Then when you read my response:
You might have responded with something like "hmm, good point" or "yes, I know, I just get sick of rabid believers blaming everything on sin" or "Fair enough." Instead of:
At worst? Only? Even if your argument is more reasonable (more apparently obvious) than theirs, why stoop to that?
"Stoop" to what? I don't think I
did make that argument. In retrospect, I think I may have phrased myself poorly, but what I
meant was that I
could make that argument and
if I did it would be just as rational as any religious "proofs" I've ever heard. But it was but a side comment, only parenthetically noted, as you may or may not have noticed, which perhaps I shouldn't have made at all, as it just to gave you something further beside the main point to "jump on" as if I
was actually making that argument or had ever stated anything remotely so "irrational" in my post(s) to which you were responding in the first place (although as questionable as it's
relevance might be to my REAL point, I don't think it was an inaccurate statement either).
"LTTE has carried out more suicide bombings than any other organization on Earth. According to Jane's Information Group, between 1980 to 2000 LTTE had carried out a total of 168 suicide attacks on civilians and military targets. The number of suicide attacks easily exceeded the combined total of Hezbollah and Hamas suicide attacks carried out during the same period."
-from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam
which I found linked from:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...-so-angry-at-us/2005/07/22/1121539145036.html
which also says:
"Although terrorist leaders may harbour other goals, history shows that the presence of foreign combat forces is the principal recruiting tool used by terrorist leaders to mobilise suicide terrorists to kill us."
Forgive me for not having more sources yet, you are the first atheist who's bothered to ask (most say I'm wrong and stop there because of their own vendettas).
Okay. And what does this have to do with my original statement(s)? True, I don't know exactly what was going on in the minds of those "immediately responsible" for the "9/11 incident", as I doubt anyone knows for certain what's going on in
anyone else's mind with anything like absolute certainty. But possibly I chose a bad example, in selecting an obvious and well-known example, and I admit to probably doing so without great thought as in this case it was really what you might call a "hypothetical example" of the point I was making. And the more important, or fundamental point I was trying to make was that irratonal or delusional thinking is often associated with what we might reasonably regard, and at least loosely term, as irrational or delusionnal
actions -- and that
some of those irrational or delusional actions
may, and sometimes
do, take the
form of violence, which we might therefore reasonably refer to as "irrational violence", or perhaps somewhat more accurately, "irrationally
motivated violence or violent acts/actions". And the only logical bases on which I can think of which you might logically argue that this/these observation(s) is/are false, or incorrect, would be if:
1. You don't "believe in" irrational or delusional thinking or beliefs. That is, you don't believe that any thoughts or beliefs are any more or any less based on rational thought or analysis than any others (which might suggest that so-called "magical beliefs" have the same degree of, or kind of, validity, or comform as well to reality, or "reflect" or represent or perceive what we call objective reality, with the same degree of accuracy or relevance as, say, scientifically-derived beliefs). Or
2. You don't believe that "as a man thinketh, so is he" -- that is to say that a person's thoughts or beliefs influence and/or are "associated with", or "related to" his/her actions in some relevant way. Or
3. You don't believe that "common" religious belief (by which here and above I'm most specifically referring to those beliefs which might commonly be referred to as "fundamentalist" religious beliefs, including an acceptance of "preposterous" or "outrageous" biblical claims as literally true; e.g., the actual "real" resurrection of Jesus Christ and other biblical "miracles", the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, etc) might be reasonably regarded as irrational and/or delusional in nature.
4. You don't agree with either Statement 1 or 2 above in general, but you feel there's a "special exception" of some kind specifically with regard to
violent acts/actions or behavior -- or for some reason you believe that any "association" between thoughts or beliefs and actions is irrelevant specifically with regard to what most of us might refer to as violent acts or actions. At least I
think most of us, "believer" and skeptic alike, might agree on what is usually meant by "violence" or "acts of violence" in the most general sense.
I'm still not sure if I'm completely clear on your stance with regard to point 1, above, although as I seem to recall your implying something "irrational" in something I had said, if my memory is correct, that might be taken to at least implicitly suggest that you
do appreciate some kind of a "difference", or distinction, between rational and irrational thoughts and/or beliefs.
