1

Is a methodology of attacks against civilians mutually exclusive with a goal of political domination via civil war?

And, is this really a war against infidels? Aren't most practitioners of terrorism interested in power (American anti-government militias and Basque seperatists and Irish Catholic sepatists and Marxist rebels certainly aren't fighting over religion - though perhaps you could say Marxists are worried about infidels in their own way, I suppose)? Palestinians are not exactly the most radical Muslims, as I understand it. And certainly their tactics suggest they want Israel to cave to their demands, not that they want to kill all non-Muslims. And the Baathists in Iraq aren't concerned with who is and is not an infidel, right? And even Al Qaeda has supposedly has specific political goals, in addition to whatever religiously motivated hatred it may have of us. If we weren't involved in Saudia Arabia, or at least Palestine, would they have taken notice of us?

What does "no room for conscientious objectors" mean - are you complaining about those darn Mennonites? or is the usage strictly metaphorical?

What's the alternative to "pulling punches in Iran?" (And is it possible the conflict in Iran is as much about secular Iranian nationalism as it is about radical Islam? I've heard experts claim that it is.)

What is it that you are asking for here? I mean, specifically? How do you propose to go about doing anything different than is being done now (and in a way that won't result in more messes like Iraq or opening up a wave of violent religious persecution against Muslims)?

2

"They don’t want us dead because we are in Iraq, or because we support Israel, or because we have a decadent culture, or because of any other "root cause." They want us dead because we are infidels. We refuse to submit to the will of their god and, therefore, deserve to be slaughtered like swine."

There are groups to which this statement is true. The thing is who. The group that goes by this creed should be considered extremely dangerous to the world. This group is, of course, al Qeada and the question is how strong are they in Iraq and what is to be done about it. Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, hate and fear them. Their numbers are very small and they feed off the instability. Their support is mostly from a former ally, Saudi Arabia. Diplomacy, which Bush doesn't care much for, is the key, not bombing. Bin Laden loves that we are there, bleeding to death and stirring up things to insight more radicals. Not all Iraqis, or Muslims, are our enemy. The Algerian example should show that. Al qeada attacks Muslims too.

3

I think Ben asks some good questions and points out that you haven't proposed what you would do Joe.

I believe you are wrong that we can't contain this threat. A suicide bomber isn't a threat to me if he isn't in my neighborhood or my country. A well armed jihadist isn't a threat if he isn't here. A nuclear armed Islamic state is a threat that can be handled without trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. So how do we protect ourselves? We stop letting Muslims in the country. We remove Muslims who are not citizens and we strip the citizenship of and deport any who call for jihad or sharia law. If we do that how much of a threat will they be to us? They wouldn't be much of a threat at all. But instead we're taking in record numbers of Muslims and we will continue to suffer increased gov't surveillance to watch them.

It doesn't matter that many Muslims wouldn't harm a flea if enough are willing to do the infidels harm. And since you can't tell when a Muslim is going to decide it's time to commit jihad, it's playing Russian roulette to let any significant numbers in the country. Based on polls, a significant number of Muslims support imposing their religion on the rest of us.

Compared to the total Muslim population in the ME, the typical jihadist/terrorist/Islamist is:
- economically better off
- better educated
- more religious
- admires the West for it's technology
- thinks the West doesn't respect Islam enough (which in reality means the West isn't bowing to Islam)

So, anyone coming out and saying that this is an economic problem is wrong. This is an ideology tied to a religion problem.

4

What was it that Osama aaid in that 90s "60 Minutes" interview -- that he had 100,000 operatives? We are certainly a naive people to think that it's just that little group of people known as Al Queda. But how does one fight a culture that cherishes death even more than life?

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

5

Essentially this sums up my understanding of the situation we find ourselves in at this point. I wish the other half of the country who is still fighting the last war would wake up.It will require a national resolve and commitment to our own protection to address this and I don't see that happening when half our country is fixated on painting our current administration as the enemy and global warming as the real threat.The next five years are going to be interesting.

6

And, is this really a war against infidels? Aren't most practitioners of terrorism interested in power (American anti-government militias and Basque seperatists and Irish Catholic sepatists and Marxist rebels certainly aren't fighting over religion - though perhaps you could say Marxists are worried about infidels in their own way, I suppose)?

Ben, I am sure you think you are making a brilliant point here, but you ignore a very important distinction between the groups you mention and "Islamic radicals" (for lack of a better term); the groups you mention are largely nationalist movements, i.e. concerned with a specific plot of land, while various Islamic groups goal is to bring the world under submission to Allah and to kill the Jews (most of these groups are heavily influenced by Nazi ideology). This would also apply to the various Palestinian national movements as they have been largely co-opted by these Islamic groups and their supporters. Just an aside, I do like your reference to "American anti-government militias" as if a bunch of "slack jawed yokels" running around the woods of Montana posed a threat to anyybody but themselves and perhaps a few deer.

7

And, is this really a war against infidels? Aren't most practitioners of terrorism interested in power (American anti-government militias and Basque seperatists and Irish Catholic sepatists and Marxist rebels certainly aren't fighting over religion - though perhaps you could say Marxists are worried about infidels in their own way, I suppose)?

Ben, I am sure you think you are making a brilliant point here, but you ignore a very important distinction between the groups you mention and "Islamic radicals" (for lack of a better term); the groups you mention are largely nationalist movements, i.e. concerned with a specific plot of land, while various Islamic groups goal is to bring the world under submission to Allah and to kill the Jews (most of these groups are heavily influenced by Nazi ideology). This would also apply to the various Palestinian national movements as they have been largely co-opted by these Islamic groups and their supporters. Just an aside, I do like your reference to "American anti-government militias" as if a bunch of "slack jawed yokels" running around the woods of Montana posed a threat to anyybody but themselves and perhaps a few deer.

8

Let's not confuse then popular term "Islamic extremist" with what is more accurate -- orthodox Islam. I know it's not always so simple, but I do believe it to be historically more accurate.

9

But we've also made the mistake of believing that our current enemy is as rational as the Soviets.

They are.

Let's not forget who perfected the war against civilians in modern times: it was the West. All these fundamentalists are doing is reducing the overhead on carrying out such a war.

We fail to realize that while we are fighting a "war on terror", the enemy is fighting a "war on civilians." They don’t want us dead because we are in Iraq, or because we support Israel, or because we have a decadent culture, or because of any other "root cause." They want us dead because we are infidels. We refuse to submit to the will of their god and, therefore, deserve to be slaughtered like swine.

No, not really. First we're not fighting a "war on terror;" nobody's ever explained how you fight a war against an emotion. Secondly, you are confusing the objects of those duped by their propaganda think they want into what the guys actually pulling the strings there want. And you're confusing the propaganda put out by the collaborators of the Bush regime with what you think the Bush regime wants. And the only evidence we have to date is that they simply don't give a rat's butt about "freedom" or "democracy" or anything like that. It's dollars and control they crave, not freedom. Which brings us to the whole naievete/dishonest thing.

And besides, with the military in such sad shape...if you really believe that there is a military solution to this conflict, I'm sure the marines would take you back.

10

Good post, Joe. On the end of infidels and expansion of muslim-owned lands, recommend folks Google "caliphate" for more info.

WRT solutions:
- we should do what is in our national interest to protect American citizens, and that means keeping islamic terrorism as far from our shores as we can (though a concern for sleeper cells already in place here in the US has merit).
- we should normalize relationships with non-islamists as much as possible.

Military's doing great, by the way, though we'd love to have Joe back.

