Moscow Subway Attack

[Gerben42]

That's "progress" for you. This was not possible 2000 years ago, now guns and bombs are available to everyone. There will always be lunatics who will do some terrible thing like this. They believe in their reasons, never mind what others think of them.

 

Our only chance is to catch them before they run crazy. Think about it. What chance would the community have if you who is now reading this would suddenly decide to blow yourself up in a public place or run amok? Answer: none.

[luke warm]

I think a more realistic option would be to store all our souls on a computer, program it to simulate some fairy planet like Pandora from Avatar, equip it with nuclear fuel enough to power it for a billion years, and then ship it to deep space so that the Iranian missiles can't reach it.

 

But Mikeh told me that that's impossible so I guess we are stuck with the Earth.

did he happen to mention why it's impossible?

I think his case was the same as the one made by Jeff Hawkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Intelligence

well maybe he has something there, depending on exactly where the 'soul' is located... if the premise behind the show caprica were true, it seems possible to jump from a static mind (soul) to one capable of learning

The only reason people believe they have some right to modify the actions of others is based on a dogma of infallability of their beliefs. 

 

The only way to overcome theist threats is to convert both sides to atheistic understanding that the infallible magic fairy in the sky isn't real.

At which time we'll only be subject to modification from dogmatic atheists who have faith that their position is infallible.

fixed it a little

[Winstonm]

The only reason people believe they have some right to modify the actions of others is based on a dogma of infallability of their beliefs. 

 

The only way to overcome theist threats is to convert both sides to atheistic understanding that the infallible magic fairy in the sky isn't real.

At which time we'll only be subject to modification from dogmatic atheists who think their position infallible.

 

Better a dogmatic pacifist atheist than a self-righteous infallible theist. :)

[Winstonm]

If a bearded airline passenger opens a copy of the Koran and starts moving his lips, everyone else pisses their pants.

 

This let's the Irish Catholics off the hook - now they can rattle their beads without being called terrorists. Also people who drive Ryder rented trucks loaded with fertizlier or those who fly small planes into IRS buildings.....

[luke warm]

The only reason people believe they have some right to modify the actions of others is based on a dogma of infallability of their beliefs. 

 

The only way to overcome theist threats is to convert both sides to atheistic understanding that the infallible magic fairy in the sky isn't real.

At which time we'll only be subject to modification from dogmatic atheists who think their position infallible.

 

Better a dogmatic pacifist atheist than a self-righteous infallible theist. :P

well that statement seems rather self-righteous... for a dogmatic pacifist i mean

[matmat]

there will be world peace when everyone agrees with what I think.

[gwnn]

I don't agree.

[kenberg]

There are people who do not love their fellow man and I hate people like that--- Tom Lehrer

[y66]

If God meant to interfere in the degeneracy of mankind would he not have done so by now? Wolves cull themselves, man. What other creature could? And is the race of man not more predacious yet? The way of the world is to bloom and to flower and die but in the affairs of men there is no waning and the noon of his expression signals the onset of night. His spirit is exhausted at the peak of its achievement. His meridian is at once his darkening and the evening of his day. He loves games? Let him play for stakes. This you see here, these ruins wondered at by tribes of savages, do you not think that this will be again? Aye. And again. With other people, with other sons.

-- The Judge in Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy

[blackshoe]

"They're rioting in Africa, they're starving in Spain, there's hurricanes in Florida, and Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls, the French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles.

Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch, and I don't like anybody very much.

 

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud, for man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud.

And we know for certain that some lovely day, someone will set the spark off... and we will all be blown away.

They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran. What nature doesn't do to us... will be done by our fellow man."

"The Merry Minuet" - The Kingston Trio

[Lobowolf]

Better a dogmatic pacifist atheist than a self-righteous infallible theist. :P

And better a dogmatic pacifist theist than a self-righteous (believing himself to be) infallible atheist.

[Winstonm]

Better a dogmatic pacifist atheist than a self-righteous infallible theist.  :P

And better a dogmatic pacifist theist than a self-righteous (believing himself to be) infallible atheist.

Hmmm. Self-righteous atheist. I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

 

I do not consider it holier-than-thou to point out how few wars mankind has fought that had as primary purpose forcing the other side to reject belief in God versus wars fought for and in the name of and to convert the enemy into the worship of the "right" God(s).

[luke warm]

Better a dogmatic pacifist atheist than a self-righteous infallible theist.   :rolleyes:

And better a dogmatic pacifist theist than a self-righteous (believing himself to be) infallible atheist.

Hmmm. Self-righteous atheist. I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

 

I do not consider it holier-than-thou to point out how few wars mankind has fought that had as primary purpose forcing the other side to reject belief in God versus wars fought for and in the name of and to convert the enemy into the worship of the "right" God(s).

you might not "consider" it as holier than thou because you don't *recognize* it as such... as far as numbers of dead go, religious wars are way down the list... of course in my view even one killed in the name of religion is one too many

[PassedOut]

as far as numbers of dead go, religious wars are way down the list... of course in my view even one killed in the name of religion is one too many

In this I think you are right (on both counts). From what I'm reading, the Moscow subway attacks, like most suicide bombings, have little to do with religion: What Makes Chechen Women So Dangerous?

 

We all know the horror that people willing to kill themselves can inflict. But do we really understand what drives young women and men to strap explosives on their bodies and deliberately kill themselves in order to murder dozens of people going about their daily lives?

 

Chechen suicide attackers do not fit popular stereotypes, contrary to the Russian government’s efforts to pigeonhole them. For years, Moscow has routinely portrayed Chechen bombers as Islamic extremists, many of them foreign, who want to make Islam the world’s dominant religion. Yet however much Russia may want to convince the West that this battle is part of a global war on terrorism, the facts about who becomes a Chechen suicide attacker — male or female — reveal otherwise.

 

The three of us, in our work for the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, have analyzed every Chechen suicide attack since they began in 2000, 42 separate incidents involving 63 people who killed themselves. Many Chechen separatists are Muslim, but few of the suicide bombers profess religious motives. The majority are male, but a huge fraction — over 40 percent — are women. Although foreign suicide attackers are not unheard of in Chechnya, of the 42 for whom we can determine place of birth, 38 were from the Caucasus. Something is driving Chechen suicide bombers, but it is hardly global jihad.

 

As we have discovered in our research on Lebanon, the West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, suicide terrorist campaigns are almost always a last resort against foreign military occupation. Chechnya is a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon at work.

Of course, like governments, terrorists like to use the "god is on our side" argument to reassure people about to lose their lives to advance political goals. But that doesn't mean that the killings ultimately have a religious basis.

[mycroft]

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

 

Discuss why you need to be in a uniform, or be killed by someone else, for this to be appropriate (for whatever values of appropriate you feel it should be, vide Wilfred Owen). Discuss, further, why fighting an asymmetrical war under the stronger side's rules of engagement is the right way pro patria mori (because trust me, in that scenario, it's equivalent to given). The difficulty you find doing that is the difficulty you get trying to solve the OP's question(**).

 

A lot of people join the U.S. Army because "it's a job" - and it's one of the best they can get (what with the health care and the pay and the free training, especially to shore up some of the things they didn't get [to] in secondary school). But even more do it because of the "pro patria mori" bit - or at least the "pro patria servo", knowing death could be the service required. Now think about people whose living conditions are so much worse than "an American with a roof" (and no prospect for improvement), and maybe have reasons for revenge(*), and induce from there.

 

* and if that's the case, if there are two options, both of which will get you killed, but one of which has a 5% chance of killing one of the enemy, and the other of which has a 30% chance of killling 40 or 50, which would you expect people to choose?

 

** by the way, I spent 20 years+ of my life trying to get to the point where I saw a value in living that exceeded "two or three of my family would be so hurt if I wasn't here". It's an ongoing struggle. So my belief in the "will to live" being something that can be made unviolable ranks right up there with my belief in the Flat Earth.

[blackshoe]

"Your job is not to die for your country. It's to make the other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country." - George C. Scott, as General George S. Patton.

[Lobowolf]

Hmmm. Self-righteous atheist. I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

In my experience, it's closer to tautological by the same definition.

[Aberlour10]

From what I'm reading, the Moscow subway attacks, like most suicide bombings, have little to do with religion:

These attacks have nothing to do with "Free Chechenya" (not more),but with try to establish the Islamic Republic in entire North Caucasus. This is not Kremlin propaganda, this is what these terrorists open say, with their leader Dokka Umarov on the top.

[Winstonm]

Hmmm.  Self-righteous atheist.  I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

In my experience, it's closer to tautological by the same definition.

Perhaps you are mistaking arrogance as self-righteousness? There is no doubt that unbridled arrogance can be as smug-acting as self-righteousness. I simply see them as different because the root cause of the belief is different - one sees himself as intellectually superior while the other finds himself to be morally superior based upon his understanding of an infallible god being.

[kenberg]

Over the years I have seen many atheists, perhaps even Winston, speak in very moralistic terms. Who knows, perhaps even I have done so! Nah. That would be Wrong!

[Lobowolf]

Hmmm.  Self-righteous atheist.  I conisder that an oxymoron, by using the definition for self-righteous as one who is morally smug.

In my experience, it's closer to tautological by the same definition.

Perhaps you are mistaking arrogance as self-righteousness? There is no doubt that unbridled arrogance can be as smug-acting as self-righteousness. I simply see them as different because the root cause of the belief is different - one sees himself as intellectually superior while the other finds himself to be morally superior based upon his understanding of an infallible god being.

I'm not speaking of intellectual arrogance. I'm speaking of a belief in one's own moral superiority, granted, albeit, that in atheists this belief is not based upon one's understanding of an infallible god being. However, I don't think the source of the belief in one's own moral superiority is a necessary component of self-righteousness.

[Winstonm]

However, I don't think the source of the belief in one's own moral superiority is a necessary component of self-righteousness

.

 

That would certainly seem to fit in well with the Alice-in-Wonderland concept that words mean exactly what I want them to mean when I say them and nothing else. I don't want to be the only one accused of self-righteousness so I will expand the definition to fit the actions.

 

Funny, but I used the same idea for reworking the definition of asshole. :lol: I'm not alone anymore - welcome aboard! :P

[Lobowolf]

However, I don't think the source of the belief in one's own moral superiority is a necessary component of self-righteousness

.

 

That would certainly seem to fit in well with the Alice-in-Wonderland concept that words mean exactly what I want them to mean when I say them and nothing else. I don't want to be the only one accused of self-righteousness so I will expand the definition to fit the actions.

 

Funny, but I used the same idea for reworking the definition of asshole. :lol: I'm not alone anymore - welcome aboard! :P

"confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others."

 

www.dictionary.com, taken from Random House, actually, not Alice. Nothing at all in there about the source of that smug moralism. Perhaps you incorporate it into your definition so that it doesn't fit you?

 

By your definition, by the way, I'd be immune from accusations of self-righteousness, as I am not a theist.

[mikeh]

I think a more realistic option would be to store all our souls on a computer, program it to simulate some fairy planet like Pandora from Avatar, equip it with nuclear fuel enough to power it for a billion years, and then ship it to deep space so that the Iranian missiles can't reach it.

 

But Mikeh told me that that's impossible so I guess we are stuck with the Earth.

did he happen to mention why it's impossible?

I think his case was the same as the one made by Jeff Hawkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Intelligence

Wow! When did I do that? I tried to read the wiki entry and gave up, so if my arguments are like hawkins', trust me, it's a coincidence.

 

I do find a logical flaw with the idea of uploading ourselves into computers, if we mean moving ourselves from a meat brain into an electronic one...by some form of copying. A more plausible means seems to me to be that eventually we may be able to have electronic (or man-made and replaceable biological) machines that we add to our brains...and that we gradually increase the effective power and capacity of these add-ons and whatever 'we' are becomes increasingly based in those extensions.....ultimately the original meat part becomes unnecessary...in other words, my issue is continuity of whatever the mind may be...I don't see the mind as being something that can be separated from the matrix from which it emerges...so to move it to another matrix requires that the new matrix be initially part of or intimately connected to the original.

 

Of course, I don't believe in a 'soul'. Let me know if and when there is reproducible evidence of one's existence :lol:

[mikeh]

what's wrong with this planet? the designer of it even got an award for the Norwegian fjords...

But which one are we living on? Wasn't slarty bard-fast assigned to do Africa the 2nd time around? Hmmm...I guess that means we are on the original and must be close to discovering the question.