Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

[tomclarke]

If you say Islam is horrible, you should say Christianity is horrible.

Tu Quoque.

Worth noting that Christian fundamentalist sects often seem to be equally horrible. Also note that the Roman Catholic church has institutionalised the practice and cover-up of paedophilia for a long time.though we in the West may look at middle-eastern cultures with superiority we ourselves are but a century from equal abuses, and have our own now that we do not like to look at.

I am familiar with what "Christianists"have done, and I'm familiar with what Islamists have done. I think that were you as familiar as I, you would easily conclude that the Islamists are far worse than are the Christianists. I think you et al are deathly afraid of being thought of as bigoted, so you put forth the trouble-avoidance claim that all sides are equally guilty.


In regard to death tolls, Islam has a larger body count than does Communism.

I think you are wrong here.

I have above already said that I strongly disown all violence, and note that literal readings of book religion texts lead easily to this. I think such readoings are detestable and am not a fan of Holy scripture for this reason.

I have said nothing about numerically who does the most killing. I have been arguing that as religions, Islam and Christianity are comparable, both are now twisted to justify violence, and the scriptures make this easy in both cases.

As for whether Islam or Christianity has a worse record there are so many arguments. Does it really matter? Violence is wrong whether you kill 1 or 100. Still, if you must:

I agree at the moment terrorism is numerically much more often associated with Islam

I don't agree that religion per se has much to do with it: violence comes from cultures and religions are generally just used as an excuse.

Although "Holy wars" have happened I suspect that without the religion the same people would have found another excuse.

As for being afraid - my moral strength on this matter (detesting violence, and literal interpretations of religious scripture that counsel violence) is a match for yours on anything.

There is no contradiction here - I don't see religion as an excuse for violence, and I think bad people do bad things anyway. But I am implacably opposed to violence, and a text which is literally believed and can be used to justify violence is not good.

Both Christians (GIT) and Muslims (my link above) will claim that their scripture is in fact OK, when I don't see this as long as literal interpretation is sanctioned. On the other hand I know both Muslims and Christians who are my friends and good people. They do not see their scripture as allowing violence except in self-defence.

Personally, I think the self-defence justification only can apply in extreme situations - it is too often used to justify politically expedient wars. I would kill to save my family from a direct fatal threat. I would not sanction national killing preemptively to reduce a possible future threat unless the causality was 100% clear. It never is.

I don't see unintended but foreseeable consequences of the Iraq war as being morally equivalent with terrorism - how could I - but I do see that war as evil.

If I justified political wars (I do not) I might also justify terrorism in a political cause when fighting against an invading nation. The British did this, in the second world war, it is done in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am implacably opposed to such acts of violence.

I should point out that the line between terrorism and war become blurred. Whilst 9/11 was terrorism 100%, no ambiguity, a suicide bomb designed to kill soldiers with likely civilian casualties is not so different from a drone attack designed to kill the enemy with civilian casulaties. On average suicide attacks on troops have a much higher collateral death rate than drones. But then the technology available to one side is much more powerful than that of the other, and as people become more desperate in a war they tend to abandon morals more.

Note that the above in no way means I think the Iraq war in any way justifies any act of terrorism (against troops or civilians). I don't. Two wrongs don't make a right, they never have. That is where I part company with the OT and the Quran.

[tomclarke]

Though acts of violent extremism by U.S. Muslims appear to have grown, their potency has not. American Muslims remain more moderate, diverse and integrated than the Muslim populations in any other Western society. Despite the efforts of al-Qaeda propagandists like al-Awlaki, the evidence of even modest sympathy for the enemy existing inside the U.S. is minuscule. The paranoia about homegrown terrorism thus vastly overstates al-Qaeda's strength and reflects our leaders' inability to make honest assessments about the true threats to America's security.

Those who beat the drums about the homegrown terrorism threat often gloss over one salient fact: for all the publicity that surrounds cases of domestic jihad, not a single civilian has been killed by an Islamic terrorist on U.S. soil since Sept. 11. (The killing spree by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009 doesn't fit the standard definition of terrorism: his motives were not wholly ideological, nor did he deliberately target civilians.) That's due to a number of factors, including the military's assault on al-Qaeda's leadership, tougher homeland-security measures, smart policing and some degree of luck. But the fact that every homegrown terrorism plot has been foiled before it could be carried out also demonstrates the fecklessness of the terrorists themselves. In nearly every case — including that of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, who came closest to succeeding — homegrown terrorists have been found to have acted almost entirely alone. There has been no vast conspiracy.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... z253zaTJ2i

Whereas religion-inspired anti-abortion terrorists have killed 8 people so far in the US. Not that numerical comparisons help, and of course 9/11 trumps all numbers except those dying in wars.

[Diogenes]

So I guess the examples below (all sanctioned by the Judeo-Christian OT Yahweh) are not rape?

I'm not excusing The Qu'ran, which has its moments too. However enlightended Biblical or Qu'ranic scholars will interpret all the nasty passages and what emerges in both cases is sweetness and light. On the other hand, anyone looking for scriptural support for rape has plenty to choose from. Those were not easy times for women.

Genesis 19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” Though not in the end taken up the point is that Yahweh approves of this attempted bargain by Lot and rewards him for it

Uh yeah, Homosexual rape. Those were the bad guys, in case you missed it.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. OK, here the rapist gets just desserts, but the victim as well?

Numbers 31:15-18
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Deuternomy 21:10
When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Why have I included this? Just think about it for a moment... Are your sisters to be sold for 50 pieces of sliver? And how does forced marriage to a rapist look to you?

I'm surprised you didn't include the part about Lot having sex with and impregnating his daughters. Drinking too!There is also the part where the Daughters of the remaining tribes of Israel were sent into the Vineyards to gather grapes, with the intent that they would be grabbed and carted off by the remaining survivors of the Tribe of Benjamin. (The Tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out because of Homosexuals.)

I believe there is a case where people were eating babiesin there somewhere as well.

Meh. All of that stuff is from the Old Testament. Do you have any examples from the New Testament? You know, the part of the bible that is explicitly Christian? My recollection is that that Jesus Chap is pretty non violent. When one of his followers cut off a Roman Soldier's ear, Jesus picked it up and put it back on.

[GIThruster]

I should point out that the line between terrorism and war become blurred. Whilst 9/11 was terrorism 100%, no ambiguity, a suicide bomb designed to kill soldiers with likely civilian casualties is not so different from a drone attack designed to kill the enemy with civilian casulaties. On average suicide attacks on troops have a much higher collateral death rate than drones.

I don't think the line is blurred at all. Terrorists target non-combatants. Freedom fighters target military targets. The numbers of collateral damage are not relevant. When you target civilians, there is no such thing as collateral damage. That's what makes it a terrorist as opposed to freedom fighter activity.

Tell me, can you think of a single incident where a Christian or Jew committed suicide in order to murder non-combatant Muslims? Even once in 1,400 years? I can't. So given the reverse--Islamic suicide bombers blowing up children on busses, and youth in bars, and people on planes, and ambassadors in embassies, and folks at work in the Twin Towers, --has been the norm for you entire life and extends back without break to Muslims raiding pilgrims 1,400 years ago, how is it you can't recognize the simple distinction in kind between these two religions?

[Diogenes]

Diogenes wrote

I'm an agnostic myself, but I believe the Christian religion has been very good to it's adherents, giving them a superior society to that of all others which had existed at the time and previously. Christianity created the social stability necessary for scientific development and advancement. Had Europe continued to worship the pagan gods, I doubt we would have ever advanced beyond Roman Technology.

which type of agnostic are you?

A pro-Theistic agnostic! I believe that religion serves a useful (and actually necessary) function in society, and that we are better off for having a culture based on a relatively benign religion.

I think we wouldve done just fine under pagan gods (i actually like the old sun/moon stuff, at least it has a kind of naturalism thats appealing, and you get to see them a lot, unlike god)

Do you know what history was like when these gods reigned? What good do you see in it?

library of alexandria, anyone?

Bad Example. It was destroyed several times, and under the rule of several different people. You are obviously citing the accusation that Christians burned it. Here is an informative article on the subject.


The last time it was destroyed was supposedly under Caliph Omar.

The final fire was in 645 AD, when the Moslem caliph Omar conquered Egypt. The story is that Omar was asked what to do about the books in the library, and gave the reply: "If the books agree with the Koran, they are not necessary. If they disagree, they are not desired. Therefore, destroy them." According to tradition, the scrolls were used as fuel to provide hot water for the soldiers' baths for six months.

also GIT, islam mostly, but i believe christians havent been adverse to bandying around the phrases 'word of the lord' 'word of god' which sounds fairly infallible, especially at age 4

No doubt, but they don't measure up to the scope of their competition. In regard to sheer intolerance and violence, they aren't even in the same weight class. I suggest you learn more about both sides before you decide they are comparable.

[tomclarke]

I should point out that the line between terrorism and war become blurred. Whilst 9/11 was terrorism 100%, no ambiguity, a suicide bomb designed to kill soldiers with likely civilian casualties is not so different from a drone attack designed to kill the enemy with civilian casulaties. On average suicide attacks on troops have a much higher collateral death rate than drones.

I don't think the line is blurred at all. Terrorists target non-combatants. Freedom fighters target military targets. The numbers of collateral damage are not relevant. When you target civilians, there is no such thing as collateral damage. That's what makes it a terrorist as opposed to freedom fighter activity.

Tell me, can you think of a single incident where a Christian or Jew committed suicide in order to murder non-combatant Muslims? Even once in 1,400 years? I can't. So given the reverse--Islamic suicide bombers blowing up children on busses, and youth in bars, and people on planes, and ambassadors in embassies, and folks at work in the Twin Towers, --has been the norm for you entire life and extends back without break to Muslims raiding pilgrims 1,400 years ago, how is it you can't recognize the simple distinction in kind between these two religions?

Sure. In WW2 the UK bomber command deliberately targeted Dresden, a city with a high density civilian population, creating a firestorm across the city. Although bomber crews did not deliberately commit suicide it was very high risk, crews would leave knowing they were likely to die, and in the war many deliberately sacrificed their lives for a military aim.

Realistic estimates are 10s of 1000s of deaths. The bombing was excused as militarily necessary, but this has been hotly debated ever since.

Also...

In WW2 Germany successfully bombed many UK cities. Again the death toll (in the Luftwaffe) was high. The purpose of this bombing, targetting civilians, was clearly to demoralise the UK.

Also...
The (avowedly Christian) Provisional IRA carries out suicide attacks against civilians 1989-990.

Also...
The suicide bombers in Lebanon were not all devout Muslims. Of 41 known suicide attackers during the Lebanese conflict, 27 were from socialist or communist parties, three were Christian, and only eight were Islamic radicals

I'm sorry but I find this idea that really bad violence is solely the province of "the other" to be unhelpful.

The current political situation, with suicide bombing being tactic of choice for many muslim terrorist groups, is horrible. But self-sacrifice and killing of enemy civilians in a political struggle has always happened, it is not just the work of one "evil religion".

I will however give you that the Christian early tradition has been more for passive martyrs and self-sacrifice, whereas the Muslim early tradition was for active martyrs dying while fighting. Of the two I prefer passive, of course.

[Diogenes]

Tom, I fully support the emergence of non-violent Muslims. This evolution needs to be encouraged to flourish, but I am confident that as explained by herd theory and cascade, it is not probable that any such large body of non-violent Muslims will be allowed to flourish in the Middle east. Eventually perhaps, but not currently. My theory is make them all prosperous, and they will have less reasons to be angry. Toppling Sadaam was an effort at accomplishing that.

Indonesia seems to be making some strides in the direction of peaceful tolerance, but even there there are still ongoing killings in the name of the Islamic Religion.

[Diogenes]

Whereas religion-inspired anti-abortion terrorists have killed 8 people so far in the US. Not that numerical comparisons help, and of course 9/11 trumps all numbers except those dying in wars.

It bothers me not at all that people kill abortionists and their ilk. Were I to sit on a Jury I would vote to acquit. I am of the John Brown philosophy regarding these people. Just because the law says it's legal, doesn't make it right.

Abortionists forfeit their "right to life" in my opinion.

[GIThruster]

I think no matter your feelings about abortion, it's obvious that these examples Tom is using are not examples of the same kind of thing we find in Islam.

The tiny numbers of abortion clinic bombers were not motivated to kill Muslims. In fact, most times they didn't kill anyone. They just blew up the buildings and made it impossible for abortion clinics to get insurance in the future. So this is not a case of Christians committing suicide to kill Muslims.

Taking risky bombing missions is not the same as committing suicide. The death rates for bomber crews were indeed amongst the highest of any sort of service during WWII, but that does not mean all members of bomber crews were suicide bombers. That's an absurd mischaracterization. Indeed, more than half the the US and UK bomber crews survived so if they were suicide bombers, they were very sloppy at their job.

I can't speak to the 41 terrorists in Lebanon Tom references but would note that as the group is so varied as he states, obviously this is not a case of Christians murdering Muslims for religious purposes. The fact some of the attackers were Muslim seems to be prima facia evidence that this is not a case of Christians murdering Muslims for religious reasons. So again, the example does not apply.

Islamic Jihad most certainly is the work of one evil religion. Murdering infidels and world domination are foundational to Islam, and failing to note this is foolish in the extreme. There is 1,400 years of evidence that clearly demonstrates it is the basic teachings of islam that are the problem, not some cultural justification for violence based upon some religious pretext which I will agree often also occurs.

[303]

science > religion , that should be end of subject

tom, you say you aren't an atheist, what kind of deity do you believe in, or believe is possible?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pa ... de_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bo ... since_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html
http://charmingjustcharming.blogspot.co ... ed-by.html
http://thepoliticalinformer.blogspot.co ... ies-4.html

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

knock yourselves out

[Skipjack]

Bad Example. It was destroyed several times, and under the rule of several different people. You are obviously citing the accusation that Christians burned it. Here is an informative article on the subject.

According to my information the library was destroyed several times. The first time under Julius Cesar, then under Aurelian and then again under Theodosius, every time a signifficant part of the library was lost. It is not exactly clear how much was lost when. The idea that Omar destroyed the library is a myth. There was nothing left of it, when he came to the Alexandria.
What about the sloughtering of Hypatia?

[Skipjack]

It bothers me not at all that people kill abortionists and their ilk. Were I to sit on a Jury I would vote to acquit. I am of the John Brown philosophy regarding these people. Just because the law says it's legal, doesn't make it right.

Abortionists forfeit their "right to life" in my opinion.

Wow! Just wow!
You dont seem to regard christian values very highly either, hu? You know about the whole forgiving and not killing part...

[GIThruster]

http://aclj.org/radical-islam/stop-geno ... f5832360=1

[Skipjack]

http://aclj.org/radical-islam/stop-geno ... f5832360=1

As I predicted, the arab spring does not necessarily mean that things get better in the region, hu?

[GIThruster]

Congrats Skippy. Now that you're finally on board, everyone on the planet agrees.