Wholy smokes... wall of text :o

Sorry bout that, I didnt mean to imply uou said that, rather that I had sniped your post, I edited for clarity.

Part 2
 

No worries. I was just confused for a minute, there. :salute:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, on to part two. Sky, if you're still reading, thanks for your patience. Please forgive me if I re-iterate some points by accident.

Sorry for cutting that whole paragraph down. I understand your point; Islam is offensive and pre-emptive in nature. Needless to say, I still think that is because it is a primitive religion that needs to be modernized, and the only way to modernize it is by throwing it into the modern world.

That's an interesting way of putting it. Thought-provoking to be sure, and I think you are right to some degree. If Islam had its way, it probably would conquer the whole world. In fact, I think you'd enjoy Richard Bloom's book, The Lucifer Principle ( http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Princi...2021845&sr=1-1) ; it makes a good case for the same that includes an in-depth study of human nature and societal superorganisms.

However, fundamentalist Islam will not have its way because its anachronistic nature makes it incompatible with the modern world. It simply cannot survive and be militarily or societally successful without integration, and integration, as you mentioned, is anathema to fundamentalist Islam. The logistics just aren't there. Islamic countries that are not oil-rich are poor countries. Even the countries that are oil-rich are generally poor countries. Poor countries can't wage successful offensive wars, and they certainly can't maintain empires.

Even if fundamentalist Islam wasn't self-defeating, there are legions of Christians, non-Christians, and non-religious people who would utterly destroy an Islamo-fascist world state. You are correct in your indictment of religion as breeding fanaticism, but it works both ways, not just for Islam. I must admit, as a Christian and a soldier I half-wish they would try something, just so I could smite them for it; having an understanding (to some degree) of human nature does not make me immune to it.


There you go lumping all Islam into one Islam again. They really aren't all like that, and they can be swayed.

What makes you think that science is incompatible with religion? Most of the greatest scientific minds the world has ever known have been subscribers to one religion or another. Even Einstein believed in a higher power. I'm religious, but I study science and reason. Once again, you lump everyone who is religious into one of a few big groups, all of which are bad.

I'll read "Empires" if you read The Lucifer Principle. I suspect the two books have much in common. TLP consistently makes a strong case for how empires have been toppled by the most unlikely source, barbarians, and it equates fundamentalist Islam with barbarism. It also makes a good case for the relationship between human nature and religion, the relationship between I would like you to see. Nonetheless, I think it is flawed. As Adam Smith observed, capitalist society is an inexorable force, driving civilization forward as surely as evolution. Notables such as Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins have made the same observation.


Then explain it again, because the message didn't stick, or I didn't get a chance to read it.


What's to shove? Why so cynical? What is wrong with forgiveness and acceptance? It's not about haughtiness or bigotry; a dyed-in-the-wool Christian like myself knows that my invisible phantasm spaghetti-monster God would see right through that. You can hate my religion if you want to, I'd just like to know why. I mean really why, not because you think it is incompatible with science; not because religion consolidates power, which you don't seem to mind when done under different, and IMO, less favorable auspices.

You said as much before, and I heard you, but my point still stands. If people are to be allowed to share any messages or thoughts or cares or desires, why not religious ones.....?


......Oh, that's why. Well, in that case you have no reason to speak out against my religion, since it infringes upon noone's freedom. You might as well protest the idea of chocolate milk in the grocery store freezer. In fact, you might as well oppose every scientific, cultural, societal, or artistic development ever made. There is no reason why I should be silenced, and there is no reason why you should listen unless you are interested in discussion.


I can, I will, and I will continue to do so, using the 99.9% of genetic code and the hundreds of millions of years of evolution and ten-thousand years of societal development behind it as the basis of my argument. People, whatever their beliefs, are people, Sky; and like people, they are never beyond redemption.


Notwithstanding religious scientists, including Islamic ones, how can you quantify that?

I disagree. Economics has been a major reason for every modern conflict, and it was brought about by scientific methodology. Science and reason are not seperable when it comes to men killing other men, both are excuses.

Didn't I do that with my observation of billions of nanomachines that exist solely to create order, which just happens to be the fundamental concept of every religion and society on the planet, and a fundamental concept of every human society ever? Does being "created in His image" mean nothing to you at all? I suppose it wouldn't. I've already admitted that I don't know for sure, but neither do you. Even you, however, have to admit that there is some divinity in the essence of life and order, even if it isn't from a God; otherwise, why do you bother doing anything at all? Why reject the message of Jesus? Why not just die and put an end to this ridiculous charade?

If you want to know why, I'll tell you. It's because you can't. You can't destroy yourself any more than a healthy cell or bacterium can destroy itself. It's not in your programming. It's not what you were designed to do, whether by natural evolution or evolution designed by a God. Your genes won't allow you to self-terminate because they built you for the sole purpose of reproducing themselves. Consider that, and the inevitability of such a system being randomly created amongst billions of worlds, and tell me that there is no God and/or that there is no supreme Order. Even if there is no God, there is a divinity within life itself. Better yet, define the goals of a God that would create such a system.

How is it that you appreciate nature as much as you do and yet see no divinity in it? Non-biological nature is entropy, destruction, and disorder. The cosmos itself is no exception. Planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies swirl about in a dance of ultimate destruction, and you see no divinity in life and its capacity to escape that destruction?



Well, now you have my theory, as insubstantive as it is. Even if it is wrong, you still can't argue against Christianity and Jesus' message. You can't argue against the divinity of order, or mankind; the greatest order-creating agent known to, well, mankind.
Then I would say that you have done nothing with what you have been given; or what you naturally obtained through pure happenstance. You might as well be a molecular biologist who does not presuppose the existence of atoms. Or an atomic scientist who does not presuppose the existence of neutrons and protons.
And I suppose that describes the constantly evolving nature of religions and the debates of theologists? Religion may not be science per se, but it is worth exploring as much as philosophy is.



And you see nothing where something may be. Moreover, you see nothing where a productive philosophy may be.

