What, in your opinion, is the greatest human tragedy of all time?
Printable View
What, in your opinion, is the greatest human tragedy of all time?
Did you post this on TWC too??
I will answer the same: The two World Wars.
Industrialisation, I should say.......men have been killing each other before they were men at all.......but it is this modern state of the environment that'll be the end of us all.
Gulag and mass murder in and around the Soviet Union.
The invention of wireless broadband.
Serious answer? Religion.
Mankind/humanity.
Honestly, who made all of the other proposals? The two World Wars, industrialisation, religion, the gulags, mass murders and wireless broadband are all products of man.
To quote a madman:
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Stalin
Invention of farming and agriculture.
I don't believe in tragedy and thats the truth
This.
*warning*
Link contains chilling pictures of human tragedy. :shame:
Great death into XIV century. It killed much more men than any war (I mean proportion to whole population).
My opinion is that World War I is the greatest human tragedy. Not only was the war itself a tragic waste of lives and resources, but its effects were far-reaching and these were to a big majority tragedies in their own right.
The project that will kill us next Wednesday. Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Any war since there were humans.
That pretty sums everything.
The Treaty of Versailles. One war was inevitable as the world did not understand the true horror of modern warfare. The second was entirely unnecessary.
The Toba eruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Damn Louis, you beat me to it. I was going to post some Tecktonik-related crap.
The slide into the First World War.
Also, perhaps the death of Alexander.
I agree with him. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
Probably atheism.
Industrialization and with it the massive increase of world population/ polution.
No offence to anybody, but if i think about it it is sort of cause for lots of problems in our societies.
Politicians
Biggest tragedy huh... agreeing with Tevash on this one, politicians
I really have to disagree on this. Politicians or anarchy? I'd rather take the politicians (by the way, I'm including monarchs, despots, and indeed any leader as a "politician" in this case).Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The organised one. :yes:
.
Yeah, people working only 8h per day instead of from dawn to dusk, having good medical care, education, enough money to fulfill their needs not just to sustain themselves is a real bummer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
When Cain killed Able.
When Eve ate the fruit :furious3: :wall:
Christianity.
The destruction of the Meso-American civilizations by smallpox and chicken-pox caused by the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors, and the replacing of their rich and advanced culture with guilt-ridden conformist catholicism.
An enlightened master once asked this question of one of his students: "...what is the greatest suffering that a sentient being can ever encounter?"
The student answered: "hell"
The master replied: "the greatest suffering that a sentient being can ever encounter is to exist but not know what they actually are..."
..
The greatest human tragedy of all time is that so few of us ever attain the realization of what we actually are, and so many of us suffer unspeakabily pursuing the illusion of what we imagine ourselves to be. This is the root of all human tragedies, great and small.
The Nation-State. Without a doubt.
The scramble for Africa, disgusting.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Add me to this one too. Even better/worse: Nation!
.
Yes, it was much better when we were killing each other for our respective nobles and/or religion...Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Well, "greatest" is a difficult term when linked with tragedy. Every day, someone is killed in the traffic bringing the greatest tragedy to her nearest family. Their loss is just as "great" as any other loss.
Then, if you are positivistical in nature, you could argue, that the loss of two is greater than the loss of one. Then you will be looking for sums, perhaps even trying to put it into perspective as KrooK did in his post. When did there die a lot of people? If you are more philosophically inclined, then you would argue for things that changed the way humans treated eachother. When did we lose the most respect for our fellow human beings in one instant? And if you are ecologically aware, you would try to pin out the greatest loss to nature - when were the most species brought to extinction?
Different questions lead to different answers.
My answer? The concept of race.
/KotR
When we were under a nobility we were still in a nation-state, though in a different form to what we consider it today. As for religion - it is because of nation-states that it has achieved enough power to cause people to die for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I guess everything has two sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Assuming you are living in a first world country I would state YOU have access to the medical care, job/money etc..
Well, think about the 70-90% of world population who don´t have the fortune you/ i have? Is it b/c they are all lazy? I don't think so.
Industrialization in it's current state has negative effects like robbery of commodities from 3rd world countries, unequal distribution of wealth, negative effects of the climate change esp. in 3rd world countires (lack of water, destruction of crops....) etc.
It has a lot of good sides, esp. for someone like me living in the EU. Go ask sombody in the Congo....
The positive effects faciliated by mankinds progress sure do affect a lot of people...but the lot of people become more and more and more....We have to think about a way to deal with this without further destruction of our own planet. This is one of our biggest challenges atm.
"preaching mode off"
:2cents:
The Manhattan Project.
One of the reasons, actually prime reason, why 3rd world countries are 3rd world countries is because they aren't industrialized countries, but pretty much agrarian...Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
The reasons why aren't they industrialized is another issue, complex and deserving of a thread of its own...
That's debatable, but okay, let's say that it is so. Let me rephrase - It was so much better when we were killing each other for our respective tribes and chiefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
No it wasn't, but Nation States have allowed for the industrialisation of killing.Quote:
That's debatable, but okay, let's say that it is so. Let me rephrase - It was so much better when we were killing each other for our respective tribes and chiefs?
Dear god CountArach do they teach you anything but marxism at your university?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
letting women speak out of turn.
edit: :grin:
Not true, and not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Nation-state is widely considered as a creation of the modern era, and as such, do not include feudal state, tribal groups and so on.
And we all know that people have been willing to kill themselves over a religious issue way before the modern era.
I think you're confusing state and nation here. Both are two really different notions.
I disagree aswell.Quote:
No it wasn't, but Nation States have allowed for the industrialisation of killing.
The Ottoman Empire was in 1917 all but a nation-state (Empire being almost the antithesis of nation-state), yet it's responsible for the first large-scall genocide of the 20th century.
Furthermore, the world has known large-scale genocide in the past aswell. The fact that Mongols or Conquistadores didn't have death camps doesn't make their slaughter less hideous.
The greatest human tragedy of all time is the deliberate, intentional, planned, institutionalized spreading of ignorance through the use of propaganda, lies, irrational arguments, misleading data, false assumptions, and superstitious belief.
What begins at childhood, people are indoctrinated to believe falsehoods or unproven opinions as fact. Examples of which include religious-based intolerance, racism, or faith-based mythology. A moral code is instructed to them which does not include humility, compassion, self-doubt, and non-aggression. Children are taught, in most societies (including mine in the United States) to fear, suspect, doubt, and hate others for their differing appearances, cultures, and philosophies.
Fear and suspicion of Muslims, of Communism, of Atheism, of Mormonism; in some societies, the fear and hatred of Jews, of Serbians, of Croatians, of Catholics, Protestants, and even Pagans. The hatred between Hindus and Muslims, Buddhists and Muslims, Christians and other faiths, begins at childhood. This is evident because if a person who was taught nothing of religion encounters a person of faith, they may be confused as to why that person believes in such ostensibly ridiculous things, but at the same time does not fear or hate them.
Fear and hate are taught, en masse, by religious extremists. This is not limited to those who believe, but also to some extent by those who do not believe. Militant atheism causes hatred of those with faith.
However, it is not merely ignorance and fear and hate which is taught about religion, but about race. Which is an absurdly stupid concept. At least with religion there may be an argument for it's abolishment, for some faiths teach rituals which are harmful to the human body, and teach abuse towards women and child abuse. However, a person's "race" never hurt anyone.
Much like fearing someone for having green eyes, racism is an irrational, ignorant fear of someone for their genetic diversity from one's self. At the same time, we do not fear dogs or cats, and they have a MUCH wider genetic diversity from ourselves. Yet we fear those with less than 1 tenth of 1 percent genetic deviation. Regardless where you live on earth or what genetic makeup you have, you are more than 99% the same as every other human being who ever lived.
Also consider European racism, for example. While one might fear black people, as an example, for looking different from a European (a silly reason to fear someone), Adolf Hitler looked exactly like an average European man, and he ended up killing far more Europeans than anyone else. Sounds like Europeans should fear themselves, if they have anyone to fear. And even so, there is no reason to judge someone for their genetics. If Adolf Hitler had a son or a grandson, can you guarantee that child would be an evil genocidal maniac?
Has anyone here ever been related to a criminal or a murderer? Somewhere down the line, I am afraid we are ALL related to someone who killed. Should we fear one another for the crimes of our ancestors? This is why current race relations between Muslims and Hindus, Whites and Blacks, etc, being as low as they are, are based upon crimes committed in the past, and which causes crimes to be committed in the present, and will inspire crimes to be committed in the future, because people refuse to let things go.
The cycle of revenge traps us in racism, when those old hatreds should have died with the people who caused the crimes, and the people who were victims thereof. But teaching our children ignorance, racism, and hate, allows that same wicked ignorance to proliferate to a new generation.
The indoctrination of children, in general, whether political, racial, religious, or secular, forces an ideology onto an unwilling minor who is not mature enough to make decisions for themselves. They are not at the age of consent.
Teaching political, religious, or any other kind of ideology to a child is a crime, in my view. When a person is old enough to make a rational choice for themselves, then offering to teach them your viewpoint is acceptable. Teaching a child to pray and worship and participate in rituals, teaching them who their "enemies" are, telling them of politics when it is none of their business, forcing your viewpoint, your hatreds, your ignorance, your superstitions, your faith (right or wrong) onto a child removes their ability to say no, removes their ability to make a choice, to choose to become who they are.
Because hatred and ignorance will disappear over time, forgotten by the mind, and killed off by the natural event of death, the only reason it exists today is because there is a concerted, intentional, organized and conscious effort to spread ignorance.
Religious institutions, political propaganda machines, and intolerant parents forcing false, unsubstantiated, and hateful doctrine onto a new generation, this is the machination which drives human ignorance from generation to generation to generation. This allows the religious superstitions to not only survive, but to grow and claim ever more people, convincing them they must give their wealth and their rational thought, their skepticism, their alternative viewpoints, their objections, their reasoning, and surrender them all to a religious institution. Or, it allows racist groups to spread their hatred to innocent children. Or it allows political machines to remain in power decades after they have continued to fail the people who elected them.
It all stems from conscious spreading of ignorance, fear, lies, and hatred.
Militancy, is irrational use of force to spread an irrational ideology. Any ideology which requires being spread by gunpoint is obviously being rejected by the people who wanted not to believe it, but are now forced to. Most major religions were spread by warfare and conquest, forced conversion, inquisition, crusade and jihad, or state-sponsored conversion. Most major prejudices, hatreds, and superstitions were spread by militants, by irresponsible parents threatening their children with punishment if they did not learn their scripture, or repeat their vile hatred of racial minorities.
Militant hatred, forced ignorance... we see how it spreads.
Now look; as the ignorance festers, there is only one outcome. An entire generation of minds poisoned by falsehoods, lies, fears, and superstitions, bending to the will of their controlling overlords, be they religious, political, or economic; Now they listen to their masters who control their ignorant minds, and they blame others for their problems.
They ignorantly blame their lot in life on people they have never met, who have done them no wrong. They become hungry, greedy, and they hate what others have, because they ignore the fact that they are living and breathing without that which others have. They are convinced that the only way that they can live a prosperous life, and provide for their children, is to take up arms and destroy their enemies, and take their lands, their possessions, their women, their natural resources.
And so begins war, where military propaganda machines churn out obedient and loyal followers of The Doctrine, be it political, religious, or racist. These otherwise fine human beings, programmed since birth to believe. To Believe, not to think. To Believe, not to study, to believe, not to rationalize. To believe, not to question. To believe, not to choose.
These obedient, loyal believers... indoctrinated by ignorance, motivated by desire, influenced by peer pressure and repeated lies by their puppet masters, fed the doctrine, and forced to believe it... these loyal obedient slaves of human ignorance are then taught only how to destroy, how to maim, how to kill, how to conquer, how to cause suffering.
Not how to resolve disputes. Not how to disarm without harming. Not how to coexist. Not how to feel compassion.
These slaves of human ignorance, who have been fed everything they need to believe and nothing they need to know, proceed to destroy humanity.
Thus the virus of ignorance has taken control of the human mind, the human body, the human race, and has wrought it's fatal consequences.
Racial wars, religious wars, political wars, territorial wars, resource wars, fear wars. Instead of enlightened cooperation, defense, and resolution of disputes, there is only death. Only killing, murder, and atrocity. And those who command the two sides of this battle all believe the same thing; In order to keep the power they have, they must write the history books, and indoctrinate another generation of innocent people, having annihilated one generation after another.
Now look at the death toll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
World Wars, Chinese "civil" wars, wars of conquest and oppression. The Holocaust, The Great Leap Forward, the conquest of Native Americans, the Atlantic slave trade, the Arab slave trade. The Crusades, the Inquisitions, the spread of Islam and Christianity. The religious wars of China, the suppression of minorities and other faiths, the forced conversion of the Zoroastrians, the European conquests of Africa, possession of India and China...
All based upon the concept of concerted, intentional, indoctrination of human ignorance, lies, fears, and hatreds, forced upon young innocent children. Generation after generation destroyed through racism, through conquest, through slavery, through religious conversion, through holy war.
Conscious ignorance. This is the greatest plague against humanity that has ever been, or ever will be. If it caused death alone, it would be almost gentle and healing, for those who are ignorant or choose to be ignorant would be wiped out. But this plague, this virus of the mind, conscious ignorance, irrational fear, irrational belief, militancy and extremism, this spreads from one innocent mind to another, until the entire human race is destroyed in a final holocaust.
Askthepizzaguy:
:applause::applause::applause:
I beg to differ on a few different points :
Firstly, modern racism is IMO not ethnical, but cultural. ie. it's not aimed toward a specific race/skin color, but toward a specific culture.
Does it make it any less stupid ? No, but nonetheless, I don't think racism can be summarized as "I hate these guy 'cause he has green eyes".
Secondly, sure, none should impose its value to a child, at least till he can make a rational choice. Thing is, IMO, 80% of the population is simply not capable to make such a choice (that is, considering that rational choice even exist). That's why propaganda and endoctrinment won't disapear anytime in a near future.
Even if it was possible to educate the population (which would be contrary to the elite's interests), I think most people wouldn't care. Being educated and enlightened requires a lot of work and time, and is in a way, exhausting.
Friendly Rebuttal:
In some cases, you may be right. But the plain fact is, there are racist groups bent on hating black people for being black, not because they dislike gangsta rap or because they have a grudge against Africa for some reason.
I would say it's not always the case, but there is still plenty of RACE-based racism left. I wish I were wrong, but I'm not, unfortunately.
Your second point, to summarize: "ignorance is bliss", right?
I dunno. This world doesn't seem blissful to me. It's not actually blissful, but being ignorant is like being drunk, it incapacitates you and numbs your brain.
You never cease to amaze me, pizzaguy. :bow:
I think Askthepizzaguy has more or less hit the nail on the head. There has been a constant struggle between ideas and ideologies throughout human history. People have been kept divided to serve the ends of the elite who rule. Their most powerful tool has always been ignorance and falsehood. Their greatest fear is the spread of truth and knowledge. :book:
If enough people know enough about enough the big lies will crumble in the face of the realisation of what is really quite obvious to many of us now. :idea2: There is no such thing as a race and never was. Learning enough about anthropology and genetics makes that obvious. There is no logical reason to expect an afterlife, but it sure helps the few to cheat the many. Nations are simply arbitrary divisions thrown up by historical accidents, not some expression of a unique biological identity. Competition between economies is not some inevitable Darwinian process, rather it is some twisted game of roulette to amuse the ruling classes and ignores the misery and frustration heaped upon the majority of humanity.
However it is not inevitable that we will remain ignorant forever. They control as much of the media as possible and daily brainwash the masses with advertising and propaganda. That's why most people wish only to believe what they are told, do what they are told, buy what they are told, and reap the rich rewards of over-eating and over-borrowing.
Perhaps the internet will prove to be the greatest tool ever devised for spreading counter arguments which unite people and enrich their lives. People may one day comprehend what marvels they are and how much happier we all could be if we work together for the good of all rather than against one another for the benefit of a few. I'd like to hope that will be the future for humanity, because the alternative is escalating strife over dwindling resources and perhaps a holocaust of a world war we may not survive. :skull:
Bravo! :applause:
Bravissimo! I wish the internet were the tool of bringing people together, but I see it equally a method of tearing people apart. The information age is at odds with the propaganda age. Separating fiction from truth is the key which will unlock this chaotic knot of lies, and allow people to see things from a very similarly objective viewpoint.
That will unite us... objectivity. Skepticism. Reasonable doubt.
Think like a scientist who is unravelling the mysteries of the universe, and we may yet penetrate the eternal fog.
I think it is a terrible tragedy that our own antiquated belief systems, and values and behaviors derived from them, inhibit the human race from evolving more rapidly. But it is pointless to rail against what is, really. It's simply the Way of things.
Good post! I disagree about one thing, Masamune:
Although I am a skeptic and a cynic and I also believe that ignorance is in the majority, in a strong fortified position within the upper eschelons of our society as well as dispersed within, I do not believe it is pointless to resist.
Slavery was worth resisting. Imperialism was worth resisting. Nazism was worth resisting. Totalitarianism is worth resisting. Surely ignorance is worth resisting, within ourselves, and through free exchange of ideas, battling of logic against unsupported assumption in others.
Through resistance and vigilance and curiosity and skepticism, we battle the ignorance within ourselves. Through the war of ideas, the wrong ideas will be burned within the fire, and the right ones will prevail. This battles the ignorance in others. What must ensure this victory is an objective mind. One cannot convince a stubborn mind that it is wrong, the stubborn mind must choose to open, and choose to believe that it can be wrong.
When everyone on Earth accepts the possibility of being wrong, peace becomes a real concept, something that can be achieved in time.
Thank you, Askthepizzaguy. I didn't mean to suggest that it is pointless to resist such things as you describe, but that what is, is, what was, was, and what will be, will be, etc. Humanity will take its course. Choices and consequences will direct that course on micro and macro levels; we are all part of it and all that we think, say, do matters--and doesn't matter.
It's definitely not pointless to resist what we perceive to be counterproductive belief systems, values, behaviors, etc., but I question the effectiveness of railing with and against the masses in the ways we currently do, which leads to so much strife and violence. How we resist is significant. I think a better use of personal energy is to forward the evolution of ourselves as individuals. In doing so, we forward the evolution of our kind indirectly, but do not presume to subject others to our own beliefs and values. To share when others are receptive is good; to push, to force is not.
What is considered productive by some is considered counterproductive by others. Who decides? The majority? In statistics, the majority is average. By evolving ourselves, we address this issue of ignorance. It gets sticky when influence comes into play. There is no easy solution. The one thing we can, to an extent, control is ourselves--what we think, what we say, what we do. It begins and ends with the individual. Societies echo what individuals believe, say, do.
This is a very complicated subject. It's very difficult to explain these thoughts of mine using words. I hope I'm not getting in over my head here. I don't want to argue with anyone.
Yes... I figured that myself. I do Ancient History - not much Marxism there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Alright then, how about the State in the sense of a person with authority ruling over others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
I apologise. I know the difference, but often I use the term interchangably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Im changing my vote. Self richeousness
I think this reply is brilliant! Of course I may be wrong...:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
.
You mean 1915, I guess, the Armenian Genocide. (That alone deserves a nomination for the thread title.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
The ruling oligarchs, namely the Ittihad-Terakki regime of what remained of the empire, who had absolute dictatorial power since 1913, with an old figurehead of an emperor signing the death warrant even of his own brother-in-law under the gunpoint of Enver, the chief of the oligarchs and the mind behind the genocide, was far into the process of transforming the ruin of the empire into an ethno-religious "nation state". In 1915, the Ottoman Empire was no more an empire than the Empire of Central Africa. The Balkan countries had already seceded or lost in war, Syria and Iraq already under invasion and the most important, populous and influential non-Muslim community being massacred or mass-expelled.
Indeed, the current regime of the "nation state" of Turkey is a direct continuation of the Ittihad-Terakki dictatorship and not of the empire, which had all but nominally gone down in 1908 when they had first taken over the rule.
Your point is moot. :bow:
.
Put me down for religion.
:laugh3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
given that Germany had their own atomic project i am jolly glad we got there first!Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
Although I would suggest that belief (or hope) that there is a God or Gods is not in and of itself too destructive, what people add to those beliefs almost always is. If one presumes that there is a God, I suppose it gives people hope that if they do well in this life they will be rewarded by the eternal judge and be granted everlasting peace and harmony. While I think this is a bit too optimistic to believe wholeheartedly, as much as I'd like to believe it, I do not think that it can be disproven that there is a God, and so therefore it's even in the realm of legitimate theory. How did the universe get here, and why? God seems as good an explanation as any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarathos
But what happens when people convince other people that they know God, they speak to God, they rub elbows with this God, and play Parcheesi with God? There are always going to be stupid people who believe it. (Part of that whole ignorance concept I describe above) Then they stand up and say the following things:
Oh yeah. These are the religions I want to follow. Let's make sure we always do the following:
It's not just the Abrahamic faiths that deserve to be shunned. The whole "untouchable" thing in Hindu culture is an abomination. The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law, is a horrendous travesty. The Aztec religion required the ritual human sacrifice of millions of people, a Holocaust in and of itself. Pagan, Wiccan, Vodun, you name it. There's enough criticism for everyone.
Don't get me wrong, anti-religious movements (See: Soviet Russia, China) have caused the deaths of millions too and provided the excuse for many horrendous crimes. It was the militant anti-theist philosophy, spread by mass murder, which was the cause of that. Of course, when you believe in something enough to kill for it, and believe your philosophy is the only true path, then one might say you're acting exactly like an intolerant religious fundamentalist, whose religion just happens to be "anti-religion".
Bottom line: Religion owes us an apology. Big time.
Is it the religion itself or the people that run it? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
There's always two sides to the sword(or however that saying goes), and there are both good and bad sides to religion. Many of the time it is the moral basis for which society lives by nowadays, yet then there are those who :daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy: it up for the rest of us or misuse it for their own purposes which in turn would turn many away as I have witnessed. But unlike you saying Religion owes us an apology, I tend to see it as the crazy :daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy: that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place :whip:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well I could make the distinction between organized religion and personal faith, but I didn't see the need. One person's personal faith is unlikely to change the world for the worse, unless he's a mass murderer or the owner of a nation. However, when someone's faith becomes the faith of the masses, that's when bad stuff starts to happen. It's organized religion which is the culprit.
When one has personal faith, one does not need people to "run" thier religion. However, when one subscribes to one of the major religions and believes that they need to have some guy wearing a dress telling them what to believe, how to act, how to pray, which passages of which book to read; that's when people start to worship what fallible men have come up with, rather than something genuinely spiritual.
One can have religious faith without having to attend some group. And if so, they tend not to cause trouble. It's the big organized faiths which start wars and condemn one another for being heretical.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ahhh.... okay. I see what you mean. I was a little confused with what you were saying.
.
It should be clearly known that the so called female circumcision (brutally cutting off the visible part of the clitoris) has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic law. I was outraged last Sunday to hear on an NGC documentary (not one of their best, btw) that a grizzled old sheikh at El-Ezher advocate the contrary. (He had absolutely no proof for his claim but his prideful and arrogant statement.) That man and his likes deserve being dismembered and left to death from bleeding! :rifle:Quote:
The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/438/viewall/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...igious_aspects
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
I am delighted in the extreme to have been proven wrong about something I repeated in error.
Islam itself did not mandate or begin this practice.
However, Islam is not totally innocent, because although they did not originate this practice, at least one Sunni Muslim school mandates this barbarism.
So, as you can see, while the Quran does not specifically advocate for it in any way, certain religious Islamic schools do. But Mouzafphaerre is right, Islam itself is not the culprit here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I even double checked my Quran, and double checked the Skeptics Annotated Quran. If I have overlooked anything, feel free to correct me again.
___________________________________
On a related note, female genital circumcision is among the most horrendous examples of the concept of ignorance I described earlier. Thankfully Mouzafphaerre was here to heal my ignorance regarding Islam as the culprit.
And that is how people are supposed to behave when confronted with their own ignorance. :7teacher:
I enjoy having my ignorance healed.
Good posts Askthepizzaguy. I'd have to say pride or as STFS put it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STFS
self-righteousness. :bow:
Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.
.
The majority of Kurds (about one fifth of the total population) and the whole of Arabs in TR follow the Shafī school, which I'm not totally ignorant of. Especially the Kurd mullas are extremely strict, dare I say fanatic, about the Shafi ways and none of them either practice or advocate the clit-cutting.
Your Wikipedia quote is apparently taken from the abominable mouth of one of the types of the Ezher professor I told about. It has nothing to do with any established Sunni or Shi'i system. I dislike bragging but I'm well learned enough in religious matters and I can back up my stance with solid reference if needed. They can't. They are simply the toys of damnable tradition and talking in religious disguise. :rtwno:
.
Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?Quote:
The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.
I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?
Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.
I think Sufis and Zen Buddhists at least would wholeheartedly disagree with you on this, though perhaps the term enlightened would need to be substituted for righteous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale. Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous. Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda? How are you different? How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
A fatwa is simply an answer to a question given by a supposedly knowing person. It's nothing like a papal verdict or something of sorts. You may take it granted (as the clit butchers do) or don't give a cr@p (as I do).
In most cases, the responders are surprisingly naïve scholars who have no interest whatsoever of the intentions of the questioner, who knows the cunning ways of providing a "religious reference" for whatever he's aiming to do, most of the time simple tax frauds or the like. However, in such an abominable and clearly un-Islamic act of violence, the issuers of the fatwas I deem equally responsible and guilty with those who do the vile act themselves. :rtwno:
As a side note, I don't necessarily care what El-Ezher has to say in most matters. It's been a long time since it lost its value as a pure school of knowledge and became a tool of dignifying the corrupt state and community of Egypt.
ADD. Apparently they are attempting to rest their case on the fact that Islam doesn't prohibit any act or habit, personal or traditional, which is not contradicting its own laws. However, the very preservation of human body, which is deemed a "temple", is one of the most important laws of the religion itself. The clit-cutting is carried on to rob the woman off her sexual pleasure and based on the delusion that her desire for sexual relation originated from the clit. (That delusion must have been semi-universal in some point in time. See the history of the word hysteria). That insolent and dishonourable man, apparently of the Ezher, I heard on the NGC documentary, advocated clit-cutting on that very basis, ie women without clits would be less willing and seductive and that "the western community wihout morals would take much advantage of the practice, if adopted, saving them from being seduced by their women" or some sort of nonsense.
Depriving a woman (or man, for that matter) from her/his potential of achieving sexual pleasure can only be called "Zulm ― ظلم" in Islamic terms and it's God's own word that لعنة الله علی الظالمين. Hth :bow:
.
Family Values
Family values have incited far more violence than religion. Think of all the wars of succession, all the revenge killings, etc.
It is not sufficient to abolish that opiate of the masses called religion. To create a better society we must abolish the institution of family. Children should address all proletarians as brother and sister, and have greater loyalty to the state than to their own parents. This is inevitable, the march of history is on our side comrades.
:inquisitive:
(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I do not criticize religions for forwarding an agenda. I criticize those who blindly accept everything that an organization dictates without applying critical thinking. I criticize those who purposefully put forth untested, unproven, and patently false information in the form of lies and propaganda. I criticize those who teach that even though they cannot prove it, their ideology is the only correct one, and all other ideologies are false and heretical. I criticize organized faith for hypocritically demanding that none question or debate their philosophies, yet over time they themselves change their own holy doctrine. (See the Catholic church and it's position on the concept of Limbo, Papal decrees being overturned by later Papal decrees)Quote:
You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale
If only those at the head of a religion are allowed to alter its message or criticize it, then it is an elitist organization. If rational people are not allowed to openly challenge the tenets of a faith, then the faith is unreasonable, closed, and intolerant of free speech. This can lead to violence against those who simply call things as they see them, and opine that certain faiths are unreasonable.
I have an agenda, it is true. However, I never once asked anyone to blindly accept what I believe. I do not fear being challenged in open debate. I do not knock on anyone's doors offering to convert them. I do not ask for tithes or charity or worship or ritual. I do not knowingly put forth false propaganda regarding my political adversaries, I invite others to challenge the veracity of my allegations, decide for themselves, and indeed correct me if I am wrong. I do not teach that only my ideology is the only correct one, and that everyone must convert to my belief system. I do not ask anyone to refrain from questioning me, debating me, and I allow everyone to contribute to the ideas I put forward. I do not hold secret meetings with elitists in order to change the tenets of my opinions, I allow rational minds of all people to have the oppurtunity to challenge my bad ideas and offer good ideas.
When I see that I have made an error, I correct it with an apology. And I welcome the idea that I am fallible, and that I am ignorant, and that I need improvement.
You cannot say any of these things about certain religious organizations. Indeed, I put forward my ideas in the public arena, however that is where the comparison between myself and organized religion ends.
Interesting. Can you point out which ones, and why you feel that way?Quote:
Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous
There is a difference in my mind between righteousness and self-righteousness; between being correct and merely thinking one is always correct. Although I do believe that the philosophy I subscribe to is more rational than the ones I criticize, I never once claimed to be a holy prophet, nor have I claimed to have all the answers.
I am not stubborn in belief that I am correct about things. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind. That is not self-righteousness, that is an honest attempt at rationalism. I am honestly attempting to be righteous, but I admit that I may fail at it. I do believe there is a clear difference between rational criticism and self-righteousness. You may feel free to disagree or debate the point.
Yes, there was a time when I was younger when I was far more closed minded and stubborn, arrogant even when condemning those I disagreed with. Time and experience have shown me this is not the way.Quote:
Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda?
However, passionately railing against blind trust and ignorance is something I will always do, even if I remove some of the errors of my thinking, it is still the kind of work that should be done. In my opinion, people must be more consciously aware of the dark side of ignorance, of untruths, of lies. In my nation and in modern culture ignorance, untruths, and lies are tolerated and even encouraged by the less scrupulous types who seek to appeal to the lowest common denominator in their quest for power, fame, and riches.
I still heavily criticize myself and the way I present my agenda, and invite criticism thereof. No one is a harsher critic of myself than I am. I also realise that I will never be perfect, and the message will always be spread by a fallible person. Yet the message itself is sound, in my opinion.
I am not.Quote:
How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?
I am inexperienced, unjust, and ignorant, just as everyone else is. However, I am not the issue, nor do I present my agenda as a cult of personality, nor do I make myself the center of attention. The issue is whether or not ignorance, blind faith, superstition, unfounded hatreds, propaganda, lies, and other irrational practices have any place in the public discourse, whether these things should be the basis of religion, of government, of societal law.
The message is more important than the man, by leaps and bounds. I am nothing, truth is everything.
___________________
To rail against ignorance and blind obedience and blind faith is my cause. If I were to do so with blindness and ignorance of my own failings, that would be hypocritical.
I do not present myself as holier than thou, nor infallible, nor immune from my own criticism. That is why the message is more important than the man.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I thank you for your insightful, and well-reasoned, response to this question regarding the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation, and how it does/not pertain to your faith.
In this case it seems a small minority or extremists have added this ancient pre-Islamic practice to the current religion, and that it is not the fault of Islam.
:bow:
What is truth? You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not. The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths" You can sit here and scream all you want about the ignorant and blind but at the end of the day you are just the same as them. One can blindly follow rational thought as well. Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid. He may think it does but it doesn't. There are 2 "truths" for everyone
We are born
We die
So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended. So you may have your ideals of some type of perfect utopian society. Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Truth is the condition or property of being real and verifiable. Something which is not merely opinion, and has objective value, whether you happen to agree with it or not.Quote:
What is truth?
Incorrect, I put forth an opinion. My belief that ignorance and blind faith was the wrong path. When I was corrected about a bit of information I presented, I immediately corrected it and apologised. This is entirely consistent with what I preach.Quote:
You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not.
If I claimed I was the fountain of truth, that would make me both a hypocrite and a baboon.
You put forward as fact, rather than opinion, that there is no such thing as truth. Which would make your claim to be an assertion of truth.Quote:
The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths"
Therefore, you are contradicting yourself in one breath. It is much like saying "This statement is false." It's bad logic.
One can blindly obey the traffic laws and not veer into a telephone pole. Of course, understanding why we have traffic laws would be better, but rational thought is not something we should be condemning.Quote:
One can blindly follow rational thought as well.
That is like arguing that we should all jab ice picks into our brains and scramble them around, because irrational thought would be somehow superior to rational thought.
No, argument from popularity is bad logic, I agree. That is why I never cite how many people agree with me when I argue. I also don't argue from authority, because no one is the ultimate authority on reasoning.Quote:
Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid.
But just because I have people who agree with me, that does not make my points less valid either. The two concepts have nothing to do with one another.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically arguing that it is pointless to argue. That railing against ignorance and injustice is futile, in spite of the historical facts of imperialism, of slavery, of dangerous cults, destructive superstitions, genocides, and holy wars. That in the end, we will all die anyway, so what is the point?Quote:
So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended.
I disagree. I feel that minds are worth saving, and that if it is pointless to argue and present an opinion, it is equally pointless to tell people such a thing.
I do not expect a world free of error or emotion or ignorance. Because the world can never be perfect, that is no reason why it cannot be improved.Quote:
Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.
I highly doubt that we can reach 100% literacy and 100% immunity from disease either, but isn't working towards that ideal better than sitting around waiting for death?
I will work with the knowledge I have, and by freely exchanging that knowledge with others, comparing ideas, and acknowledging my own errors, I will educate and enlighten myself and expand my mind, while contributing in my own small way to the advancement of society. I disagree that it is futile to do so, and I disagree that it is irrational to attempt to be rational. I don't believe in futility, in irrationalism, in nihilism.
At the same time, I don't begrudge you your disagreement with me. It's not out of hostility that I oppose your viewpoint, but out of what meager experience and reason that I have. And if you truly believe what you say, you'll acknowledge that it is pointless to debate the issue, because there is no truth greater than whatever you believe.
I oppose that entire concept, as politely as I can. But I appreciate the debate. :bow:
Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
I think therefore I am.
An excellent reply, thank you. You "speak" forcefully. I cannot see you, cannot observe your body language as you speak, can't hear your tone or inflections, and have not "observed" you here over time. I find it inherently difficult to trust people who present themselves with such force and emphasis, who obviously have an agenda, under such circumstances. The smarter they seem, the more distrustful I tend to be--an unfortunate habit I've developed living in this time and space. I am not one to easily accept such presentations as fact, or even credible, until I alleviate that mistrust. Answering my questions as you did, and particularly, in the manner that you did, increases my ability to hear you and accept what you have to say, or at least seriously consider it. I need to assure myself of your sincerity, and the nature of your agenda. Kudos. :bow:
It was the manner in which you wrote, more that the statements themselves, that made you seem a bit self-righteous to me. You state emphatically that neither wisdom nor righteousness come from within. This is contrary to what some believe--some whom I have come to view as wise. It seems that you are saying these people are self-righteous and practicing a form of ignorance. My limited understanding of sufism and zen suggest that enlightenment is indeed to be discovered "within," not through cognitive observation and critical analysis of the outside world. In fact, cognition inhibits its attainment, hence why meditation and the "stilling" of one's mind is central to their disciplines.Quote:
Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.
A definition of "self-righteous" I found online: Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
Moralistic: Marked by a narrow-minded morality.
This is what I meant when I wrote you sounded a bit self-righteous. This is the first time I've heard it suggested that the self-righteous believe their righteousness "flows from within." It seemed as if you were discrediting the beliefs of those who believe as the sufis and zen practitioners do. You seemed emphatically sure of your own correctness. You are of the school that believes the answers lie without, which is fine--they may indeed. But when you emphatically state that those who believe the answers lie within are self-righteous and ignorant ....
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed truths?Quote:
Im talking more along the lines of social truths.
These are opinions, albeit held by the masses. One's opinion can accept truth, but cannot dictate it. The same is true for the masses. While a million people can hold an opinion and vote that a minority does not deserve basic human rights, that does not make it so. That could make it societal law, but law and truth are not equal. That is why societal opinions change over time, old traditions die out, and laws get overturned.
Socially constructed truths are not truths at all, in my opinion. They are merely common assumptions.
You are correct that expecting everyone to behave rationally is too optimistic, however, a person's opinion does not dictate truth. If one persons' rationality is derived from scientific, observable, quantifiable, definable truth, and another person's rationality is derived from rumor or superstition or utter fabrication, one is more likely to be credible than the other.Quote:
Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance
I agree that one person may hold something to be rational truth and yet remain ignorant, but it is not so simple to just say that everyone has an opinion and none are more valid than the others.
Science is based on the idea that evidenciary support, observable, testable results, and predictability are good models for forming rational theories. It is better to construct one's argument based in logic and reason and observation than simply opine about a thing and declare one's opinion to be as valid as everyone else's.
Were that the case, there would be no such thing as laws, or science, or mathematics, or facts. Or knowledge in general, for that matter. Everything would be an opinion. There would be no societal progress whatsoever if everyone simply believed that everything is irrational opinion, and there are no greater truths.
And through the exchange of information, my own ignorance about the subject was reversed, and for the betterment of everyone involved in the conversation, the truth was revealed. Through the fires of debate and public exchange, bad ideas and falsehoods are destroyed and better ideas and more verifiable data is forged.Quote:
You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance.
This is an example of the very thing I advocate. I don't see my ignorance about a bit of knowledge to be an irreparable failure or a weakness in my ideology, unless I stubbornly chose to remain ignorant and refused to concede. That would be hypocritical.
One of the reasons I don't just sit down and publish a book of my opinions is because my opinions are constantly changing and being updated to reflect the facts, as I combat my own ignorance. Posting here publicly gives me safeguards against my own weaknesses, because I am tapping into the knowledge of others.
The combined might of the knowledge of all of us, together, can defeat most forms of ignorance. Rather than disproving my point, this exchange further reinforces the assumption that what I am doing is rational and correct, and that the system is working. Eventually someone would have corrected that error, and that is why I subscribe to the theory that sitting down and shutting up never got anyone anywhere. Free exchange of ideas and knowledge helps reverse ignorance, while not entirely eliminating it.
If your point was, the advocate for the elimination of ignorance is both ignorant and fighting a hopeless battle, then you are correct.
However, I am acting to combat mine and others' ignorance, and that is not a hopeless battle. We're making progress right here, right now. And coming close to our ideal is the goal, even if the ideal is unattainable. Therefore the war may never be over, but it can be won.
To vastly improve the public consciousness and elevate literacy and reason to it's very highest level, to stamp out most forms of prejudice, superstition, blind hatred, and irrationalism; that is a noble goal, and while not totally attainable, it is absolutely partially attainable. Every step forward we make is a victory.
I respect people, but I do not respect ideas. Ideas prove their worth by being tested against what is real, and against other ideas. The ones which fail get thrown away. But an idea is not worthy of respect unless it becomes proven fact.Quote:
Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
For example, the idea that Jews are an inferior sub-human race might be an "idea", but that does not deem it worthy of respect in my view. I do not automatically give respect to ideas. Ignorance in and of itself is not worthy of respect. People, in spite of their ignorance, are worth far more than ideas, and should have their human rights and dignity respected.
I may choose to be polite to those who hold an ideology I staunchly oppose, but my ideas will be at odds with theirs and the ideas will "fight to the death" until the strongest one wins. At the same time, I will respect my opponent for the oppurtunity to grow and learn.
So, in summary, I disagree that we have to respect bad ideas. We just should respect one another.
And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.Quote:
I think therefore I am