A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Which Would Be Worse?
Living under Islam/Sharia? Or under Atheo-Leftist/Social Justice?
I'm torn on this question. On one hand, the social justice society might be less imposing in some regards. Yet at the same would ultimately not tolerate differing views or any form of religion.
Then you have sharia law which would allow religous thought/practice, but only their's with no question. It might also be more brutal, while the atheistic social justice might be more humane in their oppression.
I don't know how to answer the question I suppose. Neither are good options, so this might be one of those choose the lesser evil kind of things.
First, if you're a Christian of a soncervative bent, which society would you rather live in? One which relegates you to a second-class status where you are barely tolerated (Sharia), or one where everything you stand for is considered to be a part of The Problem(tm) and must be excised from society (secularism)?
Secondly, which system is capable of long-term survival? Islam doesn't have much going for it when it isn't subsuming other cultures, but at least it can hobble along for some time in a wartorn, miserable pile of sand and anti-intellectualism. Conversely, how have secular societies fared in the one paltry century they've existed?
Thirdly, look at the bodycount. As bloodthirsty as the Cult of Mohammed is, when the militant Leftists finally get the absolute power they so tirelessly seek there's just no comparison. Soviet Russia, Communist China or the Khmer Rouge, anyone?
As little as I think of Islam, and as horrible as life in a Muslim nation would be, secular Atheo-Leftist societies have proven themselves to lead to an even worse existence.
Interesting anecdotes- A friend of my brother's grew up in Iran. He and his wife visit there regularly. His wife (who is not Islamic) wants to go there to live. "They have so much more freedom there," she says.
I know some people who visited the former Soviet Union. None of them wanted to live there.
Apparently you can build things without permit. (I wanted to convert my garage to a room- she thought it would be much easier there. My friend wanted to put a staircase in a restaurant- seems you could just do it there, here-not so easy) It seems ski instruction is much better there too (less expensive and faster- but no insurance is held by instructors). It seems we overlook the restrictions that are placed on us by the permit process and the need for insurance. Of course there are trade offs.
One of the several reasons we moved here, Missouri Ozarks, was for the "less regulation" reason. In Oregon one can't run a chainsaw after 12 noon. Oregon is beautiful but I'm grateful that we left before the housing crash. In Colorado, they dictate which aquifir you can drill your well into, and you don't own the mineral rights to your own property.
We built an entire house and well, a barn and two sheds with no interference, although the tax guys did show up after a few years and raise our taxes a little. There are no local codes, and few state regs and those are water quality related.
I can shoot off my back porch, front porch and roof if I wish. I love living in the country.
While I appreciate the psychological necessity for Christians to defend their religion against Islam, what amazes me is the ridiculous caricatures and straw men you use to do it. This blog's illumination of the horrors of atheism is so calm and precise, but as soon as Islam is mentioned that reason vanishes, and I feel like I'm back listening to Dawkins' puerile attempt to describe Christian theology/philosophy.
If anyone wants to actually educate themselves as to what the first legal Islamic state looked like:
Then read the modern constitution of the Gaza Palestinians. It quotes the Qur'an, with the objective of eradicating every Jew.
Just last night PBS News reported on attitudes in Israel and Gaza. In Israel the people claim that the Palestinians hate them. In Palestine, the people claim to hate Jews.
The reasons don't matter; hate is hate and is irrational.
Irrational seems a bit strong. Perhaps 'sub-rational' in the sense that it is on the level of emotion? Hate is an emotion contrary to love. Emotions can sometimes conform to reason and sometimes not. (Statement of principle - I am not suggesting Palestinian hatred of Jews is rational, nor Jewish hatred of Palestinains is.)
Again, I would rather not descend into an analysis of the Palestine-Jewish conflict, all I ask for is some semblance of reasonable balance which this blog typically employs. For eg. IN light of your comment just made, are you seriously going to argue that the Jewish state of Israel doesn't want to eradicate every non-Jew from the land, which has, they beleive at least, Scriptural justification?
And how can reasons not matter? They might not 'justify' hatred per se, but they certinaly can 'explain' it, which definitley matters to everyone. Removing all context smacks of sentimentalism.
So if a Holocaust survivor decides they hate Nazism, are you going to tell him/her that a. their hate is irrational, and b. their reasons don't matter?
11 comments:
Trick question. The second society simply couldn't last and would eventually be taken over by Islam or simply die out anyway.
I'm torn on this question. On one hand, the social justice society might be less imposing in some regards. Yet at the same would ultimately not tolerate differing views or any form of religion.
Then you have sharia law which would allow religous thought/practice, but only their's with no question. It might also be more brutal, while the atheistic social justice might be more humane in their oppression.
I don't know how to answer the question I suppose. Neither are good options, so this might be one of those choose the lesser evil kind of things.
Well, let's consider, shall we?
First, if you're a Christian of a soncervative bent, which society would you rather live in? One which relegates you to a second-class status where you are barely tolerated (Sharia), or one where everything you stand for is considered to be a part of The Problem(tm) and must be excised from society (secularism)?
Secondly, which system is capable of long-term survival? Islam doesn't have much going for it when it isn't subsuming other cultures, but at least it can hobble along for some time in a wartorn, miserable pile of sand and anti-intellectualism. Conversely, how have secular societies fared in the one paltry century they've existed?
Thirdly, look at the bodycount. As bloodthirsty as the Cult of Mohammed is, when the militant Leftists finally get the absolute power they so tirelessly seek there's just no comparison. Soviet Russia, Communist China or the Khmer Rouge, anyone?
As little as I think of Islam, and as horrible as life in a Muslim nation would be, secular Atheo-Leftist societies have proven themselves to lead to an even worse existence.
Interesting anecdotes-
A friend of my brother's grew up in Iran. He and his wife visit there regularly.
His wife (who is not Islamic) wants to go there to live.
"They have so much more freedom there," she says.
I know some people who visited the former Soviet Union.
None of them wanted to live there.
In what ways did she find more freedom?
Apparently you can build things without permit.
(I wanted to convert my garage to a room- she thought it would be much easier there. My friend wanted to put a staircase in a restaurant- seems you could just do it there, here-not so easy)
It seems ski instruction is much better there too (less expensive and faster- but no insurance is held by instructors).
It seems we overlook the restrictions that are placed on us by the permit process and the need for insurance.
Of course there are trade offs.
One of the several reasons we moved here, Missouri Ozarks, was for the "less regulation" reason. In Oregon one can't run a chainsaw after 12 noon. Oregon is beautiful but I'm grateful that we left before the housing crash. In Colorado, they dictate which aquifir you can drill your well into, and you don't own the mineral rights to your own property.
We built an entire house and well, a barn and two sheds with no interference, although the tax guys did show up after a few years and raise our taxes a little. There are no local codes, and few state regs and those are water quality related.
I can shoot off my back porch, front porch and roof if I wish. I love living in the country.
"The resurgence"?
Charlie, you didn't tell me that you're an historian too?
While I appreciate the psychological necessity for Christians to defend their religion against Islam, what amazes me is the ridiculous caricatures and straw men you use to do it. This blog's illumination of the horrors of atheism is so calm and precise, but as soon as Islam is mentioned that reason vanishes, and I feel like I'm back listening to Dawkins' puerile attempt to describe Christian theology/philosophy.
If anyone wants to actually educate themselves as to what the first legal Islamic state looked like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
Then read the modern constitution of the Gaza Palestinians. It quotes the Qur'an, with the objective of eradicating every Jew.
Just last night PBS News reported on attitudes in Israel and Gaza. In Israel the people claim that the Palestinians hate them. In Palestine, the people claim to hate Jews.
The reasons don't matter; hate is hate and is irrational.
Irrational seems a bit strong. Perhaps 'sub-rational' in the sense that it is on the level of emotion? Hate is an emotion contrary to love. Emotions can sometimes conform to reason and sometimes not. (Statement of principle - I am not suggesting Palestinian hatred of Jews is rational, nor Jewish hatred of Palestinains is.)
Again, I would rather not descend into an analysis of the Palestine-Jewish conflict, all I ask for is some semblance of reasonable balance which this blog typically employs. For eg. IN light of your comment just made, are you seriously going to argue that the Jewish state of Israel doesn't want to eradicate every non-Jew from the land, which has, they beleive at least, Scriptural justification?
And how can reasons not matter? They might not 'justify' hatred per se, but they certinaly can 'explain' it, which definitley matters to everyone. Removing all context smacks of sentimentalism.
So if a Holocaust survivor decides they hate Nazism, are you going to tell him/her that a. their hate is irrational, and b. their reasons don't matter?
Post a Comment