23rd April 2008

“In the 1970s terrorism seemed to be the preserve of Maoist guerrillas, middle-class Germans and Italians or the then very secular Palestine Liberation Organisation. Now three out of the four most likely flashpoints for nuclear conflict – Pakistan-India, Iran and Israel – have a strong religious element.”

The Economist

5 Responses to “23rd April 2008”

  1. Critic Says:

    Unfortunately, nothing unites and invigorates the religious like mass murder of heretics sanction by divine grace. This does not bode well.

  2. Tzuriel Says:

    While this is true, it tells you something. Unlike Critic’s aspersions, terrorism started as a secular practice. Religious groups took it up due to its effectiveness. It also tells you that religious groups aren’t the only terrorists, which tells you that terrorism does not find its source in religion.

    Hell, I coulda told you that.

  3. Tzuriel Says:

    TM:

    In response to an your earlier invitation to join the atheists, I’ve got a proposition for you. Where I am in my life I have many religious influences on my thought, but very few secular, or atheist, influences. What I’m wondering is if you’d be willing to set up an e-mail correspondence, where we could start that debate or conversation you mentioned much earlier when you said that most religious discussions get off on the wrong foot, and you could tell me why you personally believe what you do. I’d be much obliged if you were willing. If you want, I’ll give me e-mail first, and we’ll go from there.

    I’d be more than willing to start such a dialog with any of you, except I don’t think it would work very well for Critic and I, with our tempers and our tendency to butt heads. “Oh, yeah, well you just got 5 religious forwards, punk!” btw, if any of you were to take me up on this, I promise not to send any forwards unless you want them. You prolly won’t.

    Thanks in advance.

  4. Terence Meaden Says:

    Dear Tzuriel

    Yes I’ll accept to enter into e-mail correspondence with you as a start.
    I appreciate your fundamental difficulty that you are a genuine inquirer but you live among family and friends and work colleagues who probably are not, and that they could be unhappy to know that you are trying to rise above the common preconceptions and properly seek the fundamental truths of the world. That is why you use a nom-de-plume, and I do not reproach you for that.

    I must add that I am very busy with lecture writing and the need to meet certain deadlines that take me out of forum visiting and commenting from time to time; but without some commitment to meeting your invitation, progress at correspondence will be even slower. Right now, I am leaving for Oxford and shall be away from home for three days.

    I’ll just say, as an opening comment, that discussions have to start with facts of natural philosophy and deductive consequences that follow. It is no use beginning in the middle by raising ad hoc points of view that issue from ingrained prejudices. I agree to writing first, for which I shall need your email address. (Admin: you can exchange email addresses via admin@atheistweb.org if desired to maintain your anonymity)

  5. Tzuriel Says:

    Thanks for taking me up on my offer. I understand you’re busy – I have no illusions that I am or should be the center of the universe and that therefore everyone should be put down everything for me. I’ve got your e-mail, so I guess I’ll go first. You’ll be getting an e-mail shortly.