe try answering the question posted) and stop attacking people. You're arguments are weak.

Also, there was an article in the media about a study of religious areas in the US being poorer and having more crime. I'd be curious and amused to hear your attempts to explain it away.

Cheers,
Narz

[Antiventurecapital]

I'm hearing more and more people saying that this is the only solution to the problem:

Jesusland should split off into a separate country.

[Liara Covert]

One thing I've noticed about secular societies is they encourage tolerance and ask people to not openly profess or demonstrate religious beliefs, yet these secualr societies don't stick always to their rules, and it can lead to a slippery slope.

Consider a case in France where school students aren't supposed to wear clothing that reflects their religion. Jews aren't supposed to wear yammakas, Muslims aren't supposed to wear head scarves, ect. A young girl was sent home because she came to school in a head scarf and refused to remove it. This resulted in much hype in the media. Her family requested exceptional treatment. This girl ended up being permitted to wear a headscarf to school. What about the clothes of other religions still banned?

Consider a case in Canada where an Indian who refused to remove his turban in his workplace for religious reasons. He was able to win a supreme court case to earn the privilege to wear his turban rather than the traditional stetson as part of his uniform with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). So much for traditional, national costumes. What did that country symbol stand for again?

Consider a case in Germany:a husband in a Middle Eastern immigrant couple decided to divorce his wife. He decided his religion enabled him to abandon her and his children without support. They had no local family or friends. The wife didn't qualify for social assistance or medical care, yet her husband thought he could base his court divorce on the highest laws of his former country. This caused more than a few issues in his adopted country. (I've heard of similar cases in Canada where immigrants assumed their home country religious authority had higher authority than the supreme court and federal laws of their adopted country)

[celeste]

Originally Posted by dor

And you make fun of people who have faith? You have faith in your ideology, and as demonstrated by your mischarectirzaiton of me (I think pat robertson is in many ways, an idiot) that your beliefs shape your perception to the point where you pre judge...>

I second that! He IS quick to make judgements and offend people. Then he just bails out of the debate because "it is wasting his time." That's only because he doesn't have a logical answer.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

It wasn't of interest to me.v

well it challenges one of your sweeping assumptions...so i can see why

I'm sure there were some good Maoists too, doesn't mean the Chairman has the right ideas. People can find good in anything.

agreed.

WTF are you talking about?

saying that the rennaissance was part of some secular progression in the west.

A spliting of one religion into two is hardly a "resurgence in religious belief".

open a history book. That' s not what the protestant reformation entailed. If we can't agree on facts not much point in discussion. the split between say the orthodox and catholic christianity might be described as a split or the two-pope situation, but to describe the reformation as a split again, shows a lack of understanding.

God is just a convenient way to say "nature given" or man is born with such rights. By the way not all the founding fathers were as gung-ho about religion as you.

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson on Christiaity and Religion

that's you intrepetation - not locke's. one quote by franklin...can be countered with quotes by adams:Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Protestantism is "more religious" than Catholicism? You just get goofier and goofier.

again your lack of understanding history shining through. At the time the Roman church was decadent, corrupt, irreligious..the protestant reformers like Luther were deeply religious and pious. but call names if you feel better.


.

That's nice. Two versus thousands.

yeah brush off 120 million dead...it's not just two. may i suggest "modern times" by paul johnson? that might be a good start. but you seem to have a very simple minded, cut and dried view of history. the whole basis of this thread was a sophomoric and self aggrandizing statement about how you are so much more rational and better than people who have religious faith of believe in something. Gee THEY are so ignorant but IF YOU were raised somewhere else YOU would still be the bright shinging being you are. WEll congrats kid

Why are you such an angry person? Why resort to personal attacks? What you Jesus think of your bitchy attitude?

you started by prejudging and catagorizing people, and self -aggrandizing. Not angry, not bitch, in fact i kind of chuckle at the ignorance displayed by people like antiventurecapital - funny how his name calling didn't bother you though.

I dropped out of public highschool when I was fourteen.

doesn't look like you've done much to fill the void.

Just admit you're a hypocrite. It's alright, even your man JC contradicts Himself sometimes.

Cheers,
Narz

how am i hypocritical? Please explain

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

You've made plenty of "idiotic" assumptions as well. Address the thread issue (maybe try answering the question posted) and stop attacking people. You're arguments are weak.

again ignoring antiventure capital and your own attacks. keep name calling, but still no refution of what i said. What was my 'idiotic' assumption?

Originally Posted by Narz

Also, there was an article in the media about a study of religious areas in the US being poorer and having more crime. I'd be curious and amused to hear your attempts to explain it away.

Cheers,
Narz

oh gee -hey religious areas are better to live in they are richer and have less crime, the media said there was a study.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

As I stated above, one is better off trying to debate the radio.

Have a great day.

funny you keep saying that in reply, and have the time to post cartoons, but you still haven't refuted, well, anything i said, nor retracted your original statement:

Seriously, there are so many incorrect claims in your post that one doesn't where to begin in correcting you.

lots of name calling, lots labeling, lots of sweeping judgements, but you couldn't 'correct' any 'incorrect' claim in my post.


narz in response to your "WTF" which I assume was a question:

Originally Posted by Narz View Post
Religion, I imagine is going the way of the dodo bird. As people become better educated religion tends to have less power. An example of this was the Renaissance in Europe..

i wrote:

Another 'humanist' twisting reality to fit his pet theories. Open a history book. The Renaissance was followed by a resurgence in religious belief, known as the protestant reformation.

You said the rennaissance and education meant religion had less power....when in fact the resurgence of religion - the reformation made the countries in question better educated (classic example, when Scotland reformed their literacy went up to nearly 92%) you're letting your idealogy distort history.

[Narz]

Hi Dor. If John Adams said that, screw 'em!

As for whether the Protestant split from Catholicism warrants called it a whole separate religion is debatable. That's a debate I'll let you have with yourself though. This thread is spinning way off track, I'm more interested in hearing why people think their beliefs in particular are right.

How about you? Why do you believe Jesus is God and everyone else who's claimed to be God isn't God?

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by Narz

This thread is spinning way off track, I'm more interested in hearing why people think their beliefs in particular are right.

The reason my religious beliefs are the only correct ones, and all others are wrong, is because they are ones I grew up with. You don't think god would have dropped me into a place with the wrong religion, do you?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

Hi Dor. If John Adams said that, screw 'em!

how can we have a rational discussion when you come to such quick judgements? let go back to your franklin quote, which i counter with this from poor richard:

How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to
keep holidays than commandments.
i could find a bunch of others supporting the belief that franklin believed in God and was in his own way religous - i have read two bios of him (though some time ago) and his autobio.
I would never try to prove that he was super-religoius or evangelic, or fudmental - that would be disingenuous, and it is equally disingenuous to take one quote and try to 'prove' he was anti religious.

And this is crux of the problem I have with views that you and AV are espousing - you're setting up false comparisons, false conflict between what you perceive as religion 'vs' science or reason. It seems to me (correct me if i am wrong ) you have a 'theory' or ideology that smart or rational people aren't religious and then go about shaping your world view to fit that idea.

We all use our theories and ideas to look at the world, but as st. augustine suggested when reason conflicts or reality lead you to conflict with the belief, (such as assuming the earth was flat from reading the bible) than change that belief. This from a saint and deeply religious man - my point is it's much more complex than you think and not an either or split.

try slushing that view around for awhile, see what you come up with. I 'used' to think a lot like you guys, I don't any more, as read and thought more....

as to your question it's an interesting one, one i think about from time to time, and has certainly been discussed in theology among christians -what about the man who lived a pious life on a remote island but never heard of Christ.

To me, as i have said in other threads, religioun is a 'wisdom of the ages' cultural framework which to explore spirtuatlity as opposed to a fast food pick and chose 'roll your own' approach ' within that wisdom of the ages, might be things you don't understand yet-- and in a pick and chose' you would reject out of hand, if that makes any sense

[Yev]

Originally Posted by Antiventurecapital

Look up "god of the gaps" to understand the radical shift that has taken place in mankind's evolution over the past 2000 years. Long ago, any occurrence was directly attributed to god.

Antiventurecapital, while I do not agree with dor's opinions on God, I fail to see any difference between his using God to explain the phenomena he sees and experiences and you using LoA/IM to explain your experiences. Your explanations are as dogmatic and simplistic as his, and you have no more solid evidence to justify your beliefs than he does. They are both just fairy stories to satisfy man's need for reasons to explain his selective observations.

