Slashdot Mirror
UAE Clerics' Fatwa Forbids Muslims From Traveling To Mars
PolygamousRanchKid writes "The Khaleej Times of Dubai reports that a fatwa committee has forbidden Muslims from taking a one-way trip to the Red Planet. At the moment, there is no technology available that would allow for a return trip from Mars, so it is truly a one-way ticket for the colonists, who may also become reality TV stars in the process. The committee of the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment in the United Arab Emirates that issued the fatwa against such a journey doesn't have anything against space exploration, Elon Musk's Mars visions, or anything like that. Rather, the religious leaders argue that making the trip would be tantamount to committing suicide, which all religions tend to frown upon."
You don't want to go to Mars? Please by all means, keep your bullshit on Earth and let us evolved human beings make a fresh new life on a fresh new planet without you!
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Cue witty jokes about blowing oneself up not counting as suicide.
But they should also forbid being born, as everyone that does will die eventually.
"the trip would be tantamount to committing suicide, which all religions tend to frown upon."
Hey get your Judeocentric religious world views out of here! Buddhism goes so far as to feature a story of the Buddha himself committing suicide just to feed some hungry tiger cubs.
Which is insane like all religions, but I reserve the right for their insanity to be characterized accurately!
then staying on Earth, living out your life and dying is also tantamount to suicide too. So you are damned if you do and damned if you dont...
.. Fatwa
Stop blasting yourself into pieces, it's forbidden,
and no your chance to survive is below the mars mission.
Choosing to live the rest of your life in a distant location is not a suicide in any way. If they choose to see this as suicide, then why do they allow youngsters to enroll in their armies? That looks a heck of a lot closer to suicide.
I can't see many religious people lining up for an expedition to discover if life evolved on another planet. They still don't believe that it evolved on this one.
from the religion that brought you Istishhad suicide bombers, "you can't go to mars and advance science exploration and the boundaries of human knowledge that would be suicide(without a exploding vest in a crowd of innocent civilians)"
More space for the rest of us.
After all, Tobacco leads to the premature death of most people who use it.
I always thought of suicide as the act of killing yourself just for the sake of killing yourself. While one might call something a "suicide mission", that is not the same as suicide, is it? If a soldier stays behind to man a turret in the face of certain death to provide covering fire so his comrades can escape, is he committing suicide?
YOU might not care.
But the fact that many, many other humans DO care is a factor that you should not dismiss so quickly or lightly, Grasshopper.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
now, onto the less important things...
Bringing a child into this world is murder. You know that new life will die. There is 0 chance that they will live forever. Therefor you create life while knowing it will suffer and die. This is a pretty flimsy case. There are other things that are just as risky. If not more risky.
"Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
"All religions"?!
It makes sense to study what drives the inhabitants of this planet, which is often their religion.
You realize Muslim people aren't a hivemind, right? The people blowing themselves up aren't the ones issuing this fatwa. I presume you're an atheist... are you a "fucking hypocrite" for opposing mass murder, given the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
Actually in the case of someone recanting ones faith in the face of persecution Islam is ok with that, as long as you don't really mean it and your trying to save your life. What many on Slashdot don't know is it's an imperative to preserve life in Islam, we do have Muslims, with a belief backed by enormous amounts of oil money, that would use suicide in military situations though. The death under persecution argument doesn't support your hypothesis. P.S. it is very possible that there's more to it than I know.
Oh that old story again. So if Stalin had been a vegetarian he would have killed in the name of all vegetarians? If Pol Pot liked classical music he murdered in name of all classical music lovers? Of course not. The fact that they might have been atheists has nothing to do with what they did, they didn't do it "in the name of atheism".
Also Atheism is not an organized institution like religions are, so there's no one that can speak "for" atheists, that's like someone who would speak "for" people who love sunsets.
Religions on the other hand *are* and therefore *can* and *do* assert influence. It's not enough for example that individuals are against horrific deeds performed by some few fanatics of their religion, it's their institution that solely by the fact that it represents many many millions that has a moral obligation to speak out and let know they don't condone these kind of acts, and then they need to go out and *teach* that to their constituency.
If you don't do that... then indeed they are "fucking hypocrites".
Atheism is just the disbelief in gods and it means nothing else. Heck even buddhist IIRC are "religious" atheist. So your comaprison with mao lenine or whomever fail on so many points it isn't funny. Furthermore the one you cited did not murder because of atheism, or in the name of atheism , but mostly to grasp at power and eliminate discontent and opposition. There is nothing in atheism which makes one want to murder or justify murder. On the other hand in many religious book , including the bible, murder in the name of gods is actually "fine". So really if you want to justify genocide, simply say that you are following the old testament for example. Plenty of stuff inside to justify genocide.
Bullshit. Point to the Fatwa against Jihad.
the religious leaders argue that making the trip would be tantamount to committing suicide, which all religions tend to frown upon."
Brought to you by the religion that also endorses suicide bombers, because some suicides are actually ok.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So when these atheist dictators banned religion and went around killing those who practiced it, that was just ONE BIG COINCIDENCE and had nothing to do with their atheism?
Riiiiight. Just grow up, and realize that religion, atheism, whatever... none of those things kill. Assholes who think their way is the only way... they kill. Assholes with your mindset, only with more power and less morals.
Also Atheism is not an organized institution like religions are, so there's no one that can speak "for" atheists, that's like someone who would speak "for" people who love sunsets.
You realize Catholicism isn't the only religion, right? Most religions don't have a central authority. Any Islamic scholar can issue a fatwa. But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists. Because, again, religions aren't hive minds. Members don't really have much influence over each other, and they have even less influence over people who have already proven themselves willing to kill.
You realize Muslim people aren't a hivemind, right?
Actually, the problem is that a lot of radical Muslim terrorist haven't realized that they are a hivemind.
Islamic terrorism is a world problem that can only be solved by Muslims. Those radicals will not listen to anyone else besides their fellow Muslims.
The USA can send as many armies as it likes to places all over the world . . . but that will not stop those terrorists. India could hatch another Gandhi who could starve himself to death . . . that would not stop Islamic terrorism either. The only folks in the world who can possibly put an end to all this madness are fellow Muslims.
So maybe it would be a good start if some of these Fatwa folks would start issuing Fatwas against terrorism . . .?
Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem like mainstream, peaceful, Muslim folks have any interest in taking on the radical Islamic terrorist folks.
So we're stuck with the status quo. I don't expect to see any changes in this in my lifetime.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What if there's a school on Mars that has a girl in it? It's not going to blow itself up now, is it?!?! More short-sightedness from the 'clerics'.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
This from a religion famous for suicide bombers.
What a shame the radicals and terrorists don't actually READ the Koran.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Pretty much anybody staying on earth or even having returned to earth after going to space has died here. There is no technology yet that can change that.
But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists.
Quotation needed. I think that you are considerably underestimating amount of 'angry Muslims' in the world.
If you would say 99.9% of Muslims aren't _actively_ involved in terrorism - sure. But oppose?
Because, again, religions aren't hive minds. Members don't really have much influence over each other, and they have even less influence over people who have already proven themselves willing to kill.
Now, this is pure BS. Religions are closest thing people have to hive minds (I count cults of dictators, like in NK, as a religion, even if it is not using world 'god'). Religons influence minds of people in extreme ways. Think about Scientists or other strange cults/sects - this is example of religion completely brainwashing the person. Bigger religions are trying to be slightly more subtle, but still, religion is probably best mind manipulation tool ever invented by mankind.
they (UAE) say it would be suicide for such a trip but suicide is OK if they strap bombs on a kid to blow up their enemies and do in the name of allah.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Other than the Pope, who can (at least theoretically) speak for all Roman Catholics, I can't think of a single religion that has someone who can (even theoretically) speak for the religion.
Protestants? Nope, in spite of what your prejudices may tell you, each church is independent, and even the pastor can't speak for his congregation without their permission.
Orthodox Church? Nope. The Patriarchs aren't responsible to any authority, each of them is the authority in his own area.
Hinduism? It is to laugh. Even treating Hinduism as a single religion is a bit chuckle-inducing.
Ditto Buddhism. DItto Shinto. Ditto Animism. Ditto Paganism (neo- or otherwise).
And especially ditto Islam, where any clergyman can issue a fatwa telling another clergyman he's an idiot, or call for anything at all (including blueberry scones for breakfast). Only actual strength a fatwa has is what any particular Muslim gives it.
Note that this particular fatwa will be largely ignored outside the occasional look-at-the-funny-Muslims news article in the west, and the congregations of the particular clergymen who issued the fatwa.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I would argue that religion is just a specialised form of cult.
Not really that much difference between the crowd at a rally in NK and one outside the Vatican.
NKs might be there to look good (or avoid disappearing in to a gulag), but how many that turn up to church at 10am on Sunday are also there only because of social pressure (and the fear of an eternity in hell).
Oblig George Carlin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVLJKR6g7U
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Posting to remove bad mod
...control over the choices of others.
Israel means "to battle god". Islam means "voluntary submission to god the infinite." Christianity mean saving by sacrificing savings. Hinduism means going with the whatever flow, and Buddhism means "the awakened one". So Israel wars against Islam sacrificing Christians all with the help of Hindus while Buddhist are "many" busy practicing to be "one awake" in their slumber. And all the rest help fill in any gaps in what is going to be nuclear WWIII due collectives thinking they must control others.
Suicide???? Islam approved only if you blow up some non-muslims too? ......red barren planet...
Guess not enough non-muslims going? Besides...
Mars = Mars Already Reaped that Shit.
I don't understand, does this mean that suicide bombing is also already forbidden?
That's because culture shapes interpretations of religious texts. You cannot simply look at a religious text and, using only that, make broad statements about the religion itself.
The religion filters the text through human interpretations. What you put in is not necessarily what you get out.
Look at christianity, for example.
Gandhi was Hindu, not Muslim.
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
So when these atheist dictators banned religion and went around killing those who practiced it, that was just ONE BIG COINCIDENCE and had nothing to do with their atheism?
dictator
1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
How can you have absolute power when people follow religious leaders, not you? And that claim to answer to a higher authority than you? Dictators suppress and eradicate religion because it's a threat to their power, it's in the nature of a dictator not an atheist. Sharing a religion means you are both working for the same god, you might disagree on the ways and means and goals but you're in it together. Branding it as ateists makes it sounds like we're your equal and opposite, but it's not. If two people go skydiving, they have something in common. If two people don't go skydiving, they still have nothing in common.
But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists.
Are you lying or just ignorant? Here's an example from a huge study showing that just in Bangladesh is 150 million * 90% muslim * 26% = 35.2 million who think suicide bombing of civilians is sometimes/often justified. In Egypt there is another 85 million * 90% muslim * 29% = 22.2 million people and the same in Pakistan with 180 million * 97% muslim * 13% = 22.7 million. Together that's over 80 million people or about 5% of muslims that DO support terrorism. And a majority of the population in Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and Malaysia want to kill you for leaving Islam.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
... to the Mars Needs Women campaign.
That's because culture shapes interpretations of religious texts. You cannot simply look at a religious text and, using only that, make broad statements about the religion itself.
The religion filters the text through human interpretations. What you put in is not necessarily what you get out.
Look at christianity, for example.
It's sort of like the people who read the Constitution and find phrases like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" and manage to find excuses for doing those things anyway.
Jesus Christ preached love, non-judgment, tolerance, benevolence, and non-violence. Yet people who claim to follow him have tortured, murdered, and persecuted others for the flimsiest of reasons. I would posit that the problem is with those people and not with the New Testament, because when I read the Bible I found nothing that could justify anything like the Inquisition. It was simply a bunch of tyrants who discovered that saying "God gave me authority!" was an effective way to control others.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You realize Muslim people aren't a hivemind, right? The people blowing themselves up aren't the ones issuing this fatwa. I presume you're an atheist... are you a "fucking hypocrite" for opposing mass murder, given the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
The flaw there is assuming atheism is a religion rather than a state of mind.
There is no church of atheism and no holy text containing commandments; being an atheist is a self-description, a label, and nothing else.
The central tenet of atheism is that "there is no God". The central tenet of religion in general is that "there is a God (or gods)".
Neither can be proven in a hard scientific sense. In that way, the two are on equal footing to me.
Incidentally real skepticism is "I don't know". Skepticism in the form of "I don't know, therefore it cannot exist" is really just a way to avoid justifying one's own beliefs while simultaneously demanding that others justify theirs. Any actual thinking person recognizes this for the cowardice it is. In other fields these are the people who ignore evidence even when it exists and is presented to them, while congratulating themselves for the purity of their scientific skepticism.
Incidentally "skeptic" comes from an ancient Greek word that means "one who provides alternative explanations".
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
As long as they blow themselves up when they get there, it'll be OK.
The USA can send as many armies as it likes to places all over the world . . . but that will not stop those terrorists.
No it doesn't stop them. It makes them feel justified and tends to greatly boost their recruitment efforts. There's nothing quite like a foreign army marching on your soil for the flimsiest reasons (WMD anyone?) to piss off the locals. Then we have reason to send our military out there again.
From the point of view of the military-industrial complex, all of this is great for business. I wonder if we sold our old weapons to them in order to arm them first, like we did with Desert Storm and Desert Shield a couple of decades ago.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Actually, the problem is that a lot of radical Muslim terrorist haven't realized that they are a hivemind.
Incidentally, no one with a hive mind is aware that they have one. Every such person believes they are an individual. You can see that right here in the Western world any time a trend suddenly catches on. Trends are almost never useful things that fulfill needs lots of people had. They're overwhelmingly frivolous things that no one needs that suddenly become popular. That's a hive mind too, led by various marketers who never openly identify themselves and their goals.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Why should I respect stupidity and willful ignorance? Because that is what religion is. ALL religion.
You could do it out of altruism and grace. That is, you could respect freedom so much that you don't need to always approve of what other people do with it.
If you need a self-centered reason, like most people do, there is one: you want them to respect your lack of religion, right? You had the same choice they did, to believe or not to believe. They simply chose differently. The way this works, is that either everyone has the freedom to make that choice, or eventually no one does. Because the moment you find an excuse not to respect another's right to choose, you harm your own freedom. Eventually that list of restrictions will be expanded to include you (sooner rather than later, considering how vastly outnumbered you are). Tyranny has always been done that way, over time by means of incremental expansion.
Honestly you sound like a short-sighted person who hasn't thought this through, probably because thinking it through would interfere with feeling superior to religious people.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Its no more suicide than it is to settle in another country with no intent to return, and live the rest of your life there. The 'Mars settlers' plan on living the 'normal' remainder of their life, not just getting there to starve to death in a couple of weeks. ( sure, accidents happen but the plan is what is relevant )
Or as a Muslim you are required to go 'home' before you die?
Stupid religious fanatics. Get rid of them and the world would be a much happier ( and safer ) place.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists.
They don't seem to be opposing it very loudly, considering someone is using their religion and god to commit mass murder. In the UK about 2 million people protested against the invasion of Iraq in their name, so more than 1% of the population. I don't see many Muslims protesting in the streets or making much effort at all to condemn what is happening in the name of their religion.
The core problem is that the Koran is supposed to be the literal word of God, so when it says "cut off the hands of thieves" or "murder infidels" a Muslim can't really argue with that unless they are willing to argue with Allah. The Bible is open to interpretation and all of it is acknowledged to be written by people who are retelling stories, but the Koran was allegedly word-for-word dictated by the man himself.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No, its only if you blow up infidels in the process. You are expendable, but you have to take some of them with you in order to get a 'pass' on your actions.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
wrong, mainstream ones contribute to "charities" which are terrorist sponsoring organizations. they think they are helping the "truly faithful" while getting to live a more mundane and less riskful lives themselves.
that is not true. hardly any virgins here. almost all slashdotters have reached and passed the magic age when a boy and his hand come together and havephysical love and bonding in the soft glowing light of the monitor displaying pr0n
Your one example is someone refusing to recant a religious belief and being executed for it. Look up the philosophy - if you are executed, you are not committing the act of suicide.
Someone has to make the trip and take the risk. Stay on Earth is also "tantamount to committing suicide", because Earth will also perish. Are they trying to say that they want all the reward without the risk? I would argue that is pure selfishness. There is a good case to argue that just being alive is an act of suicide, and anything that you don't do to keep yourself alive longer is an act of suicide.
And putting sugar on your porridge isn't approved by mainstream Scotsmanism.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
At the moment, there is no technology available that would allow for a return trip from Mars
Is there even technology available for the one-way trip yet?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Not only that. Once he had power, he was no pacifist ether. Particularly with regard to Muslims.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The problem is the disconnect between muslims.
In my experience, there are muslims (mostly western born, raised, educated) who believe that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance."
There are also muslims (mostly born, raised, educated in muslim countries) who believe that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance."
One might think "whats the difference?".
Well, for the 'westernised' muslims, 'peace' and 'tolerance' mean pretty much what any other english speaker would think they mean. For the 'muslim' muslims 'peace' means 'because you are not struggling against the will of God you are at peace' and 'tolerance' means 'tolerate other muslims'.
Theres a massive schism in Islam, its as if there are two completely different religions which occupy the same 'space' but which are completely opposite in many ways.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Staying on Earth will end up with you dead too, which must also be tantamount to suicide. Therefore, if you are Muslim, you shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
I honestly don't understand this whole thing about sending humans to Mars - a move that can only end in disaster. If people are that eager to leave civilization, maybe they should just go to the Artic. It's pretty much the same thing with the same set of challenges, but it would be easier to walk back a bad decision.
But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists.
In fact, Al Queda is very strongly against terrorism. The only difference is they would define whatever is done by America, drone strikes, invading Muslim countries, making swimming compulsory for Muslim girls in American schools etc, as terrorism, and whatever they are doing as a fight for liberation.
I agree with you to some extent. Killers come in all stripes and they will kill and use any ideology to justify the bloodlust. Many ideologies have very bloody history, Judaism, Christianity, Islam among the religious and communism, fascism, naziism, marxism among the secular ideologies.
It is the responsibility of the non-killer practitioners of the ideology make sure their ideology is not used as justification for killing. Muslims are not the only oppressed people in the world. Hindus have suffered under Muslim invasion and then under Christian rule. They are not producing terrorists as much as the Muslims do. Buddhist lands have been occupied by Muslims, and they are churning out terrorists.
We have enough Muslims talking English to the West. We get it, "Islam is a religion of peace and not all Muslims are terrorists". But unless the moderates make some headway talking Arabic to fellow Muslims and reduce the number of terrorists who shout "Allah o' Akkubar" while they kill, we, the Western moderates, will have tough time containing our extremists.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Neither can be proven in a hard scientific sense. In that way, the two are on equal footing to me.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
That's Bertrand Russell, in an article titled "Is There a God?"
Skepticism in the form of "I don't know, therefore it cannot exist" is really just a way to avoid justifying one's own beliefs while simultaneously demanding that others justify theirs.
The idea that God does not exist isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. Those who do have a belief on the other hand, have the burden of proof, and failure to own up to it gives others the right to ridicule them. :-)
Now, if someone asks me if there's a China teapot revolving around the sun, should I say "I don't know" or "It's highly improbable (given that we've analysed the Sun with great detail, and... China teapot's just don't orbit the sun), so much so that we can safely say no"? The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and not the defendant.
http://shikhin.in, "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein
calling out people to obey antiquated notions based on an invisible sky god, resulting in humanity engaging in bloody religious warfare and the deaths of millions. happily producing as much crude oil as possible and encouraging consumption, leading to global climate change. The imams, along with the nutjob christians, are driving the world to a suicidal cliff. I wonder what the traditional islamic punishment for encouraging suicide is? oh, since the people encouraging it are the people deciding what islamic law is, then i suppose they will simply write the laws to exclude their culpability. I am getting really fucking sick of these religious people and their death wish. they have disproved the existence of their (narrowly defined) god, because if such a god did exist, he would have wiped these mfs out already.
The Malaysian National Space Agency (MNSA) and its Department of Islamic Development held a two-day conference in April [of 2006]. They invited 150 scholars, scientists, and astronauts to discuss "Islam and Life in Space."
Five times a day (before sunrise, at midday, in late afternoon, after sunset, and at night), earth-bound muezzins call Muslims to prayer. A spaceship traveling 17,400 miles per hour orbits the earth 16 times in a day. Does that mean praying 80 times in 24 hours?
If interrupting work to pray is not possible, the astronaut may practice a shorter version of the prayer or combine midday and afternoon prayer times, or the evening and night ones.
The next problem: Where is Mecca?
Muslims on Earth face Mecca, in central Saudi Arabia, when they pray. The MNSA suggests that the astronaut pray toward Mecca as much as possible, or at the Earth in general. But if it becomes necessary, the astronaut may simply face any direction.
How does an Islamic astronaut face Mecca in orbit?
The conference went on to discuss a broad range of concerns. To sum up: The rituals of the Islamic faith are meant to focus the believer's attention on his relationship with his God. They are not an exercise in puzzle-logic and they do not require a geometric or technological solution.
Moving on.
In January 2014, former German astronaut Ulrich Walter strongly criticized the project for ethical reasons. Speaking with Berlin's Tagesspiegel, he estimated the probability of reaching Mars alive at only thirty percent, and that of surviving there more than three months at less than twenty percent. He said, "They make their money with that [TV] show. They don't care what happens to those people in space...
Mars One
Captain John Smith ran a tight ship and had no use for the Virginian colonist whose plans were based on magical thinking and not careful planning, adequate material and financial resources and a rigorous internal discipline.
He published a list of supplies he believed to be the minimum requirements for survival on the frontier: essentially a year's supply of all consumables and durable goods, and allowing for a generous margin of safety.
New France saw one or two supply ships a year, which may give you some idea of the expense. New France, remember, had an economically viable export trade in furs and unflinching support from the crown. Those ships would be coming, hell or high water. Other colonies were less favored.
Smith's budget has no allowance for a healthy communal and social life. Entertainment, education, religion and so on.
No successful American colonial settlement ever began with a base as small as twenty or bound to a space that is at once so physically confined and isolated. I would expect to see alcohol as a problem. I would expect to see suicide as a problem.
How can you have absolute power when people follow religious leaders, not you? And that claim to answer to a higher authority than you? Dictators suppress and eradicate religion because it's a threat to their power, it's in the nature of a dictator not an atheist.
Bullshit. You have no understanding of history. These atheists targeted religion even when it was no threat to them, because they hated it, just as you hate it.
For example, how do you explain Plutarco Calles, A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT, who banned even such harmless things as vows of chastity?
You can't just handwave this shit away. I get that you HATE to think that assholes have done horrible things to further your beliefs. In your mind, your beliefs are perfect, and its only all the other beliefs that cause problems. But history doesn't bear that out, and things will never get better if we don't acknowledge historic fact.
You honestly believe religious people are hive minds. That billions of people are all just mindless drones, without rich inner lives and thoughts and dreams and ambitions. That Muslims living in NYC can stop terrorism if only they willed it hard enough. Amazing.
You are so full of hate, nothing I could ever say would get through to you. With a mindset like that, you'd be a jihadi had you not been lucky enough to be born in better circumstances.
Have these very same people considered that those who "go down to the sea in ships" may be successful? And at some point in time decide NOT to come back?
For something like a criminal trial, a scientific (falsifiable) theory, or a matter of logic, I fully agree with what you said.
For something like whether I love a woman, whether blue is my favorite color, or whether there is a God, one has to recognize that these are not scientific questions. It's ridiculous to pretend that they are. The insistence on pretending this is a scientific matter is a rather selfish motivation: to claim a superior position when the truth is, no one has any indication either way in terms of hard evidence.
It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to tell someone else they're wrong/stupid/etc. This one is cheap because it requires no work and no effort, just a declaration. It's the low-hanging fruit picked by those too dishonest and insecure to admit that in terms of hard evidence, no one really knows.
If you actually are willing to consider it as a real question, there is one thing you may find fascinating. The Golden Ratio keeps popping up everywhere in nature, even when many other values would work. This is not what one would expect from randomness. It particularly pops up in astronomy. I find that most interesting though I would not call it proof.
As for me, I consider the existence of God to be a personal question. I am not arrogant enough to tell you what you should believe, given that same lack of hard evidence. The question itself is not falsifiable and is therefore outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Someone who doesn't understand that is extremely ignorant of the very science they claim to cherish.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Jesus Christ most assuredly did NOT preach tolerance.
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No man gets to the father except through me."
“I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
No, I said that religion is closest thing people have to hive minds. And I do not talk about muslims in particular - any strong reglion/cult is like that.
And no, I would not be a jihadi. I was raised in Catholic country, been indoctrinated from early age and when I was teenager I said 'it is bullshit' and never went back. I could be now picketing under abortion clinics, but I'm not. Because I made a choice. And if you are suggesting that I would not be able to make that concious decision if I would be born into fanatic muslim family... then you would be only proving hivemind theory.
http://sullydish.files.wordpre...
People are trampling each other to death each year there. Please tell me it doesn't look like hive to you... Same can be probably said about things like Woodstock even - but religions are a LOT better at this stuff.
I hadn't heard of this until this article, but I am impressed by the brilliance of this. They'll ride this wave of media attention from the Fatwa to get funding for the fake colonies that they can put in the desert cheaply, get people living in the fake colonies by 2015 and turn it into a reality show that would dwarf Big Brother using the Mars exploration for the challenges etc. Then if for some reason this pipe dream actually became a reality (which I doubt), everyone would be paying monthly subscriptions waiting for the inevitable series finale (dust storm that breached all of the vacuum seals killing everyone on board).
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
You seem to confused about how "No True Scotsman" works. "No True Scotsman" is about the in-group (A) declaring that people in the controversial group (C) are not part of A, because their ideals don't match their own. Instead they say they are in the out-group (O). In reality, the group C is within A.
This case is the reverse of that. Where people in group O start treating everybody in A as if they were all in C, which is *also* not the case, and it's the exact fallacy that leads to defensive "No True Scotsman" posturing.
This sentence right here is what did it:
"you can't go to mars and advance science exploration and the boundaries of human knowledge that would be suicide(without a exploding vest in a crowd of innocent civilians)"
The people saying you can't go to Mars are (kind of obviously) not the people who are advocating exploding vests. Both groups are Muslim, but they are nevertheless disjoint.
Christians who devote their lives to various good works and Christians who bomb abortion clinics are a disjoint set (the latter may believe they are the former, but they are not). Even though both groups are Christian.
Atheists who devote their lives to charity and are uncomfortable with even the idea of murder and atheists who are Stalin are a disjoint set. Even though both groups are atheist.
Agnostics who live their lives for the benefit of all and agnostics who start a fake self-contradictory religion in order to extract money from the masses while secure in the knowledge that there's no good reason to think that, even if there is a god, that god isn't actually pleased by the deception rather than displeased -- these are a disjoint set. Even though both groups are agnostics.
Men who shave their head because they are balding and think it looks better shaved right off, but are generally good people; and men who shave their head because they want to show support for neo-nazism -- these are again a disjoint set. Even though both groups have shaved heads.
See where I'm going with this?
It may be the closest thing we have -- I'd even agree with that -- however it's not actually close, so that's irrelevant, because you were saying the statement "religions aren't hiveminds" was bullshit, but it's not. Religions are not hive-minds, and they are not even close to hive-minds.
Ok, maybe I should separate the quotes better (and bold highlight was from OP, not me). I was calling BS on later part of statement statement
"Members don't really have much influence over each other, and they have even less influence over people who have already proven themselves willing to kill."
I think that members (especially 'priests') of religions have HUGE influence on certain groups of followers.
Seems that artor3 somehow wanted to say that we cannot blame NY muslims for not stopping 9/11, because they could not influence the bombers. But nobody is discussing it - we are talking about terrorist priests who are manipulating gullible teenagers into sacrificing their lives.
And if we are discussing definitions... Hive mind also means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..., which is "Collective conscious or collective conscience is the set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society[...]This has also been termed "hive mind", "group mind", "mass mind", and "social mind"" I understand that OP meant something more ant-like, which obviously cannot be literally true with humans.
I'm generally on your side on this one (as an atheist) -- the fallacy of hasty generalization is the evil-twin opposite to the No True Scotsman fallacy and they often appear hand-in-hand. Blaming all Islam for some Islam fuckheads with suicide bombs is as stupid as blaming atheism for Stalin.
That said, you're guilty of it here and I think your argument is getting off track. Banning vows of chastity aren't part of my beliefs. It is not even slightly related. Therefore, a democratically elected president who banned vows of chastity has done nothing whatsoever to further my beliefs (even if it damages somebody else's beliefs).
Similarly, I actually think it's fair to point out that atheism isn't the cause of attacking the dictator's opponents, power is the cause -- it's just that it's irrelevant, because here it's not *really* Islam as a whole that's the cause, it's this guy's particular reading of Islam that is the problem, and that reading appears to be a minority reading. And it's not really anything about atheism that caused some dictators to go on pogroms, but it's a threat to power or maybe that guy really did just hate religion as a concept or whatever.
A lot of slashdotters and people in gneeral commit the fallacy of thinking that everybody in religion X 100% believes the literal meaning of whatever English translation passage they read out-of-context on the Internet, even as they look around in eg. the US and see that most people call themselves Christian and yet blatantly violate explicit instructions in the KJV bible because they are clearly stupid. Like "thou shalt not kill" while holding a flyswatter. Even people who consider themselves 100% literalist go back and say "well, in the original Hebrew, the word was 'murder'; and besides they didn't really consider insects alive anyway" or some similar apologia. And we let them get away with that because even the most 100% literalist KJV-only fundamentalists are *expected* to interpret "thou shalt not kill" with a filter of reasonableness.
(plus, though I didn't search for long, I didn't find anything on the web about Plutarco Calles banning vows of chastity anyway).
Some Jew bag marked this as flame bait! This is not flame bait, it is a serious point. We have people here posting anti-Islam comments all over this article. My comment points out their hypocrisy.
To Wrongville via the long route.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
astronauts are pretty healthy - it wouldn't really hasten your demise, going to mars, so by that rationale staying on earth is tantamount to offing yourself. my question is how would NASA/ESA coordinate prayer times, and how exact would the calculation of which direction Mecca lies toward so that the Muslim Martian Explorers could satisfy prayer reqs? I'm sure they could come up with a reclining/inclining sled...
All life ends on earth by age or disease, so if enough air/water/food for a lifetime then the Mars trip is no different to living on Earth. Cleric has no fundamental logic to life's period on Earth never mind elsewhere. So not suicide unless all life is a suicide trip.
Regards Eion MacDonald
"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool" --Oscar
Casteism
1. An orbiting teapot is not analogous to a diety
2. Whether Russell likes it or not, the statement there is no orbiting teapot is a statement of belief, since it is made absent evidence. A lack of belief in the teapot can co-exist comfortably with the universally held belief that there is no teapot. This uncomfortable fact is merely disguised by the fact that it is a shared belief - in other words, it's a strawman.
The idea that God does not exist isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief.
Unless you can provide empirical proof that there is no God, it's a belief. There is nothing magical about it.
The technology to return from Mars is the same as that required to get there with this project - both of which are in short supply: money.
The insistence on pretending this is a scientific matter is a rather selfish motivation: to claim a superior position when the truth is, no one has any indication either way in terms of hard evidence.
Let me put it this way: I can make infinite creatively worded claims, which can in no manner be disproved by you. Do I say that both our versions of the truth, where yours doesn't include my claims to be true, stand an equal chance, because "no one has any indication either way in terms of hard evidence"?
To put a realistic example through, I can claim I'm telepathic. I can also claim that I'll certainly not show you my telepathic powers, because it's a fact that you must take on "faith". Since there's no indication in either way in terms of hard evidence, as to whether I'm telepathic or not, do you just be "agnostic" about it? How can you, in said scenario, have hard evidence that I'm not telepathic?
Or do you just go on to say that whether I'm telepathic or not isn't a scientific query, it's ridiculous to pretend it is, it's not falsifiable, and everyone should have personal believes on me being telepathic?
http://shikhin.in, "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein
An orbiting teapot is not analogous to a diety.
I like to see both as special cases of "ridiculous claims".
Whether Russell likes it or not, the statement there is no orbiting teapot is a statement of belief, since it is made absent evidence. A lack of belief in the teapot can co-exist comfortably with the universally held belief that there is no teapot. This uncomfortable fact is merely disguised by the fact that it is a shared belief - in other words, it's a strawman.
Since it's almost impossible to have evidence for the non-existence of something which, by definition, doesn't have much "proof" for its existence anyway, do we seriously consider all such claims?
http://shikhin.in, "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein
An orbiting teapot is not analogous to a diety.
I like to see both as special cases of "ridiculous claims".
Well, you are entitled to your beliefs, just be aware that others don't believe the same things you do.
Whether Russell likes it or not, the statement there is no orbiting teapot is a statement of belief, since it is made absent evidence. A lack of belief in the teapot can co-exist comfortably with the universally held belief that there is no teapot. This uncomfortable fact is merely disguised by the fact that it is a shared belief - in other words, it's a strawman.
Since it's almost impossible to have evidence for the non-existence of something which, by definition, doesn't have much "proof" for its existence anyway, do we seriously consider all such claims?
I'm not sure that I understand your meaning.
You would be aware that epistemologically, there are many frameworks that we use to verify the truth of some statement. We trust the things said by others that we trust. If we do not like someone, we distrust what they say, sometimes irrationally. We sometimes verify what is said against a trusted source (e.g. personal observation, a trusted scientist or scientific method). Sometimes we don't.
Sometimes we recognise we can't - I can't for instance, verify the core sample results which lead to IPCC conclusions about climate sensitivity but I trust the process whereby the results were achieved, and distrust the conclusions made by contrarians because their reasoning is befouled by logical inconsistencies. I haven't made personal, repeatable observations, but does that say that (for me) the IPCC is wrong? That is ridiculous.
Similarly, the theoretical deity exists, or does not exist irrespective of whether we believe in it or not. Thus - worry less about the rationality of reaching one conclusion (a deity exists) and consider the rationality of reaching another (no deity can exist), using the third conclusion (I don't know) as your guide.
Similarly, the theoretical deity exists, or does not exist irrespective of whether we believe in it or not. Thus - worry less about the rationality of reaching one conclusion (a deity exists) and consider the rationality of reaching another (no deity can exist), using the third conclusion (I don't know) as your guide.
I'm not saying "no deity can exist". What I'm saying is that since there's NO proof of one, no "rational framework" that verifies the truth of the existence of any deity, we shouldn't consider their existence in the first place. The question as to how we came into existence does have "deities" as a plausible answer, but if that be the case, I'm more curious as to how the deities came into existence.
http://shikhin.in, "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein
I'm not saying "no deity can exist". What I'm saying is that since there's NO proof of one, no "rational framework" that verifies the truth of the existence of any deity, we shouldn't consider their existence in the first place.
But not considering their existence (if that were possible) would leave us in the 'unknown' state, not the 'does not exist' state. And it is not possible to avoid considering the existence of a deity, here we are doing it right now.
A bantu tribesman, having never seen nor heard of a tv, is merely ignorant of the existence of TVs. This we would classify as a state of ignorance. If the idea of a TV is proposed to him, he may reject such an outlandish notion. He thus enters a second state. He has formed an opinion not on the basis of empirical evidence, but on the basis of his experience and worldview, i.e. he believes that TVs do not exist.
The first state is equivalent to agnosticism (i.e no knowledge). The second, in which an assertion (x does not exist) is accepted as true without the benefit of empirical evidence, is equivalent to atheism.
I agree with your point, culture is allways an important interpretive element, which is actively embraced in traditional Islam.
I'm actually a Muslim, who has some interest and self and formal study on Islam. Suicide is not part of the tradition of Islam, it has approximately 30 years of history in Islam. This started with Hezbollah conducting a suicide attack during the Lebanon war. Islam is vast, full knowledge I think is beyond me, and most people. This is because the Qur'an, the hadith (sayings and actions of the prophet) are all sources. The hadith alone represent millions of accounts and sayings, which all have to be verified with the number of people retelling the same events, along the the biographies of these witnesses. Plus some parts of the Qur'an abrogate others, each verse can be a sourse of law. This is because the Quran was composed over a twenty year period of the Prophets life, and times change. These are only the sources mind you, there's a bit more than this that goes into what is considered Islam. I suggest that you learn something about Islam.
If I make a ridiculous claim right now - let's say, there are fairies underneath your garden, and that they can't be detected via any method known to man - would you be able to provide empirical evidence for the contrary? From your limited experience and worldview, one limited by current times' technology, yes, you would believe (hopefully) that the fairies aren't there, but would you be able to prove so? No.
I think agnosticism and atheism are bound by a thin line from where you assert that the original assertion is so ridiculous that you don't need to provide empirical evidence to the contrary (in cases like this, you even - as of now - just can't). For me, I draw the line a bit before religion.
Why is the original assertion (of there being an intelligent designer) ridiculous, in this case? I'd like to first make it clear that I think the entirety of this discussion is about "how did we (Universe) come into existence?" With "intelligent designer" as the answer, you're simply off-loading the question. If any such designer does exist, my view of the Universe would extend to include the intelligent designer, and I'd ask "how did we (Universe & intelligent designer) come into existence?"
http://shikhin.in, "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein
Let me put it this way: I can make infinite creatively worded claims, which can in no manner be disproved by you.
None of which would be falsifiable (c.f. Karl Poppler) by experiment, and therefore not scientific in nature. Hence the fallacy of demanding proof and referring to scientific methods in the middle of the discussion.
The irritation is that we have a casual conversation. At no point (and the point for this would be the very beginning) is it declared to be a scientific discussion. No one agreed to adhere to rigorous scientific methods. But then you say something that the other party happens not to like, and suddenly an outcry is heard for scientific proof.
Like I said, it's just a way to demand that the other guy substantiate his beliefs while feeling no obligation to return the favor. It's a desire to put the other person at a disadvantage while maintaining one's own air of legitimacy. It's that instant "hah I win, you lose" effortless slam-dunk victory everyone on this site seems so desperate to experience. Personally if I want to outsmart or out-debate someone I like to have worked for it, feel that I have earned it, and most importantly I make my intention known from the start. If I have to use cheap-shot tactics to avoid a level playing field, just to feel like I am right, then my own views must not be very sound.
I have speculated in the past that the constant reoccurrance of this phenomenon is likely because of personal insecurities on the part of many Slashdotters. It matches strongly the need for validation and a sense of superiority that insecure people tend to display.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The irritation is that this was never a casual conversation. At some point, this probably was a casual conversation. Until one party stands up and says, "There is a God. He created us. He governs us." At that point, yes, I believe there should be an outcry for scientific proof.
I don't have any problems with a casual conversation. I would be entirely happy if two skeptical parties argue with each other. Would I be a bit biased against the side claiming there's an intelligent designer? Yes. That, as I detailed in another comment, is because saying there's an intelligent designer simply adds another layer of direction. "How was the Universe created?" "By an intelligent designer." "And how was the intelligent designer created?" "He just was." is no worse/better than "How was the Universe created?" "It just was."
As for substantiating my beliefs, I maintain my stand. This debate did not start with me. Someone somewhere cooked up the entire idea behind personal God, in some form of a religion, without substantiating their beliefs. I simply ask those who follow that ideology to substantiate theirs, and if they can't, stop believing in it.
I further plead you to stop with the personal attacks. You group me with some sort of "regular Slashdotter" looking for "effortless slam-dunk victory", although you might have failed to notice that I made my first comment in this thread. I felt like I could contribute to the discussion; if you disagree, stop responding, but don't revert to personal attacks while claiming to be a supporter of a level playing field.
http://shikhin.in, "A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" -Albert Einstein