Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 01:42:58 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Why silly saugages want to blow people up?

Started by Borboski, July 04, 2007, 10:40:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Cheers for that PK Duck. Knew a bit about the 80's neo-con stuff but the stuff about the Lutherian Church is new to me, I must admit.

I still can't quite believe headlines all across the world aren't saying "Psychotic ancient institutions sanction and partake in murder and cruelty far outweighing any possible benefits", but when you belong and believe in those institutions, it's probably difficult to contextualise or even open yourself to the idea.

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 08, 2007, 09:21:35 PMI still can't quite believe headlines all across the world aren't saying "Psychotic ancient institutions sanction and partake in murder and cruelty far outweighing any possible benefits", but when you belong and believe in those institutions, it's probably difficult to contextualise or even open yourself to the idea.

That's a little bit condescending. I keep getting involved in arguments over the value of religion, and I think that it's that ^ kind of wide-eyed self-satisfaction that ropes me in. I'm not personally religious, and I have no problem with your feeling however you like about religion. If the situation is so mysterious to you, though, hasn't it ever struck you that it might be because you don't fully grasp it, not because everyone's stupider than you?

Borboski

On the contrary, I think some of us grasp Reverend Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, perfectly well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

jutl

Quote from: Borboski on July 09, 2007, 09:08:53 AM
On the contrary, I think some of us grasp Reverend Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, perfectly well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

"Look at this twat who's religious. That proves I'm a rare genius."

How is the list of ideological similarities between Islam and Nazism coming along? I hope you're not going to say that they are both controlling, as that does make your original point seem a little overstated...

edit to add: or at least sensationalist and selective.

Borboski

It doesn't prove that - I think S!S? was just voicing the amazement that we still hold "faith" and "faith-based views" in such high regard, and there's such taboo about pointing and saying "no, that's nonsense!".  There's an example of total nonsense by a person of faith, and yes - it does surprise me in liberal society that he can get away with that - when someone like Kilroy-Silk or Glenn Hoddle got absolutely battered for their comments.

You always seem really bothered that when people criticise religion they can only be doing it to sneer at people.  I really don't get that - all the skeptical writers (and even the NESS podcast and the so-so Penn & Teller Bullshit show) seem to be people who have the total respect for your average person. Maybe you've just heard a couple of tiresome adolescents banging on about faith and that's left you prejudiced?

Oh, I've got loads on Islam and NSDAP, probably too much, all very interesting for me though.  I've started re-reading Terror and Liberalism as well as a result.  Plus me mam bought my a couple of Kenan Makiya books for my birthday, these look excellent, if a little grim holiday reading.

jutl

Quote from: Borboski on July 09, 2007, 09:36:55 AM
It doesn't prove that - I think S!S? was just voicing the amazement that we still hold "faith" and "faith-based views" in such high regard, and there's such taboo about pointing and saying "no, that's nonsense!". 

Is there?

Quote
There's an example of total nonsense by a person of faith, and yes - it does surprise me in liberal society that he can get away with that - when someone like Kilroy-Silk or Glenn Hoddle got absolutely battered for their comments.

I can understand that. What I can't understand is going from that surprise to a conviction that anyone who doesn't act as you expect must be thick.

Quote
You always seem really bothered that when people criticise religion they can only be doing it to sneer at people.  I really don't get that - all the skeptical writers (and even the NESS podcast and the so-so Penn & Teller Bullshit show) seem to be people who have the total respect for your average person. Maybe you've just heard a couple of tiresome adolescents banging on about faith and that's left you prejudiced?

It's not the sneering itself that bothers me - it's the poor reasoning behind it.

Quote
Oh, I've got loads on Islam and NSDAP, probably too much

Fire away :)

Shoulders?-Stomach!

There's a difference between calling people stupid (which I haven't done), and pointing out the insidious nature of indoctrination and cultural control that has an over-bearing and I would argue overly negative impact on social behaviour, as inconvenient as that may be. We're all affected by external influences, but when those are so tightly controlled by an unwieldy medieval monster you'll get entire nations of people thinking that murder can in fact be justified due to the medieval laws they live under, and the rationale of the God (first conceived thousands of years ago, so perfectly capable of dispensing relevant advice now) they worship.

Even last week we've seen that the CofE's own patricians are literally unable to stop themselves using wrath of God bullshit to try and intimidate and bully the masses; to try and spread homophobic thinking and latently justify the killing of people and the destruction of homes, and lives. And we're told they're the goodies. (Oddie joke on standby)

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 02:12:28 PM
There's a difference between calling people stupid (which I haven't done),

Just for clarification then, what is the difference between you and an average believer? Do you think they just got drawn in early and so now lack the analytical abilities that you have? You say:

QuoteI still can't quite believe headlines all across the world aren't saying "Psychotic ancient institutions sanction and partake in murder and cruelty far outweighing any possible benefits", but when you belong and believe in those institutions, it's probably difficult to contextualise or even open yourself to the idea.

