Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Education Attack Poisons 150 Afghan Schoolgirls
An anonymous reader writes "The water at a high school in Afghanistan was contaminated today, poisoning roughly 150 girls in attendance. Afghan officials say this was a deliberate attack: 'We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls' education or irresponsible armed individuals.' From the article: 'Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said. They said they knew the water had been poisoned because a larger tank used to fill the affected water jugs was not contaminated. ... None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"
Religion of Peace. We should be tolerant of their views.
is what happens when you coddle and religious groups extreme behavior and the myth that they have a right to tell governments what to do.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even the Christian Taliban that control the Republican party wouldn't do something this sleazy.
They usually stop at stealing elections and constantly lying about everything.
Must be something about Islam...
The comment is absolutely on the mark.
suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said
Poisoned with what... Can't help but wonder WRT my past life doing chemistry. That's a kind of peculiar combination. Individually nothing unusual WRT to poisoning, but the precise set of 1) headaches 2) vomiting 3) able to go home almost immediately aka insta-antidote is kind of odd/unusual.. I can think of plenty of things causing 1 of 3, a couple causing 2 of 3, nothing causing 3 of 3.
Aside from that, its an excellent example of why multiculturalism should not exist. My daughter gains nothing by the existence of that culture. Let american consumerism steamroll it out of existence, no substantial loss.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The story makes me absolutely sick and reinforces my easy evaluation system for world religions: How they treat their women is in direct proportion to the value the religion brings to all societies of the world. That said, I fail to see how this relates to technology.
If the message is that women shouldn't go to school, then maybe they learned something at school. But wait... someone just taught those girls something! Kill the offenders!!!!!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
None of the officials blamed any particular group for the attack, fearing retribution from anyone named.'"
Bad guys do bad things and people are afraid to even name them for doing the said bad things... I think the bad guys might be winning.
.. While the fundamentalist Christians quietly look on in envy.
There were many, many opportunities during the 20th Century to deliver sorely needed aid to Afghanistan, and put some money into helping the country modernize and industrialize. Under Western Cold War Political Doctrine, however, that simply wasn't seen as being "necessary" or a "priority". So after the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan by the Western-armed Afghan Mujahedeen, Afghanistan was left to its own devices (= the country was left to rot in abject poverty). With the bone-crunching poverty, and political-abandonment by the Developed World came support for the Taliban. With the Taliban came a particularly hateful, denigrating view of women (women should cover at all times, girls should not go to school, girls should be married to older men by arranged-marriage). ----- Here we are many decades later, wondering why Afghanistan is an underdeveloped s__thole of place, where someone can so pissed at girls being educated, that he poisons their drinking water. Afghanistan should have been helped decades ago. The West, at the time, was too cheap to commit money to such a project. And now we have a genuinely "failed state" to deal with. "You reap what you sow", as they say.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
In Star Trek, the Federation had a rule that they did not interfere with primitive societies regardless of how "barbaric" the primitive societies were. Perhaps the world needs to have a prime detective as well. Leave the Afghans to their own devices. Let the Taliban rule. So, may be their women will not get educated and have a hard life because of the unfortunate circumstance of their birth there. If those are such bad things, eventually, they themselves will bring about a cultural change from within. Yes, they will get stoned for being unfaithful but, at least, the young girls won't get poisoned or have acid thrown in their face for merely going to school.
Remember that crap like this is carried out by a fundamentalist extremists. Don't start a witch-hunt on religion just because the wack-jobs killing people claim to be religious.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Us westerners and our silly misunderstanding of the "religion of peace"tm.
I can just see the right wing Christian types here in the US lining up behind this and parlaying it into another 10-year stint in Afghanistan.
Hopefully this kind of thinking will die off with the Cold War generation, you know. "keeping the world safe for democracy." But for now, I guarantee this is going to be picked up by the conservatives as a "See? I told you so!" example. The reality is that we have nothing to say about whether they should educate women or not -- let other countries figure out their own affairs themselves and maybe the level of terrorism will drop accordingly.
Well, we should all fear retribution from a group that poisons schoolgirls. They must be a terrifying bunch!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Does anyone know why they're doing this? Do they think these schools are teaching girls to reject Islam and embrace Satan, or something? Citations?
Finding God in a Dog
After all, they aren't going to get free heathcare, no birth control, and no abortions. It's the religious right's wet dream. Keep your women under control, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
...they're afraid to accuse people whom they think poisoned over a hundred schoolgirls, for fear that they'll tick the criminals off (and have trouble as a result). Sure, angering terrorists (or whatever they're calling these scoundrels--if anything) is likely to provoke them to try other acts of terrorism. What are you going to do, though, let them get away with it? I can't see how that won't encourage further acts of terror just as thoroughly (if not necessarily as quickly).
Side note: yes, Afghanistan is strongly Muslim, and yes there are some extremists who utterly pervert and abuse that faith; but unless there's some mention in TFA about religious motivations, let's please not jump to inflammatory conclusions about this being faith-motivated. In point of fact, this sort of thing has happened here in the USA, as recently as in the 20th century, so let's not throw stones based on our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty) being somehow superior to theirs. Horrible people exist in all countries, and infest all religions, as you should all well know.
liberalism is a mock religion.
If Pakistan and Afghanistan want their Islamic paradise, let them have it.
dead women > educated women
lets nuke that whole fucking place and cover it under a napkin... i gladly die of thyroid cancer after we got rid of these people..
Start throwing the nutters in prison instead of "fearing retribution from anyone named" and maybe we will hold off on the witch hunt.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
At least make an effort.
I suspect this is a false flag attack by the CIA, Mossad, et al. Not even religious fanatics are stupid enough to think this helps their cause. Besides, even if the prophet did prefer women to be uneducated, he would certainly frown on the poisoning of children, of either sex. There is no Muselman, there is no Hindu, there is no Christian. So sayeth Master Nanak.
Are there no cell phones there? Can't someone start an anonymous tip line? If this happened in the US we'd have detectives so far up everybody's ass that the ACLU would be foaming at the mouth.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You're doing it wrong cloth heads!
To see an example of how an education system can effectively be destroyed, for every gender, you guys need look no further than "radical conservative extremists" in the UK. We call them "the tory party".
Is this like the segregated drinking fountains of not-so-long-ago blacks vs whites America?
How was just _girls'_ water poisoned?
Perhaps off topic for this comment, "News for nerds, stuff that matters." Lessee.. afghan, nope. Technology, nope. Scientific, nope. News.. sorta, like Digg, or maybe CNN. Cowardice (not naming anyone). Nerds. Well.. school.. schoolgirls.. ok, maybe nerds. Sorta. Did I take a wrong turn to Digg somewhere?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/04/2012417142921275408.html
[...]The alleged poisoning on Tuesday is being blamed on hardline conservatives who oppose female education.
Since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.[...]
Taliban are just another brand of conservatives who abuse religion to manipulate people.
[...]In the past acid has been thrown in the faces of women and girls by hardline Muslims while walking to school.[...]
I think religion is a mental disease. Just listen to the shit hardline Christians say.
You put the LSD in the water, and then you start playing techno. Absence of female companionship problem: solved.
Let these girls and their families (and other females who are attacked for wanting an education) have asylum in the USA or other country where girls don't get killed for wanting an education.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
It has taken a very long time for some Klan associated murderers to come to trail. Yet the Klan has been on the losing side even from its inception.
Have you ever tried DATING a woman from a culture that treats women as equals? They are insufferable! They expect to be the center of your world and demand that you lavish them with attention and jewelry, and in return they use you for their pleasure when, and ONLY when, they feel inclined. Breeding with them is ridiculous...first they expect you to work so they don't have to, then they also expect you to do the housework and child-rearing because they don't want to, and then when they get bored of you they divorce you and take with them the lions share of everything you have ever earned and everything you ever will earn.
Women from these backwards cultures actually like you. They are thankful to you for simple things like not beating them and giving them food and clothing. When you DO present them with gifts they are overjoyed. And they are happy to please you and do the housework and child-rearing and if you hit hard times they even go to work without complaint.
So, we need to tolerate the backwards cultures if only to ensure that there remains a dating pool that contains women that can actually be good companions.
"fuck you, you dirty rat bastards" in Pashto?
I certainly don't have the right to tell government what to do. Of course, I'm willing to admit it.
If the people had the right to control government, then logically, government wouldn't have the right to control the people.
Put another way, if government was voluntary, then government wouldn't need guns (a tool of coercion, not voluntary association).
Put yet another way, if government was created voluntarily by the subjects of government, then there would be no need for taxes. The exact amount of revenue government needs to represent the people's exact wishes would already be there, to the cent.
Coercive power only works one way. One-sidedness is the essence of coercion. Government, whether you like it or not, *is* coercion.
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those? Kind of like me and God(s).
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head. It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Ignorance is not really bliss...
Interestingly you are just as ignorant about Islam and Education as those adding poison to the schools water. Only difference is your ignorance is poisoning the society.
And how is he on the mark!
This is what Muhammed (pbuh) said about acquiring knowledge:
"To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female. The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."
F U to all the people who think it is OK to oppress another human being.
Here's the take away lesson. Why you fight a war, it has to be total war, not a "police action" type war. And yes I am a liberal and no I don't like that fact much but it's still a fact.
The Nazis and the Japanese ( suggested reading: The Rape of Nanking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)) weren't any better than this in WWII. It represents a total devaluing of human life and unlimited freedom to make war on the opposition in any way conceivable.
We won WWII despite this because ultimately we fought back in just the same way . Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin and many millions more starved to death AFTER the war during the occupation and this was deliberate. We were going to submit the nazis totally and absolutely and a part of that was the 1200 calories a day we allowed them. It's hard to maintain your fighting spirit and think of maintaining the ole Sig Heil when you're living amongst rubble and so mal-nourished and hungry you can barely stand.
Little Boy and Fat Man had the same effect on Imperial Japan. It wasn't about winning the war, it was about the psychological conversion of the population through REAL shock and awe, a total and absolute devastation and final full on shit-fuck invalidation of the poisoned government that population had permitted to arise.
That is how you fight subhuman scum like the Tali. Total war because that's what they're going to use against you. We should have nuked Kabul on Sept 12th. We should have turned Tora Bora into a radioactive wasteland and let Northwest Pakistan contemplate their fate if they decide they're going to continue to put the finger in the eye of civilian government in Islamabad. Fuck you and the god you rode in on.
As it stands, the world has learned the same lesson it learned in Vietnam. America fights civilized, limited wars and can be triumphed over by fighting a war of attrition with her.
Thanks, Colin Powell for your crucial speech at the UN which greenlighted a couple of fucking draft-dodging alcoholics to use the exact same failed tactics you yourself warned the country against after Vietnam.
Go fuck yourself and the son who rode in on you too.
Maybe they should have thought of that before targeting women with poison.
Idiots.
Why are conservatives anti-education? Because their beliefs cannot be supported by facts, and so the more factual ideas you teach, the less conservative your people will be.
Not all conservatives have religious or anti-educational ideas and motivations.
BUT... What they all DO have is a very strong preference for the status quo. THAT is why they can't accept new ideas, or find them threatening.
To them it's good as it is. Perfect in fact.
To fundamentalists among them, ANY change is a tantamount to an attack on their entire way of life.
Those girls weren't being taught to be atheists, feminists, witches or whatever the fundamentalists would find undermining to their religious beliefs.
In fact, they probably had religious studies at school as well.
They were simply girls, being taught.
That's the idea that breaks the status quo world of the(se) fundamentalists.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Quran-only Muslims are a small minority, and their rejection of Hadith is heavily criticized by mainstream Muslims. So saying "The Quran does not state" really has no weight for the vast majority of Muslims. If it's in Hadith, it's part of the religion.
So because the water in the tank wasn't contaminated, they know it was poison?
Afghanistan isn't especially well known for it's hygiene standards. The symptoms of headaches, Nausea and vomiting match up pretty well with salmonella or e-coli poisoning. It's obviously in a public official best interests to blame evil terrorists rather than lax health standards. Put your water jugs in a messy kitchen where meat it prepared, it could easily be contaminated.
Religion is just plain evil.
Then why didn't your benevolent "shit-fucking" work in Russia during the 1990s, or in Vietnam in the 1960s? Could it be because in the cases of Germany and Japan, the allies (eventually) offered an alternative way of life under democracy to their defeated opponents? That the US actually engaged in real nation rebuilding at that time and effectively created two of the most successful post war countries as a result? A pity no such long term planning has been applied or indeed even contemplated in either modern Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bombs and tanks wont he battles, but it was the Marshall Plan won the war, and the subsequent Cold war besides. The US and her allies in the present have created no such legacy, for all their costly foreign expeditions.
May the Maths Be with you!
Let's take a look at the text, shall we?
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -- And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." (Luke 22:36, 38)
So, yeah, I think Christ would've approved of the NRA. He directly advised his disciples to be armed. Also, "turning the other cheek" was never intended to mean passive submission to violence. The culture of the day was one where the wealthy would often slap around the poor using the right hand, but using the left was a mortal insult and would provoke a fight. Christ was telling the poor that if someone wants to bully them and shove them around, they should not initiate violence, but demonstrate their willingness to end a fight if the other guy wanted to start one -- that's what "turning the other cheek" meant.
Christ was not a pacifist. This is the guy who chased moneychangers from the temple with a whip (probably more for preying on the poor than defaming the faith), and who openly welcomed a Roman centurion as one of his followers, and didn't demand the guy give up his life of the sword. Christ's message had more to do with the ethical use of violence than it did with the total abjuration of it.
Nope. Bad guys win only when you stop going to the malls and stop spending money.
Millions of Germans died during the bombing of Berlin
Nope. Not even close. ~100 thousand were killed, not "millions"
...and water may or may not go together...
"During World War II, the government used State Shint to encourage patriotism and to support efforts towards militarism. Noted figures in government, including Kuniaki Koiso, Heisuke Yanagawa, Kiichir Hiranuma and Prince Kan'in Kotohito, participated in public rituals modeled after ancient ceremonies to foster a sense that supporting the war was a sacred duty.
State Shint officially came to an end after the surrender of Japan.[7]"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto
Probably killed more people than Islam ever has
We never fought a total war with either Russia or Vietnam. That's the point. Nation building and how to do it is an absolute must and one of the facts conservatives are going to have to make peace with going forward. I never suggested we bomb and leave. I suggested that the model we used in WWII- total war followed closely by nation building, is the right one.
In the 1950s, Afghanistan came more under the influence of the Soviet Union, like Eastern Europe did. In 1973, Daud Khan led a coup d'etat and established a new government, crushing resistance. He invited NATO troops into Northern Afghanistan and began shifting toward the US. A similar thing happened in Cambodia around this time with Lon Nol (coup against old monarchy by pro-US figure). And the same thing that happened in Cambodia happened in Afghanistan - the Afghan communist party was more powerful than the US puppet, Daud Khan was booted and the domestic communists (PDPA) took over. The CIA launched a proxy war against the communist government. The CIA recruited Osama bin Laden, at whose father's house then CIA director George Bush used to stay at on trips to Saudi Arabia. It backed the groups which were later to be called Al Qaeda and the Taliban, working to overthrow this secular, atheist actually, government. When the USSR sent troops to support the PDPA government, US support increased. Sylvester Stallone made Rambo III, where he fights with his comrades of Al Qaeda/Taliban against the evil PDPA and Russians who are trying to secularize and modernize Afghanistan.
In fact, this is what the US is still doing everywhere in the Middle East and Afghanistan. It supported Muslim groups to overthrow secular Libya, and is now working with Muslim fundamentalists to overthrow the secular Syrian government. It of course supports the Saudi government which is more fundamentalist than Iran. It's a strange thing how the US creates bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, and the new Muslim fundamentalist forces in Libya and Syria - then turns around and talks about how Muslims are too religious and backward. And not only has done this in the past, is doing it today in Syria. Who is the US supporting against the secular, social democratic Syrian government, Santa Claus?A wide, wide, wide gap between words and deed.
Sheesh... Why can't they act civilized and destroy education the way we do in the U.S. --by slowly leeching away all the funding, while blaming teachers and unions, and introducing magical thinking into science classes. Mission accomplished!
Ask me about my sig!
A being a tool that is used for B does not imply that B goes away if A does.
It might imply there is less chance of B if A goes away. Or maybe not - we're good at inventing tools.
If you don't beat your children but instead lie to them so that they are unprepared to properly deal with the realities of life as adults, have you not injured them just as grievously?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Without religion, there are no religious fundamentalist extremists.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
My preference has always been to convert the region into a continuous sheet of radioactive glass. I think "New Iowa" would be a nice name.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
All religion is mental illness and should be treated as such.
Believers are a danger to themselves and others.
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
Numbers make a difference? Come on. What's the next step?
Wearing a uniform makes a difference? How about a badge? A tee-shirt? A white sheet and a hood?
Following orders from the head of the church? From a holy book? From god himself talking through your dog?
Not killing people, just torturing them a little? Killing only their pets and farm animals? Burning down their house? Bullying?
How many steps must we remove the perceived responsibility for the act before the guilt is washed away completely?
And it has nothing to do with a particular religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with cultural perceptions.
Those bombing abortion clinics live in a world (born, raised, educated in it - aware of the rules of the society) where exists a law of the state and more importantly they live in a very INDIVIDUALISTIC world.
They see themselves (as individuals) breaking a failed state law, following a higher (god's) law - by punishing individual "evildoers" who are breaking a higher law.
Taking justice into their own hands because they perceive themselves as "righteous" and those over there as "evil", confident that god will look favorably on their acts.
They are interpreting the "holy scripture" to match their view of the world and fortify their actions.
On the other hand...
Islamic fundamentalists in places like Afghanistan were born, raised and educated (with only brand of education available - fundamentalist, religious and quite literal) in a world without anything even resembling a state law.
Also, they were raised in the state of perpetual war with foreign invaders - with or without their own gods.
It's just GOD and god's laws that have kept them safe (for certain values of safe) so far.
Now... take any "holy book" and you'll find more than enough examples of "laws and regulations" which, taken literally, are not only barbaric but down right insane by today's standards.
And NONE of that is open to interpretation. At least not to masses.
Now try to put yourself in that state of mind here - breaking god's laws is the equivalent of opening the inter-dimensional rift to the dimension of evil, a gateway to hell, waking Cthulhu...
There are no gradations for them. It is a very simple black and white world. Disrespect god or his laws == waking Cthulhu.
And it's not the Cthulhu they fear - it's The God who will punish EVERYONE for the sins of the few.
In their mind, they are protecting EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING from being plunged into depths of hell by punishing those sinners who dared to raise against god.
Innocent? They don't see those girls as innocent.
They see them as tainted at best and as pure evil Cthulhu worshipers at worst.
And remember, they are working for the god who burned Sodom and Gomorrah, asked Abraham to slit the throat of his own son... all of that Old Testament stuff is literal instructions to them.
Direct from god. The God. Maker of the Universe and all that stuff.
Angry, pissed off, uncompromising god of the Old Testament.
The kind of god who would reveal himself to people living in the scorching heat and desolation of a desert.
On top of all that (soldiers of god vs. legions of evil) stuff, it is much easier to press a button, toss a grenade at the crowd, or pour poison into a cistern - than to kill a very specific human being.
Burden gets diluted in the numbers.
Just as bomber pilots about the guilt they feel for indiscriminate bombing or accidental civilian "collateral damage".
Then ask front line soldiers.
Then ask generals and politicians who gave out those orders.
If anything, one might argue that the religious fanatics in Afghanistan are LESS responsible for their acts.
After all, they live in a delusion of being
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not.
How about a Christian who shot and killed 77 people, mostly children, at a summer school, in what he calls a Knights Templar operation carried out to defend Christians, and who has today in court said that the deliberate killing of children was justified because they were not 'non-political children' ?
Correlation is not causation. :)
Again, plenty of conservatives among academics.
Heck, you want to see a scary statistic - look up incidence of conservatism among elderly.
You can draw all kind of crazy conclusions from that. Like that conservative == wise.
Also, check your data.
It may very well be that the percentage of the elderly (those more likely to have worked and retired with only a high-school diploma or a trade) is skewing your statistics.
Cause, according to the link above, they are toe-to-toe with the liberals among those with graduate degrees.
Four-in-ten Americans with graduate degrees say they are politically moderate, while about three-in-ten say they are either liberal or conservative (29% each).
Among those with no more than a high school education, a third says they are moderate, 41% describe themselves as conservative and fewer than one-in-five call themselves liberal (18%).
Granted, this is just USA. Global statistics probably vary a bit.
I'm just saying that it is not prudent to write away the "other side" as uneducated or stupid.
Or too green, frivolous, weak, ginger, whatever...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Bullshit. Japanese Buddhists happily blew themselves up by flying explosive laden planes into ships. Japanese Buddhist authorities of the time happily embraced militarism, emperor worship, unquestioning obedience of arbitrary authority and killing. Buddhism has quite a checkered past with regards to war & violence. As long as you insist on organizing your life & taking moral advice from imaginary characters, you are just as susceptible.
as muslims. you can read any history book of the soviet afghan war and figure this out.
our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty)
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail? What about the anthropomorphic mushroom that lives at the bottom of Lake Titicaca and controls mankind's thoughts?
Oh wait, you don't have any beliefs about those?
As a matter of fact I do - I have very specific beliefs on the subject.
Kind of like me and God(s).
No, not really, only in the sense that they are both belief. My belief in the non-existence of a giant mushroom at the bottom of Lake Titticaca is based on two things:
- the premise that if such a mushroom existed then it ought to be observable.
- the fact that you don't believe in it either, in fact you are using it as an example of something that does not exist
Thus my belief is linked to a philosophical underpinnning that assumes a reasonably deterministic universe and thus affirms the validity of observation
Your belief is based on the assertion that something defined as unobservable does not exist because it hasn't been observed by you personally. Your belief is irrational. That does not mean it is not valid to hold that belief. You just need to stop claiming to have a rational basis for it.
As a kid, it never even *occurred* to me that a God(s) could/should exist. The entire idea is so far removed from reality that it never even entered my head.
When I was a child, it never occurred occurred to me that Afghanistan existed. The idea of a place like Afghanistan was so far removed from my reality that it never entered my head. But as it happens my ignorance or lack of knowledge on the subject did not, in any way, change the probability that Afghanistan existed.
It wasn't until I was in early grade school that I was like "You believe WHAT?" when talking to other kids. I thought they were from the Moon, and I still do. Insanity.
I think the same about many things that Atheists believe.
What?
So they can migrate and make other countries just as bad as their own?
Obviously you missed the whole problem with gangs of Lebanese teenagers gang raping young girls.. and claiming it was a cultural right.
The muslim attitude to sex is sickening. Here is another example: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8450261/refugee-sentenced-over-second-vic-rape
No.
How about the citizens of that country stand up for what they believe in and fix their own country? Yes, a lot of people are gong to die, be tortured, and generally go through what Europe went through in the Dark Ages.. but there is light at the end of the tunnel and today is a good day to start.
You don't fix a problem with bullies by running away from them. In this case, though, I admit that the bullies may all need to die before this particular problem can be solved.
Poisoning little girls. Yes Mujahideen are indeed brave souls though terrified of women getting taught anything. Deeply deeply pathetic creatures.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You, sir, are an idiot. You conflate Buddhist philosophy with old Japanese philosophy. Find me one piece of Buddhist philosophy that supports any of the things you mentioned.
It's almost like you believe that religious people obey only what is written in their religious texts, rather than make human judgements of their own. Your ignorance disgusts me.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Oh, no, the bad guys are ALWAYS foreign. Sorry, forgot this was a mostly USian site...
..... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals;
Those studies in your link said religioius people and lower income people donate more money to charities than the not so religious people and wealthier as a percentage of income. Just because you're religious doesn't make you "conservative". Some of the most "liberal" people I know are very religous.
And as far as the United Way, I wonder how much of their giving is honest giving. There's nothing I hate more than being at work and having an HR person slap one of the United Way forms on my desk to take money out of my paycheck to donate. With fear of retribution, I throw them out. I wonder how many others do that or just cave in and donate?
And then we get into what is a "conservative".
I for one beleive in balanced budgets, gun rights, smaller government, and lower taxes. But I also think gay people should be able to marry, i'm pro-abortion, and I firmly beleive in the seperation of Church and State - absolutely.
Try to pin me down.
What are your "beliefs" about the tiny pink unicorn that lives under my fingernail?
See, that's such a bad argument. Why do you think it's difficult say "I believe that doesn't eist" and not start frothing at the mouth about "That can't exist! I have a complete lack of belief about it, not just a belief that it doesn't exist!!! Don't you dare call that a belief!"
I agree with the idea of total war, but nation building can only be done in very limited circumstances.
Sure it worked in Germany. Germany's culture is almost completely compatible with our own.
Japan had a very different culture, but part of their culture was a willingness to adapt. Look at baseball in Japan. Look how popular American Western stuff became -- cowboys, cattle ranching, etc. I always am like "wtf??"
There is not a single Muslim country that has either of those attributes as far as I can see. If you were to try to nation-build Saudi Arabia it would be a miserable failure, no matter how much total war you threw at them first. For countries with such radically different, non-adaptable cultures, colonization is the only way to impose change, and I don't think anybody really wants to do that. So at that point the best strategy is total war to reduce their offensive capabilities, then gtfo.
not start frothing at the mouth about "I have a complete lack of belief about it, not just a belief that it doesn't exist!!!"
Frothing? I'm simply saying I no more "actively" disbelieve a God exists than actively disbelieve any other of the infinite variety of other nonexistent things that a human mind could conceive of.
I'm not the atheist; the other guys are the theists. Or do you actively define yourself as an aunicornist? Or an asentientmushroomist?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
As practiced:
Western culture = bad
All other cultures = good
Always "we can learn something from them" and never "they can learn something from us." When it comes to the barbaric practices of other cultures, it's something we should respect, not try to eradicate through cultural imperialism.
They seem to think it is still that century, they will never get anywhere that way. They will remain savages.
Since religious texts have about as many interpretations as there are adherents of the religion. But in the end, a religion is defined by what a large number of its adherents do, and what the adherents overall, and their governments, are willing to accept and not punish.
Christian extremist wackos to this extent are few and far between, almost universally condemned by those of their religion, and prosecuted by their governments. The few abortion clinic bombers and doctor killers were promptly brought to justice in this majority-Christian country.
Muslim extremist wackos are sometimes the ones running the governments. While many Muslims may say "this isn't Islam" they don't do much about it. CAIR preaches peaceful Islam on the front, while providing support for the "extremists" on the back. I know there are non-extremist Muslims, and are probably the majority. But I believe most of those either have no idea what's going on (say a rural mom in Malaysia), or tacitly support it in the same way most American Christians did nothing while the Westboro Baptists bashed gays (they only got upset when Westboro started protesting soldier funerals). This isn't just the right-wing Christians either, since we have pictures of Al Gore chumming it up with Fred Phelps himself.
Some have put the percentage of these murderous "extremists" at maybe five percent of Muslims or less. That's still tens of millions of people out there, many supported by the laws of their country or province, who are willing to kill and maim because their sense of religion was offended.
A simple test was brought up in a previous story: piss on a Bible publicly in the US, declare your name, tape it, and post it to the Internet. What will happen? There will be some grumbles, the 700 Club won't be happy, but that's about it.
Now do the same thing, in the US, with a Quran. There will be deadly riots around the world, there will be people out to kill you. The "peaceful" Muslims in the US will at a minimum be calling for your prosecution. However, your government founded on Western culture will not prosecute you, and will prosecute your killer (unless we keep sliding in this liberal PC direction and respect the Religion Of Peace). When you are killed, few Muslims will shed a tear.
Now do it with a Quran in a Muslim-ruled country. If you somehow manage to be taken into police custody before you are murdered on the spot, expect a lengthy jail sentence or execution.
This tells me what I need to know about whether Islam is a peaceful religion overall, and whether the "extremists" are truly the outliers.
Total education funding has more than doubled since 1990, and has risen much higher than that by various other metrics. So that can't be the problem.
Time to look back at your administrators, policy makers, teachers and unions.
The magical thinking (I assume you refer to the Christian creation myth taught as science) has only been attempted in a few states, so you can't place the blame there.
I seem to remember Buddhist monks rioting in Seoul.
But to be fair it was about who gets the power and money to run the temples, not over a religious doctrinal issue.
And even then for some the article recognizes that the violence being driven by the religion itself is questionable.
And they even include Kony, who practices something that pulls elements from many religions into his own unique theology. I know Christians like to use "No True Scotsman" whenever a Christian does something wrong, but this guy's beliefs are so far outside any known Christian sect that it's really wrong to call him Christian.
Anything to flesh out an article that would otherwise be extremely short.
Its text is absolutely authentic and in our own language. The context has a well-documented written history, and the identities, views, intentions and debates of the parties involved in its creation are recorded in writing.
And yet, only 223 years later, the interpretations of that document can vary in the extreme from the original text and clearly documented intent of the writers. For example,
So do you think a religion created 2,000 or 1,400 years ago with various texts, translations and oral histories even has a chance of having a coherent interpretation among the followers?
The more dualistic any philosophical system is, the further it should be stayed away from. Dualism creates separation => for something to be RIGHT something else has to be WRONG the deeper the dualism, the deeper the RIGHT needs to destroy the WRONG! but what has become the WRONG! So disheartening to read about these types of acts. How would anyone know what white is without a black to compare it to? It is an impossibility! Therefor one should not try to dwell in black or white, because night turns into day day turns into night. The two are mutually dependent. One cannot exist without the other, so why try to put one above the other. Remain constant and aware in all circumstances, love without any exception, bias, exclusion, INCLUSION, attachment. .... ok, ok my little rant for the day is done
Both the house and the senate approved amendments adding the text, "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception." It's right there in your source, yet you didn't refer to it.
Frothing? I'm simply saying I no more "actively" disbelieve a God exists than actively disbelieve any other of the infinite variety of other nonexistent things that a human mind could conceive of.
It's an exaggeration if only considering your post, but to me it's just as much "from the Moon" to me to think that someone would have any problem at all with having your thoughts about a common social idea like God called a belief.
Or do you actively define yourself as an aunicornist? Or an asentientmushroomist?
No, but that's an interesting way of putting it. Do you feel like if someone applies a label to you, and you accept it, you are defining yourself as that label? I don't get that. Maybe you mean "defining" in a less encompassing way than what I'm thinking.
Anyway, no, but I don't reject the label when it's offered.
I'm not the atheist; the other guys are the theists.
Don't you think it's kind of sad that you are worse than the other guys? Especially in light of what you think about defining yourself, you are saying that you are the default state and they are other, not that you're both equal and have different beliefs about something. That's a weird way of thinking. It reminds me of all the primitive tribes whose language basically calls members of the tribe "person" and any foreigner "non-person".
"from the Moon" to me to think that someone would have any problem at all with having your thoughts about a common social idea like God called a belief.
Well, if you agree with me that we all have an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of non-existent things, then I think that issue is settled.
Do you feel like if someone applies a label to you, and you accept it, you are defining yourself as that label?
Yes, yes I do. I don't walk around all day thinking about my disbelief in God (like I imagine true believers of God do in the opposite way); it's not at all a part of my identity.
It's kind of like that old atheist quote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Except I replace "religion" with "belief" in that quote in this context.
Especially in light of what you think about defining yourself, you are saying that you are the default state and they are other, not that you're both equal and have different beliefs about something.
Well, I *do* think of myself as the default state. NOT because I think everyone else is somehow stupid or a "non-person"/barbarian, or because I'm smarter than everyone else, but for three specific reasons:
(a) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A "valid" belief in God would require some pretty damn extraordinary evidence to back up said belief (which hasn't been found after thousands of years of searching), therefore I don't think of it as a valid "default" state.
(b) There are thousands of different religions, all of which are mutually exclusive. So any active believer in a given religion is actively *disbelieving* a huge number of other religions. How can one claim that *any* of those beliefs be a valid default state if they claim that all the other (very very similar) beliefs are not a valid default state?
(c) Not every argument has two "equal" sides. For instance, I could claim that the world is actually only 3 weeks old, that all our memories are false, and that none of us existed more than 3 weeks ago. Now, I don't think of that as an equally valid argument compared to modern scientific understanding of the history of our planet (accretion disc, formation, heavy bombardment, etc etc).
Similarly, I don't think saying "there is an invisible, magic guy in the sky whose existence and powers fly in the face of everything we know about and observe in the known universe" and atheism are on equal logical footing.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Well, if you agree with me that we all have an infinite number of beliefs about an infinite number of non-existent things, then I think that issue is settled.
Probably not an important distinction for the sake of this discussion, but I'd say you don't have a belief about something until you've considered it. As soon as you asked me about your unicorn I formed a belief about it, but not before then.
Yes, yes I do. I don't walk around all day thinking about my disbelief in God (like I imagine true believers of God do in the opposite way); it's not at all a part of my identity.
Then you should have said no, no you don't. If it's not part of your identity, why do you feel identified by that label? I'm technically a pisces, for instance, though I don't care about astrology or anything like that. I'm not at all offended if someone calls me a pisces. I certainly wouldn't say "No I'm not, it's YOU who have a sign."
Well, I *do* think of myself as the default state. NOT because I think everyone else is somehow stupid or a "non-person"/barbarian, or because I'm smarter than everyone else, but for three specific reasons:
Your reasons make a lot of sense to me and I agree with them, but they don't address the point that virtually all people have beliefs about God, one way or the other, simply because everybody on Earth has been exposed to an Abrahamic religion.
That's also why the atheist joke you mentioned doesn't make sense. Not-stamp-collecting could indeed be a hobby if nearly everybody in the world agreed that the distinction between stamp collecting and not stamp collecting was important. At that point it would become important to identify yourself as a not-stamp-collector.
It's closely related to the whole unicorn/fingernail thing which may be why we see both issues differently in the same way. Not believing in the unicorn under your fingernail just isn't important. Nobody but you and I and a few people reading this thread even have it in their consciousness. Similarly, whether I collect stamps or not is immaterial to the vast majority of humanity. It's not even interesting to know that someone is a stamp collector or not.
But religious belief is incredibly widespread and there are fierce arguments about it, between all factions, believers and non-believers, and within factions, strong atheists vs weak atheists, Muslims vs Jews, etc. To draw an analogy with stamp collecting or your fingernail is just silly. The reality of religious belief is so powerful that, against common sense, it turns your argument on its head. I have to say, yes, I do have a belief about the unicorn under your fingernail. I have to say, yes, not-stamp-collecting could be a hobby. And it's all true, I'm not just saying it rhetorically.. those arguments simply expand on the underlying nature of religious debate and bring it into the patently ludicrous. But it's all still valid. I can accept that ludicrousness, maybe you can't.
Not-stamp-collecting could indeed be a hobby if nearly everybody in the world agreed that the distinction between stamp collecting and not stamp collecting was important
Ah, now I see what you're getting at. It's not necessarily the distinction itself (belief in X vs a lack of belief in X), but whether that distinction is important to sufficiently large number of people that you essentially have to "pick a side". Fair enough. I didn't see your reasoning in this light, and it does make more sense now.
If it's not part of your identity, why do you feel identified by that label?
Ah, for the very reason you state: Because it's such a critically important distinction to most people, and is commonly discussed in social circles.
virtually all people have beliefs about God, one way or the other, simply because everybody on Earth has been exposed to an Abrahamic religion.
Well yes, because belief important to a lot of people. I grew up in an a-religious family (not atheist, just never ever talked about religion). I didn't even know that religion was a "thing" until I started encountering kids in grade school who talked about it. So for me it's very hard to integrate anything regarding religion into my life, active belief, active disbelief, etc etc. It's just...null, I guess?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
"They" were able to do this because girls are apparently not in the same school or classroom.
If the objective is to poison girls only, put all sexes in the same classroom.
Oh, wait.
Sick fucks. All of them.