Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 76

Thread: Islam and Modern Terrorism - The Divine Solution.

  1. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    The moslem mash is on. We will mangle maul and mutilate them for sassing back. With an average 85 IQ, will they be a big loss?

    Possibly. For remember, 85 or not, these people were innovators and keepers of algebra 800 years ago. East injuns are only average 85, too, yet they produced the likes of Ramanujan. Such populations only have to overcome one additional standard deviation more than a population with average 100 to produce their own super genius. This frequency can be calculated.

    Any human population will produce an occasional super genius. These are the only people that matter. You and I matter to ourselves and a few family members, and a tiny fraction of us that might trickle down to the rest of humanity through an individual or two we influenced. As soon as we die the forgetting of us starts, and it proceeds very fast.

    Arabs (middle east), east injuns and negros will not produce the super genius as often, but each super genius is important enough to change the world if they get the right training at the right time early. Ramanujan did not get the right training, yet his ideas were powerful enough for him to become an immortal of mathematics. People like Ramanujan or Euler or Omar Kayaam matter and belong to everyone. Let's say everyone matters, but everyone does not matter to everyone else the way those three do. That is simply a nicer way to put it.

    The fact is, everyone who is not a super genius has a job--breed and try to create one; help fund and create universities and educational structures capable of nourishing those of the highest intellectual order. It takes a pyramidal structure. If first class education had been available to Ramanujan, I guarantee we would not live in the same world right now.

    Certain swaths of China and east Asia average 106 IQ, compared to the American 98. The highest average IQ belongs to Hasidic Jews, at a lofty 110.

    A curiosity of those aforementioned Asian populations is their low variance. They cluster about their average more strongly, meaning a lot of high average people with fewer geniuses. A steeper bell curve that rides its asymptote sooner. Don't count 'em out, though. The world's greatest living mathematician is generally considered to be Terrence Tao, a Japanese. My Finns and Swedes and eastern europeans may be the kings of variance, and of course they built the world once they were handed the baton in the human relay, but even with higher variance they may not match the number of third world super geniuses in the near future, due to population distribution.

    Do not write back crying and squalling, trying to dispute what IQ numbers mean. I don't know everything they mean. They are excellent indicators of certain talents, but far from flawless. They are better at measuring abstract intelligence than they are creative intelligence. Some people believe they are hugely culturally biased. I believe much intelligence flys under the radar of IQ tests, but still they do capture quite a bit.

    None of that is my domain, folks. I am just disseminating the numbers.

    If you have to club a religion like seals, its stands to reason to start with moslems, since they are on the low IQ end and are causing problems. They only have to be clubbed because they will not go away fast enough and become in actu atheists and agnostics like the rest of us. They are back at Plymouth Rock in terms of social evolution and we do not have time to tolerate the same ignorance from them we once perpetuated.

    It is a sad fact of humans since their beginning that the less advanced are almost always the ones getting clubbed like seals by their smarter brothers with a little more testosterone. Savage, tough and smart beats savage tough and average, that is what the moslems are not smart enough to assess.

    The biggest shame is that so many peaceful people get plowed under in wars. All wars have an element of pogrom in them. Human cruelty unleashed is awesome. You have to be a perpetrator, a victim or an artist to know it. Cruelty is easily accessible in us all. You can tell by the number of denials.

    The world is moving a certain way socially, and those who do not come along will be clubbed down, literally or figuratively.

    Old birds like me do not decide where the world is going anymore, but become good at seeing the ineluctable direction of those movements and their results in advance.

    The young birds have decided that:

    1 They will have the world the old farts (founding fathers) promised.

    2 Global climate change has a big human footprint

    3 Gay mariage is fine

    4 There are not as many murders in countries where guns are banned.

    5 I am "spiritual," but not a church goer.

    6 We want social democracy with more emphasis on social.

    7 Abortion is in

    8 Bad moslems must be clubbed

    The young birds have a massive dependency on technology. That is their weakness. The old birds have a massive dependency on their prescription drugs. There is really no one to challenge who is not strongly dependent on something which can be cut off. I do not think the young birds are in charge any more than the old birds are, just a little more receptive to the views of those image makers shaping their views into a world direction.

    In the end it is not about making people free, but about making them good customers. Good customers do not go around blowing other customers up. The image makers shape a world where monster money still rules under a different robe. The propaganda machine has advanced so far since the time of Ivy Lee and Edward Bernaise that I have no doubt the masters could convince people who were slaves they were free and better off than most others; could convince people who were poorer than they used to be that they are the luckiest people in the world, etc., etc., etc.

    Who really decides the direction your world is moving in?

    Agree with them or not, I feel the above listed views are as good as already done. They are the way the United States is moving and the way the world will follow.
    Last edited by desiresjab; 04-04-2016 at 12:14 AM.

  2. #47
    Registered User fajfall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Delta40 View Post
    I understand. We love nothing better than to deny Hitler was a Christian. When Christians commit gross acts against humanity - Pro-lifers murdering pregnant women and staff for example, nobody mentions the Christian thing or if it is mentioned, they're deigned as misguided. Anti-Muslim Killers are seen as patriots rather than Christians. Pedophile Christians are simply not Christians at all. The fact is, Christianity that is, true Christianity, never receives bad press because as you know, a true Christian never does anything that disgusting. The same hypocrisy is not extended to Muslims who are all frequently condemned for the actions of every individual and are punished severely for it and I wonder why.
    Hitler was an extreme Darwinist, you will see it page after page in Mein Kampf. He loathed Christianity as a meek, feeble, weak-minded religion that contradiction the laws of nature. When the SS had 'Got mit uns' on their belts it was not any specific Christian God being referred to: Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Pagan, all were welcome.

    The Hadith teach that Muhammad engaged a 6 year old girl and married her at 9. To this day it's Islamically permissible to have sex with a 9 year old because of it. You can 'thigh' her between 6-9 years of age because his wife's, Aisha, herself said so. I raised the issue of Catholic priest paedophilia with a Muslim apostate and she said 'Muslims don't need to molest children in our country; they simply marry them and do the same because Muhammad did'.

    This is a literature forum and I'm using religious texts to assert my points.
    Last edited by fajfall; 04-04-2016 at 07:03 AM.

  3. #48
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    For Mill, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,534
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by bounty View Post
    am reluctant to venture off the "literary" portion of the forum, but having heard the "lying about weapons of mass destruction" claim for years and caring greatly about words, their meaning and the truth, i find it especially bothersome.

    being wrong about the existence of wmd and lying about their existence are obviously not the same thing, yet one frequently hears the latter claim with absolutely no evidence to support it.
    Most people were simply wrong. They were fooled and so they weren't lying. However, there were UN weapons inspections which found nothing. That should have made those who didn't know question their beliefs, but it didn't.

    I find it hard to believe that no one was lying and that everyone was innocent given the evidence from those UN inspections. Since all that was done under a Christian president and prime minister, Christians need to take the heat for that. I do remember hearing that the Catholic pope at the time opposed Bush publicly. Catholics are the only Christians that I would exclude from those responsible for this and that is only because of their pope.

  4. #49
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    For Mill, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,534
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by desiresjab View Post
    If you have to club a religion like seals, its stands to reason to start with moslems, since they are on the low IQ end and are causing problems. They only have to be clubbed because they will not go away fast enough and become in actu atheists and agnostics like the rest of us. They are back at Plymouth Rock in terms of social evolution and we do not have time to tolerate the same ignorance from them we once perpetuated.
    It is because of texts like this that I am opposed to atheism.

  5. #50
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    For Mill, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,534
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Delta40 View Post
    I understand. We love nothing better than to deny Hitler was a Christian. When Christians commit gross acts against humanity - Pro-lifers murdering pregnant women and staff for example, nobody mentions the Christian thing or if it is mentioned, they're deigned as misguided. Anti-Muslim Killers are seen as patriots rather than Christians. Pedophile Christians are simply not Christians at all. The fact is, Christianity that is, true Christianity, never receives bad press because as you know, a true Christian never does anything that disgusting. The same hypocrisy is not extended to Muslims who are all frequently condemned for the actions of every individual and are punished severely for it and I wonder why.
    I agree with most of what you say. Christians tend to excuse themselves when blame comes their way. The same goes for Muslims. The same goes for atheists. Probably the same goes for most of us.

    The differences between these groups lie in the texts they reference for support.

  6. #51
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,446
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    It is because of texts like this that I am opposed to atheism.
    This is a non sequitur. One bigoted atheist does not represent atheism any more than one Muslim suicide bomber represents Islam.

  7. #52
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    For Mill, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,534
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    This is a non sequitur. One bigoted atheist does not represent atheism any more than one Muslim suicide bomber represents Islam.
    I agree that what I am doing is generalizing from a particular example. That's what science does. It goes from the particular to the general. I do think this particular example conveniently represents the problems of atheism. Atheism is pseudo-scientific dehumanization, a bedevilment. This leads to dreams of genocide and then, if the world is unfortunate enough, actual genocide. This should be a wake-up call to atheists to examine what it is they actually believe.

    The existence of Muslim suicide bombers is a good reason for people to avoid the Muslim religion. When Muslims blow themselves up killing others, they are effectively offering the world a YouTube video of them forcing their Mohammad to kneel while they decapitate him.

    The way Christians pushed weapons of mass destruction is a good reason to avoid the Christian religion. It can't be trusted. They effectively lined their baby Jesus up against the wall and fired rounds into his face.

    Given all this scandal from atheists, Christians and Muslims, I feel like Robinson Crusoe with a wrecked cultural ship sinking off the island and wondering just what is worth saving from that doomed vessel.

  8. #53
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,446
    Your argument doesn't make sense. You are not generalizing from a particular example. Instead, you are opposing a philosophy (atheism) because you dislike one proponent of that philosophy. Its as if you would refuse to believe that 2+2=4 because someone who thinks it does is a bigot. The bigotry of one person is irrelevant to whether 2 + 2 = 4.

  9. #54
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    For Mill, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,534
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    Your argument doesn't make sense. You are not generalizing from a particular example. Instead, you are opposing a philosophy (atheism) because you dislike one proponent of that philosophy. Its as if you would refuse to believe that 2+2=4 because someone who thinks it does is a bigot. The bigotry of one person is irrelevant to whether 2 + 2 = 4.
    I actually like desiresjab. I have had many interesting conversations with him on the cosmology thread that he started. I wish he would stick to that.

    The statement 2 + 2 = 4 is a statement related to a certain mathematical structure. Its validity has nothing to do with whether the person stating it is a bigot or not. Its validity only depends on the particular math game in which the statement occurs. It is like a statement about how the rook is permitted to move in chess. It is true in any universe and only those who take mathematics or other games literally would confuse mathematical statements or chess moves with reality.

    The truth or falsity of atheism, on the other hand, is not part of mathematics. Mathematics cannot decide anything about atheism any more than the game of chess can. Nor is atheism some sort of game isolated from reality that works in all universes. It is a metaphysical claim about reality.

    My claim is that atheism is a form of dehumanization that comes, to some extent, from taking deterministic structures like mathematics too literally. It is not so much about the nonexistence of Gods as the nonexistence of human consciousness. Atheism leads to speculations that human beings are not agents, or that they are deterministic or that they have no real subjectivity. That implies they are expendable. That view of reality, I maintain, is false. If you think it is true, I welcome you to defend such a position.

    The thread is about violence and ideology. YALASH is trying to find a way to redefine the Muslim religion to avoid the violence associated with Muslim suicide bombers. What I like about his position is that he is not trying to cover up this violence. He admits it occurs and he offers an alternative that comes out of an interpretation of the Koran.

  10. #55
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,446
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post


    My claim is that atheism is a form of dehumanization that comes, to some extent, from taking deterministic structures like mathematics too literally. It is not so much about the nonexistence of Gods as the nonexistence of human consciousness. Atheism leads to speculations that human beings are not agents, or that they are deterministic or that they have no real subjectivity. That implies they are expendable. That view of reality, I maintain, is false. If you think it is true, I welcome you to defend such a position.
    I think that your claims about atheism are incorrect. An omniscient God is deterministic -- if He knows what will happen before it happens there can be no freedom of agency. (Obviously, freedom is compatible with non-omniscient Gods.)

    In any event, your argument about math is simply irrelevant. I could have used "Springfield is the capital of Illinois" as my example. If a bigot thinks Springfield is the capital of Illinois, does that mean that Springfield is NOT the capital of Illinois? Are we to judge what we believe to be true based on what world-views appear most useful? This appears to be desiresjab's POV, and your POV. The difference is he bases his beliefs on the material usefulness of a world-view, and you base yours on the moral usefulness of a world-view. It seems to me that neither POV is epistemologically valid, and both may, in fact, be cowardly (i.e. they involve believing what you want to believe instead of investigating without prejudice).

