Malala and Terrorism

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 15 Jan 2017 19:25

What God-worshippers need to ask themselves is why a god would have a redemption plan for his flawed creation. Why not just fix his creation with omnipotence? Instead, allegedly, he sends secondhand incoherent messages (divine revelation) which fails to convince everyone.

Worse, he says one must believe in him, fear him and love him in order to be 'saved'. It just doesn't make sense to me---and the more I try to rationalise it, the more my mind tells me that such supernatural being would have to be super-bored and extremely lonely in order to have created such an imperfect world where dramatic events take place for his own amusement (it seems).

He would have to be narcissistic, egomaniac and psychopathic that He would order us to worship Him, lie about free will, and all the while knowing fully well that some would disobey and meet eternal damnation.

It seems like He created this game in order to execute different actions to differing elements of His creation rather than just a single action of reparation which could have been foregone had we been perfectly created in the first place ... or not have been created at all!

The more one observes life, the more it seems like a dramatic play that could be vicariously enjoyed by an omnipotent being. And if we pressupose His existence with this observation, we come to realise that humans are not dissimilar with their dramaturgy and histrionics.

What I'm saying here is that God, as He is described by people and depicted by their artefacts, appears to be very human; which implies that the concept is a product of human psychology rather than the introduction of revelatory information.

Prophetic writings can be made to match just about anything when one is looking for patterns---such is what human beings have a tendency to do:

12
A l3 C
14

The central symbol can either be interpreted as a 'B' or the number '13' (if 12 and 14 are above and below it). This is a simple example of what our minds tend to do---to find meaning depending on the context.

Think about how many men---cons, schizos or the simply deluded---have claimed to be messiahs in the bronze and dark ages. Think of how many 'Marshall Applewhites' there must have been ...

Even if a significant event involving a gathering of credulous people seemed to temporally match the mathematics of a purported prophecy, it still wouldn't prove anything; as I have pointed out before, humans are very quick to dismiss coincidences if it seems like 'too much of a coincidence' in their minds. (And I feel compelled to append that improbability does not equate with impossibility.)

The universe is so vast that it shouldn't surprise us if we discovered a remote galaxy populated by the same characters, and embodying the same history, depicted in George Lucas's Star Wars (minus the Force, but where the aliens analogously mastered telekinesis-enabling technology). Likewise, humankind's 20th-century history could have been depicted by alien imagination parsecs away from here.

Would that indicate some profound objective meaning in nature? No. It would be subjectively profound to human beings maybe. But on a cosmological scale? No meaning and certainly bound to happen as there is only a finite number of ways in which matter can form and behave in this universe. In fact, a huge amount of improbability would be reflected if it was found that every single planet in the observable universe and beyond had a unique history ...

Your coincidental 'prophecies' here on Earth pale by comparison and still fail to convince everyone. If there is a god, he could have done better than that. I say this because the so-called 'evidence' presented by the pious can be so easily outdone, in terms of making an impression, by nature on a cosmological scale.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 16 Jan 2017 09:24

Summerlander wrote:What God-worshippers need to ask themselves is why a god would have a redemption plan for his flawed creation. Why not just fix his creation with omnipotence? Instead, allegedly, he sends secondhand incoherent messages (divine revelation) which fails to convince everyone.


I agree with Hitchens in this. He said that if he did believe that there was a god, then he sees no reason that such god would owe his created beings an explanation for why things are the way they are.

I would recommend separating the emotional issues of what you conceive of as fair or the correct way to do things verses any evidence for God's plan per his word that will come to pass whether we like it or not.

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 16 Jan 2017 09:29

Summerlander wrote:
He would have to . . . lie about free will.


Free will is man-centered perspective. (See my comments on the Free Will thread regarding a heritage of belief by those with a high view of Scripture, as with the Reformation and Great Awakening.)

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 16 Jan 2017 09:34

Summerlander wrote: (And I feel compelled to append that improbability does not equate with [i]impossibility.


Exactly. However, the question of what is more rational is on the table. The odds against coincidence, in this case, seem high. Daniel was specifically setting himself up for what we would expect to demonstrate that he would be wrong. :ugeek:

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 21 Jan 2017 16:14

I don't see it that way because of the nature of coincidence against human expectations.

On a different note ...

After being attacked by an anti-Trump protestor, James Allsup told Fox News: 'Remember, this is what happens when you disagree with the "tolerant Left".'

Donald Trump is certainly not qualified (in my opinion) to run the country. But what sort of democracy would it be if an elected president were forced to step down because some have resorted to disorder and aggression?

Donald Trump is now officially the president and he needs our support, feedback and guidance if we are to make the best of a bad situation.

As soon as Trump mentioned that there is a problem with Islam in post-9/11 America, I knew he stood a good chance. (Especially when all Hillary Clinton could do was talk about gun control and 'Islamophobia' in the Orlando shootings' aftermath. People didn't want to hear that and they were clearly sick of politicians under the 'Voldemort effect' spell.

