# What Religion are you?



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

*What Religion do you believe in?*

What Religion do you believe in? Or do you believe in anything? I believe many God centered Religions can lead people to the same place. There are many sides to a mountain and in the end they all lead to the top. This is a private poll, you can post what you believe in here if you would like  Religion for me is very fascinating and would like to see what various Religions are represented in ehmac  I am sorry for not putting in the Jewish Religion/ Faith. It was an accident  Is there anyway to edit the poll or did I blow it?


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I have no religion...
I try to be a good person and I figure the rest will fall into place.
I suppose I'm agnostic but I'm not really interested in putting a label on it. I am very fascinated by religion though and am always interested in learning more.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Reformed Druid - only worship small bushes...


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

So would that be George W ???


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Ok, I'm assuming the poll starter has never taken a religion course, or has limited background in the subject, given the random selection of major religions chosen, mixed with a sampling of fringe religions. But that's okay.....

Okay, no it's not!  

Seriously, where's Judaism or Confucianism, for example, the former one of the world's oldest religions, the latter one of the largest (from China)? And Satanism, which (and I don't know much about it, so forgive my ignorance) if anything seems more like a form of anti-Christianity, instead of another "s" religion like Scientology. Also, in a poll like this, an "other" category is a prerequisite.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Recovering Catholic


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2005)

Atheism. Only way to go.

Something goes wrong? Can't blame God.
Something goes right? Can't thank God.
Start having voices in your head? Not God!


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

iKV said:


> Seriously, where's Judaism or Confucianism, for example, the former one of the world's oldest religions, the latter one of the largest (from China)? And Satanism, which (and I don't know much about it, so forgive my ignorance) if anything seems more like a form of anti-Christianity, instead of another "s" religion like Scientology. Also, in a poll like this, an "other" category is a prerequisite.


I agree that there should have been an "other" category as well.
As for Satanism, look it up and do a little research if you feel like it. You might be surprised by what you find.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Wow, Jainism makes it to the list, and Judaism doesn't. Yeah, baby.

Kind of a tough question the way it's worded for me.

What religion am I? Jain.
What do I believe in? Well, I made up my own. It's somewhat Jain-inspired, but it's largely drawn from something my 10 grade literature teacher said once.

Gets weirder, since while most Jains believe in god, the religion is technically agnostic. I've called myself agnostic before.

What religion I am is partially a label that I have through tradition and some practice. What I believe is a much weirder place.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Lumping Catholics and Protestants together?? Any Irish born or living ehMacers here??  Where's the option for Kurt Cobain followers, or David Koresh-admiring Branch Davidians?????? 

Oh, and the Saturday-early-morning-visiting Jehovah's Witnesses are gonna be pissed there isn't a checkbox for them!


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

iKV said:


> Ok, I'm assuming the poll starter has never taken a religion course, or has limited background in the subject, given the random selection of major religions chosen, mixed with a sampling of fringe religions. But that's okay.....
> 
> Okay, no it's not!
> 
> Seriously, where's Judaism or Confucianism, for example, the former one of the world's oldest religions, the latter one of the largest (from China)? And Satanism, which (and I don't know much about it, so forgive my ignorance) if anything seems more like a form of anti-Christianity, instead of another "s" religion like Scientology. Also, in a poll like this, an "other" category is a prerequisite.


You are wrong regarding what I know about Religion. I could of included lots of other Religions but I chose to pick the Major Religions of the world and in particular in North America. Even more specific, the main Religions that I thought would represent the ehMac population. I could have included an “other” category but that tells me nothing. I messed up and didn't include the Jewish faith/Religion you obviously didn't read in my post or other information for that matter. There are too many Religions to add and there is a max of 10. Confusisim I never thought of at the moment, it is not one of the major Religions in the west and I doubt too many people on ehMac follow this Religion. Scientology/ Mormonism and others fit in with the occult in my opinion. Why is it that people always have to flame/ complain on ehMac? I am also hoping to either edit the poll or start a new one if it can't be fixed  Or just let it die  The church of Satan is a Religion that was started by Anton LaVey in 1966. Too many trolls in message boards.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Religion is the root of all that is wrong in this world.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Religion is the root of all that is wrong in this world.


I'd have to disagree and say that people are the root of all that is wrong in this world, but that's just me.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I'd have to disagree and say that people are the root of all that is wrong in this world, but that's just me.


I agree. I think religion is often used by corrupt people as an excuse to do what they want to, but I don't believe it is the root of all that is wrong.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Religion is the root of all that is wrong in this world.


Stalin would agree!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I would have to say it's the people in the Religion and not necessarily the Religion itself that is the root of the problem.


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

Technically can Atheism be a religion?

What I believe is ...I don't believe. 

That said, I did check out Satanism a while back and was surprised to learn about it. I was always under the widely held assumption it was purley anti-christian and 'Pagan' in origin. Black masses and all that stuff... not necessarily so...

The closest I've ever found to my core 'beliefs' in life is the Humanist movement but I never was comfortable with gatherings of people who 'believe' in something so fervently they feel the need to share the 'beliefs'.  

Cheers!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Stalin would agree!
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I'm sure that 2+2=4, even if Stalin believed it.

I don't think that religion is the cause of all the world's evils, but merely emblematic of the world's evils.

The root of all good is man's mind: to think, to prove, to re-think, to realize errors, and to revise. The belief in something in the absence of evidence and in defiance of all logic, that is the root of evil.

Tyranny and religion are merely two aspects of the same thing: to force a way of life on people without having to convince them it's true. Religion uses superstitions and guilt. Tyranny uses violence and propaganda.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Interesting question, I'm supposed to be Roman Catholic, but frankly I'm not sure if I believe in that religion. I look more at religion from a scientific point a view and believe religions were created to promote morals and ethics. Whether there is an actual higher power, or another life after death, I'm still divided on.


----------



## Myradon (May 13, 2005)

My Ussual responce is Communist Athiest, but a more complete answer is Communist buhdist Athiest. Communism (true communism, not a system with a central government) in theory promotes social awarness and empathy, Buhdism explains best the continuing evils of this world better than any god based system I have encounterd, and athiesm because i cannot believe in a loving grandfather figure who lives in a heaven, and while all powerful, all knowing and all loving chooses not to improve his wards lot. It seems contradictory to me, however I respect people who live their religious beleifs, and strive to live well for thecommunity.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Religion is about as idiotic as believing in the the boogyman, or the easter bunny.


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

Wow. Look at all the athiests (me included) and agnostics. I know it's not a scientific poll, but I'm amazed anyway. I wonder what that says about computer enthusiasts in general and Mac users in particular


----------



## surfwaxer (Jul 9, 2005)

Interesting how these are related. 

Top 4 results so far:

Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian

An Atheist by definition is not an Agnostic or a Christian but could be a Buddhist. An Agnostic is not an Atheist or a Christian but could be a Buddhist. A Buddhist could be an Atheist, Agnotic or possibly even a Christian. A Christian in not Atheist or Agnostic but could possibly be Buddhist. 

Not sure how Hindu or Jain fit in but I believe a follower of either can not be Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian or the other. 

Do I have that right?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Clockwork, you blew it. However, being Jewish, it is part of our faith to be forgiving of others for their miscues. You also left out Confucianism. Maybe I shall pray with ArtistSeries in the Reformed Druid Temple on 99th Street in New York City to pray for the errors of your poll?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> I'm sure that 2+2=4, even if Stalin believed it.
> 
> I don't think that religion is the cause of all the world's evils, but merely emblematic of the world's evils.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that religion can be the root of evil, but also the root of good, its the blanket statement that "its the root of all evil" thats ridiculous. Stalin thought that way too and killed and oppressed millions. No religion. The Chinese government continues to do so today under the same banner. Forced sterilization, religious and political persecution etc.
Any ideology, be it religion, politics, materialism, environmentalism etc. can be a source of evil or a source for good as well.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

jumbo, thank you for pointing out how stupid i am for having faith. where did i go wrong? how did i not see this before? [/sarcasm]

seriously, do you post ****e like that because you're trolling, or do you actually believe in the verbal diarrhea that spews from your mind?

you may not believe in any faith, and i respect that. i ask you to respect those of us who do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I'd have to disagree and say that people are the root of all that is wrong in this world, but that's just me.


I'd have to agree with you, however I think that organized religion in many cases aid those who are willing to do wrong. It is too easy to use organized religion as an excuse or crutch to spread fear and intolernace towards others.

