[ExI] Religions and violence.

[samantha]

Tomasz Rola wrote:
>
> On the other hand, one could hardly disagree with these Hitler's words:
>
> "I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that 
> the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But 
> the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an 
> agent of the State ..."
>
>   
I disagree vehemently with this!  The "community" is only a collection 
of individuals.  It has no special rights that trump those of the 
individuals it is composed of.  The widespread belief that it does is 
precisely what makes horrors such as Nazism possible.  It is what is 
destroying even that one time symbol of deepest appreciation of the 
individual and individual rights, America. 

> Sounds like good presidential candidate, isn't he?
>
>   
I hope this is sarcasm.

>  [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ]
>
> Now, the problem is, every Nazi individual could implement this ideology 
> in slightly different way. Even in some cases, he could only pay lip 
> service to it. While this is not freeing him from guilt, such cases must 
> be treated differently from cases of active supporters of Nazism. And I 
> see nothing unusual in this approach.
>
>   
>> Mr. Rola, if your philosophy is so nambe-pambe that you're too squeamish 
>> to even condemn the Nazis then something is seriously wrong! 
>>     
>
> Mr Clark, my philosophy is, everybody should get what he deserves. But 
> before I tell what he deserves, his case should be examined. Otherwise I 
> am no better than a mob.
>   
Unless given your adulation for the above the mob says he deserves X in 
which case you think your individual opinion is not relevant, no?

> It is nothing like being weak minded. Quite the contrary, I think it is 
> weak thing to go by, flow with the current, without questioning things and 
> agree with everybody around without objection, just because "everybody 
> does so".

You sound like a healthy individualist there.

>  To be a good man, good human, means to me actively researching 
> and making decisions. I mean, to be good, one has to be active, not 
> passive. To make decisions is to actually do some mental work, not simply 
> accepting being told (or suggested, like the news do) what to think.
>   

Yep.

> There is nothing wrong with it. I can be either right or wrong or between. 
> If I am right, I am right. In other cases, I should learn and understand, 
> so I can correct myself.
>
>   
>>>>  writer Naguib Mahfouz who's novel is banned in most of the Islamic 
>>>> world for 
>>>> blasphemy.
>>>>         
>>> Well, Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much if it wasn't controversial.
>>>       
>> I'm not talking about being controversial, I'm talking about using force 
>> to prevent someone from reading a novel from a Nobel Prize winner. Are 
>> you really sure you want to defend this?
>>     
>
> No. I am sure that I am for allowing people to choose by themselves. I 
> consider this to be an error on the part of Islamic authorities. 

The first error is even allowing such "authorities" in the first place.  
But by the Hitler quote above that you admire I suppose you are in 
principle find with any claimed "voice for the community or collective" 
"authorities".


> As I have 
> mentioned in one earlier post, such overreaction is a sign of weakness or 
> lack of confidence. This might be connected with possible cultural shock, 
> that Islamic world experienced after WW2.
Are you making excuses for an inexcusable breach of human rights?  Why? 


>   
>>> the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't stop me from 
>>> analysing it.
>>>       
>> But it should stop you from defending it.
>>     
>
> I am not defending it. I refuse to attack it before I find good reason for 
> this. That's a big difference. But it does not prevent me from condemning 
> terrorists (of all kinds), for example.
>   

Have you looked at it much at all?  Irrational religion (is there 
another kind?)?  Check.  Militantly intolerant?  In many parts of the 
world, Check.  Anti-individual rights?  Mostly, Check.   What exactly do 
you need to examine beyond this? 

>   
>>>> This last part is aimed at the apologists for all religions not just 
>>>> Islam, when they preach about the wonderful things these organizations 
>>>> have done they always ignore one little fact, it's all based on a 
>>>> colossal lie. Doesn't the truth count for something?
>>>>         
>>> If you mean lie about God's existence, this had not been proved yet. Truth 
>>> would count much more if you could prove it. Before that, "lie" is true in 
>>> 50%... or more.
>>>       
>> Mr. Rola, regarding Christian or Islamic philosophy, did you really find 
>> it necessary to put the word lie into weasel quotation marks, and is 
>> this really a direction you want this debate to move in?
>>     
>
> I have no intention of moving this debate anywhere. Mr Clark, if you want 
> to escape from belief, you cannot use belief-based arguments. So, if you 
> would like to prove that God does not exist, you should use rational 
> arguments.

*sputter*  It is up to asserters to prove God does exist. Not the other 
way around. 

>  So, like in math books, we start with A, B, C, and go on using 
> logic until we arrive to Z which states "God does not exist".

Also I would hope you know that proving a negative is scarcely 
possible.   You can show contradictions or that necessary consequences 
of the truth of a proposition do not occur.  The first is not that 
difficult with most notions of "God".  The second is not doable as 
"God's Will" is always claimed to be mysterious and beyond our puny 
understanding.  Not to mention that the priesthoods go through pains 
usually to make no predictions.  When one of their member does and it 
falls flat generally no one changes their belief one iota.

>  And after 
> that, "quod erat demonstrandum" (which was to be proved), but this last 
> sentence is optional. For a good example of how they do this, I remember 
> group theory from my algebra course. This is what would satisfy me.
>
>   
What?  That leads me to think I am wasting my time typing this.


- s

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100801/efaaf7a9/attachment.html>