Although I'm striongly inclined to suspect that most people -- "believer", skeptic, and scientist alike -- accept implicitly as fact a close "association" between a person's thoughts and his/her actions, as few facts about human experience might seem more self-evident to each and every one of us, your "position" on this question might seem at least a little "fuzzy", if not a little "wishy-washy". But short of combing every word you've written thus far in this thread, I can't say I can think of anything you said explicitly and unequivically stating a "position" on this. But if you
don't accept this "widely accepted as self-evident" association, I hope you might offer some hint as to the basis for your not accepting it, as it might be hard to think of any "assumption" more fundamental to the modern study of psychology and human behavior. .
Regarding "point 3", of course, even calling yourself an atheist might at least strongly suggest that you don't "beleve in" what are commonly referred to as "fundamentalist" religious beliefs, and I might be inclined to assume that you feel that your belief (or disbelief if you prefer) is based on some sort of rational thought or analysis and/or a careful consideration or investigation of the truly best evidence. But perhaps you feel that "fundamentalist" religious beliefs are based on no less rational analysis or consideration, or no less quality of evidence, than is your own "disbelief", in which case I guess I'm not sure on what, exactly, you
do base your own disbelief. But perhaps you can somewhat better clarify your position on this point.
'
As Point 4 is related to Points 1 ans 2, I guess you can attempt clarify the basis of this "exception" if, and only if, it might be applicable.
Of course, if there's some other point I'm missing relevant to this which I haven't listed above, instead of or in addition to any of those I've listed here, which I'm unable to think of myself at the moment, hopefully you will apprise me of it. Otherwise, or regardless, the only relevant bases I can think of of the sources you've quoted (or anything else you've said thus far) to what I've said might be had I claimed one or more of the following:
1. Religion ALWAYS "leads to" violent bahavior.
2. Violent behavior is invariably based on religious belief.
3. Violence has no other "cause", or basis, OTHER than (irrational) religious belief .(Which is really pretty much the same as the previous) Or at least:
4. Violence is always "irrational" (or based on irrational thinking) -- and/or it is always "wrong".
But since I don't believe I said any of the above, nor that anything I've said could be
reasonably or logically interpreted as implying any of the above, you might seem to have made unwarranted "black and white"
assumptions from what I said, and thus unreasonably
inferred from my words things which I never said nor even remotely intended to imply. Again, it was your
inferences, or your interpretations, of what I said which were "black and white", NOT any point *I* was making. But if you can clearly show me where I said any of the above, such that any reasonable (and dare I say rational?) person might take it the way you did, and only that way, please do. Otherwise, it still seems clear that all your most-repeated and emphasized aruments have been on the basis of "straw men" -- whether on the basis of a sincere misunderstanding of my points or as deliberate obfuscation.
That's just it, the petri dish was the outer limit of my analogy; as I said, the trend is "ubiquitous throughout all domains of life." Which is to say dogs, chimps, rats- all the animals most like humans- as well. The petri dish is just an attempt to put it in very simple terms. There isn't enough stuff for a thriving, ever-increasing population of anything. And it's arrogant to assume that we're not susceptible to it because we're not animals or something. Like I said, it's a leisurely pursuit to even be able to consider these things; most living humans are working too hard to stay alive.
It might indeed be arrogant to assume that we're not "susceptible" to violence -- as it might also seem arrogant of you to believe that you need to "educate" me on this point, as it isn't any more relevant to my original main point(s) now than it was the first time you brought it up. Because I NEVER claimed that "all violence" was avoidable or irrational, nor certainly did I EVER say that "all violence" is/was "wrong". That seemed to be merely YOUR assumption, and again, I think it was clearly an unwarranted one based on ANYTHING I've said. That's why I've kept tryng to tell you from the start that you're making a "straw man" argument, as apparently you find it easier, or preferable, for whatever reason, to change what I said into something "black and white" in order to give YOURSELF a nice "neat" "black and white" rebuttal to it. But your "rebuttal" is entirely irrelevant if the argument you're making doesn't even address what I've ACTUALLY said -- which it doesn't. Whether you really still don't understrand what I actually said, or if you're being "deliberately obtuse" and hoping I won't notice, or that I'll just "play along" and get baited into an argument which has no direct bearing on what I DID say, I can only speculate, short of being a mindreader.
Other humans, no less. Breeding slaves - what a high point of human achievement (sarcasm, just in case anyone misses it). But still, hand in hand with our technological advancement has grown our ability to ignore the millions who reap no benefits from it. E.g., those whose governments have been installed and manipulated by ours, and who rob their people and manage so badly that they have to stand 16 hours a day (in some cases, obviously not all) to make a few dollars a month assembling electronics, shoes, clothing, etc. With the spread of mass communication, more and more of these injustices are exposed, and we're not as prepared as our ancestors were to completely dehumanize other humans, so our world seems to make less and less sense.
Ah, but "nature" (again, whoever she is) doesn't care. So why should you (or we?). (Sarcasm, just in case anyone misses it )
(And had I more time, I could take issue with a number of your observations in the above paragraph, or at least with your apparent implicit conclusion(s), but that all is truly completely irrelevant to anything I originally said, as far as I can tell. That is, it may not be an entirely
unrelated issue, but it is a
different basic issue or question, neither confirming nor negating my original statement with which you originally took issue, whether or not you actually understood exactly what you were taking issues with)
Sorry, I meant that you were demonizing religious believers, such as Hawkeye, who have very little in common with the desperate folks carrying out these attacks.
Sorry, but I can't accept that accusation at face value. Please tell me
exactly how YOU BELIEVE I was "demonizing" Hawkeye? But irrational or delusional beliefs ARE irrational or delusional beliefs. Whether or not they may "lead to" any particular "irrational or delusional acts" in any
particular case, or with any particular person, is another question, and one which I didn't address one way or another. But if you or anyone else chose to read more into what I said than I actually said or than I intended, that was your or their doing or thinking, not mine.
I've already stated that I don't care about wrong or culpable or pardonable or justifiable. History often shows that all sides in a dispute do some heinous things. Read up on Pol Pot, btw, he was a fanatical atheist responsible for many deaths.
Irrational? I don't know that an *act* can be rational or irrational.
For "not caring" about wrong or culpable or pardonable, your quote second above this one certainly appeared to me to have a distinct "moral tone" to it. Although, again, I don't claim to be a mindreader.
As for your "not knowing if an "act* can be rational or irrational, while the expression may be a loose or informal one, I think most people might understand that what is meant by an "irrational act" is one which is "based on" or "associated with" irrational thoughts. Do you "know if a THOUGHT can be rational or irrational"? (But if you'd like to spend awhile further nit-picking over my terms "based upon" or "associated with", I guess it IS a free country. Mine is, anyway, I can't recall if you said which one you're in. [/sarcasm]
One's understanding of one's own actions can be quite irrational, and I daresay usually is.
I'm not sure what this means, but it sounds at least a little like "double talk".
I DO think it is urgent to understand why these things happen, and I don't think lumping them in with religious belief is a step in that direction at all.
I do. That is, I believe that no irrational beliefs or thoughts (or any beliefs or thoughts, for that matter) should be copnsidered "above" criticism, including religious thoughts/beliefs. Of course, I don't beleve that thoughts should be, or even can be, "policed" (despite the wild claims of some religious fantatics who might seem to suggest otherwise, in their insistance, for example, that it might even be possible for anyone to deny them the right to pray in "public" places), but once you publicly express a thought then that thought become "public property" and is subject to any and all criticism and "attack." After all, that's simply "free speech", isn't it?
People on opposite sides of the world may moan the same name when bowing on their floor, but have completely opposite attitudes on everything under the sun, including sex, tolerance, violence, race, charity, adopting handicapped children, national borders, etc. I'm sure you know most of the holy books are so full of nonsense and contradiction that they can be used to justify anything.
True. Like the claim that they have ANY place in publicly-funded education, for example, an implication made in this thread which was what I was primarily countering in my first post, although you seem to have effectively diverted the subject from that until now. Although that's somewhat more of an attempt to interpret the consitution in such a way as to negate it's applicability to
them. (But then, they
are the "chosen few", aren't they?)
Do a search for posts by betchass with the keyword "religion" or "god"
Irrelevant..
That may just be the most ignorant statement anyone has ever directed at me. Next to the "argument with your wife" thing.
Ignorant it may well have been, as we might all be technically ignorant with regard to facts about we don't have enough information on which to base a definitive conclusion. And it certainly did appear to be a "knee-jerk" reaction to me, even while apparently igoring the clearly ignorant statements made by the party to whom I had been replying. And I don't know anything about you except the best I can make from your statements or "actions" here. And just as it might not be wise to judge a book by its cover, likewise, it might be wise to ultimately judge people more on their "actions" than on whatever "label" they may choose to apply to themselves You know, "if it walks like a duck..", etc.