That is not true, the Nazi's ideology was basing on very different foci than the ideology of a democratic/humanistic state order. Also, the Nazis got fought against and overturned not by philosophical but military means. If all ideologies would base on the same human traits, then every man would show the same vulnerability for the same ideologies, and then we probably should talk in singular on ideolgoies, not in plural, because then there would be only one ideology - one size fits all. - I say different than you, that is that ideologies form their own climate in which people get influenced and manipulated and educated that way that they form a general preference for this culture and its ideologies, while refusing others. that is why you have the american way of life and value order in america, natural belief system of simple structure with naturalistic primitives in the jungle, and a conquering desert ideology in the desert with battling Arabs (muhammad's time). If then the ideology persists, it can disconnect itself from the additional influence of living environment and nature, enabling it's carriers to move into different surroundings that lack this basis - where they still stick to their ideology, not changing/losing it.

There I was about what I just said again. You made a generalisation about all humans showing the same vulnerability for the same ideologies (I formulate it different than you said it, but that is the implication) and I here and there say why I do not buy this generalisation. Neither are all humans the same, nor are all ideology basing on the same human traits. And where they are not, I think it is better thinking to see that groups effect the indvidual in it'S attitude and opinion forming, the anonymous authority of the masses, so to speak. For Bonhoeffer this results in the phenomenon of stupidity. In the context of this discussion it results in the general acceptance of the same ideology by the many, no matter whether it is a good or bad one. Social interaction patterns amongstprimates, have little to do with this. It does not matter whether you have a tribe of chimps hunting other animals, some do, others dont, or if you refer to observations showing chimps behaving in a helpful, altruistic way because by altruism they receive a generally higher social benefit payback. That simply are things that do not touch this debate here.(Not to mention that there are also some chimps that show more and others that show less and finally chimps that show no altruistic behavior. but this just as a side remark.)

Loosing track now of whom you mean by "they" - the Romans and Macedonians, the Europeans of the Romans' times, the Europeans of Napoleons time, Islam at Napoleon's time?

No, that is result of a fatalism that is founded in islamic teaching. Quoting an old essay of mine from some years ago: "An interesting position Islam is holding on the question of material wealth. Earthly goods are not considered to be of evil, but their possession only can lead to any spiritual worth if it is understood as that man has to use them to do good deeds in the name of the Umma, and help it’s weaker members. Not possession of material wealth is sinful, but the sticking to it. The different distribution of wealth amongst rich and poor people is understood to be a „testing“ grade for man, so that the poor are challenged not to allow themselves to fall victim to greed and envy, and the rich shall not allow to get possessed by their possessions. The existence of material goods that way could lead to a behavior that is pleasing to God and will help for a more positive judgement of the individual life at the end of it’s days. " - Add this to the fatalism that results when all and everything happening is attributed to the will of Allah, and you have the reason why Muslim societies are so accepting and tolerant on brutal opressors ruling them: it is God's will, and as long as the tyrant at the top claims and acts as if he is doing his way for the sake of islamic interests, from a theological point of view his behavior is pretty much acceptable. Note that the islmic world has no tradition to run ffree,liberal, democratic societies, but has a tradition to be run by dictators (some being more, some being less brutal). Note that the socalled radicals and fundamentalists do not attack the Saudis, for example, for their wealth, but because they do not engage with their wealth enough in the propagating and spreading of Islam, and jihad, and allow social issues not being taken care of (! the Saudis, mind you: Wahabatism and all that). Terror organisations like Hamas understand this, and thus serve as terror brigades on the one hand, but anchor themselves in society by maintaining huge social aid networks as well (of course also to deceive the West and to gain ideological influence).

In 2005, i think I also wrote ": It needs not to be mentioned that the excessive waste of material wealth in the West, it’s almost pathologic level of materialism by which it is already destroying itself, as well as the financial corruption of most if not all Arab governments, namely Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, is a major target for critizism by fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden because of Islam‘s concept of spiritual value of material wealth. Basically saying, one should not stick to material goods, for they are not lasting, and use their possession to acchieve something good, it is one of the few things in traditional Islam I feel sympathy for. That Muslim governments, especially the oil-rich nations, also show a very bad record in helping each other genorously whenever a Muslim place is hit by a natural desaster, and leave the financial aid mostly to the West while keeping their petrodollars for themselves (and jihad) mostly, is another major point of ideological attack for fundamentalists. The West should realize that these fundamentalists are absolutely in congruency with Islam in major parts of their critizism of contemporary Islam and muslim nations and governments. That way fundamentalists are giving the West a much more relastic picture of what Islam is, than the corrupted Muslim nations of today themselves. We are in real need to learn that not all what Osama is saying about Islam is nonsens. Much, but not all, of it is representative, and this is another reason for his popularity with the crowds and why they admire him for his „truthfulness“ . Since this partly true, but fundamentalistic understanding of Islam is creating the image of Islam beeing hostile to Western values, it is usually rejected, or supressed in the medias. Only the tolerant, peaceful face of Islam is the acceptable face of Islam the West wants to see. If we ignore the monsters under our beds, they surely are not there. But truth is – the space just gets increasingly crowded."

And modern capitalistic ones as well.

Where do we agree here? I also remind you that Islam is not only so strong due to itself, but also is strong - because we are so weak now; old, aging, dying societies that have deeply corrupted their once democratic order, founded on noble hopes and utopias, exchanging that for a tyranny of bureaucrats and money-obsessed oligarchs and plutocratic elites trying their best to erode society from within to prevent the electorate from waking up and trying to gain even more profit-tailroed control for themselves. We do not have enough babies by our own, and we are lacking the dynamic of a young age structure in society. both are extremely relevant factors. I point, amongst others, at the work of Gunnar Heihnsohn, I have referred to him before, he is doing research on not much else than the influence of demographic factors on cultures and societies. His findings are empirically solid, and they are alarming.