...and that makes me automatically wonder what you think of people with near-identical backgrounds to your own who become religious (I'm guessing that such people exist). What's their excuse, in your view? 


Shoulders?-Stomach!

You're making out that the same freedom and choice applies across the world. Had I been born somewhere else I'm sure I'd be unable to escape the controlling grip of religion, and would probably not even desire to, as religion is too deeply entrenched in some countries, you cannot escape it.

Quote...and that makes me automatically wonder what you think of people with near-identical backgrounds to your own who become religious (I'm guessing that such people exist). What's their excuse, in your view? 

The only people with 'near identical backgrounds' to my own are my brother and sister, and neither of them are religious. If you're talking about 'having parents who allowed freedom to develop my own views, not influencing one way or the other', if you become religious from that start, there must be a decision to engage with religion at some point- whether that is from external influence or it's come from your own thinking as an individual is the judge. Allowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework as to control you; to affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness. That applies to a range of societal groups, not solely religious ones. If however you are born into a system you cannot escape, it's entirely unfair to be labelled as stupid, even if I was doing such a thing.

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 02:36:28 PMThe only people with 'near identical backgrounds' to my own are my brother and sister, and neither of them are religious. If you're talking about 'having parents who allowed freedom to develop my own views, not influencing one way or the other', if you become religious from that start, there must be a decision to engage with religion at some point- whether that is from external influence or it's come from your own thinking as an individual is the judge. Allowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework as to control you; to affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness. That applies to a range of societal groups, not solely religious ones. If however you are born into a system you cannot escape, it's entirely unfair to be labelled as stupid, even if I was doing such a thing.


So would it be fair to say that you're calling any Christian who had 'parents who allowed freedom to develop [their] own views, not influencing one way or the other' stupid? I'm just trying to clarify precisely whom you're better than.

Borboski

Oh and by the way, some wonderful person added the tag "Borboski's right" and some little BASTARD has been deleting this each time it's re-appeared!!!  So whoever did that I hope you can live with yourself, I don't know how you sleep at night

Borboski

You could turn the question the other way around jutl - what is it about non-believers that's made them not believe?  If it isn't better critical thinking skills, then what is it?

jutl

Quote from: Borboski on July 09, 2007, 02:45:36 PM
You could turn the question the other way around jutl - what is it about non-believers that's made them not believe?  If it isn't better critical thinking skills, then what is it?

I don't know, and I can't see any basis to speculate that isn't horribly reductive. Clearly belief does not give them (or me for that matter) anything they value. I don't pretend to know why that is, and I think that jumping to a conclusion probably says more about the jumper than the truth.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: jutl on July 09, 2007, 02:40:03 PM
So would it be fair to say that you're calling any Christian who had 'parents who allowed freedom to develop [their] own views, not influencing one way or the other' stupid? I'm just trying to clarify precisely whom you're better than.

No-one. Forget to read which ever bit of my post you like if it aids your pre-established and seemingly unrelenting view on what I'm saying, but it won't make you correct!

Quote from: Ithere must be a decision to engage with religion at some point- whether that is from external influence or it's come from your own thinking as an individual is the judge

There you are. So if you come to the decision having thought about it as an individual, that's entirely respectable.
None of this implies that I am a 'better person' for not believing, given the same circumstances. The bit where I say that is in your own imagination. Being a better person is about a multitude of factors, which I may possess in some areas and lack in others.

You can't continue how you're going about, and making accusations instead of confronting the real issue here. Even if the accusations you were level were true, they wouldn't make my arguments weaker, they would simply make me a real shit of a person. Perhaps you'd like to investigate the value of this statement further:

QuoteAllowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework as to control you; to affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness

Is this such a cunt-ish standpoint?

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 02:54:17 PM
None of this implies that I am a 'better person' for not believing, given the same circumstances.

So when you say that you are amazed that the newspapers don't trumpet your opinion, what exactly makes you say that?



Shoulders?-Stomach!

QuoteI still can't quite believe

Does that mean 'amazed'?

No, it means, with the rest of the post 'I'm struggling to grasp quite how powerful religious institutions are, and it makes me hate them all the more.'

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 03:06:33 PM
Does that mean 'amazed'?

No, it means, with the rest of the post 'I'm struggling to grasp quite how powerful religious institutions are, and it makes me hate them all the more.'

Yes, this is the problem I think. Religious institutions tend to just be the sum of their adherents. If you hate religious institutions, you hate their constituent members. If you think religion is deranged and stupid, you think religious people are deranged and stupid. You might make an exception for those who never had a choice, but that still leaves a very large number who chose to be religious. If you're surprised at how many religious people there are, you have a choice of explaining that surprise by reference to yourself ie 'I am clearly missing something here that makes this appealing' or by reference to the believers ie 'these people are either stupid, mental or under some kind of duress'. I tend to interpret your posts as in the latter category there.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

I'm didn't say I was 'surprised' or 'amazed' or the other hundreds of words currently filling my mouth.

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 03:39:46 PM
I'm didn't say I was 'surprised' or 'amazed' or the other hundreds of words currently filling my mouth.

You said you couldn't believe it.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

You could tell me whether you agree with this statement or not:

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach!  (oooh he's referring to himself in the 3rd person now!!)Allowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework as to control you; to affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness

jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 04:02:49 PM
You could tell me whether you agree with this statement or not:

QuoteAllowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework as to control you; to affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness


I'm a bit confused by your sentence structure there. The bit before the semi-colon is a nounal phrase with no verb (although I'm a bit unsure what you mean by 'as to control you'). In the bit after the semi-colon I really don't know is you mean 'affect' as in pretend or as in influence. Sorry to be dim but could you say it more simply please?

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Allowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework so they can control you and affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness.

---


jutl

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on July 09, 2007, 05:06:38 PM
Allowing yourself to be led, and allowing others to define your moral framework so they can control you and affect your actions and beliefs is the hallmark of intellectual and/or social weakness.

Thanks :)

I don't think that anyone can entirely avoid this, so no, I think that's a needlessly judgemental view. I also don't think that you can describe religion as 'defin[ing] your moral framework so they can control you' (it is religion you're referring to, isn't it?) 

P K Duck

References for the radical Christianity Sunday morning sermon:

Solomon's Temple Myth and History by Hamblin & Seely, just the best book on how closely related the histories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam really are, and in an accesible way that assumes no prior scripture knowledge.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, which is online! In depth Classical history: what the web was made for!

The Luther caveats come from a Catholic, but that doesn't mean they're not without merit: Dave Armstrong writes accessible and compelling books essentially smashing into Protestants of all eras.

Some more on-line, first-hand accounts of Medieval illegitimate Christian lunacy: The massacre of Jews in Rouen 1095. How far away from the teachings of Christ can this event be?

This one makes me sick... Its the Fouth Lateran Council. Lateran Councils are called by the Pope in order to discuss issues of importance to the Catholic Church as a whole, and this one met in 1215 to drum up support for their Holy War, and to persecute the Jews some more. Check out Constitution 68, Nazi fans, it's the Jews- must- wear- symbols edict.


More on-line fun: The Dark Bible places the garbled mis-mash of ideas and commands in the Good Book into some sort of perspective, and selects certain recurrent, illegitimate themes that have grafted themselves onto Christianity as a result of its radicalisation.

Obviously, The Power of Nightmares is essential viewing for the Neo-con stuff. There are websites dedicated to documenting this stuff too.

This one's good: An Islamic view of the Bible, but not for scripture haters. If you're not convinced there's value in scripture, then this isn't going to convince you otherwise, but if you're interested in interpretations etc, this is quite a nice site, when it's working.

This one is funnyish, if only for the "CLEARED-UP" stamp... yeah... Christian answers to contradictions in the Bible.

More hellfire and brimstone, legal letter codex format, from the 4th Century CE. Booo! They've outlawed Gladiators, booooo!


And this is bloody fascinating: how illegitimate Christianity took over the Roman Empire. Start here, work backwards.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: jutl on July 09, 2007, 05:34:01 PM
Thanks :)

I don't think that anyone can entirely avoid this, so no, I think that's a needlessly judgemental view. I also don't think that you can describe religion as 'defin[ing] your moral framework so they can control you' (it is religion you're referring to, isn't it?) 

As stated above, it isn't only a statement in reference to religion, but to any organisation.

It doesn't matter whether anyone can entirely avoid it or not- what matters is the level to which people are aware of it, and aware of themselves as individuals.

NoSleep

Quote from: P K Duck on July 09, 2007, 05:43:02 PM
References for the radical Christianity Sunday morning sermon:

... shitloads of fascinating stuff ...

And this is bloody fascinating: how illegitimate Christianity took over the Roman Empire. Start here, work backwards.

Just started on the last one and it looks to be an interesting read.

It occurs to me that this seems to be describing a point in history where an empire realised the possible huge potential of uniting all under one religion, whereas there was always respect for others' gods before this time. Easy pickings for the first one to come up with that idea. And no surprise that others followed suit.
But here's the thing... religion does not have the central place in this. It is co-opted to the empire's goals. And I think you will probably find that this is generally the case... religion is a weapon of war, not the cause. It may sometimes seem like the reason, for propaganda purposes, but behind it there is the usual pursuit, or defense, of power, wealth and real estate.

As much as it seems it's desired of us to believe the recent attacks are from people who "hate our freedom", I think the truth is far more complex and IS related to western foreign policy in the middle east. The propaganda works both ways and Moslems see what is happening to other Moslems elsewhere and are told that it is their concern because of their religion - all Moslems are meant to come to the aid of one another. To think that they are opening a front to expand Islam to the UK is a little far-fetched to me, if I'm catching the right drift here(?).
I think somebody mentioned earlier that Osama Bin Laden has said attacks would cease if Western policy toward the middle east changed. But the problem gets more confused as the messages sent by politicians seem bent on aggravating rather than assisting in healing - Jack Straw's ridiculous comment on the the 'intimidating' veils in his surgery (So you need to see somebody's face to talk to them, Jack? - 1)Tell that to David Blunkett 2)Stand aside and let a grown up do your job, Jack.) Fuck, the column inches that one played out for months. And only recently the diplomatic move of giving a knighthood to Salman fucking Rushdie. What for? For the huge amount of money the taxpayer has had to fork out to protect him?

Borboski

I'm a bit confused by your view there, nosleep.

A) You say that religion hasn't ever had a central place in conflict.  People have used it, but only for their other political, 'realist' aims.

B) You say that recent attacks are inspired by Western foreign policy.  But that only works because 'Muslims' see them as, primarily, Muslims, and believe that as a matter of faith they need to come to the aid of Muslims wherever they are.

So - is people's Islamic identity, or a strong political variant of Islam fundamental to people who want to kill and main civilians, or not?

C) When you allude to Bin Laden saying attacks would cease if foreign policy changed - what exactly do you have in mind?

D) Your last paragraph is a load of bobbins.  Jack Straw puts of lot of time into building relationships with the local muslim community, and up against the veil comments you could align criticising the Danish newspaper for publishing those cartoons and stating that Israel's actions in the Lebanon crises were disproportionate (both of which I disagree with).  Second, your comment on Rushdie is total nonsense - it wasn't a "diplomatic move", and why on earth do you have a problem with the state protecting individuals from being murdered?  Anyway, I'm not clear what point your making -> how does this relate to Bin Laden's comments on foreign policy?

jutl

Quote from: Borboski on July 10, 2007, 09:05:28 AM
C) When you allude to Bin Laden saying attacks would cease if foreign policy changed - what exactly do you have in mind?

Check out the thread I linked on page one.

Borboski

#88
Well, I've grabbed another 20 mins to add more to my opus... hopefully I can complete tonight. 

Jutl – in that thread you say to be saying that Bin Laden was making a legitimate offer to the US after which he would "call off the troops".  Do you think those demands are realistic? Isn't he basically saying "convert to Islam" and don't assist Israel when we try to eradicate it?   You suggest that the article would be surprising to many people... I don't think it would.  It talks about fornicating, loose morals, all the rest of it.  Ah, Fanny makes this point later on, as do others.  Well – let's not revisit that debate.  I do think your reading of the message is very... um... positive, shall we say!

Plus since then we've seen planned attacks in Canada, who didn't play a role in the war.  And there's a problem in that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda aren't 'leading' terrorism from the centre.  At least those Marxists were organised, eh!

Reading that thread helps me to understand why you might be wary of identifying Islamism as a distinct totalitarian movement -> you seem quite hopeful of some sort of resolution, with of course a dose of (legitimate) criticism of the West.  But it would, from your perspective, mean that the situation was hopeless. It would also mean that it doesn't really matter how nice, or not nice, the West is.  Nazis didn't give a monkeys about British or French foreign policy, it had its own internal mission.

jutl

Quote from: Borboski on July 10, 2007, 01:07:15 PM

Reading that thread helps me to understand why you might be wary of identifying Islamism as a distinct totalitarian movement -> you seem quite hopeful of some sort of resolution, with of course a dose of (legitimate) criticism of the West.  But it would, from your perspective, mean that the situation was hopeless. It would also mean that it doesn't really matter how nice, or not nice, the West is.  Nazis didn't give a monkeys about British or French foreign policy, it had its own internal mission.

Islamism just means Islam in the world outside right-wing blogs. I think you're using the word to mean what some awful cunts call 'Islamofascism'. If that's what you mean then you might as well adopt the word. Otherwise why not just say Islam?

The thread I linked contains some fairly close linguistic crit of those Bin Laden statements, which leads me to say that you can't use them for evidence that Bin Laden is demanding that everyone converts to Islam in exchnage for cessation. I'm not saying he wouldn't be pleased, just that those statements make it clear that that is not a goal of this current campaign. Ideologically it may be an aim of Islam - just as Christianity aims to convert the entire world.  Even the Nazis were in practice prepared to live side by side with other ideologically different states (like the UK) provided that they didn't fuck with what they got up to within their newly expanded borders.