Research on Belief in God

Page 82 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
python said:
in one word, the west is yet to produce a politician equal to vlad's ability of understanding and playing islam.
I think we (USA) have had them in the past and are still reaping the "rewards" of our meddling. We, like Putin have invested billions in trying to play one side against the other and have earned the hatred of all. It will come back around on Putin too, as it has on Russia in the past. They don't like being played for patsies.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
No doubt about that. But I always chose the least evil.





Last time I checked, Putin strongly spoke against the islam. So besides fighting the fight against imperialists, he also sees the clear dangers of the future.
Wow, so now Putin is your ideal for a world leader? He can't even run what is left of Russia.:rolleyes:
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
RetroActive said:
...so you didn't enjoy that double entendre...:D

Or maybe you don't like to have your big bang belief system exposed. Then I read your tag line and I interpret this as "I'm a simpleton". ;) Why are you commenting on a religion thread? Oh, you can't help feeling superior. There are many religions and many interpretations, does understanding this make me wise? Anything is wiser than your ignorance on the subject.

If curious and confused is wise then count me in.

btw, I find the mystics in all religions to be the most interesting as they were contemplating questions that led to science and many of those questions still haven't been answered and probably never will in any scientific way. Religion doesn't have to be as dumb as you assume it is, that's for certain. Dogma on the other hand...
Religion in any organized form is heavy on the dogma and very very light on free thinking.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
What are you people even talking about?

Saudi Arabia is a horrible country and it's Islamic so therefore all the horrible things happening in Saudi Arabia are the fault of Islam. Do you guys even know how ridiculous that sounds? Correlation does not equal causation anybody?

Can anybody explain to me what on earth street racing has to do with Islam? :confused:
The problem is, of course, that in Saudi Arabia a women can get arrested for driving, which is to say for not being totally submissive to her husband (or brother, or father) according to the teachings of Islam, or one can be condemned to death for apostasy. It is therefore not possible to separate the "horrible country" from the theocracy that prevails. Whereas in Iran, for the same reason, a person can be stoned to death (there is no archaism more barbaric) for adultery, or homosexuality.

We don't even need to discuss the beheadings. And I'm well aware that in the absence of a "religions calling" (although, currently US ideology is impregnated with such a "higher vocation"), similar barbarity has occurred under the premise of war. However in no other place is the interconnection between religion and "terror" so evident, and so resilient. This direct relationship has no corollary in the West. Nor is their an equivilent in the West for the fate of Charlie Hebdo in the name of religious vendetta, neither is their a Western parallel to IS, with its religious inspired determination to slaughter the infidel, because, in point of fact, not of the Muslim faith.

The larger issue is that this is what happens when a patriarchal (for it certainly isn't matriarchal) order legitimized by religion does not experience the difficult passage of secularization and lives under the tyranny of obscurantism, which is the fault of the repression of and/or submission to (for this is what has taken place) the religions order.

As irony would have it, such subjugation has led to the very conditions through which Saudi Arabia (like the whole Middle East) has been a victim of both internal and external forces.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
"Advertising" right here from the cycnews page:

"One year in jail for watching a volleyball game"

https://iran2407.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/one-year-in-jail-for-watching-a-volleyball-game/

... and then we have the smart :rolleyes: german people (I know at least three) who go by free will and pay money for holidays in Turkey. :eek:
And after, some women complained they were street harassed by turkish men. That was back in the 80s & 90s. Wonder how it is now, under Erdogan, the guy who works to convert his country into a completely scharia led one.

If I wanna see islamic opression, I just go around our countries bigger cities. No need to spend money for and travel far to see all the horror.

Not in a lifetime would I spend money to go to a country like Turkey. I would not even go if somebody gives it to me for free. Heck, I would not even go if somebody pays a salary for me if I would go there, not even a 5 star hotel... Every wise men shall behave like this. But stupitidy prevents that...
 
On this wonderfully Western civilised forum, a guy like me is censored just for saying that the "Enlightened" Republicans of this forum are ridiculous to talk about beheadings and for putting this picture:

 
Echoes said:
No, let us not talk about beheadings



You're right, you Enlightened republicans. You'd be ridiculous.
Why don't you also provide images of Enlightened Catholic Spain and the roughly coeval Bourbon restoration if we want to be anachronisitc. The sleep of reason breeds monsters, no matter what the cause.





 



Putin?s Muslim family values



Outside observers typically consider Russia?s large Muslim population to be a great challenge for the country and its leadership. In the United States and Europe, many focus overwhelmingly on Russia?s violent Islamic extremists ? a small minority among the country?s Muslims ? and on Moscow?s wars in Chechyna and its ongoing domestic terrorism problem. Nevertheless, President Vladimir Putin appears to have a different view and may see not only challenges but opportunities, including in Russia?s diplomacy in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

Summary: Russian President Vladimir Putin considers his country?s Muslim citizens as a like-minded constituency in combating the perceived negative consequences of the encroachment of "Western" culture in the Middle East.


When thinking about the world?s largest Muslim countries, few people would consider Russia to be among them. Nevertheless, in 2010 the Russian Federation had more than 16 million Muslim residents, making its Muslim population the 13th-largest. Outside the greater Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, only China has a bigger Muslim population; however, because China?s overall population is so large, it represents only 1.8% of the total, compared with 11.7% in Russia. Thus, while Beijing can afford to marginalize its Muslim population, Moscow cannot.

Though the Kremlin has clearly granted a privileged place to Russia?s Orthodox Church among the country?s religions and religious institutions, Putin often acknowledges the country?s significant Muslim minority, including during a major 2013 speech focusing on Russia?s national identity, during which he said that ?Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia?s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens.? Importantly, Putin went on to argue, ?It is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one?s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. ? People must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law and a sense of responsibility for their homeland?s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.?

Apparently responding in no small part to controversy in the West, in the months prior to the Olympic Games in Sochi, over Russia?s law imposing fines on individuals or organizations that present ?propaganda? about homosexuality to minors, Putin has increasingly emphasized Russians? shared moral values and to connect Russia?s ?traditional? values to those in the Middle Eastern, Asian and other non-Western societies. ?We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization ? and people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. ? We consider it natural and right to defend these values​​.? While clearly identifying Russia as a largely Christian country, Putin is attempting to establish a dividing line between the shared values of believers in many religious traditions and those of the decadent secular West.

Putin was explicit about his foreign policy objectives, saying, ?Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.? Thus, Putin is attempting to exploit huge differences in social values between the West and predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa to make Western values into a liability rather than an asset for Western governments. If consistently implemented over time, this may become Russia?s most significant effort to date to develop a soft power strategy to combat Western influence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

On the surface, this approach appears to have many strengths. Many in the Middle East ? in both government and society ? are indeed disturbed by the encroachment of liberal Western social mores that has accompanied globalization. Moreover, as Putin stated, it is not simply a passive process because Washington, Brussels and Europe?s national governments regularly raise issues such as women?s rights and gay rights (among others) in meetings with their counterparts in the Middle East, and at times apply political pressure. Where they have had input into constitutional processes, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States and other Western governments have pushed for formal legal guarantees that depart significantly from established practices. Western countries have also made known where their sympathies lie in elections and other political processes across much of the region.

Nevertheless, Russia will face many challenges in pursuing such an approach. Most immediately, extensive public opinion polling on these issues ? particularly by the Pew Research Center ? demonstrates clearly that Russian public attitudes are not as similar to attitudes in the Middle East as Putin might hope. Russians are indeed closer to the Middle East than Europe in their views of homosexuality: 74% of Russians believe that society ?should not accept homosexuality? compared with 78% of Turks, 80% of Lebanese, 95% of Egyptians and just 11% in Germany and 22% in France.

But in many other areas, Russians look much more like Americans and Europeans, including in their attitudes toward premarital sex. Russians are in fact much more liberal than Americans in their views toward extramarital affairs and somewhat more liberal than Americans with respect to abortion. (Contrary to stereotypes, many more Russians than Americans or Europeans view alcohol use as morally unacceptable ? 44% of Russians have this view as opposed to just 9% in the United Kingdom and 27% in Italy. Japanese have the most permissive attitude toward alcohol.)

On a fundamental level, the conservative social values Putin wants to defend have in many respects eroded within Russia during the Soviet and post-Soviet period ? so he would need to build this new value system inside Russia even as he attempted to promote it as a bridge between Russia and the Middle East. Perhaps ironically, the Obama administration is facing a related problem in that its foreign policy seeks to advance some social values that do not yet enjoy consensus support within the United States.

Russia faces another uncomfortable if inexact parallel with America?s wars in the Middle East in the form of its two wars in Chechnya, where Muslim Chechen separatists were quite successful in mobilizing financial support and recruiting fighters from the Middle East and particularly the Persian Gulf. There also was Russia?s support for pro-Serbian forces against Bosnian Muslims as Yugoslavia disintegrated and against Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. All this will complicate any effort to strengthen sociocultural ties and sympathies.

A final obstacle for the Kremlin is that while many in the Middle East have unfavorable views of the United States ? 79% in the Palestinian territories, 81% in Egypt and 85% in Jordan ? large majorities continue to support democracy and to want economic growth and jobs. This requires sophisticated messaging from Moscow that acknowledges regional political and economic aspirations ? something that will not be easy for Russian officials who instinctively support existing governments as guarantors of stability, reject outside pressure and do not have (or claim to have) an alternative economic or political development model of their own.

It is too soon to say whether Russia?s emerging values-based diplomacy is here to stay, much less whether it can succeed. Nevertheless, it is important, as a clear and self-conscious effort to shape a national identity that incorporates and leverages Russia?s diversity ? due primarily to its former imperial possessions ? to build strong ties based on shared opposition to the West.



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/russia-putin-values-based-diplomacy-muslim-world.html##ixzz3QUSAiort


IN YOUR FACE !!
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Religion in any organized form is heavy on the dogma and very very light on free thinking.
I agree entirely. Fundamentalists drive me crazy too, and I wind up ****ing them off. It just happened last night in fact. They tell these stories as though Santa Claus is literally flying through the sky to deliver presents. It's a miracle - Amen. When I try to explain that Santa is a symbol for the sun, and the other symbolic meaning in the story the fundamentalists get that same expression on their face as a child being told about Santa. Confused, perplexed, neurons frying.

NO! Santa flies through the sky to deliver presents, and they repeat the story back ad naseum. One face palm after another. Let's not pretend that people don't do this with science either though. People like simple stories, TPTB count on it. It's a whited sepulchers thing.
 
Echoes said:
I am a fundamentalist and if I drive you crazy, be it then. :eek: I don't like "moderate" believers at all. You are a believer or you are not.

Fundamentalism means that you fundamentally believe in what the religious doctrine says.

Besides, Santa Claus is an atheistic invention, so your illustration is absolute rubbish. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1619090&postcount=31
Ergo you hold the Truth. What a world.

If mankind is destined for premature extinction, at least you should be content. For you will be saved.

 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
RetroActive said:
Let's not pretend that people don't do this with science either though. People like simple stories, TPTB count on it. It's a whited sepulchers thing.
by now, i have read several of your posts (including your exchange with m. ind, a scientist, on the gm foods)...finally decided to chime in.

to make sure it is clear where i'm coming from, i graduated as a scientist, worked in a lab, earned a phd, but decided to pursue a second career in a related field. also, i grew up in a Lutheran family where my dad liked to talk about his hunting guns more than about his god....

the introduction out of the way, i have to tell you that in my experience most science - in a broad sense - is poor=bad science. perhaps 50-60-70% is bad science regardless of the field...

therefore, you're right: the stigma attached to something (anything) being scientific is a misplaced glorification at best, or, most likely an effort to buttress a particular point/view.

this is not to say that there is no good science. but, as i said, it is a minority.

i have also witnessed some remarkable, bizarre if you will, (considering my lutheran family) expressions of scientists who called themselves fundamental Christians.

strong personal beliefs trump science..almost always, even if that scientist was widely educated, very intelligent and famous).

that's my experience in the us and europe.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Echoes said:
I am a fundamentalist and if I drive you crazy, be it then. :eek: I don't like "moderate" believers at all. You are a believer or you are not.

Fundamentalism means that you fundamentally believe in what the religious doctrine says.

Besides, Santa Claus is an atheistic invention, so your illustration is absolute rubbish. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1619090&postcount=31
You want to be 'right' - I'm going for free. You believe, I know I don't know. It's a much more lighthearted and scary approach. You want to be part of a group, I'm on my own trip. 'The Truth' as told by another is fiction, you're on your own to know for yourself. Nobody else experienced your birth for you and nobody else will experience your death for you either, so why give up your experience in between so easily?

There were plenty of sun chariots pulled by a variety of beast in antiquity, the story was told many ways but the essential elements are universal. Back when people were tied to the land through farming, when these stories were created, they understood what they were talking about. Their lives depended on it.


 
If you want to be free, you shouldn't have any veto against Father Christmas, should you? If you definitely reject it, that means you are going for right.

I'm trying to go for exactitude, yeah before freedom, yes. Also for consistency (in this case, in particular). I can't stand people saying one thing and then their opposite... (any resemblance to actual posters on these boards is coincidental :p). Before freedom, there's life and respect. Freedom is also the freedom to go to the market square with an AK47 and to shoot on sight. Life first, then freedom.


Again, shall I quote Fustel de Coulange? The Ancient City? All these mythologies - Greek, Roman, Jewish, Persian, Germanic - were man-made superstitions that were swept away by the Christian revolution, relayed by the horrible (sic) Islam who were revealed an immaterial God, reducing it to a "spirit" and a moral law, paving the way for a better understanding of the world: distinction between the temporal and the spiritual. The horrible Islam encourages science: "So high [above all] is Allah , the Sovereign, the Truth. And, [O Muhammad], do not hasten with [recitation of] the Qur'an before its revelation is completed to you, and say, "My Lord, increase me in knowledge."" (Surat 20: verse 114)

By the way people remained tied to the land through farming until the 19th/20th century, long after the Christian revolution but no longer really believe in these myths. Good thing is, this agrarian society will be back very soon. :)
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
RetroActive said:
You want to be 'right' - I'm going for free. You believe, I know I don't know. It's a much more lighthearted and scary approach. You want to be part of a group, I'm on my own trip. 'The Truth' as told by another is fiction, you're on your own to know for yourself. Nobody else experienced your birth for you and nobody else will experience your death for you either, so why give up your experience in between so easily?
I don't see how being right and being free are opposed to each other.

But hey, I'm with Echoes on the fundamentalist train I guess......
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Echoes said:
I'm trying to go for exactitude, yeah before freedom, yes. Also for consistency (in this case, in particular). I can't stand people saying one thing and then their opposite... (any resemblance to actual posters on these boards is coincidental :p). Before freedom, there's life and respect. Freedom is also the freedom to go to the market square with an AK47 and to shoot on sight. Life first, then freedom.
If we're talking about freedom as a human right, then the freedom of an individual stops at the point where it starts impinging on the freedom of others. Hence, the "freedom" to shoot on sight has nothing to do with freedom
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Maaaaaaaarten said:
I don't see how being right and being free are opposed to each other.

But hey, I'm with Echoes on the fundamentalist train I guess......

You don't strike me as a fundamentalist at all. If you've ever had a conversation with a N.A. protestant fundamentalist (for ex.) these days you'd know what I mean. I don't know the equivalent in the RCC, maybe Opus Dei. These people are not free (in their minds) at all, they're trapped in a childish paradigm and led this way and that by buzzwords and group think. But they're right though and if you want to be saved...

Every fanatic of any stripe has truly believed they're right too. Get a group of them together and watch out.

Only Breath
Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu,
Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion

or cultural system. I am not from the East
or the West, not out of the ocean or up

from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not
composed of elements at all. I do not exist,

am not an entity in this world or the next,
did not descend from Adam or Eve or any

origin story. My place is placeless, a trace
of the traceless. Neither body or soul.

I belong to the beloved, have seen the two
worlds as one and that one call to and know,

first, last, outer, inner, only that
breath breathing human being.

Rumi
 
Tank Engine said:
If we're talking about freedom as a human right, then the freedom of an individual stops at the point where it starts impinging on the freedom of others. Hence, the "freedom" to shoot on sight has nothing to do with freedom
Many religious fundamentalists (not naming anyone in particular) have difficulty with this simple concept.
 
frenchfry said:
Many religious fundamentalists (not naming anyone in particular) have difficulty with this simple concept.
That's because such religious can't tolerate other's freedom to not share their beliefs, which, of course, hinges on a premise that only one Truth exists and they are its indisputable harbingers.

Given if they were to tolerate them, then they would have to concede that no such Truth exists (or, at any rate, is debatable and has an element of conjecture, doubt, however one wishes to call it). But those who live without doubt, are doubtless idiots.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
IMO the issue with fundamentalists is that they are set in the views.
They have no sense of free thinking and have difficulty in adapting to any new evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They use phrases like "this is what god actually meant" to make their ideology work when in-fact if any god did exist then he is a evil sh5t who seems to have no reguard for human life or kindness and instead creates all kinds of evilness that causes absolute horror in this world.

jesus Christ thank god im an atheist.:D
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
python said:
by now, i have read several of your posts (including your exchange with m. ind, a scientist, on the gm foods)...finally decided to chime in.

to make sure it is clear where i'm coming from, i graduated as a scientist, worked in a lab, earned a phd, but decided to pursue a second career in a related field. also, i grew up in a Lutheran family where my dad liked to talk about his hunting guns more than about his god....

the introduction out of the way, i have to tell you that in my experience most science - in a broad sense - is poor=bad science. perhaps 50-60-70% is bad science regardless of the field...

therefore, you're right: the stigma attached to something (anything) being scientific is a misplaced glorification at best, or, most likely an effort to buttress a particular point/view.

this is not to say that there is no good science. but, as i said, it is a minority.

i have also witnessed some remarkable, bizarre if you will, (considering my lutheran family) expressions of scientists who called themselves fundamental Christians.

strong personal beliefs trump science..almost always, even if that scientist was widely educated, very intelligent and famous).

that's my experience in the us and europe.

You would know far better than I would. I like to listen to the dissenters and heretics, it keeps me in my preferred state of contradictory confusion.:)

When science isn't skeptical of itself it becomes something else. In the battle for hearts and minds every tool is deployed.
http://checkinitout.com/2014/11/06/interview-24-jon-rappoport/
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts