2 of 4
2
Science of Peace
Posted: 28 January 2016 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Lausten - 28 January 2016 02:04 PM

Those are three good examples. I’m not sure how Mennonites are classified, more of a culture than a religion. I like to include them because I recently found out they started the anti-slavery movement in Europe and brought to the US and combined with the Quakers.

I also recently found out Rastafarians started with worship of Haile Selassie as a sort of savior of Africans everywhere. A peaceful ruler of Africans, by a native African, blessed by God, or maybe even he was God incarnate.

Mennonites are religious Christians. They may be peaceful, but they are serious Christian believers with all that that entails. The Amish are similar, but somewhat more extreme in their belief system.
Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2016 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

I haven’t heard of any violence committed in the name of the Pastafarians (yes that’s a “P” not an “R”).  But they are a very new religion.  I suspect that they are a religion of peace, or, at worst, any aggressiveness would be passive-aggressive.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2016 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21

I was going to say that Pastafarianism is just a gag, but I just checked their website and he’s still pretty serious about it. My wife just got ordained as a Dudeist priest, maybe I should become Pastafarian minister.

He rides a bit of a fine line though. I remember seeing a letter a few years back that was taking the whole thing a little too seriously. He said he didn’t want anyone indoctrinating people into his “church”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2016 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Lausten - 29 January 2016 10:31 AM

I was going to say that Pastafarianism is just a gag, but I just checked their website and he’s still pretty serious about it. My wife just got ordained as a Dudeist priest, maybe I should become Pastafarian minister.

He rides a bit of a fine line though. I remember seeing a letter a few years back that was taking the whole thing a little too seriously. He said he didn’t want anyone indoctrinating people into his “church”.

Did you see Lois’s thread under Religion?  The Netherlands has granted official recognition to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2016 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

Reagan called his 5 head nuclear bomb the “peacekeeper”. People have some weird ideas about peace.

Reagan’s “peacekeeper” did just that.  Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive.

For a people who believe that death in jihad is a guarantee of entry to paradise MAD no longer works.

The texts of Islam lead directly to the charter of Hamas and the broad desire among fundamentalist Muslims to die in battle while killing as many infidels as possible.  As for the “true” Muslims killed they go to paradise too, and the “apostate” Muslims will be sent to hell by the will of Allah who will reward the jihadist for his holy work as conductor, ushering good and bad alike into the presence of Allah for justice.

I miss the good old days of nuclear standoff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2016 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21

You created an account to defend nuclear war and repeat anti-Muslim rhetoric?

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

[ Edited: 29 January 2016 05:47 PM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2016 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  237
Joined  2012-07-13
Stardusty Psyche - 29 January 2016 01:11 PM

Reagan’s “peacekeeper” did just that.  Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive.

For a people who believe that death in jihad is a guarantee of entry to paradise MAD no longer works.

The texts of Islam lead directly to the charter of Hamas and the broad desire among fundamentalist Muslims to die in battle while killing as many infidels as possible.  As for the “true” Muslims killed they go to paradise too, and the “apostate” Muslims will be sent to hell by the will of Allah who will reward the jihadist for his holy work as conductor, ushering good and bad alike into the presence of Allah for justice.

I miss the good old days of nuclear standoff.

“Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive.” 
If both sides were rational they wouldn’t need them in the first place.  You can replace nuclear warheads with chocolate cake, and you get the same outcome, but you can eat the cake.

“I miss the good old days of nuclear standoff.” 
There never were ‘good old days of nuclear standoff’, there were terrible, tense years of fear and paranoia that we were lucky to have survived.

 Signature 

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.  Edmund Way Teale, Circle of the Seasons

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2016 12:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29

“Mutual Assured Destruction worked, and continues to work, providing both sides are rational actors with the desire to survive.”
If both sides were rational they wouldn’t need them in the first place. 

A rational actor, in the context of international diplomacy and defense, is an actor that can be reasoned with, an entity capable of making realistic assessments, which the Soviets were.

An irrational actor is and entity blinded by ambition or religiosity or psychopathy such that they cannot be reasoned with at all, such as fundamentalist Islamic organizations for whom death in battle is an incentive to fight.  For the irrational actor the threat of death is not a deterrent and may well be an incentive.

“I miss the good old days of nuclear standoff.”
There never were ‘good old days of nuclear standoff’, there were terrible, tense years of fear and paranoia that we were lucky to have survived.

Ok, that was just a bit of sardonic humor.  Of course the cold war was not “good”, but it was at least manageable because the Soviets had at least enough rationality to realize we could and would destroy them if they attacked us.  That defensive strategy, of perpetual standoff, is no longer available to us because our emerging enemy, Islamic fundamentalism, is not deterred and in fact is incentivized by death in battle.  That severely limits our strategic and tactical options, forces our hand, and leaves us little choice but to pursue military victory, a very ugly prospect Obama is in fact implementing presently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2016 02:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04

“Sardonic”.  I should use that word more often.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2016 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7818
Joined  2009-02-26

@ Stardusty Psyche,

MAD may have been an effective deterrent for rational people, but ask yourself, if people were rational, why was it necessary to install MAD in the first place?  That seems to contain a contradiction in terms.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 February 2016 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Stardusty Psyche - 30 January 2016 12:43 AM

A rational actor, in the context of international diplomacy and defense, is an actor that can be reasoned with, an entity capable of making realistic assessments, which the Soviets were.

An irrational actor is and entity blinded by ambition or religiosity or psychopathy such that they cannot be reasoned with at all, such as fundamentalist Islamic organizations for whom death in battle is an incentive to fight.  For the irrational actor the threat of death is not a deterrent and may well be an incentive.

You are missing the assessment of the US side as rational. They/We used the bomb as soon as we had it. I’m not convinced we saved any lives by doing so. At best we saved some military lives and sacrificed many civilians in doing so. We are the only ones to ever actually use one. Then, when the Soviets were having parades with empty rockets, we irrationally built up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. Luckily Eisenhower knew the Soviets were lying. The Congress did too, but they lied and frightened people into military spending. Eisenhower diverted some of it into the highway system, saying it was for the transportation of missiles.

Does this sound rational? I’d say the Soviets were banking on us acting irrationally and destroying ourselves. Funny thing is, they brought themselves down by investing in an unwise war in Afghanistan.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2016 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Lausten - 01 February 2016 07:20 AM

...We used the bomb as soon as we had it. I’m not convinced we saved any lives by doing so. At best we saved some military lives and sacrificed many civilians in doing so…

I am not challenging your other assertions, but the suggestion that more civilians were killed than would have been through continued conventional warfare, could be overstated.  We had already been killing lots of civilians thru carpet fire-bombing.  Many Japanese “civilians” had small weapons production capacities in their individual homes.  A massive ground invasion would have likely resulted in, perhaps as many civilian deaths as did the A-bombs.  And the ultimate military occupation of Japan, would probably not have gone as well as it did, had there been direct fighting between our soldiers and Japanese civilians, in a ground invasion.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2016 07:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  383
Joined  2015-11-28

The first nuclear experience was inevitable. We should learn as much as possible not how to do it with more devistation but how to avoid the experience of nuclear warfare. it should never happen again at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2016 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7818
Joined  2009-02-26
AMH - 04 February 2016 07:01 PM

The first nuclear experience was inevitable. We should learn as much as possible not how to do it with more devistation but how to avoid the experience of nuclear warfare. it should never happen again at all.

True, and it need not happen again. The one asset (our mind) that makes us masters of our environment, is also the one thing we have not been able to masterl, i.e.  controlling our greed, the unrestricted movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction.

IMO, *greed* leads to competition and predation. whereas *sharing* leads to symbiosis, beneficial to both species.

[ Edited: 05 February 2016 05:15 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2016 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  288
Joined  2016-01-29
Lausten - 29 January 2016 02:06 PM

You created an account to defend nuclear war and repeat anti-Muslim rhetoric?

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

Well, that certainly is the most tepid welcome I have ever received grin

Actually, I joined when I found out the Dawkins foundation had merged with CFI.  I had never heard of CFI before that.  Then I found an article on line by Lindsay and found his logic very poor:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/a_modest_proposal_for_achieving_secular_objectives/

But I thought I would give it a go anyhow, only to find the bit about the peacekeeper, so here I am doing the public service of dispelling various common misconceptions,  Don’t you suddenly feel very lucky ?-)

But to your point, how do you go from the observation of the efficacy of MAD to “defend nuclear war”?  That is a non sequitur. 

I also suggest you sharpen your distinctions between “anti-Muslim rhetoric” and “fundamentalist Muslims”.  You do know that being against the texts of Islam and those who seek to implement them is not being anti-muslim, don’t you?  Well, apparently not.  I suggest you study up on that distinction since it has risen to a mortal threat of late.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
‹‹ Detachment      Not a debate ››