I've had this conversation with my wife and the issue isn't the nature of faith, I have the upmost respect for that... it is the nature and institution of religious dogma that makes me feel uneasy about organized religion.


----------



## Pylonman (Aug 16, 2004)

I would be no-name. I have always looked to my family for guidance and structure. I learned to respect my fellow men/women from the weekly sit down at the Sunday night dinners. I guess I'm lucky I had good role models. Some of my friends from my younger years were Protansant and Catholic, but it was never pushed on me. The JWs had a very strong community where I went to highschool (Georgetown, Ont). The JWs had a huge University/publishing centre in Georgetown called the "The Watch Tower". I'd here rumours about bunkers and stuff, but my only contact was always friendly. Actually, when I use to deliver pizzas for Pizza Hut, the JWs at the Watch Tower always tipped well.  

Don't really think about religion that much. Religion wasn't really an issue for me until I moved out West to Abbotsford. Abbotsford is in the "Bible Belt" of the Lower Mainland, BC. It has roughly 88 churchs. Nice town, but a little close minded. If you didn't belong to a Church, you were considered "other". I unforuntatly found out my landlord and his buddy were hardcore Mennoites. He verbally accused me of following some corrupt lifestyle (which i don't) and my family upbringing. He could not believe I could learn all my values from family ie. he kept asking "where do you get your foundation?" His views on other parts of Canada, especially Southern Ontario, were quite radical and ignorant. I bet you a dollar to a donut, he has never left his town. 

I stongly believe most people join a religion, not only because of spiritual basis, but it has an approval from their friends and an economic benefit to the individual.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> I'd have to agree with you, however I think that organized religion in many cases aid those who are willing to do wrong. It is too easy to use organized religion as an excuse or crutch to spread fear and intolernace towards others.


The word "organized" is often used here as a black mark against religion. 
I'm just curious what constitutes "unorganized" religion?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

you missed mine


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I believe in God...

I follow the Roman Chatholic practices of faith {more than any other}

I believe that Organized Religion is a man-made political structure that despite any good done, can be just as evil and corrupt as any other man-made political structure.

While I understand my parrish priest's belief in Papal infallability, I do not feel obliged to share that idea.




When I talk to God, He rarely mentions the church...



and in spite of my explanation, my response to the poll would have been "none of your damn business...


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Clockwork: you can't possibly be serious! You start a thread about religion and then complain about flaming? What did you expect? I'll bet you bring up sex/politics/religion at family reunions and then wonder why everybody ends up fighting!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> The word "organized" is often used here as a black mark against religion.
> I'm just curious what constitutes "unorganized" religion?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


OK... semantics here I guess. Religious institutions in general. I have no issue with people who have personal beliefs with follow a "religion", however when that Institution starts creating Dogma, which must be followed, then there is in many cases issues to be had around the "organization" of the religion, and not necessarily the followers of that faith. Follow?

For example, I can think of three major religions all based on the God of Abraham, which all share the same profit who brought forth the tablets with the laws, and do you think any of the three can get the "Thou Shall Not Kill" part of it right?

And I don't mean to pick on Western faiths, Eastern faiths are also frought with institutionalized Dogma which have lead to intolerence and violence.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

miguelsanchez said:


> jumbo, thank you for pointing out how stupid i am for having faith. where did i go wrong? how did i not see this before? [/sarcasm]
> 
> seriously, do you post ****e like that because you're trolling, or do you actually believe in the verbal diarrhea that spews from your mind?
> 
> you may not believe in any faith, and i respect that. i ask you to respect those of us who do.


No I actually believe it. I've seen the brainwashing first hand, the hate of those who don't believe what you believe. The countless wars and hipocracy that religion breeds. All for what? Oh, my beliefs are right and yours are wrong. 

Your comment is a first hand example of the hipocracy, the hate, the better than thou attitude, just by calling what I believe in "Verbal Diarrhea." Maybe you think all other religions are "Verbal Diarrhea" too. My "Verbal Diarrhea" is no different than what was written thousands of years ago and is now believed to be true. Maybe in another 2000 years literature written today will be worshiped by the masses, just because it is taught to the young that it is right.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Religion is about as idiotic as believing in the the boogyman, or the easter bunny.


What's wrong with believing in the easter bunny? Or the boogyman? Or Santa? Or fairies, or guardian angels, or quarks, or democracy, or weredoxies? 

Or believing that equality among people is an inherent right--this is not a fact, it's a belief. A widespread belief, but a belief,

Or that the only things worth believing are those which are provable through the scientific method. Also a belief: specifically, that this which is scientifically provable is necessarily better than that which is not provable. 

I have a little soapbox I like to stand on which states that for many people, science is functionally equivalent to religion, but that would requires you to first accept the premise that there may be more than one way of defining what is true, even though our society largely uses the premise that truth is defined by the science.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Clockwork, you blew it. However, being Jewish, it is part of our faith to be forgiving of others for their miscues. You also left out Confucianism. Maybe I shall pray with ArtistSeries in the Reformed Druid Temple on 99th Street in New York City to pray for the errors of your poll?


I know DR G, I blew it regarding the Jewish Religion/Faith. I erased it because I had way over 10 Religions. I intended to include it and not erase it as I did. I am sure there are many Jewish individuals and I am trying to get it fixed via a moderator. As for Confucianism I tend to view it more as a philosophy then a Religion and many others share the same view. I didn't think that Confucianism would apply to this forum but I may be wrong. As for the flaming. I don't ever think it is appropriate. It borders on childish and really takes away from the people who want to have a decent discussion. If you have an opinion, or don’t agree there is no need to get nasty. Some people are very nasty on this board. I feel sorry for you. You may want to take a look at your anger. The purpose was simply to find out what people believe, in a manner that is measurable. If I had of put other in the options that would tell me nothing.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Wolfshead said:


> Clockwork: you can't possibly be serious! You start a thread about religion and then complain about flaming? What did you expect? I'll bet you bring up sex/politics/religion at family reunions and then wonder why everybody ends up fighting!


Fact is this thread is blatant flame bait.......


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I have a little soapbox I like to stand on which states that for many people, science is functionally equivalent to religion, but that would requires you to first accept the premise that there may be more than one way of defining what is true, even though our society largely uses the premise that truth is defined by the science.


That is a great argument, especially if people have any concept (or have even heard of) of Super Symmetry or String Theory... which are mind blowing when you think about them and what they imply about the universe.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ClockWork, you have been forgiven, at least by me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I like to stand on which states that for many people, science is functionally equivalent to religion,


It is - that's why doctors are god in our society....
People are in awe and instead of trying to understand become slave to science and tech as if it where this mysterious "being"...


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

look, mr jones, don't get me wrong, but you started the insulting by using one-liners to call religion "idiotic" and "the root of all that is wrong in this world." (admittedly the statements are probably flame-bait and i'm biting, but this is a sensitive subject for me)

why can't you just let it be and respect the fact that some people believe in one faith or another? you are not the first person that i've known to have this attitude. when i called your statements "****e" and "diarrhea" i meant it. they are of no more use to this discussion than the descriptive words that i used. 

also, don't presume to know what i think about other religions or what i do or don't hate. i openly stated that i respect your non-belief, and that implies that i respect others' beliefs too. i personally believe that religion is an important part of one's life. it doesn't matter if you're hindu, christian, buddhist, muslim, jewish, whatever. 

if you can't find it in yourself to respect that, then you, sir, are the one who is hypocritical.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> OK... semantics here I guess. Religious institutions in general. I have no issue with people who have personal beliefs with follow a "religion", however when that Institution starts creating Dogma, which must be followed, then there is in many cases issues to be had around the "organization" of the religion, and not necessarily the followers of that faith. Follow?
> 
> For example, I can think of three major religions all based on the God of Abraham, which all share the same profit who brought forth the tablets with the laws, and do you think any of the three can get the "Thou Shall Not Kill" part of it right?
> 
> And I don't mean to pick on Western faiths, Eastern faiths are also frought with institutionalized Dogma which have lead to intolerence and violence.


So you don't mind religion provided they have no absolute beliefs? You'd be hard pressed to find any religion that doesn't, organized or not. As far as intolerance and violence go, I'd hardly say organized religion has a monopoly on that.

Instead of always looking at the negative you should consider the positive. Many people are more charitable, kind, compassionate because of their faith. They work in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, foreign aid agencies, hospitals all as a direct result of their faith. I've seen a lady take on 13 handicapped children and give them a loving home as a result of her faith. Their will always be evil people in religion as there is evil in the world. We're all capable of falling because we're all human.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What a Gordian knot of amorphous language and concept frameworks. 









