Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, & Daniel Dennett
Topic Started: Oct 16 2014, 08:01 PM (1,283 Views)
Snapcat
Member Avatar
That Cool Cat
My favorite atheist is Ricky Gervais. He's so elegant and makes his points so obvious when he lays down a joke to make the point.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HugeMMAFan
Member Avatar

19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at South Korea. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated people, while the states with the richest and most educated people are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.

For example, Ghana and Liberia is only one SMALL nation (which is smaller than most states in the USA) between each other; Ghana has a booming economy, while Liberia is a mess. Yet you tell me the terrorists probably come from Ghana and not Liberia. I mean, come on. You can't expect anyone to believe that.
Edited by HugeMMAFan, Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HugeMMAFan
Member Avatar

Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
You can't fix those until you fixed the economy first. You can't worry about freedom when you fear for you life, or you can't find find food. I hate to say this, but a lot people don't worry about freedom if they have those things first.

You do know I said it's also partly a political AND cultural problem as well, right? One the politics and culture swings one way, religion, while it lags, slowly but surely begins to follow. Sure, fighting and dragging its feet, but it will follow.

Here's the problem with tackling with religion first. Even if Middle Eastern people abandoned their religion, they would not necessarily abandon their culture or politics. They would STILL be in the same situation. Now instead of hearing people complain about religion, you will hear people complain about their culture and politics (which, I do admit, is part of the issue).

But it still doesn't address the core issue, which is economics. People need to eat. And when people can't eat, they get crazy, stupid, desperate, or all of the above. People can only think rationally when they get what they need.


By the way, my argument isn't really against anything you said, but what Nate said. I mean, come on, the more educated people are the most likely to become terrorists (which I don't know if this is even true), therefore, the more education a place receives, the more terrorists it might have (seriously?).
Edited by HugeMMAFan, Oct 17 2014, 02:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
You can't fix those until you fixed the economy first. You can't worry about freedom when you fear for you life, or you can't find find food. I hate to say this, but a lot people don't worry about freedom if they have those things first.

You do know I said it's also partly a political AND cultural problem as well, right? One the politics and culture swings one way, religion, while it lags, slowly but surely begins to follow. Sure, fighting and dragging its feet, but it will follow.

Here's the problem with tackling with religion first. Even if Middle Eastern people abandoned their religion, they would not necessarily abandon their culture or politics. They would STILL be in the same situation. Now instead of hearing people complain about religion, you will hear people complain about their culture and politics (which, I do admit, is part of the issue).

But it still doesn't address the core issue, which is economics. People need to eat. And when people can't eat, they get crazy, stupid, desperate, or all of the above. People can only think rationally when they get what they need.


By the way, my argument isn't really against anything you said, but what Nate said. I mean, come on, the more educated people are the most likely to become terrorists (which I don't know if this is even true), therefore, the more education a place receives, the more terrorists it might have (seriously?).
I don't have the data handy, but there is apparently research that strongly suggests that the more literate and educated, the more likely they are to radicalize. It may have something to do with the fact that you can be intelligent and extremely irrational simultaneously. Unfortunately, the added intelligence also makes a person more capable of carry out their goals. I can see how the more intelligent followers could be the most capable of harm.

As for the rest, I think you are too quick to shrug of the religious (state sponsored in many ares, btw) implications on the economies there. They go hand in hand. You say we must strive to improve the economy before tackling religious ideology. I say we can't improve the economy by any acceptable measure without tackling religious ideology. When 50% of the adult population is relegated to property (because of religious dogma, btw) how can you expect any sort of flourishing society?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HugeMMAFan
Member Avatar

Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 03:06 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
You can't fix those until you fixed the economy first. You can't worry about freedom when you fear for you life, or you can't find find food. I hate to say this, but a lot people don't worry about freedom if they have those things first.

You do know I said it's also partly a political AND cultural problem as well, right? One the politics and culture swings one way, religion, while it lags, slowly but surely begins to follow. Sure, fighting and dragging its feet, but it will follow.

Here's the problem with tackling with religion first. Even if Middle Eastern people abandoned their religion, they would not necessarily abandon their culture or politics. They would STILL be in the same situation. Now instead of hearing people complain about religion, you will hear people complain about their culture and politics (which, I do admit, is part of the issue).

But it still doesn't address the core issue, which is economics. People need to eat. And when people can't eat, they get crazy, stupid, desperate, or all of the above. People can only think rationally when they get what they need.


By the way, my argument isn't really against anything you said, but what Nate said. I mean, come on, the more educated people are the most likely to become terrorists (which I don't know if this is even true), therefore, the more education a place receives, the more terrorists it might have (seriously?).
I don't have the data handy, but there is apparently research that strongly suggests that the more literate and educated, the more likely they are to radicalize. It may have something to do with the fact that you can be intelligent and extremely irrational simultaneously. Unfortunately, the added intelligence also makes a person more capable of carry out their goals. I can see how the more intelligent followers could be the most capable of harm.

As for the rest, I think you are too quick to shrug of the religious (state sponsored in many ares, btw) implications on the economies there. They go hand in hand. You say we must strive to improve the economy before tackling religious ideology. I say we can't improve the economy by any acceptable measure without tackling religious ideology. When 50% of the adult population is relegated to property (because of religious dogma, btw) how can you expect any sort of flourishing society?
Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education. If the latter was true, we'd all be screwed. Hell, if the latter was true, Western Europe and North America should be terrorist havens.

Oh, and the situation you describe to me, sounds more like a political and cultural issue, not a religious issue. It also sounds like you just describe North Korea, which, I think, does not have a state religion. Again, even if it's not economics (which it's mostly is), it's a cultural and political issue before it's a religious issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 03:30 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 03:06 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
You can't fix those until you fixed the economy first. You can't worry about freedom when you fear for you life, or you can't find find food. I hate to say this, but a lot people don't worry about freedom if they have those things first.

You do know I said it's also partly a political AND cultural problem as well, right? One the politics and culture swings one way, religion, while it lags, slowly but surely begins to follow. Sure, fighting and dragging its feet, but it will follow.

Here's the problem with tackling with religion first. Even if Middle Eastern people abandoned their religion, they would not necessarily abandon their culture or politics. They would STILL be in the same situation. Now instead of hearing people complain about religion, you will hear people complain about their culture and politics (which, I do admit, is part of the issue).

But it still doesn't address the core issue, which is economics. People need to eat. And when people can't eat, they get crazy, stupid, desperate, or all of the above. People can only think rationally when they get what they need.


By the way, my argument isn't really against anything you said, but what Nate said. I mean, come on, the more educated people are the most likely to become terrorists (which I don't know if this is even true), therefore, the more education a place receives, the more terrorists it might have (seriously?).
I don't have the data handy, but there is apparently research that strongly suggests that the more literate and educated, the more likely they are to radicalize. It may have something to do with the fact that you can be intelligent and extremely irrational simultaneously. Unfortunately, the added intelligence also makes a person more capable of carry out their goals. I can see how the more intelligent followers could be the most capable of harm.

As for the rest, I think you are too quick to shrug of the religious (state sponsored in many ares, btw) implications on the economies there. They go hand in hand. You say we must strive to improve the economy before tackling religious ideology. I say we can't improve the economy by any acceptable measure without tackling religious ideology. When 50% of the adult population is relegated to property (because of religious dogma, btw) how can you expect any sort of flourishing society?
Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education. If the latter was true, we'd all be screwed. Hell, if the latter was true, Western Europe and North America should be terrorist havens.

Oh, and the situation you describe to me, sounds more like a political and cultural issue, not a religious issue. It also sounds like you just describe North Korea, which, I think, does not have a state religion. Again, even if it's not economics (which it's mostly is), it's a cultural and political issue before it's a religious issue.
We can certainly agree to disagree here, but I still can't reconcile your ability to separate the "politics and culture" of these middle eastern/western Asian countries from religion, when their politics and culture are shaped around said religion. As goes the religious issues, so goes the political and cultural issues.

I can agree when you say "Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education." However, the problem I have with this is the same as the one I had with your previous ones. You make a broad statement that on it's surface can seem reasonable, but then there is no critical thinking beyond that point. How do you think Western Europe and North America would look if we were living under the same laws and beliefs. How would education impact us if we had the same influence from religion in our government? Lets not forget that a lot of bad things have been done in western Europe and North America under the guise of Religious orders. We are now fortunate to have religion largely benign in our politics by comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HugeMMAFan
Member Avatar

Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 04:00 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 03:30 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 03:06 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
You can't fix those until you fixed the economy first. You can't worry about freedom when you fear for you life, or you can't find find food. I hate to say this, but a lot people don't worry about freedom if they have those things first.

You do know I said it's also partly a political AND cultural problem as well, right? One the politics and culture swings one way, religion, while it lags, slowly but surely begins to follow. Sure, fighting and dragging its feet, but it will follow.

Here's the problem with tackling with religion first. Even if Middle Eastern people abandoned their religion, they would not necessarily abandon their culture or politics. They would STILL be in the same situation. Now instead of hearing people complain about religion, you will hear people complain about their culture and politics (which, I do admit, is part of the issue).

But it still doesn't address the core issue, which is economics. People need to eat. And when people can't eat, they get crazy, stupid, desperate, or all of the above. People can only think rationally when they get what they need.


By the way, my argument isn't really against anything you said, but what Nate said. I mean, come on, the more educated people are the most likely to become terrorists (which I don't know if this is even true), therefore, the more education a place receives, the more terrorists it might have (seriously?).
I don't have the data handy, but there is apparently research that strongly suggests that the more literate and educated, the more likely they are to radicalize. It may have something to do with the fact that you can be intelligent and extremely irrational simultaneously. Unfortunately, the added intelligence also makes a person more capable of carry out their goals. I can see how the more intelligent followers could be the most capable of harm.

As for the rest, I think you are too quick to shrug of the religious (state sponsored in many ares, btw) implications on the economies there. They go hand in hand. You say we must strive to improve the economy before tackling religious ideology. I say we can't improve the economy by any acceptable measure without tackling religious ideology. When 50% of the adult population is relegated to property (because of religious dogma, btw) how can you expect any sort of flourishing society?
Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education. If the latter was true, we'd all be screwed. Hell, if the latter was true, Western Europe and North America should be terrorist havens.

Oh, and the situation you describe to me, sounds more like a political and cultural issue, not a religious issue. It also sounds like you just describe North Korea, which, I think, does not have a state religion. Again, even if it's not economics (which it's mostly is), it's a cultural and political issue before it's a religious issue.
We can certainly agree to disagree here, but I still can't reconcile your ability to separate the "politics and culture" of these middle eastern/western Asian countries from religion, when their politics and culture are shaped around said religion. As goes the religious issues, so goes the political and cultural issues.

I can agree when you say "Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education." However, the problem I have with this is the same as the one I had with your previous ones. You make a broad statement that on it's surface can seem reasonable, but then there is no critical thinking beyond that point. How do you think Western Europe and North America would look if we were living under the same laws and beliefs. How would education impact us if we had the same influence from religion in our government? Lets not forget that a lot of bad things have been done in western Europe and North America under the guise of Religious orders. We are now fortunate to have religion largely benign in our politics by comparison.
I know it sounds I'm splitting hairs, but what I'm saying is, religion is only subset of culture, not the other way around. Critiquing religion is very narrow. If you don't address the root problems behind religion, it will change very little. Remember, Arabs were Arabs before they were Muslims. Their culture existed WAY before the time of Islam.

Also, like I said before, I concede the political changes are necessary. But that's has less to do with religion and more with economics, politics, and culture. If anything, it's because of changing political and economic in Western Europe that lead to a change in culture, then the decline of influence of religion, not the other way around.

I'm not saying religion doesn't have an effect. What I AM saying it's foolish to focus on it first. The priorities are completely wrong. It goes from Culture to Religion, not Religion to Culture. Religion doesn't dictate Culture, Culture dictates Religion.

This is not a defense of religion or god. Quite frankly, I non-religious and agnostic. But it's absurd to focus on religion first. People that are against religion and for religion both make this mistake - religion is not the end all be all. It is the "symptom" of the problem, not the problem itself.
Edited by HugeMMAFan, Oct 17 2014, 04:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 04:15 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 04:00 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 03:30 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 03:06 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 02:40 PM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:28 PM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 02:49 AM
HugeMMAFan
Oct 17 2014, 02:10 AM
The problem is not religion. The problem is mostly economic and political. It's also party cultural and societal, but if you fix the economic and political problems at where Islam is most present, the cultural and societal issues with begin to resolve, followed by relligious issues.

You can't even begin fix religious issues without touching the others first. It just doesn't work.
Funny when you correct for literacy the numbers of people that believe that horrible shit goes up


A lot of the people that recruit these bombers are doctors and engineers

Is this a serious post? Seriously man, even for you, this is low brow. Isn't one of the side benefits of you free-market capitalists is that free-market capitalism brings an improving economy, which brings improved peace? As many problems a sudden change from one economic system to another economy system brings, there is absolutely very little doubt that an improving economy makes a region better.

Look at China. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Southeast Asia. Look at Brazil. Heck, look at parts of Eastern AND Western Europe. You can't tell me China and Asian countries are less socially and culturally restrictive (at least in the beginning) than Middle Eastern cultures. But the openness of an improving economy in all those places HAVE made them more peaceful.

Look at the Middle East and the Africa. The most DANGEROUS places there are also the poorest and the least educated, while the richest and most educated states are often the safer states.

Seriously, just because one or two educated persons become terrorists, it's like saying most educated terrorists. If this was true, Western Europe and North America would have have ton of terrorists.
OK, so your main point (I think) is that the region is not necessarily having a religious crisis, but rather an economic one. OK, fair enough. Now, have you ever considered WHY there is such more economic conditions there? Hitchens addresses this repeatedly in his speeches. He proposes that history has proven that anywhere women are liberated from lives as lesser beings and allowed to have control over basic rights such as voting, birth control, and deciding when to become pregnant, the economic floor rises. This has been proven throughout history. Now, can you tell me what stands in the way if women's liberation in those countries? Why was this area once the epicenter of knowledge and mathematics, and it suddenly devolved into what it is today? Any guesses? I can give you a hint.
You can't fix those until you fixed the economy first. You can't worry about freedom when you fear for you life, or you can't find find food. I hate to say this, but a lot people don't worry about freedom if they have those things first.

You do know I said it's also partly a political AND cultural problem as well, right? One the politics and culture swings one way, religion, while it lags, slowly but surely begins to follow. Sure, fighting and dragging its feet, but it will follow.

Here's the problem with tackling with religion first. Even if Middle Eastern people abandoned their religion, they would not necessarily abandon their culture or politics. They would STILL be in the same situation. Now instead of hearing people complain about religion, you will hear people complain about their culture and politics (which, I do admit, is part of the issue).

But it still doesn't address the core issue, which is economics. People need to eat. And when people can't eat, they get crazy, stupid, desperate, or all of the above. People can only think rationally when they get what they need.


By the way, my argument isn't really against anything you said, but what Nate said. I mean, come on, the more educated people are the most likely to become terrorists (which I don't know if this is even true), therefore, the more education a place receives, the more terrorists it might have (seriously?).
I don't have the data handy, but there is apparently research that strongly suggests that the more literate and educated, the more likely they are to radicalize. It may have something to do with the fact that you can be intelligent and extremely irrational simultaneously. Unfortunately, the added intelligence also makes a person more capable of carry out their goals. I can see how the more intelligent followers could be the most capable of harm.

As for the rest, I think you are too quick to shrug of the religious (state sponsored in many ares, btw) implications on the economies there. They go hand in hand. You say we must strive to improve the economy before tackling religious ideology. I say we can't improve the economy by any acceptable measure without tackling religious ideology. When 50% of the adult population is relegated to property (because of religious dogma, btw) how can you expect any sort of flourishing society?
Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education. If the latter was true, we'd all be screwed. Hell, if the latter was true, Western Europe and North America should be terrorist havens.

Oh, and the situation you describe to me, sounds more like a political and cultural issue, not a religious issue. It also sounds like you just describe North Korea, which, I think, does not have a state religion. Again, even if it's not economics (which it's mostly is), it's a cultural and political issue before it's a religious issue.
We can certainly agree to disagree here, but I still can't reconcile your ability to separate the "politics and culture" of these middle eastern/western Asian countries from religion, when their politics and culture are shaped around said religion. As goes the religious issues, so goes the political and cultural issues.

I can agree when you say "Even if INDIVIDUALS are more likely to "radicalize" because of education, it does not mean SOCIETIES will likely "radicalize" because of education." However, the problem I have with this is the same as the one I had with your previous ones. You make a broad statement that on it's surface can seem reasonable, but then there is no critical thinking beyond that point. How do you think Western Europe and North America would look if we were living under the same laws and beliefs. How would education impact us if we had the same influence from religion in our government? Lets not forget that a lot of bad things have been done in western Europe and North America under the guise of Religious orders. We are now fortunate to have religion largely benign in our politics by comparison.
I know it sounds I'm splitting hairs, but what I'm saying is, religion is only subset of culture, not the other way around. Critiquing religion is very narrow. If you don't address the root problems behind religion, it will change very little. Remember, Arabs were Arabs before they were Muslims. Their culture existed WAY before the time of Islam.

Also, like I said before, I concede the political changes are necessary. But that's has less to do with religion and more with economics, politics, and culture. If anything, it's because of changing political and economic in Western Europe that lead to a change in culture, then the decline of influence of religion, not the other way around.

I'm not saying religion doesn't have an effect. What I AM saying it's foolish to focus on it first. The priorities are completely wrong. It goes from Culture to Religion, not Religion to Culture. Religion doesn't dictate Culture, Culture dictates Religion.

This is not a defense of religion or god. Quite frankly, I non-religious and agnostic. But it's absurd to focus on religion first. People that are against religion and for religion both make this mistake - religion is not the end all be all. It is the "symptom" of the problem, not the problem itself.
Well, we're just talking in circles now, so I'll let you have the last word here and agree to disagree. Obviously, you are able to separate religion from the politics and culture of the region, whereas I find religion to be the underlying problem in all of them. When overwhelming majorities of the population want Sharia Law to rule the land and in many cases, large majorities want sharia law forced on non muslims, I fail to see how religion can be separated from the other factors you list.

Agree to disagree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cbear
Member Avatar

The Mahatma weeps for you all from his celestial abode.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

HugeMMAFAn, I hope you give this a watch:



I suggest you pay special mind to Aayan Hirsi Ali. She's lived the life of a woman in a muslim state. Also, the panel addresses many of your own points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cbear
Member Avatar

Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 07:08 PM
HugeMMAFAn, I hope you give this a watch:



I suggest you pay special mind to Aayan Hirsi Ali. She's lived the life of a woman in a muslim state. Also, the panel addresses many of your own points.
Has a 90 year old Imam put out a fatwa calling for her head ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

Cbear
Oct 17 2014, 07:36 PM
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 07:08 PM
HugeMMAFAn, I hope you give this a watch:



I suggest you pay special mind to Aayan Hirsi Ali. She's lived the life of a woman in a muslim state. Also, the panel addresses many of your own points.
Has a 90 year old Imam put out a fatwa calling for her head ?
yes, actually.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-my-life-under-a-fatwa-760666.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
Tallica
Oct 17 2014, 10:13 AM
split decision
Oct 17 2014, 09:06 AM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 03:49 AM
here's what i don't get:

2 nfl players are involved in domestic spats and a lot of you acted like the nfl has a problem. they even had to do classes on it for the other players. that's 2, no i'll round it up to 10 players out of 1696 pleyers in the nfl (not including staff, owners, ettc...). that's 0.6%.

but when that number is just a little over 30 times that amount that are sympathetic to suicide bombers per their own admission it isn't a problem with that group.

just to be clear less than 1% of nfl players beating family members is a problem that the nfl should address and own up to

20% of muslims think suicide bombing is ok in the SAME country and it's not something to be looked at because you're racist and shouldn't lump them all together, which of course nobody was doing
You're part of the problem.

You distort arguments. Flat out wrong on two points:

1) Who said the 20% of the Muslims that believe suicide bombing is justifiable under some circumstances are not a problem that should be looked at? Find me any post in this thread, written by me or others, that says it's acceptable for those people to hold such a belief? I know I said they haven't acted on it despite calls from ISIS for them to rise up (and that's true), but I haven't said there's not an underlying problem with that minority that should be addressed.

2) People on this forum and outside of it make statements quite often lumping Muslims together. That's reality. Now, you have differentiated in making some of the arguments that you've made, but don't pretend that others don't regularly "whitewash" the entire issue by sliding into generalizations. I have said that Maher and Harris are guilty of generalizing at times -- I DID NOT say neither of them has valid points for that reason.

This isn't a black and white issue. There are shades of gray.

The ironic thing about this, despite all the nuances and subtleties that exist, is that you yourself are distorting the facts.

You create a clever analogy using NFL players and then try to make it sound like another poster (me) has argued that 20% of suicide bomb apologists is not of concern because others here are "racist" (certainly not a term I have used because race doesn't refer to religious beliefs -- so another false accusation) and "lumping them all together" (which some people do, but even so I have never said it give Muslims carte blanche to act in whatever way they please).

Once again, it's easiest for you to dismiss others that don't align with your ideology. Dismiss Zakaria. Dismiss Aslan. Dismiss me.

You'd make a good politician, Nate. I'll give you that.


It seems as though when confronted with strong evidence and strong arguments, you are willing to concede your position and acknowledge and affirm the main points being made, but then are very quick to turn back to the same old rhetoric. You start trying to add caveats about how they are guilty of occasionally lumping all Muslims together and that's bad and it somehow changes the facts.

I'd actually argue it's that kind of response that is guilty of lumping all Muslims together. These criticisms are heavily directed, and heavily stated as such, towards an alarmingly large percentage that hold AND PRACTICE beliefs that are in conflict with what we know to be on the right side of morality and justice for humanity.

By cherry picking quotes, taking things out of context, and making hollow accusations of bigotry or racism, you are perverting the focus of the critiques and become guilty yourself of lumping all Muslims together and in doing so REMOVE the focus from the problematic part of the population.

It's true Harris, and the others are opposed to the dogma of all religions, but that doesn't mean they can't have very valid, salient points about the inherent and very real problems of particular ones. Why "Liberals" have allowed for the tolerance of intolerance has eluded me.

EDIT: To clarify, the use of "you" isn't meant to be directed at you particularly, but to the side you tend to fall on. You may not have made direct claims of racism, but it's all too common from the liberal opposition to their claims.
Tallica, if you were a DJ your name would be Master of Turning Tables!

;)

Let's dissect your post. But before we get to that, this is a rather tiring exercise, isn't it? You must feel like I do, you are investing this time and effort into making cogent arguments only to have them fall on deaf ears. Sometimes it seems tempting to just blow others sky high, doesn't it?

Let's not go there.

:)


"It seems as though when confronted with strong evidence and strong arguments, you are willing to concede your position and acknowledge and affirm the main points being made..."


My take: "Hey asshole, quit being so rational!" B-)

I make no apologies for that. Isn't that what reasonable people do? At least outside of this forum, I mean. It's definitely a rare occurrence here.



"but then are very quick to turn back to the same old rhetoric. You start trying to add caveats about how they are guilty of occasionally lumping all Muslims together and that's bad and it somehow changes the facts.

I'd actually argue it's that kind of response that is guilty of lumping all Muslims together. These criticisms are heavily directed, and heavily stated as such, towards an alarmingly large percentage that hold AND PRACTICE beliefs that are in conflict with what we know to be on the right side of morality and justice for humanity.

By cherry picking quotes, taking things out of context, and making hollow accusations of bigotry or racism, you are perverting the focus of the critiques and become guilty yourself of lumping all Muslims together and in doing so REMOVE the focus from the problematic part of the population.



Look at how loaded that string of paragraphs is! I'm the one spewing rhetoric, actually guilty of generalization myself, I cherry pick quotes, I take things out of context and I make hollow accusations of bigotry and racism!

Whoa! I hope you don't blame a guy for asking for some specific examples of where he's done even some of those things.

But wait a minute...


EDIT: To clarify, the use of "you" isn't meant to be directed at you particularly, but to the side you tend to fall on. You may not have made direct claims of racism, but it's all too common from the liberal opposition to their claims.

Phew! It's actually not me specifically, just those of my ilk. I dodged a bullet there. Not even sure if it was fired from an AK-47 by someone in a turban yelling "Allahu Akbar!"


So where does that leave us? Well, I have acknowledged some problems that exist within Islam. Let me ask you some questions.

Nate has pointed out that 19% of Muslims in the U.S. can forgive some suicide bombing under certain circumstances. That leaves 81% who are opposed to it. That's pretty damn significant.

That Pew poll contains plenty of disturbing numbers. I'm fully aware of that. But there is also some promising data:

13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.

Indonesia just happens to have the world's largest population of Muslims. Yes, knowing that 13% feel that way is troubling, but knowing that 87% don't share that opinion is a good thing.

Then there are countries like Pakistan where the numbers are high almost across the board, including support for attacks on Americans (83% in favor). But in those instances, do you not think American bombing campaigns or repeated drone strikes color their outlook? American interference in their politics has not influenced their desire to see the U.S. suffer? Do you believe religion is the only basis for their hatred?

There is also broad support for Sharia law in Pakistan. And there's no doubt Sharia law in Pakistan is almost always carried out in the harshest form. Stoning, amputations, even death. It's fucked up.

I'd like to hear your ideas on how to reform a place like Pakistan. Of course it would be ideal to ratchet down the violence and create equal footing for women. I don't know how that will be tackled. Some sort of Pakistani Barack Obama comes to power?

Back to Sharia law, it is not practised the same everywhere. You may argue that it fundamentally places men above women but there is disagreement among scholars on that topic. Some interpret the Arabic text to mean men are the master or ruler of women. Other experts say it was meant as "bread winner." And based on the era when the Quran was written, who could argue that the men were providers for their families back then? The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is filled with similar language. Some women take offense at the idea that females were created from a man's rib in the Book of Genesis.

I realize that very few Christians take the gender bias literally these days, but progressive Muslim countries have made strides toward women being treated fairly. There's hope, and there are women's movements fomenting...

http://www.thenation.com/article/177467/rise-islamic-feminists

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/cmec2_women_in_islam_final1.pdf

Moderate leaders can hopefully further those advances.

In terms of voting rights and running for office, it's been allowed for decades in many Muslim-majority countries. It may have been allowed sooner but...

Quote:
 
...the seeming "belatedness" of women's suffrage (relative to many European and North American nations) did not derive from Islamic politics, but rather from the fact that most of these nations were colonies of European empires for much of the twentieth century and thus had no suffrage until winning national independence


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_first_women%27s_suffrage_in_majority-Muslim_countries

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, and Senegal have all had female heads of state. Who was the first female president of the United States. Oh yeah...

So Sharia law is to blame for some issues in some Muslim countries, but not all aspects of gender inequality in all Muslim countries.

One of the place where women still can't vote: Vatican City. No woman gets to vote for the pope. Backwards!!!

No religion is going to be perfect. No country is going to be perfect. I am not a defender of Sharia law, especially the violence and misogyny exercised in its name. But, despite an absence of Sharia law in the United States of America, millions of women are still sexually assaulted and paid less than their male counterparts. That said, they do get the opportunity to lead major corporations, like poor Mary Barra, who inherited the GM mess.

;)

Anyway, I think most of us can agree (sorry, Cbear) that 88% of the world's population of 7 billion being affiliated with some form of religion means there are an awful lot of sheeple out there. Some are well-intentioned, at least. But more independent thinkers would be welcome.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
19nate79

Wahoo08
Oct 17 2014, 09:00 AM
19nate79
Oct 17 2014, 01:37 AM
Wahoo08
Oct 16 2014, 11:41 PM
19nate79
Oct 16 2014, 10:54 PM
Wahoo08
Oct 16 2014, 10:02 PM
Cbear
Oct 16 2014, 08:38 PM
Gitche Manitou will eat these pale face sinners hearts and scatter their ashes to the 4 winds.
You might actually like some of these guys, Cbear. Harris is one of most anti-Islam guys you'll ever come across. Dawkins' basically states that he sees the big three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as more or less the same and leaves it at that. Harris however, is pretty explicit in his belief that Islam is far worse than Christianity. I'm not much of a fan of his, but I'm willing to meet you in the middle :wink:

Hitchens is another guy that came across as a goddam lilberal, but was one of the most outspoken neo-cons and supporters of the Iraqi War 10 years ago. In fact, he died after having alienated many of his followers because of this.
Not true

He says the old testament is worse than the Koran, but that nobody takes it very seriously any more in any significant percentage. Islam, however does have a significant minority that does.
Harris references the terrible things that are written about in the Old Testament, but also points out that the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus act as a counterweight to the Old Testament and softens the message of the Bible. He also argues, that there is no such counterweight in the Koran.

Personally, I don't agree with him. I think man shapes religion more than religion shapes man. If you were to take religion out of the Middle East, you'd still have strongmen fighting over control of oil, you'd still have a largely barren desert that stunted economic growth, you'd still have the repercussions of Sykes-Picot that drew arbitrary lines though ethnic groups, etc. Religion just acts as a steroid that radicalizes political differences to an extreme.

Regardless of my thoughts though, Harris is pretty clear that he doesn't view Islam and Christianity as equal.
Are you arguing that what preceded them wasn't fucking awful?
Come on, Nate. I'm not arguing anything. I'd just summarized some of Harris' views and now you're trying to defend the guy. Agree with him or don't agree with agree him. I don't care. But there's nothing that I wrote that he hasn't stated publicly.
I'll clarify

Before the countries were drawn up would you say the place wasn't a festering hell hole?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3