Russia may canonize soldier

[shinRaiden 0]

Iirc, Bin Laden repeatedly stated, much to the chagrin of the Afghans, that not only did you have to be Muslim, but you had to be Arab too. Not many non-Arab's I believe would espouse that.

This arguement is going nowhere as I pointed out because each side is off in their corners arguing frankly to themselves the terms for the grounds of the debate.

To give a Kerryesque response under duress does not only involve self-preservation, the ultimate decision as to whether the hostage gets the knife may be based completely on third parties. Suppose he had 'recanted' and done everything his captors had asked for, but the terms were unilateral Russian withdrawal? So much for self-preservation, he would have had better chances Rambo'ing his way out.

But not only that, you have personal integrity issues you'd have to deal with. If you aren't consistent with your choosen philosophical system, whether scientific or theological, what can you be consistent with?

Suppose as an atheist you get kidnapped and ordered to convert to any faith under duress. Would it be sincere, and would you be doing justice to yourself by picking and choosing what's convienent, as opposed to what you 'know' to be right?

[denoir 0]

Denoir, you are showing more zealousy than even the most devout religious persons I know. The strength with which you believe in your ideas/theories is astounding. Spoken like a true fanatic.

I'll say no more.

I never figured you for the irrational type, but I stand corrected.

What you and some others here fail to understand is that there is a difference between advocating general human principles and advocating your specific version of an interpretation of one of Earth's many religions.

That the Sun does not revolve around Earth is equal for all people regardless of religion. Secularism is the universal foundation; religion is personal.

And you have to get over your inferiority complex and understand that I'm not speaking from a personal point of view; from some private unsubstantiated faith of mine. I'm speaking from a real world, scientific, humanist point of view, that is universal for all human beings. It is equal reagardless if you are religious or not.

Incidentally that kind of thinking is the basis of modern day democracies. That's why any reasonable democracy has a separation of church and state.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

— Galileo

[denoir 0]

But not only that, you have personal integrity issues you'd have to deal with. If you aren't consistent with your choosen philosophical system, whether scientific or theological, what can you be consistent with?

Suppose as an atheist you get kidnapped and ordered to convert to any faith under duress. Would it be sincere, and would you be doing justice to yourself by picking and choosing what's convienent, as opposed to what you 'know' to be right?

I would be consistent in choosing the most rational approach: choosing life over dogma. If somebody put a gun to my head and say: "Say that God exists", I would do so.

Anything beyond that would be irrational and incidentally hence also against my own personal beliefs. Life is life. Human beings in general tend to like it, so it's a good starting point for a common foundation.

[shinRaiden 0]

What we're arguing is that you are holding to a belief structure just as much as we are, which Ex-RoNin elequoently pointed out. The difference is only in what we seperately hold to be supreme.

If I understand you correctly, it would seem that you value your physical, biological non-vegatative state over your ideals that give your biological mass direction. Where we disagree is in that we non-secular fundamentalists hold ideals in some regards higher than physical life for various reasons, and we feel that that gives meaning and purpose.

The problem with ultimate self-interest is how is that in anyway compatible with an organized societal structure? If you suppose that society is just a crutch for your own-betterment, a nihilistic zero-based perspective or schorched earth attitude would also be equally valid.

At no time have I advocated a theocracy. Even in various religious texts, the only times that has truely been successful according to each was when God was personally and immediately involved. Slacker man is much too self-centered to be trusted without democratic style beaurcratic foot-dragging and apatheticly supported open elections.

I find it ironic though that some people are more enthusiasticly diligent to what they presume to have personally brute-force reverse-engineered, than to those that have been freely given that information. So I guess to some extent you do believe in the notion of physical self-sacrifice for the sake of ideals, since you are wasting precious moments arguing the merits of ideas over 'life' rather than off saturating your senses.

[Akira 0]

As a non-involved person I'll just weigh in with the fact that it is silly to canonize the soldier.

Look here and decide for yourself if you think he belongs among those listed. Separate yourself from the religous beliefs and look at the merits compared with those cases.

It's nothing more than emotion rising after the school massacre and the ongoing Chechan problem.

Carry on....

[denoir 0]

What we're arguing is that you are holding to a belief structure just as much as we are, which Ex-RoNin elequoently pointed out. The difference is only in what we seperately hold to be supreme.

If I understand you correctly, it would seem that you value your physical, biological non-vegatative state over your ideals that give  your biological mass direction. Where we disagree is in that we non-secular fundamentalists hold ideals in some regards higher than physical life for various reasons, and we feel that that gives meaning and purpose.

No dice. There is no such single group as "non-secular fundamentalists" - and that's the issue. There's a whole bunch of you and you don't get along very well.

The secular is the basis for both religious and non-religous people. It's a set of principles that all can agree to. And I don't know how you suggest that we build a stable society if you want to give each religious sect the right to act in accordance to their religion, regardless of the consequences for other people. Then you are giving a mandate to suicide bombers et al

The thing is however, while you are talking about faith in general, you are refering to your own faith which you for obvious reasons think is the only correct one. But I ask you to be a bit more practical and realize that there is an immense number of other groups that think that their faith is the only right one. There is no possible universal test for if a faith is "the right one". So, if every religion, if every sect can choose their own ethical values that supercede the ethical values most of agree on, how do you propose to build a stable world that won't self-destruct over time?

I'll give you my solution to it: let religion be private. Never let dogma supercede universal humanist principles. And there are such principles. One of its foundations is for instance the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have been adopted by all members of the UN. You have a great variety in religions, political systems etc Yet, they could agree on those principles. Not all countries that have signed that follow it, but there is no principal objection that they could come up with.

Take a look at them. Is there anything you really disagree with? Do you think muslims in general would disagree with it?

So we can indeed find common grounds - and that's what we should build our society on - these principles agreed on by a vast majority of the Earth's human population.

If we let martyrs and sucide bombers be our ideals; if we let dogma dictate our actions, then we're on a terribly wrong path.

Again, if you wish to study the consequences of that, take a long hard look at the dark ages.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with ultimate self-interest is how is that in anyway compatible with an organized societal structure? If you suppose that society is just a crutch for your own-betterment, a nihilistic zero-based perspective or schorched earth attitude would also be equally valid.

It's not individual self-interest, it's the interest of preserving the human spieces and preventing us from killing each other.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Denoir, you are showing more zealousy than even the most devout religious persons I know. The strength with which you believe in your ideas/theories is astounding. Spoken like a true fanatic.

I'll say no more.

I never figured you for the irrational type, but I stand corrected.

What you and some others here fail to understand is that there is a difference between advocating general human principles and advocating your specific version of an interpretation of one of Earth's many religions.

That the Sun does not revolve around Earth is equal for all people regardless of religion. Secularism is the universal foundation; religion is personal.

And you have to get over your inferiority complex and understand that I'm not speaking from a personal point of view; from some private unsubstantiated faith of mine. I'm speaking from a real world, scientific, humanist point of view, that is universal for all human beings. It is equal reagardless if you are religious or not.

Incidentally that kind of thinking is the basis of modern day democracies. That's why any reasonable democracy has a separation of church and state.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

— Galileo

I won't let this one slide.

Your conclusions are wrong, your point of view and your arguments are unnecessarily polemic, and to claim that you are speaking from a neutral platform without any personal bias is the height of arrogance.

To me, you are producing the same polemic bla-bla that Imams like Abu Hamzi produce; the same rubbish that frequently comes out of the Vatican.

Quote[/b] ]What you and some others here fail to understand is that there is a difference between advocating general human principles and advocating your specific version of an interpretation of one of Earth's many religions.

This is not about religion per se, its about faith. Whether this faith is in your country, your religion, your family or your dog, is irrelevant. Faith is a very strong tool that allows people to be strong, irregardless of what this faith is based on. For example, when the Nazis took the Acropolis, the Evzone guarding the flag chose to take the flag and jump off the cliff with the flag, rather than hand it over to the Nazis. Another example of strong faith in a human being, not tied to anything religious.

Quote[/b] ]Secularism is the universal foundation

Says who? This is your opinion, shared by some others, but in the end of the day it is just that - an opinion, a personal, biased, point of view that you are trying to aggressively shove down people's throats. Just like any other preacher. People that disagree with you are inherently wrong.

What you fail to realise, however, that it is impossible for 6 billion people to have the same ideas, the same faith, the same approach to life. Everyone is different, this is a fact (more so than your theory about secularism) and rather than trying to force 6 billion people to be something they are not, trying to adopt something they don't like, how about realising that groups of people will always be different from one another, for whatever reason, and work from there?

Quote[/b] ]And you have to get over your inferiority complex and understand that I'm not speaking from a personal point of view; from some private unsubstantiated faith of mine. I'm speaking from a real world, scientific, humanist point of view, that is universal for all human beings. It is equal reagardless if you are religious or not.

As said before, no one is free of bias or opinion. Considering all the research that you have undertaken in Neural Networks, you of all people should know this. Bias is a constant factor in human thought processes, and it affects human thought processes and even human data processing. The way your neighbour sees the world is nothing like the way you see the world. Thus, claiming to speak from a neutral, universal point of view is false and arrogant, and once again reminiscent of a preacher.

As an aside, a lot of the basic ideas in humanism evolved from ideas laid out in the Bible and the Thorah.

[denoir 0]

Says who? This is your opinion, shared by some others, but in the end of the day it is just that - an opinion, a personal, biased, point of view that you are trying to aggressively shove down people's throats. Just like any other preacher. People that disagree with you are inherently wrong.

You still don't get it. The concept of secular humanism is per definition the common denominator of all humans. This is not my opinion it is a universal definition. As I pointed out The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a very good example of secular humanism - it has been ratified by basically every country in the world. These are concepts that are so elementary for all humans that it's nearly impossible to disagree with them.

These are not my private opinions and beliefs - these are our beliefs. We as human beings share these concepts.

