Ableton Forum

andydes wrote:By the way Atheism makes no attempt to tell you how to live your life. There are no moderates or extremists. Only quiet ones and loud ones.

Hmm. Well. In essence, I suppose. But in reality not... there are people involved, so it's not quite as simple. ATHEISTS do tell me how to live - and the rampant hedonism and lack of insight here is changing the landscape and the people in ways I can't see how anyone could approve of. My impression is that this is the same everywhere...

noisetonepause wrote:

andydes wrote:By the way Atheism makes no attempt to tell you how to live your life. There are no moderates or extremists. Only quiet ones and loud ones.

Hmm. Well. In essence, I suppose. But in reality not... there are people involved, so it's not quite as simple. ATHEISTS do tell me how to live - and the rampant hedonism and lack of insight here is changing the landscape and the people in ways I can't see how anyone could approve of. My impression is that this is the same everywhere...

And since when has religion been the answer to 'rampant hedonism'? I'm sure there are more than a couple former alter boys who would argue with you vehemently on this one...

Some of the most rampant hedonists I know are self-styled Buddhists. Or they're into all sorts of wierdy-beardy spiratualism.

Athiests are not synonymous with hedonists. In fact, they generally seem to be a rather dour and stoic lot.

Communists, Objectivists, Utilitarians and Anarchists, all are known for a high prevalance of athiesm; and none have a rep for being huge hedonists (well maybe the Anarchists)...

noisetonepause wrote:

andydes wrote:By the way Atheism makes no attempt to tell you how to live your life. There are no moderates or extremists. Only quiet ones and loud ones.

Hmm. Well. In essence, I suppose. But in reality not... there are people involved, so it's not quite as simple. ATHEISTS do tell me how to live - and the rampant hedonism and lack of insight here is changing the landscape and the people in ways I can't see how anyone could approve of. My impression is that this is the same everywhere...

Is hedonism prescriptive? In other words, do hedonists pressure non-hedonists to become hedonists or face the threat of eternal damnation? Come into work and talk about their 'hedonism circle' from the weekend? Fuck no. Christ, the only lack of insight I see in my 'country' is from the fucking wackos trying to get creationism taught in public schools again. As if an entire century of scientific progress and enlightenment never happened. I say fuck em! Burn the religious at the stake for once! They have had it coming for... well, forever

I don't know much about Islam or a "call to prayer" but I ask the question...if you are worried about using a sample of a "call to prayer" would you also be worried about offending if you used some sort of Catholic representation of the same thing (pope making some sort of Catholic religious statement in a speech)?

Or is your ultimate worry that if you make a song with this "call to prayer" included that they will put a bounty on your head?

I don't actually have any worry at all, as about 10 people will ever hear the tune, max. I was just wondering if it is something that is generally considered blasphemous or offensive.
I wouldn't hesitate to use a Tibetan chant, but Tibetan monks don't feature heavily in the news having flip outs.

what I love about science is that it's the only belief system (that I'm aware of) that's based on always questioning itself. It not only allows it, it commands it. A belief system with incorporated quality control, so to speak....

I like that attitude.


atheism is as much as a wild guess as any chosen religion. only agnostics can be sure.

[/random thought]

brightonalex wrote:I don't actually have any worry at all, as about 10 people will ever hear the tune, max. I was just wondering if it is something that is generally considered blasphemous or offensive.
I wouldn't hesitate to use a Tibetan chant, but Tibetan monks don't feature heavily in the news having flip outs.

So then your worry is the flipping out, not the offense itself. Same reason certain newspapers refused to reprint certain ridiculously juvenile cartoons...they didn't want a brick through their windows.

I would never go out of my way to 'offend' anyone; that having been said, I believe that each of us should be free to say whatever we want, so long as we are not actively promoting violence against anyone, which is the only defensible limitation, as I see it.

It is incredibly ironic that the public protests (and the ensuing, well-documented violence) against what is essentially free speech and expression is itself protected by free speech and expression. You cannot have it both ways; you can either speak and think freely, or you can't. Hurt feelings and 'offense' don't qualify as reasonable limitations. Who decides what is offensive or isn't? And who's feelings count more?

davec1 wrote:what I love about science is that it's the only belief system (that I'm aware of) that's based on always questioning itself. It not only allows it, it commands it. A belief system with incorporated quality control, so to speak....

I like that attitude.


atheism is as much as a wild guess as any chosen religion. only agnostics can be sure.

[/random thought]

Atheism isn't a wild guess.

Everyone is an atheist. Let me explain:

Gather together an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim in a room. Together, these people believe four very different stories about god. Each believes vehemently that they are right, and each 'knows' that the other three are completely wrong. Read this last bit again.

Each of them knows EXACTLY what it is like to be an atheist, because each of them rejects 3 other belief systems. We are all atheists, except the Christian, Jew, and Muslim believe one more story than the atheist. Put into a larger context, there are an infinte number of possible god stories and gods themselves; all four of us reject these other infinite possibilities.

This is the essence of why Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) is so blatently stupid; the god of the old testament is but one of an infinite number of possible gods. For tens of thousands of years, people have worshipped gods in which they believed as strongly as the most extremist Christian, Jew, or Muslim. And yet, these 'old' gods have been banished to the wastebin of history. Why? Because they've grown out of fashion. But that doesn't change the fact that there is exactly as much evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of the god of the old testament.

We are ALL atheists; I just reject one more god than some others.

Atheism is, however, a poor term. You are quite right in saying that we can never know; we are all really agnostic. But there is simply no good reason to believe that, even if there IS a god, that it takes a personal interest in our lives, in the cartoons we draw in obscure newspapers, in whether we use proper birth control to combat poverty, or whether or note we use specific samples in our music.

edge100 wrote:And who's feelings count more?

the people who's lands are occupied, who's brother's and sister's are murdered everyday, the orphans, the families in tatters, the people with stumps for limbs, and weeping infections for eyes.....

b0unce wrote:

edge100 wrote:And who's feelings count more?

the people who's lands are occupied, who's brother's and sister's are murdered everyday, the orphans, the families in tatters, the people with stumps for limbs, and weeping infections for eyes.....

And you really think this is why planes were flown into buildings, and people continue to blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians? You've been reading too much Noam Chomsky.

The 9/11 hijackers were middle-class, educated men. This common perception that terrorists are recruited from the poor, un-educated ranks and made to do the dirty work of the rich is plain nonsense.

If muslims were really concerned about the mistreatment of muslims, there would be rioting in the streets of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

If the REAL issue were about occupation and mistreatment by western countries, there would be rioting and terrorism coming from just about every place on Earth. The United States has occupied countries in Central America, Asia, and Africa for decades. And yet, were are the suicide bombings in Nicaragua and Panama? Or Grenada? Or Vietnam? Or Somalia? US policy kills millions (yes, millions) of sub-Saharan Africans every year. Where is the terrorism in Nigeria or South Africa?

Muslims are concerned with following the words of their holy books (the Qu'ran and the hadith), which are very clear about the fate of non-believers and apostates.

This isn't intended as a slight against muslims per se. I have no issue with islam in particular; I am equally biased against all religions. Have you read the Bible? Do you know what the punishment for disobeying the 10 commandments is? Death on EVERY one! But Christians have, for the most part, recognized that their holy scripture is not compatible with civilized society. Even the pope violates scripture every day. The Bible is very clear: homosexuals should be put to death. As should people who wear mixed fibres, do business on the sabbath, eat shellfish, and handle unclean animals. And yet, we don't see widespread killing for these reasons. Why? Because Christians have learned that civilized society cannot function if we stone to death everyone who disobeys their parents.

Others haven't come to this realization yet.

Modern terrorism is the product of one thing: religion. Not poverty, not war. Religion. It is due to the fact that there are people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they will go straight to heaven for killing non-believers and apostates. Think about what it must feel like to really truly believe that, and then see a world that is totally at odds with what you KNOW is true!

Oh dear, Edge100.

Your argument that everyone is an atheist is so flawed that I don't know where to start. Rejecting one (or more) belief systems does not make you an athiest. Most religious people "believe" rather than "know"; faith (rather than knowledge) is a fundamental tenet of most religions.

Jews, Christians and Muslims have more in common that they have differences. The all worship the same God, revere many of the same prophets, believe in similar principles (faith, repentance, etc.) Indeed, the beliefs of some protestant Christians are closer to those of some progressive Muslims that they are to other (e.g. Catholic) Christians. Did you know that the Qu'ran even says that Jesus was born of a Virgin? And that he was the Messiah (i.e. the anointed one)? He is a very important prophet to Muslims. They just don't believe he was the son of God, nor that he actually was God. And nor did many Christians before the Nicean Council of the Catholic Church in about 400AD decided on the official version of Christianity and set about destroying all other versions.