    In addition, speculation that human behavior is determined does NOT imply humans are expendable. Why would it? If human behavior is determined, surely recognizing that fact cannot be "dehumanizing". Surely making correct assumptions about human nature is "humanizing", not "dehumanizing". (What these assumptions are is, of course, questionable.)
    Last edited by Ecurb; 04-04-2016 at 05:21 PM.

  11. #56
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    17,203
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post

    My claim is that atheism is a form of dehumanization that comes, to some extent, from taking deterministic structures like mathematics too literally. It is not so much about the nonexistence of Gods as the nonexistence of human consciousness. Atheism leads to speculations that human beings are not agents, or that they are deterministic or that they have no real subjectivity. That implies they are expendable. That view of reality, I maintain, is false. If you think it is true, I welcome you to defend such a position.

    The thread is about violence and ideology. YALASH is trying to find a way to redefine the Muslim religion to avoid the violence associated with Muslim suicide bombers. What I like about his position is that he is not trying to cover up this violence. He admits it occurs and he offers an alternative that comes out of an interpretation of the Koran.
    Sometimes we quarrel about definitions. If I understand it right, "atheism" for Yes/No (with or without mathematics) is a kind of synonym for the loss of essencial positive human values we are experiencing these days. In this context an atheist that lives decently and respects his neighbour is as good as a believer from whatever religion who believes in doing good.
    I believe that positive religious values further life in society inasmuch as they teach basic forms of respect and responsibility.
    I donīt need to enlarge on what negative religious values do. We all know that much too well!
    Last edited by Danik 2016; 04-04-2016 at 05:30 PM.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  12. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Atheism gives up too much. It gives up flexibility, for one thing. Once someone states they now believe this or believe that, dogma sets in. Sometimes that is just a reaction to the claims of those who are not atheists.

    Only agnosticism offers whatever you want it to. It sides with Socrates that any strong belief about the existence of Gods was presumptuous.

    Yes, there may be a God. To declare there is is meaningless to others and drives them away to form their own dogmas. We simply do not know and at present are not equipped to know the answers to ultimate questions.

    What someone feels about it is never going to convince others. Devotees can stand in flames praying as their fats boil and others will not be convinced. Whether or not subjective and objective truths are fundmentally the same, seems ages ahead of our current understanding.

  13. #58
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    For Mill, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,534
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    I think that your claims about atheism are incorrect. An omniscient God is deterministic -- if He knows what will happen before it happens there can be no freedom of agency. (Obviously, freedom is compatible with non-omniscient Gods.)
    I suspect that an omniscient God would know whatever is possible to be known and no more. That would be the limit of that God's omniscience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    In any event, your argument about math is simply irrelevant. I could have used "Springfield is the capital of Illinois" as my example. If a bigot thinks Springfield is the capital of Illinois, does that mean that Springfield is NOT the capital of Illinois? Are we to judge what we believe to be true based on what world-views appear most useful? This appears to be desiresjab's POV, and your POV. The difference is he bases his beliefs on the material usefulness of a world-view, and you base yours on the moral usefulness of a world-view. It seems to me that neither POV is epistemologically valid, and both may, in fact, be cowardly (i.e. they involve believing what you want to believe instead of investigating without prejudice).
    When you claim that "Springfield is the capital of Illinois" you are making a statement about reality. When you claim that "2 + 2 = 4," you are making a statement about a game, not reality. Such a statement is closer to a statement about a story or a poem than a fact of geography. So I would say these two statements are different.

    The problem of determinism involves taking mathematical games containing ideas like a continuum of infinitesimal time instants literally as real rather than part of a game. This leads to determinism. I am using the idea of "literal" in the same way one might complain about people taking Genesis literally because it is essentially the same problem.

    By the way, I investigate everything with prejudice. Let me suggest something that might come as a shock: we all do. It is what makes the investigations interesting and gives us a place to start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecurb View Post
    In addition, speculation that human behavior is determined does NOT imply humans are expendable. Why would it? If human behavior is determined, surely recognizing that fact cannot be "dehumanizing". Surely making correct assumptions about human nature is "humanizing", not "dehumanizing". (What these assumptions are is, of course, questionable.)
    Since humans initiate activity, such as posting to this thread, they are agents and so they are not determined although they might have dispositions to act in one way or the other. Given that humans are agents to say they are not agents is dehumanizing since it denies what humans are.

    Does this lead to humans being expendable? Yes. If humans are determined they are no different than a washing machine or a computer. We treat such determined objects rationally. That is, when we push a button we expect a determined response. When we don't get that response, we replace the object because the object is expendable.

    Are there people who believe that people are determined? Yes. See Sam Harris's "Free Will" for one atheist's view of determinism. Consider people who think they can download human subjectivity into a computer. Consider people who think consciousness is an epiphenomenon.

  14. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    I do not see myself as an atheist or having a cosmological agenda or preference.

    At the beginning is where I tried to start, my attempt being to find anything about the universe I felt was incontrovertible. In mathematics I felt I found such statements. It has nothing to do with Gods or not. Two is the successor of one cannot be denied by reasonable people.

    I wanted people to realize there was something undeniable in the universe, there was a footing. That view in no way denies the existence of God. There may be additional footing not accessible to mathematics, but at least mathematics is there and undeniable. I am open to all investigations, though subjective impressions gained while in a trance, etc., will not be worthwhile evidence for the foreseeable future. Perhaps an enlarged theory of subjectivity as Yes/No suggests will come about which can handle weird evidence. Even then, there is likely to be some mathematical basis to the new theory. Perhaps the only objective undeniable of the universe is math. All other ultimate truths may only be accessible subjectively. Math could be the only such foothold, but I seriously doubt it. The complexity of the infinite unfolding of emergent properties is responsible for the opinion.
    Last edited by desiresjab; 04-04-2016 at 09:56 PM.

  15. #60
    Ecurb Ecurb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    2,446
    You're rambling, Yesno. The context for the discussion about 2+2 or the capital of Illinois was that you clearly stated that you opposed atheism BECAUSE of texts like dj wrote:

    If you have to club a religion like seals, its stands to reason to start with moslems, since they are on the low IQ end and are causing problems. They only have to be clubbed because they will not go away fast enough and become in actu atheists and agnostics like the rest of us. They are back at Plymouth Rock in terms of social evolution and we do not have time to tolerate the same ignorance from them we once perpetuated.
    Of course mathematical "facts" are different from facts about state capitals. What does that have to do with whether your opposition to atheism BECAUSE OF dj's post is a non sequitur?

    YesNo wrote:

    I suspect that an omniscient God would know whatever is possible to be known and no more. That would be the limit of that God's omniscience.
    Given determinism, nobody would know either more or less than whatever is possible to be known. We would all be equally omniscient (in that limited and almost meaningless respect). Only the possible would be actual, and only the actual would be possible. This is logically self-evident. But that's not what people mean when they say God is omniscient.

    It's reasonable to talk about human agency, whether behavior is pre-determined or not. The murderer pulls the trigger and "causes" the death, because those are the rules of our language. That's what the word "causes" means. Whether God knew that the trigger-man would shoot his own mother since the creation of the universe makes no difference in this respect. Those who believe in a determined universe (Calvinists, for example) blame others for crimes and punish them for crimes (sometimes, they punish them for imaginary crimes, like witchcraft). The proposition that fatalism means that its proponents cannot differentiate between a human and a washing machine is ludicrous.

    Neither a "free will" dependent on supernatural souls nor a "determinism" dependent on an understanding of how neurons firing in our brains control our thoughts are likely to have much moral impact. We will always act as if we have free will, whether or not we do. Also, Sam Harris does not speak for all atheists (although I agree that atheism is dogmatic, as are most religions).

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Aphorism #251 Use human Means as if there were no divine ones, and divine as if ther
    By Admin in forum Balthasar Gracian's The Art of Worldly Wisdom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 03:10 AM
  2. Aphorism #251 Use human Means as if there were no divine ones, and divine as if ther
    By Admin in forum Balthasar Gracian's The Art of Worldly Wisdom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2013, 04:20 AM
  3. Aphorism #251 Use human Means as if there were no divine ones, and divine as if ther
    By Admin in forum Balthasar Gracian's The Art of Worldly Wisdom
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 03:40 AM
  4. Aphorism #251 Use human Means as if there were no divine ones, and divine as if ther
    By Admin in forum Balthasar Gracian's The Art of Worldly Wisdom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2007, 02:40 PM
  5. How I came to Islam..by Yousef Islam(CatStevens)
    By the mooring in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-27-2006, 11:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •