Geert Wilders

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

That is the question.

One explanation for why moderate Muslims don't speak out against aggressive "Political Islam" is that they simply don't see it as their religion at all. They feel like they have nothing to say about an ideology they don't understand or identify with.

What do you mean?

[Tao_Equus]

Please forgive a blanket response, time precludes me from responding individually.

I agree with Wilders call to ban Islam. But lets also ban Christianity, Judaism, Conservatism, Republicanism and every other belief by dogma. It wont happen because the human condition and environment melds us into self-opinionated fools. Well, not really *self-opinionated* in the strictest sense, they are invariably 2nd hand third rate opinions at best.

It is my opinion that all the people you find arguing points on forums like this, that tiny minority that *give a damn*, do not do so in support of the dogma itself but in a complicated psychological self-affirmation. Its like a typical Freudian penis envy scenario. And do not think I hold myself above this....I too am here.

My point is where is God or Allah or the Pink Spaghetti Monster really in all this? It is not in it at all. God exists in the human psyche merely to prop up our own ever so fragile egos. I do not care if its comes from books born in antiquity or so called revolutionary texts the herd mentality wants us both to 'belong' and to be 'irrefutably correct" as individuals. If we are unlucky enough to be born into, by regional accident of birth, one of the more forceful belief systems we are naturally predisposed to adopt that. Hey!! Its a ready made dogma...plays right into our other common trait, intellectual laziness. Rather than do any real evaluation of fact adopt a ready made TV dinner of a dogma.

I am nothing. Despite all the religionists here trying to fit my atheism into some kind of dogma it is not. My atheism is a statement that no case has been proven to the contrary, it offers no substitute, makes no claims of esoteric gnosis, has no leaders, no holy book. Because of the limitations of language, and more precisely the previous use of all terms to thus describe by a plethora of religions, it is hard to show what I mean without using oft quoted terms used by religionists. Who of course in their own vain glory go "ahh but this is a religion"!! because of that. The limitations of language and the all pervasive reach of dogma make it impossible.

I find it deeply depressing. But it is only one facet in the human story that is a corrupt and illogical nonsense. The pettiness and profound selfishness of the human psyche shows no sign of maturing. We are collectively nothing better than an arrogant and petulant child. Religions and political ideologies are the servants of the insolence of that rotten child. Thats it.

Enjoy your delusions. And I will marvel at my ignorance.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by NewDawn

Please forgive a blanket response, time precludes me from responding individually.

I agree with Wilders call to ban Islam. But lets also ban Christianity, Judaism, Conservatism, Republicanism and every other belief by dogma.

*snip*

Really? And you don't think that this would be unethical? Banning books, can that ever really be a good thing? Doesn't it just lend a sense of martrydom to the book and religion? Would play right into the hands of militants that would.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

*snip*

Really? And you don't think that this would be unethical? Banning books, can that ever really be a good thing? Doesn't it just lend a sense of martrydom to the book and religion? Would play right into the hands of militants that would.

No. It is the dogmas themselves that are unethical. But why bother with asking? You know as well as I that my views make no difference.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by NewDawn

No. It is the dogmas themselves that are unethical. But why bother with asking? You know as well as I that my views make no difference.

True.

We're all just little people on the internet with no real influence.

Or are we?

Perhaps we have more influence than we think?

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

One explanation for why moderate Muslims don't speak out against aggressive "Political Islam" is that they simply don't see it as their religion at all. They feel like they have nothing to say about an ideology they don't understand or identify with.

You are giving these people too much credit, I think. Such a hypothesis
presupposes that these "moderate muslims" have any reasoned opinion on
these issues at all. The fact is that the majority of people in Muslim nations
are no different then the majority of people in the States who re-elected
George W. Bush. Blast a couple of structured opinions through the TV set
and they will change their views overnight (literally, overnight).

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by c0de

You are giving these people too much credit, I think. Such a hypothesis
presupposes that these "moderate muslims" have any reasoned opinion on
these issues at all. The fact is that the majority of people in Muslim nations
are no different then the majority of people in the States who re-elected
George W. Bush. Blast a couple of structured opinions through the TV set
and they will change their views overnight (literally, overnight).

I'm lost.

Lol!!!

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

I'm lost.

Lol!!!

I dont know why. It is simple. And correct. Just a shame c0de does not see how he too bleats a familiar bleat.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by c0de

You are giving these people too much credit, I think. Such a hypothesis presupposes that these "moderate muslims" have any reasoned opinion on these issues at all.

How's this different from what I said?

Example: I never saw racism was an issue with regard to Obama until someone pointed pointed to me that some people in the USA might not vote for him because of his skin color. This was an epiphany for me. Now would I have had a ready argument against racism? Of course not. I don't think in those terms. It's totally foreign to me. Yet someone might say I'm in support of racism because I don't actively speak out against it. That's nutty. I don't think in those terms and don't even want to go there.

Generally speaking, I would not expect anyone to develop an opinion of something on issues that are essentially foreign to their basic lifestyle and world view.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

How's this different from what I said?

I must have mis-understood your intention then, my bad dude.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by NewDawn

I dont know why. It is simple. And correct. Just a shame c0de does not see how he too bleats a familiar bleat.

I meant I was 'lost' since too many peeps wish to speak in obscure terms, esp when it comes to any religous matters.

Questions are eyed with suspicion.

Even when answered, they rely on being as obscure as possible.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

I meant I was 'lost' since too many peeps wish to speak in obscure terms, esp when it comes to any religous matters.

Questions are eyed with suspicion.

Even when answered, they rely on being as obscure as possible.

basically, what me and Netti were agreeing on was:

We're all idiots...

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by c0de

basically, what me and Netti were agreeing on was:

We're all idiots...

I'd put it a little differently.

I'd say we all have biases and it helps if we correct for them. This assumes commitment to the principle that Truth has intrinsic value and also that "the truth will set you free." Someone who is not interested in truth won't care about any of that.

Originally Posted by NewDawn

I agree with Wilders call to ban Islam.

Oh he did, did he?

I thought Wilders said for Muslims to tear out some pages from the Koran he doesn't like.

This kind of perennial misrepresentation of the issues is the source of so much confusion in political discourse. It explains why these discussions tend to be unsatisfying.