11

The numbers of al Qeada in Iraq are small.
"These are bogeymen with which Bush has attempted to frighten the public. Regarding the first, Turkey, Jordan and Iran are not going to put up with an Al Qaeda stronghold on their borders; nor would Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis. Most Sunni Iraqis are relatively secular, and there are only an estimated 1,000 foreign jihadis in Iraq, who would be forced to return home if the Americans left."
Furthermore, the evidence that Saddam was anti al qeada is completely confirmed.
"Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute ... captured documents in Iraq that show that Saddam's security forces were a) afraid of al-Qaeda ..."
So are we going to keep swallowing the lies Bush and his gang of hate radio Limbaughs try to sell us? We bought a lemon from the guy, its time to move on.

12

The difference between a Soldier and a Christian Martyr:

One would rather die with a gun in his hand, shooting the enemy or detonating a bomb strapped to his body....

The other would rather die in prayer as the flames lick his body or the gun is held to his head...firmly fixing his loving gaze on the persecutors.

If there isn't any room for Conscientious Objectors, I suppose I must prepare for my burial.

13

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS MARCHING ASS TO WAR....

14

But Aldabbagh wanted to ensure we Americans recognized what is at stake and the reason why the violence will continue. "Iraq is not fighting a civil war," he said. "We are defending against a war on civilians."

True I don't think Iraq is fighting a civil war the way the US once had a Civil War. There are not masses of people who are organized into major sides like the North and the South.

On the other hand they are not defending against a war on civilians. They are fighting a war of civilians on civilians. It seems like there are numerous small groups seeking either revenge, power, or various grudges. I get the strong sense that with a lot of kidnapped people who end up dead or assorted suicide bombings there most of the people don't even know who did it or why.

This is why Iraq is making less and less sense. While you pretend there is an enemy the place is really on the verge of social collapse where every group of 15 people is going to become yet another enemy. We aren't looking at Vietnam where there was an enemy with a single focus (drive the US out of Vietnam and take over the gov't in the south). We are looking at what Hobbes described as our 'natural state' where everyone is at war with everyone else because they know now that everything is up in the air and they want to make sure they have carved out as much as they can before the dust settles. Nope, it's more like Gangs of New York rather than Platoon.

which is why I'm thinking the Democrats probably have a good point. The Iraqis are also leaning back, refusing to take control because we are there and we'll do the hard work while their men will maybe direct traffic. If the country cannot stand as it is then it has to break up naturally. More than a few people have noticed that Iraq was created as an artificial country and there's a good argument that it could only be held together by something as ruthless as Saddam's regime.

What Joe is talking about, the true Al Qaeda threat is made up of a fraction of the people. Not even 5,000 mosques, probably not even 5,000 people. Yes they are in Iraq but they are not Iraq's real problem and I suspect only a fraction of the fighting we are doing in Iraq is even indirectly against them.

15

What was it that Osama aaid in that 90s "60 Minutes" interview -- that he had 100,000 operatives? We are certainly a naive people to think that it's just that little group of people known as Al Queda. But how does one fight a culture that cherishes death even more than life?

Please, bin Laden does not have 100,000 operatives. If he did there would bombs exploding every day in the US. After 9/11 many of us played the game of trying to guess 'what next'. Me and my co-workers did. We noted the bridges leading into NYC would be prime targets. So would NJ's major highway interchanges. As time went on I realized you don't even need suicide bombers. Look at something as simple as a propane tank for a gas grill. It has enough explosive power to level a house, maybe a small block. A sniper could easily set off dozens of explosions by just shooting them since they are often stored outside at gas stations, small stores etc and he would never be near harm and probably could avoid capture. You could easily create 9/11 type damage without having to do anything as eloborate as train pilots and infilitrate high security airports etc. If Al Qaeda did have hundreds of thousands of 'operatives' they would be wreaking havoc everywhere.

Al Qaeda is almost certainly more of a cult that is only able to inspire a few suicide bombers around the world. Yes they may get lots of people to wear t-shirts with bin Laden's picture on it in Pakistan but they are not an army or even a culture but a cult.

That's not necessarily a good thing. A cult could inspire someone without even contacting them. Today maybe there is some teen in some US city who wants to be Al Qaeda so he is wiring a bomb even though he has never seen or spoken to an actual member of Al Qaeda. No amount of fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran will stop this kid (maybe good local police work will). Then again there maybe a kid somewhere who likes to think of himself as a vampire and will go out and kill someone tonight.

I think the biggest mistake we made after 9/11 was forgetting Churchill who told his people to keep their chins up, we may have to endure but we are by no means defeated and going along with the hysterical 'now everything has changed, all rules are up in the air' antics that Bush helped edge on that's really just cowardice and defeatism with a different face.

16

"Unable to comprehend such utter disregard for human life"
made my stomach turn. you assume we are above such "utter disregard."
more than half a million dead in iraq? over 3,000 of them now our own? who exactly in this country is unable to comprehend our utter disregard for human life? people who call for more death, such as what i seem to read in your post?

"war on civilians"
uh, you think the iraqis and other arabs in the middle east dont see ours as a war on civilians? cmon. seriously. our war on "terror" is repulsively one-sided: do we wage war against the terror we cause everyday in the middle east, or is ours only selectively waged against subjects from which we have something to gain?

"When the war is on civilians, there is no place to retreat, no way to surrender, and no room for conscientious objectors."
again; a splendid illustration of exactly what islamic terrorists have been saying for decades. open a history book, we have been pissing on them since the 80's, no wonder they thought the only way out from under the weight of the american dream was by their own version of "shock and awe..."

Joe - please, open your eyes to the truth behind the red white and blue curtain. death begets death. if we hate our brothers we are already guilty of murder. if we neglect our duty to love them, we leave Christ's command to the true christians, ones who are not afraid to die for love, who refuse to die for hate.

17

"Unable to comprehend such utter disregard for human life"
made my stomach turn. you assume we are above such "utter disregard."
more than half a million dead in iraq? over 3,000 of them now our own? who exactly in this country is unable to comprehend our utter disregard for human life? people who call for more death, such as what i seem to read in your post?

"war on civilians"
uh, you think the iraqis and other arabs in the middle east dont see ours as a war on civilians? cmon. seriously. our war on "terror" is repulsively one-sided: do we wage war against the terror we cause everyday in the middle east, or is ours only selectively waged against subjects from which we have something to gain?

"When the war is on civilians, there is no place to retreat, no way to surrender, and no room for conscientious objectors."
again; a splendid illustration of exactly what islamic terrorists have been saying for decades. open a history book, we have been pissing on them since the 80's, no wonder they thought the only way out from under the weight of the american dream was by their own version of "shock and awe..."

Joe - please, open your eyes to the truth behind the red white and blue curtain. death begets death. if we hate our brothers we are already guilty of murder. if we neglect our duty to love them, we leave Christ's command to the true christians, ones who are not afraid to die for love, who refuse to die for hate.

18

"Unable to comprehend such utter disregard for human life"
made my stomach turn. you assume we are above such "utter disregard."
more than 50,000 dead in iraq? over 3,000 of them now our own? who exactly in this country is unable to comprehend our utter disregard for human life? people who call for more death, such as what i seem to read in your post?

"war on civilians"
uh, you think the iraqis and other arabs in the middle east dont see ours as a war on civilians? cmon. seriously. our war on "terror" is repulsively one-sided: do we wage war against the terror we cause everyday in the middle east, or is ours only selectively waged against subjects from which we have something to gain?

"When the war is on civilians, there is no place to retreat, no way to surrender, and no room for conscientious objectors."
again; a splendid illustration of exactly what islamic terrorists have been saying for decades. open a history book, we have been pissing on them since the 80's, no wonder they thought the only way out from under the weight of the american dream was by their own version of "shock and awe..."

Joe - please, open your eyes to the truth behind the red white and blue curtain. death begets death. if we hate our brothers we are already guilty of murder. if we neglect our duty to love them, we leave Christ's command to the true christians, ones who are not afraid to die for love, who refuse to die for hate.

