Originally posted by Master CrimzonUnderstood. I see it as a conundrum. Human beings understand and demonstrate the might of logic and empirical science all the time; it's only natural we'd want to apply those same powerful, investigative tools to the biggest question going: "Does God exist?" The question is, are those tools the most appropriate? I don't know. My feeling is, they're necessary but may not be the final word.
Perhaps, but in order to analyze God's supposed moral traits (a la 'sanctity of life'😉, some sort of logical motivation for the creation of the universe is highly important. Indeed, I believe that question is very similar to the question of God's existence- there will never be proof pointing towards it, and thus any logical substantiation is based on faith; I cannot buy faith-based answers, and therefore thinking about the 'why's' for the universe is a pointless and futile exercise.
^and nuthing in the realm of the investigative can be ENOUGH for a venture like that. if indeed we assume that sum cause so alien and so outside of this physical unverse created us that even concepts themselves, much less the concepts of cause-affect/relateability/interpretation break down at that level, then POSSIBLY the only thin that cud even come close to aiding us is the abstract and logically rather nonsensical part of our emotional brain which doesn listen much to reason but has what feals like a "soul" and can contemplate concepts which dont seem tangible in physical reality and are associated with fealings themselves like rapture/apiphany/love etc. ofcourse, this is all assuming that such a power/cause/being left sumthing inside our souls which trancends the physical universe 😛
Originally posted by Mindship
Understood. I see it as a conundrum. Human beings understand and demonstrate the might of logic and empirical science all the time; it's only natural we'd want to apply those same powerful, investigative tools to the biggest question going: "Does God exist?" The question is, are those tools the most appropriate? I don't know. My feeling is, they're necessary but may not be the final word.
I have a very scientific approach to things, in a way that might be considered 'narrow-minded' in some circles, so I believe only in things that are supported by tangible, prove-able facts. In relation to what Leonheart said, we simply cannot trust our basic emotions in feelings- because these basic emotions and feelings are simply the work of a consciousness that instinctively attempts to find meaning in itself. These 'feelings' are all chemical and scientific in nature; we cannot trust them to be some sort of gospel, nor can we use them before scientific logic and reason.
Perhaps we were created for someone's entertainment. Perhaps we're part of a computer, programmed with all the 'laws of the universe' as we are aware of them. The bottom line, that is completely irrelevant- the 'why's' are irrelevant in human life and cannot be developed or supported by scientific rationalization.
My problem with people who attempt to give motivations for God's creation of us is that their argument typically goes as thus:
Religious Guy: "God created us because he was lonely and wanted a creation he could love. He wanted to trust us."
Atheist/Agnostic: "But... why would an omniscient, all-powerful being be hampered by such traits as loneliness and the desire for love? Is it for emotional gratification? But if that is so, then a being that desires emotional gratification is imperfect in nature. Not to mention that [God allows evil...]"
RG: "It's irrelevant why he loves us, the reasons for this are simply beyond the scope of discernible comprehension!"
It would seem as if the religious are attempting to give God motivations- but only motivation that exist directly within our ability to understand. Simplistic reasons like 'love' aren't aided by any sort of logical reasoning, and the implementation of them is inevitably attempting to judge God by human standards. But God has human emotions, then should there not be a purpose to them? Should it not have a human purpose? Or should we simply concede that the standards of such a being cannot, ever, be understood?
Originally posted by Master CrimzonA sound approach. This should be at least part of anyone's life philosophy (whether 'proof' should be limited to what's tangible/empirical is another issue, but one we need not address here).
I have a very scientific approach to things, in a way that might be considered 'narrow-minded' in some circles, so I believe only in things that are supported by tangible, prove-able facts.
In relation to what Leonheart said, we simply cannot trust our basic emotions in feelings- because these basic emotions and feelings are simply the work of a consciousness that instinctively attempts to find meaning in itself. These 'feelings' are all chemical and scientific in nature; we cannot trust them to be some sort of gospel, nor can we use them before scientific logic and reason.While I certainly appreciate Leonheart's sentiment, one has to be careful when talking about 'feelings'. Emotions are one thing (a 'simpler' feeling, if you will); intuition, creative inspiration, eg (more 'complex' feelings) are something else. It is important to differentiate between the different kinds (not just degrees) of 'feelings' people can experience. This way, feelings which are primarily reflective of limbic system operations do not get elevated to 'transcendent' status, and on the same token, feelings which may be reflective of genuine transcendent insight do not get reduced, by materialist default, to just biochemical reactions.
My problem with people who attempt to give motivations for God's creation of us is that their argument typically goes as thus:Yeah, I hear ya. There are a few problems here. One, this is touching on the omnipotence paradox, and paradox is always what you get when discussing infinite consciousness. There is some truth to logic/language being unable to grasp the Big Picture; hell, logic/language can't even adequately grasp quantum mechanics, so 'God' would really be outside the box. For centuries, to avoid generating paradoxes, religious studies have generally focused on discussing a particular aspect of 'God's personality', with the implicit agreement that staying in the box is necessary if any kind of human discourse is to occur.
Religious Guy: "God created us because he was lonely and wanted a creation he could love. He wanted to trust us."
Atheist/Agnostic: "But... why would an omniscient, all-powerful being be hampered by such traits as loneliness and the desire for love? Is it for emotional gratification? But if that is so, then a being that desires emotional gratification is imperfect in nature. Not to mention that [God allows evil...]"
RG: "It's irrelevant why he loves us, the reasons for this are simply beyond the scope of discernible comprehension!"
The other thing I don't like is when people really abuse the 'God is incomprehensible' loophole to 'prove' their point. It doesn't prove anything about God; all it proves are the limits of language and logic. One may speculate what this says about God (as I like to do). But it proves nothing about God, per se.
It would seem as if the religious are attempting to give God motivations- but only motivation that exist directly within our ability to understand. Simplistic reasons like 'love' aren't aided by any sort of logical reasoning, and the implementation of them is inevitably attempting to judge God by human standards. But God has human emotions, then should there not be a purpose to them? Should it not have a human purpose? Or should we simply concede that the standards of such a being cannot, ever, be understood?Assuming such a being exists...yes, we would have to concede. We would have to concede that limited, mortal consciousness simply can not grasp, in any way, the nature, workings or motivation of infinite consciousness (that's logical, no?). So the first step would be to decide whether or not such a being could exist in the first place. Empirically, there is no solid ground for such a belief.
Originally posted by Mindship
A sound approach. This should be at least part of anyone's life philosophy (whether 'proof' should be limited to what's tangible/empirical is another issue, but one we need not address here)./[B]
Yup, most certainly.
Originally posted by Mindship
[B]While I certainly appreciate Leonheart's sentiment, one has to be careful when talking about 'feelings'. Emotions are one thing (a 'simpler' feeling, if you will); intuition, creative inspiration, eg (more 'complex' feelings) are something else. It is important to differentiate between the different kinds (not just degrees) of 'feelings' people can experience. This way, feelings which are primarily reflective of limbic system operations do not get elevated to 'transcendent' status, and on the same token, feelings which may be reflective of genuine transcendent insight do not get reduced, by materialist default, to just biochemical reactions.
As nice as the concept of feelings being little more than biochemical reactions is, I don't buy it. Even 'complex' feelings are simply more intricate reactions.
What exactly do you define as a 'transcendent' feeling, exactly? I'm rather curious.
Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, I hear ya. There are a few problems here. One, this is touching on the omnipotence paradox, and paradox is always what you get when discussing infinite consciousness. There is some truth to logic/language being unable to grasp the Big Picture; hell, logic/language can't even adequately grasp quantum mechanics, so 'God' would really be outside the box. For centuries, to avoid generating paradoxes, religious studies have generally focused on discussing a particular aspect of 'God's personality', with the implicit agreement that staying in the box is necessary if any kind of human discourse is to occur.
I believe that, to an extent, the concept of a God was created in order to narrow down the genesis of the universe to a concept humans can easily understand- but through greater intelligence and more rational thought, the concept of such an omniscient being begun to, in itself, stink of paradoxes and incomprehensible ideas. Quantum mechanics are incredibly bizarre to us because the human psyche and imagination are highly limited things.
Originally posted by Mindship
The other thing I don't like is when people really abuse the 'God is incomprehensible' loophole to 'prove' their point. It doesn't prove anything about God; all it proves are the limits of language and logic. One may speculate what this says about God (as I like to do). But it proves nothing about God, per se.
Exactly. If 'God is incomprehensible', then attempting to give him the most simplistic of traits like 'love' also doesn't work. If God operates out of human traits, then he must have human motivations and reasonings for these traits- it can't work both ways. One cannot say 'God was lonely' and then explain the reasoning for this as being 'beyond our comprehension'; for if that is so, then how do you explain how God is by human ideas? It makes no sense.
Originally posted by Mindship
Assuming such a being exists...yes, we would have to concede. We would have to concede that limited, mortal consciousness simply can not grasp, in any way, the nature, workings or motivation of infinite consciousness (that's logical, no?). So the first step would be to decide whether or not such a being could exist in the first place. Empirically, there is no solid ground for such a belief.
I'm going on the thought that God exists for the purpose of the debate. If that is so, then how can we possibly claim to be capable of understanding his moralistic traits? We're shackling him to the realm of the human imagination, without understood that some traits exist within humanity for a reason that cannot exist within a transcendent, omni-potent being.
I don't believe in a God, personally. This thread was designed in order to get the religion to possibly begin questioning the supposed 'traits' of their God. God values life? Then why does he value life? These are the questions I wanted people to ask themselves.
Originally posted by Master CrimzonMy feeling (pun intended) is that we have to be careful with certain conclusions, however 'obvious' they may appear. There is no doubt that, at the very least, biochemistry correlates with our various feelings. But causation? This is an assumption, perhaps valid, perhaps not. In any event, correlation is the simpler proposition to start from as it avoids a default reductionist mindset.
As nice as the concept of feelings being little more than biochemical reactions is, I don't buy it. Even 'complex' feelings are simply more intricate reactions.
What exactly do you define as a 'transcendent' feeling, exactly? I'm rather curious.An insight, an intuition, an understanding of how the world works based on something other (perhaps more) than linear reasoning, especially if this insight - applied to one's life - improves the quality of one's life and those around him/her. Such insight imparts perspective, humility and compassion, and a sense of peace, of connectedness with the world at large (I won't delve into the 'special effects' aspects of such insights as this would only complicate our discussion with an unnecessary tangent).
I'm sure you're no stranger to insights and their value in the broader sense, how they've been 'self-evident' to you even if you couldn't explain it logically. Transcendent simply means insights related to the Big Questions.
Exactly. If 'God is incomprehensible', then attempting to give him the most simplistic of traits like 'love' also doesn't work. If God operates out of human traits, then he must have human motivations and reasonings for these traits- it can't work both ways.Kind of like trying to have your cake and eat it too. This is generally what happens when a die-hard theist does not apply critical thinking as well as he/she should.
I don't believe in a God, personally. This thread was designed in order to get the religion to possibly begin questioning the supposed 'traits' of their God. God values life? Then why does he value life? These are the questions I wanted people to ask themselves.They're good questions, especially given how often religion and its edicts have been abused through the centuries (what I call religionism), so that a given demographic can feel superior to everyone else and therefore justified in taking life.
Originally posted by Mindship
My feeling (pun intended) is that we have to be careful with certain conclusions, however 'obvious' they may appear. There is no doubt that, at the very least, biochemistry correlates with our various feelings. But causation? This is an assumption, perhaps valid, perhaps not. In any event, correlation is the simpler proposition to start from as it avoids a default reductionist mindset.
Well, with our current scientific knowledge, it is impossible to associate our feelings and beliefs to be anything more than a product of our brain, which functions upon biochemistry, electric, whatever you have it. In order to assume that feelings and the human spirit are anything 'more than that', one must believe in some sort of human soul- a piece of divinity, if you will. Since there is no scientific indication to it, I do not believe in it. I also suspect this is one of the causes people still endorse creationism and shun evolution.
Originally posted by Mindship
An insight, an intuition, an understanding of how the world works based on something other (perhaps more) than linear reasoning, especially if this insight - applied to one's life - improves the quality of one's life and those around him/her. Such insight imparts perspective, humility and compassion, and a sense of peace, of connectedness with the world at large (I won't delve into the 'special effects' aspects of such insights as this would only complicate our discussion with an unnecessary tangent).