The penalty for Christians breaking the 10 Commandments is not death. Christians believe that Jesus died to save them from their sins. So as long as they repent they can be forgiven. Indeed, there is a Christian school of thought that the New Testament represents a New Covenant (i.e. agreement) with God, and therefore the Old Testament rules no longer apply. Evidence for this is Jesus stepping in to prevent an adulteress from being stoned to death under Old Testament Law.

The Qu'ran may be clear about the fate of non-believers. However, the non-believers are not all non-Muslims - they are specifically polytheists and those who actively reject Islam despite knowing it to be true.

Despite practices that Muslims view as polytheistic, Jews and Christian are not strictly non-believers:

2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

I'd love to address your generalisation about Muslims and apparent ignorance of Middle Eastern politics, but I have to be somewhere else...

b0unce wrote:

edge100 wrote:And who's feelings count more?

the people who's lands are occupied, who's brother's and sister's are murdered everyday, the orphans, the families in tatters, the people with stumps for limbs, and weeping infections for eyes.....

Bullshit. Hurt feelings over samples in songs, controversial movies or so-called prophets in cartoons? Big fucking deal. If these people are having their brothers and sisters murdered everyday, families in tatters with weeping infections for eyes have the time and inclination to protest cartoons while their own leaders fuck them over more than anybody else, then they've got their priorities WAY outta whack.

I am NOT going to censor my criticism of Islam (or any other religion) because some western leftists think that I'm being intolerant... Meanwhile they point to the tragic human results of Islam's sick societal values to invoke pity as a tactic to deflect this much-needed criticism.

You want people to be free from killing, "weeping infections for eyes" and all that? then start directing some of your criticism towards Islam as the cause of this misery, and hopefully these people can one stop blaming the outside world for their own problems if they realize what the real culprit is.

robbmasters wrote:Oh dear, Edge100.

Your argument that everyone is an atheist is so flawed that I don't know where to start. Rejecting one (or more) belief systems does not make you an athiest. Most religious people "believe" rather than "know"; faith (rather than knowledge) is a fundamental tenet of most religions.

My point is that ALL religious people know EXACTLY what it is like to reject religion. There are an infinite number of possible gods, each with EXACTLY the same chance for being the true god (assuming there is one). Let's not even look at the "big three" religions of today; look at civilization throughout history. Most if not all of these have KNOWN that god exists, and that god is exactly as they describe. Today, we all reject the Olympian gods; those who do not are not part of the rational society. And yet, there is precisely the same amount of evidence supporting the existence of Aries, Zeus, and Hermes as supports the divinity of Jesus, or that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. There is also exactly this much evidence supporting the existence of the flying spaghetti monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster).

Muslims and Jews KNOW that Christians are wrong about the divinity of Jesus, just as Christians KNOW that Jews and Muslims are wrong about it as well. I am confident, just based on sheer probability, that they are all wrong. I have no way of knowing that, and I'm not arrogant enough to say that I am, but there is a much greater chance that they are all wrong than that one of them is right. In fact, there is NO evidence that any of them are right. None.

robbmasters wrote:Jews, Christians and Muslims have more in common that they have differences. The all worship the same God, revere many of the same prophets, believe in similar principles (faith, repentance, etc.) Indeed, the beliefs of some protestant Christians are closer to those of some progressive Muslims that they are to other (e.g. Catholic) Christians. Did you know that the Qu'ran even says that Jesus was born of a Virgin? And that he was the Messiah (i.e. the anointed one)? He is a very important prophet to Muslims. They just don't believe he was the son of God, nor that he actually was God. And nor did many Christians before the Nicean Council of the Catholic Church in about 400AD decided on the official version of Christianity and set about destroying all other versions..

BTW, I'm glad we're finally getting a good discussion going on this. I know full well the view of Jesus in the Qu'ran. I also know that the Qu'ran says "do not kill yourself", which is the standard line given by those who claim that islam is not a violent religion. I also know that the hadith are very clear that rejection of islam is an offense punishable by death, and that those who convert to islam, and then reject it, even if they have been muslims for only one day, should be killed.

You've made my point for me: Muslims don't just BELIEVE that Jesus wasn't god, they KNOW it, just as Christians KNOW that he was. We're not talking about belief; the 19 9/11 hijackers KNEW that they would immediately go to heaven for their actions; THAT is why they did what they did, not because they were hard done by or poor; they weren't. They did what they did because they ACTUALLY BELIEVED the LITERAL truth of the Qu'ran and the hadith.

robbmasters wrote:The penalty for Christians breaking the 10 Commandments is not death. Christians believe that Jesus died to save them from their sins. So as long as they repent they can be forgiven. Indeed, there is a Christian school of thought that the New Testament represents a New Covenant (i.e. agreement) with God, and therefore the Old Testament rules no longer apply. Evidence for this is Jesus stepping in to prevent an adulteress from being stoned to death under Old Testament Law.

Jesus also specifically instructed his followers not to ignore the words of the prophets (i.e. the Old Testament) (see http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reaso ... efault.htm for numerous examples). It's very convenient that the Old Testament no longer applies; you'd hate to be saddled with a god that brutal. And if the Old Testament does not apply, are we to believe that god created the Earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th? Or the flood myth (which, by the way, is itself MUCH older than the Bible)? Or the supposed prophecy of Jesus' birth? Or the notion that Pi is equal to 3 (you'd think god might be able to get a little closer to the real number)? If we start picking and choosing which parts of these books are accepted and which aren't, we could just as easily ignore the whole thing.

robbmasters wrote:The Qu'ran may be clear about the fate of non-believers. However, the non-believers are not all non-Muslims - they are specifically polytheists and those who actively reject Islam despite knowing it to be true.

Despite practices that Muslims view as polytheistic, Jews and Christian are not strictly non-believers:

2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

I'd love to address your generalisation about Muslims and apparent ignorance of Middle Eastern politics, but I have to be somewhere else...

I'm not going to quote the pages and pages of the hadith that state clearly that all non-muslims should not be spared from the sword. I'm also not going to descend into an ad hominem debate tactic.

Both Christianity and Islam have incredibly violent holy books, which, when taken literally (as many do), can be used as excuses to punish sins by death. Peoples lives are being ruined for no good reason; the Earth is littered with the bones of those who have died at the hands of religion. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; if you believe in the divinity of Jesus or in that Mohammad acsended to heaven on a winged horse, and if that guides your interactions with others, you'd better be prepared to provide the 'extraordinary' evidence.

I am a molecular biologist by training (true story). If you and I had an discussion about whether DNA is the genetic material, and you claimed it wasn't, I would demand extraordinary evidence from you to topple 50 years of converging evidence that suggests it is. I wouldn't respect your views, because your views don't scale with the available evidence. Similarly, if you tell me that Jesus was the son of god, who currently sits at the right hand of the father in heaven, and that one literally eats the flesh and drinks the blood of jesus during communion, I should be able to demand to see the extraordinary evidence is support of this thinking, since this view does not scale appropriately with the evidence. The problem is: we are not generally permitted to do this, and this is why Dawkins' and Harris' protests sound so foreign and bigoted; they are challenging a ridiculous standard of political correctness that is on the verge of destroying us all.

M. Bréqs wrote:

b0unce wrote:

edge100 wrote:And who's feelings count more?

the people who's lands are occupied, who's brother's and sister's are murdered everyday, the orphans, the families in tatters, the people with stumps for limbs, and weeping infections for eyes.....

Bullshit. Hurt feelings over samples in songs, controversial movies or so-called prophets in cartoons? Big fucking deal. If these people are having their brothers and sisters murdered everyday, families in tatters with weeping infections for eyes have the time and inclination to protest cartoons while their own leaders fuck them over more than anybody else, then they've got their priorities WAY outta whack.

I am NOT going to censor my criticism of Islam (or any other religion) because some western leftists think that I'm being intolerant... Meanwhile they point to the tragic human results of Islam's sick societal values to invoke pity as a tactic to deflect this much-needed criticism.

You want people to be free from killing, "weeping infections for eyes" and all that? then start directing some of your criticism towards Islam as the cause of this misery, and hopefully these people can one stop blaming the outside world for their own problems if they realize what the real culprit is.

+1