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by Yev

you using LoA/IM to explain your experiences.

You have me confused with someone else. I don't use LoA/IM to explain anything. I never would unless I wanted to get laughed at.

I did say that science now explains many phenomenon which earlier peoples believed god to be responsible for.

[JHL]

Originally Posted by Narz

What is PD territory?

Obviously there is a reason I feel the way they do. Most likely because I was subject to abuse by superstitious and religious people and organizations as a youth (no, I was molested by a priest, praise Allah!).

I see critical thought as our one defense against stupidity, mob-rule, witch burning, mental laziness, collapse, etc. The environment is being destroyed by people who believe that God will save them from their ways. Who have a skewed view of right & wrong (it's ok to destroy the environment and kill innocent civilians for oil but not ok to have sex with the same sex).

I also believe that a world in which most world leaders were atheists would be a MUCH happier and more peaceful place.

Imagine people examining belief systems with no moral-imperatives, no delegating responsibility to a "higher power", no claiming righteousness or "evil" based on any terms but scientific, humanitarian worldly ones?

I can't think of anything much more beautiful than that!

Hey Narz, I agree with much of the sentiment you're raising here and your frustrations obviously have a strong basis in reality. I, myself, also had a bit of a rant about the environment the other day

The Personal Development issue I was offering up for your consideration, however, is based on the psychological concept of projection and also the 'new age' equivalent that says that before we look at the world outside of us, we first look inside oursevles and then project what we see onto the world. Hence some people see the glass half full, etc.

This doesnt mean, of course, that what you are seeing in the world is not real - but what it does mean it that to some degree it exists inside of you too. And if you really want to effect change - as the cliche goes - you really need to change yourself first.

Following from this logic - can you see that by attacking religious people and being hostile to people you consider as being a part of this 'unacceptable' paradigm, you are really attacking this aspect in yourself. In other words you are subconsciouly continuing to reject your own undesirable aspects.

It follows, therefore, that if you could try to be more tolerant and accepting of these people and try to demonstrate a more loving stance towards them, THIS will bring about the change you seek, because by doing so you will begin to accept these aspects within yourself, and this is how you will bring about change in the world around you. Remember the insight - its not about them, its really about you. That is the illusion of life.

Consider the responses to your current approach here - does it appear that it is bringing about healing, or an even greater polarisation? Have you EVER seen this approach work anywhere? Force achieves a reluctant compliance at best, but love gains respect, connection and understanding.

[Narz]

dor, I try to shape my worldview to conform with reality. I never claimed that no great thinkers had a religious side. Many great thinkers were religious, racist, alcoholic, addicts. Doesn't mean they're not great. Just that they have acquired limiting habit patterns from society as a coping mechanism. It's understandable.

Originally Posted by JHL

Hey Narz, I agree with much of the sentiment you're raising here and your frustrations obviously have a strong basis in reality. I, myself, also had a bit of a rant about the environment the other day

The Personal Development issue I was offering up for your consideration, however, is based on the psychological concept of projection and also the 'new age' equivalent that says that before we look at the world outside of us, we first look inside oursevles and then project what we see onto the world. Hence some people see the glass half full, etc.

This doesnt mean, of course, that what you are seeing in the world is not real - but what it does mean it that to some degree it exists inside of you too. And if you really want to effect change - as the cliche goes - you really need to change yourself first.

I like you JHL but I disagree you have to change yourself first before taking any actions. If we all waited 'till we were without sin to cast the first stone (so to speak) oppressors would rule the Earth while the "meek" (who are meant to suffer this time around so they can score in heaven) suffered and toiled (it's a clever idea really, the dude who came up with the "meek shall inherit the Earth bit must be chuckling in his grave ).

Originally Posted by JHL

Following from this logic - can you see that by attacking religious people and being hostile to people you consider as being a part of this 'unacceptable' paradigm, you are really attacking this aspect in yourself. In other words you are subconsciouly continuing to reject your own undesirable aspects.

I'm not rejecting them JHL. For all I know dor is a swell fellow, perhaps even more talented and gifted than the great Narz (), because I see superstition and "indoctrination" (as our friend would say) as a negative influence I aim to shine the harsh light of critical thought on it in order to help others. Not that I'm so far along, but the fact that I still struggle doesn't mean I'm not qualified to help point out pitfalls to others (just as a green belt can help a yellow belt to use Steve's karate analogy). I admit, I seek to eradicate pain creating belief systems and habits (with some success and some failure, slow & steady progress though) within myself. I don't see this as a bad thing though.

