leibowde84
Veteran Member
No, no race war here. Don't believe what you read in the media.
And, everytime we pull out of a country more groups like this try to grab control. They take opportunities to grab power.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Dawkins idiocy...
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
And, everytime we pull out of a country more groups like this try to grab control. They take opportunities to grab power.
Useless2015
Active Member
The best thing to do would be building homes for homeless Americans that live in the streets of America. Getting rid of racism and discrimination by the American LE. Or removing guns from the streets.. Just some of the MAJOR problems in the US. Fix your own country than lecture others.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Who is lecturing other countries in this context. We are trying to stop terrorism, and giving into terrorism has never worked.
Also, I agree we should work on those issues. But, we also have to get rid of extremists.
Useless2015
Active Member
Your government didnt give in, the only ones who did were ordinary citizens like you. New laws were passed immediatly following 9/11 that make it okay for the government to invade your personal freedom. So terrorism won. You already lost...
Priority should be Americans first at all times..
Hey Useless,
I agree with some of what you say, but you're being too black and white. The Iraq war was a total catastrophe. It's ramifications are still being felt and will do so for a long time to come. Bush and Cheney should go on trial.
All that said, sectarian violence has been going on for centuries. Wahhabism, and the modern spreading thereof also predates Bush. Corrupt, immoral leadership in the ME is ancient, and persists to this day.
I agree with Bernie Sanders, we should push regional leaders to form a coalition, which we can support. But no more boots on the ground for us.
As for the US fixing its own problems? We have a ton of stuff to fix. But we can also walk and chew gum at the same time.
I agree with some of what you say, but you're being too black and white. The Iraq war was a total catastrophe. It's ramifications are still being felt and will do so for a long time to come. Bush and Cheney should go on trial.
All that said, sectarian violence has been going on for centuries. Wahhabism, and the modern spreading thereof also predates Bush. Corrupt, immoral leadership in the ME is ancient, and persists to this day.
I agree with Bernie Sanders, we should push regional leaders to form a coalition, which we can support. But no more boots on the ground for us.
As for the US fixing its own problems? We have a ton of stuff to fix. But we can also walk and chew gum at the same time.
Well, we (the US) killed innocents in vast numbers and didn't even bother to keep any sort of count. We didn't make any demands, we just sent in the B-52s. Sadly we're still at it, and by all accounts it seems we're gearing up to escalate things to kill even more people. We don't even have the courage to look them in the eye before we kill them.
And we call the terrorists.
How convenient.
You make some interesting points. Are you willing to dig in a little and explore some distinctions, or is your mind already made up?
So first a bit of context, what slice of history and what parts of the world are you focusing on when you made those comments?
Augustus
…
That's what I said at first, but you said I was being contradictory saying that 'reasonable' people couldn't be unreasonable.
In most things, yes, but when it comes to human history then a blind spot develops.
This is why so many humanists like to point to religion as 'the root of all evil' and use idiotic cliches like 'Good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
The humanist tends to believe that humans have been corrupted away from their 'true' nature by evil religious institutions (and 'evidence-free, religious' political ones). If we remove these then we can all be nice and happy and kind.
I believe that the religious and political institutions reflect human nature. If we remove these, they'll be replaced with something else that shares similar or worse characteristics.
http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_iii
I don't think the solution is 'converting' others to humanism, but by letting them get on with their own way of life in their own country.
It's about countries keeping themselves to themselves as much as possible and not trying to remake the world in their image. "Universal morals" encourage us to engage in wars over 'human rights' and political machinations to promote foreign aims which usually backfire (Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc).
People should care about their own country, and if other people want to change theirs then they need to do it themselves. Meddling with societies you don't understand helps nobody, no matter how well intentioned.
Decide what society you want to live in and aim to make your country the best representative. If you do well, others might join you voluntarily. They won't join you just because you tell them they are being 'irrational' and if they just looked at the 'evidence' then they would agree too. It's like going on holiday and if someone doesn't speak English and can't understand you just repeat the same thing only louder.
Got a question for you: To what extent do you agree with this statement: "solutions to all central problems exist, can be discovered, and through the application of science and reason they can be realised on Earth"?
How about we skip the dick dance and you just make your point?
Hi Augustus,
You paint humanists as being oversimplifiers, in general, the reverse is true.
Earlier you quoted from the humanist manifesto iii, but to be fair, that quote should have included at least the entire paragraph:
I never said we should 'convert' others to humanism. My suggestion has been that we should strive for universal morals, such as the UNDHR. And I've stressed that there might be many paths to implementing something like the UNDHR. For example, I see no reason why a given religion shouldn't be able to entirely embrace the UNDHR, and probably many denominations already do.
As far as meddling goes... really? Your stance is something like: "Who are we to judge that honor killings must be stopped." ?
My stance is: "Who are you to pretend you don't know better?"
BTW, in general my approach to making such changes is through peaceful, compassionate marginalization. For example, in the US, over the course of a decade or two, we shifted the public's perception of smoking from being cool, to being unhealthy and dirty. No blood was shed in the process. This type of marginalization should be applied to those who ignore basic human rights.
Of course, marginalization alone isn't sufficient, but it's a start.
As for your last question - I'd say I agree, somewhat. Again, it's an oversimplification, and it leaves out all the wonderful aspects of life that have nothing to do with science.
I suspect (I might be wrong), that your sense of humanists is that they are some sort of robot. Like Mr. Spock. Not true! In my experience humanists are often people most in tune with nature, the cosmos, art, music, community and so on.
You paint humanists as being oversimplifiers, in general, the reverse is true.
Earlier you quoted from the humanist manifesto iii, but to be fair, that quote should have included at least the entire paragraph:
I never said we should 'convert' others to humanism. My suggestion has been that we should strive for universal morals, such as the UNDHR. And I've stressed that there might be many paths to implementing something like the UNDHR. For example, I see no reason why a given religion shouldn't be able to entirely embrace the UNDHR, and probably many denominations already do.
As far as meddling goes... really? Your stance is something like: "Who are we to judge that honor killings must be stopped." ?
My stance is: "Who are you to pretend you don't know better?"
BTW, in general my approach to making such changes is through peaceful, compassionate marginalization. For example, in the US, over the course of a decade or two, we shifted the public's perception of smoking from being cool, to being unhealthy and dirty. No blood was shed in the process. This type of marginalization should be applied to those who ignore basic human rights.
Of course, marginalization alone isn't sufficient, but it's a start.
As for your last question - I'd say I agree, somewhat. Again, it's an oversimplification, and it leaves out all the wonderful aspects of life that have nothing to do with science.
I suspect (I might be wrong), that your sense of humanists is that they are some sort of robot. Like Mr. Spock. Not true! In my experience humanists are often people most in tune with nature, the cosmos, art, music, community and so on.
Hey Osal,
We're in the debate forum! You made some vague, sweeping claims. If you want to debate, make a specific point.
I'll get the ball rolling here... It is of course the case that if you review US foreign interventions you will find blunders. Ranging from minor to truly horrific (such as the Iraq war). But you will also find some amazing successes.
Let's look at the situation with ISIS. What "should" be happening is that wealthy regional powers should be putting together and leading a coalition to destroy ISIS. This is the only solution. As we know, if the west were to lead such a coalition, it would only give enormous recruitment fuel to Islamists.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Do we target innocent civilians? Do we cut people's heads off on TV for their families to see?
Useless2015
Active Member
If videos were to made of western terrorism, you would cover your eyes in horror.
Useless2015
Active Member
So why are not put on trial, there has never been an actual iniative. Silence is agreeing to me..
Corrupt and immoral leadership is everywhere. Not just the ME, so it has zero to with sects or religion in general. It has always been about power and money and it will always stay that way.
I think its too late for that. At this point, it doesn't actually matter. The damage is done and there is no end in sight.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You didn't answer the first question, and my point on the second is that we don't put videos up of people being killed for their loved ones to see, as that is barbaric savagery. And, we don't target innocent civilians, as ISIS most certainly does.
Augustus
…
My point is that you can't stop them in Afghanistan, only they can stop them. And attempts to interfere usually end up being counterproductive. Hate honour killings by all means, but accept it isn't your problem to solve.
In your own society you can do everything within your power to stop these things. Your society you have influence over and the people have the right to make the society into what they wish.
Not at all. I just find them utopian with too much faith in the 'god' of reason. I share most of their views, but I'm an anti-utopian. It seems like only a small difference, but I think it is substantial (see Christopher Hitchens' neoconservatist switch). Going back to my OP about Dawkins chastisement of 'evidence free ideologies', I'd say mine is an evidence based humanism but his is hope-based and evidence-free.
I don't think we can solve all of our major problems, especially overpopulation, income inequality and environmental degradation.
I think humanism is a phase in the West and will be replaced by something else sooner or later, probably as a result of environmental or economic problems. Whatever the cause, that's what the evidence points to.
I think society will never be 'fair', so people will always rebel against the dominant paradigm. The Enlightenment spawned the Romantic movement in opposition. Western liberalism spawned communism, Pan-Arabism, Islamism, etc.
Humanism rests on universalism, 'The End of History' teleological view of our existence and the perfectability of 'humanity'. All 3 of these are utopian.
We probably won't agree on this aspect. But it's been a good discussion
We've been targeting civilians since the Civil War.
We don't cut peoples heads off, but we do drop thousands of tones of bombs and shoot hellfire missles at them. We put that in the news. We applaud that. I guess it's a question of scale. A 52 drops 35 tons of explosive ordinance from 50000 feet. The people on the ground don't know they're coming until things start exploding. One minute they're attending a funeral the next they've been blown up by a hellfire, from a drone piloted by some kid in delaware, they didn't know was coming until it was all over.
We don't set out to kill these people, really, but we still kill them. Some woman trying to dig her dead child out of the rubble that used to be their home doesn't give a **** what our intention was.
Who's the terrorist?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is not true. We have killed innocent civilians collaterally, but we haven't targeted them in this conflict with ISIS. Can you support your claim?