Or: what happened with China - giving them our superior machines and technology, seeing them copying it, then producing it themselves, and then turning our market philosophies against us - all that happens with our values and ideals that our justice systems base upon, and Muslim subcultures as well. they get massive support from their home countries, in motivation and cultural indoctrination. they use the freedoms you grant them, and abuse them to work for destroying them. Some do it by active deed, others create the opportunity for it to happen by doing nothing. Only a very small minority stands up against the others doing so. And these minorities then get bashed - by the western islamophiles!

By historic example, I summarise it all by just this: Islamic societies have a much longer breath in running an oppressive tyranny, than hectic, shortminded western nations have to convert the (resisting!) world to the benefit of capitalistic corruption. Already in the medieval, islam was superior in patience and long breath, and fighting spirit and martyrdom, compared to the technically superior Christians knights. I add this to the consequences of the theologic influence of islam. and then I conclude that it is a bad idea trying to outsit Islam - in that kind of game, Islam is a master, and the West is an amateur.

That cleansweeping claim you would have to prove. I read more of your own unreflected ideologic preassumptions in this, than solid knowledge of social realities. Probably different to you, I know social workers in real life, due to my past, even if i'm am loosing contact to them. You probably neither had a realistic impression of workload and numerical pressure social workers often work under, nor do you realistically assess the motivation of such people, even more so when they work as streetworkers. I also smell the implied accusation of "they are all socialist nannies" in the air.

Let me tell you one thing: streetworkers tend to be among the most brutal realists I have ever learned to know. Because they are going right into the middle of the mess, and that is a job that many would not bear, or would not like to do at all. As an arrogant lecturer I once had put it in an especially nasty moment of his: "Before I work in the streets, i would prefer to clean the toilets, that is less depressing." Great statement by the man. We loved him very much... Some of such workers are chaotics, yes. Some are disconnected future academics that float over the dirt like Jesus lavitated over water, but many have a psychological stamina and a sense of reality you do not find in many people. and that is not by chance, becasue otherwise they would not be able to be efficient in what they try to do.

I just waited that you would come with your most favourite theme of free market again. I stayed a longer time in iran, amongst other nations. There I sometimes had the opportunity, when by boss was busy with interviews, to talk with aids of the person of interest, which often was a politician or a cleric. Of course I also learned private people as well, especially on a later trip when I was private. Sometimes I was asked what my faith was. In the beginning I was honest and replied with hinting to a mix of atheist and buddhist concepts. that gave me mixed reactions. Non-theistic relgions are suspisicous, and atheism even more. the imam of one mosque in Southern Teheran was very friendly and did not the smallest attempt to missionise me, although I was not only no muslim, but even no follower of the book (Jews, Christians). So, such things are possible. But they are just one of many impressions.

On other occasions I immediately was dealt with as if I had turned into the devil himself. This especially often happened in central and east-Turkish areas with rural populations. Compared to Turkey I prefer Iran any time.

I would not generalise the one or the other experience, not yours, not mine. After all, I just met SOME people, and you did meet just SOME people. The general influence of an ideology that runs a whole culture - that is still something very different, and in history you often have the pattern in Muslim countries that moderate tendencies seem to have been tolerated, and then all of a sudden they suddenly turned "radical" (true Islamic, that is). that has a simple reason, that I mentioned yesterday. Islam stands still when it cannot overcome opposing resistence, but it does not just sit and does nothing, but it collects additional power/forces. that were armies in the past, or higher birth rates that resulted in said new armies sooner or later, in this case here that was growing influence by the radicals/true muslims. When the critical mass has been reached, all that and humanism and coexistence suddenly becomes meaningless again. And strange enoiuzgh, you can also see the masses often cheering at that. Islamic crowds are used to be run by strong tyrants at the top. Like russians - many embrace the reviving of the stalin cult. Stalin is POPULAR again. Who cares for some dozen million people that died due to him? Nobody does. They run musicals, TV series gloryfying him, now, in the present. Putin uses him to install his own power, too. Saddam adressed old heroic myths, and do not be mistaken - he was quite popular with not only members of the Baath party (that he was feared, too, is true, but not in every case is that a contradiction).

No, it is an idelogy that was tailored by just one man to serve his own political interest of self-justification for his own power-craving. This was casted into the Quran, and later distorted a bit by local and super-regional leaders to gain legitimation through the Quran for their own power interests. But even before the outbreak of the Isamic civil war and the shism, the quran already had been led back into just one form and format - and that is the one that is valid until today.

You see it too much through american glasses, trying to talk the problem into a format so that the tools in your american toolbox can "manage" it. But your tools are not sharp enough, because while lacking a hammer you try to bring that nail into the wall by using a saw, saying it is no nail but a piece of wood, cutting it would do the job. but the nail still would not be in that wall afterwards. Two pieces of wood do not change that. So - you better start looking where to get that damn hammer.

the Eurocrats position that is: forming an "Euro-Islam. there have been threads before where i explained why I do not believe in that idea, but that the inner resistance of Islam to be changed and modernised and tamed is stronger than any western influence on it. It has to do with the way Quran and the tradition of Sharia are interwoven and linked to every aspect of human life: the individual's life, the family'S life, the communal life, the nation'S life. You cannot just delete passages in the Quran and abandon Sharia in parts and then think what is left would be a modern islam, Islam is not as modular as would be needed for doing so, it is pretty much monolithic indeed. Either you manage to scratch it and see the whole thing turning into sand, or you cannot - and then will not break a single bit out of it. that'S why I have said in said past threads that islam in europe must not be modernised (I have support for my position especially by apostates and Muslim critics of Islam, btw), but must be replaced. But for that a mental evolution is needed first, there are no shortcuts to such things, if the readiness to embrace such a radical chnage is not there, then you can offer whatever you want on the silverplate, it will be in vein at best, or gets abused at worst. the question is if a deeply corrupted, decadent society like what our democracies have degenerated into, has something to offer that could serve as such a powerful incentive when at the same time we time and again see that our democracies do not function anymore and our cultural value system partly is breaking down, party gets deconstructed by intention), and question also is if we have the needed ammount of time to try this strategy - my reply is a clear, sounding NO to that, we do not have that time. In order to convince the other by your own example, your position must be strong, your incentive must be convincing. But we are not that. what we are being seen as, is this: we are the prey, that finally has become so tired that it falls like a ripe fruit into the lap of islam, withoiut war, wiothiut need for conquest, after a thiusand years of cnstant confrontation. We have tried to convince by our example and liberties for almost 50 years now, since the early 60s, results: none. Effect on the integration level of islamic subcultures int he West: none, even more, the hope for effect is not only dissapointed, it even seems to work at the opposite direction: we see muslim communities in Germany, England and holland and Sweden becoming more radical and more orthodox and even more religious, basing on the real Islam, not this hallucination of a desired euro-islam that censors part of its identity. Since half a century, strong Muslim populations are present in the West, thousands of mosques have been build, billions of dollars have been invested by us and by them, most of these people enjoy greater freedoms in our countries than they ever learned to know in the muslim global sphere. The effect we acchieved by doing so, is thin, to put it very, very optimistic. We have invested enough time and resources to test the hypothesis. It's time to abandon the hpyothesis. It does not work, it never has worked, and there is nothing that indicates that it ever could work.

First, islam IS fundamentalist in general. fundamentalism is not just one school lineage in it, it is the basis and fundament of Quran AND sHARIA. Second, as I see it, islam, this fundamentalist, orthodox islam is spreading, rapidly. You say it must fail because it is not compatible with the modern world. The observation is correct, but the conclusion is premature at best: because islam can also make the modern time failing (and indeed that is what is happening wherever it gains in influence). That is part of it's intention. Modern times are not what Allah wants. Allah wants sharia, and Sharia hates modern times. I do not have the link anymore, but one and a half year ago, roughly estimated, there was paper published that examined the going of democracies and tyrant or opressive regimes in the world. It showed quite convincingly, that on all continents, the principles of democracy are in decline, either by democracy getting pushed back by force, or by being eroded from within, while tyrannic regimes and dictatorships are blossoming and spreading worldwide in number and influence. I also remind of the fact that Rome fell to inferior barbars, who just had two advantages over the romans and their superior civilisation: they were more brutal and ruthless than the ro,mans of that time, and they were determined to use that ruthlessness of theirs for best effect. An inferior civilisational grade can very well topple a society of a higher civilisational grade, in fact that has happened quite often. the more complex something is, the more depending it is, the more vulnerable it is. Deconstruction of hierarchic structure happens at the reversed sequences of building them. That is true in physics. That is true in biology. That is true in human value system and forms of structuring communal living-together.

Yes, they are not all like that, like not all Christians are real christians. But where they follow islamic teaching for sure, they are pretty much uniform in the way they are - that is the intention of islamci education, that was the intention by muhammad, and that is what you see reflected in Quran and Hadith and that is why sharia is so unforgiving on straying off from the only, the one, the single, the true path. that is what you see in the global behavior and effect of the Ummah - the ummah is not divided into sects and schools and different lineages - it is one anonmous mass of uniform people who all support the cause of islam. When will you finally stop to make this very big mistake to judge somethign that is not western by western ideas and value systems? you have to take the ideology for what it is. when you read the quran with its suras rearranged so that they reflect the original historic sequence of their creation, and when you keep in mind the abrogation principle that legitimately decides that contradicting passages are decided by using the younger statement of the two in conflict, a principle on which the Islamic world has consensus since the 9th century, then you see that "being islamic" leaves you much, much lesser degrees of freedom for interpretation and variation than all you wellmeaning, kind-hearted, reasonable western "useful idiots" (Lenin's term that I borrow) constantly try to see in it, read into it, interpret into it. yes, there are socalled muslims not sticking to it word for word. they are not Muslims. they are in principle apostates who do not know how far their apostacy already has led them. In a really muslim society, they would risk their lives. but many of them nevertheless do nothing and stay passive, and by that allow the opportunity for true Islam speaking in their name (the overwhelming majority of Muslim organisations interacting with our politicians in our countries are "radical" by nature, if you examine them closely and look behind their facade). The apostates that deny their apostacy may not be true muslims, but they are still Mitläufer. and for that I nevertheless hold them responsible, and I confront them over this.

Isklamic communities will never change if they are constantly saved from any confrontaiton and from any need to chanage. If they must not change, and see that we instead adapt to them, why should they want to chnage then...??? It is easier for them not to chnage - and still they get what they want, so...

Not before 1992 the Catholic church was willing to reestablish Galilei.

Religion and science do not compare, it is an offence to claim that. I have indicated that science is basing on a procedure that must be followed in order to make it a scientific one. the basis of this way of thinking reasonably leads back into our western history, 2500 years. In principle it is the old thing of trial and error, run in a specially formalised manner that must be strictly obeyed. It decides what is accepted in science as a theory, and what not. and since the ancient Greek, to be able to explain observations one has made without refering to any supernatural cause has been an inevitable characteristic of this tradition. You observe something, you build a hypothesis. the hpyothesis still is not verified and falsified, it is just a hypthesis. You make a prediction on basis of this hypothesis, and you examine whether your prediction is true, or not. If it is true, you make more predictions, and if they are true, you start to turn your hypohtesis into a model, a theory. If you cannot verifiy your hypothesis in experiment and observation, you need to change or abandon your hypothesis. Your results must be reproducable, in principle by everybody. - This are the criterions for what differs science from non-science or pseudo-science. Miss just one criterion, and you are already disqualified.

This and not more and not less is the essence of scientific methodology. I have learned it almost 20 years ago at university. I have read about it in books, and just days ago I once again read on it - in one of the best summaries of scientifc methodology i have have read - in the astronomy coursebook I have embarked on.

This methodology has implications. First, science never does and never claims to give final, absolute, ultimate, eternal answers. It does not and it cannot and it wishes not to do so. all what science does is trying to explain our observations of the perceived world in the way and manner that makes the most sense for us in the light of the knowledge currently available to us, causes the smallest friction between different theories, is of the most use for us in asking new questions and forming new hypothesis. Science constantly questions itself, and constantly tests its models and theories. It is empirical, and lives by strong self-doubt. Sometimes a theory gets so much confirmation, that it raises to the level of a paradigm, which has greater influence on future theory-building, and tends to have a longer life-span than just a theory. A paradigm could be thought of as a meta-theory, maybe.