Donald Trump, as fatuous as he is, was the only candidate to name the source of Islamic terrorism. And as usual, if the Left let's people down, there is never a middle ground as they immediately subscribe to the extreme end of the spectrum: the Far Right! In Europe, Merkel has caused the revival of Rightist sentiment.

We still haven't learned the lessons history has taught us. When Germany was made to pay for the Great War, the Weimar Republic was seen as weak and treacherous. So what did the people do? There was no middle ground ... Instead, they supported a racist fanatic who gave the middle finger to the Treaty of Versailles and promised to lift Germany---never mind his baneful views.

Trump is not Hitler but he could seriously fuck things up ... and Hillary Clinton supporters who subscribe to the view that Islam is peaceful will be to blame.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 22 Jan 2017 04:13

Summerlander wrote:Donald Trump is certainly not qualified (in my opinion) to run the country. But what sort of democracy would it be if an elected president were forced to step down because some have resorted to disorder and aggression?


No. Looney behavior is the opposite of what I, as someone who voted Trump, think is okay. Should I have rioted with like-minded people when Obama was becoming President? Would that have been some indication that Obama should step down? Perhaps it is rather an indication of who are stable citizens.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 24 Jan 2017 19:35

We need to promote secular humanism, science and reason. And we must do this whilst fighting against religion, fascism, racism, sexism, the folly of 'political correctness' and the regressive Left.

Variation in human skin and hair colour are due to shifts in the amount of a pigment called melanin. It protects against skin cancer. Light skin burns easily and makes it hard to sweat. Oh what an uncomfortable truth for certain people! Now am I racist for highlighting the scientific facts that differentiate between black and white people?

Melanin. It reduces the destruction of vitamins in the blood as they are exposed to sun rays. Fair-skinned women who sunbathe have reduced levels of folic acid, and their newborn children often pay the price with birth defects. Do I insult white women with these words or am I simply raising consciousness about a natural problem so that people take precautionary measures? Oh wait! This is a question and neither proposition has been denied. By a certain brand of misology, I must mean to insult white women and foreground a particular problem at the same time!

What if I say that vitamin D (helps build bones) can be made in the skin through the action of UV light on a form of cholesterol and that Africans need to spend more time in the sun to make it in order to stay healthy, but northern Europeans who expose their arms, head and shoulders for 15 mins at a midsummer noon can make enough to meet their needs? Am I prejudiced against black people now?

What if I mentioned the uncomfortable truth---in the most soothing tone possible---that black Americans are three times more likely to suffer from rickets than their white counterparts? How about that? I can certainly bring up the problem (not a crime) and subsequently recommend cod-liver oil to some and more sunlight exposure to others. What's wrong with that?

Science discovers the root cause of problems as well as solutions. It can also expose the noxious nature of certain cultures, such as the one that insists on covering girls with burqas for the sake of expressing modesty. Such mores cause a decrease in the vital vitamin supply, narrowing the pelvis of many Asian girls. Because of this, the poor souls find it harder to give birth. (Not that the pious care much, right? They shouldn't even be having sex in the first place even though---the hypocrisy (!)---you are the product of such.) And, of course, some of those girls don't even have to wait long to be impregnated -- after all, what was the prophet Muhammad, with his prepubescent concubines, if not a groomer and a paedophile? The pious certainly look up to him. Good grief, I'm being 'Islamophobic'!

Perhaps you would now like to know that cloudy places such as Britain show higher rates of lung and bowel cancer. Where is the solar radiation we need? I could be at risk but hopefully the rats will be safe according to the sentiment expressed by some animal rights activists. Is that fair now? Am I foregrounding facts, or have I just decided to 'find reasons to argue against them' as some might think? And who has control over their moods anyway?

As for selective breeding and the preservation of genes: nothing nature hasn't done before on its own. Poor lions when a pack of hienas steal the carcass of the antelope they just killed, right? All that hunting energy...

Is autism a source of ingenuity as sentimentalists might imply? You may have autism in common with some of the greats, by the way, but do you have their ingenuity? Because some of the greats were not autistic and thus it can be logically inferred that such behavioural absorptions do not necessarily make a genius. Rather than looking up to people afflicted with the same scourges as oneself, I admire people who have something to teach, something other than what I already know.

Now, it is true that religious individuals misbehave and sometimes their infractions do not pertain to their faith. Granted. But the fact remains that children (and adults alike) become stressed about concepts like hell, demons, and the notion that certain family members or friends, according to chieftains and scripture, won't be allowed into paradise. (I know this from experience as I've mentioned before.) Not to mention how dogma impels children to give up reason and embrace religious precepts and views without question. To question the lord's authority, let alone His existence, is to blaspheme! Paedophiles also use doctrine, and the fear instigated by it, conveniently, in order to molest and silence their victims.

If people want to blindly believe in ancient scripture, or even the more recent Mormon tosh, fine. They can hold dear the very notions of superstition, the supernatural, and the divine. But do not impart such doctrine to kids whilst telling them that it is the 'unquestionable truth' and the only way to 'salvation'.

And kindness isn't something that can only be taught by religion either. This is the ultimate insult to secularists and atheists alike. Confucius thought of rules of thumb and propriety way before the monotheisms were even thought about and formed to hijack them. Morality (minus psychosis) is innate in all of us. People shouldn't have to be taught (like little brats) to be kind and respect one another. It should happen by their own accord---and it does, as many well-behaved atheists and secularists can attest to---because we are social beings who have long worked out that our survival odds are greater if we stick together. Evolution has led us down the path of, generally speaking, empathy, cooperation, and camaraderie. We've had this even when we endured our tribal wars, and world wars, and our experience will hopefully lead us to be wiser and more cosmopolitan. Now...

What stands in the way of such egalitarian globalisation? That's right! That which does not see everyone as an equal. That which tells you its recipe, as a way of life, is the only salvation. That which says, 'You are lost.' That which says you are born in sin, or even blinded by ego and hedonism (such as Buddhism) and something must be done. Religion.

Look to secular humanism because it brings purer incites into ethics, truth, and honour without the bribery of paradise or the threat of eternal damnation. Without religion you can take credit for the good that comes from you. Take back what is rightfully yours and don't allow any imaginary god to tell you---via His lying or deluded Messiah---that you are flawed, worthless and that the reason why you occasionally shine is because He lives in you, wearing you like a glove, and makes that possible. Have you achieved something in your life lately? Don't thank god. You made that possible.

Secularists do charitable work, too. I, myself, have done it for my best man's nephew's son, who, at the tender age of four was diagnosed with neuroblastoma. And people like me do it without making their architectural mark, in their names, everywhere they go, as did Mother Theresa. There is no proselytisation nor attempting to make profit by spreading the gospel as do the pious in their religious imperialism. I gained nothing by being charitable but it made me feel good to help someone. And guess what...

I don't believe in God. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 27 Jan 2017 11:18

I think that you are supposed to pretend that everybody has the same quantity of melanin. Although, I doubt that you can be as offensive as I. Because of my interracial marriage, "Yellow Fever" makes me racist, sexist, and any other -ist or -ism that is bad. I just love the amount of pigment and other aspects of my mate's skin :twisted: . And, she is happy to be desirable to me.. We have been happily married in our state of evil for a long, long time.

Since I already blasted you on another thread, I will give you a break for now. ;)

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4174
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 03 Feb 2017 20:22

You blasted me? Where? If you did, I didn't feel it. I don't think any of your criticisms of me have ever been valid or effective---especially those in which you have failed to address certain points or dismissed the nature of a contention altogether---because I am seldom wrong, extremely careful about what I post, swiftly admit to and rectify my rare mistakes and stick to my guns when inexorably on the side of reason. And I'm not being arrogant, just stating a fact; I big myself up as much as the next person who effectively uses his brain. 8-)

On a slightly different note ...

It's time to be realistic. I don't trust anybody and definitely don't trust those who identify themselves with Islam. Why? Because I cannot be sure what type of cherrypickers they are and if they are as well-intentioned as they say they are. Even Maajid Nawaz could be following Taqiyya and have a hidden agenda! Islam is poison and has the potential to make good people do crazy things due to the power of belief. I think Penn Jillette completely misses the point when he says that we need to stop worrying about Muslims because people are good in general. Besides, I'm too much of a cynic to swallow the notion that people are good---each individual has done good and bad things throughout their lives.

I find mankind laughable. There are countries where the majority are submissive to the tenets of their faith and obey their imaginary 'father' without question---and yet, those same people have moaned and opposed their dictators (who were, at least, real).

I'm not for dictatorships but there comes a point when governments need to stop pretending to uphold the democratic ideal by holding referendums where people apparently decide on matters for which they are not qualified.

If the Chinese government says, 'Look, we are overcrowded and it is in our best interests if couples only give birth to one child---havings kids is no longer a right, it is a responsibility!' People lose their shit despite the reason that it is no longer about the individual, but rather, society as a whole.

We need leaders who have the balls to say, 'There will be no referendums for certain issues because only a few are qualified to deal with particular problems and we already have the best of us working on them.' But even then, many of us will distrust such leaders despite the fact that they may point to evidence and reason.

But we are willing to trust and prostrate---without question---before a god that doesn't exist. Our folly will be our downfall. :ugeek:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 04 Feb 2017 08:04

I'm glad you do not feel blasted. :)

Secular humanism is the philosophy of the educational system in America. ....Not only colleges and universities, but early grades too. Some exceptions are private schools.

Remember, Quark Master from earlier in this thread has, as his vision, to start more secular schools. You appear, Summerlander, a rare exception from the secular assessment of what current religion is the danger. Go back to your Ayaan Hirsi Ali video on page 22 regarding the targeted scrutiny that Christianity receives in our institutions.

It is our secular institutions that serve to defend Islam as a religion of peace, and hold Christianity in the highest contempt.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest