1,920 Forum Posts by "Ranger2"
The riots in Egypt are threatening the spark of a civil war, and the divide is more complicated than pro/anti Islamists. The military is less ideologically radical than the Muslim Brotherhood, yet the Muslim Brotherhood (and Morsi) were elected democratically. Would it be right for Egypt to return to Morsi's rule and follow democracy, or continue with military rule, and push Islamists out of power?
Unfortunately, Morsi's return would not mean a return of his social and foreign policies of 2012-13. Morsi had his faults, to be sure, and I would not want him running any office here in the US. The Muslim Brotherhood has a lot of fishy connections and associations.
But Morsi, for all his faults, was as moderate as you could be in Egypt. He publicly claimed that the FJP was separate from the Muslim Brotherhood, and even clashed with them, battling the radical elements in the organization. He didn't declare war on Israel, didn't invoke Sharia law, and didn't declaw the military (as was done in Iran in 1980). In fact, he made a bargain with them where their leadership would remain mostly intact and powerful (as well as given amnesty for anything done under Mubarak) in exchange for more governmental powers and cooperation as President. Essentially, he was calling for civilian control of the government. He wasn't a spectacular leader, but as far as Islamists go, he was the most moderate, and was cordial to the US and the West.
So should Morsi return to power? Would restoring him bring back his old agenda? Should we criticize the Egyptian military for the coup? The military attempted to weaken radical Islamist efforts by ousting Morsi; unfortunately this gave the radicals new life.
So what do the pro-Morsi rioters want? They want Morsi's return, but I doubt they want the same Morsi who steered clear of overt radicalism. That's because the rhetoric behind the Islamist camp is different now than it was in the wake of Mubarak's ouster. During and after Mubarak's ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood sent a memo to its members in Tahrir Square reminding them to display Egyptian flags, and avoid anything overtly Islamist. The Morsi brought to power by the election did not try to castrate the military (and even if he was, he wasted many, many opportunities) and avoided overt Islamization of Egypt.
Now, the rhetoric is different, and that's clearly shown by the pogroms done by the Muslim Brotherhood against Coptic Christian churches. Over 50 have been burnt in the ensuing riots, and the Christian community in Egypt is panicking. The rhetoric this time is overtly Islamist, with Muslim Brotherhood rioters also screaming against the military's cooperation with Israel against terrorism in Gaza. Rather than an Egyptian tone, the rhetoric is Islamist, and radically so.
So the return of Morsi wouldn't really be the return of Morsi. If Morsi returns to power the radical Salafis will be calling the shots, and he would either have to go along with their plans, or he would be ditched for someone more radical.
The US and the West has to straddle a difficult position when dealing with reactions to the crisis unfolding. When he was in power, the US realized they had to work with Morsi and tried to do so. Now that the democratically-elected leader is ousted, it's politically correct to criticize the military and demand that an elected leader be reinstated. The question is, will this be the same Morsi that was ousted a month ago?
There are idiots in every single country.
This is bullshit. I work in Chicago, I've been there yesterday and the day before, and I didn't see any National Guard or riots.
I'm as a big a fan of surfing the web and watching videos and texting on my phone as the next guy, but I've always been confused about a seemingly popular habit of surfing the web on your phone while you're taking a dump.
If you do this, I'd like to know your thought processes on this if you do this. If I were to use my phone in the toilet I'd be concerned about getting it dirty, knowing that the next person who asks to borrow it will get a phone that has most likely touched your balls/crap at one point.
When I'm doing my business, I'm also busy with cleaning up so that I can get out of the stall afterwards. Why choose the stall for relaxation? Doesn't surfing on the web get in the way (or delay) wiping so that you're in the stall longer than you need to be? And if you're using the phone in between wipes you may as well just dip it in the toilet to clean it off.
That's my thought process, but I'm sure you see it differently. Why use the stall as your place to use your phone?
The internet has a way of attracting extremists.
With the events going on in Egypt, I can't help but notice the irony of the situation.
Back when Morsi took power, he knew that he had to take power away from the military so that Egypt could at least appear to be a democracy. It doesn't look good when your country is a military junta.
Since the military (SCAF) was so popular, seeing as it overthrew Mubarak, Morsi couldn't just oust it from all political power. So he made a deal with the military that would solidify his political power and placate any opposition.
Morsi would take away some of the military's governing power and the leader of the SCAF, General Tantawi, would resign, since he had been general under Mubarak.
In return, the SCAF leadership would not be controlled by Morsi, the military would have some political power, and top military leaders would be granted amnesty from any crimes committed under Mubarak.
This deal would give Morsi the backing (or at least toleration) by the military, which would solidify his legitimacy and help keep his position stable.
The irony is that General Sisi, the new leader of the SCAF who replaced Tantawi, is now calling for Morsi's resignation. The very man Morsi put in power to protect his position is now calling for Morsi's ouster.
I'm no fan of Morsi but I'm sure he's pretty ticked off by this betrayal.
At 6/27/13 06:12 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i wish to eat a coconut in perfect edible state without any contamination knowing im not allergic and that i cant choke on it
Granted, the coconut falls on your head, giving you a concussion.
I wish I had air conditioning!
According to the United States and other governments, Bashar al-Assad has used sarin gas several times against the rebels. The United States government is weighing actions to take, from increased sanctions to arming the rebels to even a no-fly zone. Troops on the ground is not an option.
Note that it's not just the United States, the French government has also accused al-Assad of the same thing. What do you think your country's options should be?
At 6/7/13 02:10 AM, Ranger2 wrote: I like this post. I think I will.
I completely take this back. I thought this was about emailing your congressmen about reform, and stuff like that. Turns out it's a petition to free someone who put US and Afghani lives at the mercy of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And this prick's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize! I'm sure his Taliban friends will enjoy that.
At 6/5/13 08:17 AM, Poniiboi wrote: original thought... Why do anything else if the people only want to be fucking lied to? Give em what they want.
It's ironic. You are just as brainwashed as those who think the government is nothing but sunshine. The government isn't 100% pure evil nor is it 100% saintly. It is what it is.
This topic is not trying to argue that some dictators are really just nice guys who need a hug, or aren't committing terrible atrocities.
One thing that always surprises me when I see interviews of infamous dictators is how quiet and soft-spoken they seem. Given their portrayals I would expect a strongman authoritarian dictator to be strong, forceful, and aggressive in interviews.
Try watching these interviews with these dictators. You don't need to pay attention to what they're saying or their arguments. Just look at how they present themselves.
It's interesting to see how dictators are just like many politicians: they have charismatic outgoing personalities on camera but they are really quiet, reserved people off camera. It's strange.
Al-Assad
Saddam Hussein
Gaddafi
Hosni Mubarak (who is still charismatic)
Don't listen to what they say, listen to their body language and how they say it. It's interesting.
The US's system of government isn't as unified as most European countries. We have a federalist system, meaning that each of our 50 states has more freedom to choose its own laws than a province does in Europe. Some states require sexual education; others haven't. It's up to the governors and legislatures of each state rather than the federal government. There are many ways that the "leave things up to the states" system works well, and ways that it doesn't.
Advocates for Israel have very powerful lobbyists. It's important because it's in the Middle East, vital to the US's strategic interests. Until the early 1970s (when we were self-sufficient on oil) an enormous lobbying group existed advocating aid to Taiwan and non-recognition of the People's Republic of China, but you could hardly say that back then the media was controlled by Taiwan.
I would also like to add that had we not taken out Saddam in 2003 (note: I regret that we did) his regime would be in major trouble too right now.
At 5/14/13 10:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Very true, bears watching. But right now it could be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". These guys are going to take help wherever they can. Bears watching, but I'm not yet completely convinced this is a marriage of ideology so much as a marriage of resources to accomplish the same goal.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been used quite often as an example of bungled US foreign policy in the Middle East, especially in regards to supporting the muhajideen in Afghanistan. I'm surprised that you are using that argument, especially when it's important to remember that al-Assad and the rebels have more than one group on their enemy lists.
Remember, they're not angry at al-Assad just because he's a strongman dictator. al-Assad is the last of a long dying breed: the pan-Arab Socialist movement, or Ba'athism. Saddam, Hafez and Bashar al-Assad, Gamal Nasser, Anwar Sadat, and Hosni Mubarak were all Arab socialists, leaders left over from a movement whose heyday was in the 60s and had been falling ever since. Ever since 1967, the secular Pan-Arab movement has been declining and in its place radical Islamism has risen. This civil war is a continuation of the decline and the final death knell of the Arab Socialist movement that once dominated the region.
This isn't a fight against an evil strongman dictator in the name of democracy. It's also a fight against a secular Arab socialist who is an out-of-date, out of touch leader who, according to the people, has lost touch with Islam and fundamental Islamic beliefs.
The rebels aren't just fighting al-Assad because he's treated his people badly, but because he and his system are obsolete.
As for your idea of "let's only give aid to those who promise to uphold democracy and human rights, etc," let me say that if that were practical, I would be 100% for it. It would be wonderful to believe that we have the capability to either influence the rebels into becoming moderate or to believe that we would be able to tell who the right people are to give weapons to. But unfortunately, we are talking about aid of a group that is part of an ongoing process of Islamization of the region and rejection of secular Arab socialism.
The civil war is so much more than a modern conflict-it's part of a decades-long process that has a distinct pattern: overthrow of secular Arab leaders and a return to Islamic fundamentalism. That's why I don't trust the Syrian rebels, because they represent more than their name implies.
At 5/10/13 09:22 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Riiight, because I will totally trust the guy saying that his enemies are worse then he is....this is the sort of thing we developed agencies like the CIA for. So we could investigate these things. Because my knee jerk is to say someone like assad who has every reason to lie in this situation to save his own skin...will lie to save his own skin.
What he says, given our history, is very believable.
No, that is not entirely true. Much of Iraq right now has no problem with us. But the media only tends to report on the extremists actions and then people like GW Bush exaggerrate and use that to justify big flashy intervention on the "they're bad, they hate us, we get to kill them now. It's self-defense". There's more to it then simple "us vs. them"
I'm talking about those in power, not the average everyday civilians.
Yes, but that's usually because we tend to support the wrong sides of the argument, or we didn't bother to do our homework properly, or we didn't care what happened after our interests were served.
So we should blindly support the rebels without doing our homework?
How? Because the Muslim Brotherhood is protesting and screaming for Israel's blood? Iran does that on a near weekly basis, however no substantial conflict has come yet. Also last I checked Egypt's President has not echoed these sentiments and in fact organized a cease fire between hamas and Israel. Your seeming bias of "muslims are the enemies of my people and therefore we can never ever trust them" is showing through again.
Your ad hominem implications are completely wrong.
Radicalism anywhere is a problem, what can you do about it though really? Trying to crush it just breeds more radicals. If it's not radicalism infecting the government, then I'm a fan of careful monitoring, but hands off unless it becomes unavoidable.
That's what I'm also arguing: hands off supplying the rebels. Do you think that it's only the al-Assad government that is radical?
al-Qaeda is anywhere there's instability. Hell we gave them that great foothold in Iraq.
Yeah, let's topple that stronghold regime in Syria, too! Nothing bad can come from that!
And again, this comes off as "all I give a fuck about is Israel...because I'm a Jew and Jews live there". That's really fucked dude.
To you, but my primary concern are the NATO countries.
How do we know that actually? Have the rebels stated as such? If they had, I highly doubt we'd be supporting them. I can not find a credible source to back your assertion. Perhaps you've got a source I'm not seeing? If so, look forward to reading it.
It's common sense. The Middle East is a breeding ground of radicalism, and like many, many, many revolutions, the moderates get left out.
That [the Arab wolrd is unified in their hatred of Israel]'s another big bold claim that I'm not sure you can back
Hmm, I don't see any of the Arab nations being on good terms with Israel, except perhaps Jordan, and they're facing problems from radicals too.
So as long as he fucks up his own people, and not the West, it's all good? God I hope that isn't what you meant there dude...I really like to think you're a better person then that.
Ah, so then it's a good thing we invaded Iraq, right? Saddam was killing the Kurds and oppressing the Shi'a majority, and we put a stop to that! Would you agree with that? I thought you were generally a fan of "not getting involved in their business," which not only means not attacking them, but not stopping them from doing atrocities to their own people.
Power abhors a vacuum. If Al-Assad is toppled, we will see Islamists take over, just as they did in Iraq and Egypt.
Uh, we installed the government in Iraq? Egypt does have a Muslim Brotherhood backed leader, but he has not shown open and naked hostility towards Israel, quite the opposite in fact. You look like an alarmist here dude with a fundamental mistrust of anything Islam.
No, I don't have a fundamental mistrust of anything Islam. I have a mistrust of fundamentalist Islam. As I have a mistrust of any fundamentalist wing of any religion.
We've learned that it's easier to deal with a stable, centralized enemy than an unstable "ally."Until you know, the population rises up, takes that guy out, and then we have to deal with a new government that's justifiably pissed we supported somebody who killed off their family. The world is changing, the Arab Spring taught us that. I don't think the old game will work anymore, then again, I don't think it ever really did too well.
I said stable enemy, not stable ally. Please read my entire argument-I never said we should support al-Assad, because that's not practical, but that doesn't mean I can't halfheartedly hope he wins.
Oh sure it would, but personally I'm no fan of forcing a change in a foreign land. I'm more a fan of the idea of helping an existing populist revolution. Which is the tact we're taking so far.
I don't believe that the rebels will continue to be friendly with us once they win. That's my belief.
It would, but again, can't find a credible source to back up your alarmist claims.
Al-Qaeda is fighting the al-Assad regime along with the rebels. Sure, it doesn't represent the FSA but that doesn't mean it can't in the future.
Of course, I have to be realistic: with all the bad press Al-Assad has been justly receiving, no country can simply decide to switch sides and offer support to Al-Assad. And since we know from experience that decentralized radicals groups are incredibly difficult to destroy, it's only a matter of time until Al-Assad is toppled from power.
You don't know however that were going to have extreme radicals in power. This sounds like yet another pro-Israeli paranoia rant and battle cry out of you that frankly alarms me.
Battle cry? I'm advocating simply sitting back and doing nothing. You're the one who has the battle cry of arming the rebels.
At 5/7/13 12:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
However, in the case that you are indeed as retarded as Obama and most of our presidents of the past couple decades, the answer is no.
I don't agree with everything US Presidents do, but I'm not so blind to assume that an internet subscription to Al Jazeera and high school history classes equates to the knowledge that the CIA and our many diplomats have.
You make some very valid points.
At 5/4/13 05:14 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Our gameplan in the Middle East throughout the 20th century was to do exactly what you're suggesting, propping up authoritarian strongmen who would be receptive to Western interests in return. But in my opinion that's only proven to be a self-defeating strategy, a method of curbing terrorism that only creates more terrorists.
If that's so, how do you suggest we make friends with the rebels? We've tried arming them and aiding them but that has not worked out so far. From my point of view, supporting authoritarian strongmen is delaying the inevitable, but it's better than nothing. Plus the delays can take very long times.
