Tom Luth - "Never attempt to reason with people who know they are right!" ~Frank Herbert
And this is at the heart of why I so utterly distrust religion. Most religious people know, with absolute certainty, that their belief is utterly infallible, and that they are always, without exception, 100% correct in every matter. They are doing God's work. Who or whatever that God may be. God told them that slavery and racism are good. God told them to take vengeance on heathens who have [false] beliefs different than their own. God wants them to kill in his name. They are right, all others are wrong.
We just saw the latest demonstration of such a belief system once again. Some say these are just a rogue group, and that all other Muslims are saints. Fine, believe that if that makes you happy. I believe what I see, and have seen,time and again. Religion, by-and-large, is horrendously evil, and prompts people towards evil acts. I want no part of it.
Randall Chambers - It's an insane logic...because even when someone is proven wrong they still seem to argue they're right.
Ed Gauthier - Most of them only started to "believe" in the first place when they were kids, and some gomer in a school house or church house started talking about "religious" matters. But what if the same dopes had told them something entirely different? Yep, they'd "believe" THAT, instead. In short, like a blind man lost in the desert, they'd swallow anything.
Tom Luth - I am a very slow learner, and it was not until the late seventies that I came to the inevitable conclusion that religion is not for me. I found I had to chose to hate the same people my church insisted I hate — blacks, jews, gays, liberals, etc. — or accept that religion and I have nothing in common. I didn't like the idea that to be a good Christian, I had to hate so many people, so I was done.
Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr - Take care not to confuse what a religion actually says with what some of its followers misinterpret as saying.
Tom Luth - I hear ya, but every religion, insists they are the ONLY ones who truly follow God. Even in Christianity, where there are a few thousand variations of Christianity, each separate church insists that they, and they alone, hold the truth and are the only ones following Christ, and all others are evil fakes. I just don't need that drama. I try to be a good person (although I am told God doesn't give a shit how good we are, bummer) and keep my fingers crossed.
Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr - Fortunately, God is much more ecumenical than we are.
Tom Luth - I guess I will find out soon enough. Tea Baggers are, of course, praying that scum like me will burn in hell for eternity, but, hey, who knows?
Dave Rawson - Even the non-religious are certain their view is the correct one and repeatedly promulgate it with a zealous ardor.
The major difference between the two groups is that the non-religious don't lay it off on someone else as the source of good.
The non-religious believe they are good ergo those who disagree are bad.
But in general, groupings fail, in my opinion, because this type of behavior is endemic to deeply judgemental and moralistic humans whatever their stripe.
Many people go through life without seeing evil wherever they look. Others seek it out as a kind of penitent self-flagellation, proof they are better the The Other. Somewhere in their psyche is the concept of Just Punishment for those who don't meet their standards.
In my life, I've found people are people. I would hope others overlook my continuing "stupids", so ethically, I believe I should do the same.
But that's just me, a tiny little nothing in the vast expanse of human behavior. I only have to satisfy myself, not everyone else.
Tom Luth - I have seen a handful of super-athiests who treat their non-belief as a religion. ie: the nuts who spend their time protesting public nativity scenes, etc. Most people, outside of the deeply religious, are similar to myself, and shrug and say "I have no idea." People say agnostics are cowards for not taking a stand, which I find absurd. How is saying "I don't know" cowardly? It is like if someone asked me "what is the capital of Ethiopia," and I didn't know, then I should say "I don't know." Should I be brave and take a stand, even if it is almost certainly wrong? Okay then, the capital of Ethiopia is Oslo! I am courageous! I am an idiot, but I took a stand!
Tom Luth - Religion, as I have seen it, is far more about who you are supposed to hate, and sharing that common hatred, than anything to do with peace or love.
Dave Rawson - I recently ran across some quotes from one Paul Tillich on Faith and Certainty, Doubt and Religion (capitalized to represent ideas). He was of the opinion that Certainty was the opposite of Faith, or at least Doubt was necessary for the growth of understanding.
Fundamentalists of all stripes (including secular) are locked into rigid world views. To doubt for a moment what they believe as bedrock understanding is to risk psychic breakdown. A shift in the axis of reality that opens them to caprice and arbitrary causality. They are flung into an unhinged emptiness where there is no ground of being.
So doubt, that lack of rigid world-view, for some personalities is devastating and can't be risked because without the certainty of their world view to explain and make sense of all they see, they would be left alone.
I've been to maybe a hundred different churches in my life. There was only one clearly fueled by hate. I could clearly see it in the contorted faces twisted with anger. In general, most churches are more conservative than secular organizations, but that's a long way from preaching hatred.
When I went looking for Tillich quotes, I found this within someone's sermon, it appears.
An Age-Old Dilemma
An Age-Old Dilemma
Dealing with questions that life presents to faith was put into a classical formula in the 5th century by Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. Eventually it came to be known as “Fides quaerens intellectum.” In English that translates “Faith seeking understanding.” “For there are some things which we do not believe unless we understand them, and there are other things which we do not understand unless we believe them.”
Later on in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas would reverse that phrasing to read “Understanding seeking faith.”
Six hundred years later Paul Tillich would declare that doubt is always an essential part of seeking to understand what faith is all about. “Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith,” he said. And he would go on to describe the methodological, skeptical and existential sorts of doubting there are within human experience.
It's a pretty good sermon, altogether. At least one I could stomach. Dunno if you'd be interested in the 5-minute read, but it's more typical than not.
Ed Gauthier - I vividly recall as a junior altar boy at Our Lady Of Religious Silliness being flatly told several times that all Jews are doomed to hell. Most of us who dumped the church scene when we reached legal age don't pursue anything related to it with any particular ardor - we just want the holier than thou bible-bumpers to shut the heck up and leave us alone.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Why should you trust Frank Herbert's opinion on this matter anyway? Is he your god?
Muhammad Rasheed - You're going to reject the Lord of the worlds and His religions because of what "Frank Herbert" said? Do you think Frank Herbert will save you from the wrath of God for rejecting Him?
Tom Luth - I think you have a very confused interpretation of just what that quote means. You seem to get confused a lot, actually. You seem to be the only person who has read my posts, and perceived them to to support police in shooting blacks. I honestly have no idea how you could reach that conclusion either. This thread here: Tom Luth shared - Deaths From Police Meme
Muhammad Rasheed - It wasn't a critique against you, Tom, but towards the images the meme creator decided to use. You weren't the meme creator, were you? I agreed with your actual point, and often do on that issue. I was only attacking what I saw as an unfair subliminal message in the meme. In responding to a post from someone I usually agree with, the critique will usually come across as nitpicky and small. On matters in which we actually disagree (such as the merits of world religion) my responses will sound different, and more broad.
In the above status post you actually say that the quote is the reason you reject religion. Whether I interpret Frank Herbert's line correctly or not is irrelevant; you have joined the ranks of the unrepentant hellbound over that man's quote, is what you are saying. Logically I don't think it is a good idea to gamble away your soul over the opinion of that guy.
Tom Luth - Ah, okay. Attention to details. I never said Herbert's quote was the REASON I lost religion; I said it was at the heart of why I distrust religion. Herbert, btw, was not speaking about religion, but this was part of one of his science fiction novels. It applies in many situations. Remember, too, that there are hundreds of thousands of religions out there, and, at best, only one can be "the right one." And for each of these religions, there are people who are one-hundred percent positive, beyond any doubt, theirs is the one true religion.
Whatever one may think of these terrorists, I think we can all agree, they were sincere about their beliefs, to be willing to die for Allah. And for every belief imaginable, there are people equally dedicated.
But, to speed this up, let's say we have narrowed it down to Christianity. Okay, Christianity is indeed the one true religion. Oh wait… WHICH Christianity? Better pick carefully, or your soul will burn for all eternity because you were not all-knowing. Now choose: Catholic? Lutheran? Methodist? Baptist? Anglican? Pentecostal? Calvinism? Presbyterian? Choose carefully, very carefully. Your eternity is at stake. Anabaptist? Charismatic? Mormon? Seventh Day Adventist? Millerite? Unitarian? Christian Scientist? Evangelical? And tens of thousands I have neglected, my apologies. Which one? Now, the most devoted in each will say, "Are you kidding me? There is only ONE that is legitimate, and all the others are evil PHONY CHRISTIANS! I look forward to them spending eternity in Hell for guessing wrong!"
But, for someone like myself, who is so mind-numbingly stupid to not be able to pick out the real deal from all the phonies, it is tough. Now, there are hundreds lining up to set me straight, and point me in the right direction. But, here is the scary thing. I will get as many instructions as there are people "helping" me. Each might say all the others are tools of Satan, deliberately leading me to destruction. Yeah, could be, I guess.
Even reading the exact same Bible, it is amazing how many different interpretations of the same scriptures there are. When I worked in aerospace, the young woman at the desk in front of me belonged to a church in North Long Beach, CA. She was utterly convinced that her church was the ONLY church in the history of the world where the congregation will make it into heaven. Particularly impressive, as she, like millions of others, believes heaven is restricted to one hundred and forty-four thousand, and everyone else goes straight to hell. How fortunate she was born just a mile from the only real church in the world.
I may sound sarcastic, but that is not my intention. My intention is to illustrate how impossible this decision is.
I grew up Baptist, having Baptist Pastors on both sides of my family. As a child, I liked the church, but by high school, I found it becoming mean. Rude, insulting, hateful people were taking a larger part, and their views were being pushed in the church. By the late seventies, I found the church to be largely a hate group, with a never-ending list of people I had to hate to demonstrate I was a good Christian. I had to hate Jews, blacks, gays, liberals, the poor, etc., to show Jesus what a good boy I was. And that was the last straw for me. I am not an atheist, but I no longer have any religious conviction. I continue to listen, but I have not heard anything that says "this is it." haven't closed the doors, but I must say, religion and me? Unlikely.
John Mark Sappenfield - I've found the Episcopal church more accepting. In fact, asking questions is encouraged. There's a lot more freedom.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tom Luth wrote: “Ah, okay. Attention to details. I never said Herbert's quote was the REASON I lost religion; I said it was at the heart of why I distrust religion.”
I consider you an expert on coloring Groo comics, and would reasonably expect you to consider yourself ‘right’ on the methods to do so. So I should never attempt to reason with you in a discussion on that topic?
The activating component in the belief systems is ‘faith’ by definition. There is a logic involved, but accepting the concepts of the faith as true is a given in those faiths. Approaching it outside of that concept would be fundamentally alien to the principles involved and would naturally lead to illogical intellectual conflict.
Tom Luth wrote: “Herbert, btw, was not speaking about religion, but this was part of one of his science fiction novels. It applies in many situations. Remember, too, that there are hundreds of thousands of religions out there, and, at best, only one can be ‘the right one.’"
That’s not necessarily true. There is only One God, with one message, and most of the religions out there are merely systems formed around that one message. The actual heart of the differences between them is political.
Tom Luth wrote: “And for each of these religions, there are people who are one-hundred percent positive, beyond any doubt, theirs is the one true religion.”
The majority of these people are followers on the basic level and aren’t subject matter experts in the material to have any deeper insight past the basic doctrine though. People like that are easily swayed by outside forces like politics, family tradition, etc., just as easily as the religion, and there is often crossover areas that they are unconsciously aware of since they don’t actually study the materials.
Tom Luth wrote: “Whatever one may think of these terrorists, I think we can all agree, they were sincere about their beliefs, to be willing to die for Allah. And for every belief imaginable, there are people equally dedicated.”
As an actual Muslim who is aware of what the texts instruct, they can be “sincere” all they wish, but that doesn’t mean their stance is correct. When the texts specifically say XYZ, yet they do ABC “in the name of” the texts with their whole hearts, they are still wrong.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tom Luth wrote: “But, to speed this up…”
…he said, at the beginning of a 475 word essay. lol
Tom Luth wrote: “…let's say we have narrowed it down to Christianity. Okay, Christianity is indeed the one true religion. Oh wait… WHICH Christianity?”
All of these denominations are under the banner of “Pauline Christianity,” and believe Jesus is divine, Jesus is the divine son, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, Jesus was Resurrected, and that if we believe in him we will be redeemed from Original Sin. All of them believe that if you accept this as a truth and live your life “Christ-like,” you will get into heaven. The differences between them are political – a matter of applied technique in doctrine. It actually doesn’t matter at all which one you pick; as long as you believe in the above, and perform it in your life, you will meet the core qualifications of the religions. Arguing with the individual denominational theologians as to who is actually doing it best is irrelevant.
Tom Luth wrote: “’There is only ONE that is legitimate, and all the others are evil PHONY CHRISTIANS! I look forward to them spending eternity in Hell for guessing wrong!’"
That’s just the normal contentious divisiveness of being a human and has nothing to do with religion per se. The interested truth seeker can just study the materials for him/herself and discover the truth of the matter in the texts. It’s not really hard; you just have to be motivated to do so. For those who are concerned about the state of their soul, recognize the glory of the One God, and have a sincere thirst for truth, it will be worth it.
Tom Luth wrote: “But, for someone like myself, who is so mind-numbingly stupid to not be able to pick out the real deal from all the phonies, it is tough. Now, there are hundreds lining up to set me straight, and point me in the right direction. But, here is the scary thing. I will get as many instructions as there are people "helping" me. Each might say all the others are tools of Satan, deliberately leading me to destruction. Yeah, could be, I guess.”
In your research techniques it helps to use critical thinking tools such as root cause analysis to penetrate to the heart of the matter. In items such as this there is only one most important leading question: “What does my Lord require of me?” Sacred scripture actually answers that question, and when you know that there are numerous “sports agents” really, trying to recruit you to their team, it’s best to ignore the political doctrines and go directly to the texts themselves. “Study to show your own self approved.” Rely on your own intellect and understanding and demonstrate discernment. Don’t dismiss people “just because they are right,” because they are SUPPOSED to believe. But discern between the truth of the Lord’s message versus the political squabbling between sects.
Tom Luth wrote: “Even reading the exact same Bible, it is amazing how many different interpretations of the same scriptures there are.”
This is true when the human mind reads anything. God will judge you based on your own understanding and how you acted it out as an individual.
Tom Luth wrote: “I may sound sarcastic, but that is not my intention. My intention is to illustrate how impossible this decision is.”
I understand your point, but it’s not impossible. There are competent subject matter experts that can help guide you to a place where you can comfortably apply your own insight from a solid knowledge base of self-research. You don’t have to feel that way. You just have to want it and recognize upfront that anything worth having will be inherently challenging but not impossible to master.
Tom Luth wrote: “I grew up Baptist, having Baptist Pastors on both sides of my family. As a child, I liked the church, but by high school, I found it becoming mean. Rude, insulting, hateful people were taking a larger part, and their views were being pushed in the church. By the late seventies, I found the church to be largely a hate group, with a never-ending list of people I had to hate to demonstrate I was a good Christian. I had to hate Jews, blacks, gays, liberals, the poor, etc., to show Jesus what a good boy I was. And that was the last straw for me. I am not an atheist, but I no longer have any religious conviction. I continue to listen, but I have not heard anything that says "this is it." haven't closed the doors, but I must say, religion and me? Unlikely.”
God has clear and specific tenets He requires us to follow to be on the Path towards the success He wants for us to achieve. Finding out what those tenets actually are is your job as a believer, and should you find in gathering this knowledge that those tenets conflict with the behavior in the institution, you should at that point be able to safely discern what is from God and what is the flawed activities of man pretending to be from God. In every area and industry there are those who know what they are doing and are competent representatives, and there are those who do everything wrong, make no effort to correct their deficiencies, but say they are card-carrying members just as good as the first guy. There are also various shades in between the two. This is a truth inside of every field of human endeavor, and the religions are certainly no exception. I think it is unreasonable to allow the ‘shit birds’ in life to turn you off from worthwhile concepts and systems, especially when you have personal memories of people who actually performed those doctrinal precepts in ways that the original founders of the faiths would’ve approved of. Use those rightly-guided people as your example, and safely ignore the ‘shit birds’ and the incompetent the way you routinely do in every other field of interest. Are you equally willing to toss aside your favorite speculative fiction industries just because you come across the work of those creators who aren’t as competent as coloring as yourself?
Theodora Nayler - I wholeheartedly agree with this and have nothing more to add.
Jackals Home - I especially like when Muhammad uses that rhetorical standby "But you're gonna burn in hell, lol." THAT ALWAYS GET'S EM'
Muhammad Rasheed - ???
Jackals Home - lol just kidding lol but totally you're gonna burn in hell lol
Muhammad Rasheed - What are you doing here? I thought you didn't read my Notes? In fact, you were kind of theatric about the announcement and hurt my feelings.
Muhammad Rasheed - Since you're here again, you can read my Evolution Note and make a contribution, please. And don't be mean like last time.
Jackals Home - I kidd, though. I love you, Muhammad, you're just consistent.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I am.
Muhammad Rasheed - Try not to trip and fall into hell on your way to the Evolution Note.
Jackals Home - Haha no way. I'm not getting into another argument with you about one of your pet swamis.
Muhammad Rasheed - What swami?
Jackals Home - Cherry Picking Fallacy
Muhammad Rasheed - You're always trying to give me a swami...
Jackals Home - Abdur has the right of it. Listen to him.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Listen to the guy I agree with! That's the way to go!"
Jackals Home - Every piece of evidence is not equally valid, and when someone claims intellectual authority, challenging the merits of that claimed authority is both reasonable and expected.
Muhammad Rasheed - Cherry picking fallacy, eh?
"...while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."
That's what the evolutionists do. lol
Jackals Home - "To find the truth in science you are obligated to search through EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE. OF. EVIDENCE..."
(No the fuck you aren't)
Jackals Home - Some "evidence" is bullshit. Some is faked, some has been misunderstood. While consensus in Science is not a garuntee of correctness (established scientific facts shift and change every decade), your habit of treating the opposite of consensus ("This guy has secret knowledge! He cracked the code!") Is sorry.
Jackals Home - SORRY
SORRY AND SHABBY
"With one weird trick, this guy proved all of evolutionary theory false! Molecular biologists hate him!"
Muhammad Rasheed - I know, you always default to "he must have a swami somewhere." That's your thing now.
Jackals Home - WITH ONE WEIRD TRICK THIS GUY PROVED EVERYONE WHO DOUBTED HIM WRONG
Muhammad Rasheed - In fact, it's seems to be some kind of spell...
Jackals Home - (If you don't want to be treated like you love swamis, stop listening to swamis)
If your guy is labeled a pseudoscientist on wikipedia, that's a good clue.
Muhammad Rasheed - What "guy?"
Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, you're talking about Cremo.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “(No the fuck you aren't) Some "evidence" is bullshit. Some is faked, some has been misunderstood.”
How will the scientist determine it is fake or wrong if he doesn’t first treat it seriously and test it meticulously to prove it is wrong? Dismissing it out of hand because he thinks it’s wrong isn’t science.
Muhammad Rasheed – Cremo isn’t my “swami.” He’s the guy whose compilation of anomalies I used as a reference to respond to Abdur’s comment.
Jackals Home - Contention: You are poorly intellectually equipped to discern what a credible claim looks like due to your intense and pervasive sympathy for the "maverick" archetype, which has caused you to routinely perceive large amounts of evidence as the work of conspiracy, and individual fringe works of hokum, pseudoscience, and (frankly) bullshit as credible.
You see the world of the scientific method exactly backwards, where the lone hermit printing pamphlets in a storefront in Council Bluffs Iowa is more likely to have figured it out than the finest minds in the scientific community.
You've in the past derided members of the Harvard school of economics in favor of some Fox News shill in a mini-mall because "that's what they want you to think." You've derided the Nobel committee because "They're in the pocket of the Feds." If anyone has any measure of professional kudos, with regards to science or economics, you disregard them with baseless claims of conspiracy, topped with smarmy declarations like "C'mon."
I came, quite reasonably, to a conclusion long ago that there was nothing to be gained for me to buy into your fanciful notions of how debate works. While you are one of my dearest friends, your pet fetish for crackpots is of little interest to me, as is your pretense of a fair debate in which asides like "lol" are interspersed with smug offhand remarks about how your opponents are going to burn in hell.
It's antihumanist and gross and it doesn't seem like something you would do. So I'm basically not willing to subject myself to that unpleasantness.
On the odd occasion where I find myself reviewing things you have posted (looking for reference to anything not sold primarily at gun shows and out of the trunks of cars), I see that your brother seems to have the energy and desire to stand in front of your pitching machine while you gish gallop whatever you've most recently read out of the Dale Gribble collection. I applaud him for that. I can only assume that you won't be telling him he's going to hell any time soon, and maybe someday, you'll figure out why that is.
Muhammad Rasheed - “Going to hell” doesn’t have anything to do with the evolution Note. It's a completely different argument.
(at least I don't think the evolutionism true believers have an evolution hell...?)
(maybe it's sticking people between layers of rock sediment)
I counter that you are poorly intellectually equipped to discern what a credible claim looks like due to your lack of knowledge regarding legitimate alternate theories. You treat every alternate theory as if they come from Scams-R-Us, and that is anti-intellectual.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don’t think I necessarily have an instant sympathy for the "maverick" archetype so much as I’m willing to hear the other side of the argument. I think that’s a fair and reasonable stance to take in any body of knowledge, especially when the mainstream or most popular view is strongly challenged by an academic opposition. Even though you admit that “While consensus in Science is not a garuntee of correctness (established scientific facts shift and change every decade)” you still treat the most well-known or most well misunderstood views as chiseled in stone, and that is a very unscientific, unintellectual mindset to have.
Muhammad Rasheed - When mainstream institutions are set up to produce billions and billions of dollars of income, it is in their best interest to support their own system, and publicly pooh-pooh alternate systems, even when the data doesn’t line up to what they are saying. You think that behavior is fine and acceptable, while I disagree.
Muhammad Rasheed – I’m curious as to how my "lol" at something someone says with an "offhand remark" is supposed to be inferior to your own sarcasm style of argument. Why is it okay for you to pepper your argument with fallacies, yet my style of argument is 'fanciful' because it doesn't support the mainstream story?
Muhammad Rasheed - Outside of this evolution argument, the last discussion I had with him was the gold/libertarian argument, so I'm not sure what else you are referring to.
Abdur and I grew up in the same household, and attended the same Muslim private school, going over the same material. I wouldn't have to tell him he would go to hell for holding onto certain beliefs.
Muhammad Rasheed - I think it’s interesting that you bypassed the entire evolution Note argument to zero in on one reference I cited for a particular point made only to something Abdur said – a reference that didn’t have anything to do with the main argument – but you’re using that to somehow discredit my whole point. “Ah ha! Here is his swami!” This is actually representative of the anti-intellectual thinking in the mainstream that I’m against.
Jackals Home - I bypassed it, because, as I explained, I'm not interested in being on the receiving end of your pitching machine. When all evidence is treated as the result of a conspiracy, what evidence could possibly crack through that? If you glue the pieces to the chessboard, then go "Ha! You can't out maneuver me!" Your chess skills aren't really what got you the success.
I have interests besides doing extensive internet evidence to debunk whatever "weird secret THEY don't want you to know about!!!!" Especially considering that any evidence I cite (The Harvard economists, the Nobel family) will be dismissed as Lizard-people, or Bilderbergers or whatever.
When you start from the position that evidence is valid only if it's not accepted, and thus accepted theories are all designed to suppress "The REAL knowledge," there's no reason for me to engage you in that. What's in it for me?
"I believe X! Thomas Sowell says 'X' and he's a brilliant economist!"
"Here are twenty Ivy-League economists that say it's rubbish."
"THEY DON'T WANT US TO KNOW!"
Can you explain to me what possible intellectual gain I could have from subjecting myself to further exchanges of that nature? It's a simple binary system:
Does Muhammad believe it?
Evidence in favor=true, no matter how fringe or disreputable the source.
Evidence that contradicts it=false, due to a conspiracy. "Only a conspiracy could falsify evidence that pervasive! Wake up sheeple!"
I'm perfectly willing to discuss matters where I'm not likely to be told by a friend that I deserve to be subjected to hell (and that's okay with him, because book), or, alternately any matters in which you are likely to use "They don't want you to know!!!" as a genuine attempt at rebuttal.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “I bypassed it, because, as I explained, I'm not interested in being on the receiving end of your pitching machine.”
I read what you explained, but the truth of the matter is that you made up your mind that there must be a ‘swami’ involved, so you skimmed the material looking for your prophecy to be true. But that’s cool. At least I understand your position.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “When all evidence is treated as the result of a conspiracy…”
I didn’t treat all evidence as a conspiracy. I explained why Krugman’s remark in that article was a lie based on the facts of history regarding the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression using logic and reason that you ignored. On a completely separate note which received all of your attention, when you asked me why I personally thought that Krugman would be on the Fed payroll so to speak, I shared that opinion. You decided, as this post above states, that that opinion WAS my whole argument. But like you said, you don’t have time to do extensive Internet research to counter my actual argument, so it is considerably easier just to take the “he’s coo-coo, and he’ll just dismiss whatever I dig up any way because coo-coo” route. And that’s fine, since I recognize this stuff is only of interest to me anyway.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “I'm perfectly willing to discuss matters where I'm not likely to be told by a friend that I deserve to be subjected to hell…”
That’s highly unlikely to happen in either an evolution discussion, nor in a gold standard discussion.
Jackals Home wrote: “(and that's okay with him, because book)”
Why would that be okay with me? Stop being a disbeliever so you won’t go to hell. Why would you think reading about your misinformed religious bashing would be okay with me?
Jackals Home wrote: “…or, alternately any matters in which you are likely to use ‘They don't want you to know!!!’ as a genuine attempt at rebuttal.”
Sharing my opinion as to why things are the way they are in society, versus breaking down Krugman’s comment and showing how it doesn’t line up with the facts of history, are two totally different items. Your inability to discern between the two demonstrate an inferior intellectual capacity.
Jackals Home - I'm not interested in sinking into most of this particular quagmire any further, but I'd like you to examine the dichotomy between routinely, casually remarking that people who were not taught the things you were are worthy of eternal punishment and unimaginable torture (frequently dotted with the shorthand remark "lol," and consider if it's in any way possible that you're using your belief in eternal salvation as a tool by which to belittle others, and make them seem smaller and less valid in your eyes. Less human.
Now consider if it's possible that other people would feel that way. Take special time to consider whether you sincerely believe it's possible to
(A) Believe that someone you know is going to be tortured, eternally, forever, and
(B) tell them that in a sentence that also uses the word "lol."
And, if it turns out that both A and B are true, ask yourself if it's reasonable for the person you said that to, to think such a scenario was okay with you, personally.
Consider other incredibly awful things a person could suffer, the death of a loved one, a divorce, a financial loss, a serious car accident. And imagine telling a person, a person you supposedly cared about, your wife, or daughter or sister or brother, that you believed they were going to suffer that trauma.
Now add "lol" at the end. Is that a holy thing to do?
Is that the respect you have for God's creatures?
Is that a righteous way to behave?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “I'd like you to examine the dichotomy between routinely, casually remarking that people who were not taught the things you were…”
People routinely convert to Islam all over the globe; you don’t have to pilgrimage to, or be born in, the East Side of Detroit to learn it. It’s referred to as a world religion for a reason. You don’t know more about it not because your parents didn’t teach it to you, but because you don’t care to.
Jackals Home wrote: “…are worthy of eternal punishment and unimaginable torture…”
People are absolutely worthy of hellfire if they deliberately choose it when knowing the consequences beforehand.
Jackals Home wrote: “(frequently dotted with the shorthand remark ‘lol,’ and consider if it's in any way possible that you're using your belief in eternal salvation as a tool by which to belittle others…”
I’ll admit that I do “weaponize” it in a belittling way when I am arguing with people who are insulting towards the believers and towards my faith first. I don’t behave that way when the person is respectful and civil. The “lol” thing is another matter (see below).
Jackals Home wrote: “…and make them seem smaller and less valid in your eyes. Less human.”
Belief in the One God who made him is mankind’s validation. Without that belief what good is he?
Jackals Home wrote: “Now consider if it's possible that other people would feel that way. Take special time to consider whether you sincerely believe it's possible to (A) Believe that someone you know is going to be tortured, eternally, forever, and (B) tell them that in a sentence that also uses the word "lol." And, if it turns out that both A and B are true, ask yourself if it's reasonable for the person you said that to, to think such a scenario was okay with you, personally.”
This reminds me of the “lol” I gave when you posted about some gruesome thing involving acid burnings or something like that. The laugh was over how you presented it, not at the event itself. In our first and only religious discussion, I called myself deliberately being ‘easy going;’ I didn’t want to come across as preachy or overbearing… no more than the subject tends to allow in anyway. Obviously my caution backfired on me, causing me to come across as flip and “jokey-jokey” in areas that were deadly serious in context of the specific topic in discussion.
From my own perspective, as two 40 something year old men who were completely accountable for what they chose and believed in life, joking around with the material was no big deal. Yes, I absolutely believe that if you die right now in your current state of unbelief, hellfire will be your reward on the Day of Judgment. The only way I personally can fix this is to persuade you to change your mind, convince you to surrender to the One God and do as He commands. But with your mind already made up about the topic, and your frankly hurtful belief that your old friend is a coo-coo swami-lover not worth listening to, I feel bad that this will be your fate. Laughing at lame jokes about it is all that I have for you. I ask you now to reconsider, to surrender to your Lord that He may have mercy and enable you to eventually grow that surrender into true faith, so that your afterlife will instead be filled with bliss. Should you decide to continue to reject the message, I must respect your choice acting within your Free Will, but on the Last Day you cannot say you had not been warned.
And let me assure you, I would not have your best interests at heart if I did not warn you of the fires of hell. Have a care.
Muhammad Rasheed - (btw this is the tone of writing voice i was actively attempting to avoid in that religious discussion we had, thus all of the "lol")
Jackals Home - Uh huh.
Jackals Home - Well, it's very convenient that the treating people like they're worth less than you is all for their own good. Very paternalistic. No room for that attitude to go wrong, historically, over and over again.
