Religion of Peace Update

on Feb 18, 2006

Why aren't they speaking out against these ass hats? I truly believe that the 'majority' of Muslims are just as offended by this as I am, but it disturbs me that they are so silent on the matter.

What makes you think that there are not muslims who are speaking out against the violence? Because you don't see it on the news?

Link

There are a lot of muslim organizations who have condemned extremism, terrorism, violence in general.

Let's be clear, I'm not in any way defending the actions of anyone involved in extremism or terrorism. I just don't think it's fair for people to paint all muslims with the brush that Brad did.

32

bakerstreet

on Feb 18, 2006

'Just a few days ago a "Pride Festival" was banned in Moscow. Suddenly the ever bickering Muslims, Jews and Christians were alll buddies and agreed that Gays should all be beheaded, flogged or something else. Isn't it fine when they can at least agree that they are all bigoted?

Woah, wait. According to Ayn Rand, people have the right to discriminate against Gays. Yet, were we to follow Randian philosophy and reject religion, we'd all be AIDS free and "natural"... and discriminate against Gays. What's the problem? It's a step in the Randian direction, right?

The problem with Rand, and you, frankly, is that you have a belief that is as absurd as anything any religious person ever made up. You believe in Objectivism. Unbiased Logic. You ignore the fact that everything you think, feel, and believe filters through your mind and experiences.

The fact that you pretent objectivity tells me you are just as at ease with deluding yourself as any religious person. That's why I laugh at all this sudden surge of people at JU claiming to hail "scientific" thought above all things. You believe, they believe, I believe, we all believe.

To you saying the Catholic Church promotes AIDS is logical. To me it isn't. For some people it was logical to say "what goes up, must come down". Just THINK what might be logical tomorrow when we realize that still more of our 'objective' observations are dependant on our subjective bias.

33

marcusjm

on Feb 18, 2006

That is the benefit I have BakerStreet. I am not tied to anything. I can make up my own ideas.
I can use Rand, I can use Locke, I can use Adam Smith or Mill or whomever I want. Make up my own original ideas perhaps? I am not requred to consult some "Bible" or "Quaran" before making up my mind. I can actually try to figure it out myself. Hence that nifty gray blob between my ears

. Even a small one works hehe.
Fair enough. There are some "wackos" that sees her as some kind of Prophet. But they would be contradicting the most central idea if they did/do that. Just proves that wackos are plentiful and people who try to reason are less in numbers.
Ayn Rand said that. True. You know why? Because the idea was that people could choose to do whatever they wanted within their own property. She didn't say SHE herself discriminated. The path is this. Information is what changes peoples minds, as long as it's freely available and people are willing to accept it (and of course choose not to).

We would (mostly) be AIDS free if we used actual knowledge as a base and not superstition(and outright lies like/intimidation the Catholic Church). I didn't even mention the direct involvment in the Rwanda "incident" but that's another debate.

Maybe you believe prayers will make everyone free of diseases. I think I'll take my chances with actual medicine and proffessional help (no not from clerics).

marcus

34

Leauki

on Feb 18, 2006

I read very well what he wrote and I stay by what I replied with as well.

You obviously did not understand what he said.

Either a) You have no idea how HIV spreads

You think there's some sort of "divine justice" who gets it. Ok fine.

It cannot possibly be that I simply know that condoms are not perfect protection?

You remind me of Sherlock Holmes. You carefully analyse all the possibilities and arrive at a conclusion. Unfortunately in the real world there are possibilities that you fail to see.

How dare you accuse me of believing that the victims of AIDS are the victims of some sort of divine justice!

What you need to understand is that
marriage or no marriage plays absolutelly NO role if one of the parties has HIV.

No, what you need to understand is that two people cannot give each other AIDS unless one of them gets it somewhere. It does not spread via marriage.

In other words. You WILL get HIV if you have un-protected sex.

Have sex with your wife who has only sex with you and it is unlikely that you will get AIDS. Have sex with lots of people, even when you use condoms, are your chances are "better".

Married or not. Whatever the case. You cannot live in a fantasy world and expect
people to not have sex out of marriage.

It happens. Some people seriously don't have sex with a lot more than a few dozen people, you know.

It is an indviduals right to choose when and with whom to have sex. It is however
not part of Catholic Churches right to STOP people from getting information (or access) to Condoms. Or worse, spreading
false information about Condoms.

What false information about condoms does the Church spread?

You are of course not aware that HIV can be transmitted through blood tranfusions and many other means? Pity but it can, I assure you.

Yes, I am OF COURSE not aware of that. Is that your "reason" again?

Because they provide absolutelly no evidence that I shouldn't.

The Bible never said that you should or shouldn't do anything. You go ahead and follow the traditions of your own people.

Btw. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why not other animals are covered. Why not eat Flies for instance? Why specificially Pigs? What's so diabolical about them?

Flies are mentioned (insects are).

And I gave you a hint about why not pigs. You didn't think about it, did you? You talk a lot about thinking but you never seem to actually do a lot of it.

Think again about the economics of breeding pigs in the desert. Perhaps you can come with a reason?

You say you keep asking people about it. I can imagine that many of them have told you what I told you, utterly surprised that you were apparently unable to think of the next step. You will have left a good number of confused Muslims behind you.

You still think you are so much smarter than we. But you never even get the hints.

And you apparently didn't bother to learn about the things you talk about. Why do you worry about stuff you apparently don't know or understand?

(What was the name of the rabbi you spoke to?)

Plenty of sites which defines her view(aynrand,org etc). This might be a misunderstanding but I didn't claim Rand to be the only Libertarian thinker, she just spearheaded the Objectivistic idea and very convincingly at that.

It is a misunderstanding. You don't get it. I know the Web sites, I have read her books, I've been there. My opinion about her is not based on a lack of information about her "philosophy", but on the perhaps unfortunate coincidence that I was able to read up on how railroad companies are actually run.

I still can't get over the idea that your solution for the AIDS problem is to convince people in monogamous relationships to sleep with more people using condoms. Your trust in condoms is admirable. But it looks like blind faith to me.

35

marcusjm

on Feb 18, 2006

Marcus, for someone loudly complaining about the stupidity of others, you yourself seem to be experiencing great difficulty in putting together coherent messages. You even make up words, what the hell is "dietism?"

You know what Diet is? Well it was a constructed word from it. Apparently the message got through so it worked. Communication is all about making two people understand what you say. It seems at least that Leuki and BakerStreet got most points (while disagreeing).

Knowledge and Stupidity aren't necessarily the same though. My excuse is that my native language isn't English. My second that it's easy to make those mistakes when you write really fast (like I do).

Second. The statement about "morons" was not against any individual poster here. It was rather about the concept where people blindly follow scriptures without thinking themselves. Just think Islam, Conservative or Liberal. I use it in the same general way those words are commonly used

.

Btw. I guess even 5th graders can speak their minds? (I'm 35)

marcus

36

BlueDev

on Feb 18, 2006

What makes you think that there are not muslims who are speaking out against the violence? Because you don't see it on the news?

Thanks for the link davad, but it is too little in my opinion.

People are being killed, buildings are being destroyed, lives are being threatened and the most we get is a blog. I applaud those who condemn these actions, but where are the visible leaders who are speaking out against this violence? Frankly, it appalls me that we aren't hearing more vocal and visible demonstrations of outrage against these militant Muslims.

37

marcusjm

on Feb 18, 2006

edited due to a html problem screwing up the blog. /marcus

38

davad70

on Feb 18, 2006

Thanks for the link davad, but it is too little in my opinion.

People are being killed, buildings are being destroyed, lives are being threatened and the most we get is a blog. I applaud those who condemn these actions, but where are the visible leaders who are speaking out against this violence? Frankly, it appalls me that we aren't hearing more vocal and visible demonstrations of outrage against these militant Muslims.

There's much more than just the one link I provided, you just have to look around a bit. It's much more "sexy" for the news to show the ones rioting and burning.

What is it precisely that you want? Press releases? A few sound bites on the news? And once you get this message that you want from Islamic leaders, what do you think it will accomplish? Will it stop bigots from impying that all muslims are terrorists and prone to violence?

39

marcusjm

on Feb 18, 2006

No, but you do seem to feel compelled to not only consult Rand, but regurgitate your own version of her 'vision.' How is your study of various philosophers, obviously seeking guidance, any different than studying or seeking guidance from various religious books?

Part of the "think for yourself" concept. You have tried it I guess? Never ever did I claim to speak FOR her. Just using her as a very good reference point. She's neither my "Jesus" or any other Prophet. Just a smart thinker who occassionally got invited to the White House and other unimportant places.

Ayn Rand is your own personal Jesus, isn't she! You speak of her with the same religious fervor that others usually reserve for various deities. You seem to feel that she had a grasp on the ultimate truth and was infallible, other qualities that zealots of all stripes share when speaking of their prophets and gods.

Could this be a result of my bad writing? Never ever did I write something even close to that.

marcus

40

Leauki

on Feb 18, 2006

Marcus, you summarised what BakerStreet said, the summary was wrong. I therefore know that you did not understand what he said.

Furthermore, your "logical conclusions" are utterly wrong (for example it does not follow that avoiding one risk does not make sense if other risks exist), your insults are not convincing me that your view is anything but rubbish, and your postings become more difficult to read for lots of reasons.

Frankly, I don't believe that you talked to any rabbis at all. You would certainly remember ONE of the names if you had. You don't seem to know a lot about Judaism, certainly a lot less than you would if you had ever been in a synagogue (with open eyes) or talked to a rabbi (with an open mind).

The Bible and Qur'an might not specifically mention desert dwellers, but it seems logical to me that texts that were written BY desert dwellers FOR desert dwellers might just be assumed to be read by desert dwellers. Does that make sense to you at all?

41

marcusjm

on Feb 18, 2006

Go worship at the altar of science and philosophy, if that's what suits you. But to complain about people trying to shove religion down your throat, (while defending the rioting Muslims, no less, who would just as soon cut your head off than anything else, all in the name of their religion) while you mock, insult, try to shove YOUR particular beliefs down THEIR throats and convince them you are so much smarter, so much more 'enlightened' than they are is no freakin' different than the wild eyed jesus freak on the corner who harangues passers-by with threats of eternal damnation.

I do not worship anything. If it makes sense, I buy it. If not, then not. Simple as that. No worshipping going around here. Except boobs perhaps

.

Yes. I defend peoples right to do whatever they want in their spare time. As long it doesn't infringe directly on my rights (that far you are right). That includes smoking dope or shouting various idiocies outside embassiess. Otoh I defend peoples right to defend their properties too, so it's a two way street

. But noone would be happier than me if there was no Islam at all, or Christianity. Would suit me well too. Jews are ok since they never bother anyone with their stuff.

I'm not forcing you to read anything of course but if you think these comments are anything like the direct invasions from Jehovas Witnesses and their like. Then you have a weird concept of "forcing". I'm not forced to watch news, that's true. But I can still point out that it would be far better and more joyful news without religions. At least without these two loud mothed versions.

42

marcusjm

on Feb 18, 2006

Marcus, you summarised what BakerStreet said, the summary was wrong. I therefore know that you did not understand what he said.

Fair enough. You can believe what you want.

Furthermore, your "logical conclusions" are utterly wrong (for example it does not follow that avoiding one risk does not make sense if other risks exist), your insults are not convincing me that your view is anything but rubbish, and your postings become more difficult to read for lots of reasons.

Yes. They are wrong because you say so (why bother proving it?). It is no insult to ask someone lay forward some kind of evidence for their claims. Any real evidence would do.

Frankly, I don't believe that you talked to any rabbis at all. You would certainly remember ONE of the names if you had. You don't seem to know a lot about Judaism, certainly a lot less than you would if you had ever been in a synagogue (with open eyes) or talked to a rabbi (with an open mind).