19

Joe,
You see the resistance you are getting to your Heritage Institute/Weekly Standard talking points? It’s only going to get worse in the coming years as Christians wise up and see that when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you are not signing up to be a member of the republican party or the so-called “religious right”. Tell your boss, Tony Perkins, the winds are blowing in the other direction-enjoy your power while you can….

20

If "survival of the fittest" is how we came to exist, why do we as humans work so hard against this principle?

All this worry over civilian casualties and such... why? We are strong, we can conquer and flourish, we can impose our will, we can exploit... what's the problem?

I understand the Christian response to this, but I don't understand why the secularists (or pick your label) cling to the outmoded, obsolete, incorrect morality.

Where is the courage of the New Man?

21

Bryan,

I don't think you really understand what "survival of the fittest means". Off the top of my head the only 'person' who I know adopted that phrase as a morality was Scrooge from Dicken's A Christmas Carol

22

Bryan,

I think you are on to something-social darwinism is exactly what the Bushites are all about. Government for the rich. Take breaks for the rich, screw the poor, and get the religious right's vote by mumbling something about values....

23

First we're not fighting a "war on terror;" nobody's ever explained how you fight a war against an emotion.

This is one of those points that was interesting, but irrelevant the first time it was made; after the zillionth time, it stopped being interesting. I thing we can all agree that "War on Terror" is not the best name for the conflict we are in, but it is the one that seems to have stuck. For the people who just can't seem to get over it, I propose that when ever someone says "War on Terror", mumon, JohnW, Russ, etc. mentally substitute "George Bush's Trumped Up War to Enrich Exxon and Haliburton" and then they will know what the rest of us are talking about.

24

I thing we can all agree that "War on Terror" is not the best name for the conflict we are in, but it is the one that seems to have stuck.

This would be all well and good if we had a war that made sense but had a lousey name. This war doesn't make sense and when people quite reasonably demand some sense out of it terror is thrown up in their face.

I'll agree with ucfengr that "George Bush's Trumped Up War to Enrich Exxon and Haliburton" isn't an accurate name/description for this if he would agree that it is reasonable to ask for something more than blanket asserts all this nonsense is just to prevent another 9/11.

25

Besides "George Bush's Trumped Up War to Enrich Exxon and Haliburton" would have made sense back in the day when the left actually assumed George Bush knew what he was doing.

26

The difference between a Soldier and a Christian Martyr:

One would rather die with a gun in his hand, shooting the enemy or detonating a bomb strapped to his body....

The soldiers I served with had no desire to "die with a gun in (our) hand(s)" or "detonating a bomb strapped to (our) bod(ies)". We actually preferred to follow the teachings of George S. Patton, Jr:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

and

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. "

27

I freely admit to confusion on the matter.

I've never been able to understand how the "ought" came from the "is" of evolution.

I know this is a thread hijack, but in the context of the war I am wondering why the "non-religionists" get so bent out of shape over the moral issues. I'm not saying that "non-religionists" are immoral. But I truly don't understand the metaphysical underpinnings for their positions. If morality is preference, then stop talking in terms of objective right/wrong.

Is survival of the fittest a species-level thing? The individual has evolved to sacrifice itself for the good of its species? Or does it mean that each instance of a species will do what is best to enable its survival?

And how does consciousness and morality fit here?
Humans are not animals and have extra faculties. However we got them through evolution, we have them. So why is it that they seem to work against our animal nature? Why do we care for the weak, bring them along, taint the gene pool with their weakness?

28

Besides "George Bush's Trumped Up War to Enrich Exxon and Haliburton" would have made sense back in the day when the left actually assumed George Bush knew what he was doing.

For those who can't make up their mind on whether George Bush is an idiot or an evil genius, please feel free to substitute Dick Cheney. I think we can all agree that he is an evil genius.

29

Oh, and JohnW re: your class-warfare comment on social Darwinism...

By what moral principle does someone have the right to use government police power to take from me and give to someone else? Common defense, social contract, yada yada yada. I'm talking about pure wealth transfer. How is it moral to take from me and give to someone else?

30

I've never been able to understand how the "ought" came from the "is" of evolution.

Whoever said it did?

I know this is a thread hijack, but in the context of the war I am wondering why the "non-religionists" get so bent out of shape over the moral issues. I'm not saying that "non-religionists" are immoral. But I truly don't understand the metaphysical underpinnings for their positions. If morality is preference, then stop talking in terms of objective right/wrong.

This is because "non-religionists" have not made the logical error you made above.

So why is it that they seem to work against our animal nature? Why do we care for the weak, bring them along, taint the gene pool with their weakness?

'Survival of the fittest' is just an illustration. It is useful in some respects but at the same time has weaknesses. One of its main weaknesses is the implication that 'fit' here means some type of hyped up warrior animal living a solitary life killing everything that lives around it. 'Fit' could also apply to species that survive through mutual cooporation and aid. At least in the case of humans this trait seems to trump the traits of most other species.

For those who can't make up their mind on whether George Bush is an idiot or an evil genius, please feel free to substitute Dick Cheney. I think we can all agree that he is an evil genius.

I don't think there's anyone left who can't make up their mind whether Bush is an idiot or not.

31

This is why Iraq is making less and less sense.

Boonton, all of your arguments against the US presence in Iraq could also apply to Afghanistan, a war that much of the left ostensibly supports and would argue against any US involvement in Dafur or any future Dafurs.

32

"Whoever said it did?"

Please elaborate. Logically a believer in a god can use "ought" without contradiction. In what sense do the secularists do so? Are you denying that "non-religionists" say ought?

33

Possibly, to be honest with you I think it's kind of hard to understand Afghanistan fully. A lot of the reporting from there gets swamped by news from Iraq.

The justification for going into Afghanistan, though, was directly related to 9/11. Bin Laden was there and the Taliban, while not directly supporting his attacks on the US, considered him a guest and gave him safe heaven. Neither of those things appear true anymore however since Bin Laden remains at large in the immediate area there is a good reason to continue our presence there.

As far as nation building goes, it appears to be more successful in Afghanistan. While there have been some rumblings of the Taliban and some bombings the country seems stable with a decent government. Have we turned it into something ready to be the 51st state? Not at all.

So while there are similiarities I think the differences remain strong enough to look at Afghanistan as a seperate policy question.

34

Bryan K Mills,

Ah, yes, the old "class warfare" talking point used when ever anyone would suggest that the government should not be favoring the rich and big business at the expense of the poor or the middle class...it's not advocating socialism to recognize that all the money being spent on Iraq, some 500 billion dollars, could be better spent taking care of things in this country.

The government is taking from you now...unless you are a member of the rich elite....there is a wealth transfer going on now-taking from the common working man and giving to the wealthy...

35

Please elaborate. Logically a believer in a god can use "ought" without contradiction. In what sense do the secularists do so? Are you denying that "non-religionists" say ought?

Just because 'survival of the fittest' IS a loose description of how we got here it does not follow that OUGHT to structure our moral behavior. Paradoxically, for humans at least, trying to follow a 'survival of the fittest' ethic as you have described it would probably be counterproductive and make us less fit!

Here's a simplier question. Suppose a person who is a "non-religionist" happened to have been the product of a rape. This person IS here because of rape yet it hardly follows he OUGHT to rape.

36

I'm really amazed ---
All the respondents who would place themselves in the Darwinist camp but support a pacifist agenda. They've forgotten the natural worlds 4 "f":
*Fight
*Flight
*Feed
*Reproduction (A. Plantinga's politeness)
--------------
They don't want to "fight" and fulfill the Darwinin agenda. Strangely incoherent.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

37

Collin gets points for being twice as dumb. Not only does he fail to understand Darwin he also fails to notice that his arguments have been addressed several times here already.

38

I could not help but be reminded of the Iran hostage crisis in the 70's when I was little. It seems like my entire life all I have heard from people in the Middle East is "Death to America!". I've probably heard that more often than "faggot!"

39

Boonton,
I generally don't take the time to read lengthy lists. So if you'll permit me to miss things on occasion ...
... I didn't say simply "Darwin" -- I know the difference.

Enjoy.

40

I don't think there's anyone left who can't make up their mind whether Bush is an idiot or not.

How do folks on the left reconcile their opinion that Bush is an idiot with the reality that he so consistently beats them? I know that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while, but this is getting ridiculous. If I were on the left, I'd be awfully tempted to go back to calling Bush an evil genius just so I wouldn't have to acknowledge that an idiot keeps eating my lunch.

As far as nation building goes, it appears to be more successful in Afghanistan.

Assuming for the moment this is true, how long will it be when an emboldened Al Queda, fresh off of driving the US out of Iraq, is able to shift all its forces to Afghanistan? Right now, both the US and Al Queda appear to agree that the main front in the war is in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, we will leave with a demoralized military (the only thing more damaging to a military than fighting a war is losing a war) and we will face a stronger Al Queda (winning generals attract recruits and supporters). At the present, the US military has high morale and appears to be starting to turn things around in Iraq. Why does it make sense to leave, when leaving will only demoralize us and encourage our enemies?

The justification for going into Afghanistan, though, was directly related to 9/11. Bin Laden was there and the Taliban, while not directly supporting his attacks on the US, considered him a guest and gave him safe heaven. Neither of those things appear true anymore however since Bin Laden remains at large in the immediate area there is a good reason to continue our presence there.

We don't know where Bin Laden is; he could be just about anywhere or even dead. Using him as a justification for staying in Afghanistan doesn't make much sense from a military perspective. It's his organization that we need to destroy. If we can destroy his organization we marginalize him enough where it will probably make it easier to catch him. Losing generals have very few supporters; ask Hannibal.

41

"I've never been able to understand how the "ought" came from the "is" of evolution."

O.K., but it has been explained here numerous times. Let's go through it again. It's quite simple: "is" is about reality, physical existence, and "ought" is about opinion, opinion backed up by reason, tradition, a shared set of cultural mores, some almost universal.

"I know this is a thread hijack, but in the context of the war I am wondering why the "non-religionists" get so bent out of shape over the moral issues. I'm not saying that "non-religionists" are immoral. But I truly don't understand the metaphysical underpinnings for their positions."

That's because there are no "metaphysical underpinnings".

"If morality is preference, then stop talking in terms of objective right/wrong."

No! Just because we recognize that morality is a matter of preference that does not entitle you to attempt to stifle our expression of what is right or wrong. To me, right or wrong refers to what I think is right or wrong. The same is true of you, but you prefer to attribute your preferences to a fictional supernatural overlord.

"Logically a believer in a god can use "ought" without contradiction. In what sense do the secularists do so?"

Your mistake is assuming that "ought" implies an objective standard. "Ought" merely facilitates the expression of one's opinion as to right and wrong; even though it may be in accordance with a broad, almost universal standard, it is not an objective one.

You go ahead and keep talking about what you feel is right or wrong and back it up with the Bible as best you can. I will continue to speak of what I see as right or wrong, and I will back it up with reason as best I can.

I'm ready now for the next part of your argument, which, if you follow the form of so many others before you, will be along the lines of "Then why shouldn't I just kill you and your family". I hope you are more creative and/or sincere.

42

No! Just because we recognize that morality is a matter of preference that does not entitle you to attempt to stifle our expression of what is right or wrong. To me, right or wrong refers to what I think is right or wrong. The same is true of you, but you prefer to attribute your preferences to a fictional supernatural overlord.

Rob, what you don't want to recognize is that for you right and wrong don't exist, it is what you prefer and what you don't prefer. Right and wrong implies some sort of objective standard that you don't believe in. In reality it is not even a matter of preference, it is a matter of what your randomly generated software tells you to do in response to an impulse. You have no more control over your actions than the computer I am typing on does. If I tell it to type an 'x', it can't choose to type a 'q', its programming won't let it. Self control is an illusion, buddy; get used to it.

43

ucfengr:

I was just suggesting that the motivation of even those terrorists who actually are radical Islamists has a lot to do with immediate political power, and that we needn't develop some whole new paradigm to deal with them. Take Algeria - terrorists there aren't going after US (we have almost nothing to do with Algeria), they're going after the Algerian government. Largely because they want control - of Algeria, not here. I think a comparison with Marxist rebels IS particularly apt, despite what you say. Marxists wanted their ideology to win out globally, so they went on a campaign to take over various countries. They weren't interested in us except in that we were a primary opponent of their ideology. Substitute religion for ideology and you might have something close to what Joe was saying I suppose. (True Marxists weren't in to suicide attacks, but they certainly have their share of martyrs.) But if that's so, then we can learn from the example of Marxist revolution. What, then, can we learn from that that might apply to the present situation?

What really prompted me to respond though was your quip about "slack jawed yokels," which really missed its mark. It was two of those "slack jawed yokels" who were responsible for the largest terrorist attack on American soil prior to the September 11, 2001.

44

Don't believe the hype. Read and educate yourselves:

baltimorechronicle.com/2007/032607Cherbonnier.shtml

45

"Rob, what you don't want to recognize is that for you right and wrong don't exist, it is what you prefer and what you don't prefer."

You are wrong. ;-)

46

You are wrong. ;-)

I accept you and your faulty software just as your are, Rob.

47

It was two of those "slack jawed yokels" who were responsible for the largest terrorist attack on American soil prior to the September 11, 2001.

Refresh my memory, what "American anti-government militia" did those two belong to? Oh, I remember now, they didn't. They were too radical for even the "American anti-government militias". So much for the scary "American anti-government militias".

48

"I accept you and your faulty software just as your are, Rob."

You will make a fine secular liberal once you are deprogrammed, ucfengr.

49

Rob, what you don't want to recognize is that for you right and wrong don't exist, it is what you prefer and what you don't prefer. Right and wrong implies some sort of objective standard that you don't believe in. In reality it is not even a matter of preference, it is a matter of what your randomly generated software tells you to do in response to an impulse. You have no more control over your actions than the computer I am typing on does. If I tell it to type an 'x', it can't choose to type a 'q', its programming won't let it. Self control is an illusion, buddy; get used to it.

LOL... ROFL... do you mind if I clone that elsewhere?

50

I think that the word 'Terror' as used in the phrase 'War on Terror' is a noun or proxy used for describing the ideology of the use of Terror. It, the ideology of Terror, is not even really being waged by true Islamists. The root motive is power, contemporary and global in scope. Islam is used as the vehicle solely due to the ease of suborning useful idiots as pawns to the cause. It is dangerous to think that Iraq is not a front in this war. It is dangerous to think that Algieria is not a front in this war. The ideologists of Terror in Algieria have broadcast their intentions to expand or move that front to Spain. Once enough progress has been made by the ideologists of Terror, they will resume operations in the USA as another front.

51

ucfengr:

Forest for the trees...

52

ucfengr:

Forest for the trees...

Ben, if you are going to pick a somebody as an example to highlight the dangers of "American anti-government militias", shouldn't you pick someone who is, you know, a member of one? If these groups really are as dangerous as Al Queda or even the IRA, it shouldn't be hard.

53

LOL... ROFL... do you mind if I clone that elsewhere?

Not at all, smm. An appropriate cite is all I ask.

54

"Rob, what you don't want to recognize is that for you right and wrong don't exist, it is what you prefer and what you don't prefer. Right and wrong implies some sort of objective standard that you don't believe in. In reality it is not even a matter of preference, it is a matter of what your randomly generated software tells you to do in response to an impulse. You have no more control over your actions than the computer I am typing on does. If I tell it to type an 'x', it can't choose to type a 'q', its programming won't let it. Self control is an illusion, buddy; get used to it."

I see...then it means by definition that free will is also an illusion...that whatever you do has been pre-ordained from before you were even born...that all your actions in this life are allready mapped out...all of which makes your god...a liar.

55

Collin,

A Christian believes the answer to "What is right?" or "What is good?" is written in the Bible. An atheist or a secular person believes the answer is something we have to figure out using our moral faculties or our conscience.

While one could consider the writings of the Bible to be an objective fact, the Christian's choosing to accept the Bible as his moral authority is no more objective that the atheist's or the secularist's choosing not to accept the Bible. The Christian is relying upon his conscience just as much as the atheist/secularist is.

One reason the Christian might seem to be more objective is because God would appear to be a source of morality which is independent of a person's own personal experience and desires. But if the atheist/secularist is careful to focus as best he can on the world as it really is (and not just as it superficially appears or as one desires it to be), then the source of his moral knowledge can be just as objective as the Christian's.

Let's say the atheist/secularist succeeds in developing a good handle on the world around him. Let's also assume that our hypothetical Christian resorts to blind faith in the Bible whenever the world seems to contradict it. Then the atheist/secularist's morality could very well be more objective than the Christian's.

In other words, the metaphysical objection to a secular morality is not solved by Christianity or deism. It just pushes the objection up to another level: what is the objective basis for God's version of morality; or what is the objective basis for believing that the alleged morality of God is the actual morality of God?

As for evolution, the fact (or theory) of evolution does not force us to accept "survival of the fittest" as our ethics. If anything, the fact of evolution would seem to suggest that whatever we choose our morality to be, we should want it to work in a very pragmatic way. We don't want to adhere to some utopian dogma that will result in some dysfuntional compulsion on our part to mold reality into some a priori template.

56

I see...then it means by definition that free will is also an illusion...that whatever you do has been pre-ordained from before you were even born...that all your actions in this life are allready mapped out...all of which makes your god...a liar.

For the atheist, free will is a problem. If all you are is a meat computer (an unpleasant, but accurate description from the materialist world view), than your responses will be dictated by your software. For the Christian the problem is more complicated. There are very good theological arguments for both sides. I prefer to think we have free will, but I acknowledge I could be wrong. That said, I don't see how it follows that God is a liar in either case.

57

"For the atheist, free will is a problem. If all you are is a meat computer (an unpleasant, but accurate description from the materialist world view), than your responses will be dictated by your software. For the Christian the problem is more complicated. There are very good theological arguments for both sides. I prefer to think we have free will, but I acknowledge I could be wrong. That said, I don't see how it follows that God is a liar in either case."

Actually,for an athiest,i d imagine free will is no problem at all...your senses are presented with choices which your brains analyses and you pick the one you prefer...but if we dont reallty have free will,then why would your god teach that we have a choice if we dont really...and why would he devise punishements or rewards if what you will do has allready been preordained when those concepts would normally exits for the sole purpose of influencing a choice...one which you say we dont have

58

Actually,for an athiest,i d imagine free will is no problem at all...your senses are presented with choices which your brains analyses and you pick the one you prefer.

No, your senses (i.e. your peripherals) are presented with inputs; your response is then dictated by your software. Preference has nothing to do with it.

but if we dont reallty have free will,then why would your god teach that we have a choice if we dont really

As I said, I believe we do have free will, because I believe that not having free will is logically inconsistent with my assumption of a loving God. That said, those who don't have compelling theological arguments as well, I just disagree with them. If you want to argue that Christianity doesn't support free will, then you need to pick your fight with someone who believes that.

59

I think what these last several posts demonstrate is that Christianity isn't the only belief system that has complex theological questions that have no easy answers. Pretending they don't exist seems to be an affliction common to all such systems.

60

"As I said, I believe we do have free will, because I believe that not having free will is logically inconsistent with my assumption of a loving God. "

And there the crux of it right there...the assumption of a loving God...why would it be?...love is a biochemical reaction meant to meant to engender a feeling of protectiveness by parents towards their offsprings so as to facilitate the survival of a given specie...love serves absolutely no purpose to a non biological organism and even less in an immortal one...none whatsoever. teaching that God is love is about as logical as teaching that God is blue.

61

"I think what these last several posts demonstrate is that Christianity isn't the only belief system that has complex theological questions that have no easy answers."

I think what we have are semantical issues, not theological questions.

62

love is a biochemical reaction meant to meant to engender a feeling of protectiveness by parents towards their offsprings so as to facilitate the survival of a given specie

For the atheist, this is true. As such (again, for the atheist) love is neither good or bad, right or wrong; it is merely a response to inputs. It is not worthy of admiration or scorn, it just is.

love serves absolutely no purpose to a non biological organism and even less in an immortal one...none whatsoever.

How do you know? Are you acquainted with any non-biological, immortal beings?

63

love is a biochemical reaction meant to meant to engender a feeling of protectiveness by parents towards their offsprings so as to facilitate the survival of a given specie...love serves absolutely no purpose to a non biological organism and even less in an immortal one...none whatsoever. teaching that God is love is about as logical as teaching that God is blue.

Love is not a biochemical reaction. It is the decision to give of yourself to the best interest of somebody other than yourself. It is an expression of the willingness to do so. Describing it as a biochemical reaction was some pseudo-scientist's ham-handed attempt to provide an explanation for something he couldn't understand within the context of his refusal to accept the existence of God.

64

Actually,for an athiest,i d imagine free will is no problem at all...your senses are presented with choices which your brains analyses and you pick the one you prefer...but if we dont reallty have free will,then why would your god teach that we have a choice if we dont really...and why would he devise punishements or rewards if what you will do has allready been preordained when those concepts would normally exits for the sole purpose of influencing a choice...one which you say we dont have

I quite agree, free will presents no problems for atheists. It is either because they have compartmentalized anything that might constitute evidence of God's existence from conscious thought, or they elevate themselves to god-like equality and provide free will for themselves (which is a technical impossibility of course).

65

While one could consider the writings of the Bible to be an objective fact, the Christian's choosing to accept the Bible as his moral authority is no more objective that the atheist's or the secularist's choosing not to accept the Bible.

Allow me to clear up a minor point of misunderstanding you have. Christians choose God as their moral authority, not the Bible. The Bible is record of people's understanding of God's will.

But if the atheist/secularist is careful to focus as best he can on the world as it really is (and not just as it superficially appears or as one desires it to be), then the source of his moral knowledge can be just as objective as the Christian's.

But since the atheist/secularist excludes God from their perception of the world they cannot see the world as it really is, only as it superficially appears or as they desire it to be. Which again calls into question the source and objectivity of their moral knowledge.

66

"It is either because they have compartmentalized anything that might constitute evidence of God's existence from conscious thought, or they elevate themselves to god-like equality and provide free will for themselves (which is a technical impossibility of course)."

Either/or fallacy.

"But since the atheist/secularist excludes God from their perception of the world they cannot see the world as it really is, only as it superficially appears or as they desire it to be. Which again calls into question the source and objectivity of their moral knowledge."

Circular reasoning. C'mon, smmtheory: I bet you can do ALL of the logical fallacies if you apply yourself.

67

Smmtheory,

Christians choose God as their moral authority, not the Bible. The Bible is record of people's understanding of God's will.

Many Christians believe that the Bible's authority, as the Word of God, is very powerful. Some Christians even believe the authority of the Bible (as the Word of God) is infallible.

But you are correct that any authority the Bible possesses is only derived from the authority of God himself.

Where I have written,

... the Christian's choosing to accept the Bible as his moral authority is no more objective that the atheist's or the secularist's choosing not to accept the Bible.

feel free to substitute "God" for "the Bible":

... the Christian's choosing to accept God as his moral authority is no more objective that the atheist's or the secularist's choosing not to accept God.

You also made the following point:

But since the atheist/secularist excludes God from their perception of the world they cannot see the world as it really is, only as it superficially appears or as they desire it to be.

An atheist can draw upon non-theological modes of knowledge, such as science, for his understanding of the world. A Christian is also free to draw upon non-theological modes of knowledge.

However, when science comes into conflict with theology, some Christians will put science aside and place their faith in the superiority of (allegedly) divine revelation. I personally am much more impressed by the track record of science than by the track record of divine revelation.

Science is not perfect or omniscient, but it has powerful methods of correcting itself and generating better approximations to the truth. Theology, on the other hand, is much more prone to lapsing into rigid doctrines which scorn challenges based on evidence and experience.

So I would argue that the notion of a morality-bearing and death-defeating God is more superficial and more wishful thinking than denying such a concept.

68

Ucfengr,

Your logic, as usual, is impeccable. If anyone could persuade to re-evaluate my positions on God and religion, it would probably be you.

Don't hold your breath, though, waiting for me to convert! My free will leads me to very different conclusions than yours. :)

Cheers,
Matthew

69

Your logic, as usual, is impeccable. If anyone could persuade to re-evaluate my positions on God and religion, it would probably be you.

I will take that has a high compliment.

Don't hold your breath, though, waiting for me to convert! My free will leads me to very different conclusions than yours. :)

Free will can change, programming can't; it can only be overwritten;).

70

Either/or fallacy.

That's it? Just make an accusation of a fictional fallacy without backing it up? If either one or both of my assumptions (and they must be assumptions since I am unable to truly know what goes on in the mind of an atheist) is a fallacy, it shouldn't be too hard to refute at least one of them. Are you stumped for a refutation?

Circular reasoning. C'mon, smmtheory: I bet you can do ALL of the logical fallacies if you apply yourself.

You know, circular reasoning is when a presumption is used to prove the existence of the presumption, so explain to me how I used the questioning of the source and objectivity of moral knowledge of atheists to support the argument that they exclude God from their perception of the world. If you can't do that, the circle's not complete.

71

An atheist can draw upon non-theological modes of knowledge, such as science, for his understanding of the world.

Which is pretty much what I said. In other words, lacking or overlooking the supernatural aspect leaves the atheist/secularist with only a superficial perspective of the world. It leads to situations where in the scope of the world of science, just because something can be done, it does not always follow that it is the right thing to do. The superficial perspective allows the acceptance of such things as vaccines made using aborted fetuses.

But I can also cite an example of scientists being prone to lapsing into rigid doctrines which scorn challenges. How many physicists are open to accepting the hypothesis that there is only one subatomic particle which assumes different states in order to perform with the attributes of neutron, electron, proton or any number of a myriad other subatomic particles that they purport to discover with practically every experiment at the super collider?

72

How do folks on the left reconcile their opinion that Bush is an idiot with the reality that he so consistently beats them?

ucfengr, you have a strange definition of victory. Bush can't even break 50% approval among Republicans, how is he consistently 'beating' anyone here?

Assuming for the moment this is true, how long will it be when an emboldened Al Queda, fresh off of driving the US out of Iraq, is able to shift all its forces to Afghanistan? Right now, both the US and Al Queda appear to agree that the main front in the war is in Iraq.

The error here that I notice the right consistently makes is equating Al Qaeda with anything more than a cult. You seem to be under the delusion that Al Qaeda is some type of nation with an army. It isn't.

If the US leaves Iraq, we will leave with a demoralized military (the only thing more damaging to a military than fighting a war is losing a war) and we will face a stronger Al Queda (winning generals attract recruits and supporters)....

So at no point in this game will Iraq ever be strong enough to, say, stand on its own like every other nation in the Middle East and rest of the world does? This is our victory? Never ending welfare for Iraq except instead of costing just dollars this welfare cost blood? And we can't even think of not doing this because it will hurt morale?

We don't know where Bin Laden is; he could be just about anywhere or even dead. Using him as a justification for staying in Afghanistan doesn't make much sense from a military perspective.

Evidence seems to point that he is alive (since he periodically is issuing audio tapes that appear to be his voice) and the opinion of our best intelligence is that he is hiding in that fuzzy zone between Afghanistan & Pakistan where no one seems to have good control. But yes, you are right, if it turns out bin Laden is dead then that would reduce the argument for staying in Afghanistan.

Losing generals have very few supporters; ask Hannibal.

Yawn, Hannibal had an army. Bin Laden is no general and never was.

For the atheist, free will is a problem.

True but it's also a problem for the non-atheist. I do think, if we have it, we should choose not to contribute to thread hijacking more than is necessary...though.

smmtheory

t is dangerous to think that Algieria is not a front in this war. The ideologists of Terror in Algieria have broadcast their intentions to expand or move that front to Spain. Once enough progress has been made by the ideologists of Terror, they will resume operations in the USA as another front.

Now why should this be so? As we seen in 9/11 and I also pointed out it only takes a handful of people to cause mayhem. The Ok bombing was just two people. Here we go again; Algieria, Iraq and Spain are 'fronts' and when Al Qaeda is done there they will go after the US again. What are you talking about? Are there like 12 people in Al Qaeda and they have 4 people in each of those countries so they are 'tied up' on those fronts?

73

"For the atheist, this is true. As such (again, for the atheist) love is neither good or bad, right or wrong; it is merely a response to inputs. It is not worthy of admiration or scorn, it just is."

Well thats not exactly true...it has the worth i give it...no more but no less either...but it can be both good and a bad thing,depending on the circumstances.

"How do you know? Are you acquainted with any non-biological, immortal beings?"

None that i know of but i can use my imagination to postulate a use that such a being would find in love and i can find none...in humans,love fills a need for companionship that we experience as biological organism...a need our genes create in us to encourage us to perpetuate ourselves...can you think of a logical niche that love would fill in a being that is not bound by such limitations as ours?

74

"Which is pretty much what I said. In other words, lacking or overlooking the supernatural aspect leaves the atheist/secularist with only a superficial perspective of the world. It leads to situations where in the scope of the world of science, just because something can be done, it does not always follow that it is the right thing to do. The superficial perspective allows the acceptance of such things as vaccines made using aborted fetuses."

Fine....give us an exemple of how the supernatural can be incorporated into any possible field of human knowledge with any objective reliability. How can one mesure the supernatural? how can one record it? review it? study it? predict for it? Falsify it? Give me an exemple of how the supernatural can help say aeronautics or building engineering...and if your answer to all of this is that we should just think in a completely different way,what way would that be...and by which criteria would you judge the reliability of that alternate thought process?

"But I can also cite an example of scientists being prone to lapsing into rigid doctrines which scorn challenges. How many physicists are open to accepting the hypothesis that there is only one subatomic particle which assumes different states in order to perform with the attributes of neutron, electron, proton or any number of a myriad other subatomic particles that they purport to discover with practically every experiment at the super collider?"

And how pre tell was that hypothesis born...which observed fact lead to its inception? and more importantly,how can that hypothesis be tested?

75

Smmtheory,

But I can also cite an example of scientists being prone to lapsing into rigid doctrines which scorn challenges.

The history of science demonstrates that radical changes in scientific theory often fail to prevail over old theories until the older generation of scientists retires and/or dies off.

But the validation of experimental proof always manages to carry the day, and the older theories eventually get packed off into the attic with a sense of fond nostalgia.

If your theory of elementary particles corresponded to experimental results better than the standard theory, then it wouldn't matter how reluctant physicists were to embrace it. Your theory would prevail and replace the standard theory until such time as an even better theory came along. It might take ten or even twenty years for your theory to gain widespread acceptance, but once it started to get traction it would not have to worry any more about being rejected or ignored.

In other words, lacking or overlooking the supernatural aspect leaves the atheist/secularist with only a superficial perspective of the world.

You would be correct about this if it were true that there were some supernatural aspect to the world. However, if there were no supernatural aspect to the world, then you would actually be mistaken.

So the question of whether or not an atheist or a secularist is prone to a superficial analysis of the world or of morality is equivalent to the question of whether or not the supernatural exists.

Boonton,

I disagree with your analysis of the war in Iraq and your analysis of the war against islamofascist terror.

Al Qaeda is more than a cult. It is a metastasis of the ancient Islamic notion of jihad, and it enjoys the support of many thousands of people around the world. And depending upon how well it does in landing blows against the West, it also commands some degree of sympathetic approval from as many as several hundred million Muslims around the world.

If we prevail in Iraq and elsewhere, then it might turn out that the Al Qaeda conventions will only be able to draw a dozen or so attendees. But if we lose in Iraq (if we are forced to leave before establishing a viable democracy), then Al Qaeda will be flush with more recruits than it will be able to use.

Ucfengr,

Free will can change, programming can't; it can only be overwritten;).

Perhaps we are some intriguing combination of programming and free will -- a jumble of reflex, instinct, and conscious decision-making. Indeed, is it not likely that that is exactly the case, my friend?

76

Well thats not exactly true...it has the worth i give it...no more but no less either...but it can be both good and a bad thing,depending on the circumstances.

Why would you proscribe worth to a biological function beyonds its utilitarian value?

None that i know of but i can use my imagination to postulate a use that such a being would find in love and i can find none..

Sounds like a lack of imagination on your part. Of course, this begs the question; why would we "evolve" an ability to imagine infinite beings? Doesn't seem to have much value, does it?

can you think of a logical niche that love would fill in a being that is not bound by such limitations as ours?

No, but I can't think of a logical, biological purpose for the type of love that compels fools like me to write love songs and poems and to still look longingly at the woman I've been married to for 10 years, or the kind of love that makes my heart burst when my little autistic son grabs my hand just to make sure I'm near by; it makes no bloody sense, but as anyone who has ever loved can tell you, love is not logical (removes Spock ears).

Perhaps we are some intriguing combination of programming and free will -- a jumble of reflex, instinct, and conscious decision-making. Indeed, is it not likely that that is exactly the case, my friend?

For the Christian, etc., this is not a problem, but for the atheist, this goes back to my original point; if all we are is a meat computer, controlled by programming that has randomly evolved over several millenia, then "free will" is an illusion. Even if you have an incredibly sophisticated computer, controlled by billions of lines of code, it can only do what its programming allows it to do, nothing more.

77

ucfengr, you have a strange definition of victory. Bush can't even break 50% approval among Republicans, how is he consistently 'beating' anyone here?

When was the last time a Democrat beat him? Oh, wait they haven't. He won 2 elections in Texas (unseating one of the stars of the Democrat party in Ann Richards) and 2 for President. Approval ratings don't determine victory or defeat, at best, they are merely the opinion at an instant in time.

The error here that I notice the right consistently makes is equating Al Qaeda with anything more than a cult. You seem to be under the delusion that Al Qaeda is some type of nation with an army. It isn't.

Al Queda is not a nation, but to argue that they don't have a well trained, equipped, and financed military force is kind of silly. And while they are not a nation, much of their funding, etc. comes from nations, like Iran. This, in effect making them an army by proxy, similar to Caribbean who operated with "letters or marquis".

Yawn, Hannibal had an army. Bin Laden is no general and never was.

You are arguing semantics here. Bin Laden is the leader of a military organization, whether he holds the title "General" or not. If they win, he gets the credit, if they lose, the blame.

True but it's also a problem for the non-atheist. I do think, if we have it, we should choose not to contribute to thread hijacking more than is necessary...though.

A double-negative, Boonton, I am shocked. The correct term is theist and you would have to explain why free-will is a problem for the theist before I could concede the point. Amazing how much things can get off track, isn't it?

78

Matthew
Al Qaeda is more than a cult. It is a metastasis of the ancient Islamic notion of jihad, and it enjoys the support of many thousands of people around the world. And depending upon how well it does in landing blows against the West, it also commands some degree of sympathetic approval from as many as several hundred million Muslims around the world.

However it fails to achieve leadership because it remains a cult and like most cults everyone else will never be good enough. The Muslims of Iran are heretics, the Muslims of Saudi Arabia betrayed Islam, etc. It's not a surprise that despite all this 'sympathetic support' the only home Al Qaeda was able to find was the one Islamic country that barely had a government (Afghanistan). Most of the bombs and bullets going off in Iraq are not Al qaeda but dozens of the other numerous factions. Some with foreign support, no doubt, of Iran, Syria and maybe others but many without it.

ucfengr
When was the last time a Democrat beat him? Oh, wait they haven't. He won 2 elections in Texas (unseating one of the stars of the Democrat party in Ann Richards) and 2 for President. Approval ratings don't determine victory or defeat, at best, they are merely the opinion at an instant in time.

As are elections and I wouldn't consider the last one to be an example of Bush beating the Democrats unless you want to tell me a Democratic Congress is another example of the 'Bush, the evil genuis' theory. Seriously though, you should get over yourself. You talk like Bush is the first President in history to win two terms (win, I'll note, by razor thin margins). You guys really have totally forgotten Reagan, haven't you?

Al Queda is not a nation, but to argue that they don't have a well trained, equipped, and financed military force is kind of silly.

Really? Where?

You are arguing semantics here. Bin Laden is the leader of a military organization, whether he holds the title "General" or not. If they win, he gets the credit, if they lose, the blame.

Here is where you're wrong. I'm not arguing about whatever title Bin Laden gives himself. Hannibal had an army, one that was capable of taking and holding territory, engaging other armies. Bin Laden has a scattered group of cultists. Yes they can blow some stuff up (as Tim McVeigh and one buddy also were able to do) but that is about it.

A double-negative, Boonton, I am shocked. The correct term is theist and you would have to explain why free-will is a problem for the theist before I could concede the point. Amazing how much things can get off track, isn't it?

Certainly it doesn't follow that just because a person is a theist he must believe in free-will. In fact, when you start plyaing with infinite beigns some serious questions of free will start to come into play (see Newman's Paradox for example). Free will is one of those questions that doesn't neatly divide down the theist / atheist line.

79

"Sounds like a lack of imagination on your part. Of course, this begs the question; why would we "evolve" an ability to imagine infinite beings? Doesn't seem to have much value, does it?"

Oh thats an easy one...so we 'd always have something to blame when things dont go our way. Humans are patern seeking creatures...we sort of always have to have an answer to the question "why" and the "infinite" daddy figure that watches over everything can do that with the catch all answer "because its the will of God" and as weird as it may seem,thats enough for a surprising amount of people.

"No, but I can't think of a logical, biological purpose for the type of love that compels fools like me to write love songs and poems and to still look longingly at the woman I've been married to for 10 years, or the kind of love that makes my heart burst when my little autistic son grabs my hand just to make sure I'm near by; it makes no bloody sense, but as anyone who has ever loved can tell you, love is not logical (removes Spock ears)."

but on the contrary it makes perfect sense when dealing with biological organisms who 's role in life is essentially to pas on their genes to the net generation...i know thats not a very "romantic" description of our "purpose" here but thats what it is nevertheless
...and i happend to like my Spock ears...:)

80

Ucfengr,

One of the things that is amazing (and confusing) about our programming is that it includes routines for controlling our decision-making through conscious thought.

If that is merely an illusion of free will, it is an illusion that is only barely different from the real thing, whatever that would be.

81

ucfengr:

Yeah, on second thought, you're probably right that anti-government militias are not a great example. And of course you're also right that McVeigh would not be a good way to make the argument anyway. I was thinking that, even though not acting as part of such an organization, he appeared to be motivated by the same methodolgy, but, on consideration, since McVeigh likely had other issues going on, that makes it a bad fit. Hadn't really thought that one through the way I should have.

I suppose if I wanted a domestic terrorism example, I would have been better off to go with racialists or whatnot, like Reconstruction-era Klu Klux Klan or something. They don't strike me as a particularly good example, maybe because they didn't use bombs. But, they might work.

82

smmtheory wrote: "If either one or both of my assumptions (and they must be assumptions since I am unable to truly know what goes on in the mind of an atheist) is a fallacy, it shouldn't be too hard to refute at least one of them. Are you stumped for a refutation?"

Of course not. I'm afraid you don't understand what the either/or fallacy is, though. I don't have to refute either of your assumptions; I merely have to show that they aren't the only game in town. You concede that your second assumption is impossible at the end of your statement, so I won't speak to it. You seem to put your trust in the truth of the first. Your first assumption states that atheists have "compartmentalized anything that might constitute evidence of God's existence from conscious thought". I would argue that the possibility exists that atheists do no such thing. Now, how will you prove me wrong and support the validity of you either/or statement?

Here is your circular reasoning:

"But since the atheist/secularist excludes God from their perception of the world they cannot see the world as it really is, only as it superficially appears or as they desire it to be. "

You are using the presumed existence of God to support your contention that the world without a god perceived by atheists cannot be a valid perception. That is textbook circular reasoning, smmtheory.

83

I suppose if I wanted a domestic terrorism example, I would have been better off to go with racialists or whatnot, like Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan or something.

Pre-WW2, the Klan had quite a lot of power, so they would be a good historical example of a domestic terror group. However they really aren't much of a threat anymore.

Here is where you're wrong. I'm not arguing about whatever title Bin Laden gives himself. Hannibal had an army, one that was capable of taking and holding territory, engaging other armies.

Boonton, you seem to have a purposefully restrictive definition of what you consider a military; one that very few countries could meet.Hannibal for example would have a hard time meeting it, how much territory was he able to take and hold during the Punic Wars? If your answer is none, then you are right. Al Queda has soldiers, they have a command hierarchy, they have facilities to train their soldiers (in Iran and Syria and probably Pakistan), and they have logistics support. They are capable of engaging other military forces, maybe not in a head to head confrontation, but certainly in a guerrilla type operations and they are capable of taking and holding territory, though they would not be able to hold it against a determined US effort.

84

Hannibal for example would have a hard time meeting it, how much territory was he able to take and hold during the Punic Wars? If your answer is none, then you are right.

If I recall he threatened to take the city of Rome itself which qualified him as a serious military threat to the empire.

Now I don't believe I've seen a source for any serious Al Qaeda training in Iran. Considering the very serious theological differences I'd be somewhat surprised if they were being hosted there. Syria perhaps. I'm unaware of any case where Al Qaeda had troops or logistics to 'hold' ground against any military force let alone the US one. Perhaps you could cite an example of what you're talking about.

85

Somali when the Rangers took a beating. Those were Al Qaedi guys that shot down the helicopters. They essentially drove off the US forces. It's asymetrical warfare. While you seem stuck thinking the enemy should fight a certain way to be credible, the enemy isn't going to fight on our terms. He's fighting on his terms. Against a modern society, he's just a dangerous as a full blown army. Of course we could nullify most of his advantage by severely limiting Muslim interaction, but we are playing by his rules right now.

This is a lot like chess. If I have two bishops and my opponent has two knights, I want to open the board up to unleash by bishops and he wants to keep it closed where the knights can jump around the obstacles while my bishops are impotent. Both sides have weaknesses and advantages.

86

You concede that your second assumption is impossible at the end of your statement, so I won't speak to it.

And I've known plenty of people that try to do something that is a technical impossibility, but that doesn't prevent them from trying to do it anyway. But let us suppose you are right, and the atheist/secularist does not claim that they are the source of their own free will. That leaves us with my first assumption which also fits my observation of atheists/secularists. But again, let us suppose you are right, and they do not compartmentalize or wall off anything that might constitute evidence of God's existence, but instead reject any anomalous bit of information that doesn't fit in with their observations that God doesn't exist. Once it is rejected it might be promptly forgotten, which means it will never be re-examined again. If it is not rejected or forgotten but instead accepted despite it's anomalous nature, it is sort of relegated to the category of PFM and causes no more consternation to the atheist/secularist. So, either way, I have proved that the subject of Free Will presents no problems for the Atheist/Secularist. So are you still going to argue that my "either/or" is fallacious proof that Free Will presents no problems for Atheists/Secularists? Perhaps you can present your own theory about why it presents no problems that will fit my observations.

You are using the presumed existence of God to support your contention that the world without a god perceived by atheists cannot be a valid perception. That is textbook circular reasoning, smmtheory.

No, you are mis-stating my contention. My saying that atheists/secularists can only perceive things superficially is not the same thing as saying atheists/secularists can only perceive things invalidly. There are plenty of instances where the superficial perception is perfectly valid, especially with regard to physical matters where observation does not rely on knowledge or acceptance of the supernatural. Beside which, my contention that their perception is only superficial does not rely on the presumption that God exists, only that the Atheists/Secularists rejects or excludes God from their perception. Is it not true that Atheists/Secularists exclude God from their perception of the world? The reason why is not important. If something is excluded from perception, that makes it an incomplete or superficial perception.

87

Smmtheory,

Beside which, my contention that their perception is only superficial does not rely on the presumption that God exists, only that the Atheists/Secularists reject or exclude God from their perception. Is it not true that Atheists/Secularists exclude God from their perception of the world? The reason why is not important. If something is excluded from perception, that makes it an incomplete or superficial perception.

You seem to be arguing that if an atheist/secularist does not perceive God in the world, it is because the atheist/secularist is excluding or rejecting God from his perception.

It is certainly possible that an atheist/secularist could be rejecting or excluding God in such a way from his perception. But only if God exists in the first place.

If God does not exist, then it would not be possible to reject him or exclude him from one's perception, even if, as an atheist/secularist, one had a desire to do so.

Moreover, many atheists/secularists, such as myself, are open to the idea of God, and are open to weighing evidence for his existence. They, and I, are atheists not out of prejudice or dogma, but because they have diligently looked for God and not found him.

So I would repeat the following point that I made back in comment 75:

So the question of whether or not an atheist or a secularist is prone to a superficial analysis of the world or of morality is equivalent to the question of whether or not the supernatural exists.

88

"So are you still going to argue that my "either/or" is fallacious proof that Free Will presents no problems for Atheists/Secularists?"

I only said it was fallacious; you addad the rest on your own. Free will is a separate issue.

"If something is excluded from perception, that makes it an incomplete or superficial perception."

Only given the assumption that that something actually exists, hence my observation that your reasoning is circular.

89

If I recall he threatened to take the city of Rome itself which qualified him as a serious military threat to the empire.

The capability to threaten something is quite a bit different from the capability to take and hold something. Al Qaeda, even before the 2001 WTC attacks, made successful attacks on the USS Cole, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and was able to overcome an elite US military group in Somalia. They were also involved in the defeat of the Soviet military in Afghanistan and have been somewhat successful in operations against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may even succeed in driving US forces out of Iraq. If that happens, I wouldn't bet against them driving us out of Afghanistan, too. You seem to have deliberately tailored your definition of a military force to exclude groups like Al Queda, based primarily on your desire to exclude them as a military force.

Now I don't believe I've seen a source for any serious Al Qaeda training in Iran.

You've kind of set me up here by saying "serious Al Qaeda training". Any training I cite can be dismissed as not serious based solely on your opinion. That said, there has been much discussion in the news recently of Iran providing advanced IED's to the forces opposing us in Iraq. Those weapons do require a certain level of training to be used effectively. Also here are some urls to mainstream news stories discussing Al Queda-Iran links:

1. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A6581-2004Jun25.html

2. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A4191-2004Jul21.html

3. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/

90

As are elections and I wouldn't consider the last one to be an example of Bush beating the Democrats unless you want to tell me a Democratic Congress is another example of the 'Bush, the evil genuis' theory.<