The greatest human tragedy of all time

[Askthepizzaguy]

Put me down for religion.

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.

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:

1. "There is only one written word of God, and it just so happens I have a copy of it, in my own handwriting no less."

2. "If you do not believe that this is the written word of God, he will burn you forever in a lake of fire where you will writhe in agony for all eternity, you worthless vile sinner... but he loves you."

3. "If you take up arms against the infidels, you will be rewarded by Allah by 72 virgin slave girls"

4. "It is right to mutilate your infant child's genitals, and if you refuse, he will not be allowed in God's special club for chosen people."

5. "It is perfectly acceptible for a man to divorce his wife by saying 'I divorce you'. Women, on the other hand, need the approval of their family."

6. "A woman's testimony is worth half what a man's testimony is."

7. "God is capable of destroying entire cities filled with innocent women and children because the city has homosexual men in it"

8. "God might ask you to kill your own son, and if you attempt to go through with it, he will reward you by making you his chosen messenger."

9. "Moses, the most pious man of them all in the eyes of God, killed an Egyptian when no one was looking. This means that murder is ok under certain circumstances." (Exodus 2:12)

10. "God can indiscriminately kill all the firstborn children in Egypt to prove a political point. He's such a nice guy."

11. "Only virgins are worthy of marriage. The younger, the better."

12. Exodus 2:20 says that it's "OK to kill the 4 billion people on Earth who do not believe in the Biblical God."

13. "I will bring evil unto all Flesh, sayeth the LORD" (Jer 45:5)

I could continue, but there isn't enough space for all the criticisms I have.

Oh yeah. These are the religions I want to follow. Let's make sure we always do the following:

1. Attend church and pay the nice holy men a tithe so that they can say how condemned to hellfire we are for being such nasty sinners. (What do they use our charity for? They build gold-encrusted churches and gilded Bibles and fancy cathedrals to convince more people to cough up money)

2. Trust pastors and preachers, for they would never lie, cheat, steal, or molest children. (Right!)

3. Elect an "infallible" man to take the place of Jesus, and wear offical robes and a pretty crown, and lay down even more edicts he received in a phone call he had with Jehovah this afternoon. (By the way, these certain infallible men have started Holy wars, killed men on the battlefield, and were defeated in battle. And later Popes contradicted earlier Popes, because they were ever more infallible. And some Popes had children out of wedlock, and committed sins. Hmmmm...)

4. Pray five times a day, because five is the magical number of the mighty Allah. Six would be too many, and four would make you an infidel worthy of being smoted.

5. If you meet an infidel, cut his throat.

You get the idea. There's far more, but I have something else I want to say.

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.

[Decker]

Bottom line: Religion owes us an apology. Big time.

Is it the religion itself or the people that run it?

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 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 that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is it the religion itself or the people that run it?

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 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 that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place

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.

[Decker]

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" their 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.

Ahhh.... okay. I see what you mean. I was a little confused with what you were saying.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law

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!
.

[Askthepizzaguy]

.

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!
.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/438/viewall/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...igious_aspects

Female genital cutting predates Islam. In Saudi Arabia, in the area known as the Hijaz, where Islam originated, FGC was already being practiced during the lifetime of Muhammad. To call a man a "circumciser of women" was an insult among the pagan Arabs at the time. Female genital cutting is not commanded by the Qur'an and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims. In Egypt, mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa stated: "The traditional form of excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds."

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.

One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that trimming of the clitoral hood is mandatory. Sheikh Faraz Rabbani states, "That which is wajib [obligatory] in the Shafi`i texts is merely slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood - prepuce." Contrary to the WHO definition, he states that this practice is not "FGM, nor harmful to the woman or her ability to derive sexual pleasure." He states that "excision, FGM, or other harmful practices" are not permitted. In 1994, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Jad Al-Hâqq argued that the procedure may not be banned simply on grounds of improper use. The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.

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.

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.

I enjoy having my ignorance healed.

[naut]

Good posts Askthepizzaguy. I'd have to say pride or as STFS put it:

Self richeousness

[Askthepizzaguy]

self-righteousness.

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.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
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.
.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.

Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?

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.

[Togakure]

self-righteousness.

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.

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.

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?

[Mouzafphaerre]

Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?

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.

.
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.

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
.

[Mangudai]

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.


(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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?

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

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)

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.

Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous

Interesting. Can you point out which ones, and why you feel that way?

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.

Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda?

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.

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.

How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?

I am not.

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

.
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.

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
.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

What is truth?

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.

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.

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.

If I claimed I was the fountain of truth, that would make me both a hypocrite and a baboon.

The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths"

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.

Therefore, you are contradicting yourself in one breath. It is much like saying "This statement is false." It's bad logic.

One can blindly follow rational thought as well.

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.

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.

Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Togakure]

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.

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.

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.

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 ....

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Im talking more along the lines of social truths.

To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed 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.

Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I think therefore I am

And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Im talking more along the lines of social truths.

To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed 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.

Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance

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.

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.

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.

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 gained.

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.

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 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.

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.

I think therefore I am

And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
This is becoming more and more Backroomish.
.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Not a problem, and thank you as well.

Skepticism is one of the most admirable qualities a person can have, in my view. I have little respect for someone who blindly agrees with everything I say, even if I think I am correct, for they have shown that they did not critically consider my assumptions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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 ....

I do not know much about zen, and I apologize if the reading of my post led you to believe I am emphatically sure that I am correct and zen is not.

I personally have found no use for zen, but if it creates harmony and wisdom for others, then it has value for them. I do not believe practical wisdom can be obtained by emptying the mind of thoughts and not considering their value. In order to invent, for example, one needs to think, and that requires the kind of critical thought and consideration that cannot be found in meditation or zen.

Perhaps meditation allows one to relax, and then when one returns to the practical side of their mind, they are refreshed. But wisdom and knowledge are not obtained by not thinking, in my opinion. I repeat, I am no expert on zen, and maybe there is more to it.

I have to go eat now, and unfortunately I cannot give your post the more thorough examination it deserves right this moment. But I will return to contribute more soon.



@Mouza: I do believe it is getting off topic, and a thread dedicated to this discussion would be useful.

[CBR]

If you want I can split it up and send this discussion to the backroom?


CBR

[Togakure]

For our little side discussion, Askthepizzaguy and I can continue via private message if he wishes. I will never set virtual foot in the Backroom again.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

I will never set virtual foot in the Backroom again.

I don't remember how many times I made and broke that promise. Not that you are me...
.

[CountArach]

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.


(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)

Awww :( I was bobbing my head excitedly

[seireikhaan]

I feel that arguing in favor of a flaw which humanity inherently is(aka, self-righteousness) a rather impractical answer to this question. If we as humans have a virtue or vice which is near universally uncontrollable, than I cannot call it a "tragedy" so much as a fact. Tragedy revolves around the idea that there should be a far more honest, appealing opportunity cost. In the case of a natural human vice, we should instead proclaim the few who conquer it, rather than lamenting the 99% who fail at it.

So, for me, I would say it is, in fact, not an event so much as a person.

I would say it is Pope Leo I, otherwise known as Pope Leo the Great. He is famous for having "peaceably coerced" Attila the Hun from attacking Rome. I am not going to debate what actual means he used to do so.

However, in a time of political upheaval, he showed the strength and courage to "turn back" the scourge of God, and so, singlehandedly placing the Papacy in a position to fill the power void that was soon to overtake much of western Europe. This would eventually lead to the loss of innumerable people to the wars and "evangelization" that would take place in the name of God. Religion taking centerpiece in World politics was disastrous, not only causing the loss of life, but the loss of the way of Christ in so many more.

Religion intermingling with politics doesn't just affect policy; its power corrupts religion, twisting and distorting it for its own gains.

[Hax]

Organized religion.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Organized unreligion
.