[ExI] Religions and violence

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, John Clark wrote:

> On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> >> 
> > John, I think you are awesomly unfair.
> 
> Well at least I'm awesome.

Good! But let this not stop you from improving.

> > you seem to judge a culture by its last 100 years? Maybe 50? This 
> > is simply unfair.
> 
> If you are a stupid and cruel person I would not think more highly of 
> you if I discovered that your great great great great great grandfather 
> was brilliant and kind. >

Why, actually I am stupid and cruel (how could you be so accurate?). This 
is why I have to learn and never forget about good brakes. Also, yes 
indeed I suspect at least some of my great great etc ancestors would be 
very suspicious about me. But I don't expect any favors because of this.

> >  there is much potential in Islam to improve and become acceptable in 
> > modern times.
> 
> I agree, in fact Islam has more potential for improvement than most 
> groups because almost any change would be an improvement.

Heh.

> If Islam 
> really wants to improve the first thing it should do is abandon religion.

Probably so, if you mean dissolution of state and religion. Religion as 
such is to stay in one form or another, this is unseparable part of 
humanity, I'm afraid.

> have. But it is near monolithic in thinking we should go back to the 
> values of the eleventh century, although some more progressive elements 
> think the fifteenth century will do.

In 15th century Renaissance was already blooming. Great idea. Let's tell 
them we can go for it.

> >  I try to understand the other side.
> 
> That is an excellent idea, you should always know your enemy;

... and friend

> but remember, understanding why somebody is a monster does not make him 
> one bit less a monster.

Sure, if he is a monster, knowing him better will convince me even more 
about it.

> > Also, I find it interesting that in one sentence you condemn some actions 
> > taken by one Muslim group on the other, and in the next sentence you 
> > condemn the whole Islam as such.
> 
> Let me ask you one question, do you condemn the whole Nazi group?

No, because condemning groups was - I believe - exactly what Nazi did. 

This way of thinking was one of the factors contributing to their failure 
and so I don't see any reason to adopt it.

I accept condemning individuals, however. If all of their individually 
judged members were found guilty in a court - so be it.

> > I post a link to article about treatment of Nobel laureates by some 
> > Muslim groups
> 
> I assume you mean Muslim Nobel laureates, there were 7 not 6 as I said 
> before, I forgot the 2006 prize for economics. Among those 7 are 
> political hack Anwar Sadat, terrorist Yasser Arafat, and 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. This 
is probably it's main point, especially in case of non-natural sciences.

> > When Y1 began, colonial powers popped out on the map in most places 
> > where there are Islamic countries today, and [...] 
> 
> And I don't care!! It's irrelevant, explaining why Islam is a 
> dysfunctional culture does not make it one bit less dysfunctional.

John, I've used your line of reasoning and came to my outcomes. Who 
wouldn't care? And the very fact that Islam is dysfunctional shouldn't 
stop me from analysing it. Actually, I should analyse it first, put labels 
on it next.

> > I would say, they were mostly successful - compared to countries like Congo
> 
> Wow what a ringing endorsement. 

Yep. Not every country can be like Japan. Or States.

> > What is interesting, is that guys were able to come into building 
> > atomic technology so fast 
> 
> Yes, the fact that Pakistan has the bomb is interesting, in the way a 44 
> magnum held to your head is interesting.

Hehe, funny. But John, munitions they made themselves. However, who sold 
them barrel, muzzle and trigger? There were also some guys looking the 
other side, pretending that nothing big is happening.

> Ayaan Hirsi Ali is indeed a remarkable and admirable human being, but 
> she is not a Muslim, she once was but not anymore, she has publicly 
> disavowed it and said she is an atheist. That's why the followers of 
> that religion who's name means peace wants to disembowel her.

As I said, I feel sorry about her story.

> > I understand that Islam - when it is let to rule the country - makes 
> > life harsh for a lot of people.
> 
> One of the great understatements of all time.

But this is my point - if there were so many oppressed people, something 
would have to happen. I don't tell we should skip it because only minority 
is opressed, but the majority - IMHO - doesn't feel oppressed.

> > it was their own Iranian people who made their Islamic Revolution.
> 
> If true that would undermine your assertion that it is only a tiny 
> minority of Muslims who are troglodytes.

I don't do assertions involving troglodytes :-). And I never heard of 
Islamic Revolution as something coming from abroad - and if so, from 
where? If they are occupants, where are the insurgents?

> > Changing hate object is like changing drug. It doesn't help at all
> 
> You seem to be saying hate is never appropriate, but it's impossible 
> never to hate and I don't believe it's desirable even to try. If hate 
> were a truly useless emotion its hard to understand why Evolution 
> preserved it for hundreds of millions of years. Some things are just 
> hateful.

Hate happens just as drinks happen. But if one drinks every day, many 
times a day, something is not well. Not everything that is good from 
evolution's point is good for us as humans. We neither kill our irritating
neighbors nor rape their wifes.

> 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. Besides, from logical standpoint, how sure you are that 
they are lying? I.e. knowing (having the proof) that God does not exist 
yet telling otherwise? What if they believe? Do they lie in this case?

> By the way, on the front page of today's New York Times is an article 
> about the Ground Zero Mosque: 
> 
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/31/nyregion/31mosque.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Well, I am not Newyorker. Don't they protest?

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **