Christopher Hitchens is one of the best intellectuals the Western World has.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Well are you skeptical about finding him or about burying him at sea? Or just think it's not cool to say "yea, I think this is the truth"?

Both. I just don't understand the logic of a country that thinks it's absolutely okay to assassinate somebody but thinks it is unethical to provide accurate documentation of the corpse. It honestly amazes me you aren't the least bit skeptical on this; you're very choosy sometimes.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Both. I just don't understand the logic of a country that thinks it's absolutely okay to assassinate somebody but thinks it is unethical to provide accurate documentation of the corpse. It honestly amazes me you aren't the least bit skeptical on this; you're very choosy sometimes.

Well again; what exactly is the issue? The evidence seems pretty solid, and there is no viable competing theory.

Again, it is totally in line with our history to kill somebody and then handle it as gently as possible afterwords. There is nothing to be gained by making a spectacle of his body, there is a logistical nightmare in trying to bury him on foreign soil. A mission this high up the food chain, with direct command by the president, is going to be 100% by the book, and I don't think you are grasping the public offense of the muslim world that would have arisen by not following islamic burial tradition.

The entire world, all along the spectrum of beliefs, admits he is dead, I really am not seeing what you think is so unbelievable about it at all. There was effectively a blank check and every available tool of the most powerful nation on Earth after this man for a decade; and once it was done, the world would be watching.

When it comes to religion, the US tends to accommodate; like I said, muslim prisoners at gitmo get halal food, korans, etc, etc.

And for the record, it was absolutely okay to assassinate him, and it would be disrespectful to not follow islamic burial code or to plaster pictures of him with smeared brain matter where his head used to be. This is the complex nature of international relations.

[Mr. Blonde]

I didn't say it was unbelievable. I said it was dubious.

God damn you cannot fathom how much I hate religion.

[Beebs]

What is dubious if not a form of disbelief? What exactly is dubious about it? It seems totally reasonable that we were able to finally find him, it seems reasonable and on the record that the CIA ran a intel house nearby, it seems reasonable that our most elite military unit could carry out the raid, and it seems reasonable to make a simple gesture to not piss off the world's muslim population any more than needed.

This religious ritual makes sense actually; it's 3rd century Arabia, there is no knowledge of germs, bacteria, or disease as we understand it today. A person dies; it's a good idea to clean them, wrap them up, and get them the fuck underground.

[Beebs]

Osama Bin Laden's burial at sea: Why did we throw his body in the ocean? - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

What is dubious if not a form of disbelief? What exactly is dubious about it? It seems totally reasonable that we were able to finally find him, it seems reasonable and on the record that the CIA ran a intel house nearby, it seems reasonable that our most elite military unit could carry out the raid, and it seems reasonable to make a simple gesture to not piss off the world's muslim population any more than needed.

Sorry, I disagree.

If an American terrorist killed 3,000 Muslims (LOL WAR), and they came into America with a small group of elite soldiers and assassinated him, not only would I not give a fuck, I would encourage them to take them with him to show their populace the scum. Drag him throughout the streets in a truck, I literally could not give a single fuck. This is the point I am making. This is why I get into so many arguments when traveling or about religion; because if somebody's cultural customs are rooted in superstition, I literally toss them to the curb, take a shit on them, and set them on fire. Superstitious "it's my culture" excuses mean less than dogshit to me in the year 2011, which is why our species is so entirely fucked.

You know what else means dogshit to me? Eyewitness testimony and the fact that many humans lack a large amount of integrity, both of which can lead very easily to corruption.

So it really, really pisses me off, that all of a sudden, after 10 years, we supposedly kill Bin Laden, dump him in the ocean, laud a few special forces for a few weeks, and practically forget about him almost entirely. It just doesn't feel right and, for me, there isn't enough evidence or backstory to corroborate accepting the fact. Could I accept it and get on with my life? Of course. Could I not accept it and get on with my life without coming up with crazy ass conspiracy theories and asking for justice? Of course. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm just going to remain skeptical about this for another 50 years, because why the fuck not? Remember, I'm not these guys:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

AMURKA!!!

I can get by just fine without being entirely convinced he was killed in the matter that was claimed. But you harping on the matter without any evidence, stating "If it was fake we'd know", simply isn't going to cut it for me.


FWIW, it's not that I don't think he's dead; I think he probably is. But it seemed like too convenient of a closure for patriotic Americans to just happen in the way it did. I think it's much more likely he died in an airstrike at some point.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Holy shit Blonde, you're way off here. It's fine on some level to be skeptical about anything the government says, but your hatred of religion is clearly clouding your reasoning.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

You know what else means dogshit to me? Eyewitness testimony and the fact that many humans lack a large amount of integrity, both of which can lead very easily to corruption.

So it really, really pisses me off, that all of a sudden, after 10 years, we supposedly kill Bin Laden, dump him in the ocean, laud a few special forces for a few weeks, and practically forget about him almost entirely. It just doesn't feel right and, for me, there isn't enough evidence or backstory to corroborate accepting the fact. Could I accept it and get on with my life? Of course. Could I not accept it and get on with my life without coming up with crazy ass conspiracy theories and asking for justice? Of course. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm just going to remain skeptical about this for another 50 years, because why the fuck not?

Alright, I'll entertain your little fantasy of skepticism here. Lets say hypothetically that we did just decide to "make up" a strike team attack INVADING A FOREIGN COUNTRY that resulted in killing Osama Bin Laden.

Why did we even announce where the strike happened? In the international community this is a pretty sketchy political move that no other country could have pulled off without major consequences. We could have easily just MADE UP that he was killed in Afghanistan to validate our narrative there.

Why would we do it WHEN we did it? This is the sort of event that can make a politician bulletproof during an election. "We got Bin Laden" announced say October 2012ish and guess who is almost guaranteed reelection? It just randomly happened one day ... that's how this shit works. Remember when they randomly caught Saddam one day in a fucking hole? You think its going to be exciting when they find Gaddafi? Its always mundane, just ask the Germans that Magneto found in Argentina.

[Beebs]

I actually understand what you are getting at more now than I did last night, I think.

I would say it's frustrating that we dumped the body, annoying, but not dubious.

You don't really follow burial traditions for the dead, you do it for the living; In America even the most horrible child rapist serial murder gets the bare bones version of their own funeral.

You follow the Islamic burial rituals for the family, the clan, the world as a whole, because it is a gesture of respect towards them, and gestures matter on the world stage.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I can get by just fine without being entirely convinced he was killed in the matter that was claimed. But you harping on the matter without any evidence, stating "If it was fake we'd know", simply isn't going to cut it for me.


FWIW, it's not that I don't think he's dead; I think he probably is. But it seemed like too convenient of a closure for patriotic Americans to just happen in the way it did. I think it's much more likely he died in an airstrike at some point.

And his sons, wives, and associates just happened to be kicking it at house clearly meant for hiding out? Who said there is no evidence? A lot of information has come to light after the fact, and in my eyes it would have to be a massive, international conspiracy, involving direct enemies.

There still hasn't been one issue raised that you actually see as fake, but yet you assume the whole thing is, just because it doesn't fit your view of the world. Is that really skeptical thinking?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Holy shit Blonde, you're way off here. It's fine on some level to be skeptical about anything the government says, but your hatred of religion is clearly clouding your reasoning.

I can agree with this, I was mostly just venting the rest of my frustration with the rest of the world on this particular topic.

Not to go off-topic, but I really do see religion and the kind of thought process that leads to religious belief as being a gigantic hindrance to the human species. I don't really care that much about the Bin Laden thing as much as I care in general that Beebs is correct, that simply not burying a dead terrorist in the "proper" way in this day and age would put a large population of the world in uproar, but everybody seems fine letting so much else slide -- wars, genocides, female genital mutilation, sex trafficking, racial superiority, hell, class superiority, just so much general disrespect for each other and then people get angry about the most meaningless shit when it comes to "high profile" people. It's incredibly frustrating to see things like people lobbying for an assassination, then taking then having the gall to pretend like they have any sanctity for respecting the culture of a man (who they have been on an international manhunt to kill for years), or in the case of people who publicly cheer many state-executions, but then call themselves pro-life. Obviously I could go on and on. I was mainly just venting about human society in general, which, in the grand scheme, is awful.

Bottom line in IMHO is that religion and desperately and emotionally clinging to "cultural customs" is holding us back immensely. I may be emotional on this issue but at least i'm trying to at least reason and outline some form of future. When it comes to conservatives, all over the world, I simply do not understand the concept of permanent stasis and "traditional values" and keeping them throughout generations.

I've been reading a lot of Arthur C. Clarke lately, and while he's all over the place in his different books regarding the future of humanity, I read a part recently in Childhood's End (in which a (so far, haven't finished yet) benevolent alien species rules over Earth, becoming like our parents. At one point, the Aliens respond to the humans at a press conference because they have been complaining that the Aliens wont' let let them explore space:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And there are other reasons why we have restricted the human race to Earth. Watch."

The lights dimmed and vanished. As they faded, a milky opalescence formed in the center of the room. It congealed into a whirlpool of stars -- a spiral nebula seen from a point far beyond its outermost sun.

"No human eyes have ever seen this sight before." said Karellen's voice from the darkness. "You are looking at your own Universe, the island galaxy of which your sun is a member, from a distance of a million light years."