Quote[/b] ]What you fail to realise, however, that it is impossible for 6 billion people to have the same ideas, the same faith, the same approach to life. Everyone is different, this is a fact (more so than your theory about secularism) and rather than trying to force 6 billion people to be something they are not, trying to adopt something they don't like, how about realising that groups of people will always be different from one another, for whatever reason, and work from there?

I never said that everybody should have the same faith, ideas. This on a level above faith and personal opinions. These are general human values. Nobody is forced to these - human beings embrace them. The Human Rights are a perfect example - not even the worst dictatorships could with a good conscience say no to them. They are so elementary for all human beings that there is little to disagree with. It's the common ground.

And if we want peace on earth, the only way to achieve it is to build upon that common ground - on our similarities, not our differences.

I'll ask you the same thing that I asked shinraiden:

If every religion, if every sect can choose their own ethical values that supercede the ethical values most agree on, how do you propose to build a stable world that won't self-destruct over time?

Furthermore, tell me this: in your opinion, why is suicide bombing wrong?

I'll guess you'll say that it's because it's wrong to kill innocent people. And there you have it - a typical secular humanist principle. Even Osama bin Laden will agree with that principle - although he'll have a different opinion on what constitutes "innocent people".

The practical implementation and interpretation of these principles are far from trivial, but that's not the point. The point is that there exist a number of general principles that we humans can agree on and if we wish to have a stable and peaceful world, then no religion, no political creed should come before them.

Quote[/b] ]As said before, no one is free of bias or opinion.

I never claimed to be. My bias comes in with my own opinions (I don't want to believe. I want to know.)

What I'm trying to get you to understand however is that secular humanism is a level above personal faith. It is per definition the common ground most humans share.

Quote[/b] ]As an aside, a lot of the basic ideas in humanism evolved from ideas laid out in the Bible and the Thorah.

Of course it did. Most religions have plenty of common elements - and those are based on exactly this common ground I'm talking about.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Ah, now this is making a lot more sense! I wasn't aware that such a document existed, ratified by all UN nations. I now get your position!

However, may I quote from this Universal Declaration:

Quote[/b] ]Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

So my understanding is, everyone can follow his/her religion to as far an extent as this does not violate this Universal Declaration, correct?

This means, everyone is free to choose whether he wants to jump off a cliff for his country, or have his head cut off for his religion It is guaranteed in this Universal Declaration.

Is that the point you are trying to get at?

[denoir 0]

This means, everyone is free to choose whether he wants to jump off a cliff for his country, or have his head cut off for his religion It is guaranteed in this Universal Declaration.

Indeed, but the problem with the Russian guy was not with him as an individual, but what the followers made of him. I'm not trying to infringe on his right to kill himself for whatever reason.

What I was saying is that when a larger organization, such as a church starts celebrating death, that we're on a very bad path. It sends a signal that faith/creed/dogma is more important than life. That's really handing out a loaded gun. If it's acceptable for one religion, it must be acceptable for all.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

This means, everyone is free to choose whether he wants to jump off a cliff for his country, or have his head cut off for his religion It is guaranteed in this Universal Declaration.

Indeed, but the problem with the Russian guy was not with him as an individual, but what the followers made of him. I'm not trying to infringe on his right to kill himself for whatever reason.

What I was saying is that when a larger organization, such as a church starts celebrating death, that we're on a very bad path. It sends a signal that faith/creed/dogma is more important than life. That's really handing out a loaded gun. If it's acceptable for one religion, it must be acceptable for all.

Ah, but in this case the Church are trying to stop this, as they are saying in one of the articles that sainthood is not a popularity contest!

In this specific case, its more folklore than anything; to soldiers, he is an inspiration. I reckon to the Russian soldiers its more hero worshipping than actual belief. You know, like the Italian guy who, before being beheaded, went like "Now I'll show you how an Italian can die with dignity."

As long as the church are not sympathetic to the idea of santifying him so soon, I don't think it is such a great issue. Besides, it takes ages to sanctify someone, esp. in the Orthodox Church.

[Nemesis6 0]

I read about this a long time ago... I really admire his courage to keep his faith and get killed rather than being goaded to convert to Islam with the alternative of death. Anyway, I say he deserves it.

[desantnik 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I say he deserves it.

Wow, thats real perceptive of you there bud. Nice to see some people are blind no matter what.

Your probably a bush supporter!

*Runs away followed by a blind mob bushies

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I say he deserves it.

Wow, thats real perceptive of you there bud. Nice to see some people are blind no matter what.

Your probably a bush supporter!

*Runs away followed by a blind mob bushies  

I think he meant he deserved the honor being bestowed upon him.

[Nemesis6 0]

"Not only did Yevgeny not betray his faith, he also refused to betray his army. He refused to sell out his friends,"

I'm not talking about religion here, I'm talking about his character and integrity. Anyone that willingly chooses death when they have other alternatives deserves some kind of credit. Be it religious or not, he deserves to be remembered.

[desantnik 0]

OH!.... sorry, my bad