And I was merely ribbing you (although I hope you're not ticklish there :laughing: ) about the (alleged) argument with your wife, as you seemed to "pounce" on my post with a zeal beyond your actual apparent understanding of it. But DO you still beat your wife? (And just to make sure it's clear, this IS a JOKE. Okay???
😉 )
I am glad that you apply such rigorous logic to my posts and motives.
I've done the best I can with what I've had to work with.
One thing has not changed in the history of life. The fit survive, the less fortunate do not. The belief that we have overcome this through creativity or rationality "leads to" "blaming" "unjustifiable" acts on certain groups or individuals, which is fine in the short term, but just perpetuates the team mentality.
You're simply misquoting me again. I don't believe I ever said that I believed "that we have overcome this [your statement about "survival of the fittest] through creativity or rationality". However, nor do I yet see what relevance the subject of natural selection has directly to do with my original point. Period. Never anywhere did I "preach against violence" in general, as you seem to persist in believing.
Sweet jesus in lower-case. You are going way beyond anything I said. Give me some examples of rationally motivated violence, so I can try to respond.
Given sufficient time I might be able to think of other examples, but to start with, how about as self-defense against
irrational violence.
😉
AGAIN:
See my sources above on suicide attacks.
Agan, irrelevant, as I've explained above, as you're "obsessing" on my specific example, which I've already said may not have been the best example, while essentially ignoring my more fundamental point.
You said that I didn't know anything about your economics. I know your location is listed as USA, and I know you're using a computer assembled/with parts made in who knows where. You can't answer for what systems you are or are not supporting. Until you can, how can you say religious believers like Hawkeye are contributing to violence and you are not?
How can I say that? In fact, I didn't say that. To say that you're very loose in your paraphrasing of me may be putting it politely.
All I know is that I've tried to discuss ideas, and you continually tell me I'm missing something, or I'm a closet Christian, or I've got a chip on my shoulder, or I need to reread your posts, and your protests that I'm missing what you're saying are not accompanied by explanations to correct me. Your supposition that religious fanaticism leads to suicide attacks is wrong. Your statement that cause and effect is irrelevant in this is wrong.
Again, you're repeatedly "obsessing" on my one "example", and ignoring the larger, more fundamental, point. (And again as a simple "technical" matter, you're paraphrasing of me is so loose as to essentially amount to misquoting me). And whatever I may or may not have said about cause and effect being irrelevant, first, simply saying my statement is "wrong" hardly qualifies as a meaningful argument. But I think what I said that was more relevant (to paraphrase myself this time in the attempt at greater clarity) is that looking at situations involving the complexities of human behavior as "simple" cause and effect issues may be at least a little overly simplistic. But if you believe I'm "wrong", I hope you have some idea WHY I'm wrong (although I could drag a red herring through the discussion here and say that "nature doesn't care about right or wrong, but that might appear to be a somewhat less than completely honest diversionary tactic.
😉 )
Go back and reread my first response; I didn't insult you, I only took issue with one little thing, and I pointed out exactly why. I didn't say you were ridiculous, I said that you had to admit that statement was. I wanted you to! You refused to see the rationality of my argument, instead vaguely insisting I was missing the point and asking a bunch of rhetorical questions about what I've stopped to consider, the answers to which were assumed to be "no", and which were completely pointless either way.
And I still question the "rationality" of your argument -- although it really amounts to questioning it's
relevance to what I
actually said which apparently YOU believed you were addressing, if it was obvious to me that you weren't. As for your "not insulting" me, I suspect that might be in the eye of the beholder, and I seriously question your objectivity on that question. And, yes, you seem to me to STILL be missing MY point. Who do you think understands my point better, me or you?
It's true you pissed me off; like I said, I've attempted to have this discussion with many other atheists, and they don't stop long enough to take the torn up Bible pages from their fists and type a rational response. But I don't like being called a Christian, or being told I'm missing everything when I'm taking note of a lot more than you know.
You've discussed this with MANY other atheists and they can't or won't type a "rational response"? But I thought you weren't sure if you even believed in "rational acts" or not. But if not, then how can you even EXPECT the "rational act" of a rational response? But if, among all these atheists, you ARE a "rational atheist" perhaps that makes you one of the "chosen few"? (sorry...couldn't resist
😉 )
