Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
December 11, 2024, 01:25 PM

News From Syria
December 10, 2024, 09:35 AM

New Britain
December 08, 2024, 10:30 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
December 07, 2024, 09:26 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 06, 2024, 01:27 PM

Ashes to beads: South Kor...
December 03, 2024, 09:44 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 30, 2024, 08:53 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?

 (Read 23159 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #30 - January 02, 2009, 08:18 PM

    I disagree Baal, I worked as a GP in a government clinic in an Arabian Gulf country for several months, and there was a very strong focus on birth control and on educating the women about the benefits of controlling the number of children they had and on different methods of contraception.

    Those attempts had been going on and on for decades.

    Now an oil gulf paradise is not how I measure 1 Billion people. But even in the Gulf paradise, as I said the governments of mehamedian countries were 'always' trying to control the birth in their own countries. They had been trying at least since I was a kid in primary classes.

    Several times a year we would hold talks during the evening and invite local women to come along, and the place was always packed. In fact we would book them into family planning clinics during their first postnatal checkup.

    Excellent.

    Thinking back, as a student I spent two weeks in a remote village in the same (unnameable  Wink ) country, and the lady GP there actually took me with her when she went to a girls secondary school to talk to them about family planning. I remember she then sat and had a long conversation with the Wali of the village who was all for large families. He suggested to her that birth control may be unIslamic. Now she was quite a devout lady, and she managed to convince him that there was no proof that contraception was in any way wrong, and that in fact it was in the womens and family's best interests.

    Ataturk had this rule where, he would sends teachers to live in villages for month/years. If ever a teacher he sends would get killed, then the 'wali' and 'imam' of the village will also get killed and have their mosque busted. It worked for him at least until now.

    However you have to remember, once you teach the women, and leave the village, the wali will re-assert control and erode a portion of your work.

    I also seem to remember that national Aids statistics were freely available for anyone who was interested, but I would have to google that to confirm it.

    But as soon as you leave, AIDS will remain a foreign decease, there is no AIDS in the middle east. No AIDS, no Hepatitis, no Syphilis and no rape. These are all deceases that only hit degenerate people.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #31 - January 02, 2009, 08:21 PM

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.


    sure,that?s why we have celibate priests, nuns and monks, and Paul?s admonition that celibacy is better than marriage.  Roll Eyes
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.


    Isn't it something like "Go forth and multiply"?   Huh?




    that is God?s message to Adam and Eve, i.e. ALL humans. Nothing to do with spreading any religion.

    oh, and btw - here?s another logical flaw in Baal?s argument - the condemnation of abortion and artificial contraception OF COURSE goes for ALL people, too - just like the church teaches "thou shalt not kill" regardless of religion, she teaches "don?t kill your child in utero" to all and sundry, NOT just catholics. To abort a baby is just as wrong for an atheist or moslem, as it is for a catholic. Whether the atheist or moslem listens to the churchs teaching on the matter is a different question.

    But Dio, you're only saying that because you've been programmed to say it.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #32 - January 02, 2009, 08:21 PM

    Quote
    Sorry, I must be thick or something, i don't get what being anti abortion has to do with Baals post


    baal claimed I was too dumb to realise, that the condemnation of abortion and contraception by the church was NOT "pro life", but simply a means to "win by numbers". Roll Eyes

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.

  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #33 - January 02, 2009, 08:22 PM

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.


    sure,that?s why we have celibate priests, nuns and monks, and Paul?s admonition that celibacy is better than marriage.  Roll Eyes
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

    How else can you keep the wealth of the church inside the church? When men have children, they would leave everything behind them and ahead of them for their kids.

    You can not allow the priest to have kids, it costs too much. That 'program' will soon change as we start running out of priests. In the middle east now catholic priests are encouraged to marry. And we even have a condition where a priest makes a case that he wants to marry so he gets defrocked for a year or Two until he gets his affairs in order.



    PS: For the record, I have the utmost respect and love for diotima and agree with her pretty much 100% on all other matters different then abortion and birth control.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #34 - January 02, 2009, 08:27 PM

    Gosh, I really am sick and tired of hearing the same moronic crap again and again. Roll Eyes

    Celibacy for priests has been around a lot longer than the "wealth" of the church - not to mention St. Paul?s dictum in the Gospel, that celibacy for those who could handle it was better than marriage... or the fact that murdering children in utero is as wrong for non-catholics as it is for catholics in the eyes of the church, and thus your reasoning doesn?t hold a drop of water. Roll Eyes
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #35 - January 02, 2009, 08:27 PM

    Well regardless of the hadiths, I personally never knew a muslim who had children whilst thinking "need another baby to help spread Islam".  Infact most of the muslims I knew don't want lots of kids.


    "Programmed to Think":

    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.

    I did not say the average muslims "thinks" this way: more kids is better.
    I said the average muslim is "programmed to think" this way: more kids is better.

    Of course in the Catholic case, we now have a virus that in many areas is now killing more adults then it is creating babies. So it will take a little time for the religion to catch up and reprogram its faithful.

    But for now the reality is, most christians against condoms & abortions, managed to convince themselves that they are on some altruistic mission to preserve life. And also sometimes the christian programming goes wrong in other ways, when some christians will go and try to preserve the lives of people from other religions as well.


    Ah, that makes alot of sense actually.


    No it doesn't.  It's a conspiracy theory approach to the decisions and choices people are making.  'While they think they are choosing for a good reason, they are actually choosing for a different reason that only I and those who 'programme' them really know.'

    A conspiracy theory involves someone sitting there making plans playing with strings. This is not about a person sitting planning, this is about the needs and requirements and social evolution.

    No one in the Vatican wanted the middle eastern priests to marry. But the middle east priests told the vatican to accept the current condition or to fvck off and lose their presence in the middle east.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #36 - January 02, 2009, 08:30 PM

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.


    sure,that?s why we have celibate priests, nuns and monks, and Paul?s admonition that celibacy is better than marriage.  Roll Eyes
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

    Are these the same celibate priests who shag their parishioners, especially the children? The same nuns and monks who are largely in their 80s and 90s now anyway?
    Or perhaps you could have mentioned that the most catholic of catholic countries, Italy and Spain, practice the most birth control and hence have the lowest birth rates (well below the rate of replacement) in Europe.
    But I'm sure you wouldn't let facts stand in the way of your prejudices, now would you?

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #37 - January 02, 2009, 08:32 PM

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.


    sure,that?s why we have celibate priests, nuns and monks, and Paul?s admonition that celibacy is better than marriage.  Roll Eyes
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

    Are these the same celibate priests who shag their parishioners, especially the children? The same nuns and monks who are largely in their 80s and 90s now anyway?
    Or perhaps you could have mentioned that the most catholic of catholic countries, Italy and Spain, practice the most birth control and hence have the lowest birth rates (well below the rate of replacement) in Europe.
    But I'm sure you wouldn't let facts stand in the way of your prejudices, now would you?


    One thing is sure - YOU don?t let logic or coherence stand in the way of your "reasoning". Roll Eyes
    But do go on showing your  lack of brains. cool2
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #38 - January 02, 2009, 08:34 PM

    Quote
    Sorry, I must be thick or something, i don't get what being anti abortion has to do with Baals post


    baal claimed I was too dumb to realise, that the condemnation of abortion and contraception by the church was NOT "pro life", but simply a means to "win by numbers". Roll Eyes

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.



    Ah right, I must have missed that part.   Smiley

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #39 - January 03, 2009, 09:13 AM

    Well regardless of the hadiths, I personally never knew a muslim who had children whilst thinking "need another baby to help spread Islam".  Infact most of the muslims I knew don't want lots of kids.


    "Programmed to Think":

    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.

    I did not say the average muslims "thinks" this way: more kids is better.
    I said the average muslim is "programmed to think" this way: more kids is better.

    Of course in the Catholic case, we now have a virus that in many areas is now killing more adults then it is creating babies. So it will take a little time for the religion to catch up and reprogram its faithful.

    But for now the reality is, most christians against condoms & abortions, managed to convince themselves that they are on some altruistic mission to preserve life. And also sometimes the christian programming goes wrong in other ways, when some christians will go and try to preserve the lives of people from other religions as well.


    Ah, that makes alot of sense actually.


    No it doesn't.  It's a conspiracy theory approach to the decisions and choices people are making.  'While they think they are choosing for a good reason, they are actually choosing for a different reason that only I and those who 'programme' them really know.'

    A conspiracy theory involves someone sitting there making plans playing with strings. This is not about a person sitting planning, this is about the needs and requirements and social evolution.

    No one in the Vatican wanted the middle eastern priests to marry. But the middle east priests told the vatican to accept the current condition or to fvck off and lose their presence in the middle east.

    If there is no-one planning or programming, then in what sense are people 'programmed'?  Who or what is doing the programming?  How are they any more or less 'programmed' than you are?  Or are they subject to social evolution and you aren't?

    The fact is that people, being people, make choices according to the things that they believe are true.  It is nonsense to talk about 'programming' or subconscious motivations when they fail to do any better at explaining patterns of behaviour than a straight forward acceptance that people believe what they say they do.

    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #40 - January 03, 2009, 03:24 PM

    Well regardless of the hadiths, I personally never knew a muslim who had children whilst thinking "need another baby to help spread Islam".  Infact most of the muslims I knew don't want lots of kids.


    "Programmed to Think":

    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.

    I did not say the average muslims "thinks" this way: more kids is better.
    I said the average muslim is "programmed to think" this way: more kids is better.

    Of course in the Catholic case, we now have a virus that in many areas is now killing more adults then it is creating babies. So it will take a little time for the religion to catch up and reprogram its faithful.

    But for now the reality is, most christians against condoms & abortions, managed to convince themselves that they are on some altruistic mission to preserve life. And also sometimes the christian programming goes wrong in other ways, when some christians will go and try to preserve the lives of people from other religions as well.


    Ah, that makes alot of sense actually.


    No it doesn't.  It's a conspiracy theory approach to the decisions and choices people are making.  'While they think they are choosing for a good reason, they are actually choosing for a different reason that only I and those who 'programme' them really know.'

    A conspiracy theory involves someone sitting there making plans playing with strings. This is not about a person sitting planning, this is about the needs and requirements and social evolution.

    No one in the Vatican wanted the middle eastern priests to marry. But the middle east priests told the vatican to accept the current condition or to fvck off and lose their presence in the middle east.

    If there is no-one planning or programming,

    That is how evolution works by the way. No one planning or programming. Even if you believe in some intelligent design, you can still realize that for the most part, it must have been created then left to evolve on its own. Hence the frequent fuckups.

    then in what sense are people 'programmed'?  Who or what is doing the programming?

    What in this case. What not who.Culture and Doctrines and norms our parents implemented long before we were born. Of course many of those norms and 'programs' are very well subject to the game of 'broken phone'.

    How are they any more or less 'programmed' than you are?  Or are they subject to social evolution and you aren't?

    Wrong Assumption. Where did I say I was not subject to programming myself?

    The fact is that people, being people, make choices according to the things that they believe are true.  It is nonsense to talk about 'programming' or subconscious motivations when they fail to do any better at explaining patterns of behaviour than a straight forward acceptance that people believe what they say they do.

    Yes, people do believe in what they do. How does that negate my assumption that people are programmed to behave in certain ways? If you ask me why I eat fava beans in the morning here in Canada I will tell you it is the best goddamn breakfast on Earth. But if I think a little more about it, I might come with more explanation.

    You think I am going to think about the fact that I eat Fava Beans because I was born in Egypt and Egyptians realized very early on that the fava plant, puts nitrate and nutrition 'back' into the soil, so Egyptian farmers used to plant it in abundance, every third harvest, just to maintain fertility. So once we ended up with all those beans, we had to find something to do with them, so we had them for breakfast. And today, I like to eat fava beans for breakfast.

    Of course, my assumption about fava beans might be false, and then I really do not know why I like fava beans. I just like them in the morning.

    Sparky, now what do you mean there is no programming? how else do women go on wearing a veil in a searing hot summer. Circumcize the daughters? accept a marriage between a kid and an old farter? Accept that a man can divorce with a single word, yet a woman has to goto court. How can a population accept that in a country in africa, where 20%+ of the population is currently infected with AIDS, that we withhold condoms from them (a crime against humanity IMO). Of course if you ask them why they act this way, they will say 'koran', they will say it is to 'preserve the chastity', to make the woman 'clean', to 'preserve life(!!?!)', because men work hard, excuses, justifications, some right, some wrong, etc.

    People will just come up with all kind of justifications, based on their prior religion and culture and family and education and job and friends and hobbies, and psychology, etc..

    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.

    Just because a person believes something, it does not preclude programming. A Christian baby grows up to believe life is precious. A Muslim baby grows up to believe chastity is precious. You will have an extremely hard time trying to convince me that either baby made by the time they turned 18, arrived to their conclusion (belief) on their own, without programming.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #41 - January 03, 2009, 04:19 PM


    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.



    I am sorry, Sparky, if this sounds blunt but what you say is just not true.

    The Pope may say that all human life is valuable, he has to be politically correct. 

    Yet both in theory and in practice, Christians have honoured the principle of murdering their opponents. Apparently Jesus himself said:

    "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."  ? Luke 19.27.

    For more than a thousand years, Popes and Clergy in the uniform of Christ terrorised, tortured and brutalised millions of people.

    Christianity was the first creed in history to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love.   

     

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #42 - January 03, 2009, 04:28 PM

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.


    sure,that?s why we have celibate priests, nuns and monks, and Paul?s admonition that celibacy is better than marriage.  Roll Eyes
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

    Are these the same celibate priests who shag their parishioners, especially the children? The same nuns and monks who are largely in their 80s and 90s now anyway?
    Or perhaps you could have mentioned that the most catholic of catholic countries, Italy and Spain, practice the most birth control and hence have the lowest birth rates (well below the rate of replacement) in Europe.
    But I'm sure you wouldn't let facts stand in the way of your prejudices, now would you?


    One thing is sure - YOU don?t let logic or coherence stand in the way of your "reasoning". Roll Eyes
    But do go on showing your  lack of brains. cool2

    I think that before you mention 'lack of brains' you'd better demonstrate possession of same yourself.

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #43 - January 03, 2009, 04:29 PM

    Quote
    A muslim does not think he needs babies to spread islam, by as much as, Dio, who thinks that banning condoms & abortion is for preserving lives!! When in fact it is done for the purpose of giving Christianity the number advantage.


    sure,that?s why we have celibate priests, nuns and monks, and Paul?s admonition that celibacy is better than marriage.  Roll Eyes
    But don?t let facts stand in the way of your prejudices.

    Are these the same celibate priests who shag their parishioners, especially the children? The same nuns and monks who are largely in their 80s and 90s now anyway?
    Or perhaps you could have mentioned that the most catholic of catholic countries, Italy and Spain, practice the most birth control and hence have the lowest birth rates (well below the rate of replacement) in Europe.
    But I'm sure you wouldn't let facts stand in the way of your prejudices, now would you?


    One thing is sure - YOU don?t let logic or coherence stand in the way of your "reasoning". Roll Eyes
    But do go on showing your  lack of brains. cool2

    I think that before you mention 'lack of brains' you'd better demonstrate possession of same yourself.


    how would YOU notice, whether I had one or not? a blind man won?t see the sunlight, however bright it shines. Roll Eyes

    oh, and btw: a tu quoque won?t mend your logical and rhethorical mistakes. It only makes your blindness more obvious. thnkyu
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #44 - January 03, 2009, 04:34 PM


    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve

    the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.



    I am sorry, Sparky, if this sounds blunt but what you say is just not true.

    The Pope may say that all human life is valuable, he has to be politically correct. 

    Yet both in theory and in practice, Christians have honoured the principle of murdering their opponents. Apparently Jesus himself said:

    "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."  ? Luke 19.27.

    For more than a thousand years, Popes and Clergy in the uniform of Christ terrorised, tortured and brutalised millions of people.

    Christianity was the first creed in history to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love.   

     


    the only thing that exceeds your historical ignorance, is your inability to reason in a logically sound way.
    Nothing you bring forth (quite apart the fact that it is historically ridiculously inaccurate) has anything to do with the topic at hand, whether the christian veto on abortion is meant to increase numbers of christians.

    Oh, and next time you quote the bible, make sure you understand it. The quote you give is from a parable - i.e. Jesus is HIMSELF just qouting someone.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #45 - January 03, 2009, 07:12 PM

    Quote from: Baal
    That is how evolution works by the way. No one planning or programming. Even if you believe in some intelligent design, you can still realize that for the most part, it must have been created then left to evolve on its own. Hence the frequent fuckups.


    No matter how evolution works, if you accept that people make choices then there is no sense that you can say that their choices are 'programmed'.  Evolution results in a range of instincts and urges that, while they may influence human choice, does not programme them.  Same with social influences and upbringing.
    Quote from: Baal
    Wrong Assumption. Where did I say I was not subject to programming myself?

    Note that it was a question, not an assumption.

    Quote from: Baal
    Yes, people do believe in what they do. How does that negate my assumption that people are programmed to behave in certain ways? If you ask me why I eat fava beans in the morning here in Canada I will tell you it is the best goddamn breakfast on Earth. But if I think a little more about it, I might come with more explanation.


    Whatever the influences, you choose to eat fava beans.  You could also choose not too.  The fact that you have this choice means that it is nonsense to say that the fact that you eat fava beans was because you were 'programmed' to do so.

    Quote from: Baal
    Of course, my assumption about fava beans might be false, and then I really do not know why I like fava beans. I just like them in the morning.


    Indeed.  Just like your assumption about why Christians make the choices they do was false and failed to explain them at all.

    Quote from: Baal
    Sparky, now what do you mean there is no programming? how else do women go on wearing a veil in a searing hot summer. Circumcize the daughters? accept a marriage between a kid and an old farter? Accept that a man can divorce with a single word, yet a woman has to goto court. How can a population accept that in a country in africa, where 20%+ of the population is currently infected with AIDS, that we withhold condoms from them (a crime against humanity IMO). Of course if you ask them why they act this way, they will say 'koran', they will say it is to 'preserve the chastity', to make the woman 'clean', to 'preserve life(!!?!)', because men work hard, excuses, justifications, some right, some wrong, etc.


    I think 'programmed' is a poor choice of words.  You might say that they are 'programmed' with a variety of influences - genetic, social, etc - but they make the choices and hence they are responsible for what they choose.  If you say their choices themselves are the result of 'programming' you also diminish their own responsibility.

    Why on earth should I ignore the reasons they give to assume some subconscious influence rather than the more obvious that they are choosing according to their beliefs?
    Quote from: Baal
    People will just come up with all kind of justifications, based on their prior religion and culture and family and education and job and friends and hobbies, and psychology, etc..

    So what?
    Quote from: Baal
    Just because a person believes something, it does not preclude programming. A Christian baby grows up to believe life is precious. A Muslim baby grows up to believe chastity is precious. You will have an extremely hard time trying to convince me that either baby made by the time they turned 18, arrived to their conclusion (belief) on their own, without programming.


    The choice about what they believe is indeed their own.  Who else's is it?  Of course, they have been influenced in this choice by a variety of sources including their family, community, experiences etc. but they choices is very much their own.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #46 - January 03, 2009, 07:21 PM


    The fact is that Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable.  If Christians act to preserve the lives of those from other religions or are against abortion (for everyone), the simplest explanation is that they really believe that all human life is valuable rather than that these behaviours are subconcious products of a social 'need' to multiply their own numbers.



    I am sorry, Sparky, if this sounds blunt but what you say is just not true.

    The Pope may say that all human life is valuable, he has to be politically correct. 

    Yet both in theory and in practice, Christians have honoured the principle of murdering their opponents. Apparently Jesus himself said:

    "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."  ? Luke 19.27.

    For more than a thousand years, Popes and Clergy in the uniform of Christ terrorised, tortured and brutalised millions of people.

    Christianity was the first creed in history to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love.   

    Heartbreaking ignorance, Blas.  It's hard to know where to start but just to help you on your way, here is the context of Luke 19 (in a slightly more modern version):

    Luke 19:11-28

    While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. 12 So He said, " A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.  13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this  until I come back.'  14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'  15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.  16 "The first appeared, saying, ' Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'  17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'  18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'  19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'  20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;  21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'  22 "He said to him, ' By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?  23'Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'  24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'  25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'  26 " I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.  27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." 

    28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
    NASU
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #47 - January 03, 2009, 07:38 PM

    Quote
    Heartbreaking ignorance, Blas.  It's hard to know where to start but just to help you on your way, here is the context of Luke 19 (in a slightly more modern version):


    Heartbreaking?  Smiley C'mon lets have some perspective here!
    5 daughters being killed in one rocket attack - heartbreaking.
    Secular frenchman saying that Christianity has been responsible for the murder of innocents - doesnt even register on the Richter scale of heartache.

    Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #48 - January 03, 2009, 08:25 PM

    Quote
    Heartbreaking ignorance, Blas.  It's hard to know where to start but just to help you on your way, here is the context of Luke 19 (in a slightly more modern version):


    Heartbreaking?  Smiley C'mon lets have some perspective here!
    5 daughters being killed in one rocket attack - heartbreaking.
    Secular frenchman saying that Christianity has been responsible for the murder of innocents - doesnt even register on the Richter scale of heartache.

    Maybe my heart's a bit more sensitive than yours, Iris.  When someone supports their contention with an obviously out of context quote that they haven't bothered to look up, I worry that it is just a small indication of all the other things that must be going wrong in their life.  It's hard not to feel sorry for them.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #49 - January 03, 2009, 08:45 PM

    I agree with Iris.  Tongue

    Also Diotima: I know your are, shall we say, "passionate" about your religion but please try to use non-abusive responses when its sanctity is questioned. Some of your tactics just make you look ridiculous.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #50 - January 04, 2009, 01:43 AM

    Quote from: Baal
    That is how evolution works by the way. No one planning or programming. Even if you believe in some intelligent design, you can still realize that for the most part, it must have been created then left to evolve on its own. Hence the frequent fuckups.


    No matter how evolution works, if you accept that people make choices then there is no sense that you can say that their choices are 'programmed'. 

    Logical Fallacy: Two False Negatives.
    A person can make a choice AND still can be programmed to make that choice.

    A person makes a decision mostly based on: the information and resources available as well as set precedents and acceptable norms. There is plenty of room (days, weeks, years, generations) to program a person before he takes that decision.

    Evolution results in a range of instincts and urges that, while they may influence human choice, does not programme them.  Same with social influences and upbringing.
    Quote from: Baal
    Wrong Assumption. Where did I say I was not subject to programming myself?

    Note that it was a question, not an assumption.

    wrong question then! Smiley in context however, it looked like an assumption.
    Sparky:
    Who or what is doing the programming?  How are
    they any more or less 'programmed' than you are? 
    Or are they subject to social evolution and you aren't?

    Quote from: Baal
    Yes, people do believe in what they do. How does that negate my assumption that people are programmed to behave in certain ways? If you ask me why I eat fava beans in the morning here in Canada I will tell you it is the best goddamn breakfast on Earth. But if I think a little more about it, I might come with more explanation.


    Whatever the influences, you choose to eat fava beans.  You could also choose not too.  The fact that you have this choice means that it is nonsense to say that the fact that you eat fava beans was because you were 'programmed' to do so.

    Side Point: You give too much credit to our capacity for making a free choice. Why do you do that? Is it important for you to believe that our choices are 'free choices'? Does the world makes more sense to you when you maintain the belief that choices we make, are 'free choices'? I am curious to know if you put a lot of thought into it in the Past, or if you are just reacting to my attack on some comfortable Truth that you always took for granted.

    The chances of me eating Fava bean in the morning at least once a month is a good 90%. Your chances could be anywhere from 0.1% to maybe 50%. Why is it a difference? What else is different between us? At what point did I choose to like the taste of this tasty feces-looking pasty Brown vegetable in the morning?


    Quote from: Baal
    Of course, my assumption about fava beans might be false, and then I really do not know why I like fava beans. I just like them in the morning.


    Indeed.  Just like your assumption about why Christians make the choices they do was false and failed to explain them at all.

    The example I put forward is still valid. A Christian grows up to think life is precious, a muslim grows up to think chastity is precious. I will add a few more if discussing Christianity sends you on tangeants, a Sikh grows up to think fighting is cool, some indians grow up to think eating meat is disgusting, some think eating mice is cool.

    Now you and me can disagree on the reason why our precious Christian grows up to think "Life is precious", but I will have to insist we do it on a different thread. And I request that you treat my example for what it is, in regards to this subject.

    Quote from: Baal
    Sparky, now what do you mean there is no programming? how else do women go on wearing a veil in a searing hot summer. Circumcize the daughters? accept a marriage between a kid and an old farter? Accept that a man can divorce with a single word, yet a woman has to goto court. How can a population accept that in a country in africa, where 20%+ of the population is currently infected with AIDS, that we withhold condoms from them (a crime against humanity IMO). Of course if you ask them why they act this way, they will say 'koran', they will say it is to 'preserve the chastity', to make the woman 'clean', to 'preserve life(!!?!)', because men work hard, excuses, justifications, some right, some wrong, etc.


    I think 'programmed' is a poor choice of words.  You might say that they are 'programmed' with a variety of influences - genetic, social, etc - but they make the choices and hence they are responsible for what they choose.  If you say their choices themselves are the result of 'programming' you also diminish their own responsibility.

    I do diminish our own responsibility. I know we do not like to think like that but it is True. We do not like to think about 'diminished responsiblity' because we have, an entire system of reform and punishment, built on the premise that each of us is responsible for their action, and will only be punished for "our own action". But hey, the system is not perfect.

    As for freedom of speech, In the West, we do not tolerate spreading of hate and murder (except perhaps in the USA although it is highly frowned upon). Why so? because we do not want to 'influence' 'impressionable' youth?

    What does the word 'impressionable' mean to you?

    And do you honestly believe that, once we become adult we become 'impervious' as opposed to being 'impressionable'? Or is it perhaps, that as we become adults, we just become better at building defences?

    Now you put a bunch of kids in good schools and give them good homes, then on average, those kids will excel over kids in broken homes and in bad schools.

    Two girls from a similar simple background, On a fateful day at the state college, One goes to meet a guy that will become her future wonderful husband, and the other one goes to get inducted in a cult.

    Both village bumpkins were vulnerable to cults, but One got caught and the other escaped not knowing how lucky she was that day.

    Why on earth should I ignore the reasons they give to assume some subconscious influence rather than the more obvious that they are choosing according to their beliefs?

    Quote from: Baal
    People will just come up with all kind of justifications, based on their prior religion and culture and family and education and job and friends and hobbies, and psychology, etc..

    So what?


    So what yourself Smiley

    I was replying to the logical fallacy: double negation that you put forward:
    Sparky: "The fact is that people, being  people,
    make choices according to the things that they believe
    are true. It is nonsense to talk about 'programming'
    or subconscious motivations"

    Believing does *not* preclude programming and sub-conscious motivation. Even as the person might think they are making a 'free choice'.

    A person justifying child marriage, coming from an entire society that has an unusually high number of justifications for child marriages, he states, that he believes child marriage is okay for reasons A and B and C and D. Why do I have to give a high credence to the reasons he gives me? He is programmed to think like that. He was even fed those reasons. A nd perhaps his programming was so successful that he came up with some of his own reasons to justify the habit. Screw his reasons. His reasons are only a tool out of many other tools, that I can use to get a glimpse of his psychology and of how he was built.

    Quote from: Baal
    Just because a person believes something, it does not preclude programming. A Christian baby grows up to believe life is precious. A Muslim baby grows up to believe chastity is precious. You will have an extremely hard time trying to convince me that either baby made by the time they turned 18, arrived to their conclusion (belief) on their own, without programming.


    The choice about what they believe is indeed their own.  Who else's is it?  Of course, they have been influenced in this choice by a variety of sources including their family, community, experiences etc. but they choices is very much their own.

    Is it their own? and why so? because they have their name on that choice? because they signed that choice and proclaimed it as their own choice made by their own free will under no stress or duress or threat or harm?

    Well too bad. Because, I do not believe them. The choice was made by them. It came from them. It was their own voice and hand writing. But the information that went into formulating that choice, was not theirs. And people are predictable particularly, to doctrines that predate the human they influence by centuries and/or own a disproportionate amount of resources relative to this human they influence.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #51 - January 04, 2009, 03:53 AM

    Back on topic, I know it's anecdotal evidence but I have a Somalian friend who has 9 kids and proudly asserts that soon Muslims will have a big enough presence in the West to be able to assert their values onto society.

    He is a lovely guy but he thinks Islam is just the tonic for the decadent West and he does believe that having larger families is a kind of proof that Islam is culturally superior and bound to eclipse secularism.

    I don't think he has so many kids to spread Islam but he sees higher Muslim birth rates as proof that Islamic culture is healthy compared to every other society and it goes without saying there is strength in numbers.

    So spreading Islam is not the aim of having large families but in his world view it is a fortunate by product of Islamic cultural superiority.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #52 - January 04, 2009, 05:03 AM

    It's seen as more Islamic to have more kids by many muslims , in a similar way to how Irish Catholics saw having big families 30 years ago.

    There are some muslims who try and link that to Islam eventually growing and taking power by outnumbering the non-muslims, but it's not exactly the uppermost thought on most muslims minds.




    We are in favor of tolerance, but it is a very difficult thing to tolerate the intolerant and impossible to tolerate the intolerable.

    -George Dennison Prentice
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #53 - January 04, 2009, 09:16 AM

    It's seen as more Islamic to have more kids by many muslims , in a similar way to how Irish Catholics saw having big families 30 years ago.

    There are some muslims who try and link that to Islam eventually growing and taking power by outnumbering the non-muslims,


    =========

    True for most Muslims, at least in theory;

    in Muslim world, ppl say things like: "don't mind having more kids, let's increase the no. of Muslims,"

    Saudi is an example  Wink

    "I'm Agnostic about God."

    Richard Dawkins
    ==
    "If there is a God, it has to be a man; no woman could or would ever fuck things up like this."
     George Carlin == "...The so-called moderates are actually the public relations arm of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran."  Maryam Namazie
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #54 - January 04, 2009, 11:34 AM

    I agree with Iris.  Tongue

    Also Diotima: I know your are, shall we say, "passionate" about your religion but please try to use non-abusive responses when its sanctity is questioned. Some of your tactics just make you look ridiculous.


    Also, Os, I know you are, shall we say, blind on one of your eyes, and never count any but "faithheads" abuse, but I didn?t abuse anyone, much less did I use "tactics" -I called someone?s bluff. What is ridiculous is the ranting, that Sojournerlumus tries to pass off for reasoning. The "sanctity" of my faith in his eyes is pretty irrelevant to me. Stupidity and historical ignorance are not.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #55 - January 04, 2009, 11:57 AM

    Actually diotima, I am the one who thought you were getting harsh:

    Quote
    One thing is sure - YOU don?t let logic or coherence stand in the way of your "reasoning"
    But do go on showing your  lack of brains


    Quote
    the only thing that exceeds your historical ignorance, is your inability to reason in a logically sound way.


    And as for os only counting faithheads abuse, you, sparky and shaneeqa are the most active 'faithheads' here and non of you has ever received a smite, to my knowledge, whereas gallego was rapidly dealt with.
    All we ask is that you debate the points raised rather than attack the person raising them.


    Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #56 - January 04, 2009, 12:01 PM

    yeah, sure.

    Do read the rant I was replying to. What "answer" but the one I gave does it deserve? The debate was about the "programming" of catholics into believing the anti-abortion stand was about life, instead of it?s "True" reason - what in Sojournerlumus? post was to the point of that? What was anything else but irrelevant and incoherent venom?

    and as for me getting personal: what is that:
    Quote
    But I'm sure you wouldn't let facts stand in the way of your prejudices, now would you?

     If he can deal it, he can take it.

    and it was Os I was replying to, no?
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #57 - January 04, 2009, 12:38 PM

    If his reply really was irrelevant and incoherent, I'm sure you would easily be able to demonstrate that instead of just getting angry and calling him stupid.

    Quote
    and it was Os I was replying to, no?

    Os was speaking for the admin. I pointed out that you were getting heated in your replies. So your argument is with me as much as with him.

    Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is invariably fatal.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #58 - January 04, 2009, 12:40 PM

    If his reply really was irrelevant and incoherent, I'm sure you would easily be able to demonstrate that instead of just getting angry and calling him stupid.

    Quote
    and it was Os I was replying to, no?

    Os was speaking for the admin. I pointed out that you were getting heated in your replies. So your argument is with me as much as with him.


    I thought it was self-evident, that his remarks had nothing to do with what was debated, but simply a venomous, incoherent rant.
    As I pointed out, HE started getting personal in his FIRST post to me - I simply threw his OWN words back in his face (in fact, I only modifiied his exact words slightly). That this goes unremarked proves the one-eyed blindness I was referring to.
  • Re: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?
     Reply #59 - January 04, 2009, 12:51 PM


    Heartbreaking ignorance, Blas.  It's hard to know where to start but just to help you on your way, here is the context of Luke 19 (in a slightly more modern version):

    Luke 19:11-28

    While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. 12 So He said, " A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.  13 "And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this  until I come back.'  14 "But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'  15 "When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.  16 "The first appeared, saying, ' Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'  17 "And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'  18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'  19 "And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'  20 "Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;  21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'  22 "He said to him, ' By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?  23'Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'  24 "Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'  25 "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'  26 " I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.  27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." 

    28 After He had said these things, He was going on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
    NASU



    I apologise if I am off topic. If it offends maybe a moderator will move it.
    I thought it was legitimate to object to Sparky's deduction.

    Sparky seems to reach the conclusion: Christians are anti abortionists therefore  *Christian teaching is that all human life is valuable*. This seems bad logic to me. 

    I live in a region called Occitania which stretches from Northern Italy through Southern France almost into Spain.
    In the 13th Century, the Pope ordered a Crusade (Albigensian Crusade) to punish the local heretics...up to 1.000.000 people(men women and children) were brutally murdered by  *friendly* Christians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

    For 1500 hundred years, the Christian Church systematically operated torture chambers throughout Europe. Torture was the rule, not the exception. Next to the Bible, the most influential and venerated book in Christian history was the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), which was a step-by-step tutorial in how to torture "witches' and "sorcerers".
    David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p361) 


    And what about Luke 19.27? Not the word of the Lord? Depends on one's perspective / interpretation.

    Quote

    Christian apologists point out that this infamous command of Jesus to murder his enemies. "It's not Jesus," they say, "It's the 'harsh master' in the parable." But is it?

    Luke builds to JC's big finish in Jerusalem by having his meandering hero tell a series of parables along the way. Luke 19 is the link from Jericho to the Temple itself. In verses 1-10, near Jericho, the godman invites himself into the house of a dwarfish publican called Zacchaeus and rewards the guy with salvation after Zac' says he is going to give half his goods to the poor.

    At verse 11 a new scene is set: JC is about to depart  (and of course he knows crucifixion awaits him); his audience think the Kingdom of God is at hand.

    JC responds with the famous parable, which is actually an attempt by 2nd century gospel writers to deal with issues raised by the "delayed kingdom". The believing brethren have the "good news" but what are they to do with it?

    The parable starts with the words "A certain man of noble birth went far to receive a kingdom. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds." Is this JC? The answer is to be found in an earlier version of the same yarn ? in Matthew:

    "For the Kingdom of Heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods." ? 25,14

    Matthew tells his version of the story using just 3 servants (they represent the Christian brethren, "servants of the Lord'). "After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh" (25.19). There is a reckoning (the Day of Judgement). The lord is well pleased with 2 of them who have successfully "earned interest on his money."

    "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."  ? 25,21

    The third servant however, who denounces his lord as harsh, says he was "afraid" and simply hid the lord's investment. A displeased lord turns on him as a "wicked and slothful servant" (25:27).

    The point of the story? This is how Matthew rounds it off:

     "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
     And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." ? 25.29,30


    In other words this so-called Parable of the Harsh Master / Parable of the Talents is a story about what Christians are to do with the "gospel" as they wait for the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. They are to spread the word ("grow the Lord's money"), not hide it away. Correctly understood, this is the parable of the slothful servant, threatened with "outer darkness."

    When Luke copied Matthew's efforts he added a new element: "reluctant citizens" of the new kingdom (no doubt he had in mind recalcitrant pagans).


    "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us." ? 19.14

    Luke followed closely Matthew's story but replaced the final bit threatening "outer darkness" to lazy brethren with a more immediate and tangible injunction aimed at "enemies":


    "I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." ? 19.27


    ( P.S. Where did Luke get his inspiration? A nobleman "travelling far to receive a kingdom" is a rare enough event. Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews - Book 17, chapter 11 maps the story and also provides all the ingredients for both 19.14 and 19.27.

    With the death of Herod the Great, his son Archelaus ? of noble birth ? journeyed to Rome to "receive his kingdom" from Emperor Augustus. But at the same time an embassy of the Jews petitioned Caesar that "out of their hatred to him" Archelaus not "be set over their kingdom". Archelaus had slaughtered 3000 of his enemies at the Temple. The emperor eventually removed him and sent him into exile in 6 AD.

    Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews around 93 AD.)


     

    Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »