Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
Ant:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on November 30, 2006, 06:28:33 PM ---
You said that Al Queda could not exist without religion, it was created artifically by the CIA, it's been used several times by the CIA it was used in recent wars. and your asking me how it could exist if it wasnt for religion :o. It exists because of the west! Type in Al Queda used in Kosovo congressional reports, or type in Osmagate, though wait.....I can't use the second one because that professor is lying despite citing the congessional report itself, so yeah find the congressional report itself.
--- End quote ---
So you still don't really understand religion, but you know al-queda could exist without it? CIA ownership of al-queda (a huge assumption) still doesn't prove that al-queda could exist without religion. I'm not even going to argue with you about that. But let's assume you're right and al-queda is a pet project of the CIA. They still needed religion to create such an organization.
Again... you don't want to be considered an extremist. But there aren't very many people in the world that would dare suggest al-queda isn't dependent on religion for its existence. What would be there motivation without religion?
It's unbelievable that you are even making this argument. And this is just one example there are many more terrorist organizations that are motivated by religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism
You need to settle down and really re-assess your worldview. You admittedly know little about religion, but you're again claiming ultimate truth. Do you ever consider the possibility ur wrong on anything?
Compare my position where I "lean towards religion bearing some responsibility for our problems." To your position where you are 100% sure that al-queda could exist without religion and it is artificially created by the CIA.
Do you ever way your chance of being wrong on anything? I like to consider probabilities when I make assumptions. With you everything is apparently 100% certainties. But an intelligent person knows, there are few things certain in the world. And the things you strongly believe in are far from certain. Are some of them "probable?" Sure. But you go off the deep end on shit and believe you know it all. It's annoying.
virtuoso:
It is fact that the CIA created Al Queda that is not an assumption therefore your reply is baseless, Unless you are going to deny reality by the way I never said that religion did not play a part in war again you are miscontruong or disorting my words I acknowledged that religion did play a part in war but it was when that religion was being manipulated, indeed if you read the bible there are countless messages about fighting tyranny. The same as the underlying cause of the palestinians fight with the israelis is not because of religion but because of their fight for survival now again you are never going to accept that because think tanks are pushing this idea that things like complete tyranny oppression and desperation are not driving them to commit such acts, instead it is their religion. Now this is what I don't understand although I disagree with your opinion on most things and putting the al queda mistake aside you seem like a pretty smart person so how can you honestly tell me that the palestinian cause is not driven by their oppression and the total abandonment by the world?
The other thing I would say is that you should be free to criticise religion as much as you damn well like and any religion zealots who have a problem with this should be shown the middle finger my point is simply that blaming religion for the worlds ills ignores all of the power games which the elite are playing. After all the main motivation for wars has been power, look at Afghanistan, look at balkanisation, Iraq, in fact this whole idea of axis of evil is built on power, besides North Korea who I guess you could genuinely argue are evil but that is why they will never be touched because they posess such an arsenal of weapons and troops. Also why is it that you will dismiss an article which isnt itself mainstream and yet cites mainstream sources and yet you just used wikpedia which can literally be wrote by anyone? which is why I use it as little as possible because nothing is referenced so using that as a means of proving a point is very dodgy, I am not saying that particular hyperlinks contents are wrong but wikpedia is not doubt litttered with traps.
Ant:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 01, 2006, 01:13:56 AM ---It is fact that the CIA created Al Queda that is not an assumption therefore your reply is baseless, Unless you are going to deny reality by the way I never said that religion did not play a part in war again you are miscontruong or disorting my words I acknowledged that religion did play a part in war but it was when that religion was being manipulated,
--- End quote ---
You can't manipulate that which does not exist.
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 01, 2006, 01:13:56 AM ---indeed if you read the bible there are countless messages about fighting tyranny. The same as the underlying cause of the palestinians fight with the israelis is not because of religion but because of their fight for survival now again you are never going to accept that because think tanks are pushing this idea that things like complete tyranny oppression and desperation are not driving them to commit such acts, instead it is their religion. Now this is what I don't understand although I disagree with your opinion on most things and putting the al queda mistake aside you seem like a pretty smart person so how can you honestly tell me that the palestinian cause is not driven by their oppression and the total abandonment by the world?
--- End quote ---
So now you understand religion? I never said anything about palenstine. The problem is you take statements I make and apply them as you desire to prove a point. But I never said everything would be all well and good. Or every conflict is the fault of religion. I said a) religion does not exist b) certain atrocities probably would not existed without religion. Not EVERY atrocity. But I clearly said this is also a personal opinion. It's another topic to debate the validity of my opinion.
But what you said is clearly wrong. Al-queda would not exist without religion, regardless of if it was created by the CIA. Whoever created al-queda needed religion to form the organization. Religion is the foundation of their ideology. You take away the foundation of your house and your house will no longer exist. You take away religion and al-queda could never be. Perhaps you could argue many other bad things would happen without religion. But you can't seriously tell me that al-queda and most other religious terrorist organizations would exist.
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 01, 2006, 01:13:56 AM ---The other thing I would say is that you should be free to criticise religion as much as you damn well like and any religion zealots who have a problem with this should be shown the middle finger my point is simply that blaming religion for the worlds ills ignores all of the power games which the elite are playing. After all the main motivation for wars has been power, look at Afghanistan, look at balkanisation, Iraq, in fact this whole idea of axis of evil is built on power, besides North Korea who I guess you could genuinely argue are evil but that is why they will never be touched because they posess such an arsenal of weapons and troops. Also why is it that you will dismiss an article which isnt itself mainstream and yet cites mainstream sources and yet you just used wikpedia which can literally be wrote by anyone?
--- End quote ---
I cite wikipedia because its a readily available resource with a well-regarded system for relaying facts. I didn't cite wikipedia for their opinion aethism. I used it to show you a list of religious terrorist organizations. This proper usage of an encyclopedic reference.
This is much different than cite obscure academics just because they have a Ph. D!
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 01, 2006, 01:13:56 AM --- which is why I use it as little as possible because nothing is referenced so using that as a means of proving a point is very dodgy, I am not saying that particular hyperlinks contents are wrong but wikpedia is not doubt litttered with traps.
--- End quote ---
Wikipedia is no worse than any encyclopedia. It's arguably better than most. But your confusion is with the proper usage of sources. Using wikipedia to show a list of terrorist organizations, or a general description of an ideology is not the same as citing random "opinions" from obscure sources.
Here's a recent article on wikipedia's accuracy btw:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html
virtuoso:
Lol Al Queda was created to fight the soviet union when the soviet union occupied Afghanistan, their driving force was to fight an occupation, invaders had swept to their lands that is why they were able to be formed. As for whether some atrocities are caused as a result of religion of course, my point was and is though that the words and ideas have been twisted, take for instance the bible there is nothing about love thy enemy and yet every church I walk past now I see this message, or take for instance Israel God supposedly punsihed the jews and took Israel off them, that is what the bible tells I mean and yet you have christian evangelicals believing with all their heart and soul that in order for the rapture to occur they must rebuild the temple in Jerusalem next to the islamic holy temple. This is what I mean about how religious messages have been hijacked, as least that is how I feel about it and the point I was making about wikpedia is literally anyone can write it, then literally anyone can change that information also. I believe, though I might be wrong, that the encyclopedia is created by a team of researchers, who have a high degree of expertise. Again though watch
America From Freedom To Facism before you continue this tunnel vision view of being a "realist" it might snap you out of such an apathetic stance.
Ant:
When you in a really small minority you shouldn't be so arrogant about your ideas.
How can religion be manipulated or hijacked if it doesn't exist?
Eventually I'll watch your film... I quickly watched the trailer and was thus far unimpressed. But the whole thing is free on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=america+freedom+to+facism+duration%3Along
There now you can share it with the world and spread your gospel.
Anyways.. I'm curious how old are you? It's amazing that someone like yourself can know so much, but communicate so poorly. Usually the intelligent people speak coherently. Luckily I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can see so clearly. The world is filled with certainties that are really assumptions. Do you know how many people walk around "knowing" things that just aren't so. What makes you so different?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version