The Situation in the Middle East

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

I think it's great we have all these really smart people from all over the world running around this site. Just the simple fact of Danny and Bipa being from different parts of the world with different viewpoints has actually made me a more knowledgeable person.

(But secretly, shhhh.... I'm glad neither one of them are driving over here.... I've seen pictures of both of their roadways on this site and they're lunatics!!)

yep, i like listening to all sides...

well except for Mac/SRT4 lamers..

and muleface...

[SilverSpear]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Oh, Danny.... you've missed pretty much everything that I tried to say!

First off, I'm not comparing Arabs to animals... I am comparing all "homo sapiens" to animals! That means that I am using examples from the animal kingdom as a basis for explaining the sociological processes currently underway. I never even used the word "Arab" or "Muslim" or "Christian" or any other sort of word defining a particular race or religion. So if you are offended, then so should everyone else on this board.

Weren't you talking about the situation in the Middle East, Bipa? You started by mentioning the thing about animals and how each strong one overcomes the weaker one... Come on what would someone think of your statement? Let's just be objective about it!!!

Originally Posted by Bipa

Secondly, you write about countries fighting for control. I actually refrained from using words like "country" or "state" or even "nation" but instead only talked about groups. Arabs can be loosely divided into Muslim and non-Muslim. But Muslims can then in turn be divided into smaller groups, based either on religion or tribe or any other thing that would bring people together into a group. These groups all come into conflict at times. And there is always some conflict within the groups themselves.

To simply assume that all Arabs, or even all Muslims, speak with a single voice is completely unrealistic.

The Muslim community is just as divided as the Christian, or any other. To make it easier, let's think of it as a family. When threatened by an outside force, the "family" can quickly set aside all differences in order to unite and face the common foe. Within the family, however, the various feuds can be picked up right afterwards and continued as if there were no interruption.

As for your statement above, well Bipa the Arabs have evolved a lot. I would agree with you that thirty years ago, arabs (and muslims in particular) were stupid enough to build multi million dollars castles and when finished, set a tent in the outside yard and live there!!! . They had a really backward mentality, they lived mostly in tribes, but now all Arabs are having the best education a person can get, they just evolved and are living now a more civilized life. I told you before, the concept of "Strong overcomes the Weak" is only present in the Baath party (Syria and Iraq) and no else...

As for the last paragraph above, isn't it the way humans usually behave?

Originally Posted by Bipa

To simply assume that all Arabs, or even all Muslims, speak with a single voice is completely unrealistic.

I would be extremely interested in hearing those other "unwanted issues". If you are not comfortable in posting them publicly, then please feel free to sent me a PM. I even promise to remain objective and will not get angry or upset if you get a bit emotional, so feel free to let loose in private.

You are right about it! not all Muslims speak the same language, there are Sunnites and Shiites, they hate each other but obliged to unite to reach their goal. In the case of outsider, they definitely unite for a higher purpose.

As for the unwanted issues Bipa, I can say it on the main, well you are &^%$%@#^ and (&*^%#$*@ and *(&@^$&@# and the sweetest and knowledgeable female member in our forum

Originally Posted by Bipa

This sentence alone confirms that you haven't understood any of my writing, or else interpreted it in a much too narrow fashion. The "country" can be considered a group, as can all the various communities within the country. Yet a group is not necessarily limited by political borders, and thus can span several different countries. Gosh, there's tons of potential for conflict just there. And I still haven't limited myself to just the Middle East, since the same type of situation exists in Europe and other places.

Well we are talking abou the Middle East here!!

[subi-crosser]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Ehhhh.... I like you too much to ignore you.

I am agnostic. I'm not going to change. I don't believe in having an imaginary friend. I didn't even have one when I was a kid.

Now unless someone is printing up souls, none of the teachings make sense to me.

It's a book. Hopsch-kopsched haphazardly together with the scriptures chosen from hundreds available by a group of 4 or 5 guys. It was slamed together 300 years after a very good man died because he thought people should be nice to each other. This man was born out of wedlock during a period when stoning to death was the penalty for such a "crime"..... unless that "out of wedlock" birth happened to be of miraculous conception. Good thing, cause according to custom, her fiance Joseph would have had to cast the first stone. He sure as heck didn't want to do that.

Is that offensive to some? Yes... I appologize.
Is it all factual? Yes.... Very much so.

I appreciate your position, and wouldn't dream of trying to change it. You have membership in one of the largest religions in the world.

But I ain't gonna base my entire life..... on a book. And if this entity exists, I don't think he will base his entire decision on my "fate" over this. I don't think the entity would be that shallow. We don't even know if he agrees with it, he didn't write it.

I will probibly never respond to another post from you.... If I am wrong, The world is a better place because I didn't steal from you, cheat with your wife, dishonor my parents, kill, etc etc... If I had NO SOURCE of values other than 'what can I get away with', I feel that society would pay the price, because there would be NOTHING to keep me from going against the teachings that I hold dear, and, therefore, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY!!!
I could blow up innocents, and not shead a tear!!! If you are wrong, and I am right, YOU have MUCH more to lose than I do!!!

I will NOT try to defend MY beliefs. I do not need to. You have tried to 'rationalize' a topic that defies rationalization. It is "FAITH BASED"!!!

I just hope that you can grasp the significance, before you sit in a dark room with a hand full of pills to end the sorry mess you have made of your life because you had no moral compass to guide you to a better way!!

I once was lost, but now, I'm found!!!

jerry

Ooohh... I love dissecting essays! Let's do an analysis of mine, eh?

This post is especially for Noir!

Originally Posted by SilverSpear

Weren't you talking about the situation in the Middle East, Bipa? You started by mentioning the thing about animals and how each strong one overcomes the weaker one... Come on what would someone think of your statement? Let's just be objective about it!!!

Actually, my very first sentence indicated that I was setting forward an idea which I knew would be controversial to some. That's why I started with "Hmm..... here's a thought to throw out there:"

Then I presented my thesis (main argument), using a fairly classical essay approach where you try to boil down the whole point of what you're about to say into one sentence.

Noir, since I know you've been struggling with writing your own essays, here's a quick review of the classical essay style. It boils down roughly into three sections:
1. Tell 'em about what you're gonna tell 'em
2. Tell 'em
3. Tell 'em about what you just told them

Here's the main argument of the entire post:

We are witnessing classical power struggles, where the various groups need some sort of identifying and separating characteristics in order to define "us" vs. "them".

I will grant that the second and third sentences (which introduced and directly preceded the thesis) were intended to make people sit up and notice... with a "what the @#$! kind of response. I wanted to evoke an emotional reaction, and I obviously succeeded too well . Actually, I expected at least one US'ian to object strongly that the group struggles in the USA were completely different from the situation in the Middle East.

Let's look at that first paragraph in its entirety:

Religion and spiritual beliefs have nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East. It is also a false way of defining the political struggle in the USA. We are witnessing classical power struggles, where the various groups need some sort of identifying and separating characteristics in order to define "us" vs. "them".

So I started off with what some people would consider an outrageous statement about the struggle in the Middle East. My next sentence expanded the discussed area to include the USA, and should have made clear that I was no longer speaking specifically about one particular geographic region. Then came the thesis.

If it had been a traditional university essay (pay attention, Noir!), I would have had some general statement as my first sentence... something that was widely accepted by most folks, and then gradually narrowed down to the actual thesis. Kinda like an inverted triangle.

Let's see... how would I have done it differently if I were still back at school...

How about something like this:

Whenever two people come together, there is inevitably a time when differences of opinion occur.

Now that's a bland, uncontroversial statement that pretty much everyone in the world can agree with, eh? Yet I'm already indicating that my essay will be about conflict between people so I'm starting to point the reader in the right direction. Note that I use the word "people" rather than "persons" to imply group behaviour rather than individual.

Then I need to narrow down the focus of the reader even more so I can get to my actual thesis. So I need a bridging sentence or two (or three...).

These conflicting opinions can range from the trivial, such as how a toilet paper roll should be properly installed, to extreme matters of life and death when discussing the death penalty. In reality, no two human beings think alike on all subjects, and each instinctively wishes to convince others to join their own point of view.

Ahah! I've introduced the idea of instinct, which will be the main focus of my proof later on. I'm also talking about individuals wanting to form groups with like-minded others. But I'm still not quite there. I have to include the idea of each side needing to identify itself as a unique entity. This is usually done through easily recognized symbols, such as the cross, crescent, bald eagle, or even the maple leaf. But I want to get across the idea that the people aren't actually fighting about the symbols, rather the symbols represent the various groups and their ideas, and are actually simple identifyers meant to divide folks into separate and disparate groups. Meanwhile, I want to keep the focus on basic human instinct. That's a tough order, so I think I'll need a second introductory paragraph before I can get to the actual thesis. But first, let's finish the first paragraph:

Before these attempts at conversion can be made, however, people first need to define their differences and make clear who is on which side. Only when the people have been successfully and visibly divided into their opposing camps, can the conflict begin to be resolved.

And now the second paragraph:

Historically, religion has been one of the most contradictory of forces. Religion can be either strongly unifying or dividing. Yet even religious symbols and rituals can be seen as simple outward manifestations of opposing views. If understood as a symptom rather than the actual problem, religious differences can be seen to conceal a much deeper disparity. This conflict is rooted in man’s most primal instincts: the need to convince and win over others to his way of thinking. The whole struggle can be seen as a fight over leadership and control at the most basic of levels.

Hah… now I can get to what was initially my first paragraph, with a few minor grammatical modifications to make it flow.

Thus religion and spiritual beliefs themselves actually have nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East. It is also a false way of defining the political struggle in the USA. We are witnessing classical power struggles, where the various groups need some sort of identifying and separating characteristics in order to define "us" vs. "them".

Now I can pretty much get into the whole idea of basic instincts still being present and active within human inter-relations. We like to think of ourselves as being civilized and having evolved but take a look at any schoolyard during recess and you see all those basic instincts in their most primitive forms. As we grow older, we acquire a veneer of civility, we call it manners. Some people have a very deep layer, others barely a thin coating. But scratch the surface enough, and we reveal our instinctual selves.

If you don't believe me, just take a look at any parent's reaction when their child is threatened.

We aren't just talking about single individuals, however, but groups of people. That changes the dynamics of the whole thing. People will do things in a group that they would never actually do when alone. Don't believe me? Check out a rock concert as a simple example. Or demonstations against government policies. Or union strikes.

If this had been a classical 25-page university essay, I could have made my points a lot more clearly. By condensing my thoughts, it is likely that some folks might not have followed my reasoning about group behaviour. Danny is upset that I continue to think of human beings as animals. Yet the same primitive animal instincts still reside within each of us. Some folks, those with a nice and deep veneer of civilization, are able to control and overcome these basic emotional gut reactions and think before they speak or act. Those are the truly great leaders who either go on to historically significant achievements, or are killed and martyred for their causes.

For those who have read Plato, you'll understand when I say that unfortunately our history has many more examples of Warrior Kings rather than Philosopher Kings. It has always been a fact that the strong overcome the weak. The difference between humans and base animals is that we have re-defined "strength" to mean more than simple physical ability. Strength of mind, strength of conviction, heck even strength of the pocketbook (money talks) can all be definitions applied to human behaviour.

When a conflict is between two individuals, a simple killing will quickly resolve the dispute in favour of the survivor. With groups, the killing of a leader never ends the conflict since there are all these other members of the group still alive to spread the word and continue the work. And that is one of the biggest problems facing us all today. Applying the simplest form of individual conflict resolution to a group environment just doesn't work!

Yet people continue to confuse the two forms of behaviour. Individual and group dynamics are very different. Until we all accept these differences and learn to deal with them, warfare between disparate groups will continue to plague our world.

Let me state it baldly. If the simplest form of resolving a problem between two individuals is to kill off one of them, then using a form of twisted logic the simplest solution for group conflict becomes obvious. Kill off the whole opposing group. And that attempt is what is currently happening all over the world.

Unless you can ensure that each and every member of a group has been destroyed, then you are always at risk of a single member escaping and re-forming the group again. In reality it is impossible to completely kill off an idea because even years later a person might convert and become the origin of a new reincarnation. You could think the group was completely gone, but then someone finds a book, or simply remembers something that great-grandad told them as a child and they have a flash of inspiration and presto! The whole cycle re-starts.

At least I am reassured that Danny finally understood at least part of my thoughts when he wrote:

As for the last paragraph above, isn't it the way humans usually behave?

And my answer, sadly, is yes.

[Uncamitzi]

Originally Posted by subi-crosser

I will probibly never respond to another post from you.... If I am wrong, The world is a better place because I didn't steal from you, cheat with your wife, dishonor my parents, kill, etc etc... If I had NO SOURCE of values other than 'what can I get away with', I feel that society would pay the price, because there would be NOTHING to keep me from going against the teachings that I hold dear, and, therefore, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY!!!
I could blow up innocents, and not shead a tear!!! If you are wrong, and I am right, YOU have MUCH more to lose than I do!!!

I will NOT try to defend MY beliefs. I do not need to. You have tried to 'rationalize' a topic that defies rationalization. It is "FAITH BASED"!!!

I just hope that you can grasp the significance, before you sit in a dark room with a hand full of pills to end the sorry mess you have made of your life because you had no moral compass to guide you to a better way!!

I once was lost, but now, I'm found!!!

jerry

Please don't take this as a personal attack. But as an atheist (really, I swear to god) I've heard this lame... "Then why don't you just kill yourself and put yourself out of your misery" line so many times I could puke. I only get one life and I want to live it in a productive way. The only chance we have at an afterlife is if we are remembered after we have shuffled off this mortal coil. Deeds and actions are remembered long after the person is gone. My father will live as long as I remember him and pass on his wisdom and good-natured sense of humor.

I would put some money on this… More card carrying “religious” people kill themselves (per capita) than atheists. And I’ll keep to the “Christian” religions and exclude the Islamic and all of the extremist sects. The atheists that I associate with have much higher morals than the so-called moralist that populate the “Christian” religions. We have to! We choose to live in a society that has some basic rules and structure. Please don’t believe that the “christians” came up with the concepts of our society. I can and will prove you wrong to nth degree (read some Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth comes to mind). I have been persecuted, fired and ostracized since I came out of the closet as a true atheist (agnostics are fence sitters waiting for the first shoe to drop)

As much as you “know” that there is an after life, I know that there isn’t. Science can and has explained the “near death” experience so well and so often it doesn’t deserve a response anymore. If some of the “religious” people that I hear this claptrap from would spend some time reading a science book or even watching some of the science programming (not American Chopper) on TV, the world would be a better place.

Know god.
No peace.
No god.
Know peace.

I’m sure that I lost some of you here. But I will demean no one because they believe in a god. It’s how you live that’s important. Live and let live.

Peace out

[lhopp77]

In my opinion there is definitely a supreme being. Whether there is actually a Heaven or a Hell is open for debate and cannot be proven either way. All I can really say is---I would hate to be wrong thinking there was not a heaven or hell.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by subi-crosser

I will probibly never respond to another post from you.... If I am wrong, The world is a better place because I didn't steal from you, cheat with your wife, dishonor my parents, kill, etc etc... If I had NO SOURCE of values other than 'what can I get away with', I feel that society would pay the price, because there would be NOTHING to keep me from going against the teachings that I hold dear, and, therefore, NO ACCOUNTIBILITY!!!
I could blow up innocents, and not shead a tear!!! If you are wrong, and I am right, YOU have MUCH more to lose than I do!!!

I will NOT try to defend MY beliefs. I do not need to. You have tried to 'rationalize' a topic that defies rationalization. It is "FAITH BASED"!!!

I just hope that you can grasp the significance, before you sit in a dark room with a hand full of pills to end the sorry mess you have made of your life because you had no moral compass to guide you to a better way!!

I once was lost, but now, I'm found!!!

jerry

I would never dream of trying to change your beliefs. They work for you. Jerry, it usually works the other way around on the converting routine.

I assure you there are at least one or two of us running around without being religious, and also being decent citizens. Normal everyday people don't run around with a "what can I get by with today?" attitude. It doesn't enter their minds. They don't rob or steal, and they certainly don't blow up things. They leave those chores to the anti-abortion croud, and other zealots running around with their hand on some religious book while screaming in tongue. I may be a little extreme from a religious viewpoint, but I put heavy stock in proven science. It's just part of my background. That doesn't mean I don't respect your viewpoint which so happens to be the majority viewpoint in our society. It is only that I too, am allowed to give a "second opinion".

The only reason I opened my mouth up anyway, is I am extremely upset with religion. I mean REALLY upset with where our country is now compared with just 5 short years ago. My gosh,,, even the French have an attitude with us, and they are probably the most easy going people in the world. They just want to party.

Our country has went downhill on every point since, in my opinion, religion took over our country. This caused me to research religion, and much to my dismay, found it to be responsible for the majority of Mankind's immoral mis-steps.

Normal, mid-stream, moderate people are going to take back our country. We allowed our easygoing, "don't mess with people, everyone is free" type attitudes be misinterpreted, and caused our country to be taken over by closed minded religious zealots who want to control everything and everybody. A majority of these mid streamers have now reasonably determined that it doesn't work to have religion in control of anything...Because religious groups like to kill people and do bad things to others. All over the world, and right here in the good ole USA. This control is going to last another year or so as it slowly dies out, and moderates will come back as they were with Clinton. We will never allow the far right religion party play with these toys again. Cause they been putting peoples eyes out with them! These are sophisticated toys, and need to be operated by the higher educated.

And yes.... I blame the majority of our present world wide state on religion. I've never heard of some athiest group blowing up an anti-abortion group. Heck, I can't even think of a practicing athiest group existing. Even the KKK thumps a bible! Athiests don't worship anything, so they don't tend to group. Can you, off the top of your head, name an athiest group?

Can you name the religious group that blew up that abortion clinic killing 12 people last year? Yeah,,, they are going straight to that heaven you speak of, because they are true believers...and better yet... They are the warriors of God!! They will have a special place on the right hand of God so they say.

Me? Guess I'm going to this hell place, huh? Hope it's not too far off, planes aren't as safe as they use to be. Oh, wait a minute... It's in the earth's crust.





You are probably a very good person. Maybe you can help in cleaning up the mess in religion, and help them to be deserving of that heaven you speak of. If enough of you do, then things might get better in our world.

But if you don't admit there is a problem with religion, then you are just blindly following. And to me, that's what religion is all about for the masses.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by subi-crosser

I just hope that you can grasp the significance, before you sit in a dark room with a hand full of pills to end the sorry mess you have made of your life because you had no moral compass to guide you to a better way!!


jerry

By the way, I am a degreed professional, with no criminal record. I am still "happily" married after 23 years to my high school sweetheart. Actually, we've been together since 1976, but didn't marry until 83.

I am completely contented. Life is good. Why would I ever dream of taking a hand full of pills? Why in the world would being agnostic make me depressed? I have a moral compass. It's called a brain, and I use it daily.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

By the way, I am a degreed professional, with no criminal record. I am still "happily" married after 23 years to my high school sweetheart. Actually, we've been together since 1976, but didn't marry until 83.

I am completely contented. Life is good. Why would I ever dream of taking a hand full of pills? Why in the world would being agnostic make me depressed? I have a moral compass. It's called a brain, and I use it daily.

YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!


<i'll hold a seat for ya>

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Uncamitzi

Please don't take this as a personal attack. But as an atheist (really, I swear to god) I've heard this lame... "Then why don't you just kill yourself and put yourself out of your misery" line so many times I could puke. I only get one life and I want to live it in a productive way. The only chance we have at an afterlife is if we are remembered after we have shuffled off this mortal coil. Deeds and actions are remembered long after the person is gone. My father will live as long as I remember him and pass on his wisdom and good-natured sense of humor.

I would put some money on this… More card carrying “religious” people kill themselves (per capita) than atheists. And I’ll keep to the “Christian” religions and exclude the Islamic and all of the extremist sects. The atheists that I associate with have much higher morals than the so-called moralist that populate the “Christian” religions. We have to! We choose to live in a society that has some basic rules and structure. Please don’t believe that the “christians” came up with the concepts of our society. I can and will prove you wrong to nth degree (read some Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth comes to mind). I have been persecuted, fired and ostracized since I came out of the closet as a true atheist (agnostics are fence sitters waiting for the first shoe to drop)

As much as you “know” that there is an after life, I know that there isn’t. Science can and has explained the “near death” experience so well and so often it doesn’t deserve a response anymore. If some of the “religious” people that I hear this claptrap from would spend some time reading a science book or even watching some of the science programming (not American Chopper) on TV, the world would be a better place.

Know god.
No peace.
No god.
Know peace.

I’m sure that I lost some of you here. But I will demean no one because they believe in a god. It’s how you live that’s important. Live and let live.

Peace out

Thank you! Excellent Logic.

And yeah.... Agnostics like me are sitting on the fence, but you know... That fence is starting to hurt my rear. I'm thinking of jumping off of it.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Noir

YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!


<i'll hold a seat for ya>

Yayyyy!!! I wanted to ask you your opinion on some SVX modifications anyway. I'll see ya there!! (Bring your manuals!)

Yikes! I can't say I''m very comfortable with some of the last few posts about religion on here. A key ingredient is missing: TOLERANCE.

I guess I must have a very weird view of the world. See.... I don't use belief or non-belief or religion or non-religion to make judgements about people. Rather I base my views on how these people have affected my own life and others around them.

People who hurt me are bad. I've been hurt by believers, agnostics and atheists.

People who help me are good. I've been helped by believers, agnostics and atheists.

What makes this very complicated is that I've been hurt by people who have helped others. I've also been helped by people who have hurt others.

If I have a tough time figuring out if a person is really overall good or bad, then trying to decide if they are moral is even more difficult.

Morality is a word that has many meanings and nuances. In its simplest form, morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. But then we get into a huge debate about those standards. And there's that word "good" again. If I'm not sure a person is good, then I can't be sure they are moral. And vice versa.

So in the end, I simply give up and don't make actual judgements about a person's morality. I leave the spiritual stuff to get sorted out after death.

Hmm.... guess I'm regressing back to my childhood catechism, where I was taught that issues of morality will be decided in the end by a higher, non-human power. Not by me, not by my neighbour, not even the Priest has the final word on that issue.

So I shall continue to seek out folks who are helpful, avoid those who are hurtful, and try to do the best I can not to hurt others around me.

Peace!

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Yayyyy!!! I wanted to ask you your opinion on some SVX modifications anyway. I'll see ya there!! (Bring your manuals!)

dude, you're asking the wrong guy.

i know as much about modifying a car as Landshark knows about fleas in his coat of horsehair.

[lhopp77]

Weren't the communists and Nazis aethists? And didn't they kill more than just a few people that did not agree with them?

Lee

[Noir]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Weren't the communists and Nazis aethists? And didn't they kill more than just a few people that did not agree with them?

Lee

maybe i'm wrong. i thought the nazis were christian. i could swore i read that hitler actually approved that his people go to church. if not, he would have burned down all their churches no?

not sure about the commies