Well. It's no real consequence to the discussion if I did or not. I just threw that in because you asked(tried to be polite). Yes I have of course met Rabbis(you think i live in some closet?) but whether you believe it or not, is not important. Why would it be?

"You would certainly remember the names". How many people have you met in your life? 10? 12? Couldn't possibly name all people I have met in my life. Maybe you can. Ridicilous statement that (you have to admit that at least).

The Bible and Qur'an might not specifically mention desert dwellers, but it seems logical to me that texts that were written BY desert dwellers FOR desert dwellers might just be assumed to be read by desert dwellers. Does that make sense to you at all?

YES. But my statement was that it was ridicilous for someone in 2005 (with fridges etc) on the sole basis of those texts. No real cause for it. Of course it's equally ridicilious to stone a woman for adultery in 2005 (though it would reduce the AIDS risc for her husband).

marcus

43

Leauki

on Feb 19, 2006

They are wrong because you say so (why bother proving it?).

Your "logical conclusions" are utterly wrong (for example it does not follow that avoiding one risk does not make sense if other risks exist).

Want more examples? I don't have the time for this.

It is no insult to ask someone lay forward some kind of evidence for their claims.

Religious groups are (by definition) morons(yes Muslims too). We agree on that I guess?

You think there's some sort of "divine justice" who gets it [AIDS].

You are of course not aware that HIV can be transmitted through blood tranfusions and many other means? Pity but it can, I assure you.

The one thing you didn't do is ask me for evidence for some "claim" allegedly made.

"What was the name of the rabbi you spoke to?"

"You would certainly remember ONE of the names if you had [spoken with a few]."

"You would certainly remember the names". How many people have you met in your life? 10? 12? Couldn't possibly name all people I have met in my life. Maybe you can. Ridicilous statement that (you have to admit that at least).

Ok.

Of course it's equally ridicilious to stone a woman for adultery in 2005

Ah, how times have changed.

44

bakerstreet

on Feb 19, 2006

"We would (mostly) be AIDS free if we used actual knowledge as a base and not superstition(and outright lies like/intimidation the Catholic Church). I didn't even mention the direct involvment in the Rwanda "incident" but that's another debate."

I have reguler contact with an AIDS clinic. I can say with 100% assurance that a lack of religion and total understanding of the workings of the virus does very little to stop the spread of AIDS. People spread it with impunity. There are people in the clinic I am familiar with that just went ahead and got it because they figured they would anyway and they didn't want to worry about protecting themselves.

No, the crux of the AIDS situation is promiscuity. Period. Without promiscuity AIDS would not have spread the way it has. Needles aren't shared to the point that it would have ever gotten this bad. Nations that traditionally discourage religion are faced with AIDS no less than any other nation. Period. Your assertion lacks any proof or correlation to reality.

Why? Because the animalistic urges that create that sort of promiscuity don't promote safe behavior. If you are the kind of person that doesn't mind having sex with multiple partners in a single night, you are often the sort of person that isn't going to bother much with being safe.

More people die of the flu than AIDS. The plain, ordiary flu. If you'd like to say that Christian ideals are the cause for that, too, feel free. I think you'll find as much correlation.

"What makes you think that there are not muslims who are speaking out against the violence? Because you don't see it on the news?"

I believe that there are Muslims that oppose terrorism and violence. I believe that there are Muslims that speak against such. I also believe that if Islam as a whole reacted to the beheading of innocent people with the volume and unity that they react to cartoons, terrorism would cease to exist.

Instead, they donate money to terrorist organizations and vote them into faux-political validity. You'll forgive me if I don't rate "statements" as being as sincere and effective as what we have seen for the last month.

45

stevendedalus

on Feb 19, 2006

Regardless of where you go, where Islam is, there is violence and hatred that stands out far above other cultures and religions.

Agreed, though the religious right, though lacking violence does okay in the hatred category.