A personal question

Hi Delshad.You seem to be holding your own quite well on this thread. I don't want to detract from what's going on here (since you are defending your faith), but I would like to have an opportunity to discuss some of the substantive questions you raise, if you're interested.I would like to propose as my starting position this essay. If you would like to discuss the ideas presented in there, I would recommend we open a new thread. Let me know.Now returning you to your regularly scheduled thread...[edited to fix link][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-18-2002]

quote:

---

A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it. You, on the other hand, have the promise of an afterlife and all you have to do is profess your belief and obedience.

---

The atheists on EvC (you, and Compmage i think) introduced this phrase, which has been a good point to contemplate for me lately.Let me tell you a local story. I was taught in elementary school (about late 1980s to early 1990s) taht atheists are bad, nonmoral people. My teacher said that their lack of faith made them behave as they wish, indulging in depravities. Why do they taught me this? It was a political agenda. Indonesians experienced a horrible point in history in the Communist Party coup of 1965, and the aftershock, which include the massacre of communists and the reign of Suharto's New Order, planted a trauma in Indonesians' minds, a hatred towards Communists. Since the commies were atheists, by then denigrating atheists has been a part of the political propaganda in education. I was taught that. Religion, good; atheism, bad.However, now I have found that not all atheists were moral degenerates; sometimes I think that they faced a greater battle--to maintain a moral position without having a good prospect of what he/she will gain from his/her moral acts. If I give small change to a beggar, part of me did that because charity can earn me heaven. But if an atheist did the same, he/she does not do that in order to get to heaven or avoid hell.next:

quote:

---

Tell that to the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, or in Iran.

​

Have you seen those fundamentistic Islamic countries where it is imposed?

---

As for my own position, I think they overdo the shariah. Recently there has been some political Islamic parties which gain favor in some local governments in Indonesia (in Aceh), and they practised Islamic law there. However, I cannot endorse that they would prefer to make rules that prohibit women to walk alone at night than to strengthen the economy or stop the war between separatists and the Army. Most Islamic fundies fall into symbolism while neglecting the more real problems.ANyway, wasn't the Taliban made in USA? They were part of the Communist-battling troops sponsored by AMerica to fend off Soviet troops, as a puppet of the Cold War. No wonder they were put up again as another puppet, this time to make Islam seem anachronistic and cruel.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andya Primanda:

quote:

---

A non-religious person is more likely to be moral because they have everything to lose whereas a religious person has nothing to lose. This is our only life, as far as we know, and most of us aren't too likely to risk it. You, on the other hand, have the promise of an afterlife and all you have to do is profess your belief and obedience.

---

The atheists on EvC (you, and Compmage i think) introduced this phrase, which has been a good point to contemplate for me lately.Let me tell you a local story. I was taught in elementary school (about late 1980s to early 1990s) taht atheists are bad, nonmoral people. My teacher said that their lack of faith made them behave as they wish, indulging in depravities. Why do they taught me this? It was a political agenda. Indonesians experienced a horrible point in history in the Communist Party coup of 1965, and the aftershock, which include the massacre of communists and the reign of Suharto's New Order, planted a trauma in Indonesians' minds, a hatred towards Communists. Since the commies were atheists, by then denigrating atheists has been a part of the political propaganda in education. I was taught that. Religion, good; atheism, bad.However, now I have found that not all atheists were moral degenerates; sometimes I think that they faced a greater battle--to maintain a moral position without having a good prospect of what he/she will gain from his/her moral acts. If I give small change to a beggar, part of me did that because charity can earn me heaven. But if an atheist did the same, he/she does not do that in order to get to heaven or avoid hell.
****************************************M: Hi Andya, I liked your story. Atheists are individuals and thus are as variable in their ethics as religious people. I have religious friends and non-religious friends and don't really see any difference in their behavior towards others i.e. the claim that atheists will all just do whatever they feel like has never been born out. The one common thing I see is that fundamentalists of any kind whether it be christian, muslim, or even hard core atheist christian bashers usually are the least ethical, least intelligent, and the most likely to use their religion to justify truly awful behavior. If you want an example go look at Wordswordsman's posts claiming that he has the characteristics of a deity or that slavery is a good thing and consistent with christian values. Except for the name of the god he worships his attitude is no different than that of the Taliban. When people like that are insignificant ranters you can laugh...but let them get into power and then passenger jets start flying into tall buildings.next:

quote:

---

Tell that to the Taliban when they were in charge of Afghanistan, or in Iran.

​

Have you seen those fundamentistic Islamic countries where it is imposed?

---

As for my own position, I think they overdo the shariah. Recently there has been some political Islamic parties which gain favor in some local governments in Indonesia (in Aceh), and they practised Islamic law there. However, I cannot endorse that they would prefer to make rules that prohibit women to walk alone at night than to strengthen the economy or stop the war between separatists and the Army. Most Islamic fundies fall into symbolism while neglecting the more real problems.M: That is common to fundamentalists of all groups. Look at American christian fundamentalists...they drape themselves in the American flag and claim to be the defenders of freedom yet are trying to subvert the system to only represent their own views i.e. prayer in school, creationism in school, no separation of church in state. Besides being hypocrites they are unpatriotic as they do not believe in the ideals that the US claims to stand for.Andy:
ANyway, wasn't the Taliban made in USA? They were part of the Communist-battling troops sponsored by AMerica to fend off Soviet troops, as a puppet of the Cold War. No wonder they were put up again as another puppet, this time to make Islam seem anachronistic and cruel.[/B][/QUOTE]M: That was true of the Taliban and it is also true of Saddam Hussein. He was supported by the U.S. government as a counter weight against Iran after the revolution to prevent radical Islam from spreading throughout the region. So we build our own enemies, enrichen them, arm them to the teeth and then wonder why a guy who was a nut case from day one suddenly decides to turn on us....not particularly clever politics.cheers,
M

Don't forget Osama bin Laden, former CIA agent. And Al-Qaeda? Who else but USA Some espionage experts here commented that either CIA made Al-Qaeda or CIA infiltrated agents into them which turn them into sick terrorists, and the US media cheerfully made them covergirl of the month.

Originally posted by gene90:I think it was absolutely necessary. When the war is over, the fleet is rebuilt, and the draft is ended it's quite easy to gloss over certain things. Anyway, this is the sort of thing that happens when you mix military targets with civilian population centers. [/QUOTE]Actually, no, it was not neccessary at all. The Japanese were willing to surrender with only one condition, that they be allowed to keep their emperor as leader. The Americans wanted a totally unconditional surrender and wouldn't accept even this small request. The two targets had no military value at all, in fact they were choosen for that very fact.

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:The atheists on EvC (you, and Compmage i think) introduced this phrase, which has been a good point to contemplate for me lately.

​

Let me tell you a local story. I was taught in elementary school (about late 1980s to early 1990s) taht atheists are bad, nonmoral people. My teacher said that their lack of faith made them behave as they wish, indulging in depravities. Why do they taught me this? It was a political agenda. Indonesians experienced a horrible point in history in the Communist Party coup of 1965, and the aftershock, which include the massacre of communists and the reign of Suharto's New Order, planted a trauma in Indonesians' minds, a hatred towards Communists. Since the commies were atheists, by then denigrating atheists has been a part of the political propaganda in education. I was taught that. Religion, good; atheism, bad.

​

However, now I have found that not all atheists were moral degenerates; sometimes I think that they faced a greater battle--to maintain a moral position without having a good prospect of what he/she will gain from his/her moral acts. If I give small change to a beggar, part of me did that because charity can earn me heaven. But if an atheist did the same, he/she does not do that in order to get to heaven or avoid hell.Even the Webster's Dictionary had defined atheists as being evil, or wicked, at one time.As for my own position, I think they overdo the shariah. Recently there has been some political Islamic parties which gain favor in some local governments in Indonesia (in Aceh), and they practised Islamic law there. However, I cannot endorse that they would prefer to make rules that prohibit women to walk alone at night than to strengthen the economy or stop the war between separatists and the Army. Most Islamic fundies fall into symbolism while neglecting the more real problems.That is the thing with fundies, they think that they are so right that they will do anything to make sure that everyone is the same as they are and normal moral "niceties" mean nothing to them. We see this in the recent bombing in Bali. Wasn't the group responsible called "Defenders of the Islamic Faith" or something like that? Some asked why they would want to bomb paradise, the answer is they want it to be only their paradise.ANyway, wasn't the Taliban made in USA? They were part of the Communist-battling troops sponsored by AMerica to fend off Soviet troops, as a puppet of the Cold War. No wonder they were put up again as another puppet, this time to make Islam seem anachronistic and cruel.If you look closer at most of the problems in the Middle-East now you will see that it is because of their policy of the Cold War of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the placing of "friendly" leaders into positions of power and control. The Americans had to destroy the "Dirty Commies" at all costs. And the ironic thing after all this this to destroy them they finally just fell apart on their own. What agencies, like the CIA, weren't telling the USA is that during the 20 to 30 years before the fall of the USSR that it was little more than a third world nation itself and really not the big threat they had made it out to be. There was much profit in hating, and fearing, the USSR.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Don't forget Osama bin Laden, former CIA agent. And Al-Qaeda? Who else but USA Some espionage experts here commented that either CIA made Al-Qaeda or CIA infiltrated agents into them which turn them into sick terrorists, and the US media cheerfully made them covergirl of the month.

---

Not only do they start and help foreign terrorists, but domestic ones as well. The so-called anti-government militia movement was started by the US Government as a means to fight against a possible Soviet invasion. You give paranoids weapons and they will eventually turn on you. The Cold War did far more self-inflicted damage than the so-called enemy could have ever done.

quote:

---

That is the thing with fundies, they think that they are so right that they will do anything to make sure that everyone is the same as they are and normal moral "niceties" mean nothing to them. We see this in the recent bombing in Bali. Wasn't the group responsible called "Defenders of the Islamic Faith" or something like that? Some asked why they would want to bomb paradise, the answer is they want it to be only their paradise.

---

There is a group called 'Front Pembela Islam' (Islamic Defender Front) here, but their activities are restricted to wrecking bars and discos in Jakarta. Their leader once criticized Osama bin Laden, which he label as heretic. I know these guys; they cannot be responsible for the bomb. They can organize masses of people but they never use explosives. The alleged suspects are Al-Qaeda or US agents or the Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (Aceh Freedom Movement), a jaded separatist group which is on the verge of becoming like the IRA or ETA.

Yes ,of course, I would be glad to discuss the subject with you Quetzal.
This thread is starting to lean towards politics and that was not my intention with it.
But I hope you wont be dissapointed with our coming discussion because I cant question anything you have written in your essay.
It is all scientific facts, but perhaps I could add some facts and bring the issue to a more social and human level.
Who should make the topic?
And if it should be me then my suggestion for the title would be
(The neccesity of religion in our modern society).
What do you think?Sincerely Delshad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Yes ,of course, I would be glad to discuss the subject with you Quetzal.
This thread is starting to lean towards politics and that was not my intention with it.
But I hope you wont be dissapointed with our coming discussion because I cant question anything you have written in your essay.
It is all scientific facts, but perhaps I could add some facts and bring the issue to a more social and human level.
Who should make the topic?
And if it should be me then my suggestion for the title would be
(The neccesity of religion in our modern society).
What do you think?

​

Sincerely Delshad

---

Why would religion be a neccesity in a modern society? This is a time when religion has much less control over everyday life in the 1st world nations and dispite what most may think this is one of the most moral times in history in comparison. It just looks worse because we have almost instant communications and are aware of much which our ancestors would be totally amazed at. They would see the Internet as witchcraft and burn us at the stake. The places which seem to need religion are those of lesser developed nations where things aren't as free and open as they are in most 1st world nations today.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Yes ,of course, I would be glad to discuss the subject with you Quetzal.
This thread is starting to lean towards politics and that was not my intention with it.
But I hope you wont be dissapointed with our coming discussion because I cant question anything you have written in your essay.
It is all scientific facts, but perhaps I could add some facts and bring the issue to a more social and human level.
Who should make the topic?
And if it should be me then my suggestion for the title would be
(The neccesity of religion in our modern society).
What do you think?

​

Sincerely Delshad

---

*************************Hi Delshad,
I found the following site that might be of interest with regards to your interest in human behavior and evolution....Home - HBESIt is the human behavior and evolution website. It links out to a lot of other resources. This may not address your issue of religion and society specifically but it does at some level touch on anything to do with the development of behavior which includes religion.Your topic heading sounds fine though I might suggest putting it in one of the forums more specifically debating religion per se than in the Human Origins forum.Sorry to be one of those guilty of going off topic into politics Best wishes,
Mammuthus

Thanks Mammuthus, you have always helped me in gathering information and I thank you very much.Sorry to be one of those guilty of going off topic into politicsPs: No problem Mammuthus, perhaps you guys will come up with an interesting issue, and in that case Im glad to read about it ,(no matter where it is)

Hi Delshad,Don't worry, I won't be "disappointed" if you can't refute the essay. As I said, it's a point of departure (and gives you a good idea where I'm coming from). Obviously, I consider human behavior/culture to have a neurophysiological foundation, although as you noted we are able to use our "intelligence" to overcome to a greater or lesser extent the purely biological imperatives.There are two pieces from previous posts on this thread that I would be interested in exploring with you. We can pick one or the other - or I'd be open to alternatives, whatever you wish.

quote:

---

What I meant was that, the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" isnt very suitable outside the classroom. Because, although survival of the fittest isnt necessary by means of violence, the underlying message to the society is that feelings such as love and compassion exists only because of our interest to stay alive, they arent real.

---

To my mind, this topic covers two distinct areas: 1) natural selection and its applicability to humans and 2) the origin and persistence of aggressive behavor vs altruistic or compassionate behavor. Both of these could be combined easily into a single thread.The other bit I found interesting is

quote:

---

Let me further explain, animals are driven by instincts so of course they do not need any religion to maintain their social structure, they eat, sleep ,fight, make love etc without question. It becomes a little more complicated in our case, because it seems that our intelligence has outgrown our instincts thus it is our intelligence that mostly control how we see the world and respond to it. Therefore moral values isnt going to pop up on its own in our case, we need values coming from outside. So it isn`t just look at the animal kingdom and learn, their way of maintaing a social order isnt like our own.

---

In this paragraph you seem to be saying several things: 1) that human behavior cannot be adduced from study of animal behavior; 2) a question on how morals and morality are derived, with the implication that the divine is the source, rather than nature.Either one of those two topics would be of interest. Alternatively, I'm happy to discuss the one you proposed here "The neccesity of religion in our modern society", although I would suggest rephrasing it as a question (after all, we're going to argue about the answer ). I'll leave the decision up to you.One advance apology: I will not be able to undertake this discussion in substance until probably Wednesday - I have a speech to finish writing this weekend which is giving me fits, and then a two-day long conference. However, I'd be happy to either start a thread or have you start one around then.I'm looking forward to the discussion. (See how much more fun being civil can be? )

Hi Quetzal You are probably more suitable in opening a topic because perhaps it would seem too repetive If I opened two topics in a row referring to the same subject, but I would be glad if you could name the topic (Is religion necessary in our modern society?)Btw, good luck on your speach and Ill be waiting patiently until you are back. Sincerely Delshad

[QUOTE][B]The Cold War did far more self-inflicted damage than the so-called enemy could have ever done.[/QUOTE][/B]I strongly disagree. "The enemy" had about 22,000 state-of-the-art ICBM-guided thermonuclear warheads just waiting to generate airbursts over cities of the United States *and* its allies. Then of course there is the other side, in which we launch our 19,000 nukes at Soviet targets with similar results.