9/11 again

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 11, 2007

in fanaticism, religion and violence

. Tags: 9/11, fanaticism, religion, terrorism, violence.

This year, I’ll be brief:

(With thanks to Non Credo Deus)

Add to:

14 Responses to “9/11 again”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Vince
September 11, 2007 at 22:11

Thanks for posting the picture here Pedro. I have gotten a few comments on my site and a mini-debate has erupted there. Check it out @ http://noncredeodeus.blogspot.com
2 No Way
September 21, 2007 at 6:20

Hummmm,

Granted, the towers might be still standing if there were no religion. Though it is unfounded to believe they would have been built in the first place, especially since America’s founding fathers came here to escape religious persecution.

On the other hand, we would also have to consider:

- when the printing press with movable type would have been invented since its main inspiration, if I am well informed, was to print the Bible.

- who would be sheltering the homeless in the world. Last I checked EVERY homeless shelter in my city was affiliated with a religion.

- who would be feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Last I checked EVERY food pantry and almost every living assistance program is affiliated with a religion.

- who would have founded our hospitals and universities. The vast majority of these are tied to a religion in one form or another.

- who would be combating child-slavery, starvation and a myriad of other social issues that various religions are on the front lines of right now.

Let me guess, you, the non-believers? Bullshit! If that were so you would already be doing it, and by percentage you simply are not. If you want to show me a world better off without religion you’ll have to start by actually working to fix these major social injustices with as much passion as many those religious institutions you hate so much do.

To act as though that picture represents some better world without religion is to show a lack of depth in thought that speaks for itself very clearly.
3 Vince
September 21, 2007 at 8:05

Allow me to clarify. Yes religion is a problem- a huge one- but I’ll get back to that in a minute. I agree there have been advancements in the world made by religious people. I will concede that a great number of charitable and worthwhile work has been done by religious groups.

However, here is where your logic has some holes in it. All of the good things you claim the religious do can and ARE being done by secular groups as well. Amnesty International for instance is one of the leading organizations fighting for human rights all over the world, and the last time I checked they are NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY RELIGION AT ALL.

Do you assert that believers are more charitable and socially aware than non-believers? Lets examine that. Believers are instructed (however inconsistently) by their dogma to behave with with fellowship and charity because god says so. Not following these rules can land you guys in trouble. The non believer acts in a similar fashion, not out of coercion or fear, but out of a sense of morality and justice. Which one of us is more noble in their actions? If you claim that believers act charitably, not for selfish fear-of-god reasons, then you make my argument for me. Religion is NOT necessary to be a compassionate and charitable citizen.

The indoctrinated cherry-pick those bits of their scriptures that advocate acts of goodness and charity while ignoring those horrible bits like for instance: if you find out that wife is not a virgin when you marry her it is ok to stone her to death.(Deuteronomy 22:19-21) or that homosexual men are fair game for killing (Leviticus 20:13) etc. etc. etc.- this proves that your “sense of morality” is inherent in you as a human being and religion is not only not necessary, but counter productive.

“…actually working to fix these major social injustices with as much passion as many those religious institutions you hate so much do.”

Funny you mention social injustices and religion. Where do I start? The systematic rape of children and the complicit covering up and protection of pedophiles by the church? Perhaps the spreading fear and repression and subsequently the HIV virus across Africa by a church that ACTIVELY works to eradicate condom use? Surely you think it is more socially just to have millions of dead people rather than have them engage in (premarital) sex. Or perhaps you are referring the cutting edge work that religion is doing in trying to retard scientific education (creation fairy tale) or hinder potentially life saving research (stem cell).

Religion systematically uses fear and silly magical thinking to control people and make abandon thinking for themselves, and makes them do some truly “evil” things.

You are correct: religion speaks for itself.

There have been good things that have been inspired by religion but my point is that it is no longer necessary in the modern(read enlightened) world. Any force such as religion that causes people to abandon reason and accept things to be true DESPITE either evidence to the contrary or an absence of evidence, is a wholly dangerous endeavor and can only serve to set all of humanity back.

BTW, I was a paramedic for 6 years, an Emergency Room nurse for 4 years and currently am a 2nd yr medical student.I have literally medicated thousands of people and furthermore, decided to dedicate a large portion of my life to those Jesus-like pursuits like healing the sick and so forth. I do this not because some silly piece of pulp fiction tells me so, or I hear voices from an imaginary friend; rather, I chose do do this because I think it is a noble, necessary, and worthwhile thing to do.

Thanks for stopping by my blog
4 No Way
September 21, 2007 at 16:42

[quote post="288"]However, here is where your logic has some holes in it. All of the good things you claim the religious do can and ARE being done by secular groups as well. Amnesty International for instance is one of the leading organizations fighting for human rights all over the world, and the last time I checked they are NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY RELIGION AT ALL.

Do you assert that believers are more charitable and socially aware than non-believers? Lets examine that. Believers are instructed (however inconsistently) by their dogma to behave with with fellowship and charity because god says so. Not following these rules can land you guys in trouble. The non believer acts in a similar fashion, not out of coercion or fear, but out of a sense of morality and justice. Which one of us is more noble in their actions? If you claim that believers act charitably, not for selfish fear-of-god reasons, then you make my argument for me. Religion is NOT necessary to be a compassionate and charitable citizen.[/quote]
5 No Way
September 21, 2007 at 17:01

Sorry,

mistakenly hit the post button instead of the past text link. Amnesty International is a good example. I bet they do about as much good as the churches in my state. I firmly believe (and am considering how it could be investigated) that the total good of the secular groups pales in comparison to that of religion. It is easy to cherry pick an example on either side. Instead, try opening up you local phone book (or any phone book) and see where the percentages are at.

As for making your point if I claim that these acts are not done because of selfish fear-of-god reasons nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my point: all the deeds I do I do because of a love for God and a gratitude for his grace. Fear never, NEVER enters my mind in relation to my relationship with God.

So, believers can have other reasons that the one you dictate as the only reason. That, is part of my point. You think you can boil it down to one little reason we all act in certain ways. You can’t and to act as though you have is a failing.

Also, I have not claimed that religion is necessary to be a compassionate and charitable citizen. It just seems to greatly help. What percentage of your income and time do you give to others?

[quote post="288"]The indoctrinated cherry-pick those bits of their scriptures that advocate acts of goodness and charity while ignoring those horrible bits like for instance: if you find out that wife is not a virgin when you marry her it is ok to stone her to death.(Deuteronomy 22:19-21) or that homosexual men are fair game for killing (Leviticus 20:13) etc. etc. etc.- this proves that your “sense of morality” is inherent in you as a human being and religion is not only not necessary, but counter productive.[/quote]

I would have to say that many probably do. I for one very directly questioned these things. Any believer willing to come out of the dark ages (which most have) and look at these issues in the context of the whole faith, not just that little 1-3 verse section, knows that our relationship with God has changed since those times. If not, Jesus would have stoned the woman to death instead of speaking “Let he who has not sinned….”

The social injustices you write of a little later are indeed failings of the church, not religion. I think EVERYONE that was involved or knew about the abuses of those children should go to prison. Everyone, even the Pope if he knew of it. If you were to argue that the church as a rule is not acting as Christ would wish I would probably have to agree with you. If you argue against the very teachings of Christ there is no way to agree with you.

I am glad to hear of your vocation. How much of that kind of work do you do as charity? It seems as though you have confused the two.
6 No Way
September 21, 2007 at 17:16

Vince,

I still hold to the fact that to act as thought that picture tells a whole story of a world without religion is a falsity.

A quick search on Google seems to support my hypothesis that most charities and charitable work are connected to religion in some way.

Come on guys, get the stick… I for one would love it if there were just as much volunteer work being done by non-believers. Think of a world where that was the case!

BTW, the sun sure makes a pretty cross in that picture.
7 Vince
September 21, 2007 at 18:24

Hehehehe this is fun…..

“all the deeds I do I do because of a love for God and a gratitude for his grace. Fear never, NEVER enters my mind in relation to my relationship with God”

If you claim your actions are motivated by a love for your god, well, wonderful. Again what motivates me is a sense of morality and justice; I feel no obligation to an imaginary being for any “grace”. I submit my motivations are more ‘pure’ at least in the sense of caring about my fellow man because I think it is right to do so; mystical beings notwithstanding.

“What percentage of your income and time do you give to others?”

I don’t subscribe to any silly notion about devoting a special magical number of my income to charity. I give to causes I feel are worthwhile. You seem to have a naive sense of “we have more do-gooders than you” or “we give more of our money and time than you do” nya nya nya nya. This is silly you have conceded that there are examples of people who do good work on both sides of religion. That is one of my main points- religion isn’t NECESSARY to be a good person- and as has been demonstrated over and over again often serves to make people do heinous things.

“Any believer willing to come out of the dark ages (which most have) and look at these issues in the context of the whole faith, not just that little 1-3 verse section, knows that our relationship with God has changed since those times. If not, Jesus would have stoned the woman to death instead of speaking “Let he who has not sinned….”

This is the “No REAL Christian would do those things defense…” This proves my point. What part of you decides that those sections of the bible are morally reprehensible and outdated or irrelevant now. (perhaps you should get more familiar with the book you dedicate your life to: there are many many more than “1-3 verses” btw)Of course, and it is my point to say, that the sense of morality that you use to reject such disgusting examples in the bible is inherent in your humanity completely outside of the realm of religion. The reason that there are “religious moderates” who cherry pick pieces that suit them have came to a conclusion first and scan the scripture for evidence to support it. I say you don’t need that silly drivel. You know what you feel is right / wrong WITHOUT the bible.
I actually have more respect for “extremist or fundamentalists”. True they are wingnuts and believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god, but at least they are consistent in their lunacy. They don’t try to skew the dogma by creatively selecting those verses that support a preconceived conclusion. What you claim to do with your malleable view of your faith is a bit dishonest. Either you believe the crap in that book or you don’t. Once you feel free to editorialize then you remove the only reason to take it seriously,(however deluded an idea that is to begin with)once you acknowledge that OK, parts of this book are silly, then you why don’t you question the veracity of any and, for that matter-all of its grandiose claims. You are the one who is “prone to seeing what they want to see”. It is just intellectual sloth and dishonesty.

This brings me to your buddy, Jesus. Have you read the bible at all? How about [Mark 7:9] where he criticized Jewish parents for not killing their disobedient children (according to the old testament law)? [Matthew 5:17]he throws his support behind the cruel and violent laws of the old testament. What about in [Luke 12:47] where your hero OK’s the beating of slaves? Not to mention what he did to those poor 2000 piggies [Mark 5:12]what did they do wrong? Doesn’t seem very Christ-like at all.You see- picking and choosing the “good bits”.

I do indeed argue with these “teachings of christ” and I agree, you have no way to argue with me.

And finally:
“I am glad to hear of your vocation. How much of that kind of work do you do as charity? It seems as though you have confused the two.”

Again you miss the point; it isn’t a numbers game. I have volunteered to help out in the community on several occasions. Admittedly, I do not spend as much time giving of myself as I suppose you do. But my point isn’t that I am a better person than you. You may well be a model citizen and if so I commend you.

My point is simply one can be just as “good” a person without religion as with it; and there is too much that religion detracts from to point to charity work and say, “see we need religion”.

The good that any religion does is severely outweighed by the damage (physical, emotional, psychological, financial) that it inflicts to its own constituency as well as those of us forced to live in a world with this sort of ass-clownery.
8 No Way
September 23, 2007 at 6:26

Pedro, there was a time when you weren’t so quick to squelch other opinions. Why do you keep killing my post?

Where to start… I suspect I’m wasting my time but one more attempt for your sake and then I’ll dust off my feet.

[quote post="288"](perhaps you should get more familiar with the book you dedicate your life to: there are many many more than “1-3 verses” btw)[/quote]]
I’m afraid you missed the point of my statement about 1-3 verses. Intentionally. I was saying that you pick sections of the many books in the Bible that are only 1-3 verses long to meet your personal desires. That you have, in fact, never made an attempt to understand the underlying meaning of the entire story as it is told by all the books of the Bible in total. The fact that all of the attacks you later made in this post were based on one verse kinda lends support to my hypothesis. As of this time I see no evidence to indicate I am incorrect.

[quote post="288"]Of course, and it is my point to say, that the sense of morality that you use to reject such disgusting examples in the bible is inherent in your humanity completely outside of the realm of religion.[/quote]

It is not that I have “rejected such disgusting examples of the bible” out of my humanity. These laws have been completed. That one statement sums up the message of the whole Bible. Not that these laws no longer apply, that they have been completed.

[quote post="288"]I actually have more respect for “extremist or fundamentalists”. True they are wingnuts and believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god, but at least they are consistent in their lunacy. They don’t try to skew the dogma by creatively selecting those verses that support a preconceived conclusion. What you claim to do with your malleable view of your faith is a bit dishonest.[/quote]

I am sure that you do have more respect for the “extremist or fundamentalist”. It seems to me from what you put forward as the teaching of Jesus that you have the same quality of eyes and ears as they do. I do not “try to skew the dogma by creatively selecting those verses that support a preconceived conclusion”. It is in reading and wresting with the small context first (be it a book a chapter or a verse) instead of at the complete message that things become skewed. As I refute your examples below it will become clear to any who can hear with an ear to understand where you have missed the point.

[quote post="288"]You are the one who is “prone to seeing what they want to see”. It is just intellectual sloth and dishonesty.[/quote] My comment was that we are all prone to seeing what we want to see. I included myself in that statement the first time and will continue to do so. You will find little to no intellectual sloth or dishonesty within me - that is you view. I think the same of you but am intellectually honest enough to know that is my view.

Now, time for your Bible lesson.

[quote post="288"][Matthew 5:17]he throws his support behind the cruel and violent laws of the old testament. [/quote] No, Jesus did not “throw his support behind the cruel and violent laws of the old testament”. That statement alone proves that you either do not understand the whole message of the Bible or you intentionally distort it. Jesus threw himself in between the laws of the old testament and us. He fulfilled the law - just as the passage says. We were judged and found guilty and he paid the price for us. My friend, what you have just done, taking this one verse and contorting it like that, is cherry-picking.

[quote post="288"]What about in [Luke 12:47] where your hero OK’s the beating of slaves?[/quote]
I don’t know where you are from or what your real educational background. Maybe you have never heard of a parable or using one thing to describe another. He was simply saying that “as a slave’s master would beat a slave that knew what to do but didn’t so to would God upon the willfully sinful”. Never did he say it was alright to beat a slave. In fact, I would suggest you read the book of Philemon if you would like to know a little more about a Christian view on slavery.

I do believe that you are intelligent enough to know that this example was completely incorrect. That being said, either you have not read the entire book of Luke yourself or you have intentionally and malisciously decided to inject intellectual dishonesty into the discussion.

[quote post="288"]How about [Mark 7:9] where he criticized Jewish parents for not killing their disobedient children (according to the old testament law)?[/quote]

This was in response to a question about his disciples eating with “defiled hands”. No where near that passage is the punishment of disobedient children mentioned. If you are speaking about the reference to “anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must surely die” we can cover that later - if you really want to understand it. My suspicion at this point it that you know full well what was meant in that section and ignore it for your own motives.

Either way, it doesn’t hurt to say it. His point was that their tradition was NOT the law of God even though they acted like it was. His further point was that their traditions prevented many people from coming to God and that was a violation of God’s law. Not unlike many “Christian” denominations and congregations today I am afraid.

Please, before you accuse me on not reading the Bible, read it yourself. If you have read it, get the help of someone who understands it and can help you do the same. If you already understand it stop misquoting it. If you wish to attack it use more than a few sections that are one to three verses long. Intellectual honesty would demand it.

I still hold to this point, that you attempt to paint a picture of a world without religion by use of the above picture that is not in the least accurate. You are spin-doctoring and attempting to manipulate the masses with a falsity. In short, you are doing many of the same things that you claim to hate about various religious groups.
9 No Way
September 23, 2007 at 18:04

Pedro,

You leave up his comment but delete my rebuttal. His post is filled with complete inaccuracies but you will not let them be addressed. What are you afraid of?
10 No Way
September 23, 2007 at 18:06

Can you at least leave the link to his post where I my rebuttal was posted.

It’s at http://noncredodeus.blogspot.com/2007/09/its-easy-if-you-trynational-shredded.html
11 Pedro Timóteo
September 23, 2007 at 19:39

No Way, I didn’t delete anything. It was the automatic spam filter misbehaving. Your post is there now (manually rescued); sorry for the inconvenience.
12 No Way
September 24, 2007 at 14:15

Pedro,

Sorry for the accusation. I thought that was out of character for you. I didn’t even think of automatic systems. Thank you.
13 Craig
November 5, 2007 at 22:34

The fact that the vast majority of (soley) charitable organizations are affiliated with a religion doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that the faithful are in a large majority. Atheists make up at most 4% of the population. How many atheists do you think would be in each city in the country? It’s only natural that religous groups would control most of the non-profit charities. On top of that is the fact that atheist are the most distrusted group in the country (unjustly). Do you really think with that being the case that many “god-fearing” people would donate to a group that admitted to their Godlessness? I doubt it. And what about profitable companies such as Wal-Mart
14 No Way
November 7, 2007 at 5:22

Craig,

You are turning the argument in a different direction. My point is this. The person that created that picture merely produced propaganda. It is in no way possible to make the assumption that the towers would still be standing in “a world without religion”. In fact, since America was populated (after the indians) because of Religious persecution it is at least as reasonable to assume that it would not exist if it were not for religion.

Oh, and I would love to see where you get your statistics from. I must just be running into that 4% most of the time.

Also, make no mistake that for-profit companies invest back into their communities for profitable reasons, if it wasn’t beneficial to them they simply would not do it.