Today we heard from Kofi Annan’s Chief of Staff (RealAudio) discussing the ‘search for a UN definition of terrorism’.
March 17th, 2004.
BBC Today programme, 8.35. “In the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, we discuss the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.””We” being Leila Khaled, Palestinian hijacker and hostage-taker, and Danny Morrison, Sinn Fein/IRA publicity head (and the man who has the last word on what happens to republican ‘informers’).RealAudio link here.
Yoy
I’m glad that you spotted the irony and saw the mirthful side in my quoting The Buddha, I rather liked it too. It has a double twist because most schools of Buddhism and their teaching do not require and do not evoke any deity; or put another way, they are atheistic (Not a lot of people know this that you can be religious and an atheist. like most Buddhism Jainism is also atheistic).
>And Atheism as practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler,Pol Pot, Mao isn’t?< Ah the genetic fallacy! By the way Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Catholic. Feel free to trot out the 'no true Scotsman fallacy'! It looks as if you are intimating either A) that lack of theism is a cause of vile morality and atrocious ethics and/ or B) that theism somehow protects one from poor ethical conduct. Folks get their morality and ethics from all sorts of places - If you are trying to suggest a negative correlation between atheism and ethics or morality; perhaps you should be doing the extra reading 😉 Atheism itself is simply lack of any god belief, it is not a system of ethics at all, any more than lack of belief in goblins is a system of morality or ethics. Individual atheists get their moral framework from non-superstitious sources, these may be wholesome or unwholesome. The genocide committed by atheistic dictators such as Mao and Stalin could thus not have been informed by their lack of superstitious belief in deities. It was informed by political objectives that trumped all human morality. Religious teaching can indeed provide a framework that can provide wholesome morality and ethics, but this depends entirely on the teaching of the religion in question. It can just as well do precisely the opposite, indeed a literal interpretation of the Bible, the Koran and Catholic dogma unchecked WILL result directly in violence being done informed directly by these teachings as night follows day; history is drenched with blood spilled thus. Fortunately most Christians don’t any longer take the Bible too seriously, those that I’ve encountered that claim to are fortunately almost wholly ignorant of its content (here’s a good place to go to find out http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Violence_and_God.htm) the Bible and the Koran are almost the worst places to go for wholesome ethics and morality., most Catholics are thankfully heretics to the dogma of their declared faith. Alas the Mohammedans are currently rather different.
The current wave of Islamo-fascism or Islamo-paths (I like that one) of which the current posse of London Jihadies are part of a trend sweeping the Globe, IS informed directly by religious teaching in the Koran and the Hadiths.
Personally I’d sooner use humanity and reason to determine morality rather than outsource my ethics to some purveyors pre medieval tosh or some convoluted modern lite version.
Still waiting for the book recommendations which will enlighten me and take me to a deeper level of philosophy?
Don’t get this stuff on the Beeb ….do we.
” To be more accurate, Islam preserved and developed the Greek traditions (science without arithmetic, anyone?)while Christians were busy burning libraries.”
A politically correct lie. There were far more Christian thinkers studying and attempting harmonize their faith with classical learning than book burners. Saint Augustine anybody? Most of the classical texts surviving in the West did so by the grace of Christian Monks copying and protecting them.
Hitler was a pagan.
john b has obviously never read the recent best-selling book (best-selling at least in the US)
How the Irish Saved Civilization:
Hitler was indeed a Catholic, not pagan not atheist…
Newspaper extract
BERLIN, Feb. 23 1933 (AP)–A campaign against the “godless movement” and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s forces. They struck at two of his formidable opponents in the March 5 elections, the first at communists and the latter at the allied Catholic parties
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html
From Hitlers bilious tome Mein Kempf
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”5 (Hitler obviously believed in a supreme being).”
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”
“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.”
There’s plenty more where that came from.
Anonymous,
I like the laudatory stuff that dear Adolf said about Mohammedism, myself.
”Ah the genetic fallacy! By the way Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Catholic”
Ah so Nazism was another form of Catholicism was it?
What Hitler might have thought he was and what he actually was bear no relation.
What was Stalinism then? The Radical branch of The Baptists?
”It looks as if you are intimating either A) that lack of theism is a cause of vile morality and atrocious ethics and/ or B) that theism somehow protects one from poor ethical conduct”
No what I am saying is that both A and B CAN and historically have happened
”(Not a lot of people know this that you can be religious and an atheist. like most Buddhism Jainism is also atheistic).”
Your fixation with Buddhism is fascinating.
I look forward to your proving Reincarnation is evidence based- i.e the belief in the birth and rebirth of a person’s soul over and over again in different human bodies throughout history – or is that not another example of
”blind faith’ of holding something to be true despite (or maybe because) of lack of evidence…” as someone once said
The point is that everything that you accuse religious dogmatics of you seem guilty of in your postings.
Atheism may seem rational to you but like Theism it is not empirically provable to anyone.
And if I thought for a second you were receptive to ideas contrary to your beliefs then I’d make reading suggestions
Meanwhile try this out from a purely random Google search
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Key quote: ‘If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away’
And maybe belief in a God is the most natural thing in the world anyway…
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
Isn’t Google wonderful?
Just been listening to Radio 5, with Brian Hayes. A reporter, Phil Mackie?, I didn’t quite catch his name, was telling Brian about the arrest of the bombing suspect in Birmingham. Towards the end of the report Phil told Brian of the reaction of the leader of Birmingham Central Mosque. The leader had said that he’d only believe the alleged bomber guilty once he’d been to a curt of law and convicted, and then went on to say that he could understand how some people could engage in illegal actitivies out of frustration at the plight of Muslims. Brian asked Phil if this was a usual reaction from a Muslim leader, as it seemed quite unusual. Phil told Brian ‘We are quite selective. We do tend to censor what we put on air’. This quote was at 10.14pm. I’m going to check it again when this evening’s show is on the listen again feature tomorrow just to make sure I’ve got it right.
Simon see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4721261.stm
& comments on this man on threads above.
Does BBC broadcasting a man calling Blair a liar make both of them liable to be sued for libel.
Would the BBC allow such claims to be made unless they knew that Blair would not sue?
On “Any Questions” last week a woman panellist was correctly detailing why Galloway was ejected from the Labour party. Dimpleby cut in muttering about not wanting the BBC involved in a libel suit.
Susan
How could the Irish have saved civilization when they couldn’t even master The Four Crop rotation technique?
I’ve checked the link and the Mosque leader isn’t quoted as saying what I heard on Radio 5, but it’s not the Mosque leader I’m interested in. It’s the reporter’s censorship comment. It was so blatant I’m not sure I can really believe he said it. That’s why I will listen again when tonight’s program goes on the BBC radio 5 website.
Yoy
>Ah so Nazism was another form of Catholicism was it?< this extrapolation is a textbook non Sequitar, you’re turning into a veritable fallacy Yoy! A bit of Google research try ‘Hitler Catholicism’ or ‘Hitler Religion’ will provide a veritable deluge, hell some of it is even credible! >Your fixation with Buddhism is fascinating.I look forward to your proving Reincarnation is evidence based< Why are you assuming I am a Buddhist I have made no such claim nor have I even intimated it. As it happens my religion is ‘none’ and that’s what I put on forms that request it and you wont believe the grief it’s caused me. I have no reason to believe that there is any entity that survives our physical death other than or materiel and intellectual legacy. >No what I am saying is that both A and B CAN and historically have happened< The point would have been better made if you backed it up by citing examples, feel free so to do, try just one? >Atheism may seem rational to you but like Theism it is not empirically provable to anyone.< Ah the old theism and non theism assigned equal burden of proof…that old chestnut. OK, granted, in a similar vein I can’t also prove that there isn’t a troupe of purple lamas wearing shades in a sub terranian cavern in Jupiter endlessly playing a medley of old Boney M numbers to 500,000 squawking gerbils. Mirth aside, the point here being it's generally kind of difficult to prove a negative. Following on from this it is accepted amongst reasonable folks that that those making an assertion bear the burden of proof. Theists make the assertion as to the existence of one or more deity, usually with alleged properties of omnipresence, omnipotence and hyper benevolence (bit of a joke that one). It is incumbent on those making a claim to substantiate it, that’s the way empericalism, reason and science works. It is not incumbent on those who do not subscribe to any arbitrary nutcase crazy claim to refute it. If the claim of the existence of any supernatural omnipresent, omni everything sky-god that would have to be at least as complex as the whole cosmos, that over 90% of top scientists think is tosh isn’t a nutcase crazy claim please explain to me why it isnt in simple prose. I’ve studied this in depth and I’ve yet to see even a vague hint at a serious attempt at proving the claim of any theist...feel free, go for it. Oh I’m still waiting for the recommended literature to take my philosophical understanding to a new plane as per your charge that I am philosophically shallow and poorly read (2nd reminder)?
How could the Irish have saved civilization when they couldn’t even master The Four Crop rotation technique?
Umm, because they were spending all of their time copying classical manuscripts for posterity instead?
Just a guess.
I love how atheists spend all their time trying to ‘prove’ that there is no God. It is something we cannot know as long as we are alive. It’s a personal belief, that’s why it’s called “faith”.
I’m a non-believer myself, but I don’t spend my time trying to force my views on to others and telling those who believe in God (whichever God it happens to be) that they lack reason and insulting them. It seems to me that through reason, the only logical conclusion is that we can’t know whether or not God exists. There is no evidence for, but equally there is no evidence against.
The point of the original post, though, was not to make a theological point, simply to ask whether the BBC would have been equally as scathing in its description of a building dedicated to another religion.
Liz
>I love how atheists spend all their time trying to ‘prove’ that there is no God.< I have never ever heard of anyone spending "all" (hyperbole is a red flag for shody argument) their time on this here or anywhere else. More I for one have catagorically stated that its difficult to prove a negative. >I don’t spend my time trying to force my views on to others < The very existance of your post would seem to give that one the lie and put you equally down in the dirty and off the moral high ground that you are seeking to claim, in the mire with the rest of us mortals! >It seems to me that through reason, the only logical is that we can’t know whether or not God exists< Strictly speaking yes, but there are problems with your logic. To give equal weighting to both sides as you are seeking to do is tosh. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, any supernatural claim is an extrodinary claim, including the claim of the existence of any deity which by definition is a supernatural claim. Let's try another tack. If you told me you have driven from Bristol to London in 5 hrs that's not generally an extrodinary claim, no reasonable person would have much trouble believing it possible. If you told me you had been teleported in half a second that is an extrodinary claim (though not as extrodinary as most thiest’s claim) and if anyone made such a claim it would be reasonable to withold belief until extremely solid even extraordinary proof was forthcoming, a bunch of people claiming it was so just wouldnt cut it. To give equal merit to the position of anyone who makes such a claim to those whose position is scepticism of it IS poor logic, and that's putting it mildly. This is simply the Boney M impersonating Lamas on Jupiter point made in another way.
”Why are you assuming I am a Buddhist”
I could care less what you are, its you that keeps quoting from Buddhism
and my point about Reincarnation?
”hell some of it is even credible!”
How very gracious of you. Hey it might even be true but that doesn’t fit in with your world view so it gets ridiculed.
How about disputing the facts in the articles? Try that instead of the default sneer mode you seem to be set in?
”The point would have been better made if you backed it up by citing examples, feel free so to do, try just one?”
I gave you Stalin etc. not enough for you?
How about Saddam or Kim Jong-il as examples of Atheist govts (BTW they are BAD)And Priests and Nuns, Rabbis living ethical lives based on religious scripture.
I see that any points that you have no answer for get tagged with ‘Ah that old chestnut’ cop out
It is not the same as having a persuasive counter-argument
Humanism / Theism are complex subjects
Difference seems to be that only one party insults the other for having their beliefs.
”per your charge that I am philosophically shallow and poorly read (2nd reminder)?”
I never made that charge but ‘humourless closeminded pedantic bore’ seems to be apt
Yoy,
Hmmm interesting!
Anyway regardless of your rather intense views about me I wish you all the best in your continuing spiritual quest. Keep up the reading!
go well
See, Nick, you’re the one repeatedly talking about reason and logic – I was just following your argument, and using, erm, reason and logic.
“The very existance of your post would seem to give that one the lie and put you equally down in the dirty and off the moral high ground that you are seeking to claim, in the mire with the rest of us mortals”
No, I was just trying to step in and perhaps defuse an argument. I don’t recall trying to claim any moral high ground. Please don’t insult me.
Nick, you don’t believe in God, that’s fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don’t either. I just hope your life is as happy and enjoyable as my mother’s and my grandmother’s, both of whom have an unshakeable Christian faith, and both of whom are very happy. I know my life won’t be as great as theirs, and I know I’m certainly not happy, and I put that down to losing my faith after one of my friends was killed. People who believe like my family do are happy, because they are sure in their belief that there is something better coming after this.
Me, I haven’t got a clue.
Sorry you’re unhappy Liz and sorry you felt insulted, my critique bares upon your argument, it was not targeted at you as an individual. If one takes the view that dissing someone’s opinion or argument rather than attacking them as an individual is an insult then I am guilty by that measure, but then by that measure you are too and where does that leave us?
If one is so thin skinned as to find someone’s opinions who differ insulting then it is perhaps better to avoid exposing oneself to this.
As to your second point in the last paragraph, one could argue about the happiness or tranquillity supposedly engendered by ‘unshakable faith’, it is indeed an interesting topic of debate. However to argue that believing something makes one feel good or happy is most certainly not to argue that it’s true. And it does not follow from this that believing stuff because it feels good is wise or even a good idea.
liz
I’ve been reflecting on the tone of your last and decided to try to be constructive rather than just debate. You seem to be attributing your lack of happiness to your loss of faith, this is indeed a highly traumatic thing for many even most who go through this, I empathise with your plight, I lost my faith at the age of 12 and so I was quite lucky it wasn’t too traumatic, I put it down to being bought up in India and Ceylon (British expat parents) a veritable supermarket of religion, this prevented me getting effectively inoculated too strongly with Christianity as I saw from an early age plenty of other religions. I was particularly struck at a very early age by the serenity of the Bikkhus (saffron robed Buddhist Monks), so have since made a point of studying Theravadan Buddhism in some depth, though I am not a Buddhist.
Anyway many try to regain their faith and the feeling of security it gave them, for many this is difficult to do…the analogy often used is to try to will belief that the Earth is flat, you can feign it but at the end of the day it’s really difficult to regain belief in a flat Earth once its lost, once a Copernican always a Copernican! There are very few atheists who are on record as atheists who become theists (there are plenty of theists who say they used to be atheists but few can point to a track record of having written as atheists), the traffic is very much mainly one way, the internet is thick with the deconversion stories of ex believers, fascinating reading many are too.
Most who have lost their faith do come out of the other side of the trauma feeling all the more positive for it, there are support groups for ex Christians to help them through this tough period
Here are a link that may help you, Im sure you are just as capable of Googling for more
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/exFundyXian.html#Xian
You still haven’t offered proof that no God exists.
>You still haven’t offered proof that no God exists.< Lizzy it seems that you are unable or unwilling to see understand the concept of 'burden of proof' which I've made. Once again, the burden of proof lies with those making any extraordinary claim and it really isn’t very difficult to make an extraordinary claim that is non falsifiable, ie my example of the Lamas doing Boney M cover songs in a sub terranian cavern on Jupiter….that's a claim you cant falsify. I reject god claims for the same reason that any sensible person would dismiss the Lama story. All god claims fail on the principle of parsimony (though I concede that in the scheme of things Poseidon is a more parsimonious god than Yahweh)! As has been said before the difference between a theist and an atheist is but little, most theist reject all gods bar their own, atheists just go one god further! When theists understand why they reject all gods bar their own they will be in a position to understand why atheists dismiss theirs. If you still do not grasp this point there is plenty of literature on critical thinking, much of it free on the web, there are excellent books too. Here are some key words worthy of study as a starting point... Falsifiability (the key concept here), occam's razor, scientific method, Carl Sagan baloney detection kit, Reason, rationalism, logical fallacy. Wikipedia is quite a good resource to start off with http://en.wikipedia.org/
Science is not my subject but history is and our Nick sadly overestimates the ‘rationality’ of the Renaissance, or for that matter the ‘Enlightenment’. In fact both periods were known for their occultism – and a surprising number of the ‘natural philosophers’ were ordained priests or ministers.
As it happens the Catholic Church was a leading patron of scientific learning from the 12th c. ‘renaissance’ on. The trouble started when new discoveries poked holes in the long standing Aristotelian version of reality. The conflict wasn’t so much Religion vs Science as Scientific establishment vs Scientific radicals. Some of whom btw were every bit as wrong as the Aristotelians (See John Dee as an example).
And contrary to the ‘Black Legend’of the Middle Ages it was in fact a time of flourishing technological developement.
Nick, you keep referring to “extraordinary claims” – from your point of view, faith in a God is an “extraordinary claim”, but from a believer’s point of view, it is the outright claim that God doesn’t exist that is extraordinary. You don’t seem to be able to grasp this, or, in fact, any point that differs from your own way of thinking.
“If you still do not grasp this point there is plenty of literature on critical thinking, much of it free on the web, there are excellent books too.
Here are some key words worthy of study as a starting point…
Falsifiability (the key concept here), occam’s razor, scientific method, Carl Sagan baloney detection kit, Reason, rationalism, logical fallacy.”
Uh-huh. I’ve never heard of any of them, right, and I certainly don’t have any background in critical thinking(!). Nick, you are very patronising, and you make all sorts of assumptions about my education that, frankly, are insulting. You seem to think that you are the only person who knows anything. I’m not interested in debating you any longer. Have a nice life.
That of course is the problem with all too many atheists; their contempt for religious people of any description or sect.
I remember an attempt by some ‘secular humanist’, reported in ‘Skeptical Inquirer’, to promote the name ‘Brights’ for his ilk. Of course he *said* no reflection on the intelligence of religious folk was intended but the ‘Dims’ weren’t dim enough to buy that!
In all fairness it must be said that not all atheists are like this. Some are capable of respecting people with other world views even if they disagree with them.
“Falsifiability (the key concept here), occam’s razor, scientific method, Carl Sagan baloney detection kit, Reason, rationalism, logical fallacy.”
BTW; I know what all these words mean and am well acquainted with the principles described. I simply question the appropriateness of applying the scientific method to spiritual matters – granted if you don’t accept there is such a thing as ‘spirit’……
As a very wise scientist observed; you couldn’t objectively prove he loved his daughter either – yet he did.
Lizzy wrote >from your point of view, faith in a God is an “extraordinary claim”< Yup you hit the nail on the head here. I guess pretty much all rationalist find any kind of supernatural claim 'extraordinary'. Indeed more; most first World theists would find the same thing about most supernatural claims outside of their religion. Somehow they manage to 'ring fence' reason out of this particular aspect of thought; an intriguing phenomena. This is rather illustrated by Roxana’s post where she states in clear.. > I simply question the appropriateness of applying the scientific method to spiritual matters< Please don’t apply reason to this stuff! Spiritual is one of those words a bit like 'executive', very context specific and wooly in meaning so it's not clear to me at least what Roxana means by 'spiritual'. As to claims about any supernatural entity micro managing the cosmos, granting favours and smiting sentient beings ad nauseum according to some whimsical and enigmatic criteria, an entity that listens to personal appeals....an entity for which there is not one jot of even vaguely compelling evidence; yup I admit it, I find it all rather ridiculous. The specific claims of specific religions ie some of some of the major Christian sects claims of supernatural miracles, a virgin birth, resurrection from death, any entity that survives physical death and much more besides. These ARE indeed scientific claims that directly contradict what we know about the way the cosmos functions. More, the evidence in support of these claims is to put it mildly, rather less than compelling. Yet more the user ‘manual’ for these sects ie The Bible is demonstrably full of absurdities, scientific nonsense, is replete with atrocities, contradictions and rediculous, unwholesome indeed barbaric ethics. To grand credulity to this lot is indeed rather silly. That said I have a good understanding of why so many otherwise good folks who are rational in most other aspects of thought are credulous of such claims and this is mainly to do with early conditioning and wishful thinking and the nature of the meme which inoculates itself against critique. This also explains the visceral reactions one gets to folks such as myself who merely point this out in measured terms, amply demonstrated in this thread. >you couldn’t objectively prove he loved his daughter either – yet he did
>you couldn’t objectively prove he loved his daughter either – yet he did
“As to claims about any supernatural entity micro managing the cosmos, granting favours and smiting sentient beings ad nauseum according to some whimsical and enigmatic criteria, an entity that listens to personal appeals….an entity for which there is not one jot of even vaguely compelling evidence; yup I admit it, I find it all rather ridiculous”
That is your right. Experience of God, like the experience of love is entirely subjective and not amenable to scientific proof – as I said before.
BTW Neither Christians nor Jews believe God ‘micro-manages the universe – he’s got natural laws for that – and if you read the Book of Job you’ll see he isn’t into punishing and rewarding either, at least not in any way we can recognize.
On the other hand I gather some Moslems at least *do* believe that every single natural phenomena is individually willed by the Almighty. which kind of explains why their scientific tradition died aborning.
“That said I have a good understanding of why so many otherwise good folks who are rational in most other aspects of thought are credulous of such claims and this is mainly to do with early conditioning and wishful thinking and the nature of the meme which inoculates itself against critique.”
There you go being condescending again.
>There you go being condescending again.< As it happens I'm being quite honest postulating in complete good faith viable natural reasons for religious credulity given the absence of supporting evidence for any deity and in the clear absence of such a view being arrived at by the application of sound reason. It's notable that you didn't do that but rather hurled an accusation of condesention - the old red herring falacy, attack the arguer rather than address the point; fine add to the litany already in the thread. It still leaves my substantive point there so feel free to suggest different explanations for religeous belief other than wishful thinking and early conditioning? Here is a statement.... No known phenomenon or aspect of the Cosmos requires the introduction of any supernatural deity by way of explanation to shed light on anything whatsoever. Indeed as soon as one does this in every single case bar none, it fails the basic gold standard of "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", it begs more questions than it answers and takes us further away from a meaninful explanation rather than closer to it; hence there is no reason to introduce the concept. Wherever any deity is posited, in every case bar none a more parsimonious natural explanation lies immediately to hand. Now rather than hurl accusations of condescension, arrogance, close mindedness or whatever for holding such a view or articulating this position an honest person would either seek not to engage or would seek to argue against this position by citing examples or somehow seeking to show flaws in the reasoning of the statement.