Prophet Muhammad insulted by a film, so we claim the right to kill you?

[gregod]

... But don't think 1) science should be the one that teaches the critical thinking skills necessary, for that is not its objective - but to test hypothesis against verifiable results - rather it is the humanities which cultivate that skill: namely, gaining insight into the workings of human civilization, of which religion has played an integral role. Once one has arrived at a demystification of that role, one can begin to think clearly and embrace tolerance.

2) This is why science, in the absence of the humanities, leads to vapid ideology as with faith.
.
....

1) science (done properly) is absolutely objective. the humanities layer subjectivity on top of science. therefore, science is critical thinking. step 1) "what happens if i do A?" step 2) "i think B will happen if i do A". step 3) design and implement a test. step 4) check results-do results agree with hypothesis? if yes, try to replicate. if no, revise hypothesis and go to step 3. step 5) did you replicate results? if yes, result. if no, revise hypothesis and go to step 3.

2) this is just not true. science is not an ideology. it doesn't lead to ideology. it is a method for examining how the world works. it does not require faith in any way.

neither of which is to in any way denigrate the humanities or their study. science and the humanities can and do work together (e.g. ethics panels), but the absence of the humanities does not mean science becomes in any way like a religion.
__________

my take on the religious violence is that if the muslim world were not subjugated and had power equal to the west, there would be less violence coming from it.

i hate all religion equally, but if they continue to exist, the answer is to give more power to muslim dominated countries.

 

[rhubroma]

1) science (done properly) is absolutely objective. the humanities layer subjectivity on top of science. therefore, science is critical thinking. step 1) "what happens if i do A?" step 2) "i think B will happen if i do A". step 3) design and implement a test. step 4) check results-do results agree with hypothesis? if yes, try to replicate. if no, revise hypothesis and go to step 3. step 5) did you replicate results? if yes, result. if no, revise hypothesis and go to step 3.

2) this is just not true. science is not an ideology. it doesn't lead to ideology. it is a method for examining how the world works. it does not require faith in any way.

neither of which is to in any way denigrate the humanities or their study. science and the humanities can and do work together (e.g. ethics panels), but the absence of the humanities does not mean science becomes in any way like a religion.
__________

my take on the religious violence is that if the muslim world were not subjugated and had power equal to the west, there would be less violence coming from it.

i hate all religion equally, but if they continue to exist, the answer is to give more power to muslim dominated countries.

You misunderstood me. I said that that was not the job of science, namely to demonstrate what can't be proven. Science works toward the opposite and thus is a discipline that in this sense has interpretive limitations. Objectivity may be pretty, but it is constrained to those phenomena that can't be affected by the myriad designs of humanity.

The humanities, by contrast, work toward arriving at "consciousness," which exists beyond the constraints of scientific results that may be historical, aesthetic, philosophical, ethical etc. Yes it is subjective, and fraught with pitfalls, however, there is no other way, for example, to contemplate and understand how a religion is constructed and formed.

When science is used improperly, it very much can be turned into an instrument of ideology: by way of interpretive reflections to support one's political program. As if science has become politically correct, the humanities less so or even hostile, because they enncourage a type of critical thinking that the political and religious authorities find disturbing and hostile to thier worldview and can't use to further their ideological ends. In fact it isn't the scientists who are being pursecuted in Iran today, but the so called disidents.

In any case both are compatible and should be encouraged, so I’m by no means arguing for the superiority of the one over the other. It’s just that science (which is really techne), seems to have been given an overbearing relevance in our market driven world today, such that what the humanities can potentially encourage has been transformed into a “luxury” for those that don’t have to keep up, or worry about, modernity. What I see going on, therefore, in the schools of today, is that we have too much technology and not enough humanity. Everyone knows how to use internet, in other words, but they have no damn historical perspective. This is not only sad, but dangerous.

 

[CobbleStoner]

Bad guys are bad guys. My job is to find them and ensure they are no longer capable of performing a terrorist act on this country's people.
Your welcome.

so who makes the decision on whether someone is a 'bad guy' that you need to disable? you personally? or a commanding officer? I'm sure that always works out fine, and you arrogantly think that every American should thank you?
I served my country in the Navy, so I know first hand how stupid some of the decisions and decision makers can be.

 

[RedheadDane]

I have to admit that I am a bit of two minds about this whole 'making fun of religion' thing.
On one hand I think it's important to respect every belief-system (not religion, because people who aren't religious needs to be respected as well. Though I'll make an exception with people who use their belief-systems as an excuse to hurt others, they don't deserve my respect!)
Nobody should make the claim of "My way of living is the only correct way and everyone else should just realize that!"