If my approach is a bit harsh it is because that's what worked for me. Sugar coat the truth enough and pretty soon all people can taste is the sugar (or if they taste truth in with it they'll spit that part out).

Originally Posted by JHL

It follows, therefore, that if you could try to be more tolerant and accepting of these people and try to demonstrate a more loving stance towards them, THIS will bring about the change you seek, because by doing so you will begin to accept these aspects within yourself, and this is how you will bring about change in the world around you. Remember the insight - its not about them, its really about you. That is the illusion of life.

But I am loving towards them. If I didn't love people why would I point out potential pitfalls to them?

Originally Posted by JHL

Consider the responses to your current approach here - does it appear that it is bringing about healing, or an even greater polarisation? Have you EVER seen this approach work anywhere? Force achieves a reluctant compliance at best, but love gains respect, connection and understanding.

I've gotten mixed results. I haven't done well in converting those who staunchly oppose me but I have developed connections with intelligent allies (like AntiVentureCapital) and middle grounders (like yourself) along the way.

Honestly, I don't particularly care about being friends with everyone. I call it how I see it, some will be with my, some against me, and some'll just grab some popcorn and enjoy the ballgame. I'm not shooting to kill and hopefully dor isn't so rageful as to come to my house and kneecap me while I'm asleep because he felt slighted on the Net.

It's all in good fun and it amuses me to see how people paint me up like their enemy (cynical people tend to view me as a hippie while new-agers tend to see me as overly cynical). I play devil's advocate because everyone agreeing with each other is boring as hell, a metaphorical circle jerk. There are no good movies without conflict, battle and resolution. I can't imagine there are good lives with those elements either.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

dor, I try to shape my worldview to conform with reality. I never claimed that no great thinkers had a religious side. Many great thinkers were religious, racist, alcoholic, addicts. Doesn't mean they're not great. Just that they have acquired limiting habit patterns from society as a coping mechanism. It's understandable.

again you're view and throwing in 'religion' as vice with over-drinking is disingenuous as if it was some 'add-on' to michangelo's life and not the essense of his being? a great thinker like CS lewis? Or Dorothy Sayers?

I'm not rejecting them JHL. For all I know dor is a swell fellow, perhaps even more talented and gifted than the great Narz (), because I see superstition and "indoctrination" (as our friend would say) as a negative influence I aim to shine the harsh light of critical thought on it in order to help others.

because you see it that way. change the way you look at things and the things you look at change. I see it as finding the whys behind the hows. the reason i kept referring you to the physicist minister is because it would break what i see as a false paradigm - then perhaps you could learn and expand your mind rather than brush off some one with a 'different' view than yours . without getting back into a flame war, seeing religion and religious people that way is, in my opinion as false as a creationist view of the world. in your initial post you claimed to be open minded and a free thinker, in so many words- yet you shut yourself off from anyone who might embrace the 'r' word- you're cancelling out a lot of great thinkers.

Being of protestant origin, I used to do the same thing with a lot of catholicism, but right now I am reading st. theerese's autobiography (recommended here:
On the last day of each month, I include a happiness suggested-reading list (yesterday was Tip Day, so the list is appearing today).

Many people have undertaken their own versions of happiness projects. Reading about the changes they made in their lives, and why, is fascinating. Here are some accounts that I found fascinating:And, of course, I can’t pass by an opportunity to include St. Thérèse of Lisieux’s Story of a Soul (becoming a nun).
no i don't plan to become a nun (would be rather difficult for a male ) or catholic but still her view of happiness is an intersting one...

If my approach is a bit harsh it is because that's what worked for me.

perhaps if you tried a different approach you'd get better results. as i said your sweeping judgments and branding/labeling strikes me as narrow minded as fundamentalists, and as i have said elsewhere on this board, religion-hater atheists and fundamentalists seem to be a eerie reflection of one another -

It's all in good fun and it amuses me to see how people paint me up like their enemy (cynical people tend to view me as a hippie while new-agers tend to see me as overly cynical). I play devil's advocate because everyone agreeing with each other is boring as hell, a metaphorical circle jerk. There are no good movies without conflict, battle and resolution. I can't imagine there are good lives with those elements either.

there can be disagreements without them turning into shouting matches- what's the purpose of your discussions to see how loud people can shout at each other - to get people to hate you by insulting their beliefs, or do have an honest debate/discussion.
you can't imagine there no good lives without them so that is life you seek...is it really happiness?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

One thing I've noticed about secular societies is they encourage tolerance and ask people to not openly profess or demonstrate religious beliefs, yet these secualr societies don't stick always to their rules, and it can lead to a slippery slope.

