Ban All Religions

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

FJV RE:So glad to see this thread back- it was a fun one. 3/18/2004 3:57:33 PM

After WWII many Germans were left with the question "How did this happen?". How could a country with Bach and Philosofers go so wrong. One of the theories that is offered as an explanation is that of "der innere schweinhund" (The inner bastard). Basically what this theory says is that there is a bastard dormant inside each person capable of doing the worst things that the nazis have done. And that certain events/things can make that bastard active. This theory has caused me to take a look at the darker side of my character and what would cause it to become active. (to avoid being caught out by this effect by suprise) One of the disturbing conclusions I reached was that though you want to get rid of these tendencies, you somehow need to keep them just in case you might need it. For instance you would need to use a lot of brutality in a fight for your live, your inner bastard would make it possible to do so. That which gives you the potential to be a terrible nazi murderer could also be that which may save you and your loved ones from death and make you a hero.

Quote Reply

celebrim RE:Ban All Religions 3/19/2004 9:52:51 AM

"Contrary to popular belief, the USA was founded on Deist principles, not Christian..." You know, one of the reasons I like coming here is that the people involved are generally good historians who read primary documents and look at both the broad sweep of history and the details. Which is why I'm flabbergasted to see this pernicious little self-justifying lie bandied about as if it were fact. Please, cite your sources. Show me the large band of Deists who came to settle this country. Of the list of men who signed the Declaration of Independence, show me the long list of Diests and Aethists and demonstrate to me that the majority of the founding fathers were not pious, church going, and by the standards of today not evangelicals. Show me that the founding father's did not pray regularly and earnestly. Show me that common Americans were not religious. Show me that the body politic was not deeply piously Christian. Then I'll believe such statements. But if you cannot, then at least admit that while there were some few Deists (arguably Thomas Jefferson) and some few aethists (Patrick Henry if I recall correctly) the vast majority of the leading political figures of the day, to say nothing of the vast majority of the common citizens were not pious Protestant Christians many of whom were representatives of Colonies (latter States) founded for openly religous reasons. I am not for a second claiming that we should do everything that the founding father's did, but please don't try to justify your religious bashing with conveinent lies about the history of this nation. It's not my fault that history books no longer teach about 'The Great Awakening', nor the influence of the distinctly American brand of tolerant Protestanism that arose out of it. You probably don't even know that prior to the Great Awakening, each of the American colonies has its own official religion. It's not my fault that you don't know who George Whitefield is, nor his close association Benjamin Franklin. It's not my fault that you don't know the close association between the establishment of the first American Universities and a revival of religious sentiment in American during the early and middle portions of the 18th century. Its not my fault that you can't see how widely preached sermons shaped the very idea of American nationalism as a fundamentally Christian concept, because you haven't read them. Its not my fault that you don't here those sermons echoed in George Washingtons speaches, nor that you don't know the history of that little Presybterian church that sets at the foot of ground zero. You don't know these things because you've read history written by liberal humanists intended to excise the religous character of the past just as they tend to spin everything in a way that justifies thier own communist worldview. But whether you like to believe that early America was deeply and profoundly religious in a way that makes modern Americans uncomfortable it is none the less true.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Ban Evil and Stupidity 3/19/2004 1:35:33 PM

Celebrim, I agree with you on banning stupidity, or at least sterilising it and fitting it with a muzzle. Banning evil on the other hand is a hopelessly naive comment. You cannot have or comprehend good without evil, it's a dualism, one cannot be gauged or measured without the other. I know that you haven't, however, it sounds like you've succumbed to the fallacy that the devil does not exist when you post things like that. Evil is there to be conquered and subdued, not destroyed. I'll go back however many millenia to the tale of Osiris, Seth and Horus. Horus did not kill Seth even after Seth had murdered his father, usurped the Egyptian Kingship and taken out Horus' eye. Instead he subdued him and put him in the prow of the Solar Bark to fight off the underworld demons during the night. Just because it's pagan myth doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE:So glad to see this thread back- it was a fun one. 3/19/2004 1:39:25 PM

That which gives you the potential to be a terrible nazi murderer could also be that which may save you and your loved ones from death and make you a hero. Yes, ultimately we may be forced to terrorise the terrorists in order to defeat them utterly. How would you sell such an utterly appalling concept? How about Liberty, Equality & Fraternity for all ESPECIALLY muslim women?.

Quote Reply

celebrim RE: Green Dragon 3/22/2004 2:23:49 PM

Not to put to fine a point on it, but if we were banning stupidity, your response would be among the first to go. There are many different metaphysical theories about good and evil. Can you offer a strong proof of dualism than a myth from an extinct religion? I wholly reject that Good needs Evil to exist. I need no stronger proof for such a hypothetical discussion than to note that it is possible to imagine a universe in which evil does not exist. As such, if we could transform this flawed universe into the the imaginary one we would have successfully banned evil. (Note that I'm not trying to prove that the real universe is based or not based on dualism, but rather that it is not by necessity based on dualism.) Furthermore, if your point is that I cannot easily distinguish good from evil and so how would I know what to banish, I could just as easily note that it is just as difficult to distinguish intelligence from stupidity. If you could inerrantly identify stupidity, then you should have with such wisdom little problem inerrantly identifying evil as well.

Quote Reply

American Kafir Good vs. Evil 3/22/2004 2:59:39 PM

Evil is throwing the hammer and cursing your busted thumb when it's you that missed the nail, not the hammer.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 3/27/2004 7:34:51 PM

I'm very amused by your response. A universe or even a country that is entirely good and has no evil is not self-sustaining because it is meaningless vacuousness. Myth from an extinct religion? Much Egyptian religious belief and PRACTICE was incorporated wholesale into Judaism & Christianity. Egyptians witnessing the early Christian Easter rites could find little to distinguish them from their own FAR older Osiris rites. I refer to The Golden Bough as my source on that statement. As to distinguishing good and evil, the only true way to determine good or evil acts is to understand the underlying motive and the action taken. Consider an example: I murder a child, superficially that is infanticide, I am evil and should be punished. My motive is that by preknwledge, I know that this child if allowed to reach childhood will be the next Josef Stalin. Is my act still evil? Leaving aside the notion of pre knowledge aside my action is evil, because who am I to judge whether or not the world needs another Josef Stalin, another 'Uncle Joe' could be just as necessary to the species as another Jesus. Therefore, while I acted with 'good' intentions, I acted stupidly by committing infanticide. A more intelligent approach would have been to brainwash the child so he became anything but the next Josef Stalin. That argument was originally presented by Aleister Crowley..

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE: Green Dragon 3/28/2004 1:25:42 AM

There is no way to prove you have pre-knowledge of the person an infant will become. The best you could hope for is an insanity defense in this case. In many ways, claiming an infant will be Stalin someday because of "pre-knowledge" is no better as a moral defense than "God said so" , "the Devil made me do it" , or "I'm a time-traveler from the future." Once you deny that individuals lack the free will to not be Stalin-like when they grow up, you can be...Stalin yourself, and justify (to yourself) all sorts of massacre and mayhem.

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE: Green Dragon 3/28/2004 1:29:26 AM

Mangled my last post... last sentence should read: "Once you *believe* that individuals lack the free will to not be Stalin-like when they grow up, you can be...Stalin yourself, and justify (to yourself) all sorts of massacre and mayhem."

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 3/28/2004 11:11:10 AM

Aw come on AK, what happened to open-mindedness?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT