AndrewL

There is something very perverse about your idea that Aboriginal culture is undermining and imposing on our white christian culture of occupation. Is it not the white christians that undermined and imposed on the Aboriginal culture? Andrew

Huh? If Canadian soldiers were not in Afghanistan you would not be able to debate? You really think the Taliban and AQ are able to take over Canada? That is pretty silly. Andrew

I am neither on the left or the right. I am a refugee from the political spectrum. I am not anti war or anti american, nor am i pro american or pro war. I believe in freedom from nation-states entirely. If anything at this moment in life i would consider myself neo-tribalist and anti-civilization. (both the western and eastern types). I can't possibly identify with any political party i have ever heard of, nor can i identify with any culture of the civilized world. When i vote i simply vote for the opposite of the incumbent. Just to make sure change is constant. I could care less what 'side' their on. Our entire paradigm has to change. The real worlds problems will never be solved by armies and wars. They never have been. One war has always guaranteed the next. As is the modern history of afghanistan. Nothing in your rant comes anywhere close to proving that war will solve the problems you mention. History shows that war is at best a temporary fix that causes insane hatred, and at worst a racket that lines the pocket of elites (while people like you foolishly and naively offer your lives as sacrifice). The left certainly did protest against Saddam Hussein, and the wests complicity with him, long before the gulf war. It was only when Saddam started to misbehave that 'heroes' like you were sacrificed in order to keep him out of Saudi Arabia. Neither the gulf war nor the current debacle in Iraq have anything to do with protecting human rights. In reality both those wars major achievements were to create a human rights catastrophe. Its about power, little else. We are weak. We are little more than a protectorate of the US. As long as our resources are on the market we can be mostly ignored by the rest of the world. And BTW, your portrait of me as 'wanting to run' when Canadian soldiers are killed is false. You make it sound as if i find the death of Canadian soldiers especially tragic...... people die every day in the world and most of the time is is very tragic.... there is nothing any more tragic about these young lads dying than there is about other young lives being cut short at any time, of any nationality, in any place in the world. I have sympathy for their friends and loved ones, but it has no bearing at all on how i feel about Afghanistan, its irrelevant. I think we should not be in Afghanistan because our presence there is not in my interests or my friends and family. It is eroding our security. And i am forced to pay for it against my will. Note that the american willingness to arm and befriend religious fanatics is what led directly to 9/11 and then back to afghanistan. According to Zbigniew Berzinsky (sp?) the US set a trap for the soviets by purposely using Islamic terrorism to destabilize the country and tempt the soviets to invade. The 'afghan trap' was meant to bleed the soviets. Given this, had America stayed out of Afghanistan in the late 70's it is likely the soviets never would have invaded in the first place. And you have obviously never read the soviet history of Afghanistan, it is full of the same rhetoric of human rights and peace that is offered up by the US/Nato alliance. And in fact the soviets in Afghanistan are equal partners to the human rights violations that America is currently engaged in. (domestically the soviets were far worse though, granted). All governments of Canada are the same. It makes very little difference. You are not nothing to me, you are just nothing 'special' to me. Andrew

Im thinking that Islam is a great source of their desire to resist being occupied by any foreign nation. I think it reasonable to offer the conjecture that had these people not taken up the religion, the soviets certainly might have had a much easier time of it. They may have even succeeded. The foreign jihadis who made their way to Afghanistan when the Russians were there were coming to the 'rescue' of the islamic brothers after all. Historically it is a difficult (likely impossible) thing to occupy a determined muslim people. The british, russians, french, americans, canadians, turks, israelis, etc.. they all know this very well. Andrew

No 3,4,5 are certainly true. The rest is just up-selling to the american public. Andrew

Wow. OK, now lets move beyond grade six history class... and maybe start to understand the world and its people in a little bit more detail. Whatever, you are just a waste of time. Andrew

Nonsense. The people the brits and the soviets fought are the aame people that live in afghanistan today. They were not the same people in the 13the century and they certainly were not the same poeple in alexanders time. (there was no such thing as afghanistan in either of those periods, BTW). We are talking islamic insurgency, a deep hatred and distrust of the west, modern western soldiers who are ignorant, and the fact that we have already been there 6 years and the rhetoric we use makes us sound like the russians.... "ifonly we build that highway, everybody will love us" gimme a fuckin break. Andrew

Now we are getting somewhere. The first afghanis to long ago accept and submit to islam were also the first to resist soviet occupation. See where this is headed? Andrew

I know that if we are comparing moments in history that Alexander the great and Ghenghis khan are in no way comparable at all to the current situation. I think it is far more relevant to keep our comparisons in modern history and not go back to the ancient world or the 13th century. That is ridiculous. Or are you proposing that NATO begin using the tactics employed by Khan? Andrew

so are you prepared to back this up? You seem to be suggesting that both the ritish and Russian empire enjoyed success in Afghanistan, with much larger armies to boot. You say the fact that they lost is not true? WTF are you talking about? Andrew

I know that it won't work. Their fate is tragic. NATO/America can't and will not change that. Only they can. At best the western presence is just in the way, at worst the western presence is just eroding my security at home. Regardless, i dont trust western or afghan motives and i personally want nothing to do with any of it. You are making the false assumption that an armed NATO/American force can 'get us there'. I don't accept that. And i certainly do not support it. It is just another sad chapter in western colonialism and puppeteering. It was systematic. And it was very effective. It was genocide in no uncertain terms. The record is very clear on that. Any group of occupiers that seeks to forcibly convert, steal, and exterminate an entire culture and way of life is engaged in genocide. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it remains one of the most grievous crimes in recorded history. Yeah, you are probably right on there. Im rather indifferent to it. I dont identify myself with any sort of nationalism or buy into the myth of benevolence that surrounds the 'modern western military'. Andrew

Off the back of a match book no doubt. Apparently any jackass can get a degree.... I don't agree with Jack that there can be a negotiated peace with the taliban. Nor do i agree with the likes of you that there is a military victory that is possible via Canadian forces. The absolute only chance for Afghanis who dont want Nato or the Taliban in their country is for them to do it themselves and for pakistan to clean up their border region. Canada has no role to play here. Its a waste, it always has been. Are you claiming to actually be in aghanistan? I certainly hope you are not representative of the CFs? What a disgrace. In some cases you absolutely are killing tribes people native to the region. Or is there a taliban uniform that you use to distinguish between afghan tribes people and taliban from pakistan? How do you know? And why have you not changed a fucking thing in six years? It will only get uglier. For somebody who supposedly 'studied' military history you have an embarrassingly narrow minded definition of genocide. Yikes. If you are actually in the CF i have lost some respect for that institution in our brief tit for tat here. You come across as a meathead..... Andrew

Of course a major difference being that WW1 and WW2 actually had opposable armies. But hey, dont let that significant difference get in your way. Andrew

Not relevant. Its the local tribes people that know the land and will fight indefinitely as their fathers and grandfathers did before them against the British and the Russians. Those were far more formidable foes than the ATV bound canucks. So, 6 years later and what has really changed? Actually, we were a bunch of jew haters who gladly did business with nazis at the time of WWII. This of course was not too long after we committed our own genocide against the natives. Nevertheless, AQ is little more than a murderous criminal organization, one that feeds off of nato and american expansion. You have no idea how stupid and corrupt the 'west' really is. Ahh yes, the 'left' is the source of all your problems. Do yourself a favor and pick up a history book or two. Im thinking ignorance is maybe closer to the source of your actual problems. Andrew

By definition anybody who invades and occupies Afghanistan obviously has zero knowledge of war and history. Andrew

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...3/BNStory/Front I suggest an exchange of prisoners......we give then Taliban Jack and they release the medieval mentality they've been holding hostage....... Yeah...killing and being killed is working so well for us why would we want to rethink that? Andrew

One has to differentiate between non-rational and irrational. In religious terms: Non-rational is our belief that life has meaning and human beings are spiritual creatures. In other words, even the non-religious people can seek meaning and spirituality while understanding that these are not absolutes bestowed upon us by a caring and personal god. We can seek meaning and spirituality in our lives because it is "good", not because it has a rational basis. Irrational beliefs are a belief in magic, prayer, creation science, divine rewards and punishments, the after life, stigmata, suicide bombing, going to war in the name of god, crying statues of the virgin mary, images of jesus in pieces of toast, virgin birth, sons of god, resurrection, and so on. I think you will find that most people seek religion for the non-rational aspect, leaving the silly irrational aspect of religion on the table. If you look at it that way, you can perhaps understand why your friends whom you respect seem to believe in religion. I suspect they might just enjoy the comfort of meaning and spirituality. I certainly do (but in a humanistic way). I wish to redefine the source of the spiritual and meaningful life to be grounded in human terms, recognizing that we are animals uncreated and uncared for by the hand of the abrahamic god. I do this in an attempt to undermine the political and financial power of the fanatics who sit at the top of the churches, synagogues, and mosques. Andrew

My support goes out to Mr. Brant. I wish him and his fellow protesters all the best. Sincerely, Andrew

Continued… As I am to openly challenge those beliefs – they are voluntarily bringing their faith and beliefs into public discourse after all. They put a literal belief of the bible into politics and science. How can I challenge them at all if not on religious terms, when their entire discourse is justified exclusively by their faith? It seems that if I fear to be viewed as a fundamentalist atheist, I can’t challenge them on religious or political grounds at all. They have made the game unplayable, if we choose to be polite and tread lightly. I agree. But this means that attacking their deeply held religious beliefs is necessary. It is unavoidable. Yes. It is often a conversation ender. But I see no reason to end that conversation. One should not be afraid to offend in a conversation where both parties are being genuine and honest about what they believe. Too often the non-believer backs down, for fear of offending. Or the believer cries foul and reacts as if I insulted his mother. OK. I won’t dispute that I have offered such a definition of religion in the past. Nor will I defend it. I think it is more important to just develop a reasoned critique of religion, even if I sometimes fail. I do see your point. My desire is not to convince the fanatic (it can be fun, but always futile), it’s to sway the moderates who might not realize how important and fundamental they are to the fanatics. Fair enough. But they are the ones being called fundamentalist and fanatics in the media. Hence why this thread exists in the first place. I seriously doubt they think God is nothing more than an allegory. They think it is true that jesus was actually the son of god, born of a virgin, and risen from the dead. They really believe this god will punish those who use birth control. They really believe that their recent decision to allow un-baptized babies into heaven says something true about the nature of the universe and existence. This is not allegory, this is literal belief shaping the human world. Again, this conversation seems to gravitate towards Christianity and american evangelicals. But we could apply the exact same critiques to any religion or sect within it. And it inevitably comes down to the fact that all the core beliefs of any religious fanatic are shared by the moderates within those religions. My doorstep is not a public forum displaying a sign that says “Is atheism the New Evangelism?” This thread opened with the following question: “There is more than a faint whiff of fervent evangelism about atheism these days. Is there much difference in the approach, the marketing between say, Dawkins/Hitchens and somebody like Falwell or the Billy Graham Crusade?” The OP pointed directly to Dawkins/Hitchens and ill add Harris as all potential atheist fundamentalists and fanatics. The reason I joined was to answer that question in the negative. Cheers! Andrew

MadMichael, I can't help but agree with you up to a point, but i will press on. I agree with what you say here, but my sense is that the religious moderate - by sheer numbers - normalize the very core of what the fanatics literally believe. I suggest slavery as an example. Society at one time generally accepted slavery as a necessary form of labor. There were people who were so extreme and so fanatically in favour of it that they fought a horrific civil war over the issue. Yet I don't think it is too far off to think that the fanatics were strengthened immeasurably in the 'moderate' support they received from the people. Perhaps we are seeing something similar play itself out with religion, as religious doctrine and scientific thought grow more and more in conflict with each other (which seems to me the modern history of religion). We possess so much capability for damage that i find the present day far more dangerous than the same old stories of conflict that already played themselves out in history. That was part of it, absolutely. But the deeper point is that it was normal. The people who went about accepting it were their day's moderates. Who also happened to be normal members of society. Jew haters, yes. But they also thought they had divine instruction and justification. Whose to argue but the atheists and agnostics? Even in the face of being labeled fanatics…. But it has not turned entirely, jew hating still exists in the christian and islamic world, not for fun and profit, but for religious and ethnic reasons. Not only that, but some jews have even express a racial and religious hatred of christians and muslims. Yet the very core of these fanatic beliefs are still held somewhat sacred and valid by the vast majority of people, who would be defined as ‘moderates’. In every aspect of our lives, besides religion, we are constantly encouraged to reject things that are without grounds. That is, we are encouraged to be agnostic about things we are ignorant of. You seem to think extending this behavior to the "truth" of the universe whatever it is, makes someone a fundamentalist or fanatic. Was Socrates a fanatic by admitting his ultimate ignorance? Note: I'm challenging religious certainty; the idea that we know absolutely that there is a god who knows about us and acts in our lives personally. There is no grounds for that. Is it fanatic to teach that we have no knowledge of such a thing, and no reason at all to behave as if it is true? Is it wrong to challenge those who do believe such a thing? In what way is it any different than challenging someone's interpretation of fiction or art? Moderates make the word normal and acceptable. Moderates eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. They behave as if he really was the son of god. They behave as if the bible really is divine in its source. How are we to challenge the fanatics when we seem to support their core beliefs thoroughly? But yet you don’t think speaking out against global warming makes one a fanatic – or do you? Are we all just supposed to be polite all the time. Should I be afraid of offending someone who thinks that burning fossil fuels is a good thing? But that is not the point. He was crazy for his fanatic religious beliefs, but he was not recognized as such. Had his commune been centered around a belief in pagan gods (or worse, an atheist commune) he would have been the focus of great scrutiny, but his commune was Christian so it was ‘ok’. I think the current US government is run by that symbol, as are many governments around the world. What about the ‘faith-based’ initiative? Or look at the mercenary corp Blackwater. They are run by a hardcore evangelical who is a close friend of the Bush’s. Their prominence in Bush’s war is not a coincidence. And most telling is how the republican movement has co-opted the religious vote. At some point they have to reward them. Being Scottish or Irish is real, as is being a sports fan. But more importantly, being Scottish does in no way imply that you know anything about the universe or how it was created. It does not imply you have moral superiority or knowledge of grand ‘truths’, it certainly does not imply that you can talk to God. It only implies that you are from Scotland and you rather like that country. (it could imply that you are superior with the bag-pipes, but then the proof is in the pudding). I direct you to this quote. “My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns. -James Watt – as US secretary of the interior. May – 1981. http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives...ism_index.shtml I feel we have been focusing on Christianity too much. My criticism is meant to be more inclusive of Islam and Judaism as well. And I think we both know that those governments take direction from their lord even more openly than Reagan’s administration. Well I think stupidity at that level should alarm people and cause them to react very strongly. Why should we always be so accepting of religious fanaticism when it has so much potential for harm? Some rules need to be broken. Its not only liberalism. It is science and logic as well. Religious discourse (not necessarily metaphysical or spiritual discourse) tends to transcend the political and scientific spectrum. Not only does it make claims about human behavior, it makes claims about the universe and nature that are to be taken as true, infallibly. This inevitably conflicts with empirical knowledge about our actual reality. This is exactly where I find it to be dangerous, and worth a direct and public challenge using reason and logic. In the 50’s, like today, polls indicate that people believe that god is real. I think it is safe to say that in the 50s more people than now attended church. This was the mainstream, the moderates. I think they voted for candidates who also reflected the same behavior, naturally. This made their vote at least partly religious. But back then the evangelicals, the most fundamental religious people of America, did not partake in politics as a matter of principle. Today they are far more politically organized and focused. Its is calculated and deliberate, it is designed to put someone like Bush in power. (The Mormons do the same thing). It is so far quite successful, but America has been harmed by it. A recent source of information on the history of the American far-right religious movement is the following book: American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America – Chris Hedges. http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Americ...ris+hedges' (Chris Hedges is a theologian (a proud Christian as well) who likens the evangelical political movement in the US to a secular movement because they joined politics. He draws some comparisons to 20th century fascism as it spread through Europe). BTW, the same is also true to a lesser extent in Canada. The AB reform party founded by Preston Manning is a deliberate and somewhat successful attempt to put ‘their man’ in power. I’m not suggesting that Harper is using his evangelical fundamentalist beliefs to govern this country (that I am aware of) or that he would if he had the power to do so, but it is a trend that is following on US coat-tails. I will continue the second part below. Andrew

Bu the idea is that the inquisition would not have happened if millions of moderates did not give 'cover' to the fundamentalists by their approval of belief in the same god and scripture. Have you heard the story of Edgardo Mortara? A Jewish toddler in Italy in the 19th century is under the care of a young catholic girl. She has been told her entire life that unbaptized children can not go to heaven. While under her care, the boy becomes critically ill - she is terrified that he will not go to heaven so she immediately baptizes him, making him catholic. The boy survives the illness. The catholic priests get wind of what happened and insist to the boys jewish parents that he must be raised catholic. The parents disagree but the catholic priests kidnap the boy and place him under the care of the church, never to see his parents again. Now, the really creepy thing is that this was 'normal'. There was not outrage by the moderate catholics of Italy that this boy should be taken from his parents simply because he had water splashed on his forehead by a little girl who believed literally what she was taught about heaven and hell, by her parents and by the church. The point is that this was a normal occurrence in this society, it was not a reaction of fanatics to a perceived threat to their faith. It was all just according to doctrine. In this case fanatics are not reacting to a threat against their faith, they are reacting to the literal belief of their texts and the rules of the church. And there was a outrage amongst atheists and secularists that were horrified such an abuse could take place. And it is partly as a result of their outspokenness against the church that this could not happen in modern Italy. I agree. But my point is that fundamentalism has also been greatly advanced because moderates believe the same core things about the universe, rather than rejecting what should be viewed as something without ground, as it is. That is an interesting idea, but i tend to think that fundamentalism is more of a result of passive encouragement through moderates who absorb and spread all the same teachings but otherwise behave like normal adults. I.e, David Koresh was not a reaction to religious moderates. He took his cue directly from scripture. Before the attack on his compound, moderates and liberals accepted him and his flock as merely a serious expression of Christianity. After all he was simply spreading the word of God, just to a more extreme degree. Had he been challenged openly within the community for his ideas, had opposition to his core values not been a taboo, the entire episode might have been avoided. Fair point. But reading the books on the subject that are making headlines i don't sense any pure confrontation. If there is offense taken, it is not the fault of the authors. Most negative reactions are coming from people who have not read or understood the material, but are taking exception to the gall of questioning their religion to begin with. You never see atheists reacting the way some religious people are with regards to these books when the pope publishes something. Writing about the virtues of religion is somehow not controversial, but writing about the vices of religion is???? Where does this fear of criticism come from? But the difference is that the mainstream 50s voter was just religious. The fundamentalist shunned politics consistently in the 50s, 60s, 70s. What we have now is a brand new movement of fundamentalists joining the political process, quite successfully. I dont blame this on the hippies and beatniks of the 60s, i put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of Nixon and Reagan and the fundamentalists themselves. They saw a political opportunity and encouraged it, for votes. This is very similar to what Sam Harris argues in the End of Faith and letter to a christian nation. Well i fully agree. But the problem is that religious people increasingly view an attack on creation science as an attack on their faith. Age old problem. Even Darwin was a spiritual fellow who knew there was no real conflict between faith and evolution, but yet he is still attacked today, as are his theories. So while i may strive to criticize it on the basis of a literal reading of the bible only, the person on the other side almost always takes it as a personal attack on their faith. Who called faith in god evil? I agree. That is why i thought there was a burden on atheists to show that a real effective moral system has to be grounded in human terms. Dawkins and Harris are simply arguing against a literal take on the bible (or any other religious text). They are arguing against the idea that we can use the bible to discriminate, make medical decisions, make political decisions, or make foreign policy decisions. All these fall into the category of "'falsifiable' statement of rational fact". I.e., the cells that make up an embryonic stem cell have no more potential for a soul than the cells i just scratched off my nose. God did not talk to George Bush about the Iraq war. There are no such things as witches. And so on.... There is nothing in their books criticizing anything but a fundamentalis literalist take on the bible, the koran, or the tora. I agree. Unlike the religious fundamentalist i would never go door to door disabusing people of their faith or religious doctrines. Im in this thread only because of the title. Atheism is not in anyway like evangelism, islamicism, or orthodox judaism. IMO. I felt i needed to respond. Again, I fully agree. And this is not the sense i got from the books in question. I only took from their motives a true concern for the direction of global society. Andrew

The internet is such a small place. Let me rephrase that. Because moderates believe in god, either loudly or silently, they offer legitimacy and tacit support to the fundamentalists, whether they want to or not. If 1 billion Muslims believe that the Koran is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, doesn't the suicide bomber have a point? He really believes it, after all, and why shouldn't he, his entire life every moderate around him has told him it is true, there will be a glorious reward for defending Islam through whatever means, even through death. Exactly. And why do they believe what they believe. If the there were no moderates, they would not have been exposed to the 'truth' of the book. There would be no fundamentalists. True. The value would be in moderates ceasing to be even moderate, they would become more inclined to just accept the mystery of the universe as a mystery, rather than attaching certain ‘infallible truths’ to it that they cannot have any way of knowing. I accept that atheists are more outspoken these days. I thought I could turn it around on them. Very true. Faith is not a personal and subjective thing. Faith is political, and people of faith have always been on the attack, looking for souls to convert. Spirituality is personal and subjective. Faith is, and always has been, part of the public discourse. The burden of atheists has always been to show that spirituality, ethics, and morals is fully compatible and superior in a humanist secular way of life. That is what we need to expand on. Very true. Im just naturally confrontational. Especially when it comes to religion and politics. Religious fundamentalism grew in political power in the 70 and 80s in NA, when atheists were silent. lol... i should read Sun Tzu then. That’s exactly it. I pick up my newspaper and i see a creation science museum just opened in Alberta. And then i read the editorial page and i see opinion that say the Royal Tyrell paleontology museum is the same thing as a creation science museum. And that is just wrong. And it makes me very outspoken, as well as concerned. I have seen no attempt to impose by the current crop of active atheists. I just see books that are making rational arguments against and for a position, no different than any book on history, art, politics, or religion. If I or Richard Dawkins are fundamentalist’s then so are the writers who question the standard 'tale' of Chris Columbus as the first to visit the new world. I really cant see the difference. Ive tried. Some people see it, other accuse me of being a cruel and evil person for even questioning their religious views. (even when im not confrontational or mean spirited). Sometimes im just confrontational, i admit. I alluded to one of my favorite rational criticism in the previous post. That is, Dawkins argues very convincingly that humans don't, and never have, taken their morals from scripture or religious belief. On the contrary, our religious beliefs are created mainly by our morals at whatever given time. Thereby eliminating the notion that non-religious people have nothing to base their morals on. There are many, many more rational criticisms to be found in both of Harris's books, Dawkins book, and others. (i have not read Hitchens book, mainly because i find him so distasteful as a human being in the first place). Cheers. Andrew

WTF, i cant figure out the quoting on this damn site........ arrghhhhh.... Andrew

deleted....repost later when i figure out the quoting system

Until there's an emergency, be it civil unrest from one group or another, or earthquakes or whatever, then you'll be screaming for help and angry there isn't more of it Why we we need armed forces to respond to an earthquake? We would only need recuse response teams. We have police and RCMP for civil unrest. Andrew