Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Aqueous Id]

Contrary to your charge, I went into an exploration of their deepest held beliefs

And in all this, you overlooked the fact that it is you who went into that exploration, that it is you, with a particular set of beliefs and values who went into that exploration.

IOW, you assume to be objective, to the point that you don't even acknowledge this assumption.

You speak as if you wouldn't be speaking from a point of view.

You can easily omit me from the equation, as you should, simply by addressing the evidence itself.

For example, look at this picture again, and tell me what each character represents. The only incidental fact you need to know is that the judenhut was the distinctive hat worn by jews:

 

[Aqueous Id]

IOW, you are a strong atheist and you see no problem with it.

if you say so

And you are willing to pathologize and deman others in the name of your atheism.

Does a doctor pathologize the ill patient?

And you see no problem with doing so.

It depends on the expression of illness. Some symptoms of acute skepticism can be treated with just a few drops of evidence.

 

[wynn]

For example, look at this picture again, and tell me what each character represents. The only incidental fact you need to know is that the judenhut was the distinctive hat worn by jews:

That request of yours points to the mistake you're making: namely, you seem to be convinced that a thing can represent something on its own, without there having been people who assigned meanings to things.


IOW, that picture are just pixels on a screen. Everything else is a matter of various people's ideas about what is thereby represented or not.

 

[wynn]

Does a doctor pathologize the ill patient?

When a person announces to be an authority on another person ...
When a person announces to be the "doctor" and the other the "patient" ...

Talk about authoritarianism!

I think I've given you at least a dozen credible sources. Many of them are original material from that era. Truth derives from fact, fact from evidence. I am irrelevant because I am the delivery truck, not the payload.

Not at all.

You are the one who chose what to load on the delivery truck, so to speak.
Contrary to your conviction, the truck didn't load itself.

 

[wynn]

You see, you can interpret things any way you like, but that doesnt change what it actually is, it only changes what you think of it.

That may be a truism, but you apparently also assume to know what a thing "really is."

 

[GeoffP]

I see you're back to the nihilism again. Maybe we should just conclude that nothing can be and leave it at that.

 

[aaqucnaona]

That may be a truism, but you apparently also assume to know what a thing "really is."

We do - empiricism, objective experiments, third party recomfirmations all mean that its not the scientist who tells what the thing is, it the very natural world that gives us the truth - and it is absolute - like the current distance between the earth and the moon - it "really is" and there is no way around it - be it any scientist, if the data comes as such, if the models fit the shoe [which they have], the that is what "really is". And anyway, its practically useless to know what a thing really is - for all we know, atoms may be shaped like teddy bears - the point is that our knowledge gets the job done, like a nuclear reactor or bomb - which shows its true or even if you may want to be pushy, its true enough and truer than any alternates so far.

 

[wellwisher]

The Catholic Church formed when Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire integrated the Christian religion and made it the national religion. This changed the complexion of the Roman empire and Christianity, with the composite becoming the Holy Roman empire. This paradoxical marriage of might, intellect and faith would shape the western world.

The misconception that atheism has is, they erroneously assume the Church was only Christianity and therefore was supposed to let others abuse it by turning the other cheek. But the integration with Rome with Christianity meant the church was also smart, ingenious, tough and could spank anyone.

Rome never really went away in the Dark Ages, even though history tells us the empire went away after he invasion of the northern barbarians. Rome become the power and model for the church.

The dissociation of the Church, in modern times, was connected the Roman aspects becoming differentiated from the Christian. The atheists are more connected to the Roman aspects, which historically persecutes Christians but still retain a connection via the mirror religion of anti. The Modern Christian are more like those from before the merge.

 

[GeoffP]

That request of yours points to the mistake you're making: namely, you seem to be convinced that a thing can represent something on its own, without there having been people who assigned meanings to things.


IOW, that picture are just pixels on a screen. Everything else is a matter of various people's ideas about what is thereby represented or not.

That response was, regrettably, absurd. Those pixels on the screen represent a concept based on religious doctrines, expressed by people who did indeed exist and assigned meaning to it.

You know, as an often-uncertain theist, I'm embarrassed by this ridiculous discussion. It serves nothing at all to denigrate reality to nothingness in a quest to avoid discussing motivation.

The thread is beyond absurd and I reiterate my support for its closure.

 

[Jan Ardena]

GeoffP,

You know, as an often-uncertain theist, I'm embarrassed by this ridiculous discussion. It serves nothing at all to denigrate reality to nothingness in a quest to avoid discussing motivation.

The thread is beyond absurd and I reiterate my support for its closure.

You have options you know.
Erm, leave this thread, never, ever, return.
Go participate in one of 'Greatest I Am's' rivetting threads for
the intellectual stimulation you appear to crave.

This is one of the best threads for a long time, because it deals
with real specifics, unearthing lazy, dogmatic, and cliched thinking.

We don't accept you notions of what constitutes religiously motivated violence, because you cannot show where the motive is actually religion.

By your logic you must accept that the greatest monsters of the last century
committed hate violence against religious people because they cannot tolerate religion/theism.

jan.

 

[Bells]

GeoffP,





You have options you know.
Erm, leave this thread, never, ever, return.
Go participate in one of 'Greatest I Am's' rivetting threads for
the intellectual stimulation you appear to crave.

This is one of the best threads for a long time, because it deals
with real specifics, unearthing lazy, dogmatic, and cliched thinking.

We don't accept you notions of what constitutes religiously motivated violence, because you cannot show where the motive is actually religion.

By your logic you must accept that the greatest monsters of the last century
committed hate violence against religious people because they cannot tolerate religion/theism.

jan.

Who is "we"?

You can't even define 'religion', so really, you don't really have that much of a leg to stand on at this point. You have consistenly contradicted yourself. You have repeatedly swung back and forth like a pendulum and you have been unable to substantiate any of your arguments.

One minute the scripture is religious, and then they are not and then they are again. You switch back and forth to try to substantiate your own argument and you have failed. Badly.

It got to the point where I doubted you even understood the english language.

The sad thing is of course is that you think you are doing well.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
Does a doctor pathologize the ill patient?

When a person announces to be an authority on another person ...
When a person announces to be the "doctor" and the other the "patient" ...

Talk about authoritarianism!

Rejecting medical advice is generally done out of anxiety, phobia or evidence that the doc is a quack. It is rarely if ever done out of a concern over the doctor's authority. In this case, I am bringing you the doctors of the Church of your cultural heritage. You are not authoritarianizing me, but them. You need to take your medicine if you expect to get better. And, they have a new elixir that is not bitter: it doesn't require you to take any of their distasteful religious beliefs. Just look into the picture and read the symbols it contains. You should feel better in the morning.

Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
I think I've given you at least a dozen credible sources. Many of them are original material from that era. Truth derives from fact, fact from evidence. I am irrelevant because I am the delivery truck, not the payload.

Not at all.

You are the one who chose what to load on the delivery truck, so to speak.
Contrary to your conviction, the truck didn't load itself.

No, I went to the dock and grabbed the first few boxes with your name on them. I can go get some more if you want. You can even drive over there yourself, to Catholic Charities, they've got a warehouseful of necessities to help get you through your period of evidentiary indigence.

You really should start that prescription. It may take a few doses to absorb the benefits. Especially if your immune system is rejecting evidence of a paradox.

 

[Aqueous Id]

For example, look at this picture again, and tell me what each character represents. The only incidental fact you need to know is that the judenhut was the distinctive hat worn by jews:

That request of yours points to the mistake you're making: namely, you seem to be convinced that a thing can represent something on its own, without there having been people who assigned meanings to things.

Did you say that, or assign it to symbols for me to interpret? :spank:

IOW, that picture are just pixels on a screen. Everything else is a matter of various people's ideas about what is thereby represented or not.

No, I gave you nothing more than a URL. The machines you trust, more than the doctor who can cure you, did the pixelation. And before the source file was saved to that URL there was a camera. And in front of the camera was an object, and in front of the object is (was) the artisan. And in front of the artisan was the atrocity you deny. You may be suffering from an acute pixelation saturation acuity dysfunction. It is a common disorder, whereby the parietal lobe rejects input from the optic nerve. The cure is similar to that for astigmatism. All you have to do is look through the lens of empiricism, and the retina links perfectly to the deepest gates within the cerebrum.

That request of yours points to the mistake you're making: namely, you seem to be convinced that a thing can represent something on its own, without there having been people who assigned meanings to things.

I bet if I hand you a stack of $100 bills you won't have any problem with identifying Benjamin Franklin. You might even thank me for adding those images to your existing gallery. You are such a finicky patient.

Wait, here comes a delivery truck from the J Paul Getty Museum (over here boys, I'll sign for it...):

It's just a spoonful. Open up. Wider..that's better. Now swallow. See? that wasn't so bad, now was it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

You can't even define 'religion', so really, you don't really have that much of a leg to stand on at this point.

Wrong.

You have consistenly contradicted yourself.

That's what you've been trying establish with your little entrapment tricks,
and your constant refusal to admit that the law is not to be taken into your own hands. And your obsession with wanting me to hate homosexuals.

You have repeatedly swung back and forth like a pendulum and you have been unable to substantiate any of your arguments.

That's how it appears to you, because I'm not falling for your entrapment.
And we both know that ''law'' is not to be taken into ones own hands. Not now, and not then.
You rely on unchecked cliches, and misinformation, to keep your up the pretence of being in a lofty position.

One minute the scripture is religious, and then they are not and then they are again. You switch back and forth to try to substantiate your own argument and you have failed. Badly.

Some part of it IS religious, some parts aren't.
The trouble is, you cannot discriminate between religion, law, irreligion, or spirituality. But you believe you can.

It got to the point where I doubted you even understood the english language.

Typical atheist tactic.
Can't win the argument, assasinate your defeatOR.
So predictable.

The sad thing is of course is that you think you are doing well.

It's hard not to think that when I see your material on this subject.


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP,

You have options you know.
Erm, leave this thread, never, ever, return.
Go participate in one of 'Greatest I Am's' rivetting threads for
the intellectual stimulation you appear to crave.

Yes, but I also like squashing bugs and nonsense. Call it justice, or sadism if you like.

This is one of the best threads for a long time, because it deals
with real specifics, unearthing lazy, dogmatic, and cliched thinking.

Actually, it just created a rabbit hole to hide your argument in and classically misunderstood the meaning of religion.

We don't accept you notions of what constitutes religiously motivated violence, because you cannot show where the motive is actually religion.

Other than that we have, time and again. You put your threshold on a pedestal, failing to recognize the difference between "religiously-motivated violence" and "deity-motivated violence". It is a miscomprehension so vast as to completely misunderstand the concept of religion in the first place.

By your logic you must accept that the greatest monsters of the last century
committed hate violence against religious people because they cannot tolerate religion/theism.

jan.

You referring to Hitler or Stalin here? By your logic you must accept that such murders were not committed for political reasons.

 

[GeoffP]

Some part of it IS religious, some parts aren't.
The trouble is, you cannot discriminate between religion, law, irreligion, or spirituality. But you believe you can.

Ahh, the final card: that not all parts of the Bible are religious. I was wondering if this would come up. In a strange way, I sympathize with you here: I don't believe it's all divinely inspired either. But again you don't grasp the difference between religion and a deity. There is such a difference, I assure you.

 

[spidergoat]

Religion for Jan is that which is only purely divinely inspired. Meaning that there is no such thing as religion on Earth. The exception I think would be religions that worship a living God, such as Kim Jong Illism or those tribes that worship a certain member of the British royalty. In that case, if their God ordered violence, that violence would have to be said to be religiously inspired violence.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, I do that all the time.

 

[Jan Ardena]

GeoffP,

Yes, but I also like squashing bugs and nonsense. Call it justice, or sadism if you like.

Well, it's definately not religion.

Actually, it just created a rabbit hole to hide your argument in and classically misunderstood the meaning of religion.

You mean I'm not turning it into an intellectual pursuit for mucky little paws to rape and pillage? Keeping it firmly on the level of every person? What one would expect if there was indeed a system of religion for all humans to have the chance of liberation from the illusory existence? As opposed to keeping it in the realm of elitists?

Other than that we have, time and again.

You keep saying that.
If it is indeed true, you should be able to show it from many angles, and actually defeat my or anyone else's objections, instead of throwing the toys out of the pram.

You referring to Hitler or Stalin here? By your logic you must accept that such murders were not committed for political reasons.

I dare say politics played it's part.
But if Stalin had nothing against religion, I'm sure he could have come up with another way to play the game of politics.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What you still mad at me or acknowledge/ignore my argument?

What was your argument again?


jan.