As long as taunting people with the certainty that you're one of the special saved ones (and they aren't) is part of your humble submission to God, I guess you're doing everything right. It might go quicker if you made some signs, like the Westboro people.
Jackals Home - I do find it interesting that you differentiate you using "weaponized" invective against people rude to you, in that it's a good example of how, when it comes down to it, everybody does the same hostile shit.
But the thing is, I'm a human being, with flaws and shit. I make no claims to be in tune with a greater, celestial power, a righteous and pure, noble being.
So that's kind of expected. I'm bone and meat.
But when someone who's humble in the radiant certainty of a Supreme Being, aren't you kind of supposed to be better than that?
The moral authority, the ethical high ground you literally claim from a divine source, goes:
"You're going to hell, it's a real shame you're not enlightened like me."
But then when some one gets under your skin, that moral authority goes out the window, just like a plain ol' meat man.
"Yeah, well, it's gonna be funny when you burn in hell, lol."
Muhammad Rasheed - I suppose if I wasn’t a “plain old meat man” I wouldn’t have to deal with the over-intense scrutiny of Judgment Day when I get to the end of all of this. I don’t suddenly (magically; spiritually) cease being a mere flawed human being by deciding to believe in the One God. During my low moments I’m absolutely going to be petty, vindictive, assholish, revenge-minded, and everything else the human being of earth is capable of. For those items that God lists as “sins,” I’d better repent of them, or risk the number of sins outweighing the number of good deeds on my Final Account. If that should happen, hellfire will be my reward as well. Repentance is a tool of the mercy of God, reserved for those who believe.
James, I ask you to surrender to God and do as He commands: do good deeds, avoid bad deeds, and repent of your bad deeds when you mess up, joining the ranks of those who will receive paradise from their Lord. These will have no need to fear, nor shall they grieve come the Last Day. I wish this for you. Will you accept?
Jackals Home - I already do those things without any help. And I get to own both my bad decisions and my good ones.
Rather than pawn off my successes on a man in the sky, while beating myself over the failures.
There's already someone who tells me what's wrong and what's right, who's with me all the time, and judges everything I do.
That person is me.
I'm comfortable taking responsibility for it.
Muhammad Rasheed - I do own all of my decisions. I do take responsibility for them. I'm the one that performs them. I'm the one who will be punished or rewarded for them.
Jackals Home - Whereas I'm just doing them based on my own sense of right and wrong.
And my own virtues and failures.
It begins and ends in the meat.
And lemme be clear, I do. Not. Care. What you believe, and specifically why you behave the way you do, it doesn't concern me.
If I think your behavior is out of line, I'll call you on it, but it has to do purely with how it affects people (including whether it irritates me or not, which is a purely selfish complaint).
You're around you way more often then I am, obviously. You gotta judge your own actions.
As a general rule, I sound angry, people think I'm pissed off all the time. I understand that. Try to forgive me for that. Believe me when I say I have no anger toward you, except the most ephemeral kind.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “Whereas I'm just doing them based on my own sense of right and wrong. And my own virtues and failures. It begins and ends in the meat.”
Fortunately it doesn’t end in the meat, and the grand system is set up where you will be rewarded for your efforts if you adhere to the rules. Your sense of right and wrong is based on the same Abrahamic sense that is built into our culture; why not take that next step so you will win the Game?
Jackals Home wrote: “And lemme be clear, I do. Not. Care. What you believe, and specifically why you behave the way you do, it doesn't concern me.”
Since it begins in the meat, by necessity I need to use my own meat examples to explain certain points as you express your opinions about the concepts we’re discussing. By it’s nature it can get personal, but I have to do it so you will see the correlation of it in the doctrine. It’s all about human behavior and how it relates to being on the Path that will profit us most.
Jackals Home wrote: “If I think your behavior is out of line, I'll call you on it, but it has to do purely with how it affects people (including whether it irritates me or not, which is a purely selfish complaint). You're around you way more often then I am, obviously. You gotta judge your own actions. As a general rule, I sound angry, people think I'm pissed off all the time. I understand that. Try to forgive me for that. Believe me when I say I have no anger toward you, except the most ephemeral kind.”
Well, in return, if I would’ve known that “lol” was a pet peeve of yours, I wouldn’t have used it so much in my efforts to not sound preachy & stuffy when I talked to you. But I do it all the time to other people for the same reason.
A Religious Discussion - Atheist & Muslim
The Demon & the Slave Block