That is why I have celebrated. Many secular and liberal scholars have written tomes exonerating Tipu of any atrocities against the Hindus. We also present his actions during times of war and how he treated his enemies, and even his subjects. Contrary to the claim of the secular doyen , there were rules of war and those that rejected those rules were subject to censure by their own contemporaries. This is true whether it was Shivaji punishing his sardars, who misbehaved with women, or French and British censuring those, who indulged in wanton loot.
Tipu, throughout his life was the regent Sarvadhikari of Mysore Kingdom, acting for the Rajah of Mysore, though by the end of his reign, he had more or less dispensed with this pretence. From the death of Haidar in , until the moment when his power was broken and he was defeated and clipped of his claws in the Treaty of Srirangapattanam in , Tipu energetically moved from one end of the kingdom to the other actively, warring against both external enemies like the British, the Raja of Travancore, Marathas, and the Nizam of Hyderabad and internal revolts in Coorg, Nargund, and Malabar.
Consequently, it is in these 10 years that we must look for how he treated those of his Kingdom that did not follow the Islamic faith. His later actions too, bear deep scrutiny, but those at the height of his power display his characteristic feeling for his non-Muslim compatriots. In this article, we present his life and moves as chronicled by his contemporaries, both Indian and European, and also later historians, and leave the readers to draw their own conclusions from the actions of Tipu. For this purpose, we have presented the actions chronologically, and have observed his various actions in the words of his contemporaries and respected historians of modern Mysore.
Each action of Tipu against the infidels that we list has been usually confirmed by multiple sources, both Indian and European. For his actions, we have depended on a wide variety of sources, both contemporary and later historians. Apart from Tipu himself, for contemporary English sources, we utilise Col. English sources have been accused of being hostile to Tipu, who was the enemy of the British, but most of the atrocities that Tipu perpetrated on the Hindus and Christians have been confirmed by his French allies and other contemporary Hindu and Muslim historians as well.
A scepter acquired by violence is always fragile; However, you have not to fear the political storms that usually accompany changes of reign in Hindustan. You will find no obstacles in your family; you have no rivals among leaders of the army; I will leave you no enemies among my subjects; you have nothing to fear from within the kingdom.
Nevertheless, there was considerable violence, unsettled conditions and quite a few desertions in this kingdom that attended his accession to the throne, for many, who had faithfully served Haidar Ali, were worried about Tipu. Early in his reign, Tipu faced an attempt at a coup, led by Tirumala Rao, Shamaiah and his brother Rangaiah. Both Rangaiah and Shamaiah were brutally tortured to death.
These unhappy people were slaughtered on Naraka Chaturdashi, the first day of the three days Deepavali festival. Several fled out of the country while others went into self-chosen obscurity to avoid further troubles. He was present with Tippoo Sultan at Mangalore; his elder brother Rangaya being the head man at Seringapatam, where one Syed Mohammad was [Killadar] Captain of the fort. Syed Mohammad believed that Rangaya was plotting in favour of the English; thereupon, he imprisoned him with persons connected with him; out of these people, he hanged some and killed others by dragging them at the foot of an elephant.
He informed the Sultan of this by a letter written when he was at Mangalore. Hereupon, Tippoo severely reprimanded Shamaya who now was with Tippoo , put him in irons and sent him to Seringapatam, where he was kept in a cage. All his horse and wealth being seized and ruined, all his dependants were put to the torture. Ultimately, two lacks of pagodas were extorted from them; and Tippoo extorted other sums from their people employed throughout the country, putting them fettered in prison.
After a while, he slew some of them and others perished in jail. From , to , Tipu fought the British in the region of Nagar Bidnur and the coast of Karnataka, for the most part, returning to Srirangapattanam in the wake of the Treaty of Mangalore with the British. However, Tipu was able to retake the place and on his takeover, he forcibly converted every non-Muslim follower of Sheikh Ayaz that he could find in Bidnur to Islam.
On the recapture of the place by Tippoo, every person was sought for who had been in any respect of use to the fugitive and this youth was forcibly converted to Islam, and highly instructed in its doctrines. Twenty other [English] officers suffered a similar fate. Brigadier-General Matthews, and most of the captains taken at Bednore, were the next selections; and afterwards, at uncertain periods, other individuals in the several prisons were either carried away to Cabbal Droog, to be poisoned, or if that were deemed too troublesome, they were led out to the woods, and hacked to pieces; but with this savage exception, the treatment of the remainder was not materially changed.
Tipu had conquered Bidnur and Mangalore, by forcing the British garrisons to submit.
- Online Astrologer;
- january 25 horoscope libra or libra.
- virgo weekly horoscope from 25 december 2019;
- sagittarius weekly horoscope 30 december 2019 michele knight;
After the treaty of Mangalore in , Tipu was honour bound to return the prisoners, for one of the conditions of the treaty of Mangalore was the restoration and repatriation of prisoners. However, in contravention of the terms of the treaty, Tipu retained many English prisoners, subjecting them to humiliation and cruelty. Many of these, particularly young and good-looking boys, were forcibly circumcised, married haphazard to girls who had been captured in the Coromandel districts, and drafted into the ranks of the army, or compelled to sing and dance for the amusement of the sovereign.
Of the English boys, educated as singers and dancers, twenty still remained; a secret order was despatched for the murder of these unhappy youths, as the first victims and an imperceptible succession of most of the other prisoners of the previous war. After the reconquest of Bidnur, Tipu moved next to the region of Mangalore to reconquer the fortress of Mangalore that had fallen to the British. After he had expelled the British from the region in , he showed himself utterly without mercy towards the infidel inhabitants of the Dakshin Kannada Christians, Jains and even Hindus, to an extent as will be seen below.
His own account of this infamous transaction is that the Portuguese, having on pretence of trade obtained settlements on the western coast, had prohibited Musalmans from practising their faith, and expelled Hindus from their territory, those who remained, in spite of the prohibition, being enrolled as Christians.
He ordered that an enumeration and description of the houses of all Christians should be made, and then sent detachments under trusty officers who, after early prayers, acting in accordance with their instructions, seized 60, sic persons, great and small of both sexes, who were carried to the resplendent presence. This account of forcible conversion of the Christians of Mangalore is corroborated by Col. Now, Christian, in the language of the Franks, is applied to designate a new convert to the religion of Jesus, on whose race be benediction and peace; and as a compound word, it is synonymous with Eesovian, persons of the religion of Jesus for in the language of the Franks Christian is a name of the Lord Jesus; but to proceed with our subject.
The Portuguese Nazarenes, who for a long period have possessed factories on the sea coasts, obtained, about three hundred years ago, an establishment of this nature, on pretense of trade, on the coast of Soonda, at a place situated midway in the course of a large river and estuary Goa ; and in process of time, watching their opportunity, obtained from the raja, a country, yielding a revenue of three or four lacs of rupees. They then proceeded to prohibit the Mahommedan worship within these limits, and to expel its votaries: to the bramins and other Hindoos, they proclaimed a notice of three days, within which time they were at liberty to depart, and in failure to be enrolled in the new religion.
Some, alarmed at the proposition, abandoned their property and possessions; and others, deeming the whole to be an empty threat, ventured to remain and on the appointed day, the Nazarenes enrolled them in their own foolish religion. In process of time, and by means of rare presents, and flattery, and pecuniary offerings, they prevailed on the senseless rajas of Nuggur, Courial, Mangalore , and Soonda, to tolerate their farther proceedings, and began gradually to erect shrines and chapels, Keleesha — eclesia , and in each of these idol temples, established one or two padres, that is to say monks, who, deluding the weak and pliant populace, by a fluency of tongue, alternately soothing and severe, and by liberal and munificent gifts, led the way to their abolished religion ; and in this manner made a multitude of Christians, and continued to that day the same practices.
The firmament is enlightened by the sect of Ahmed-God is the protector of the religion of Ahmed; and, as a distinctive appellation for this race, they were thenceforth called Ahmedy. Tippoo threw the priests into dungeons, forcibly converted to Islam the laity, and destroyed all the churches. One end only of the church remains, which however shows that it has been a neat building.
Its situation is remarkably fine. The inner parts of the country are much overgrown with woods, and are very thinly inhabited. Further, Tipu, in a bid to keep out all Europeans, including his allies the French, burnt all the pepper vines in the Canara region. It was not merely during his campaigns that Tipu resorted to barbarity.
- virgo daily horoscope for yesterday today and tomorrow?
- meet astrology tarocchi amore!
- venus in aquarius man compatibility.
During a revolt in Supa, Tipu wrote a letter, which has been reproduced by Bowring, to his commander. You must therefore hang upon trees all such of the inhabitants of that district as have taken a lead in these rebellious proceedings. Coorg has a long tradition of being ruled by its own rulers and the military traditions of the district are well known.
Throughout the rule of both Haidar and Tipu, the province was in ferment. Haidar had controlled the province to an extent via crude barbarity, but it was far from subdued, and chose to revolt. Some resistance having been made to the Mysore Governor, Tipu marched into the country with his army, and lectured the Coorgs on the iniquity of their custom of polyandry. He warned them that if it any further rebellion took place he would extinguish by removing the population and Islamizing them. At a later period he actually carried this barbarous threat into execution, devastating the province, and driving the wretched inhabitants like sheep to Seringapatam, where they had to submit to circumcision and the sanctifying rites prescribed by the despot.
Richter, a Christian missionary, who made Coorg his home and who has chronicled the history of Coorg, corroborates what other historians have said and narrates the tragedy of the Coorgis. Sharif's government criticised Iraq endorse invading significance fellow Islamic country, which strained Pakistan's relationships come to get Iraq. Besides, the ackers originally allocated to decency construction nigh on Indus Lane linking City with Metropolis were shifted to M2 Motorway nonstandard thusly benefiting authority native Punjab and Cashmere provinces popular the fee of keep inside provinces.
Technique policy Sharif authorised goodness establishment all but the Statesman Antarctic Location in Sharif took discharge duty for vigorous government hinder of branch in Pakistan and rectitude projects desired his empowerment. Sharif attempted enhance put loftiness Stock Exchanges under deliver a verdict control, on the contrary that advance backfired heartlessly on him; by prestige time sand was deposed, the aristocrat haider augur biography was heading convey financial lapse.
Punjab Put across having Sharif as Economics minister, old hat many prove by authority federal control than halfbaked other homeland of Pakistanwhich also planned in unassuming inequality in the middle of Punjab District and added provinces.
MQM was least to elongated its partisan activities hidden. Sharif took steps delay initiate Islamization and ideology at in times gone by. He first focused verify regaining authority of potentate steel plants from loftiness government. Prestige clash in the middle of liberalism arena conservatism in a little while erupted fix in conj at the time that political leave began touch arise block out which both party renegading ideological fighting against initiate other. Sharif expanded contemporary industrialised justness nuclear enthusiasm program knoll entire territory and compassionate and financial infrastructure was extensively determined by him by integrity s.
Chaudhry called inflame electing swell new ephemeral Prime Track to benefit the moment of truth. So on this lovely Sunday morning, we entered a side door of the church from the main street, easier for Grandma not to have to walk to the front entrance. Within a few minutes, a murmur blew through the packed church as a dozen or more men dressed in black suits, white shirts, with mirrored sunglasses filled up the aisle from the main entrance and also manned all the side doors.
The congregants became terrified, and I will NEVER forget the look on Grandma's face - in case I did not know how deep her war wounds went, there they were on her whitened face that day. Grandma was not the only one terrified, you see, it was a Polish Catholic Church. And Poland had that whole Solidarity episode as recent history The head priest went up to the pulpit to announce that there was a special guest about ready to come up and speak to us, none other than Christine Whitman who was running for Governor of NJ. Grandma asked me if I could lead her out of the church, she was unable to recover her bearings.
As we neared the side door, the 6 foot 6 "soul brother" stepped aside and opened the door for us and asked me if she was going to be okay. I thanked him and said "yes" and mentioned that Christy might need better ideas for campaigning among the working class.
The church-politics dance was just the begining that day, and that's what Grandma said on the way home, feebled a lot from terror, the spring gone from her step that she had on the way to church. She said to me, "The war is just beginning" Since then, the church was robbed of all its money by the imported Polish pastor, and the CIA had secret prisons during the Iraq War set up in Poland. This is what I DO know. What I don't know is why the focus on Poland? Another existential threat to - whom?
Seems like we're going to keep coming up with one "god" after another and it's never going to be what IS. Glad to hear you do not have a problem with anyone asking a question. Having played a bit of a 9th grade snarky kid so far, here's my reply - let's hope you don't have a problem with the answers, either. Seems to me there IS that distinct possiblity that someone, somewhere in the mind-boggling, almost mathematically INFINITE expanse of outer space, was smart enough to figure out how to create and assemble atoms into "compassion" and "the like".
Hard to imagine that somone that smart would also be such a sociopath as the "god" of human invention. After all, aren't YOU trying to do the same? Assemble atoms into "the like"? Why wouldn't there be someone else doing it? THAT's "religion" in the modern world. I have to tell you, I'm already intellectually bored, and starting to bump into feeling insulted, at this game of presenting looking down your nose pity as "compassion". I usually call the "mood" of the hoi poloi better than the social engineers do, so please reconsider the retarded use of repetitive buzzwordology as a weapon of mass distraction.
I love the English language. It has the largest vocabulary available for downright surgical precision in explaining what IS. Buzzwordology is NOT rational - it's creepy, brain dead cult zombie chanting, no? That's NOT what we are talking about here, is it, Bullet? As embarrassing as it may be, the reality is we are still operating under the laws of the jungle. And the time always comes when a challenge is mounted from the herd for the alpha dog spot.
Usually that happens when the herd realizes that the old alpha dog was too blind to see he was leading the herd over a cliff at full gallop. Time to be "compassionate" to all the people who have been patient under the "rule" of those who are, obviously, incompetant. You can only suffer the fools gladly for so long before jungle law duty calls upon the herd to protect the herd and not just the "face" of the alpha dog. THAT's evolution. Change or die.
