Normals do not understand Nationalism

[infoterror]

What is your suggestion?

I'm a Nationalist, thus in a tricky position. I think both Israel (Zionism = Jewish National Socialism) and Arab Nationalism should exist. Even more, Arabs are not a monolithic, Semitic people - there are many variations among them and they function well in a tribal setting. Therefore, I would ask that Islamic states abolish the concept of Nation states and that Israel voluntarily refrain from developing nuclear weapons. I'd resettle the Palestinians but make Jerusalem an open city. Any party that couldn't handle these moderate requests would be at the mercy of all others

I certainly wouldn't have the USA supporting Israel. They're alien to us and need to find their own path, if God so grants them one.

Furthermore, I would indeed go smoke a fatty with Osama. The guy's cool as ice.

 

[Kenneth R.]

If an atheist blew up a building and claimed that he did it in the name of not believing in God (as idiotic as that would be), I think his sanity would be suspect, since atheism is a negative belief - it does not have any requirements or beliefs except for not believing in god. Muslim terrorists claim "holy war" every time they kill someone - that is Islamic terrorism. Nobody is condeming all Muslims - however, a Muslim has a higher change of being a terrorist than a non-Muslim.

a Muslim has a higher chance of being accused of terrorism than a non-Muslim.

the whole 'jihad' business that the media loves so much is not a tenet of islam, but an excuse created by those who would use it as a weapon, just as the 'crusades' were a tool for non-christians to wage war under the mask of christianity.

 

[Iridium]

There are more Muslim terrorists per capita than there are non-Muslim terrorists, therefore

a Muslim has a higher chance of being accused of terrorism than a non-Muslim.

I hope you're not mixing up cause and effect.

the whole 'jihad' business that the media loves so much is not a tenet of islam, but an excuse created by those who would use it as a weapon, just as the 'crusades' were a tool for non-christians to wage war under the mask of christianity.

It appears that despite several objections, you still utilize the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Read up on it: http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm

The whole "jihad" business is how radical clerics recruit young, discontent, poorly educated Muslims into their ranks. A religion can only be characterized by those who claim to follow it, just as communism is associated with the Soviet Union, Islam is associated with Islamic terrorists who kill in its name. How simple can something get? Just because you do not like what others claiming the same faith as you have committed does not change the fact that they still were Christians and they still killed thousands.

Does this mean that I'm expecting you to whip out a sword and lop off my head this instant for my atheism? Of course not, you're a pussy, and I don't think Christians are still capable of what they were during the Inquisition/crusades. I also don't expect every Muslim/arab I see to pull out a submachinegun and start massacring infidels. However, Muslims are still more likely to be engaged in terrorist activity (or harboring terrorists) than a non-Muslim. This is a moot point, though.

 

[Kenneth R.]

the point is moot because you can't label a group for anything unless the group promotes or allows it. islam does not promote 'jihad' any more than christianity promoted the crusades. both are examples as i have stated, of non-believers (or misled believers) using religion as an excuse for war.

unlike your so called scotsman fallacy, there is no dispute here. how one would define what constitutes a scotsman is ambiguous. however, christians are defined by their actions, in comparison with that which is taught in the Bible and by Jesus. thus with this comparison, one can indeed know whether someone is a true christian. no true christian would commit murder. if a "christian" murdered someone, they would be violating their belief in christianity, and thus cannot be called a christian, because their actions oppose it. in such a way, the above points i have made are valid.

what you fail to understand (or admit) is that religions have systems of beliefs, and anyone who does not match these beliefs and action in accordance, is not a member of that group. i don't care if they claim to be, i don't care if they change their legal names and write Jesus all over their car, house, and face. it is action that defines, not claim. when people commit crimes in the name of christianity, they are not christians. when people commit crimes in the name of islam, they are not muslims, so far as i understand their beliefs. if your religion allows for murder,then one can commit murder and still be a member. this is not the case with those you convict.

you are right that a religion is represented by its followers. i move to correct your assumption that this is all who claim to follow, instead i say it is represented by those who actually follow. if otherwise, it has no true identity.

 

[Iridium]

Did you click the link? Your consistent inability to refrain from logical fallacies is annoying. Islam does not promote jihad, eh? Well, maybe that's because "Islam" isn't a person or article of information. The Qu'ran, however... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html See for yourself.

There exist interpretations of the Bible, hence the various sects of Christianity/Catholicism. According to your egomaniacal belief, your interpretation is the only valid one. In short, you are full of shit.

 

[Kenneth R.]

christians read and interpret the bible (not much to interpret, it is plainly written in many cases). and they follow it in their own lives as best they can. that is how one knows a christian. whatever the various sects may claim, this much is true, and if they do not hold to that, then they are false..

 

[Iridium]

Let's take a very simple one. Thou shall not kill. Seems easy, right? We kill animals for food, right? So I guess there's some room for interpretation. We kill infidels, right? It's still okay! Taken in context with the rest of the Old Testament, that passage means "do not kill those who are beneficial or nice to you, but feel free to kill anyone else." God has no problem killing.

My point is that since the text is unspecific, not technical, and often metaphorical, what you think it means is different from what other people think it means! And how do you know your argument is better than theirs?! Should we establish a council to decide whose interpretation of a Biblical passage is better?! Are those, then, the true Christians? Perform the following experiment: talk to a nearby Catholic priest about your interpretation of the Bible, your beliefs concerning natural selection and how nature should be the one selecting our genetic traits, and see what he thinks of it. He's spent his entire life around the Bible - I'm sure he understands it better than you do!

 

[Kenneth R.]

it means do not kill human beings. that is simple enough. killing animals to survive is not the same as murder.

 

[Iridium]

Oh, so you want the concise meaning when it suits you (this passage) and an extended, superfluous one for "for we walk by faith not by sight." I see. Once again, it's a matter of interpretation, and yours is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE's, you egotistical hypocrite.

 

[Dushan S]

I don't know if it is going off topic, but after reading last few posts:

I just want to mention that as a matter of fact, we are not killing animals to survive.
Technically we can survive without killing them by avoiding to eat meat, and as we are not tribesman living in the jungle that are threatened by wild animals, we also do not have to kill animals to protect ourselves. So why then?

And finaly I do think it is funny and sick at the same time that there was so many murders and genocides in the name of god on this planet even if it is clearly stated in religious books that it is plain wrong.

There is always a way to make some kind of "logical" explanation for taking life of a being, human or animal, we can see that often thru history.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Oh, so you want the concise meaning when it suits you (this passage) and an extended, superfluous one for "for we walk by faith not by sight." I see. Once again, it's a matter of interpretation, and yours is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE's, you egotistical hypocrite.

my interpretation is more qualified than yours, unless you have read the bible (and more than once) and are familiar with it and christianity. whether it is better or not is something else entirely. opinions can't compete with each other. i gave a concise version of 'walk by faith' but you disputed it, so i explained in more detail my reasoning.

 

[Iridium]

I've read the majority of the New Testament and all of the Old Testament, thank you (since the text is slow and often monotonous, I went back to reread confusing or interesting parts). However, you're committing yet another fallacy. Catholic scholars who spend their entire lives studying the Bible disagree with your liberal interpretation of the Bible (not demonstrated specifically in this thread). According to your logic, since they have studied longer than you, they are more qualified, right?

You still admit that it is an interpretation, which completely shatteres the absolutism that people claim of the Bible. You can't have it both ways, buddy: the Bible cannot be the word of God if you admit that you can only interpret the text. Further, if God purposely muddled the text so as to include the possibility for interpretation (what a nice guy!), he has no right to judge us, which you also believe he does.

Watch my case for "thou shall not kill:"
We should not kill those who are our tribesmen and friends, but we can punish sinners and those who defile the word of God, as well as anyone who questions are actions. Hell, that's what God did at Sodom and Gamorrah, as well as with the Great Flood. In fact, it seems that God promotes genocide as well!

Oh wait, but you're a Christian. You believe in an entirely different entity than Yahweh. And yet, the Old Testament is still a necessary document to the New Testament! Sweet loops of irony, batman!

 

[Kenneth R.]

we are not God. and i'm skeptical of catholic interpretations. it is not for us to punish nor kill those who offend him. instead we are charged to clarify misunderstanding, and spread his word and message.

the bible is written by man, aided by the divine. it is meant to signify multiple meanings and significances even in some small phrases, and in others only a singular, clear message. the text is not muddled, it is intricate, as you should know.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

But see, the problem you have with American Nationalism, is that it crosses racial borders. You see nationalism as not just national, but racial as well. So again, it comes down to race for you.

I would draw the distinction this way.

Nationalism is pride and love directed toward a nation, that is, a people who share a common heritage (racial, ethnic and cultural).

Patriotism is pride in a particular country or political entity.

The Patriot says "my country, right or wrong." The Nationalist says, "my people, thick and thin."

 

[*Wicked Girl*]

it means do not kill human beings. that is simple enough. killing animals to survive is not the same as murder.

I disagree. Do you wanna say that humans are better than animals?! I think the opposite! And you are right, we are NOT God!

I think we are letting ourselves too much. On the top of the list is killing each other becouse of the nation, religion or some political shit! And I can't imagine someone convinsing himself that some killings are ok (for some dumb reasons), and some are not!!! Becouse of that kind of influence we get over media, we have the wrong ideas about some nations or religions.