The principle of simplicity in explanation, and criterion of testable, repeatable observation and experiments, and objectivity, are three inevitable ingredients of the scientific process.

Mere believing, mere claiming something, mere assuming, mere imagining something, has nothing to do with it. nor has believing, hear-say, wishful thinking, tradition. Imagination can be helpful in forming new hypothesis, but the hypothesis must be tested and proven nevertheless.

Religions are not like this. Religions do not question their dogmas (that would make you a heretic), they do not provide evidence or coinfirmation, and the deny the need for these. Nevertheless they claim that what they say is the ultimate, the final, the absolute truth. ironically religious zealots, also in this forum, occasionally accuse science of doing right this: claiming that it's theories are the ultimate, the final, the last word, and how arrogant science is when doing so. That is what psychologists call "projection" - accusing others to be guilty of what one does oneself. That also is a spectacular lack of understanding of the scientific process and methodology.

Einstein mocked about people believeing in god, i remind you. that famous last leter by him leaves no doubt on that.

In a former thread, I think talking to Frau Kaleun, I explained why science and spirituality is no contradiction to me, but that i see religion and spirituality as totally incompatabile antagonists. religion and science are also incompatible. either you see that in my explanations now, or you dont. If you want I can set up four pages where Astronomy and Astrology are compared, explaining why Astrology is no science at all although in the past it was seen as that. You could replace Astrology with religion, and the chapter still would be valid. the nature of science gets explained there, too, what i summarised here is given in just a bit more detail there, but in principal any book on scientific methodology and it's basis in Greek philosophy will do. Religion does not provide any supporting hints or evidence for its claims, and it does not obey the rule of scientific methodology, it just makes claims, and leaves it to that - that is what makes both incompatible, and that also is why religion itself must not be taken serious. All it does is this: it makes claims that are just that: claims. You ask why science and religion must be seen as different things. You could as well question that science and a glass of beer are not compatible.

when Ratzinger became Pope, I was dumb enough to buy his book on the life of Jesus, until then I thought of Ratzinger as a pointy thinker and well-educated intellectual. But on one of the very first pages he wrote black on white that for him the bible and the stories of wonders and about Jesus are to be taken literal. that spoiled it all from the beginning on. Reason and intellect and ratio, that from the begining on base on superstition and unproven hear-say, just corrupt their own instruments and necessarily can create only results that - base right on superstition and unproven hear-say. the basis from which these tools of mind started, was porked from the beginning on. because religion's claims only would be an option if scientific procedure would create evidence for it'S claims being true. but that so far has not been the case. All what science has created, when wishing to go for a mystic perspective, is the insight that the more answers we find, the more of the universe we understand - the more questions raise and the more we realise how small the part of the universe we live in really is. That can be a motivation for a spiritual reflection, in my understanding of spirituality: reflecting about one's own life and death, the nature of life and the universe, and why it all even is. since we are mortal, we ask such questions. Death makes us afraid. Asking these questions, is spiritual, and thus we are spiritual beings by definition (we cannot evade these questin from the day on we first realise that one day we will die). But religion is different. religion does not ask questions. It claims to give the final, the penultimate answers: unchecked, unquestioned, unproven, not even providing hints for its claims. It just: claims.

That's why i sometime describe myself as a "spiritual atheist". to me you cannot be spiritual and religious at the same time. For being the one, you necessarily must give up the other. If you accept the religious dogma, you stop asking questions. If you ask questions, you violate the dogma and become a heretic.

I do not hate your religion. Not yours or any other. Not even islam. I just hate followers of religions who think they may claim the right to constantly make others paying attention to their confessions and beliefs and that they can expect others to leave the place if they start to spill their sermon. Inside the four walls of your house you can do whatever you want. believe this, or believe that, drink tea or coffee - as long as I must not take note of you doing this or that or I do not get adressed by religious missionising. It is like with that radio volume. The analogy i love very much. It hits the nail on top, that's why I use it so often. keep the volumet such as that you do not bother your neighbours and they must not listen your program, and they will leave you peacefully alone and you can wallow in whatever your beliefs, your musical preferences are. Pump up the volume and start limiting the freedom of the others by claiming more than is yours, and be not surprised if angry people start to slam at your door.

That simple it is. With Christians. With Muslims. With atheists. Freedom is the word to watch out for - not missionising. Doesn't happen often anymore these days, but missionaries showing up on my doorstep I either have talked into a mocking experience, or I gave them the boot (to make sure they do not distgrub me again). I hate missionaries, as much as I hate moralists.

So pray for me as much as you want, or let it be, for me it makes no difference and makes no effect, and i could not bother less. Just spare me to bother me with your choice, whatever it is. You should have understood now at the latest that I take it very queer if I need to withness yolur relgious practices. Like oyu would take it queer if you need to witness me taking a showe, suing the toilet or cleaning my teeth - these are activities that better are undertaken alone, in private. I warned in threads before of my reaction to people who take it upon them to pray for my poor lost soul. To me it is pure arrogance and bigotery and haughtiness. Even when it comes from you.

Radio volume. If somebody asks you or visits you, okay, talk whatever you want. But just when you think you must carry it all into the public sphere without being asked, and bother others who have the same right to be there - but unobstructed by your radio noise - then it is your duty (because you are causing the noise) to reduce volume so much that others do not get limited in their freedom to enjoy the public space. your rights and freedoms are not greater than theirs, you have no right to make theirs smaller just to make yours bigger than theirs. Conflicts like you have with me right now are the result of bubbles whose outer spheres started to crank against each other. And in this case here i say it is not because I am here, but because you sat down on the bank I already sit on, and put your feet on my lap. If you just would have sit and keep your legs to yourself, it would have been fine with me - the whole bank is not mine alone.

See above. With a grocery store offering choco drinks I have little problems. If they invite me to buy one and ignore me when saying No, then i have. And when it starts getting thrown after me, then i start giving them a problem.

I compare the developement of science, medicine, technology and culture in this and in that society. In other words: I start counting. BTW, many of those religious scientists you refer to, stated partially or completely wrong models and theories, because what the found violated their beliefs so much that they could not accept their findings, or were unable to intellectually understand them in full, since they were basing on religiously troubled preassumptions. If a scientist would be able to keep strictly separate his beliefs, and the scientific procedure, it would not be a problem. But that hardly is the way the human mind works in. And that causes conflicts that we must not want and must not tolerate in science. Said preassumptions are a problem, able to hinder full comprehension of a new discovery or theory ,leading into long time of dead ends.

No, what you mention here is scientific results getting instrumentalised by other interests. But the scientific theory has not been tried to be spread by war. Nobody has launched an aggression because he wanted to bring the natives the the Cartesian paradigm. no war was lauched in order to spread quantum physics. I do not know a military mission that tried to fight for the establishing of Newton physics, and hardly has there been a conquest started to make the enemy converting to the superstring hypothesis. Wars were launched for economic and politic and religious motives. In all three cases, the effort made use of the results of scientific research, often via engineering. But that is not the same like waging a war in the name of scientific theory. Due to religious dogmas: yes: For economic claims: yes. Over personal political ambitions: yes. Becasue of interhuman relation between one man and one woman, love: yes. But in order to bring others a scientific paradigm? No, not that I know of.

"Machines"...? Aristoteles and Descartes are dead.

No, but the phrase opens a nasty question, if we are created in His image - why are we being held responsible then for our design's behavioural results? When we only reflect his erratic nature when we fail, why do we get the spanking, but not him? And if we fail and deserve penalty - what does this tell us bout His infallibility when he created us in His image, then? :D He must be the same kind of poor sucker than we are, then. So why kneeling in front of this imperfect little fella? ;)

science readily admits that the more it learns, the more questions arise. Yes, we do not know much, but we know more than before - at the price of realising that now there is even more that we do not know, too. But that we do not know many things cannot be an excuse to fantasize about just anything and then label that as hypothesis that just has not been proven and thus compares to scientific hypothesis as well. The two important details here are to note that a scientific hypothesis ALWAYS necessarily is not proven (else it would not be a hypothesis, but a theory, or it would have been given up when it could not be confirmed), and second: that even a hypothesis is basing on an initial objective observation of a phenomenon. if there is no phneomenen observed, there is not only no hypotheis, but also nothin that could be examined. ;) That's why you argue yourself deep into a dead end when saying that although god is not being proven, it is also not proven that he does not exist. As far as I am concerned, you could as well claim the existence of flying invisible pink elephants, and that their non-existence is not being proven either. You cannot even say why they should be pink, because since they are invisible you never have seen them. So please, save me. - A mere claim or an imagination is not a hypothesis. Also, a claimed witnesses observation report is no evidence, not at court, not in science. Never. that's why religion already fails at the very first hurdle of the scientific process.

Why should I?

I see a tendedency in the universe we perceive, that forms arise from a void and have the potential to unfold an inherent structure that is constantly changing and is of limited time span, and that in a meaning of chaos theory is inside of them, but still not pre-determined. Such forms that arise from the void we call matter. I "believe" in the concept of matter's self-organisation, and that the phenomenons are of a hierarchical basic structure of increasing complexity when they form up, while doing the whole procedure in reverse order when they fall apart again. I "believe" that everything that is from beginning on holds the seed of its antithesis and own destruction inside its heart, and that thus it is fruitless to try to make just one set of wanted qualities everlasting: things, history moves in cycles, and what goes up, must come down when the wheel of time is turning - what we can do, though, is trying to make it move slowly, but it may come at a oprice that other, good things get delayed that way. I "believe" that in this understanding nothing comes for free and everything has its price. I "believe" that mathematics and science can explain - and are the only tool that could explain - any observed phenomenon sooner or later, even if it may take long time to do so, even if it may take the rise and fall of whole civilisations on planet Earth to form a society that finally has accumaulated the knowledge to explain it ( at the price of creating new questions by that). I "believe" that the price for gaining knowledge is accepting new uncertainty. I do "believe" there are no absolute, total, ultimate, final answers, I do "believe" the often sought-for "world formula" is a "blue flower" only, an utopic ideal that serves as a drive, but could never be found. I do "believe" that what is, is not by random chance, but that chaos theory means that degrees of complexity decide over the realisation of inherent potentials that are so hige (said degrees of complexity) that they necessarily must appear to our limited knowledge as being random chance. I know that the Big Bang is no ultimate answer, but just a theory in the very best meaning of this term. I know that the real question is not why we and the universe do exist, but that the question is: why is not simply nothing? I know that we do not know the answers, like we also do not know if and what there is beyond the border of the observable universe, whether there is an "antiverse", a void that is so much not even a void that a real "nothing" it is for sure, or if there are multiverses. Here is where science has to accept its limits. It probably will never be able to answer these last questions.

The point is - religions do not offer answers as well. even worse, where science admits to not know, religion claims to know nevertheless, and fills the space of our lacking knowledge with mere fantasies, labelling them a divine truth, and then demands that we should not ask anymore because if we trust in all this "truth", then we would be saved, no matter how, no matter why, no matter from what.

I think that man does not bear to live in a state of existential uncertainty for too long. scientists some months ago claimed to have found hints that the drive to religiuous belief maybe has a solid material correlate in certain brain areas, that may serve as a protective mechanism against existential despair (that indeed could make people ill, could even kill them). This does neither mean that a deity has made this brain structure so, nor does it mean that it makes us believe in a true thing - the object of a given religion. It only means that people desperately crave for finding a meaning in their life, and I know that it can effect a person's survivablity massively if he/she doe snot have such a meaning. Said brain structure may just make us believe in a folly - but maybe for us, with our limited understanding of the universe, it nevertheless is a necessary folly, even a vital one. If we are to step beyond this evolut9nary fetaure, than we must not take it as a given, but must try understand it and understand the implication it means for our relgions. The meaning of our existence, for some it is a casper in the sky. for others it is materialism and the comfort of material wealth. some find fulfillment in helping others. Others sit down and develope more and more complicated fantasies and hallucinations or esoteric nature. Very popüular in the West and it's youth cult: some try to escape the quesitons by pressuming to be forver young. But death is no salesman, he does not negotiate - he takes whom he wants, and basta. For us humans, just about everything seems to be better than facing this big, wide, empty, unforgiving cold, cruel, grim void that is the lack of an answer to this one question: Why am I here? Why is all this existing?