It basically comes down to thus: are all our feelings biological and evolutionary in nature, simply differing methods of survival? Or did we transcend past that, using our intelligence? I believe it is a mixture of that two: the desire for a better world is, of course, an evolutionary desire, as it creates safer grounds for reproduction and individual desires. But I would at least like to believe, that while our feelings are chemical in nature and not 'divine', that our intelligence does, after all, enable us to find greater meaning in life- or perhaps to imbue ourselves with greater meaning- than to survive and reproduce. The fact that the product of these feelings is chemical is completely irrelevant; the fact remains that these 'feelings' transcend basic animalistic and evolutionary desires.
Do you agree with my above conclusion?
Originally posted by Mindship
I'm sure you're no stranger to insights and their value in the broader sense, how they've been 'self-evident' to you even if you couldn't explain it logically. Transcendent simply means insights related to the Big Questions.
Hmm. Like 'what is the meaning of life'? Well, I believe that the intellectual development of humanity has led towards the desire of a meaning in order to feel like one has a purpose beyond continuing the species' existence.
Originally posted by Mindship
Kind of like trying to have your cake and eat it too. This is generally what happens when a die-hard theist does not apply critical thinking as well as he/she should.
Yup. However, some atheistic arguments are also ridiculous and rather narrow-minded in their nature. It's not just theists who attempt to imbue God with simplistic human traits and then run towards the 'beyond the scope of comprehension' card.
Originally posted by Mindship
They're good questions, especially given how often religion and its edicts have been abused through the centuries (what I call religionism), so that a given demographic can feel superior to everyone else and therefore justified in taking life.
Yup. I think that, if every religious person in the world comprehended that their faith is subjective, not absolute, and certainly not factual, then we would get rid of most religious problems in the world. The problem is when people force others to conform to their religious standards, and although this immediately causes people to think about 'regressive' nations, it also applies to the western world. Could you not say that Sarah Palin's political positions (just one example) are the product of theological fascism?
Originally posted by Master CrimzonFor what it's worth, I think scientific method ('applied common sense'😉 is applicable in studying any possible transcendent reality, as long we realize that 'proof' can mean any immediately perceived phenomenon, not just empirical phenomena. Problems arise, in fact, if we limit ourselves to only the empirical. Just like there is religionism, there is also scientism.
Well, with our current scientific knowledge, it is impossible to associate our feelings and beliefs to be anything more than a product of our brain, which functions upon biochemistry, electric, whatever you have it. In order to assume that feelings and the human spirit are anything 'more than that', one must believe in some sort of human soul- a piece of divinity, if you will. Since there is no scientific indication to it, I do not believe in it. I also suspect this is one of the causes people still endorse creationism and shun evolution.
As for those who endorse creationism and shun evolution...somewhere down the line, common sense was apparently abandoned in the religionistic fervor to be special, no matter what.
It basically comes down to thus: are all our feelings biological and evolutionary in nature, simply differing methods of survival? Or did we transcend past that, using our intelligence? I believe it is a mixture of that two: the desire for a better world is, of course, an evolutionary desire, as it creates safer grounds for reproduction and individual desires. But I would at least like to believe, that while our feelings are chemical in nature and not 'divine', that our intelligence does, after all, enable us to find greater meaning in life- or perhaps to imbue ourselves with greater meaning- than to survive and reproduce. The fact that the product of these feelings is chemical is completely irrelevant; the fact remains that these 'feelings' transcend basic animalistic and evolutionary desires.Yes, I do. If you study the development of human consciousness historically, and especially how consciousness develops in a person, one notes a pattern: consciousness becomes 'higher' in that a new level of development can 'see beyond' the limits of the previous level of consciousness.Do you agree with my above conclusion?
Yup. I think that, if every religious person in the world comprehended that their faith is subjective, not absolute, and certainly not factual, then we would get rid of most religious problems in the world. The problem is when people force others to conform to their religious standards, and although this immediately causes people to think about 'regressive' nations, it also applies to the western world. Could you not say that Sarah Palin's political positions (just one example) are the product of theological fascism?I suspect Palin is a closet dominatrix-religionist.
Originally posted by Mindship
For what it's worth, I think scientific method ('applied common sense'😉 is applicable in studying any possible transcendent reality, as long we realize that 'proof' can mean any immediately perceived phenomenon, not just empirical phenomena. Problems arise, in fact, if we limit ourselves to only the empirical. Just like there is religionism, there is also scientism.
I believe the best regimes are absolutely secular ones, without any addition of faith-based decisions. The complete separation of church and state must be in order. Why? There is the fact that religion is not based on reality and that, no matter how you spin it, a government must focus upon pragmatism and reality; baseless faith is for the individual to decide for himself and his pursuit of happiness, but it should not be involved in large scale politics. The separation of church and state also ensures religious freedom- because how can there be religious freedom when laws are created by a specific religion, and thus that religion forces other religions to conform to their standards?
When analyzing proof, it should be based upon empirical science. If you want to conclude something else, than that is fine- but understand that it is a matter of personal faith and thus should have nothing to do with our approach to politics.
Originally posted by Mindship
As for those who endorse creationism and shun evolution...somewhere down the line, common sense was apparently abandoned in the religionistic fervor to be special, no matter what.
Whaddaya gonna do, huh? People have the Right to Remain Ignorant.
Originally posted by Mindship
Yes, I do. If you study the development of human consciousness historically, and especially how consciousness develops in a person, one notes a pattern: consciousness becomes 'higher' in that a new level of development can 'see beyond' the limits of the previous level of consciousness.
The thing is, I don't think humans are limited towards evolutionary desires and instincts at the moment. It is our intelligence that enables us to use our feelings in a different manner and calls for a deeper meaning; 'transcendent' in a completely atheistic and non-religious manner. Indeed, I believe that an integral part of liberalism is moralistic transcendence beyond primal concepts such as fear, hate, and anger.
Originally posted by Mindship
I suspect Palin is a closet dominatrix-religionist.
There's definitive proof to insinuate that Palin is the very definition of a 'Christian fascist' (do you know she attempted to get a gay book banned?). But the point is that, while Islamic religious extremism is more clear to the eye, fundamentalism from other religions- Christianity, Judaism, whatever- exists; it simply hides beneath a facade of legitimacy and silky words. A pig is still a pig if you put lipstick on it, as Obama says.
Originally posted by Master CrimzonYou don't mean something like Nazi Germany, do you? 😉 The Founding Fathers of America were deeply religious men. Yes, they believed that organized religion should keep its nose out of politics. On the other hand, their concept of liberty and government included axioms of faith, ie, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator..." yada yada yada.
I believe the best regimes are absolutely secular ones, without any addition of faith-based decisions.
When analyzing proof, it should be based upon empirical science.Certainly when dealing with the empirical world.
But the point is that, while Islamic religious extremism is more clear to the eye, fundamentalism from other religions- Christianity, Judaism, whatever- exists; it simply hides beneath a facade of legitimacy and silky words.Religion doesn't kill. People do. And as you rightly noted earlier, silky words can come from anywhere, even atheists.
Originally posted by Mindship
You don't mean something like Nazi Germany, do you? 😉 The Founding Fathers of America were deeply religious men. Yes, they believed that organized religion should keep its nose out of politics. On the other hand, their concept of liberty and government included axioms of faith, ie, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator..." yada yada yada.
The Founding Fathers' personal faith is completely irrelevant; they knew it and the government had to be separated. Politicians use 'God' and 'creator' loosely, as a method of getting their point across and gripping the masses, regardless of whether they actually believe in it. Barack Obama is a Christian, but his political positions clearly have little to do with faith.
C'mon, Nazi Germany wasn't how it was because it hated religion. It 'interpreted' (perverted...?) concepts like Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical works, and while many of these works were atheistic in nature, the Nazi's racism had very little to actually do with it.
Originally posted by Mindship
Certainly when dealing with the empirical world.
Hmm-hm.
Originally posted by Mindship
Religion doesn't kill. People do. And as you rightly noted earlier, silky words can come from anywhere, even atheists.
My point was that many seem to forget the fact that theological fascists are still existent, even within the American political mainstream. Can you name such an atheist?
Religion doesn't kill, but it gives people motivation and spurs them into killing. Without a motivation for an action, the action does not come into play.
Originally posted by Master CrimzonSupposition on your part, and poorly supported at that. I'm basing my point on face value, ie, what the Founding Fathers actually wrote, not what I think they meant or knew.
The Founding Fathers' personal faith is completely irrelevant; they knew it
My point was that many seem to forget the fact that theological fascists are still existent, even within the American political mainstream. Can you name such an atheist?In the American system? Not off-hand. But I believe Communism is atheistic, and we all know how well they treat their citizens.
Religion doesn't kill, but it gives people motivation and spurs them into killing. Without a motivation for an action, the action does not come into play.If someone is intent on power and control, they'll find some rationalization for their actions.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
My point was that many seem to forget the fact that theological fascists are still existent, even within the American political mainstream. Can you name such an atheist?
Not within politics but Hitchens and Dawkins seem more interested in atheistic rhetoric and dogma than in rationalism.
Originally posted by Mindship
Supposition on your part, and poorly supported at that. I'm basing my point on face value, ie, what the Founding Fathers actually wrote, not what I think they meant or knew.
There's considerable evidence to suggest the Founding Fathers were not religious, including critical statements of Christianity. It's arguable that they believed in some form of a God, but they were certainly not traditionally religious and would not be interested in forming a religious country; after all, they themselves fled from religious persecution.
Originally posted by Mindship
In the American system? Not off-hand. But I believe Communism is atheistic, and we all know how well they treat their citizens.
The Soviet Union, Cuba, China and their irk are not true communist countries. Communism is a financial ideology, one that is actually a nice idea in theory but simply does not work. What led towards mistreatment of their citizens in so-called 'communist' countries was atheistic fascism, which is just as bad as theological fascism- but it's less prominent in places like the United States.
There are some atheists that believe that their beliefs are fact, and for that reason, anybody who does not conform to them (the religious) must be punished. The motivations for this and forcing religion upon others are largely similar. Instead, people must comprehend that religious beliefs are subjective, cultural, and necessary towards an individual's own Truth and pursuit of happiness- it simply must not be involved within politics.
Originally posted by Mindship
If someone is intent on power and control, they'll find some rationalization for their actions.
I personally believe that religious extremism is a form of justification for the individuals committing crimes in its name; a way of making themselves feel better about their actions and perhaps helping them to concentrate their anger. First comes the factors of reality, and then come the factor of religion. There's a reason why you do not see comfortable Muslims within the U.S supporting terrorist bombings.
Outside of that, I just watched a film called Paradise Now. One of the most compelling movies about the Middle East. It's a story told from the perspective of two suicide bombers to be, with one of its plot threads being about whether it is first caused by religious fundamentalism or socio-economic factors. Indeed, the movie's conclusion is very similar to mine- socio-economic factors lead to violent religious interpretations, which give the person the solace of being remembered as a 'saint'. It's also one of the most effectively anti-terrorist movies I've ever seen, because it is a deep inspect of the psychology that leads to terrorism rather than a demonization of terrorists as being inhuman religious extremists. It's a peon towards comprehending that behind every person is a human being- and that there is a common humanity behind us all, a humanity we can work upon in order to achieve mutual interest. To not degenerate into cynicism in the face of violence, nor surrender to feelings like hate and revenge- because that feeds the cycle of violence and gives continued justification and motivation for it, but rather learn to transcend beyond it: it's the only way to end a war.
Another view on the matter of terrorism:
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf
[W]e suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to
political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economics.
link
In line with the results of some recent
studies, this article shows that terrorist risk is not significantly higher for poorer
countries, once the effects of other country-specific characteristics such as the level
of political freedom are taken into account.
http://www.saliltripathi.com/articles/povertyterrorismmyth.htm
Some development experts assert that if only more money were spent to alleviate poverty, terrorism would disappear. Poverty breeds a sense of deprivation among the poor, and because in their view the current economic system perpetuates inequality, it would compel the poor -- driven to desperation because of social injustices -- to turn to terror. This is reductive revolutionary rhetoric masquerading as an explanation. What's surprising is not the vacuity of this idea, but its resilience. It plays on collective guilt, seeking to rationalize the unjustifiable.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/02/the-false-pover.html
Extremism and terrorism have traditionally tended to be middle class and upper-middle class phenomenons.
I'm certain that terrorism is started by people with money, but the actual recruits and foot soldiers are the ones without it. The ones so desperate and hopeless that they turn into violence and extremist religionism, no longer viewing these things in a negative light- while money is not necessarily the only part of that situation, we can certainly see that 'terrorist countries' are significantly more impoverished than the more 'progressive' Western ones.
By the way, you ought to read how the United States indirectly financed Al Qaeda, the Bin Laden family, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, whatnot. It's interesting to see how a bit of morality and protectionism could have prevented the worldwide situation: put simply, much of the terrorism today would not exist, because they would not have the money and the motivation. I've come to the conclusion that, while military force is important, the solution to the War on Terror must be diplomatic, economic, and placed within the hands of the United Nations more than the United States, in order to secure more permanent stops to violence and genocide and to bankrupt terrorism. There is no easy solution, and the complexity of the situation is giving me a headache, but I think that, ultimately, the future of the war on terrorism lies within the hands of the world- not the U.S.
Originally posted by Master CrimzonThis I can agree with. By religious I did not mean in the formal, Christian sense exclusively. I'm sure our FFrs were not religious in the traditional sense; people who are intelligent, critical and probing thinkers generally aren't. Perhaps it would be less confusing to say that they were a deeply spiritual group whom, among other things, wished to avoid the pitfalls of organized religion in the new world; that to them, inalienable rights endowed by a creator trumped dogma, and that among these rights was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not "believe what I tell you."
There's considerable evidence to suggest the Founding Fathers were not religious, including critical statements of Christianity. It's arguable that they believed in some form of a God, but they were certainly not traditionally religious and would not be interested in forming a religious country; after all, they themselves fled from religious persecution.
Outside of that, I just watched a film called Paradise Now. One of the most compelling movies about the Middle East. It's a story told from the perspective of two suicide bombers to be, with one of its plot threads being about whether it is first caused by religious fundamentalism or socio-economic factors. Indeed, the movie's conclusion is very similar to mine- socio-economic factors lead to violent religious interpretations, which give the person the solace of being remembered as a 'saint'. It's also one of the most effectively anti-terrorist movies I've ever seen, because it is a deep inspect of the psychology that leads to terrorism rather than a demonization of terrorists as being inhuman religious extremists. It's a peon towards comprehending that behind every person is a human being- and that there is a common humanity behind us all, a humanity we can work upon in order to achieve mutual interest. To not degenerate into cynicism in the face of violence, nor surrender to feelings like hate and revenge- because that feeds the cycle of violence and gives continued justification and motivation for it, but rather learn to transcend beyond it: it's the only way to end a war.The movie sounds familiar. I'll keep a look out for it, in case it comes on cable again.
Originally posted by Mindship
This I can agree with. By religious I did not mean in the formal, Christian sense exclusively. I'm sure our FFrs were not religious in the traditional sense; people who are intelligent, critical and probing thinkers generally aren't. Perhaps it would be less confusing to say that they were a deeply spiritual group whom, among other things, wished to avoid the pitfalls of organized religion in the new world; that to them, inalienable rights endowed by a creator trumped dogma, and that among these rights was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not "believe what I tell you."
I still stand by my belief that 'endowed by their creator' is simply a figure of speech, in the same manner that most politicians (including Hitler, in the past) use 'God'. I'm sure the Founding Fathers were spiritual- hell, maybe they were even Christians- but they were very critical of organized religion and certainly supported the Separation of Church and State, contrary to what conservatives might want us to believe.
Originally posted by Mindship
The movie sounds familiar. I'll keep a look out for it, in case it comes on cable again.
Yeah, the psychology of terrorism is fascinating, as is that of serial killing and hostage negotiating (seriously).
It's the only Palestinian movie to be nominated for best foreign picture at the Academy Awards, and it's damn well worth it.
The psychology of violence is one of the biggest tactical advantages we can have. Because by comprehending the psychology of it, we can analyze the situations that cause it and work towards controlling them or fully alleviating them, thus resulting in a large-scale and permanent deterrence of violence level. It works far more effectively than arguing that violence ends violence- that line of thought never worked and was consistently shown to only breed more violence.
Psychologically understanding an enemy, and understanding how we can affect that psyche via controlling environmental influences, is simply integral to the war on crime and terror.