mOST aMERICANS BELIEVE IN cREATIONISM.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

<maybe religion is merely a tool of intelligent design, imposing a moral governor to restrain man from self destruction.>

male bovine excretement. The greatest atrocities in history have been done in the name of god ... and continues to this day.

While religions do some good in helping the needy ... in gunit's opinion .. the main reason for religion is to control the masses ... and hey ... it's an easy scam to get people to open their wallets for salvation and purchase a room in the after-life hotel. The leaders of said religion laugh all the way to the bank.

Nonsense. The horrors of the 20th century (which were easily "The greatest atrocities in history") had nothing to do with religion unless you would make the argument, as Grumpy seems prepared to do, that political ideology and the state filled the vacuum in  mens' hearts.

So would grumpy make the argument that a strong religious core could possibly have prevented those atrocities? i would go along with that.

i don't know a lot about german history at that point, but my understanding is that the society was humiliated and economically destroyed by world war one right? ...it doesnt seem to much of a stretch to me to think that at that point the people needed hope, and they went for nationalism rather than christianity or another religion. people, especially desparate ones, always need something to believe in.

I'm making a presumption about where Grumpy was going with that if anywhere. I could be wrong.

I am not referrring specifically to Nazism but to all forms of totalitarianism. It seems to me is that one of the hallmarks of the "age of ideology" (as the 19th and 20th centuries are sometimes referred to) was the decline of organized religion and repeated attempts to replace it with a rationalism that could be spiritually satisfying. Man became God with predictable consequences.

Philosophy is not my bag but history is so I hope I'm clear. I may not be.

[conley]

I am not referrring specifically to Nazism but to all forms of totalitarianism. It seems to me is that one of the hallmarks of the "age of ideology" (as the 19th and 20th centuries are sometimes referred to) was the decline of organized religion and repeated attempts to replace it with a rationalism that could be spiritually satisfying. Man became God with predictable consequences.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense...I feel as though perhaps some sense of religion might have held things in check. But perhaps not...perhaps even say, the Crusdades, as bloody as they were, would have been just as atrocious as some of the 19-20th century horrors had they taken place in a more technologically advanced time. I don't know that the hate and passion were any less back then, there was just less damage that could be done maybe?

I also wonder where the more recent atrocities in Africa rank in all this (as you said the 20th century atrocities being the greatest in history)... I know nothing of their religious beliefs but I would think these slaughters are definitely near the top of the list of barbarian acts. And most of them are being done with machetes...so i guess my theory of technology advances explaining the larger casualties and suffering goes right out the window...

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I am not referrring specifically to Nazism but to all forms of totalitarianism. It seems to me is that one of the hallmarks of the "age of ideology" (as the 19th and 20th centuries are sometimes referred to) was the decline of organized religion and repeated attempts to replace it with a rationalism that could be spiritually satisfying. Man became God with predictable consequences.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense...I feel as though perhaps some sense of religion might have held things in check. But perhaps not...perhaps even say, the Crusdades, as bloody as they were, would have been just as atrocious as some of the 19-20th century horrors had they taken place in a more technologically advanced time. I don't know that the hate and passion were any less back then, there was just less damage that could be done maybe?

I also wonder where the more recent atrocities in Africa rank in all this (as you said the 20th century atrocities being the greatest in history)... I know nothing of their religious beliefs but I would think these slaughters are definitely near the top of the list of barbarian acts. And most of them are being done with machetes...so i guess my theory of technology advances explaining the larger casualties and suffering goes right out the window...

Would the Crusades have been as atrocious? I don't think so and I say that not to deny that there was a great deal of passion involved. The First Crusade, in particular, is a fascinating story of genuine faith, adventure, savagery and intolerance. On the other hand, the Europeans lived side by side with their muslim counterparts for almost 200 years (I would imagine that wiki has a good article on the crusader states), formed alliances and even intermarried although both were frowned upon by the Church and others in Europe. While always a besieged minority, they were not driven from the Hold Land until sometime in the late 13th century (1280s?) and  accomodated themselves to the Eastern milieu in the interim. I agree that modern technology would make such conflicts worse but I think certain concepts that made 20th century killing so awful were missing. I just don't think people thought of themselves as just a cog in some organic machine. I think what made totalitarian ideologies so dangerous was not just that they left no room for God but also because they left no room for the individual. The state was a jealous god and it would have no other gods beside it. One common element found in virtually all of these systems was the consistent degradation of the individual and the denial of a private life. It went deeper in some cases than others. For instance, the Nazi government would pretty much leave you alone as long as you didn't get involved in politics whereas the Soviets sought to manage almost every aspect of your life (for the good of the collective of course). The individual human life had no value.

Ah, I think I'm getting a little over my head here so I'm going to call a halt for now. Your comments got me thinking and I guess that's what's important. I would say that the impersonal killing allowed by modern firepower went hand and hand with a mindset that not only allowed men to cope with slaughter but to justify it as well. There is no doubt that the slaughter of WW1 had an effect on Hitler's thinking, for instance, but he was able to come to terms with it all and find a meaning in it like so many others came to on both sides.  Just some thoughts.....not the most coherent passage but it was fun.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I should add that the Rwandan genocide was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence between two rival ethnic groups but the calculated device of a modern government. Those machetes you speak of were distributed beforehand along with daily doses of propaganda. Western media, fucking retarded as always, reported it as if it was just the legacy of colonialism. The truth is that the Rwandan government quite consciously created the conditions in which that occured. This kind of thing is new, I believe.

My source for this is Martin Meredith's The Tragedy Of Africa

[conley]

I should add that the Rwandan genocide was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence between two rival ethnic groups but the calculated device of a modern government. Those machetes you speak of were distributed beforehand along with daily doses of propaganda. Western media, fucking retarded as always, reported it as if it was just the legacy of colonialism. The truth is that the Rwandan government quite consciously created the conditions in which that occured. This kind of thing is new, I believe.

My source for this is Martin Meredith's The Tragedy Of Africa

very interesting points...i am going to think about this and get back to you

i need to read more about the genocide in rwanda, i did not realize that the conditions were set up on purpose...when you see things like that it makes you realize what man is very capable of, even in this day and age, and its not pretty

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I should add that the Rwandan genocide was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence between two rival ethnic groups but the calculated device of a modern government. Those machetes you speak of were distributed beforehand along with daily doses of propaganda. Western media, fucking retarded as always, reported it as if it was just the legacy of colonialism. The truth is that the Rwandan government quite consciously created the conditions in which that occured. This kind of thing is new, I believe.

My source for this is Martin Meredith's The Tragedy Of Africa

very interesting points...i am going to think about this and get back to you

i need to read more about the genocide in rwanda, i did not realize that the conditions were set up on purpose...when you see things like that it makes you realize what man is very capable of, even in this day and age, and its not pretty

These populations were rivals historically but this sudden genocidal frenzy was orchestrated from the top. I think the machetes even had to be flown in! Tutsi and Hutu were not just waiting for an excuse to start killing each other. I was surprised by this as well. I really need to pick up some more of Meredith's work. He lived and traveled in Africa for decades. He really fell in love with his subject from what I understand.


As far as the other stuff goes i don't even know if it's makes sense  Got me thinking though.

[SDML]

for the last time all i am doing is asking questions.

Not true. You've made numerous assertions & accusations, yet support none of them at all.

You also mis-use the word "intelligent design", defining it to suit your purposes, but doing a dis-service to the discussion by changing definitions as you go.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

creationism is religious doctrine,yes?  intel design is as you put a pseudo scientific end run in benefit of creationism?  so we are talking of religious beliefs, faith?  what is faith but the belief in something absent supporting evidence.  you can't argue this there being no argument to win.  personally i have no stake in this beyond stating that i can see the argument for intel design and intel design and science do not necessarily have to be diametrically opposed.       

[SDML]

creationism is religious doctrine,yes?

Creationism is a specific religious doctrine based on biblical literalism from the judaeo-chrstian tradition. It is fundamentalist religion's attempt to do what religion does not do well (i.e.: examining & understanding & explaining the workings of the physical world).

Religion does many things well, but explaining physical phenomena is not one of them.

personally i have no stake in this beyond stating that i can see the argument for intel design and intel design and science do not necessarily have to be diametrically opposed.       

Again, you are mistaken, and your error is that you keep re-defining "intelligent design" to suit your rhetorical needs, rather than as the phrase was designed to be used (by those who invented it). The fact, however, is that (as you say) words have meaning, and the phrase "intelligent design" refers to a VERY SPECIFIC model of the universe. One that 1) does not use the scientific method as a means of rational inquiry (meaning, simply, that it is not science), 2) seeks to overturn the fundamentals of biology & physics and replace it with "a world-view consistent with Christianity" (giving it a specific agenda that has nothing to do with seeking truth), 3) seeks to place Christianity above other religions.

By it's very (self-defined) criteria, it IS diametrically opposed to science.

It is and has to be in conflict with science, and the two are mutually exclusive, as ID was designed to be exactly that. You may not like that, but you'll need to take that up with the guys who invented ID, not me. I'm just telling you what it is.

Now, if you'd like to use "intelligent design" to mean something other that what it means, please do so AFTER you let us all know what your meaning is.

===============

All that said, I think I understand the gist of where you are going with this, and I am not in disagreement with you on that. At least not completely. But even then, I think you too often use the words "religion" and "spiritual" as synonymous, and they are not.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

your letting a three lettered word have way too much power over you.

[SDML]

I have no idea to what 3 letter word you are referring, but is your 1 line response designed to advance the conversation or end it?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

this conversation is a circle.  all that i have said, for those that believe in creationism and/or intelligent design science does not hold the answers because it can not and it can not by design.  and that three lettered word is the libertarian anti-christ...god.     

[conley]

this conversation is a circle.  all that i have said, for those that believe in creationism and/or intelligent design science does not hold the answers because it can not and it can not by design.  and that three lettered word is the libertarian anti-christ...god.     

i agree ... praise jesus!

[SDML]

this conversation is a circle.  all that i have said, for those that believe in creationism and/or intelligent design science does not hold the answers because it can not and it can not by design.  and that three lettered word is the libertarian anti-christ...god.     

There you go making accusations again. Who said libertarians were a bunch of atheists? Ron Paul is Methodist, and there is a HUGE Christian sector in the LP. I thought it was the dems you held as anti-god (and anti-country).

The conversation doesn't have to be a circle. But in order for it to be productive, you really need to stop making such grand assumptions that have zero to do with the topic at hand.

Now, to address your statement with regard to creationism: Those who believe in biblical literacy (which states that the earth is, depending on whose figures you trust, somewhere between 6000 years old and 10,000 years old and that fossils were put on earth by go in order to test your faith) with regard to PHYSICAL PHENOMENA (not spiritual matters or moral matters or what-have-you) do so because they either do not understand what science is & how it works, or because they choose to embrace literalism in spite of a system that has brought you the ability to accurately predict eclipses, cure polio, radically reduce the infant mortality rate, provide your home with power & heat & a microwave to heat your java, the computer on which you read & respond to posts on this forum, satellites in geosynchronous orbit so you can watch the Superbowl "live via satellite", and so forth.

Religion & religious philosophy serve many a purpose, Grumpy...many an admirable purpose that science cannot serve. No one here, including me, has bashed religion or even people who embrace biblical literalism (I only bashed the designers of Intelligent Design & ID itself). So why are you being so hostile towards science, libertarianism, me, and the open & free exchange of ideas?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

fear not non-believer, i will use my vast influence with the man up there and see if i can't get you an early release from hell.