Book tip on these matters: Ken Wilber: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Not too easy, but rewarding.


to me, my self-studying of astronomy is a deeply satisfying affair. It is an old interest of mine, which never before I have embarked on as systematically as I have started to do now. Why this is so? Simply this. For me, and for almost all eras in human history, astronomy is a deeply spiritual affair, like is theoretic physics as well. Maybe it would be correct to think that all attempt to understand nature, is a spiritual effort. Astreonomy, it makes me ask questions that usually we are to fearful to ask. It confronts me with the big big abyss out there, with the total unimportance of myself. It makes my mind stop thinking but starting to dance when realising that the deeper I look into space, the more I look back in time, until the beginning that current paradigm thinks of as a Big Bang. I realise all that space out there, and I recall my own meditation experiences which were just empty space as well, and I remember that particle physics and subnuclear dimennsions also are about this: just empty space, forms in the void, no lasting substance. And then I wonder what makes the space out there and the space inside that and the space within me different from each other? What is the link between these obvious similiarities? Are these really three different types of a space - or rather just one space? what would it all mean if I, this tiny little human of total and absolute unimportance, would not look out there and look into space and time, and into myself, and into the atom?

Me - I am the link between all these things, I am what gives meaning and relevance to it all. Still microscopically small, still totally unimportant - but still having the grace and greatness to realise all this.

Meaningless? Unimportant? Really...?

Maybe through our eyes the universe looks out at itself, stunned and amazed, smiling and full of joy for all that unlimited potential that it is. Maybe that is the drive of what we call evolution: that the universe increasingly becomes aware of itself. Mind and matter are not different in principle, nor are space and time. Mind is dreaming, mind is dancing with itself. Gary Zukav wrote a very good book on physics back then, called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". Wu Lik, he said, isn the Chinese word for what we call physics. It means something like "structures of organic energy". I like to think of it like this.

Maybe this helps you to understand why i feel no need and no appetite for religions. I have no use for them, I do not need them, they have nothing of value that they could offer me, they cannot calm my fear in the monents when I may be haunted by this existential terror i spoke about. This terror only goes away when I manage to remind myself that the spac eout there and the spoace inside all is just one and the same space. I may scare back at times from all this void out there - the universe still is a hostile, unforgiving place for human forms to live in. there is nothing romantic in the abyss between the stars and galaxies - it simply frightening, nothing else. The lack of interst it has in my fate, is intimidating at times. Nevertheless it is the one thing I came from, and go back into, and all what I see and all that I can learn, is what I once have been, and once will be. "We all are star stuff", said Carl Sagan. Fearing this would mean to be afraid of one's own home. Wouldn't that be stupid?

Theory? I think I have laid out that it is not even that. theism is wild speculation at best, a guessing game, on the grounds of nothing.

Oh, of course i can, and I have. Christianity i have ripped apart, and on Jesus i indicated that I think he was a reasonably man teaching ethic principles that remijnd of Buddhism and that could indeed help people to live without unneeded conflicts and start thinking about themselves, and why they are here. But I will not take the bible and stories of miracles and wonder literally, nor do I accept to ignore that Jesus spoke in the language and cultural symbols of his time and place, the cultural context. we all do. That's why the transmission code and the informational content of old books must be understood to be two different things. to me Jesus was like Siddharta maybe, or Platon. Reasonable teachers, reasonably ethical people, in brief: philosophers.

I see that for theistic believers, believing into the existence of theistic creators is kind of an obsession. :) However, it would be appreciated if you stop raising assumptions and speculations on what I can and what I cannot, and what I must and what not. One day i must die - that is all that I must. the rest of these lingual phrases - are serving the purpose of self-reassuring, it seems to me.

Theological debates are worth nothing. It is like two patients in a mental asylum comparing their latest hallucinations with each other. they may imagine rules and orders for sorting them and comparing them - it remains to be about hallucinations. the only thing that is worth being examined is to try to understand how religions have influenced history, and why. that understanding is to be desired, so that we hopefully one day will learn to avoid making the same mistake again and again and again and again.

Only in so far as a rational approach is used to rip of its mask and reveal its misleading lies and how it enslaves the free thinking of people. Or to reveal in how far the big misgoings of the past were dramatically caused and basing on religion's dogmas. I also must remind you that our understanding of philosphy in the West again is massively influenced and basing on the ancient Greek heritage. thats why it is said that we owe them so much, until today. and when you look at the Greek philosophers, you realise sooner or later that they seem to have based on similiar rules for philosophising than they did for thinking about science. the reason for that is simple. most of their scientists and philosophers were - both in one. there was no strict separation between science and philosphy, and both was conducted pretty much for the purpose of enjoying the anylsis and discussion, to enjoy the thought for the sake of thinking itself. and in the end, philosophy again tries to find a truth understood as something that is not already predetermined and fixed in outcome. religion only is interested in arguing why it must be like it says, and why straying off from that dogma is sinful.

Flying invisible pink elephants, for example.

Nazi ideology still exists.

Really?
So its an ideology tailored by one man for his interests that was changed by other men to serve their own interests.
So that means Sky contradicts his own claims within the same passage:doh:

Wow , what a crock of.............

I don't know bud. I was in lower Manhattan March 28th. I just buried my father in Flushing Cemetery Flushing NY. It was clean and a cop on every corner. There was no horn honking every two seconds. My kids even commented on the cleanliness. Sure, build the mosque but do it somewhere else. Try Harlem! That neighborhood could use a boost.

Your funny...."a swarthy vaguely middle eastern guy"...not stereotyping are ya? :doh:

And that is my point Skybird. If we or anyone is to tolerate this mosque in this very spot then the Muslims should very well tolerate a strip joint across the street. If they wish to enjoy the protection of the Constitution in this matter the folks across the street who want to swing a butt or two would also like that advantage.

what they should and what they would, are two very different things since 50 years now.

We have had many guest workers in ngermany, from many nations, and those who stayed, almost all of them integrated well and played by the rules.

Just not the Muslim groups.

Also note that the mosque at GZ has been planned as a wanted and intentional provocation from beginning on. I think I have linked that often enough now, and wasn't it you also setting up that NJP article, mentioning the same names and their radical background?

In these 50 years of - intended - reciprocal gamble, we have given them and given them and given them, all in good faith, and advanced trust. We got nothing back on equal terms. not in our countries, and not in theirs.

No it was not me. I do not care about the radical backgrounds, etc. The mosque in itself at this very location is enough to make me realize this is planned in one form or another. I truly do not feel this is coincidence. I did however mention that a mosque can be built in NY but just find a different less controversial spot. It is really simple. If this building is already drawing fire even before the first brick is layed imagine how it will be when the work does commence.

Have they objected to the strip joint round the corner?
After all if strippers, pubs and meat markets(not the strip club kind) are next door, across the street, round the corner and behind the existing mosque and they havn't objected then what is the basis for you saying they won't tolerate it?

Are you saying the Harlem mosque isn't big enough and needs to be bigger or that Harlem just needs another mosque.
But anyway Harlem is already in the process of gentrification so does it need an additional boost from downtown property developers?

Read Skybirds posts on mosques and strip joints. As far as Harlem...you bet it could use a boost. I'm sure from where your sitting you can see how Harlem is looking today. :hmmm:

It is a simple truth that this mosque at this particular location is creating hostilities. That in itself should be enough for anyone to realize something is very wrong with this picture. It seems to be very orchestrated. If the Muslims want to worship in peace...they will not find it at this particular site. Already there are issues and the first bachhoe has not even arrived on site. Just as hate crimes at Jewish Synagouges still happen today crimes of hate will be demonstrated at this mosque for a long time to come.

I think the 1st Amendment protects the Mosque from government sanction based on the fact it is a mosque. Don't like it, repeal the 1st.

That said, there were plenty of way they could have avoided this without running afoul the 1st, and they chose not to. Zoning. Historical buildings, etc.

Bloomberg said that as long as the Mosque is not radical, he sees no problem. That's wrong-headed. Aside form the fact that the guy building it is already associated with radical muslims, this could always change—then what?

It's tough, it really is, because we are at war with a group of people who are themselves fighting a religious war against us, and our own laws disallow singling them out based on their misogynistic, regressive, violent religion—not to mention the radical versions of said religion (I was talking about Islam at large ;) ).

This they know and are using this site as pawn. I think this is fairly easy to see.

Since Sky is bit of a conspiracy nut his claims don't merit much worth in terms of validity. Ever since his rant about blacks and muslims ruining the world cup his posts have near to zero validity.

So read my post, has the strip joint down there been closed or objected to by the current mosque?

Good point, its several weeks since I was in NY:har::har::har::har:

In that location?
Isn't it funny that Manhatten is the place where the majority of people surveyed have no objection to the mosque.:hmmm:
So the objections and hostility comes from sensationalist crap like in this topic and the other one about it being built at ground zero and being built
on the graves which is utter bull.
Have there been any attacks on the congrgation or building in the year it hads been there?
Should planning permission be denied because in the future perhaps some bigot will go crazy?

When they extended the existing mosque by taking down the walls between it and the neighbouring building when they got that lease too were there issues?

So are you suggesting that synagouges should be banned?
After all if you are comparing crazy bigots doing hate crimes with crazy bigots doing hate crimes in relation to applications for building permits you must be trying to say something.

Geez, Tribesman!

One time I'm complaining that you contribute nothing to a thread but what I see as an attack, and now you turn around and write one of the most reasoned, well-thought-out posts on this thread!

Be more consistent, so I can decide whether to love you or hate you!
:rotfl2:

Hold on, you sound like my wife

The Constitution doesn't allow for the charging of permit fees in the first place (although that's not unConstitutional). Neither does it mention anything about refunding said fees and revoking said permit.

As I have been saying, the question is not Constitutional.That's not correct. Euclidean zoning and emminent domain has been ruled Constitutional time and time again.

No, you are suggesting that. No were did I suggest to ban anything. I suggested this is not the best place to put a mosque. Find another less hostile environment in NY city. Please read my post in the beginning of this thread. Your last sentence makes no sense but for some reason Sailor Steve thinks it is great. As you run blindly into the night... if this was such a cut and dry deal why the controversy? Why is the White House involved? Why has Harry Reid trump Obama on this? Say what you like....the issue still remains....this will be an issue now and long after it is built. Then again you read that in the thread that was started about a week ago where I stated this will be an issue for a long time to come. Yes? :hmmm:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/16...-would-be.html

If you are suggesting that a religious building would cause issues and should not be built because it may be attacked by bigots then hold up examples of bigots attacking religious buildings then you are saying religious buildings must not be built because of bigots.

So you are in fact saying the existing mosque can be redeveloped as a bigger mosque in its current location in Manhatten then.

Yeah like the Shinto shrine with the peace bell.

No, I believe that it would probably be in the best interest of those wanting to build this mosque at this particular site think about finding a different location. (I'm not alone on this nor is Obama going to comment on the wisdom of building at such a site...because there is none) I have always stated this building will be an issue for a long time to come. Second, nowhere did I say buildings should not be built because bigots. I posted that certain buildings will be attacked in hate crime activities and this mosque will probably suffer the same hate crime activity. Probably more so. Under the law they can build. I however can not support that mosque at this location. I do not care if it pre-existed. It is simply insensative. It has created controversy with the highest in the land.

So what are you suggesting? Insensativity does not play a roll here? Shove political correctness and just build?