Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

The Bible and Koran are pretty much interchangeable.

So you've read both of them, then?

I've read all holy texts from any religion alive or dead I've managed to find. I've read several translations of both the Bible and the Koran. What can I say... I like to laugh a lot. These books are a hoot. And I read fast. My favourite religions are the mediterranean pagan religions.

My take away is that all religious texts regardless of religion are pretty interchangeable. There's a few common themes in them. That's all religious texts of all religions. One, they all have some absurdly specific thing they lash out against that makes no sense outside context and which doesn't fit the rest of the text. Another is that they all harp on about the importance of forgiveness. Revenge may be justified, but is usually a waste of time. They all focus on the importance of taking some time out of your day for meditation/introspection/prayer. Which is some actually good advice. They talk about the importance of celebrating things now and again, for no real reason other than just to celebrate together. And that's about it. Whenever any religion talks about God it always stops making sense, and is always suspiciously vague on the details. And of course the stuff about the afterlife is of course grade A bullshit. How could they possibly know?

Their you have it. A short summary of every religion humanity has ever devised. All pretty similar.

 

[skepticalbip]

The reformation was the first step that was necessary for all of those to happen. Without it, we would still hold the church as the absolute authority, kings would still rule by divine right sanctioned by the church, questioning authority would still be heresy.

In 1951 Iran was a secular democracy.

The fact that it is not one anymore has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims didn't have a reformation, whatever that means.

WTF? That is a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the post you are pretending to be responding to. Of course this is typical of your disingenuous posting style. When you are shown to be full of shit, you ignore it and post something irrelevant to your first statement in hopes that no one notices.

My response that you are pretending to be addressing was in response to your:

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

 

[barbos]

My take away is that all religious texts regardless of religion are pretty interchangeable.

But not identical.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What do you see as the substantive differences?

It seems to me the main difference between the the Christian nations and the Muslim nations is that the Christian nations are much more powerful and have been for a long time.

What's made the Western nations so advanced and powerful in comparison to Islamic states? Could it have been the xtian reformation for one reason?

It's just one single factor. Europe has its primary coal sources near the sea. It was this factor that started the industrial revolution. If you understand compound interest you will understand why we kept our edge. The geography of Europe makes it hard for a single small group dominate the entire continent. This means resources will be diverted to productive usages rather than be used to dominate your neighbours. Many tried. But all the attempts failed.

The short story is... just dumb luck. It's got nothing to do with culture, intelligence or religion. At the start of the industrial revolution China, India and the Ottoman empire were all way ahead of Europe both technologically and socially.

 

[bigfield]

We could easily afford to pay 100% of asylum seekers welfare for the rest of their lives; it would hardly impact the budget at all for us to do so - however I am very sceptical indeed of that 85% figure, and would love to know whose arse it was originally pulled from.

Angelo has posted the bullshit 85% figure before, and has been refuted before, but he insists on repeating the lie because fuck, who has time to learn things when you can just read Andrew Bolt's column and get your hateful bullshit in distilled form?

Angelo got the figure from Andrew Bolt. Bolt got the figure from Simon Benson writing for the Daily Telegraph. Benson flat out made the number up because it does not appear in the SONA report he referenced.

I've pointed this out to Angelo before but he doesn't actually care that the figure is a figment of some writer's imagination--it sounds outrageous and that's good enough.

It's just plain embarrassing that people are stupid enough to believe shitlords like Bolt and the other fuckwits at News Corp. Believing their rubbish is just as stupid as believing the crap written on climate change denier blogs or creationist blogs.

In fact Andrew Bolt is one of the many twits perpetuating the lie that there has been a 15+ year pause in global warming. Are you gullible enough, Angelo, to believe Bolt when he makes that claim?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

Yes, actually, but not in a good way. The Reformation gave us the wars of religion. By the time a third of Germany had been massacred on the altar of making Protestants believe what Catholics wanted them to believe and vice versa, the concept that maybe a person's faith should be a private matter between him and God started gaining currency among the appalled intelligentsia. And once the concept of "Here is a spot where government should not tread." got its nose into the tent, nothing was going to stop that camel until it was all the way in and we had a full-blown Enlightenment on our hands.

I think you've got the wrong focus. It's the printing press that's the innovation. The reformation is just a side effect. Knowledge is power. The printing press shifted control of the knowledge away from the church/elites. Before the printing press the church and parish priest was most people's only way of learning about the world.

Likewise the monotheistic religions can be seen as a side-effect of writing (the technological innovation).

I think it makes more sense to see religion as the symptom of a regions technological maturity, rather than the driving force of history.

 

[angelo]

We could easily afford to pay 100% of asylum seekers welfare for the rest of their lives; it would hardly impact the budget at all for us to do so - however I am very sceptical indeed of that 85% figure, and would love to know whose arse it was originally pulled from.

Angelo has posted the bullshit 85% figure before, and has been refuted before, but he insists on repeating the lie because fuck, who has time to learn things when you can just read Andrew Bolt's column and get your hateful bullshit in distilled form?

Angelo got the figure from Andrew Bolt. Bolt got the figure from Simon Benson writing for the Daily Telegraph. Benson flat out made the number up because it does not appear in the SONA report he referenced.

I've pointed this out to Angelo before but he doesn't actually care that the figure is a figment of some writer's imagination--it sounds outrageous and that's good enough.

It's just plain embarrassing that people are stupid enough to believe shitlords like Bolt and the other fuckwits at News Corp. Believing their rubbish is just as stupid as believing the crap written on climate change denier blogs or creationist blogs.

In fact Andrew Bolt is one of the many twits perpetuating the lie that there has been a 15+ year pause in global warming. Are you gullible enough, Angelo, to believe Bolt when he makes that claim?

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

 

[angelo]

Originally Posted by bilby
We could easily afford to pay 100% of asylum seekers welfare for the rest of their lives; it would hardly impact the budget at all for us to do so - however I am very sceptical indeed of that 85% figure, and would love to know whose arse it was originally pulled from.

You can pay for it not me. I rather my taxes pay for Aussies in need not economic free-loaders from gawd knows where.

 

[bilby]

Originally Posted by bilby
We could easily afford to pay 100% of asylum seekers welfare for the rest of their lives; it would hardly impact the budget at all for us to do so - however I am very sceptical indeed of that 85% figure, and would love to know whose arse it was originally pulled from.

You can pay for it not me. I rather my taxes pay for Aussies in need not economic free-loaders from gawd knows where.

From every $100 you or I pay in taxes, no more than 2c goes to welfare payments for asylum seekers.

I would happily pay your share; I can post you a cheque for this month's payment if you like, but I am prepared to bet that the stamp will have a higher face value than the cheque.

If you pay $10,000 in income tax per annum (which amount is consistent with a rather above median income), then the amount I owe you is about $2 for the year. If you want to come and pick it up, I am more than happy to hand it to you.

And of course, that's if we believe your completely fictitious 85% figure - a figure you have made no attempt to support with evidence.

Your great compassion in refusing to spend two bucks a year to help thousands of needy human beings is noted. Remind me not to rely on you if I ever find myself in need of any kind of assistance.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to Palestine in the 1880s to the 1950s was good for the indigenous people.

 

[JonA]

My take away is that all religious texts regardless of religion are pretty interchangeable. There's a few common themes in them. That's all religious texts of all religions. One, they all have some absurdly specific thing they lash out against that makes no sense outside context and which doesn't fit the rest of the text. Another is that they all harp on about the importance of forgiveness. Revenge may be justified, but is usually a waste of time. They all focus on the importance of taking some time out of your day for meditation/introspection/prayer. Which is some actually good advice. They talk about the importance of celebrating things now and again, for no real reason other than just to celebrate together. And that's about it. Whenever any religion talks about God it always stops making sense, and is always suspiciously vague on the details. And of course the stuff about the afterlife is of course grade A bullshit. How could they possibly know?

If you've read any books at all, it certainly doesn't show with your posting of this 'grade A bullshit'.

 

[JonA]

Yes, actually, but not in a good way. The Reformation gave us the wars of religion. By the time a third of Germany had been massacred on the altar of making Protestants believe what Catholics wanted them to believe and vice versa, the concept that maybe a person's faith should be a private matter between him and God started gaining currency among the appalled intelligentsia. And once the concept of "Here is a spot where government should not tread." got its nose into the tent, nothing was going to stop that camel until it was all the way in and we had a full-blown Enlightenment on our hands.

I think you've got the wrong focus. It's the printing press that's the innovation. The reformation is just a side effect. Knowledge is power. The printing press shifted control of the knowledge away from the church/elites. Before the printing press the church and parish priest was most people's only way of learning about the world.

Likewise the monotheistic religions can be seen as a side-effect of writing (the technological innovation).

I think it makes more sense to see religion as the symptom of a regions technological maturity, rather than the driving force of history.

Is it standard practice for people around here to just say whatever the hell strokes their emotional pony with no interest in examining any evidence or providing support to their nonsense?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to Palestine in the 1880s to the 1950s was good for the indigenous people.

The Palestinians of the 19'th century lived in abject poverty. It had a medieval technological level. They don't now. It's hard to make the case they're worse off now. There's also loads of Palestinians living inside Israel. They're doing fine. Way better than their grandparents.

 

[untermensche]

In 1951 Iran was a secular democracy.

The fact that it is not one anymore has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims didn't have a reformation, whatever that means.

WTF? That is a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the post you are pretending to be responding to. Of course this is typical of your disingenuous posting style. When you are shown to be full of shit, you ignore it and post something irrelevant to your first statement in hopes that no one notices.

My response that you are pretending to be addressing was in response to your:

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

It is a non sequitur because whether or not the reformation was necessary for the Enlightenment, which is what really begins to give Europe it's modern sensibilities is a huge can of worms. The divine right of kings was supported long after the reformation for example. In England the King became the head of the Church and took on more power as the reformation was starting.

But the idea that the problem with the Muslim world is that it didn't have this event that was mostly about indulgences is laughable.

 

[bigfield]

Angelo has posted the bullshit 85% figure before, and has been refuted before, but he insists on repeating the lie because fuck, who has time to learn things when you can just read Andrew Bolt's column and get your hateful bullshit in distilled form?

Angelo got the figure from Andrew Bolt. Bolt got the figure from Simon Benson writing for the Daily Telegraph. Benson flat out made the number up because it does not appear in the SONA report he referenced.

I've pointed this out to Angelo before but he doesn't actually care that the figure is a figment of some writer's imagination--it sounds outrageous and that's good enough.

It's just plain embarrassing that people are stupid enough to believe shitlords like Bolt and the other fuckwits at News Corp. Believing their rubbish is just as stupid as believing the crap written on climate change denier blogs or creationist blogs.

In fact Andrew Bolt is one of the many twits perpetuating the lie that there has been a 15+ year pause in global warming. Are you gullible enough, Angelo, to believe Bolt when he makes that claim?

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Your tactics are very much like those of a climate change denialist or a creationist: when someone points out that your claim is bullshit, you abandon it (until the next thread) and make some other ridiculous claim.

Sheehan's article does not in any way corroborate your bullshit claim about refugees on welfare. Which means that your claim, which you got from Bolt, is still unsubstantiated.

Perhaps you could read the SONA report available from the Dept of Human Services, where you can get some actual FACTS about refugees instead of remaining wilfully ignorant and hateful.

Because at the moment, you have a twisted idea of who refugees are and what they do. And in the age of the internet you have no excuse for failing to look at anything beyond opinion columns and blogs.

 

[barbos]

You can pay for it not me. I rather my taxes pay for Aussies in need not economic free-loaders from gawd knows where.

From every $100 you or I pay in taxes, no more than 2c goes to welfare payments for asylum seekers.

I would happily pay your share; I can post you a cheque for this month's payment if you like, but I am prepared to bet that the stamp will have a higher face value than the cheque.

If you pay $10,000 in income tax per annum (which amount is consistent with a rather above median income), then the amount I owe you is about $2 for the year. If you want to come and pick it up, I am more than happy to hand it to you.

And of course, that's if we believe your completely fictitious 85% figure - a figure you have made no attempt to support with evidence.

Your great compassion in refusing to spend two bucks a year to help thousands of needy human beings is noted. Remind me not to rely on you if I ever find myself in need of any kind of assistance.

I think your math is bullshit.
Assuming EU population 500mil and number of refugees 1mil, that means 1 refugee per 500 people. Now let say one refugee costs $10,000 a year. That means $20 per person. So send me 20 bucks

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, actually, but not in a good way. The Reformation gave us the wars of religion. By the time a third of Germany had been massacred on the altar of making Protestants believe what Catholics wanted them to believe and vice versa, the concept that maybe a person's faith should be a private matter between him and God started gaining currency among the appalled intelligentsia. And once the concept of "Here is a spot where government should not tread." got its nose into the tent, nothing was going to stop that camel until it was all the way in and we had a full-blown Enlightenment on our hands.

I think you've got the wrong focus. It's the printing press that's the innovation. The reformation is just a side effect. Knowledge is power. The printing press shifted control of the knowledge away from the church/elites. Before the printing press the church and parish priest was most people's only way of learning about the world.

Likewise the monotheistic religions can be seen as a side-effect of writing (the technological innovation).

I think it makes more sense to see religion as the symptom of a regions technological maturity, rather than the driving force of history.

I see religion more as an anchor that retards the rate of growth of innovation, knowledge, and technical advancement. Sure it is a cohesive power that binds a group into a unified culture but at the expense of discouraging (often quite forcefully) anyone deviating from its "truths".

 

[skepticalbip]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to Palestine in the 1880s to the 1950s was good for the indigenous people.

The Palestinians of the 19'th century lived in abject poverty. It had a medieval technological level. They don't now. It's hard to make the case they're worse off now. There's also loads of Palestinians living inside Israel. They're doing fine. Way better than their grandparents.

But the natives of Tibet didn't fare so well after the massive immigration of Chinese.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF? That is a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the post you are pretending to be responding to. Of course this is typical of your disingenuous posting style. When you are shown to be full of shit, you ignore it and post something irrelevant to your first statement in hopes that no one notices.

My response that you are pretending to be addressing was in response to your:

What does the reformation give us?

Does it end monarchy? Does it cause democracies to start springing up?

Does it give rights to women? Does it end slavery?

It is a non sequitur because whether or not the reformation was necessary for the Enlightenment, which is what really begins to give Europe it's modern sensibilities is a huge can of worms. The divine right of kings was supported long after the reformation for example. In England the King became the head of the Church and took on more power as the reformation was starting.

Do you really find it too much of a mental feat trying to understand the meaning of "first step"?

But the idea that the problem with the Muslim world is that it didn't have this event that was mostly about indulgences is laughable.

Where the hell did I say anything about the Muslim world in that post?

 

[repoman]

But the European people are nkt allowed to be called native or indigenous. So your point is moot.