Consider a case in France where school students aren't supposed to wear clothing that reflects their religion. Jews aren't supposed to wear yammakas, Muslims aren't supposed to wear head scarves, ect. A young girl was sent home because she came to school in a head scarf and refused to remove it. This resulted in much hype in the media. Her family requested exceptional treatment. This girl ended up being permitted to wear a headscarf to school. What about the clothes of other religions still banned?

liara you're contradicting yourself you are saying secular societies like france are tolerant yet are categorically intolerant of allowing children to say, wear crosses to school?
France is not 'tolerant' -ever since its failed 1789 revolution its become increasingly intolerant - especially as it tries to deal with its failed idealogy.... you can be thrown in jail, literally, for saying things the government thinks are 'naughty'

[Narz]

dor, I'm sure there are plenty of good religious people and folks who were and are inspired by Jesus, Zen, the Buddha, whatever.

My issue is not with those type of religious but those who believe in religious stories literally and try to make others conform to what they believe moral truth to be (like radical Muslims).

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

dor, I'm sure there are plenty of good religious people and folks who were and are inspired by Jesus, Zen, the Buddha, whatever.

My issue is not with those type of religious but those who believe in religious stories literally and try to make others conform to what they believe moral truth to be (like radical Muslims).

well the secular politically correct left does this too, to worse degrees, in the west, no?
narz, again, I submit, respecfully, this is a case of your idealogy over-riding reality. I don't blame you here, but if you are really interested in the origins of so called radical islam, i would urge you to read this article, it points out a little known fact, that number one suicide bombers in the world are not muslim nor religious, but are marxist, secular tamil tigers of sri lanka:

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism
It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism
Amazon.com: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism: Books: Robert Pape

why don't we know this? Because it shatters the ambitions of politically powerful israel supporters who would like us all to believe that 'crazy muslims are trying to take over the world' when it might be more like they just want their land back

[Narz]

Originally Posted by dor

well the secular politically correct left does this too, to worse degrees, in the west, no?

To a worse degree? No. Though I do think PCness is retarded (er, mentally challenged).

Originally Posted by dor

narz, again, I submit, respecfully, this is a case of your idealogy over-riding reality. I don't blame you here, but if you are really interested in the origins of so called radical islam, i would urge you to read this article, it points out a little known fact, that number one suicide bombers in the world are not muslim nor religious, but are marxist, secular tamil tigers of sri lanka:

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism
It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism
Amazon.com: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism: Books: Robert Pape

Ok. Interesting.

Originally Posted by dor

why don't we know this? Because it shatters the ambitions of politically powerful israel supporters who would like us all to believe that 'crazy muslims are trying to take over the world' when it might be more like they just want their land back

I think we should give the Palestinians their land back (and cut off Israel completely, I've heard we give them millions in aid a DAY) but I doubt that would change how backwards much of the Islamic world is.

I can understand why they are so reactionary against the mecca of consumerism and arrogance that is America but that's still no reason for them to be as backward as they are. Look at the the treatment many of their women receive everyday. I suppose it doesn't help that their prophet (Mohammad) was a murdering pedophile.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

To a worse degree? No. Though I do think PCness is retarded (er, mentally challenged)..

its common place on universities to have conservative newspapers destroyed and offices vandalized speakers attacked the leftist, secular factalty do nothing or in some cases support the action. in fact its so common now it barely makes the the news - its dog bites man
don't forget the force 'diversity training' - usually a form of idealogical indoctrination "reeducation camps - and speech codes -

Originally Posted by Narz

I think we should give the Palestinians their land back (and cut off Israel completely, I've heard we give them millions in aid a DAY) but I doubt that would change how backwards much of the Islamic world is.

i agree about the land, but its also hard to put toothpaste back in the tube- in other words the askanazi jews are there and have been for 50 years -i think we should stop our one sided, grossly hypocritical support for israel.
at one time islam was far more sophisticated than most of the west (Though it is largely a myth we were so backward in the middle ages -that's another thread ) and islamic countries aren't any more or less backward than non muslim third world countries - in other words, when you remove the west....most of the world is pretty backwards. so if it were islam that were to blame they never would have developed the sophisticated societies they did in the first place...remember that radical islam really begins post WWII =a reaction to heavier handed involvement in that region by the US, Britain and the emergence of Israel

Originally Posted by Narz

I can understand why they are so reactionary against the mecca of consumerism and arrogance that is America but that's still no reason for them to be as backward as they are. Look at the the treatment many of their women receive everyday. I suppose it doesn't help that their prophet (Mohammad) was a murdering pedophile.

treatment of women in islamic countries is generally better, than say, rural india -where there are still isiolated cases of sati, but far more common is female infanticide - common in secular china as welll. to the point where female to male ratios are 700-1000! so what's worse, making a woman wear a viel or drowning them in milk when they are born ?

[Narz]

Originally Posted by dor

treatment of women in islamic countries is generally better, than say, rural india -where there are still isiolated cases of sati, but far more common is female infanticide - common in secular china as welll. to the point where female to male ratios are 700-1000! so what's worse, making a woman wear a viel or drowning them in milk when they are born ?

What's sati?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

What's sati?

in a nutshell when the husband dies he is cremated, the widow is (alive) place on the funeral pyre with her dead husband
in a famous incident during the Raj, Cololnel Napier, a british officer outlawed it, and the brahmans protested saying it was their custom and british promised to respect their customs. Napier replied: In my country we have a custom, when men burn women alive, we hang them.
The Straight Dope: What's up with those Indian widows who commit suttee?
the wiki link doesn't work but you can look it up in wiki:

Sati (practice)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Satī (Devanagari: सती) (also suttee) was a Hindu funeral custom, largely defunct in modern India[1][2][3], in which the dead man's widow used to immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre.

The term is derived from the original name of a goddess (see article on Dakshayani), who immolated herself, unable to bear the humiliation of her (living) husband. The term may also be used to refer to the widow herself. The term sati is now sometimes interpreted as 'chaste woman'.



i would like to emphasize , however, the custom is all but vanished from india - as i said there are isolated cases, but to be fair, in rajasthan the woman who committed it in 1987 has hundreds of thousands of pilgrams a year to her cenotaph

[Narz]

So then you understand the need to question tradition and superstition.

[DiscoDan]

Although I cannot answer the question posed in the original post, I will pose another question to you:

Why would anyone who is so deeply religious to the point of certainty feel the need to prove himself to you? Certainly the need to prove yourself to others is a sign of wavering belief.

Perhaps you really meant to pose a different question in your original post?

[Liara Covert]

Disco Dan makes a provocative point. If you have faith in your own views, why do you feel the need to justify or defend yourself to anyone? After all, who is anyone to declare there is a correct or incorrect view of spirituality or religion? Why would one view necessarily be superior to another? Would such views of supposed superiority not be projections of self-doubt and insecurity?

[Narz]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Although I cannot answer the question posed in the original post, I will pose another question to you:

Why would anyone who is so deeply religious to the point of certainty feel the need to prove himself to you? Certainly the need to prove yourself to others is a sign of wavering belief.

I'm trying to prove myself to others? How do you figure?

You seem to be presupposing I've started this thread for some egoic reason rather than out of compassion for all beings.

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Perhaps you really meant to pose a different question in your original post?

Nope.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Narz

So then you understand the need to question tradition and superstition.

oh i think we have don't have a problem with that in the west....maybe we need to start questioning: convention, currently accepted truths, currently accepted political and cultural dogma, post 1960s social mores why single out tradition and superstition? Its like the people who say religion has caused wars and violence - well so has ethnic background, atheists, idealogy, -
and those who say organized religion is bad because of this or that incident, well goverments and as we have seen with the US, even democracies, can commit acts of evil, so do those same people say get rid of government?
And this is the problem I have with people who single out religion (and I not imply you, specifically) and seem to create an indentity based on that - I am free thinker because I reject organized religion -that makes a me a 'bright' like Dawkins -- (who is actually an idiot when it comes to geo political conflict)