The explicitly stated rationale of pretty much every terrorist group has been resentment of Western influence in the Arab world. Our support of dictators sowed further resentment and helped these groups to find new recruits and radicalize them. It's worth noting that the earliest Islamist terrorist attacks were not on Western targets, but on the local authoritarian governments. The whole ideology of groups like al-Qaeda is built around the notion that the West, the "far enemy," exerts its evil influence through its local puppet governments, the "near enemy."
Yet these groups attack the "far enemy." If we take out their "near enemy" that'll leave us as the next targets.
So as these regimes have started to fall in favor of autonomous (if deeply flawed) democratic governments, the whole jihadist rhetoric has totally unraveled and been discredited. There's always going to be tension between the West and the Arab world as long as there's still an Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and believe me, that shit's never ending), but without a "near enemy" in the long term I think Arab perception of the West only stands to improve as long as we keep our noses out of their business.
You make a good point, but like I said before, we need the "near enemy" to keep those groups busy. If we wash our hands of the entire conflict, the rebels will likely win and Al-Qaeda will Islamize the area. Al-Qaeda has forces on the ground, and they are very persuasive in that region, more so than we are.
And yes, that will even be the case if the new government is Islamist. I'm certainly no fan of Islamism, but it's not accurate to conflate it with al-Qaeda or similar militant jihadist groups or even to necessarily associate it with violence, especially not the kind of Islamism that's been popping up in post-Arab Spring countries. Only a tiny minority of Muslims in Arab countries had ever advocated violent jihad, and according to several public opinion polls even that number has plummeted in the years since 9/11. Nobody in the Arab world is buying what groups like al-Qaeda are selling, it was a reaction to the 20th century state of the Middle East and it isn't relevant anymore.
Al-Qaeda is selling like never before! Iraq gave them new life, and they're spreading in North Africa and are allied with the rebels. Don't forget that they are spreading in Pakistan and much of the Pakistani government is infested with them. Granted, the War on Terror has diminished their numbers but mostly in areas that were once their strongholds. They're popping up in brand new places. Don't forget, after the Libyan and Egyptian rebels won their wars, Western embassies were attacked, and in Egypt, Coptic Christians were subject to violent progroms, which did not happen in Mubarak's regime.
Instead, the new Islamists are using the democratic political system to achieve their goals. Compared to the militant Islamists of the past who violently opposed working within the system and instead chose to express their political desires through mass murder, I think this is vastly preferable and much easier to deal with. Even if we don't condone it, we shouldn't discourage it.
But these are the same groups who fought violently to put this "democratic" system in place. They claim to be democratic to gain the world's approval. Look at Hamas-they came to power through elections, but also through a bloody conflict with Fatah that plunged Gaza into a civil war. Also note that the Muslim Brotherhood, the main power player in Egypt, is the parent organization of Hamas.
As for your fears of al-Qaeda co-opting a rebel movement...; I guess the al-Qaeda brand just doesn't have the potency it once did.
Well, they're not as powerful as they were in 2001, that's for sure. But Al-Qaeda is one of many Islamist groups. Look at it this way: how many Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood countries existed 12 years ago compared to today? Even if they're not Al-Qaeda, Islamists can still be a problem. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing for example-I'm not saying he's tied to the Syrian Civil War, but it shows that al-Qaeda is one of many radical Islamists.
And then of course there are also ethical considerations. These are sovereign nation-states, don't they have a right to self-determination?...
Yes, although it goes beyond the state level. The current map of the Middle East is a European creation: the rebels in Syria certainly don't have the backing of the Alawites or Christians. It's very complicated, and nobody here has the perfect solution.
We really don't need to be fucking around with the governments of countries halfway around the world. It didn't do us any good during the Cold War and it's not doing us any good now.
It did some good-Mubarak's Egypt made peace with Israel and was a pro-Western voice in OPEC and in the War on Terror. Supporting these strongmen authoritarian leaders delayed the worst-a radical Islamist takeover, and while it was great while they lasted, they were merely a delay when we had no other choice. I think the only thing that could make us best buddies with the Middle East would be to nuke Israel and have a nationwide conversion to Islam-neither of which are going to happen.
I know it's slightly old news, but about a month ago, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad warned the the US and Europe that should the Syrian rebels be armed and succeed in their conflict, they would turn against the West.
At first one may dismiss it as anti-rebel propaganda. It's Al-Assad, after all. He's a bad person. You can't trust him.
But still, he has a point: the West (not just the US, a popular scapegoat) has intervened in the Middle East often and the people we help end up turning on us.
The West (again, not just the US) has supported rebel causes in the past, and many have come back to bite us.
Afghanistan: First the muhajideen were supported in their fight against the Soviets. Those same people turned around and attacked the US on 9/11 and the UK on 7/7.
Egypt: Aided the rebels (mostly through rhetoric) and now we have a Muslim Brotherhood-run state that is breaking its peace pact with Israel and will likely cause more instability in Gaza.
Libya: Aided the rebels in taking out Gaddafi: US, French embassies attacked, British diplomat assaulted in Benghazi. Libya has the potential to rise above this (there were large anti-terrorist protests after the 9/11/12 attacks) but radicalism is a problem.
Now there are reports that al-Qaeda is mixed in with the Syrian rebels. And why wouldn't they be? Besides knocking out an Alwite-ruled secular state, they'd be in a better position to launch attacks on the West, probably starting in Turkey, which I remind you is part of NATO.
Now I'm aware that al-Assad is no knight in shining armor. He's a brutal thug who has killed many of his own people. I sure wouldn't invite him over for dinner. But all that aside, here are his positive credentials:
-He's kept the peace somewhat in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. True, he is arming Hezbollah, but he's avoided full-out war with Israel. Would an Islamist takeover be any less violent towards Israel?
-As bad as he is, he's no Al-Qaeda. Yes, he's aided attacks against israel, but we know that should the rebels take over they'd continue that. Maybe with a different group, but the Arab world is unified in their hatred of Israel. Al-Assad has not launched attacks against the West. He's a rat, but he stays in his nest for the most part.
Power abhors a vacuum. If Al-Assad is toppled, we will see Islamists take over, just as they did in Iraq and Egypt. Strongman dictators are bad, but they at least kept/keep true radicals like Al-Qaeda out of power. We've learned that it's easier to deal with a stable, centralized enemy than an unstable "ally." Taking out a dictator like Al-Assad would be a piece of cake. After all, the US, UK, Australia, and Poland removed Saddam in a few months.
But dealing with a new, resurgent Al-Qaeda-esque regime in Syria would be far more destabilizing and costly.
Of course, I have to be realistic: with all the bad press Al-Assad has been justly receiving, no country can simply decide to switch sides and offer support to Al-Assad. And since we know from experience that decentralized radicals groups are incredibly difficult to destroy, it's only a matter of time until Al-Assad is toppled from power.
If we're going to face an Islamist Syria, I'd rather we not arm them first.
At 4/24/13 06:06 PM, Havegum wrote:My main argument is that we learn almost everything through faith. Unless we actually explore it ourselves (how easy or hard it is to investigate is irrelevant) we choose to accept what we hear through faith.Somehow I find it easier to trust the evidence of numerous scientific studies, with independent groups being paid to make sure the quality of research conducted is adequate, and that the results are representing reality.
You are proving my point for me. You decide to trust what you are told by scientists rather than spiritual leaders. Overall, you are listening to and accepting what you are told. That's all you need.
At 4/23/13 08:23 PM, Kwing wrote:
One thing I will mention is that taking out the O in God is absolutely ridiculous. Even if there were something wrong with saying his name, or forgetting to capitalize the pronoun when referring to him, God is still only the name that WE gave him. Plus, why remove the O? Are vowels somehow more holy than consonants?
It's a sign of respect. Chewing with your mouth closed doesn't prevent stomachaches or make your hamburger any healthier but it's polite.
At 4/22/13 11:19 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:
Again, you are blurring the meaning of the word "faith" to try and equate your own nonsensical beliefs with proven fact.
It's common knowledge that religion is completely hostile towards investigation - and your "faith" is no exception.
The truth never fears investigation; I can accept 'beliving' that Antarctica is real without actually going there myself because there is literally nobody stopping me from going there, and the people who have already been there don't benefit one way or the other if I do/don't believe it.
With that logic, you'd also discount any scientific theories. There are plenty of theories (parallel universes, big bang, whether or not black holes are portals) that as of now cannot be fully investigated. Yet you wouldn't call someone who believes that black holes are wormholes to another universe -even if he was just told that by a professor- someone who blindly believes.
My main argument is that we learn almost everything through faith. Unless we actually explore it ourselves (how easy or hard it is to investigate is irrelevant) we choose to accept what we hear through faith.
At 4/22/13 10:24 AM, Gimmick wrote:
Ehh...but why? Like @Mel-Gibson said, it's like voldemort in HP, but virtually everybody says it?
It's a sign of respect in Judaism. If I was scared about offending people I wouldn't write this, would I?
At 4/22/13 01:30 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:
There are no perceived negative consequences for not believing in Antarctica.
There are a lot of perceived negative consequences for not believing in god. E.g., eternal suffering.
This is not the Middle Ages anymore. You can be an atheist and not get publicly executed (well, except in Iran).
Back in the real world: If I didn't believe in Antarctica's existence, for example, the people who have actually been there would stand to gain nothing from convincing me that it is real.
Why should they care if some idiot thinks Antarctica is imaginary?
Just like how scientists and the rational-thinking public don't bother to try and convert people who still believe the earth is flat, the people who have been to Antarctica have no reason to waste their time trying to get me to believe that it is real (if I didn't already believe it were).
I think I see your point: your argument is that rabbis will tell you to believe in G-d otherwise you'll go to hell, while scientists say "believe in Antarctica, or don't. Your loss."
Well, in Judaism there is no heaven or hell, and I can assure my rabbi was not threatening us with eternal damnation when he told us. It's the same: if you believe what you are told without proving it yourself, you are accepting something through faith. Doesn't matter if it's quantum physics or the Easter Bunny. Until you see Antarctica yourself, you believe it simply because you choose to believe what somebody else said to you.
The fact that you would make this thread renders your whole "Antarctica" allegory completely void; if there were any evidence to support your faith you wouldn't be this insecure.
I'm not insecure. I said before quite clearly I'm not trying to prove G-d's existence.
At 4/21/13 11:17 PM, Profanity wrote: Belief in God as anything other than a psychological quirk of mentalizing deficits
Being unable to understand that all of religion can be explained through psychology, neuroscience, and sociology means that you are a stupid person.
Profanity, have you yourself done the experiments mentioned in that article? Or are you just parroting that article? If the latter is true, you are no more rational than those who believe in G-d.
At 4/21/13 11:53 PM, Sensationalism wrote: You don't worship mitochondria and base your whole life around it though.
You don't push your belief of mitochondria upon others because it will be soo terrible and you'll be so sad if they don't beleive in it.
Irrelevant. All that matters is the fact that for either G-d or mitochondria, you believe in them through faith: somebody tells you mitochondria exist and you believe them.
At 4/21/13 10:47 PM, Scintillating wrote: Not irrational is a double negative that means 'rational'.
If you say it's rational to believe in God, you had better have a good logical argument or physical proof of God, and until then, it's just a matter of faith, not reason.
Please read my entire article. I'm arguing that it is all a matter of faith, but everybody believes through faith.
Here me out.
I'm not trying to prove that G-d exists; His existence or nonexistence cannot be proven scientifically, and Bible-bashers, please note that none of my arguments will be from the Bible. I'm not even Christian.
People accept G-d's existence not through tangibly experiencing Him in a way that can be proven with empirical evidence. People accept Him through faith: belief without proof.
Why do I believe in G-d? Because I was born Jewish, raised Jewish, went to Sunday School, and was told that G-d exists. I've taught Hebrew school, I've prayed, I believe in Him. If I had been born to a Christian family I would have believed in the holiness of Jesus Christ because I would've been told so. I believe in G-d because of faith that what I've been told is true.
"This sounds ridiculous! How could anyone be so stupid as to believe in something without being given scientific proof! How stupid people are!"
Well, we do it all the time. Believe in things through faith, that is. In fact, that's the way we've always learned: by listening and accepting what other people tell you is the truth.
Some things in this universe you can learn about and believe in through interaction. After all, the only way to truly know if somebody is lying about something or not is by experiencing it for yourself. Take grass, for instance. How do you know grass exists? Because you've seen it, touched it, lied down in it. You have experienced it with your own eyes and know it exists.
But unless you have a teleporter or time machine, you most likely will learn about people, places, and things that you will never be able to experience with your own eyes.
Take Antarctica, for example. Do you believe it exists? Of course you do. You've seen it on maps and your teachers have told you that it exists, it is cold, is home to penguins, and is the southernmost continent. But have you ever experienced it
with your own eyes? Until you travel to Antarctica, you are accepting the fact that Antarctica exists through faith.
"That's a stupid comparison. You can't compare G-d to Antarctica, because scientists have seen Antarctica, been to it, taken soil and water samples, heck there's even photographic evidence! Antarctica can be scientifically proven, but G-d cannot be!"
You're absolutely right that Antarctica's existence can be scientifically proven. And you know what, those scientists truly prove that Antarctica exists because they have experienced it. But have YOU? Unless you yourself have seen Antarctica, taken its soil samples, actually been there, you are accepting its existence because of what you have been told by others.
You are accepting Antarctica's existence through faith-the same way people believe in G-d.
There's still a hole in that argument! If a scientist has seen Antarctica, studied it, experienced it, etc., then there should be no reason to doubt what he says about it to you. He's seen it with his own eyes, it's rational to believe him because he's seen something that was proven.
And if you were that 1% of the population who have spoken to someone who's been to Antarctica, you may be right. But last I checked, in elementary school when learning about the continents, I was taught by a teacher, not a biologist. I accepted what she told me about the continents and took it to be true, just as she took what she read in school to be true too.
And there are things that don't have to be scientifically proven too that are taken as fact. The Roman Empire, for example. Have you spoken to anybody who was alive then? No, the only real proof you have that there was a Roman Empire are artifacts, documents, and tales written down by someone who you assume was telling the truth about what happened thousands of years ago...
...But nobody doubts the existence of the Roman Empire, do they?
"No, because we have artifacts and documents specifically PROVING it exists."
Well so do all the world's major religions.
My main argument is not to prove that G-d exists. I'm not arguing that atheists are wrong or right when they say that there is no G-d.
My main argument is that the way we believe in G-d -- faith -- is the same way we learn about the world around us. We don't experience 99% of what we learn about in school. I've taken classes on the Civil War and WWII, yet I wasn't around for either of them. I've taken chemistry classes and learned about the anatomy of a plant cell-yet I've never used a microscope powerful enough to verify that mitochondria exist. I've read and studied things that can be scientifically proven, but since I myself have never verified them on my own, I accept their validity and truth on faith.
It does not matter that G-d cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. All that matters is why you believe in what you do. I'm not telling you to doubt everything you hear--of course Antarctica and the Roman Empire exist and existed--but the reason you, me, most people in the world believe they do is because they were told so by someone else. They accepted what they were told to be true-on faith.
Is that any different than being told that G-d exists, and believing?
I don't believe so; the Boston Marathon attacks were not necessarily a declaration of war by a country or group.