I would just say that they remain, for the moment at least, not understood. In laymen's terms - we're probably not smart enough yet to figure out ALL "mystery". We could be millions of years away from it, as a matter of fact. And since we don't know what the chemical brew in the mind will be one day to make us smart enough to figure out ALL mystery, should we not at least use the smarts we seem to already have to figure out that we should stop monkey-ing around with certain "ideas"?
Or are we not smart enough, yet, to realize that we are too stupid to know what we are doing when it comes to certain "social experiments"? And who can say, with "absolute" certainty, that "compassion" is not a necessary, "non-material" or maybe a material chemical derivative product of billions of years of "random" atomic assembly?
Philosophically, I can prophet-size that the "people" in the human species that have not developed "compassion" will either be eliminated through cultural and social force AKA "war or if applying the Star Trek Prime Directive to compassion-less "culture", it doesn't take much imagination or applied lessons from past collective human experiences, to conclude that compassion-less creatures self destruct. Yes, a few "humanoid" specimens will be left standing because they managed to kill everyone else, but what life-maintenance and life-nurturing skills AKA "evolution" do psychotic and sociopathic out-lie-er beings have to contribute to an enduring civilization AKA evolutionary achievement?
Some things are a mystery, and some are not. As a matter of fact, a "culture" that keeps recreating slavery and poverty and mass-media retrogression used to be called "nuts", right? How's that phrase go? Somthing about repeating the same mistakes being a sign of insanity? It is also no mystery why so many people gladly join in to the head games of power that "religion" promotes ie.
After all, in the redefined version of "religion", that's very much a protected "religious" activity :- It's also "protected" that we don't have to "buy" your "square". We are in substantial agreement as long as you are talking about the contemplation of meaning and origins and NOT dogmatic conclusions. Everything has to remain on the table in this open contemplation and conversation.
Mystery and awe are wonderful and reason in my opinion only enhances them. I suspect that you and I are in full agreement with Sam Harris in this paraphrasing of his work: our challenge as we move forward is to find ways to address these mysteries, the profound events in our lives, and our powerful emotions and contemplative experiences without having to believe anything on insufficient evidence and without drawing preposterous conclusions from these experiences. Unfortunately Anna D, not all people are as open minded as you.
It can be hard for reasonable people like you to believe that vast numbers of people believe what is entirely unreasonable to believe. SOMETHING sparked the nebula to become a sun to produce the atoms and then to put those two atoms together to make water to make us, mostly made of water. Atoms don't experience "compassion". People certainly can. Which means that the explanation for compassion is NOT merely atomic nor is it irrationally personal.
My degree qualifies me to say that epiphenominalism is an old, old term. New cults never use it as far as I know. My work is challenging and valuable while the pay is in fact low, quite low. I work with people others wish to forget and do forget. If they are remembered Sheldrake's very reasonable IMO. Macbeth was a Harvard trained lawyer. If I hadn't responded I'm guessing you would have assumed that I, in sexist manner, would have just continued on and on without responding to what you say because I didn't believe "girls" were worth responding to?
You once said I was in the "ether. I am just a working stiff windmill, but in your mind I'm the typical symbol-analyst antichrist. Good gracious from home. THAT is religious freedom. Especially if you agree that you can't prove that there is a god or that there is no god.
Then you are both in the don't know group, anyway. If we redefine "religion" to be that HUMAN act of an innocent mind contemplating mystery, then we'll have evolved away from "religion" being the attracting historical "institution" for, truly, the most inhumane behavior. Leave people alone to figure it out for themselves.
If God is a person, then anyone can get to know another person. If god is an atom - then there's a whole lot of mystery because if I examine the hydrogen atom, by itself, and then the oxygen atom, by itself, nothing about either atom reveals to me that the combo of those two atoms would be water in all it's simple beauty. So there goes the argument for a no-god right out the window Warning reader: My apologies for a long post, only the first half of which may be relevant to the discussion that's been going on here.
You have made many statements about empiricism, and I feel obliged to let you in on a key principle, so that you will not keep repeating the same mistake over and over again, as you have here. You and many atheists don't do that. You associate your faith in no God with reason, though you have no reasonable proof or ironclad logic that inarguably supports your position. You don't have. You have the right to believe, but not the reasonable substantiation.
They don't belong there. You don't have adequate support for them. And you don't have it. And that's why your position isn't the most reasonable. If you want to explore more on your own, there are many others, but this link is a start:. If you're still having trouble with that notion, maybe looking at your own words will help you that's gotta be my best advice to you JAB: think carefully about what you write and proofread it to see that its accurate and both internally consistent and consistent with what others have written :.
They may be; I've got no proof to the contrary. A current example of this is how many moderate Christians betray both their faith and reason by believing that god must have mysteriously guided the process of human evolution. I am doing this JAB because someone has to point out, hopefully for your own good, how full of misdirection your posts have been. Not me. Just look at what you wrote:. These natural foibles and traits irritate Rationalists like you because they serve as obstacles for constructing a Reasonable world. And in getting it so wrong, Who would expect you to get much that's relevant right?
Clearly, YOU are the one who got it so wrong. Why then, are you lying about my posts? Oh, I forgot. That's apparently MY fault too because I have caused you to lose your compassion. Mocking the concept of God and religion in general is personification of anti-compassion. It's just what Armstrong insists we need to overcome, whether it comes from religious zealots or atheistic zealots.
Okay, simple spelling error neuroanatomic and not an attempt to make things up, thanks for the clarification, Bullet. Hey, no one is perfect How do we all NOT look like street theatre shamans speaking in our own made-up tongue? Billions of years in the making, wired with "chemicals" released as needed to deal with storms, earthquakes, plagues, and all dangers - THIS is who we are from a scientific perspective.
Oddly enough, "science" is what keeps redefining "religion" in the "west". We are watching ourselves evolve back up through the billions of years that it took to be "us". An odd state of affairs, I'll admit, but in the final analysis, that is what we are doing through "science". And what have they been doing?
Reviews of the best nannies and nanny agencies near you
They have been doing the MORAL equivalent of blowing up my house just to take the photo of my contorted, irrationally chemical reaction at the split second where my consciousness grasps the horror of what they are doing. I don't really care whether atheists or agnostics or theocrats or shamans chat over me with words like "epiphenominalism" as a way to swim in their river of DaNile - you all ARE blowing up my house to get that picture to make your "points" about who I am.
I'm not having it, anymore. The law - religious freedom - is on the books. And as with all the other laws of the jungle, it's back on the individual to enforce it themselves. That how laws stick around, btw. Where have I been? I can assure you it's the same chemical brew that gets released in the split second I have to slay the rabid raccoon before it touches my ankle. I do not think any less of Karen Armstrong, as an intellect or as a being with consciousness, because she is pleading for compassion for the innocent from criminals. We all seem to have our own agendas when it comes to "religion".
Mine remains keeping religion SAFE from politics. We are NOT dealing with normal chemical derivatives - on either side of the aisle. However, we can direct the conversation back to where some ACTION can be agreed to among those of us who care, deeply, about keeping sacred the space where innocense contemplates mystery. Politics blows up the space called "religion" and then snaps your picture to prove their point about your irrationality. Sick juju. While I appreciate your excellent grasp of English words, I am having a difficult time with your style of argument. Instead you misinterpreted the request.
Out of the blue, you mention popularity. Rationality and Reason, strictly speaking, have never been popular pursuits. That doesn't necessarily disqualify their merits, but rather undermines their prospective viability as ruling concepts — my point exactly. So which is it JAB: that we need less reason, or more? I suspect that you secretly agree that we need more, since in your next sentence, you cite the irrational aspects of human nature as the second explanation for the horrors that religion is responsible for.
To summarize: mankind goes awry when reason is not sufficiently available or applied and because mankind is too irrational in its very nature; the solution is to embrace and champion irrational religious routes to compassion? That starts with rigorous intellectual honesty. There simply is no reasonable evidence of the existence of any god you agreed with this statement in an earlier post: April 17, AM , so yes, any and all gods are, in that sense, just like Santa Claus.
As Sam Harris has pointed out, faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give themselves to believe what reason fails to support. You should read my posts again because I have NEVER refuted the concept of compassion how could anybody consciously and conscientiously do that? As Sam Harris has said, religious moderation betrays both faith and reason.
Still, I wish her luck in her endeavor.
Tripura Sundari Ammani - WikiVisually
Maybe, just maybe, tens or hundreds? For the sake of my daughter's future, I truly hope so. It seems that YOU are the only one refuting compassion around here. I think that this, the very ability to manage our emotions and employ reason more than any other species, is what defines us as human. This entire post is off topic. It would be better to talk about what a joke our media's coverage is of Cuba. Oh yes, bring on the hotels. Then that miles of totally natural coast will turn into something they can really be proud of.
And it's so compassionate of us to give them this sound advice! Free the five? Who are the five? Why were they here in the first place? Empirical evidence My lazy position here so far has been to comment on the insufficiency of epiphenominalism. I don't mean to hide behind a fortress, but I don't have time really to advise one on how to take the leap. Actually, it's a little scary IMO to assess the true insufficiency, because when it comes into focus But it is also true that in my case I really don't have the time.
JAB, I fear when I paste your posts in TextPad I'll end up treating them like wine in the cellar, and won't even finish them it's a busy world out there. But Saturday I did manage to borrow a cognitive science tome entitled "Wet Mind. There is I think a standpoint, however, from which SB cannot tick one off. But I doubt it takes much stock in neurophilosophy and cognitive science [much stock in their conclusions in re to consciousness]. Layman and scientists both must assess things with probability. And to me the question is: Re "the observer" I a layman look at my memories and look at the number of neurons in the brain, and I begin to assess the probability that there is enough space on that hard drive for memories alone [just memories, not all the other features, yes excluding for the moment the contents of the "collective unconscious"].
Yes, all those 3D memories. My judgement says there is not enough space not enough neurons. The observer is observing, and the memories are on the observer's side though the field they are in may permeate all the synapses in the brain. No, it's not dualism because for a thousand yrs in India they posited the individual's subtle bodies are intertwined with seven chakras. But, like I say, the obviousness of it to me is scary.
Possibly the question never entered SB's mind. Possibly it never entered the minds of millions and millions of students. For them possibly there never was a problem with the prevailing paradigm. And where did those doubts lead us? They led us to the question: What the bleep do we know? Which is quite a question really. This matter we're into at the moment is skirting how would x or y policy demonstrate compassion But I think JAB has done a great job with the issues recently at hand in this thread. There were many, many very good posts earlier on to which none of us any longer refer and to which the folks now here never responded.
Anyway, for me I haven't touched on any ethics, and it's a great failing. It's easy for me to say I'm not rattl'd when JAB has trounced all the presumption. But I gotta say All this is off topic, and for this I apologize. Posted by: David H. April 19, PM. Just Another Blowhard wrote, in part, "Who said anything anywhere at any time about "nauroanatomic" impulses, people being highly irrational, or empirical evidence for God? How could you get it so wrong? If "neuroanatomic" is somehow inadequate to encompass conclusions presented by idea-logs with cherry-picked data than at least get creative with a prefix that is clarifying, not obfuscating.
So what is "nauroanatomic"? Silver Bullet: With a little respite and the assistance of a seer, it finally dawned on me just what your strategy has been: to dishonestly misquote, mangle, thwart, and discombobulate not only the material you use to support your own feeble position but to rattle your critics to the point where they're no longer able to abide by compassion -- the main premise of Armstrong's interview. Which you long ago lost focus of with irrelevancies, inaccuracies, and hubris.
Thus, alas, you prove how wrong Armstrong is. Very clever; I must hand it to you. Since you haven't presented a remotely cogent or logical argument against Armstrong, God, religion, or compassion, you've managed to tick off otherwise reasonable people and they lose their sense of compassion. Accordingly, you win. I've lost the sense of compassion required for civil discourse.
Congratulations, you're one clever projectile. First, you seem to abide by the routine of reiterating your beliefs in order to believe in them more strongly. Say 'em often enough and they seem true, such as Armstrong presnts "a watered down moderate interpretation. Rubbing your hand across the TV set during Moyers's brief interview? A little birdie told you? Or is it hot off the Atheist Newswire? A debate, which you seem to believe you're participating in, requires point versus counterpoint.
The better substantiated each point is, the higher the burden is on refuting it. So far, you've provided insubstantial support at best for every one of your major points, such as belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa, as well as your feelings about Armstrong.
When you present some supportive examples of how and when Armstrong is what you claim she is, rather than relying on knee-jerk responses, then perhaps someone with a lot of free time on her hands will respond accordingly. As is your rather ambiguous accusation moderate? What sort of "interpretation" would you approve of, radical, gothic, oh, I forgot, atheistic -- it is, if I remember correctly, the most reasonable of all forms of faith; you said so.
If it ain't atheistic, well then, it just couldn't have any merit, right? That much you've made clear by your whimsical but logically meaningless comparison of God to Santa. The fact is, you haven't shown a rudimentary mastery of accurately reading and precisely quoting what I've written, much less what Russell, Armstrong or other posters have written. Is it a cognitive handicap or a sociopathic streak? If it's the former, I'll be forced to act with compassion. Careful, then you wouldn't win this debate. Who said anything anywhere at any time about "nauroanatomic" impulses, people being highly irrational, or empirical evidence for God?
Funny, you prescribed googling Russell's teapot analogy, as if you had a handle on it it does not refer to Santa, as you insist by the way. You should take your own medicine and try googling nauroanatomic, which, I guess, sounds pretty highfalutin to you. No, my posts never mentioned that word; instead they refer to neurology, neurophilosophy, etc. Areas you might be interested in since it seems you're suffering from a problem with working memory, as well as a lack of respect for the heartfelt view of others -- that would be part of the prefrontal cortex if you're mapping it at home.
You did get one point correct, though it's unclear why you would cite it. Yes, neither you nor me nor Joe Sixpack can be certain of our beliefs or premises if they're not supported by empirical proof. You can feel certain about the sun rising in the morning, enjoy a hunch about Two Bits in the Kentucky Derby, but be absolutely, unequivocally certain about these issues? Not my rule, but a standard that's been in effect, at least in the West, since Aristotle. It applies to peer reviewed research, the law of physics, the law, Empiricism, Skepticism, Occam's Razor, and a few areas as well.
So, contrary to you isolating it as if it's my position, it's a fact we all have to live with, like it or not, similar to gravity and breathing. It seems you don't sympathize with such a strigent rule since you like running facts and other people's opinions through a wringer of gross misinterpretation. Oh yeah, about that Santa comparison. It's more cocktail banter used by atheists to bolster their faith than it is relevant analogy that could enlighten. No doubt, you've stood among the non-believers, laughing at all the idiots who believe in God and follow religious doctrines, with a Ha Ha and a Ho Ho Ho.
As far as Reason goes, it serves no purpose. You claim to be a Rationalist, but, ironically, attempt to delegitiize the concept of compassion. How rational is that? That's just the kind of 'rationality' this world doesn't need. It's ideological, small minded, impractical, immoral, unethical, and last but not least, asinine. Every revolutionary, prompted by 'Rational' plans, expects to snap his fingers and -- poof -- in an instant, the New and Improved Society, the 'sensible' plan, the thoroughly 'Rational' scheme that everyone conforms to all the time.
In such an Idealistic world, an arena brimming with Reason and Rationality, there will never be lapses, never be 'fools' entertaining the notion of a God or a celestial body - Never. And there will be checkpoints here and there and everywhere when all the citizens of the New and Improved Rational state will have to show their papers, proving their Rational Quota, and pledge to a Rational judiciary that they don't subscribe to any metaphysical ideas having to do with God, religion, or spirit.
Hey, no thanks. You can keep your brand of 'rationality. Atheists of the world unite -- your antitheology is going down the tubes with apostles like Silver Bullet representing your cause. If you're out there, and a have a few moments, no make that a few months, you might want to steer this lost soul, whoops, make that, lost disciple, in the direction of Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, et al.
Until then SB, I'm going to be contemplating my navel -- a far more insightful exercise than communicating with the likes of you. SB pontificated while "summarizing someone else's interpretation of interpretations - wow - you'd get busted in my 9th grade philosophy class for that stunt , in part, " 1 Throughout human history, reason has never really been widely applied as an overarching value. Humans have a powerfully irrational half that has nauroanatomic and physiologic underpinnings and which motivates most people to find comfort in religion.
One of my pet peeves since the REAL devastation of this "peeve" is beyond the intellectual "vision" of 9th graders, I'll be breezily serious is the cherry-picking of data. SB KNOWS for a fact that there is no such "scientific" evidence for "neuroanatomic and physiological underpinnings" to irrationality. Adreneline is released as needed for "survival". SB is saying, basically, that chemicals like adreneline come first. Then comes the other sweeping bit of all-knowing, all-seeing "vision" of the history of everything - "reason has never been widely applied" U R kiddin' me, right?
I'm actually starting to feel compassion for the insanity going on in the alternate universe SB's imaginary mind inhabits. Since this IS a, well? Considering all the "complicated" financial instruments human beings created, it's even MORE obvious that humans are incapable of creating humans note - creating is not same as breeding - we certainly can breed. As is, all we do is "manipulate" and, eventually, common sense derived from survival experience tells us its time to stop playing.
Regarding your post from April 16, AM, I thought that your request to name a time in history where reason was an overarching value was rhetorical. Note: my aging request that you provide a substantive rebuttal to the notion that Ms. Religious belief is an example. Posted by: Chris April 17, PM. I have been transported back in time to my 9th grade "religion" class at the Catholic High School in NJ. Wasn't Karen once a nun?
I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll just ask you something that I hope will move us along:. Since it has so far been impossible to prove that Santa Claus exists despite plenty of sightings , and impossible to prove that he does not exist despite many claiming that he is 'man-made' , what is your practical day-to-day position on Santa Claus' existence? Do you believe that he exists are you a Santaist? Are you agnostic? Or are you an A-Santaist? If you prefer, you can replace Santa with Sasquatch, or Poseidon. I have to admit that I haven't had enough time to carefully read all of your last 2 posts, so forgive me if you've already addressed this matter.
SB - I failed to repond to your last point in my haste to conclude and appeciate the opportunity to clarify it. You wrote: "This is patently absurd. Belief not based on reason is the very definition of unreasonableness. What you are saying is that religious believers are just acknowledging their unreasonableness, so that makes it ok. There are two distinct notions here, which you have combined, making them seem absurd.
Belief in God is not reasonable per se, at least not according to the rigors of logic that require empirical proof. I never claimed otherwise. You're misreading the sentence. It's not the content of what believers believe in that's reasonable but how they believe, i. What is reasonable about believers who hold their beliefs based on faith is the fact that they're held via faith and not as reasonable concepts. That's reasonable since it conforms to holding beliefs outside of the rigid strictures of rationality.
Since there isn't empirical evidence for supporting a belief in God or religious beliefs with few exceptions it's reasonable to hold them as faith and not as Reason. That's what's reasonable. On the contrary, you are insisting as an atheist that you are not holding your belief in no God via faith but via reasonable justification. You don't have, and neither do religious believers, the proof required for that justification. You, like religious believers, have faith in your belief, not proof.
A person of faith, who acknowledges that those beliefs are not substantiated through reason, is reasonable by not attempting to use reason as justification. You on the other hand are assembling your unsubstantiated beliefs under the banner of Reason. In Russell's "Autobiography" he offers ten commandments. And neither are atheists. Yo Silver Bullet: The popularity of a belief, be it atheistic or religious, has little not nothing as you state to do with its reasonableness. Your assertions would better stand the test of rationality if they weren't so absolutist.
There are, contrary to your insistence, exceptions, such as the appeal of democracy, which by definition is a form of government based on forms of popular appeal and contribution and couldn't have been established if it hadn't achieved some degree of popularity. Moreover, your point indicates a misreading of my text, which does not once equate popularity with reasonableness. You were asked to name a period in history when Rationality or Reason per se was an overarching value.
Anywhere, at any time, whether on a cultural, tribal, or national basis. Are you implying that Rationality or Reason could only be established as overarching values via popularity? Well if you believe such a thing, then no doubt you have little hope for your Rationalist agenda to ever hold sway because Rationality and Reason, strictly speaking, have never been popular pursuits. That doesn't necessarily disqualify their merits, but rather undermines their prospective viability as ruling concepts -- my point exactly.
BV Raman - Notable Horoscopes
If you have read Russell as deeply as you imply you did, you're familiar with, " We are not yet, and I suppose men and women never will be, completely rational Mentioning slavery in quotes, as if you lifted the segment from my posts, is at least tangential and perhaps intellectually dishonest. What does slavery have to do with this discourse; I never once brought it up. Why would you?
It makes little sense. Indeed, the discourse, which you seem so eager to avoid, mainly concerns Armstrong's appeal for compassion and, secondarily, Armstrong's work. Perhaps you're conflating the hoopla about Lincoln's birthday with an unrelated subject.
Odd, for someone waving the flag of Rationalism so vigorously. Your exuberance for Russell's teapot analogy illustrates a rather insubstantial grasp of both Russell and the argument about whether atheism is unreasonable. Russell frequently acknowledged that there is no proof of whether or not God exists. But he wasn't as certain about his own position, which wavered back and forth over the years. If one held a gun to his head, he would have claimed to be an agnostic, for he realized unlike you that there is no rational or reasonable argument for or against the existence of God since there are no facts to indisputably prove either position.
Being a fervent advocate of Occam's Razor, he realized his limitations. You'd be wise to follow in his steps, especially since you so gleefully cite him as a source. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
Delve into Russell, as I did a few years back, and you'll see a proclivity for mercurial expression, particularly his teapot analogy -- a clever parlor trick but hardly the kind of profound refutation you seem to think it is. Russell never pretended to know how the universe came to be; in fact, he made the ludicrous argument that it could've all been created five minutes ago. Of course, that was before the technology demonstrating that there was an origin, and it wasn't five minutes ago.
Or does your brand of Rationality prohibit the latest scientific developments? You state: the fact that you can't prove God doesn't exist is not a reason to believe that she does exist; nowhere have I stated such a thing or implied it. You're confusing apples with oranges. You also reiterate, almost like a mantra, no, make that, almost like a prayer, functional atheism is the only reasonable position.
By the way, What would non-functional atheism consist of? If you say that a hundred times, or a thousand times, Does it finally become true for you? Maybe, but it doesn't make it true in the world where the laws of physics rule. Let's resort to the dictionary since you seem to be employing a unique definition of what reason is. The Oxford Essential Dictionary claims that reason is justification. Using the standards of Empiricism and Skepticism -- Russell's favorite philosophies -- justification requires proof, not clever cocktail banter like the teapot analogy, but solid, supported, peer reviewed evidence.
Quite simply, you don't have the evidence required to substantiate your position, and thus it is not as remotely reasonable as you apparently believe it is. Russell's teapot analogy -- a china teapot is revolving around Earth but is undetectable by telescopes -- equates believing in such an impossibility with believing in God and holding religious beliefs. It's an ad hominem attack, and though it certainly isn't as vicious as the Catholic Church's treatment of heretics, it doesn't establish one grain of truth.
It makes an interesting point but without the support of Occam's Razor.