Religious Nonsense

[Musika]

I didn't specify which religions.

It doesn't require you to.
If an abrahamic religion finds itself categorized with hinduism and buddhism, that in itself is a pretty good clue the stronger defining points lie outside religion.

I didn't define the problem as religious. I asked you, "Are you suggesting that conflicts in the Middle East are not caused by religion?" Neither blithering nor blathering is required.

If you don't wish to define the problem as religious, why would you ask such a question?
What blitherous or blatherous means are you calling in to play to engineer something causing an event, but in no way defining it?

 

[iceaura]

If it appears to be gibberish, you own it.
Its a reiteration of your contributions to discussion.

That's not true. It almost completely ignores my posting.

And, as a further note, every time you are provided with an opportunity to clarify anything, you respond with caricatures of hatred.

Disparaging your posting here is not even an expression of hatred.
Projection?

And yet again, it appears you have nothing say but plenty of shit to throw.

The matter of intellectual interest in your posting here, and that of other fundies who wander in, is the means as well as the ends. Not only why you post dishonestly, always, in order to disparage unbelievers, but how you come by the combinations of innuendo and slander by implication and assertion by false question techniques you share. The origin, apparently multifactored and complex, of this characteristic bullshit you guys post, is the only substance of discussion involving your posts.

Kind of you to return to the subject after that attempt at an introduction ..

The ostensible attempt was to return you to it. The actual purpose was illustration - you would illustrate, by your response, my description of your posting. You did.

So now you are saying Indonesia "shares some of the foundations" rather than "one of the worst".
Do you think its possible to commit to an opinion, or is it more convenient to keep shit flexible?

As the shared foundation (in religious conflict and hostility) is the key and thread relevant aspect of that being one of the worst of this kind of thing (the East Timor genocide makes most of the top ten post WWII lists), your question is another of these strange ones. The personal attack was of course standard, from you and your kind.
You are, like your fellow fundies in these science forums, fundamentally dishonest. Not just a lie or two here and there, but a basic agenda of establishing falsehood via pursuit of accusation and imposed judgment.
And the commonality, the characteristic nature, of the rhetorical tactics employed is striking.
The question becomes not only why, but how.

 

[iceaura]

If an abrahamic religion finds itself categorized with hinduism and buddhism, that in itself is a pretty good clue the stronger defining points lie outside religion.

The exact opposite, would be the normal or reasoned implication.

 

[Tiassa]

I didn't define the problem as religious. I asked you, "Are you suggesting that conflicts in the Middle East are not caused by religion?" Neither blithering nor blathering is required.

Experience reminds something about expecting, at this point in the exchange, that the other will ever actually answer.

However, one of the problems with letting people you think are incorrect define anything is that when they try to duck out, left hanging is a problematic question. Trying to follow this discussion back to the origin of that question is a bit difficult for the mess, but check #39↑, which suggests this track was probably a discussion best avoided.

 

[Musika]

The exact opposite, would be the normal or reasoned implication.

Hinduism, buddhism and islam vs christianity as an inherent religious (distinct from a political, economic and geographic) dichotomy?
At the very least, you desperately need a new buzz word aside from "abrahamic" ...

 

[sideshowbob]

If an abrahamic religion finds itself categorized with hinduism and buddhism, that in itself is a pretty good clue the stronger defining points lie outside religion.

Non sequitur.

If you don't wish to define the problem as religious, why would you ask such a question?

Let's try a different approach: Do you think the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by secularization?

 

[iceaura]

Hinduism, buddhism and islam vs christianity as an inherent religious (distinct from a political, economic and geographic) dichotomy?

No. Again no - as is now always the first half of any reply to your posting, and in the standard pattern will be, indefinitely.

At the very least, you desperately need a new buzz word aside from "abrahamic" ...

Not for referring to Abrahamic religions and their adherents, such as yourself.
Try capitalizing the names. It helps.
And you still haven't told us what you were trying to say in post 83.
Meanwhile:

The origin, apparently multifactored and complex, of this characteristic bullshit you guys post, is the only substance of discussion involving your posts.

Which is where the thread topic keeps coming back - simplistic and irritatingly shallow and disrespectfully smartalec as it may seem, it turns out to be an actual arena of investigation.

What would the world would look like if the moronic street preacher in Hawaii, or that one crooked televangelist I would imitate for laughs, had such power to define Christendom?

Are you sure they don't?
The current President gained office on the overtly Christian, self-identified population of Christendom, vote.
Christian is as Christian does.

 

[Musika]

Non sequitur.

If islam is not an eastern religion (like taoism, buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, confucianism, etc) obviously a different sort of thinking, besides mere religion, went in to categorizing the region as the middle east.

Let's try a different approach: Do you think the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by secularization?

You don't understand.
There is a problem in reducing over a 1000 years of history down to a caricature for the sake of confining it to a narrow, singular cause. That problem lies in the act of reducing history, and not in identifying a cause to fulfill the needs of the caricature.

 

[Musika]

.

Not for referring to Abrahamic religions and their adherents, such as yourself.
.

If only you were as attentive to the people you (attempt to) engage in discussions with as you are attentive to spelling .... although it should come as no surprise should our resident orthogonalist suddenly feel a need to dive into orthography.

 

[sideshowbob]

If islam is not an eastern religion (like taoism, buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, confucianism, etc) obviously a different sort of thinking, besides mere religion, went in to categorizing the region as the middle east.

Don't try to obfuscate. The Middle East is a fairly well-defined concept.

There is a problem in reducing over a 1000 years of history down to a caricature for the sake of confining it to a narrow, singular cause.

But you're the one who is doing that. Your claim was that secularism hasn't solved all of the problems of the world. Now you're admitting that problems are complex. So why would we expect secularism to have a magic wand?

 

[Musika]

Don't try to obfuscate. The Middle East is a fairly well-defined concept.

The fact that it has arisen as the "middle east", and not the "middle west", provides clear clues on how it is defined.

But you're the one who is doing that. Your claim was that secularism hasn't solved all of the problems of the world. Now you're admitting that problems are complex. So why would we expect secularism to have a magic wand?

I introduced secularism (and, to be fair, the industrial age, which is, IMHO, by far a greater contributor to what is wagered in the name of war than any particular ideology tacked to notions of God) in response to the claim of the following ...

Throughout history religious beliefs and behaviors have been the source of incredible human suffering and misery and I think that's because religion is not actually true but is based on ancient myths and lies.

My response that introduced secularism being ...

The rise of secularism under the umbrella of the industrial revolution hasn't exactly ushered in an era of peace ... just in case you weren't familiar with modern history.

Which then led to various defenses of secularism by distorting and dumbing down contemporary and historical affairs.

If you want to analyze absurd, self destructive behaviour based on myths and lies, look no further than industrial civilization fueled by consumerism. If you think the solution lies in disempowering or disenfranchising religion, you can't see the elephant in the room.
Far be it from secularism to be the form of government that rises to save humanity in its darkest hour, it appears to be the mode of governance that will be at helm when the world finally goes to hell in a handbasket.... or, to put it in more optimistic terms, there is no obvious path available to secularism that appears capable to steer civilization away from a trajectory headed to unprecedented levels of ecological, social, economical, political, etc disaster.

 

[spidergoat]

Industrial civilization and consumerism were participated in equally by the secular and non-secular. And the dumbing down is when you imply that Stalin's purges were motivated by atheism alone, a philosophical position that is quite narrowly defined, with no holy book or founding ideology.

 

[sideshowbob]

The fact that it has arisen as the "middle east", and not the "middle west", provides clear clues on how it is defined.

Do you think the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by secularism?

 

[Musika]

Industrial civilization and consumerism were participated in equally by the secular and non-secular.

On the contrary, the industrial revolution effectively dismantled non-secular governance from the political arena.

And the dumbing down is when you imply that Stalin's purges were motivated by atheism alone, a philosophical position that is quite narrowly defined, with no holy book or founding ideology.

I never suggested that atheism has no other political expression outside what was offered by Stalin, et al. I did suggest, however, their example shows there is nothing intrinsic to atheism to reign in genocide, persecution, etc. The fact they did it in such flying colours shows that you don't need a holy book to remove maybe 25% of your population from the ecosystem over 5 years.

 

[Musika]

Do you think the conflicts in the Middle East are caused by secularism?

If I call out religion as a false flag for causing conflict in the Middle East, you are just introducing a false dichotomy when you try to frame (at least in your mind) the binary opposite of that under the tarred brush category of "secularism".

 

[sideshowbob]

If I call out religion as a false flag for causing conflict in the Middle East, you are just introducing a false dichotomy when you try to frame (at least in your mind) the binary opposite of that under the tarred brush category of "secularism".

You're the one who brought it up. You said that secularism has not solved all of the world's problems. Nobody has suggested that it has or even that it should. If you have a point about secularism, try to make it.

 

[Musika]

You're the one who brought it up. You said that secularism has not solved all of the world's problems.

Yet there was (and still is, if you shop around on various running threads) the idea that discarding religion will do a substantial "something" to solve the world's problems. My point in citing communism and secularism is to show that historically and currently it is most certainly not the case.

 

[sideshowbob]

My point in citing communism and secularism is to show that historically and currently it is most certainly not the case.

As long as you're equivocating communism and secularism, your point is empty. It wasn't the secular aspect of communism that produced ill effects and/or failed to cure all existing ill effects.

 

[iceaura]

If only you were as attentive to the people you (attempt to) engage in discussions with as you are attentive to spelling .... although it should come as no surprise should our resident orthogonalist suddenly feel a need to dive into orthography.

Again we read nothing but insult embedded in a fog of allusion and innuendo - much easier than refutation, isn't it.

The rise of secularism under the umbrella of the industrial revolution hasn't exactly ushered in an era of peace

That would be the rise of the Industrial Revolution under an umbrella of "secularism" (whatever you decide to claim, later when you need the escape hatch, that "secularism" means).

On the contrary, the industrial revolution effectively dismantled non-secular governance from the political arena.

The "dismantling" of theocratic government came first, the industrial revolution second.

You don't understand.
There is a problem in reducing over a 1000 years of history down to a caricature for the sake of confining it to a narrow, singular cause. That problem lies in the act of reducing history, and not in identifying a cause to fulfill the needs of the caricature.

Religion is neither narrow nor singular, especially in its role of fomenting and organizing violence.

I did suggest, however, their example shows there is nothing intrinsic to atheism to reign in genocide, persecution, etc.

You are suggesting that now - you weren't, then. It's a valid point. And it's irrelevant.
What you were doing earlier was denying there was anything intrinsic to theistic religion that encouraged genocide, persecution, etc, and suggesting that there was something intrinsic to "atheism" (a vague term, in your usage) that did.

And all of that suggesting and implying and general innuendoing was embedded in the quasi-illiterate word-fogs that Abrahamic theists characteristically produce in science forums,
in which it becomes the task of the reader to figure out what was meant, because what was posted made no sense,
- as if there were some kind of fundie auto-fill AI they all use for selecting spun allusions in place of accurate terms, and deniability in bad syntax to cover for what would be too obviously dumb if stated clearly.

Nonsense, characteristic nonsense, from the religious, overt and self-identified religious.

 

[spidergoat]

their example shows there is nothing intrinsic to atheism to reign in genocide, persecution, etc.

That's not a bug, it's a feature.