One the other hand I think there are people who take their beliefs entirely too serious. Come on... a bit of random humour is good for the soul!
About the cartoons; at one point during the entire affair some guy who'd been a leading figure in the flag-burning and stuff was shown the bomb-in-turban cartoon and his reaction was pretty much "That doesn't even look like the Prophet!"
This just goes to show two things:
1: He hadn't even seen the cartoon.
2: Even if he had he wouldn't even have known that if was supposed to be Mohammad if he wasn't told.

Unfortunately it's a few ****-heads ruining it for those people who just want to live in peace, whether it's Muslims hijacking planes and flying into buildings or the Westboro bunch holding up signs downgrading gays and... generally everybody who doesn't agree with them.

Come to think of it... Religion and Politics is really like Water and Caesium: Whenever they're mixed the result tends to get somewhat explosive...

 

[Descender]

This is what happens when you have a civilisation that is still anchored in the middle ages.

In any case, it's also just another result of accepting faith as legitimate.

I yearn for the day when all religions have disappeared off the face of the earth.

 

[RedheadDane]

This is what happens when you have a civilisation that is still anchored in the middle ages.

In any case, it's also just another result of accepting faith as legitimate.

I yearn for the day when all religions have disappeared off the face of the earth.

Isn't that just as intolerant as religious people who cannot accept others' belief-systems?

 

[Descender]

You misunderstood me. I said that that was not the job of science, namely to demonstrate what can't be proven. Science works toward the opposite and thus is a discipline that in this sense has interpretive limitations. Objectivity may be pretty, but it is constrained to those phenomena that can't be affected by the myriad designs of humanity.

The humanities, by contrast, work toward arriving at "consciousness," which exists beyond the constraints of scientific results that may be historical, aesthetic, philosophical, ethical etc. Yes it is subjective, and fraught with pitfalls, however, there is no other way, for example, to contemplate and understand how a religion is constructed and formed.

When science is used improperly, it very much can be turned into an instrument of ideology: by way of interpretive reflections to support one's political program. As if science has become politically correct, the humanities less so or even hostile, because they enncourage a type of critical thinking that the political and religious authorities find disturbing and hostile to thier worldview and can't use to further their ideological ends. In fact it isn't the scientists who are being pursecuted in Iran today, but the so called disidents.

In any case both are compatible and should be encouraged, so I’m by no means arguing for the superiority of the one over the other. It’s just that science (which is really techne), seems to have been given an overbearing relevance in our market driven world today, such that what the humanities can potentially encourage has been transformed into a “luxury” for those that don’t have to keep up, or worry about, modernity. What I see going on, therefore, in the schools of today, is that we have too much technology and not enough humanity. Everyone knows how to use internet, in other words, but they have no damn historical perspective. This is not only sad, but dangerous.

What is this "consciousness" that you are talking about? I challenge your notion that the birth and evolution of religions cannot be studied scientifically.

Also, those interpretative reflections of science are not science, are they?

 

[gregod]

This is what happens when you have a civilisation that is still anchored in the middle ages.

In any case, it's also just another result of accepting faith as legitimate.

I yearn for the day when all religions have disappeared off the face of the earth.

unfortunately, it will never happen. humans are wired to believe stupid stuff.

 

[gregod]

Isn't that just as intolerant as religious people who cannot accept others' belief-systems?

no, because he is not calling for their destruction or imprisonment, but for the elimination of their wrong ideas.

 

[Descender]

Isn't that just as intolerant as religious people who cannot accept others' belief-systems?

This is how the Oxford Dictionary of English defines the verb "tolerate":

tolerate (v.)

1- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
2- accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

I allow the existence of religion, accept and endure it with forbearance.

I do not storm buildings and kill people, I do not try to impose my views upon others by force.

 

[RedheadDane]

I do not storm buildings and kill people, I do not try to impose my views upon others by force.

Nor does every religion person. As I said; it's a few **** heads throughout history who's been ruining for the rest.

Besides; there have been at least one case of non-religious people trying to force their views on others; Just think of the Cultural Revolution in China.

 

[gregod]

...[stuff] Science ...[stuff].

The humanities, by contrast, work toward arriving at "consciousness," ....

When science is used improperly, ....

In any case both are compatible and should be encouraged, so I’m by no means arguing for the superiority of the one over the other. ...

then i why did you bring up science in the first place?

if by "consciousness" you mean "consensus", i agree. but science does both of these as well. i have always been "conscious" of my results. also, when others duplicate my results we come together to agree on the meaning, i.e. consensus.

science is rarely used improperly by scientists. science has built-in mechanisms to prevent this. it is, however, misused all of the time by opportunistic politicians, quick buck snake oil salesmen, new agey, airy fairy charlatans (i'm looking at you deepak), and other rogues.

but you are advocating for the superiority of one over the other. you made the specious claim that science cannot teach critical thinking. science is critical thinking.

