19 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeSo by your definition "hostility, prejudice and discrimination" are limited to the religious? Haven't you just exhibited the same sentiments towards religion? What a hypocrite.
I know you don't read your own cut 'n' paste jobs, or respond to rebuttals of the above, so to prevent you from having to look at a dictionary, here is the definition of anti-semitism:
1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.
Must be upsetting to realise you are as thick at PratX.
As I've asked multiple times now, please substantiate any of your claims as they now seam prejudiced, hostile and discriminatory.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy thoughts exactly.
Quit the abuse.
Your post provides a definition for anti-semitism; it provides no causes.
You asserted that religion is the primary (if not only) cause of anti-semitism. I've provided alternatives - and you have not responded to them.
If you want to have a rational debate, then stick to facts and reason. Otherwise stop wasting our time.
19 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is hard not to be abusive to one as stupid as you.
Quit the abuse.
Your post provides a definition for anti-semitism; it provides no causes.
You asserted that religion is the primary (if not only) cause of anti-semitism. I've provided alternatives - and you have not responded to them.
If you want to have a rational debate, then stick to facts and reason. Otherwise stop wasting our time.
If a persson is jealous of a Jew, then this is not anti-semitism,; it is jealousy.
If a person is zenephobic, then they are bigotted against people from a certain country; this is not anti-semitism. If a person is xenephobic against people from Israel, then that person is anti-zionist, not anti-semitic.
In short, anti-semitism is hatred of the Jews because of their religious beliefs which makes them Jews.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseGod help us, you lot are so stupid - small wonder you are religious!!!!
So by your definition "hostility, prejudice and discrimination" are limited to the religious? Haven't you just exhibited the same sentiments towards religion? What a hypocrite.
As I've asked multiple times now, please substantiate any of your claims as they now seam prejudiced, hostile and discriminatory.
My definition (The dictionary's actually), does not limit "hostility, prejudice and discrimination" to the religious.
Any one can be anti-semitic - Catholics, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics.
Where on earth did you get this faulty conclusion from?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
19 Oct 05
Proverbs 14:3 - In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.
Proverbs 14:16 - A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.
Proverbs 15:2 - The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
Proverbs 17:28 - Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Proverbs 23:9 - Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Proverbs 26:4 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 27:3 - A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both.
Proverbs 27:22 - Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.
19 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseHad a power outage today, and this thread has run far ahead of me. So I'll limit myself to a few brief responses:
[b]I would think that any institutionalized system that (1) claims for itself the only valid expression of a totality of Truth, and (2) regards alternative views as dangerous or perverse, would have a built-in tendency (or temptation at least) toward violence as a means either to advance its tenets or to proscribe other views.
A thought-provoking pos ...[text shortened]... subscribe to it?
The very act of violent subjugation implies doubt in the validity of Truth.[/b]
Why would a system that claims total Truth need to advance it's tenets by violence.
I didn't say "need;" I merely said I think there is an endogenous tendency/temptation.
Surely the populace would recognise the Truth and therefore subscribe to it?
I should've stressed the word "claim" above. If everyone recognized and subscribed to a certain truth-claim, then the second criterion I proposed (having to do with those who hold alternative views) would not be there.
The very act of violent subjugation implies doubt in the validity of Truth.
I would tend to agree. Would you say then that any time any religous group has tried to subjugate or convert their "opponents" by violence, that they were displaying at least a subconscious doubt about the validity of theit own truth claims?
19 Oct 05
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIs it only institutionalised systems that would be prone? Think about culture and social mores. Although these are not enshrined in visible institutions they might still be considered True by adherents.
[b]I would think that any institutionalized system ...
Is it only institutionalised systems that would be prone? Think about culture and social mores. Although these are not enshrined in visible institutions they might still be considered True by adherents.
... that (1) claims for itself the only valid expression of a totality of Truth .. ...[text shortened]... en we know that the result would be ignorance - which we almost always consider to be dangerous.
[/b]Agreed, but unless there is an instituional base of some sort, there is likely not to be a war--riots perhaps, mobs but no armies.
If A says X is true and B says not-X is true, then we know that both cannot be simultaneously right. If the person asserting the falsehood has his way, then we know that the result would be ignorance - which we almost always consider to be dangerous.
With this, and the preceding, are you implying that (a) any time a person holds a certain truth claim that others do not, that if the perceived "heretics" refuse to accept that truth claim, violence is likely? (I think that would tend to support my argument about endogeneity); (b) that violent subjugation of "ignorant" and hence "dangerous" views is thereby justified (i.e., regardless of whether those opposing views contaoin some other social threat)?
Most of the rest of your post--non-contradiction, etc.--is acceptable to me, at least on a first pass-through, as none of it undermines my point about endogeneity.
EDIT: Re certainty--We may strive for certainty, but, outside purely deductive logic and mathematics, I'm not sure it is achievable; at any rate, if it were agreed that (a) it is achievable, and (b) is so by virtue of certain methods, epistemology would be a pretty narrow field.
EDIT 2: Re noncontradiction--I assume we are simply excluding paradox from the discussion for simplicity.
Also, I'm vaguely concerned here about humility toward our own truth-claims (again, this thread is not about mathematics, it's about religion, cultural mores, philosophies, etc.); your presentation seems to go toward there being no reason for such, given that we are certain that there are no contradictions in our own truth claims, and no room for reasonable disagreement--i.e., if the adherent of the alternative religion, philosophy, ideology can only ever be so by dint of stupidity, ignorance or perversity
20 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeSerbians are not Muslims. They are Orthodox Christians.
Did I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not.
As it happens though, WW1 was started by conflict between muslims (Serbia) and Xstians (Austria-Hungary).
As for WW2, ever heard of the holocaust?!?! Also the Japs worshipped their emperor as a God, which fanatacism earned them 2 atomic bombs.
The very least you can do is get facts like that correct. I would have thought that after Kosovo and Bosnia went up in flames people would be pretty aware of the religious affiliation of the relevant groups. But instead you spend pages and pages arguing World War I was a 'Christian versus Muslim' war.
As far as I can recall, all but one of your 'why religion is dumb' threads has been hopelessly flawed in its reasoning.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by orfeoNot quite:
Serbians are not Muslims. They are Orthodox Christians.
The very least you can do is get facts like that correct. I would have thought that after Kosovo and Bosnia went up in flames people would be pretty aware of the religious affiliation of the relevant groups. But instead you spend pages and pages arguing World War I was a 'Christian versus Muslim' ...[text shortened]... ll but one of your 'why religion is dumb' threads has been hopelessly flawed in its reasoning.
"With the arrival of the Ottoman Empire, some Serbs and Croats converted to Islam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serb#Religion
20 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgee"Some".
Not quite:
"With the arrival of the Ottoman Empire, some Serbs and Croats converted to Islam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serb#Religion
Well, if you're going to start utilisng minorities in each nation, then you could say Iraq is Christian and America is Muslim. That's quite obviously NOT what you originally meant.
20 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeIt is hard not to be abusive to one as stupid as you.
It is hard not to be abusive to one as stupid as you.
If a persson is jealous of a Jew, then this is not anti-semitism,; it is jealousy.
If a person is zenephobic, then they are bigotted against people from a certain country; this is not anti-semitism. If a person is xenephobic against people from Israel, then that person is anti-zionist, not anti-s ...[text shortened]... t, anti-semitism is hatred of the Jews because of their religious beliefs which makes them Jews.
Is it fair to say then that it is hard for you not to abuse mentally challenged and handicapped people? Simply because they are "stupid"?
Should logically follow from what you're saying.
If a persson is jealous of a Jew, then this is not anti-semitism,; it is jealousy.
We are talking about 'causes' or 'origins' of anti-semitism here.
By the same logic, if a person is religious/Christian, then this is not anti-semitism; it is religion.
If a person is zenephobic, then they are bigotted against people from a certain country; this is not anti-semitism.
1. Check your spelling - especially if you're going to start calling people "stupid".
2. The definition of xenophobia:
xen·o·pho·bi·a (zn-fb-, zn-)
n.
Fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.*
It is a general fear and contempt of strangers and foreigners, not those from a 'certain' country.
In short, anti-semitism is hatred of the Jews because of their religious beliefs which makes them Jews.
Wrong again.
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.†
Jew ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j)
n.
An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism. ‡
Anti-Zionism (not a dictionary term) presumably refers specifically to opposition to the modern State of Israel and its citizens. Anti-Semitism (when applied to people) is opposition to a particular ethnic group, the majority of whom are adherents of Judaism. And, unless there is some way for a non-Jew (or person without Jewish lineage or heritage) to become a Jew, it is fair to say that all adherents of Judaism are Jews, while all Jews are not adherents of Judaism.
For a person who goes around using terms like "dumb" and "stupid" in reference to others (and if that truly represents the summit of your intellectual capacity in abuse, then one truly wonders how you fail to include yourself in that class), you really should check your logic.
---
* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=xenophobia
† http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semitism
‡ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jew
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by vistesdWith this, and the preceding, are you implying that (a) any time a person holds a certain truth claim that others do not, that if the perceived "heretics" refuse to accept that truth claim, violence is likely?
[b]Is it only institutionalised systems that would be prone? Think about culture and social mores. Although these are not enshrined in visible institutions they might still be considered True by adherents.
[/b]Agreed, but unless there is an instituional base of some sort, there is likely not to be a war--riots perhaps, mobs but no armies.
If A s ...[text shortened]... religion, philosophy, ideology can only ever be so by dint of stupidity, ignorance or perversity
I wouldn't say it's likely. But, given human nature, it's not impossible.
(b) that violent subjugation of "ignorant" and hence "dangerous" views is thereby justified (i.e., regardless of whether those opposing views contaoin some other social threat)?
Of course not (unless, as you mentioned, the views contain some other threat to society). Violence can sometimes be the imperfect solution in an imperfect world, but I think it must adhere to the principles of Just War*.
Most practical truth systems (as religions are) recognise that the truths they espouse are ineffectual unless freely accepted by human beings. This is the driver behind Dignitatis Humanae (the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom), for instance.
The proper battleground for ideologies is the intellect and intuition of human beings.
Also, I'm vaguely concerned here about humility toward our own truth-claims
In my view, the problem facing "modern" society (i.e. Western society) is not too little humility, but too much humility† (or a false sense of humility). The problem is not a cacophony of voices, each proclaiming a different "truth". The problem is a deafening silence of people who are unwilling to defend and assert their convictions because of the possibility of error. This is the situation of relativism.
When I speak of certainty, I am not talking of absolute or mathematical certainty. Instead, I use the criteria of certainty we use in our daily lives - e.g. when a jury rules that the defendent has committed the crime, when we go to the supermarket for eggs, when we stand at the train station relying on the time-table. If we refused to act in these situations because of a lack of mathematical certainty, then we would be paralysed - and so we don't. Yet, when it comes to the moral sphere, that is precisely the situation modern society finds itself in.
Humility is about behaviour and demeanour - not conviction. In the search for Truth, humility is about recognising that you have not apprehended the totality of Truth. It is about realising that, even with the little morsels you know‡, you are no better off than those who don't - you have nothing to be arrogant or boast about**. Humility is not, however, self-skepticism.
your presentation seems to go toward there being no reason for such
I say that there is no reason for self-doubt when our convictions were arrived at through careful observation, intelligent thinking and reasonable judgment. When new facts are presented to us, of course we must re-evaluate those convictions and, if necessary, change them. But that does not mean we must refuse to defend or speak of the convictions we already have. If we are truly uncertain (because we cannot arrive at a reasonable conclusion), then we must continue the search.
---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war#When_is_a_war_just_by_the_criteria_of_Just_War_Theory.3F_.28Jus_ad_bellum.29
† Chesterton would approve, I'm sure. 🙂
‡ I use the word "know" in the sense that a jury would "know" that the defendent has committed the crime; not in the sense of mathematical certainty.
** In most mystical traditions, the closer you get to Truth, the more you realise how much further away it was than you originally thought. However, you cannot even begin to walk down that path if you lack conviction that it is the right path.
20 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI wouldn't say it's likely. But, given human nature, it's not impossible.
[b]With this, and the preceding, are you implying that (a) any time a person holds a certain truth claim that others do not, that if the perceived "heretics" refuse to accept that truth claim, violence is likely?
I wouldn't say it's likely. But, given human nature, it's not impossible.
(b) that violent subjugation of "ignorant" ...[text shortened]... , you cannot even begin to walk down that path if you lack conviction that it is the right path.
[/b]Let’s just say, that given the number of times in history that religion (and other “ideologies;” but the thread topic is religion) seem to have been a contributing cause for war (at least lending emotional and “moral” steam), I don’t think it should surprise anyone when it happens.
Most practical truth systems (as religions are) recognize that the truths they espouse are ineffectual unless freely accepted by human beings. This is the driver behind Dignitatis Humanae (the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom), for instance.
If they always recognized this—or if when they failed to do so, the results were not sometimes catastrophic— there would be no basis for this discussion.
The proper battleground for ideologies is the intellect and intuition of human beings.
Of course, but the “losers” in the public arena of debate, should not have to fear for their lives and well-being because an anathema is pronounced upon them.
In my view, the problem facing "modern" society (i.e. Western society) is not too little humility, but too much humility† (or a false sense of humility). The problem is not a cacophony of voices, each proclaiming a different "truth". The problem is a deafening silence of people who are unwilling to defend and assert their convictions because of the possibility of error.
Some of this depends on what you think the silent ones might proclaim if they lent their voices—e.g., for or against Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. When the cacophonous ones beat the drums for ideologically-informed violence, the silent assent of the others is certainly a contributing factor; but we can blame them for not speaking out only if we believe they would have spoken out against.
I agree about false humility however (with the caveat of my comments below).
Humility is not, however, self-skepticism.
I don’t know if “self-skepticism” is the proper term; I do think that whenever one loses the willingness or ability to apply methodological doubt to their own convictions—like a small questioning voice in the back of the head—they are in danger of lapsing into fanaticism. The kind of “humility” I’m talking about (and your comments are well-taken), vis-à-vis one’s ability to know (as you use the term) the truth, is a both a safeguard against dogmatism (in the pejorative, not the technical sense of the word) and fanaticism. Frankly, I don’t know any way to keep myself honest except through that “small questioning voice.” Obviously, it does not keep me silent.
In most mystical traditions, the closer you get to Truth, the more you realize how much further away it was than you originally thought.
Or, perhaps paradoxically, closer than you thought! 🙂
However, you cannot even begin to walk down that path if you lack conviction that it is the right path.
I have to say a right path, or one that’s right for you. My path is not yours; that--in itself--does not make it a “wrong” one.
20 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerhowardgee: In short, anti-Semitism is hatred of the Jews because of their religious beliefs which makes them Jews.
[b]It is hard not to be abusive to one as stupid as you.
Is it fair to say then that it is hard for you not to abuse mentally challenged and handicapped people? Simply because they are "stupid"?
Should logically follow from what you're saying.
If a persson is jealous of a Jew, then this is not anti-semitism,; it is jealousy.
...[text shortened]... /dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-semitism
‡ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jew[/b]
lucifershammer:
Wrong again.
an•ti-Sem•i•tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.†
I’d be awfully careful about trying to parse this question too finely. Your own selected definition adds “or Judaism.”
Now, Luther’s stance vis-à-vis the Jews, for example, has been sometimes characterized as being really one of anti-Judaism, rather than anti-Semitism. But it really translated into something like “The only good Jew is a convert” (to Christianity). The impact on Jews who choose not to convert is likely to be pretty much the same.
20 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI have to say a right path, or one that’s right for you. My path is not yours; that--in itself--does not make it a “wrong” one.
[b]I wouldn't say it's likely. But, given human nature, it's not impossible.
[/b]Let’s just say, that given the number of times in history that religion (and other “ideologies;” but the thread topic is religion) seem to have been a contributing cause for war (at least lending emotional and “moral” steam), I don’t think it should surprise anyone whe ...[text shortened]... e that’s right for you. My path is not yours; that--in itself--does not make it a “wrong” one.[/b]
Let's say, a path to the right goal. Obviously people have different paths (what I like to call "vocations" ), but we do not believe that different paths lead to different goals.
What's more, if some paths lead to the right goal, then there should be other paths that do not. Otherwise, we are essentially asserting moral relativism.
EDIT: I should also add that you must be convinced that it is, in fact, a right path and, in particular, the optimum path for you.