What was that Scottish term.......bambot????? 

C'mon Sonal you can show better clarity than that hodge podge.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

miguelsanchez said:


> look, mr jones,


I hope you didn't mean me?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I can't think of a bigger dogma than atheism, which even more than most religions has an a priori sense of its own truth. Speaking of dogma, it is really funny that people who seem unconcerned about reactionary political Islamic dogma as any sort of significant factor in such matters as blowing people up on subways and chopping people's heads off would be so worked up and upset about other dogmas. So Islamic jihadist dogma is just a poor unfortunate byproduct of American foreign policy, but, say, Catholic dogma--oooh, now that is evil!

Funny, I don't see too many Catholic suicide bombers. Nor Jewish head choppers.

Or how about the craven dogma of moral relativity?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

RE: the whole organized religion bit.

I have to go back to my original point which is that the root of all evil are people. People in groups--religion, corporations, political, charities, para-military, mobs, whatever--are no different. A group of people working together can do great good or great harm.

The problem, however, is not so much the group or the organization, but when people being substituting groupthink for individual thought and judgement.... much easier to do harm that way. While this occurs in religious contexts, it occurs in many other contexts as well. Again, function of the people involved--those who choose to give in to groupthink, and those who use the groupthink for harm.

Personally, I'm not big on organized religion--and this is a personal preference--but then again, I'm not big on organized anything.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Funny, I don't see too many Catholic suicide bombers. Nor Jewish head choppers.





Yup the Crusades where just a laugh riot.....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> So you don't mind religion provided they have no absolute beliefs? You'd be hard pressed to find any religion that doesn't, organized or not. As far as intolerance and violence go, I'd hardly say organized religion has a monopoly on that.
> 
> Instead of always looking at the negative you should consider the positive. Many people are more charitable, kind, compassionate because of their faith. They work in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, foreign aid agencies, hospitals all as a direct result of their faith. I've seen a lady take on 13 handicapped children and give them a loving home as a result of her faith. Their will always be evil people in religion as there is evil in the world. We're all capable of falling because we're all human.
> 
> ...


An excellent example. I would certainly agree with most of that (again it’s directed at human nature when it comes to altruism), however the issue I have is when a religion raises individuals to certain heights where the "fall" as you say can be somewhat hazardous. 

The issue is not around an individual's faith or their altruism... even that of a community for that matter. Should a congregation decide to participate in community projects, so be it. That is a great thing. The problems always seem to arise when the organization gets larger than just a community. It seems to me that the easier path to Bureaucracy and corruption comes from institutionalized dogma. And no, organized religions are not the only ones that suffer from this problem (one only has to look at the federal government to see this). 

I think the examples of this are glaring from just about every major religion you can think of… here in North America televangelism is a perfect example.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yup the Crusades where just a laugh riot.....


Uh huh, the Crusades were hilarious. And you seem really steamed about imperialism, so, an anti-imperialist like you should probably think they were a good thing since they were the Christian world's response to the imperialist Islamic armies conquering their territory.

Or is it only sympathetic when Muslims slaughter others?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Stalin thought that way too and killed and oppressed millions.
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


It's not what Stalin thought that caused the deaths of millions, but what he did. The first isn't necessarily linked to the later. There has been tyrants, both athiest and believer, through out history.

Your comment about Stalin remains irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> C'mon Sonal you can show better clarity than that hodge podge.


Perhaps I can, but in a few minutes I have to go drink beer, and then I go back to the land of broken DSL. 

I have a strong hunch that you and I will agree to disagree on this. Macdoc.... or at least I will. 

But it's very difficult talking about different definitions of truth with any clarity, especially since you have to first agree that there ARE different definitions of truth--otherwise, you go nowhere.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> So Islamic jihadist dogma is just a poor unfortunate byproduct of American foreign policy, but, say, Catholic dogma--oooh, now that is evil!


How about you talk to people burned at the stake as witches and heretics during the past 2000 years. 



planethoth said:


> Funny, I don't see too many Catholic suicide bombers. Nor Jewish head choppers.


This isn't a very strong argument now is it, other than showing your antithapy for one religion in particular. But 2000 years of burning people at the stake and more recently the use of "rubber" bullets in Gaza doesn't really count for anything does it? 



planethoth said:


> Or how about the craven dogma of moral relativity?


I think I see your problem Planethoth, you have adjective-itis. For what ever reason you can't seem to help throwing in adjectives which make your arguments go directly to the negative. Today's example is your use of the word "craven".

Now please, indulge me. I'm curious as to why you think "moral relativism" is _craven_


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> It's not what Stalin thought that caused the deaths of millions, but what he did. The first isn't necessarily linked to the later. There has been tyrants, both athiest and believer, through out history.
> 
> Your comment about Stalin remains irrelevant to the discussion.


No, his comments about Stalin are completely relevant--communism was a secular religion that probably killed more people in one century than any religion did in four or five centuries!

How do you claim that Stalin's beliefs were irrelevant to what he did? So you think the logic of command economics was irrelevant to his slaughter? Tell that to all those who wouldn't work on his collective farms and were murdered.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> How about you talk to people burned at the stake as witches and heretics during the past 2000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yes, I see that you use all the familiar cliches to avoid the point. There aren't too many witches being burned at stakes today, and I hardly think killing Hamas guys on their way to plan suicide bombs counts as a religious fanatic persecution on the part of Jews. Cute try though.

My problem is not with Islam. You can try to drag out that old bigot card again, but it is so tired, bro. 

Moral relativism's cravenness should be self-explanatory. Without the ability to make distinctions and judgments, there is no morality.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sonal it's the use of the word truth that is in itself the most difficult as it is not a very precise bit of language for this sort of discussion.
Without some agreed framework it's just tail chasing.
It's when beliefs attempt to cross into physical manifestation that the issues arise.

Lucky charms are fine until you try and step into the path of a bus thinking you're safe.
Reality intrudes.....rudely. 

Illustrative point. PT mixes economic systems with religions........bampot.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Uh huh, the Crusades were hilarious. And you seem really steamed about imperialism, so, an anti-imperialist like you should probably think they were a good thing since they were the Christian world's response to the imperialist Islamic armies conquering their territory.
> 
> Or is it only sympathetic when Muslims slaughter others?


Glad to have you back - been too long without illogical arguments....

Mr Planethoth, where did I talk about imperialism in this thread.

I gave you an example of Catholic religious zealotry gone amiss - 

You should really brush up on Islamic and Muslim history - it would be an eye opener to you him sure....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, I see that you use all the familiar cliches to avoid the point. There aren't too many witches being burned at stakes today, and I hardly think killing Hamas guys on their way to plan suicide bombs counts as a religious fanatic persecution on the part of Jews. Cute try though.


Thankfully there are fewer 'heretics" burned at the stake these days, however I don't think that the Catholic's churches un-invlovement in the holocaust lets them wash their hands anytime soon. 

And kids hurling rocks in the streets of gaza do not equate to "terrorist" bombers (although some might be, the majority are not). Besides what would you do if you were Palestinian and living in Gaza? I guess you would lie down and let yourself get rolled over by an occupying force wouldn't you.



planethoth said:


> My problem is not with Islam. You can try to drag out that old bigot card again, but it is so tired, bro.


Then why did you bring up the... _Funny, I don't see too many Catholic suicide bombers. Nor Jewish head choppers._ comment. It is plain to see which religion you directed that comment at. I didn't force you to say that, you did that well on your own.




planethoth said:


> Moral relativism's cravenness should be self-explanatory. Without the ability to make distinctions and judgments, there is no morality.


Go back and try again... you might want to edit your thread. Just SO you know...

Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries. Some would even suggest that one person's ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Or believing that equality among people is an inherent right--this is not a fact, it's a belief. A widespread belief, but a belief,
> 
> Or that the only things worth believing are those which are provable through the scientific method. Also a belief: specifically, that this which is scientifically provable is necessarily better than that which is not provable.
> 
> I have a little soapbox I like to stand on which states that for many people, science is functionally equivalent to religion, but that would requires you to first accept the premise that there may be more than one way of defining what is true, even though our society largely uses the premise that truth is defined by the science.


Your soapbox is really a house of cards. When you're looking for its support the most is when it will give out under your feet.

I think you're confused on terminology. A belief is not a religion because it's a belief. A religion is beliefs based on the absence of evidence. Scientist have beliefs as well: that the earth is round and goes around the sun, or that hemoglobin in our blood carries oxygen to our cells, or that penicillin-based medicines can control bacteria disease. These beliefs are based on evidence.

The political equality of men is indeed a fact. The proof of this fact is rather lengthy, but a look into the political philosophy section of the bookstore would be a good place to find it. (Just avoid the Chomsky.) 

Finally: when you claim that the political beliefs of the world's liberal democracies are not facts, only "widespread beliefs," you legitimize the tyrants, the theocrats, and the terrorists of our world. If the worst thing you can say to bin Laden, or the Unabomber, or Timothy McVey is "most of us believe you're wrong," our society is cooked.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Sonal it's the use of the word truth that is in itself the most difficult as it is not a very precise bit of language for this sort of discussion.
> Without some agreed framework it's just tail chasing.
> It's when beliefs attempt to cross into physical manifestation that the issues arise.
> 
> ...


Communism was as secular religion, yes, that is an accurate term as any. It had a component of economics (so does Islam, Christianity and Judaism, btw, even if they aren't as long-winded about it as Marx was) which in its case was its central tenet, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a dogmatic system of belief!

Drawing artificial lines between belief and practice is useful in some cases, but not in this one. Stalin believed in communism, and he acted on it. Just like the jihadists do. That's dangerous, and people should remember that not all dogmas are created equal. It's really funny though, that people get so worked up about the milder ones, though.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> No, his comments about Stalin are completely relevant--communism was a secular religion that probably killed more people in one century than any religion did in four or five centuries!
> 
> How do you claim that Stalin's beliefs were irrelevant to what he did? So you think the logic of command economics was irrelevant to his slaughter? Tell that to all those who wouldn't work on his collective farms and were murdered.


Like I said, it's not what he thought, but what he did. Perhaps oyu should read what I say before you quote it.

Every once in a while I hear someone call communism a secular religion. I've even done it myself a few times. However, communism is a political philosophy. Errorius, a-historical, and economically illiterate, but still it's only political philosophy.

Would you care to inform me what makes something a "secular religion?" Are capitalism, or democratic socialism, and libertarianism? How about feminism, or enviromentalism? How about the belief in free speech?


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I deeply regret starting this thread. Everyone is entitled to believe what they choose even if it's wrong. I guess arguing all the time makes some people feel superior to others.


----------



## surfwaxer (Jul 9, 2005)

planethoth said:


> No, his comments about Stalin are completely relevant--communism was a secular religion ...


A secular religion? Communism is not a religion and there is no such thing as a secular religion. 
Did you mean Stalin was not a follower of any religion? Religion under Stalin was brutally suppressed but not totally wiped out Religion. In fact it was allowed a significant revival during the war.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: a bit better but still foggy.

You are close - belief is certainty without the NEED for evidence.

Don't get scientific method tangled with belief.

A scientist's understanding of the physical world is based on observation, thesis and repeatable demonstration.

Politics is interaction amongst a group or groups and you can have political systems and political beliefs of which equality before the law is one. There can be no "proof" in that the way there can be of say radio wave propagation.
You can observe a political system at work over time as you can observe a religion system at work ovr time without participating in the underlying assumptions each makes.
A democracy makes different assumptions than a theocracy or an absolute monarchy and from those assumptions certain structures that can be flat or hierarchal arise.
You can't have for instance an absolute monarch and "all men are equal" assumptions in the same political system.

Different frameworks and definitions.

Bampot........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I deeply regret starting this thread. Everyone is entitled to believe what they choose even if it's wrong. I guess arguing all the time makes some people feel superior to others


Nothing wrong with the thread but the need for some clarity in language.
To argue requires trying to put your ideas into a form others can understand and deal with. It's good exercise for your own ontology.

Of course people can and do "beleive" many things.
It's when belief crosses into the tangible that it gets hard.

You may well beleive the world is flat but a sail around it will or an attempt to take off in a rocket will soon show disparity with your "belief".
It's better in that case to use the term "theory" and leave belief to the metaphysical/religious framework.

So you say instead I "theorize" the world is flat and that leaves you open to change upon proof otherwise.

Belief in the religious sense does not require proof.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I hope you didn't mean me?


da_jonesy, sorry, no i didn't mean you. i was addressing the other mr jones, jumbo.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Thankfully there are fewer 'heretics" burned at the stake these days, however I don't think that the Catholic's churches un-invlovement in the holocaust lets them wash their hands anytime soon.
> 
> And kids hurling rocks in the streets of gaza do not equate to "terrorist" bombers (although some might be, the majority are not). Besides what would you do if you were Palestinian and living in Gaza? I guess you would lie down and let yourself get rolled over by an occupying force wouldn't you.
> 
> ...


Um, OK, let me see if I can drill this in for you:

Why would I allude to the Islamic element? Because it seemed to me that you and your compadres don't take jihadism seriously as a threat. You are reaching--likely b/c it suits your apparent belief in moral relativism--if you claim to abhor dogmas but then see this extremely dangerous dogma is a just an understandable political response.

Hey, did you ever have a rock thrown at your head, bro? Rocks are low tech weapons, brother, doesn't mean they can't kill or harm you. This is a stupid argument, anyway. The Jews have no less a right to be in Gaza than the Arabs, who conquered this territory themselves from others. The occupation of 1967 occurred because the Arabs decided they would start another one in a series of wars against the Jews that they would lose. And I will not discuss occupation with you unless you are prepared to put your money where your mouth is and leave this country and give it back to the so-called "indigenous" people.

But more to the point, we Jews don't slice people's heads off and chant G-d is great anymore. Maybe in 3000 B.C. Ditto the Christians, who have retired the Inquisition and stakes.

You see, we all have something to be pissed off about. Every group has a grievance. At the moment, the group that expresses their grievance with reckless, primordial rage is the jihadists, who claim as their only guidance this very religion you pretend has nothing to do with it. This is not saying Muslims are all terrorists. But it is true that the majority of the world's terrorists in this time ARE Muslim. Not just fighting U.S. and Israel. They are fighting their bloody religious war in Thailand, Phillipines, India and Pakistan, etc.

The point in THIS argument is that the people here who claim to be against dogmas but also poo-poo the notion that Islamic terror is anything but a fight against oppression are bloody hypocrites.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> It's not what Stalin thought that caused the deaths of millions, but what he did. The first isn't necessarily linked to the later. There has been tyrants, both athiest and believer, through out history.
> 
> Your comment about Stalin remains irrelevant to the discussion.


Its totally relevant. The initial comment I took issue with was that "Religion was the root of all evil". Communism is not a religion (although it has its share of dogma) but it has been the cause of millions of deaths and misery in the world. Showing clearly that religion is not the root of all evil. It was totally relevant to the blanket condemnation of religion.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Your soapbox is really a house of cards. When you're looking for its support the most is when it will give out under your feet.
> 
> I think you're confused on terminology. A belief is not a religion because it's a belief. A religion is beliefs based on the absence of evidence. Scientist have beliefs as well: that the earth is round and goes around the sun, or that hemoglobin in our blood carries oxygen to our cells, or that penicillin-based medicines can control bacteria disease. These beliefs are based on evidence.
> 
> ...



You can't mix Politics and Science... Politics is about culture and society... and beyond statistics there is no "Science" involved.

The arguments about rights cannot be based on science (other than to say that if you jump from the CN tower you have the "right" to be squished when you land). Therefor if rights are not based on science, they then have to be based upon something else. Rights must be based on beliefs, and as we well know beliefs are totally relative.

And if political equality is a "fact" then explain to me why there is so much discrepancy between the haves and have nots of the world. 

I would suggest that you go back to the Politics section of that bookstore and pick up those volumes by Chomsky, as he has a keen understanding of how things really work.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Like I said, it's not what he thought, but what he did. Perhaps oyu should read what I say before you quote it.
> 
> Every once in a while I hear someone call communism a secular religion. I've even done it myself a few times. However, communism is a political philosophy. Errorius, a-historical, and economically illiterate, but still it's only political philosophy.
> 
> Would you care to inform me what makes something a "secular religion?" Are capitalism, or democratic socialism, and libertarianism? How about feminism, or enviromentalism? How about the belief in free speech?


Is communism's deity not Marxist theory? It functioned as a secular religion, and apparently still does in some other forms. It was adherence to a belief system that was expected to affect every aspect of life, and pretty much did.

I am simply puzzled what you mean to say--are you really saying that Stalin's actions were not related to what he thought? That seems like a rather implausible
idea to say the very least.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacGuiver/DJ :clap:


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Clockwork said:


> You are wrong regarding what I know about Religion. I could of included lots of other Religions but I chose to pick the Major Religions of the world and in particular in North America. Even more specific, the main Religions that I thought would represent the ehMac population. I could have included an “other” category but that tells me nothing. I messed up and didn't include the Jewish faith/Religion you obviously didn't read in my post or other information for that matter. There are too many Religions to add and there is a max of 10. Confusisim I never thought of at the moment, it is not one of the major Religions in the west and I doubt too many people on ehMac follow this Religion. Scientology/ Mormonism and others fit in with the occult in my opinion. Why is it that people always have to flame/ complain on ehMac? I am also hoping to either edit the poll or start a new one if it can't be fixed  Or just let it die  The church of Satan is a Religion that was started by Anton LaVey in 1966. Too many trolls in message boards.


Smilies were supposed to let you know I wasn't harping on you. Sorry you took it so negatively.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PT you are all over the map.
That there were elements of dogma and "hero worship" in Stalinism as a concrete attempt to implement Communism political and economic theories does not make a "religion".

In any heirarchal structure - which pure communism is not supposed to be - there will be similarities to engage humans, pomp, circumstance, authority, celebration.
These are sociological mechanisms to persuade and engage.

But Communism admits of no godhead and in fact denies putting responsibility squarely on Everyman for creating the kind of world desired. Religion is an enemy to Communism as it's structure is diametrically opposed to that ontology. ( there is a somewhat bubbling inherent conflict in modern democracies as well )

Religions accept a godhead or other than human. ( in the most part tho arguable for Buddhists ).

MG had it exactly right.

Systems or theories are not inherently good or bad......it's how the individuals within in them deal with those around them and their own adherents.....and then only history can judge......in mirror darkly.

Imperialism WAS wonderful......wasn't it??

Mores change PT....like it or not.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> But more to the point, we Jews don't slice people's heads off and chant G-d is great anymore. Maybe in 3000 B.C. Ditto the Christians, who have retired the Inquisition and stakes.


Two things...

1/. You being Jewish I can understand your position regarding the Jewish/Arab conflict. That clears up (at least to me) the nature of some of your arguments.

2/. Two, the problem is that on both sides of the Arab/Jewish conflict the root of the problem is intolerance. There are *extreme* economic hardships placed upon the palestinians at the hands of Israel. At the other end of the spectrum Israel is in a precarious position with enemies on all sides, so security is plainly an issue. But the fact of the matter is that people die on both sides, whether it is from a bomb strapped to someone's chest or a 500lb bomb dropped from an F16. People lose their homes if it is from a mortar attack or from it being bulldozed down.

You will not solve your issues with the attitude that one faith is superior to another. You will only let the situation spiral out of control until only complete anarchy remains.

To that end, the problem in the region can be boiled down to intolerance on both sides. You solve the intolerance issue... you are on the path towards peace.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Two things...
> 
> 1/. You being Jewish I can understand your position regarding the Jewish/Arab conflict. That clears up (at least to me) the nature of some of your arguments.
> 
> ...


Your implication, put in a nice way, is that I am biased b/c of a Jew. Therefore, I suppose, you imply that my position is tribal. Well, I am biased (and you aren't?), but you will be maybe surprised to note that I much prefer an Arab or a Muslim on my side than the Jews who are against me!

Understanding my argument has nothing to do with me being Jewish, this suggests that judging arguments only requires you to analyze the messenger instead of dealing with the facts of the argument. I don't ask your ethnic or religious credentials, because it is irrelevant.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

JAMG said:


> I believe in God...
> 
> I follow the Roman Chatholic practices of faith {more than any other}
> 
> I believe that Organized Religion is a man-made political structure that despite any good done, can be just as evil and corrupt as any other man-made political structure.


Very well said!

Personally, I believe in God, but don't attend an organized church (although have attended several dozen of them or so with the folks who seem to like church-hopping every few years).

In my experience, most I have attended are very one sided, believe that there is something wrong with most/all other denominations of Christianity and all other religions, and that these others can never lead to their church/denomination's definition of "truth", "God", "heaven", etc. Such thinking turns me away from organized religion.

I'd be very interested to hear the takes of those who voted "Christian" to this last statement. Thoughts?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

DJ I don't think it's that straight forward.

First you are tangling nation state which Israel is with a religion and I think Israel itself is having issues with that.

Second in an unfortunate sense one side of a conflict is often moulded by the other and Israel was never in a situation where it could "live peaceably"....and that FACT has governed much of it's existence.

My sense of Judaism is of a people wishing to be left alone to live as they see fit ( say Amish ).
They've not been in that situation.

Underlying this...there is only so much, land, water, resources to go around in a region fraught with conflict since humans arrived.

It's a microcosm for the entire planet.
Some Islamic sects like some Christian sects are aggressively proselytizing and not much on live and let live.

That's in the mix as well.

You have over population, diminishing resources, economic disparity and conflicting faiths....no easy task to settle in a peacable manner that is enduring.

IF the groups involved could get by the faith issue - in particular the strong anti Israeli stance tied up with surrounding Arab is states, then MAYBE the the first three could be worked on.

But there is fanaticism involved and not entirely by the surrounding states, there is just enough in Israel itself to make it hard to to present a unified approach.

No easy answers in this.

My feeling is it is NOT being helped by meddling by non regional powers. Peoples do have to work out their own issues.

I find the Iran/Iraq detente fascinating.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> PT you are all over the map.
> That there were elements of dogma and "hero worship" in Stalinism as a concrete attempt to implement Communism political and economic theories does not make a "religion".
> 
> In any heirarchal structure - which pure communism is not supposed to be - there will be similarities to engage humans, pomp, circumstance, authority, celebration.
> ...



MacDoc, I'm only all over the map as the rest who take me on are. Come on, man, retire that worn-out phrase already.

Notice my term was "SECULAR religion". Secular, in this case, a rejection of supernatural deity.

Communism saw religion as an enemy, yes--the fine line between love and hate for such close cousins, I'd say! In totally doing away with the idea of a supernatural deity, it replaced it with the hero worship, Marxist theory, etc. The secular religion of communism encompassed and regulated every aspect of life, and demanded ideological fealty from the people in its sphere.

Thus, clever word games aside, I will still stick to calling communism a de facto secular religion.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

> Nothing wrong with the thread but the need for some clarity in language.
> To argue requires trying to put your ideas into a form others can understand and deal with. It's good exercise for your own ontology.
> 
> Your right the wording is off; I was trying to come up with the wording and failed to a certain degree  I also missed Judaism which messed it up from the start. What I might have written would be: what Religion do you practice or believe in (I was going to say subscribe when I first posted but it sounded off).
> ...


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Clockwork said:


> As for Confucianism I tend to view it more as a philosophy then a Religion and many others share the same view. I didn't think that Confucianism would apply to this forum but I may be wrong. As for the flaming. I don't ever think it is appropriate. It borders on childish and really takes away from the people who want to have a decent discussion. If you have an opinion, or don’t agree there is no need to get nasty. Some people are very nasty on this board. I feel sorry for you. You may want to take a look at your anger. The purpose was simply to find out what people believe, in a manner that is measurable. If I had of put other in the options that would tell me nothing.


I was going to write that you were right to not include a religion/philosophy like Confucianism when polling Canadians, that it is more of an Eastern religion, and that the only reason I personally brought it up was because I see more of its impact and influence living on the other side of the globe.

However, I got to thinking, with the increasing percentage of immigrants and new citizens originally from China and other Asian countries living in Canada, maybe there are more than a few here whose lives are informed by Confucianism. Anybody out there?

As for the religion vs. philosophy debate, my opinion after knowing people whose belief systems are informed by Confucious teachings is that it is a religion. It's my opinion that just because religion isn't practised in an organized way in the East as it is in the West, doesn't mean that their philosophies are not similar to our religions, yes?

It's a question of semantics, I guess: is religion defined by organization and institution, or more by influence on people's lives and their belief systems (or other). If the latter, than it's my opinion that Confucianism is indeed a religion. Thoughts to the above?


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Question for those who who believe in the Christian concept of Creation: how do you explain such things as:
1) Radiocarbon and fossil dating showing certain animals, rocks, etc. to have been around for millions of years?
2) If the stars were only created 6,000 years ago, how do we see them, since it takes millions of light years for their light to reach earth?

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above details, I dropped science after 10th grade 



MacDoc said:


> DJI find the Iran/Iraq detente fascinating.


Do you think this is due primarily to having to appear/be stronger/united in the face of another enemy, namely the U.S.?

Any background reading info you can suggest?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Where's Scientology!?!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Seriously, I don't care what religion anybody is. It's when they throw it in my face that I get a little peeved.

Using your religious beliefs to do any harm to anybody physically, mentally, or emotionally is reprehensible, and why you would follow such a belief system is beyond me.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Can I change my vote?


Can I vote for all 10?

I'm undecided...
Perhaps when I'm on my deathbed I might understand why the Catholics made me right handed. 
(Although the toilet paper is on the right side of the public toilet, Maybe that's why they made me right handed)

As for the rest...
I'm sure there are other reasons why I should be screwed up by their ideals.

Right?


----------



## theonly_bandever_ (Jun 7, 2005)

I am of the Wiccan religion.A.K.A Wicca


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

dolawren said:


> Perhaps when I'm on my deathbed I might understand why the Catholics made me right handed.


Because Satan sat on the left-handed side of God.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Because Satan sat on the left-handed side of God.


Of course...What a revelation!!! God had Satan on his left side!!!
How sinister of me not to have noticed this before...Of course!!!

(God damned Anglican's at King Edward Public School should never allowed those
damned Catholics to teach me grade one and tie my left hand behind my back.)

Do you think it's too late to sue?

I mean...Like...I don't believe in the right handed God,
Is there a Left handed God?
Is there a school that will teach me to be left handed again?
Can I regain the ability to think on the other side of my brain?


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

I believe in the religion of respect, trust and care.
And smiling and meaning it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Your implication, put in a nice way, is that I am biased b/c of a Jew. Therefore, I suppose, you imply that my position is tribal. Well, I am biased (and you aren't?), but you will be maybe surprised to note that I much prefer an Arab or a Muslim on my side than the Jews who are against me!
> 
> Understanding my argument has nothing to do with me being Jewish, this suggests that judging arguments only requires you to analyze the messenger instead of dealing with the facts of the argument. I don't ask your ethnic or religious credentials, because it is irrelevant.


You'll have to rewrite this as it does not make any sense to me. Who said anything about tribal? I don't know what you meant about the last sentence of the first paragraph... that made no sense to me whatsoever.

Understanding that you are Jewish makes me understand where your arguments in this regards come from. And they certainly do play into the discussions. If one is trying to argue something from an objective point of view you need to make sure there is no "conflict of interest".

I'm sure you feel very strongly about the Jewish/Arab conflict. That is natural, but is still boils down to the fact that there is overwhelming intolerance on both sides of the conflict. Pointing a finger at one side is not going to solve anything.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Your soapbox is really a house of cards. When you're looking for its support the most is when it will give out under your feet.
> 
> I think you're confused on terminology. A belief is not a religion because it's a belief. A religion is beliefs based on the absence of evidence. Scientist have beliefs as well: that the earth is round and goes around the sun, or that hemoglobin in our blood carries oxygen to our cells, or that penicillin-based medicines can control bacteria disease. These beliefs are based on evidence.


No, I don't think I'm confused on terminology, but we are using different ones. I don't think every belief is necessarily a religion. I do think that the belief system known as 'science' functions in the same way as religion for many people. Hence my use of the phrase "functionally equivalent". 

Faith is generally understood as belief without scientific evidence. Many--not all--people who are all about science and anti-religion, take scientific discovery as an act of faith. They do not understand the underlying proofs, do not know the difference between fact and well-accepted theory, but will spout it with as much zeal as a religious fundamentalist. They take these facts on faith, without the need for evidence. Whether or not these facts are actually factual is irrelevant--a scientist said so. This, to me, is faith.

Note that religion--while frequently encompassing faith--is not necessarily simply faith. Zen buddhists and Jainism are religions, but they are more of of a philosophy or a way of living. The bigger terminology question becomes what is religion? 

In a lot of ways, I think it's simpler not to define religion, but to examine how a religion functions for people. For example, many people turn to religion to explain the inexplicable--answers range from "God's plan" to "it simply Is." People turn to science for the same reasons. Religion to provide a greater purpose and meaning to their existence for people. Science also has an answer for this--why perform scientific research? "The pursuit of knowledge", "To benefit mankind", etc. 

I haven't been on this soapbox in a while, but yes, I do think that science and religion perform much of the same function in our lives. I'll be the first to admit that this is not a rigourously researched soapbox, but nothing has yet disproved it to me.

I take it a step further to say that scientific truth and religious truth are functionally equivalent truth systems--different standards for provability and evidence. But then again, what is truth?



> The political equality of men is indeed a fact. The proof of this fact is rather lengthy, but a look into the political philosophy section of the bookstore would be a good place to find it. (Just avoid the Chomsky.)


Well, I have a hard time seeing how this would be proven, and I'd definitely need a much clearer idea of what exactly you mean by political equality, but really, is believing something to be true without knowing that it has been proven any different that than believing something unprovable?

In any case, proofs begin with simple premises. One must accept the premise to accept the proof. Arguably, believe the premise is an act of faith.



> Finally: when you claim that the political beliefs of the world's liberal democracies are not facts, only "widespread beliefs," you legitimize the tyrants, the theocrats, and the terrorists of our world. If the worst thing you can say to bin Laden, or the Unabomber, or Timothy McVey is "most of us believe you're wrong," our society is cooked.


I don't see how accepting the they have a belief legitimizes tyrants. They have do have a belief--that they should rule. I have a contrary belief--that they should not. My belief may also be that I must work to overthrow the tyrant.... You don't have to agree with a belief to acknowledge its existence.

Most of us do believe bin Laden or the Unabomber or Timothy McVey are wrong (i.e., contrary to our belief system), and most of us also believe that they should be punished for it. Society typically shares a common set of core beliefs such as this.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You'll have to rewrite this as it does not make any sense to me. Who said anything about tribal? I don't know what you meant about the last sentence of the first paragraph... that made no sense to me whatsoever.
> 
> Understanding that you are Jewish makes me understand where your arguments in this regards come from. And they certainly do play into the discussions. If one is trying to argue something from an objective point of view you need to make sure there is no "conflict of interest".
> 
> I'm sure you feel very strongly about the Jewish/Arab conflict. That is natural, but is still boils down to the fact that there is overwhelming intolerance on both sides of the conflict. Pointing a finger at one side is not going to solve anything.


I think what I said was quite clear. I have no more a "conflict of interest" than you do. How are you splendidly disinterested? If you were, you wouldn't have an opinion one way or another! I have a bias as much as you do, and I reject any claim that my argument should be interpreted in terms of me being Jewish because it makes me allegedly not "objective". A moral relativist like you should not be interested in using categories such as "objective" at any rate.

The argument does not rest on whether one is a Jew, an Arab, or any other category. It rests on the facts and soundness of the argument. I cannot claim your argument is wrong because you are [fill in the blanks ethnic group here]. 

Pray tell, jonesy, where did you get the idea that i think "pointing a finger at one side" would "solve" the conflict? I no more believe that than I believe in your fatuous ideas of moral equivalence. It ain't illegitmate "pointing fingers" to note the Islamofascist death cult is a Jew-hating, modernity-loathing movement that pretty much makes the use of force against them a given, to some degree, until they give up, agree to renounce their war, or are killed. That is, unless, you think we the Jews, the Americans, the Indians, the Filipinos, the Australians, the British, the Thais, everyone, we should just capitulate to their unending list of demands!

Well, I won't ask your ethnic or religious origin b/c it would not prove a thing about your argument. It will just distract from the actual argument, something you are understandably trying to do---a real argument, after all, requires distinctions of the kind a moral relativist philosophy is not up to the task of making. And that's one of the reasons I called it dangerous in the first place.


----------



## Rubber Ducky (Apr 21, 2005)

Religion is the last mountain that keeps us all seperated. Personally, I would like to believe that I am a Christian, however my faith is far different than what you would find in church. I think that it is ultimately up to a person and their faith, as religion is a very personal thing. There are books ( Bible, Koran, and others) which provide our very distinct societies with guidlines, rules and ways of conduct, so that we can make the right choices morally and spiritually. They all say the same thing, but in such a way that the culture that it is directed to understands it. It provides a social order and a way of thinking to which we homosapiens need to rise above being simple animals.

I am of the opinion that every written work of each religion has a "pearl-of-widsom" and that combining these works would provide us with the true faith (note I said "faith" , not "religion") ... but then again it is all ultimately up to ones personal interpretation.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> A religion is beliefs based on the absence of evidence. (Scientific) beliefs are based on evidence.





Sonal said:


> Faith is generally understood as belief without scientific evidence.


Yay, you both agree!!! Well, kinda....   

A question for you 2 blokes. (Thanks for the passionate dialogue btw, provided me with my entertainment for the day!  )

If science -- and not the science that is faith-like, but the science which is actually well proven, beyond a doubt -- contradicts your faith, should your faith change to incorporate the scientific facts? Or do you maintain belief in your faith, knowing that it must be right? Or option C .... not sure what that would be!

**********



Rubber Ducky said:


> Religion is the last mountain that keeps us all seperated.


To sum up what everyone has said on this point, it's not religion per say, but the prejudice against others that exists in religions that is the last mountain that keeps us all separated. As has been said, much good has come out of religion (e.g. food banks, prayer to unify people in times of agony, etc.). However, it's the negative which most often makes the front page, leading to incomplate blanket statements like the above.

My 2 cents, anyways.

**********

Oh, and I'd hate to wade into the argument even further, but........



planethoth said:


> I think what I said was quite clear. I have no more a "conflict of interest" than you do. How are you splendidly disinterested? If you were, you wouldn't have an opinion one way or another! I have a bias as much as you do, and I reject any claim that my argument should be interpreted in terms of me being Jewish because it makes me allegedly not "objective".


A few things.

First, someone who is neither a Jew nor an Arab is more likely than not to be more objective about the Jewish/Palestinian conflict than someone who is one or the other. Except, maybe, for someone who is both, who can fully understand both sides, and arrive at a decision which is just and fair. BUT, I have yet to meet such a person.

Also, you are right, da_jonesy is not disinterested, and he does have an opinion on this issue. BUT, he does not have a "conflict of interest". Conflict of interest, according to dictionary.com, is defined as a conflict between competing duties. da_jonesy is neither a Jew nor an Arab, so he does not possess such a conflict when commenting on the Jewish/Palestinian issue. However, you are a Jew (I think?). If so, according to the definition, you do possess a conflict.

Consider this: would you expect the NAACP to side with white police officers if a black man is beaten by them? Do you expect Canadians to side with Americans who chose until yesterday's court decision to reject our beef products? No, because the NAACP and Canadians have a conflict of interest. That's not to suggest what they have to say on the topic is not important, or irrelevant, because it is VERY IMPORTANT. Objective parties in both examples -- the courts and representatives from NAFTA and/or UN -- must listen to and understand the arguments made by each subjective side to confer an objective opinion and resolve the dispute.

Similarly, what you have to say on the Jewish/Palestinian conflict is also important. Just understand that it is not an objective opinion, whereas da_jonesy does not have a conflict of interest and is at the very least in a position to display more objectiveness.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you do not have such a conflict, or at least display some degree of objectiveness. However, saying things such as the following in describing a segment of the Palestinian population, without commenting on the Jewish actions which exacberated the problem, dethrones you of the status.



planethoth said:


> It ain't illegitmate "pointing fingers" to note the Islamofascist death cult is a Jew-hating, modernity-loathing movement that pretty much makes the use of force against them a given....


**********



da_jonesy said:


> I'm sure you feel very strongly about the Jewish/Arab conflict. That is natural, but is still boils down to the fact that there is overwhelming intolerance on both sides of the conflict. Pointing a finger at one side is not going to solve anything.


Although indirectly, you're painting your new buddy planethoth into a corner, by suggesting that his 2 cents are "intolerant" and that he is simply "pointing fingers" at the Palestinians. It's time to call a truce -- or do the Canadian thing and take him to Tim Horton's for a donut and coffee -- and thank him for his opinion, especially because it does provide further perspective on the Jewish/Palestinian issue.

And bring me back a cheese croissant and a peach drink. God (appropriate given our conscientious discussion of religion), there are certain things I miss from back home!


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

Btw, where are all the Muslim and Sikh Mac enthusiasts????

Oh, and someone should start another poll to find out how many would have voted "Jewish", if such an option existed.

YAY!!! (excited shouting in the background in work and home offices, student dormitories, and bathrooms -- don't deny it, all you PB and iBook owners bring your laptops with you when you go! -- all across Canada, due to their excitement about another post on religion )


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

iKV: While most of your argument is sensible, it still pays lip service to a non-existent "objectivity" that supposedly flows from not being either of the parties of a conflict. The argument is not based on WHO is delivering it. It is based on whether or not the argument itself can be defended on its own terms.

Like previously, this is a useless diversion into the realm of unverifiable internal categories such as (in this case, my) motivations, biases, etc. The veracity of an argument does not hinge on the person who delivers it. It hinges on itself, and itself only. Calling it a "conflict of interest" is not a point at all, but a smug use of a term that only serves as conjecture about motives while dealing nothing with the actual argument.

We cannot legitimately reject the argument of the NAACP or Canadians, in your example, just because they are biased! We know they are biased. So what? It makes not a bit of difference as to what the argument they are advancing is.

Being a non-Arab or non-Jew does not entitle you to any objectivity in forming a position about the Middle East. The suggestion is condescending, and factually inaccurate.

I am biased against jihadists, yes---and I have been trying to tell you why. I don't feel the need, as some of you seem to, to morally equivocate about things in an attempt to pretend things are even-handed and everyone is equal in blame. There are plenty of Jews who side with the enemy, as far as I am concerned, so maybe you consider them "less biased", but then you would be dreaming. Even-handedness is not a proof for an argument.

Let's just stop the armchair speculation about motives. Enough is enough; deal with the argument on its own terms.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Also, FYI: I was not simply referring to the Palestinians when I said "Islamofascist death cult", a term which i think is entirely accurate. I was describing the entire jihadist movement that unfortunately has great prevalence among the Palestinians as it does elsewhere in the Arab world. So that applies to the bastards in Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines and in the Hizb ut-Tahrir party in Britain as much as it does to the bastards in Hamas.


----------



## iKV (Oct 3, 2004)

planethoth said:


> iKV: While most of your argument is sensible, it still pays lip service to a non-existent "objectivity" that supposedly flows from not being either of the parties of a conflict. The argument is not based on WHO is delivering it. It is based on whether or not the argument itself can be defended on its own terms.
> 
> Like previously, this is a useless diversion into the realm of unverifiable internal categories such as (in this case, my) motivations, biases, etc. The veracity of an argument does not hinge on the person who delivers it. It hinges on itself, and itself only. Calling it a "conflict of interest" is not a point at all, but a smug use of a term that only serves as conjecture about motives while dealing nothing with the actual argument.


I can agree to disagree here.



planethoth said:


> We cannot legitimately reject the argument of the NAACP or Canadians, in your example, just because they are biased! We know they are biased. So what? It makes not a bit of difference as to what the argument they are advancing is.


Let me be a bit clearer. I'm not rejecting the argument of the NAACP or Canadians, just like I'm not rejecting your argument, boss. In fact, I stated all are VERY IMPORTANT in having a more complete understanding.

All I'm saying is that there are 2 sides to a the coin, oftentimes more. You present one of those sides very well, but your opinion is skewed to one party in the argument.



planethoth said:


> Being a non-Arab or non-Jew does not entitle you to any objectivity in forming a position about the Middle East. The suggestion is condescending, and factually inaccurate.


Not saying being a non-Arab or non-Jew entitles everyone to objectivity in forming a position on the Middle East. But, being a non-Arab and non-Jew (or perhaps being both an Arab/Muslim and Jew) is important in remaining objective. And the Jews who support the Arabs and vice versa, while in the minority, their opinion is valuable as well in forming an objective opinion.

Ultimately, while it is us more objective folk who can provide some level of 30,000 foot objective perspective on the issue, it is Arabs and Jews like you who need to respect each others' differences, including your need to understand the Jewish problems that exacberate the Islamofascists, as you call themm.



planethoth said:


> Enough is enough.


You're right boss. It was fun while it lasted.  Take the last word, and remind da_jonesy to bring me back my croissant and peach drink, woulda?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iKV said:


> Yay, you both agree!!! Well, kinda....
> 
> A question for you 2 blokes. (Thanks for the passionate dialogue btw, provided me with my entertainment for the day!  )
> 
> If science -- and not the science that is faith-like, but the science which is actually well proven, beyond a doubt -- contradicts your faith, should your faith change to incorporate the scientific facts? Or do you maintain belief in your faith, knowing that it must be right? Or option C .... not sure what that would be!


Glad you're entertained--I sure am. I can keep this up until the new Harry Potter book arrives, and then I'm out.

I had to quibble on the definition of religion simply because many science-types start painting religion into this "set of beliefs that aren't 'true', but you believe them anyway" corner. Gets into a whole issue of who or what defines 'true'. In some religion/science debates, I think you will see as much intolerance of 'religious truths' in favour of science as you would in the most zealous, hardcore fundamentalist sect. But in these arguments, science is 'proven' by the scientific method and is presented as therefore better... I don't think it's necessarily better, but just a different (and widely accepted) means of defining what we consider true and factual. In different cultures, or earlier eras of our own culture, this has not been the case. 

I think that religious truths, for those who accept them, are no less true that scientific truths. I mean, if the existence of a god is a truth for you, then as far as your concerned god exists. This is true and factual in your world. People insult or work to disprove that fact for someone else is no better to me than another pushing the existence or the rightness of a set of religious truths on someone who does not accept them.

So if you are presented with a scientific truth that contradicts your religious truth, should you necessarily change? I don't know--to do so implies a personal preference towards scientific truth vs. religious truth. If that works for you, go for it. If it doesn't work for you, then don't. If you can find a personal compromise--such as in the Scopes trial, where they combined a way to accept evolutionary theory without necessarily dismissing creation theory--then that's also up to do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I had to quibble on the definition of religion simply because many science-types start painting religion into this "set of beliefs that aren't 'true', but you believe them anyway" corner. Gets into a whole issue of who or what defines 'true'. In some religion/science debates, I think you will see as much intolerance of 'religious truths' in favour of science as you would in the most zealous, hardcore fundamentalist sect. But in these arguments, science is 'proven' by the scientific method and is presented as therefore better... I don't think it's necessarily better, but just a different (and widely accepted) means of defining what we consider true and factual. In different cultures, or earlier eras of our own culture, this has not been the case.


This is interesting as I said before when you take into account things like String Theory. With String theory there is an attempt to unify theories such as Relativity with theories around electromagnetism and sub-atomic particles theories.

Aside from the astounding implications around string theory (reagrding dimensions of space and the structure of matter), what is interesting is that there is no means by which to test it (and thus prove it) beyond mathematical equations. Thus is String theory science or a belief?


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

forgot jewish


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Being a non-Arab or non-Jew does not entitle you to any objectivity in forming a position about the Middle East. The suggestion is condescending, and factually inaccurate.


No it is not factually inaccurate. Once again i give you the definition of objective...

ob•jec•tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj. 

1/. Of or having to do with a material object. 
2/. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. 

You cannot have an objective viewpoint and thus provide an objective argument in this regards. Your cultural background aside, everything you have said about Islam has been negative. Prove me wrong and say something positive about the Arab culture and Islam as a religion.




planethoth said:


> Even-handedness is not a proof for an argument.


No it is not proof for an argument, however an argument cannot be discussion rationally without even handedness being present. Without objectivity arguments devolve quickly into slinging rhetoric 



planethoth said:


> Let's just stop the armchair speculation about motives. Enough is enough; deal with the argument on its own terms.


OK lets deal with the argument, why don't you tell us... enlighten us as to how you think the Arab/Israeli conflict should be dealt with?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Wow, do I love working DSL.



da_jonesy said:


> This is interesting as I said before when you take into account things like String Theory. With String theory there is an attempt to unify theories such as Relativity with theories around electromagnetism and sub-atomic particles theories.
> 
> Aside from the astounding implications around string theory (reagrding dimensions of space and the structure of matter), what is interesting is that there is no means by which to test it (and thus prove it) beyond mathematical equations. Thus is String theory science or a belief?


I still maintain that science is a belief--belief in the scientific method, anyway. But I know what you're asking, and it's an interesting question.

Mathematical proof is interesting since in math, you typically start out with a bunch of very basic axioms that you accept and proceed logically from there--similar to accepting a premises or definitions in other debates. You're also accepting that mathematics used accurately reflects the universe. Act of belief, in some ways. 

But yes, while it's mathematically provable, String theory is currently not scientifically provable because it currently can't be tested. So how 'true' is it? 

Not an answer, I know, but more fodder for my soapbox. I do think that when you start stretching the boundaries of science, you start walking our of the realm of scientifically provable fact, and into the realm of faith and belief.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Not an answer, I know, but more fodder for my soapbox. I do think that when you start stretching the boundaries of science, you start walking our of the realm of scientifically provable fact, and into the realm of faith and belief.


It is a very interesting argument... one of my favorate quotes (I forget from where) is... 

"when science finally peeks over the hill that is all knowledge it will find religion on the other side staring back at them".


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> It is a very interesting argument... one of my favorate quotes (I forget from where) is...
> 
> "when science finally peeks over the hill that is all knowledge it will find religion on the other side staring back at them".


That's a good quote. I think religion deals with many issues that science is simply not equipped to deal with--at least not yet. 

In any case, I must back out of this debate now, for Harry Potter has arrived.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sonal you do want to muddle. 

It's why string theory is a THEORY and also why gravity is a THEORY - there are still elements not explained or completed. Science is a process - what you draw from it is your ontology and YOU may choose from that to believe in a underlying godhead or or take the observations, explaining structures at face value.

There was no physical proof of Einstein's theories initially either - science is a process not a belief.

It's like discussing chess and fishing. Different paradyms.

Trying to cross the two is confusing and a fundamentally a waste of time. This romantic view of all will be one just speaks to wishful thinking.
Silly apes.

Hydrogen and oxygen will bond whether we are here or not and represent a physical process, just as the sun will continue far beyond our species birth and death.

Religious belief requires PEOPLE who believe. It's a sociological phenomena.

The neat thing about string theory is it opens physical possibilities to a stranger universe than ever imagined. It's as foggy as the quantum universe was at the beginning of the last century and quantum still makes my head hurt let alone string theory.

The universe is complicated enough, complicating it further with poor language just makes it worse.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> No it is not factually inaccurate. Once again i give you the definition of objective...
> 
> ob•jec•tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
> adj.
> ...



Jonesy, good lord man, I have said several times that my criticism is NOT directed at Islam as a whole. Furthermore, I DID give an example of something positive in Arab culture in another thread where we were arguing.

It should go without saying that "Islamist" is not the same as "Islam" or "Muslim", but whether you call them "Islamist", "jihadist", "fundamentalist", etc., imperfect as any of those terms are, they mean to say that this ideology also takes Islam as its central motivation and inspiration for its aims and its methods.

I am not aiming to provide a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, since I don't think there will be one in this generation or the next. The most important factor is psychological, not territorial--the Arab world has largely not accepted Israel, and Israel cannot accept its own destruction. This makes conflict inevitable, and I will not propose anything that will solve that, b/c that would just be deluded.

Islam is obviously a compelling religion to over a billion people. I myself credit it with being compelling, far more compelling than empty moral relativism. However, it is not unobjective of me to say that the current situation is that the majority of the world's terrorists--that is, people who deliberately use violence against non-combatants--use Islam as their primary justification for their actions. This is not incidental, unfortunately. "Jihad" goes back to the ultimate Muslim, the Prophet Muhammed.

Ultimately, this global conflict, which is far greater than Iraq or Afghanistan or 'Palestine', can only be solved by Muslims themselves. They must be the ones who choose which way their religion will go, whether it will revert to the jihadism or it will emphasize its peaceful elements. Like all religions, Islam is complex system and has seemingly paradoxical elements--but, regrettably, it so happens that it is pretty much the only religion where holy war is basically an obligation of the believer. That needs to be reckoned with, and that is what I have been saying.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Sonal you do want to muddle.
> 
> It's why string theory is a THEORY and also why gravity is a THEORY - there are still elements not explained or completed. Science is a process - what you draw from it is your ontology and YOU may choose from that to believe in a underlying godhead or or take the observations, explaining structures at face value.
> 
> ...


Chess and fishing are both recreational activities... 

And yes, I'm aware that gravity and string theory and the big bang are theories and not actual proven explanations for physical phenomena--they are simply theories that best fit the available evidence. Further scientific theory builds on these widely-accepted theories by first assuming they are true, and then continuing for there. There may be a lot of explanation for it, but it's getting further and further from scientifically proven fact and into well-justified belief.

I'm actually a little bit confused about what the point you're trying to make is here, but what I'm getting is that religion and science are different, period, and trying to examine some kind of a meta-system that relates the two is a waste of time that complicates things for no good purpose. 

If so, that's fine, but personally, I think this kind of purposeless, thought-exercise of a discussion is a lot of fun.


----------