 

[Descender]

Nor does every religion person. As I said; it's a few **** heads throughout history who's been ruining for the rest.

Tell that to the women in Muslim countries. Or to homosexuals, to atheists... hell, even musicians are persecuted in some areas!

More than half of the population in the muslim world is oppressed. There is no freedom of speech, no basic human rights. Why? Because the only source of authority is the Holy Quran. The truth is found there and only there. People who believe it are right, those who don't are wrong. End of story.

That is the definition of intolerance. And don't tell me it's just a matter of a couple of ****heads. A whole civilisation lives under it.

 

[gregod]

Nor does every religion person. As I said; it's a few **** heads throughout history who's been ruining for the rest.

Besides; there have been at least one case of non-religious people trying to force their views on others; Just think of the Cultural Revolution in China.

and stalin in the soviet union. unfortunately, your analogy is weak because in both cases the state and the party were the religion. citizens of those countries were forced to subjugate reality for whatever the government told you.

not unlike followers of ayn rand and free marketeers. dogma is dogma.

ideology is the nemesis of reality.

 

[Descender]

Besides; there have been at least one case of non-religious people trying to force their views on others; Just think of the Cultural Revolution in China.

Oh of course. But from the notion "there is no God" you can't draw the direct conclusion "therefore it's ok to impose my views".

However, one can draw a straightforward conclusion "infidels must be thwarted" from the holy scriptures of the Quran. Osama Bin Laden was not the one who was interpreting the Quran in some sort of barbed, twisted way. The concept of holy war against non-muslims is explained in a pretty eloquent way in it.

See what I said in my original post though:

In any case, it's also just another result of accepting faith as legitimate.

Notice I didn't say religious faith. I despise faith (that is, believing a claim to be true without sufficient evidence attesting to its veracity) in all its manifestations. Be it religion, astrology, witchcraft, political ideologies, etc.

 

[gregod]

...
Notice I didn't say religious faith. I despise faith (that is, believing a claim to be true without sufficient evidence attesting to its veracity) in all its manifestations. Be it religion, astrology, witchcraft, political ideologies, etc.

well said.

 

[Anonymous]

reply to first post

Things with Muslims are as they are - you can't change them in a short time - I am just asking myself why is noone pointing finger at the people who do the stuff that will for consequence have all these problems with Muslims.
Yes, muslims react to Mohammed being ridiculed or badmouthed and you can count on that, but why should anyone provoke them if they know what will be the immediate outcome - what do the provokers gain? IMO they have nothing to gain and other people suffer the consequence of their recklessness. Muslim people's beliefs don't cost me a thing and that's why i respect them(or i'm simply indifferent to them) - if i know that they cherish something i am not the one that would go ahead and insult their feelings if there isn't positive difference to be made to the world in general (in forseeable future).

If the cause and effect are so stiffly connected, as it is in this case, i find provokers the ones that should hold the same responsibility as the terrorists(or rioters or whatever).

 

[RedheadDane]

Tell that to the women in Muslim countries. Or to homosexuals, to atheists... hell, even musicians are persecuted in some areas!

More than half of the population in the muslim world is oppressed. There is no freedom of speech, no basic human rights. Why? Because the only source of authority is the Holy Quran. The truth is found there and only there. People who believe it are right, those who don't are wrong. End of story.

That is the definition of intolerance. And don't tell me it's just a matter of a couple of ****heads. A whole civilisation lives under it.

But it is. It is a few **** heads who ruin it for everyone else. Problem is that those **** heads are the **** heads in power. Take the cases of females who's been raped who punished because "They were with men", well... here's what the Quran actually has to say on the matter:

During the time of the Prophet (saw) punishment was inflicted on the rapist on the solitary evidence of the woman who was raped by him. Wa'il ibn Hujr reports of an incident when a woman was raped. Later, when some people came by, she identified and accused the man of raping her. They seized him and brought him to Allah's messenger, who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allâh has forgiven you," but of the man who had raped her, he said, "Stone him to death." (Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud)

Unfortunately it's easier for the people in power, usually men, to simply interpret any holy text the way they want to.

As for homosexuals. You know... there are actually Christians (and people of other faiths) who fight for homosexuals, not against them. Some of my really good friends are from all over the LGBT community. I would defend them as much as I can (given that most of them are online-friends), not despite the fact that I'm a Christian but because of it. Because of that little detail it seems that some people have forgotten: "Love your neighbour!" And it's not just my friends, it's everybody!

 

[gregod]

...

If the cause and effect are so stiffly connected, as it is in this case, i find provokers the ones that should hold the same responsibility as the terrorists(or rioters or whatever).

i am sympathetic to this opinion, but i will explain it from the side of the people who are most strongly outraged at the rioters.

the movie makers engaged in perfectly legal activity. the rioters did not. black and white. simple.

however, it is human to lash out when taunted. it may not be right, but everybody has a button that can be pushed that will lead to violence. when i was a university student i used to play a lot of pick up tennis and basketball. i used to beat a lot of players who were much better than me because during the course of the normal trash talking i often found what made them go ballistic and lose their cool. i'm good at it.

muslims are sensitive about the prophet. people are taking advantage of this for no other reason than to incite violence. therefore, in my opinion, if not in the eyes of the law, they are equally if not more responsible for what has happened.

 

[gregod]

... I'm a Christian but because of it. Because of that little detail it seems that some people have forgotten: "Love your neighbour!" And it's not just my friends, it's everybody!

and i'm not a christian because that is not the only message of your religion. i can love my neighbor because it is common sense not because some magic sky being says to. especially when that magic sky being says a lot of other crazy stuff.

 

[RedheadDane]

and i'm not a christian because that is not the only message of your religion. i can love my neighbor because it is common sense not because some magic sky being says to. especially when that magic sky being says a lot of other crazy stuff.

The Bible says a lot of crazy stuff. But the Bible was written by human beings, writing in the context of the time they were living in (or in some cases writing down old stories, first told by people living in one context, while themselves living in another context.)

 

[gregod]

The Bible says a lot of crazy stuff. But the Bible was written by human beings, writing in the context of the time they were living in (or in some cases writing down old stories, first told by people living in one context, while themselves living in another context.)

and the bible is the instruction book of your religion. if the instruction book doesn't make sense, then the religion doesn't make sense. dump the religion and the belief in non-existent space daddy, join reality and be kind to people because it is the right thing to do not because you think space daddy wants it.

free your mind and happiness will follow.

 

[Descender]

But it is. It is a few **** heads who ruin it for everyone else. Problem is that those **** heads are the **** heads in power.

Are those mobs that are storming US embassies the people in power?

Are you telling me the common Muslim is a democratic, tolerant man who has no problem treating his wife as his equal, who is all for homosexual rights and freedom of speech, etc.?

Unfortunately it's easier for the people in power, usually men, to simply interpret any holy text the way they want to.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing right below this line?

As for homosexuals. You know... there are actually Christians (and people of other faiths) who fight for homosexuals, not against them. Some of my really good friends are from all over the LGBT community. I would defend them as much as I can (given that most of them are online-friends), not despite the fact that I'm a Christian but because of it. Because of that little detail it seems that some people have forgotten: "Love your neighbour!" And it's not just my friends, it's everybody!

You defend them because you are a good person, not because you are a Christian.

Tell me, what is the most logical, straightforward interpretation:

a) Homosexuality is bad, because it says in the Bible that

- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

- If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

- In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.(Romans 1)

b) Homosexuality is not bad, despite all the verses in the Bible condemning it, because Jesus says "love your neighbour".


You choose to embark in an improbably journey of cherrypicking and subjective interpretation because you personally feel homosexuality isn't something bad. You choose to ignore what the holy book of your faith says about homosexuality. But others won't, with results such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8

That is the problem with faith: it is by definition subjective. Anybody can interpret the holy scriptures and interpret them the way they want to. The problem is, there are certain interpretations that require a higher degree of mental gymnastics than others.

That is what you get when you hold the belief (again, without any evidence) that some ancient books, written by ancient and therefore ignorant scribes, are more than just books and are the inerrant word of the creator of the universe.

 

[RedheadDane]

and the bible is the instruction book of your religion. if the instruction book doesn't make sense, then the religion doesn't make sense. dump the religion and the belief in non-existent space daddy, join reality and be kind to people because it is the right thing to do not because you think space daddy wants it.

free your mind and happiness will follow.

But the Bible isn't an instruction book, it's a book filled with text written by many people over thousands of years. You're not supposed to read it literally.

My mind is free. If it wasn't I would be trying to convert you, I'm not. I'm just trying to show you that the world isn't black-and-white. The world can't be ordered into
Religion = bad and Atheism= Good

Just as it can't be ordered into
Christianity = good and Everything else = bad.

But you know what? Let's just agree to disagree.

To return to the original topic of "You insult my religion. I kill you!" (This must be read in the voice of Achmet the Dead Terroists!)
Of course making fun of someone's religion (or any kind of belief-system) does not give them the right to kill you.
As for the cartoon-case and the flag-burning. You know... I never understood the concept of burning flags to show how much you loated another country. A flag is simply pieces of fabric sewn together, it did not fall from the sky.

 

[Descender]

But the Bible isn't an instruction book, it's a book filled with text written by many people over thousands of years. You're not supposed to read it literally.

Why not? How do you know?