There was a long silence, then Karellen continued, and now his voice held something that was not quite pity and not precisely scorn.

"Your race had shown a notable incapacity for dealing with the problems of your own rather small planet. When we arrived, you were on the point of destroying yourselves with the powers that science had rashly given you. Without our intervention, the Earth today would be a radioactive wilderness.

"Now you have a world at peace, and a united race. Soon you will be sufficiently civilized to run your planet without our assistance. Perhaps you could eventually handle the problems of an entire solar system ---say fifty moons and planets. But do you really imagine that you could ever cope with THIS?"

The nebula expanded. Now the individual stars were rushing past, appearing and vanishing as swiftly as sparks from a foge. And each of those transient sparks was a sun, with who knew how many circling worlds ...

"In this galaxy of ours," murmured Karellen, " there are eighty thousand million suns. Even that figure gives only a faint idea of the immensity of space. In challenging it, you would be like ants attempting to label and classify all the grains of sand in all the deserts of all the world."

"Your race, in its present stage of evolution, cannot face that stupendous challenge. One of my duties has been to protect you from the powers and forces that lie among the stars --- forces beyond anything that you can ever imagine."

The image of the galaxy's swirling fire-mists faded: light returned to the sudden silence of the great chamber. Karellen turned to go: the audience was over. At the door he paused and looked back upon the hushed crowd.

"It is a bitter thought, but you must face it. The planets you may one day possess. But the stars are not for man."

[Beebs]

I'm going to go watch the game before I start throwing poop at the screen.

[Mr. Blonde]

bump

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

And his sons, wives, and associates just happened to be kicking it at house clearly meant for hiding out? Who said there is no evidence? A lot of information has come to light after the fact, and in my eyes it would have to be a massive, international conspiracy, involving direct enemies.

There still hasn't been one issue raised that you actually see as fake, but yet you assume the whole thing is, just because it doesn't fit your view of the world. Is that really skeptical thinking?

"The reports of bin Laden's death on May 1, 2011 are not universally accepted[133] despite DNA testing confirming his identity,[27][97] Bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter witnessing his death,[77][134] and a May 6, 2011 al-Qaeda statement confirming his death.[7]"

I just read up a bit about it; I actually hadn't heard a lot of these things, specifically his daughter and Al Qaeda confirming his death. It appears my skepticism in this case, is unfounded. I still highly disagree with the manner in which it took place; in particular not capturing him alive. But I wasn't there, so I don't know how things went down.

[thekremlin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Not to go off-topic, but I really do see religion and the kind of thought process that leads to religious belief as being a gigantic hindrance to the human species.[/i]

First of all, to most of that post, I say: TLDR.

Second of all, to the above quote, what planet do you live on? You like to talk logically, let's use some logic. How many cultures do you see that have carried on through ancient times that practice atheism? Nearly all cultures that have survived for long periods of time have heavily stressed religion. While it is not immediately clear what evolotionary advantage "religion" grants (and when I say evolutionary, I mean competition between cultures, remember that evolution works on a social scale as well), I think the evidence strongly suggests that it is heavily advantageous to have religion.

OK, look. You go to Oslo, and the museum has massive viking ships. Vikings are badass motherfuckers who live in a frozen tundra, and the sides of these ships are still COVERED in wooden statuettes of gods and traditional warriors. You go to Thailand, palaces and temples everywhere, full of gold and statues and tapestries. Egypt, pyramids. Europe, churches. Huge churches, Notre Dame, Sistine Chapel, every single oldass city in Europe has an incredible church in the middle of it.

These churches didn't build themselves. These people could have saved the effort and built libraries or funded their armies. So on the ground floor, you look at this and say "building the churches/pyramids/decoration the ships is stupid". But you believe in evolution, I think you mentioned once or twice. Darwinism suggests that if seperate societies that are still surviving today all have a common trait, then that trait has aided their survival. Not only that, but the benefit from religion makes up for the MASSIVE expenditure described above.

I understand you don't like religion, but you have to recognize that other people do. Someone who refuses to see other people's perspectives and apply their own opinions to how other people should view things are called zealots.

[Mr. Blonde]

Just because something has the potential to survive throughout the evolutionary process does not make it good. There are literally myriad reasons as to why "the god gene" or "meme" or whatever you want to call it could exist. That doesn't mean we should tolerate it. I'm not saying we should execute people here, but without evidence we have every single right to call their ideas retarded and a hindrance to human progress.

Humanity became conscious and needed explanations, so they made them up. Humanity is credulous as fuck, (once again for many evolutionary reasons that you can look into the science or possible science behind yourself, since it's clear you seem to think it's because "religion has survival potential better than atheism" rather than another phenomenon, like the value of believing people in authority or worshiping a patriarchal deity because of evolutionary reasons, like, I don't know, listening to authority so you don't crack your skull open on some rocks) so they believed ideas that sounded good at the time. They still believe ideas that, to them, sound good at the time. But your analogy is bullshit, for the mere fact that, clearly, atheists have survived too. You're just relying on numbers, and, as you and I know, you especially given your ethnicity: Numbers don't mean right.

Originally Posted by thekremlin

I understand you don't like religion, but you have to recognize that other people do. Someone who refuses to see other people's perspectives and apply their own opinions to how other people should view things are called zealots.

Once again, back to evidence. If you have no evidence to support your claims, beliefs, or in general bullshit attitudes, then you have to recognize that I think religion is completely emotional supernatural bullshit. That doesn't make me a zealot; that makes me a person living in reality. You have no ground to defend the religious for believing in bullshit.


EDIT: bullshit

[Repugnant Abomination]

I'm a pantheist.

[Mr. Blonde]

Yeah, that's still the same thing as an atheist pretty much bro.

Batty (Robin Williams) singing Batty Rap - YouTube

Batty (Robin Williams) singing Batty Rap - YouTube

[Repugnant Abomination]

Don't call me bro.

[angry pancake]

"brah"

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

First of all, to most of that post, I say: TLDR.

Second of all, to the above quote, what planet do you live on? You like to talk logically, let's use some logic. How many cultures do you see that have carried on through ancient times that practice atheism? Nearly all cultures that have survived for long periods of time have heavily stressed religion. While it is not immediately clear what evolotionary advantage "religion" grants (and when I say evolutionary, I mean competition between cultures, remember that evolution works on a social scale as well), I think the evidence strongly suggests that it is heavily advantageous to have religion.

OK, look. You go to Oslo, and the museum has massive viking ships. Vikings are badass motherfuckers who live in a frozen tundra, and the sides of these ships are still COVERED in wooden statuettes of gods and traditional warriors. You go to Thailand, palaces and temples everywhere, full of gold and statues and tapestries. Egypt, pyramids. Europe, churches. Huge churches, Notre Dame, Sistine Chapel, every single oldass city in Europe has an incredible church in the middle of it.

These churches didn't build themselves. These people could have saved the effort and built libraries or funded their armies. So on the ground floor, you look at this and say "building the churches/pyramids/decoration the ships is stupid". But you believe in evolution, I think you mentioned once or twice. Darwinism suggests that if seperate societies that are still surviving today all have a common trait, then that trait has aided their survival. Not only that, but the benefit from religion makes up for the MASSIVE expenditure described above.

I understand you don't like religion, but you have to recognize that other people do. Someone who refuses to see other people's perspectives and apply their own opinions to how other people should view things are called zealots.

You're Jewish right? So you'll understand the point I'm about to make ... religion is a banner that an entire society can march behind. When a society is united under a common goal or belief system they are a much stronger force than people "minding their own business" ... see Nazi Germany, see USSR, see China, see the Roman empire, the Greeks, and on and on and on. Your "group" works together to wipe out dissenters. Of course your society will accomplish a lot when everyone is on the same team. Religion is more than just believing in a deity, its believing in a system, being a willing cog in a machine that you have no control over.

[thekremlin]

Sure; whatever. I'm not trying to suppose what the benefit(s) is (are), just saying there obviously is one.

Dawkins calls religion a meme and compares it to a gene but I think that is a flawed analogy. Cultural memes spring from nowhere, there are no inputs, costs, or downsides. Like I was saying, sustaining religion produces massive costs. Over the course of the history of human society, what percentage of GDP do you think has gone into maintenance of religion? Is it too extreme to suggest that 5% is the number? Considering that I'm not just referring to the massive construction projects but also to the man-hours of every priest, rabbi, shaman, religious scholar, etc. That means religion can't just be STICKY. It has to justify the fact that it reduces a society's efficiency by 5%, or whatever the number is.

Put two nation-states next to each other. One of them spends 5% of their output on religion, the other uses that extra 5% to build walls or guns, and yet the religious nation-states are the ones that have survived into modern society. Maybe it's because they were more cohesive, maybe it's because their religion made them more inclined to go out and attack the other nation-state. Whatever. The point is that you can't just discount it as a "hindrance to the human species."

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

The point is that you can't just discount it as a "hindrance to the human species."

I certainly can and will continue to do so. I can see how religion can be something that is historically valuable; at certain points in our history and maturity as a species, it was necessary to get us through the hard times. I'm saying that now, in the year 2011, it is absolutely unnecessary and is a big wall holding back our species from doing more with ourselves. It permeates the thoughts and minds of so many people, especially with the promise of an omnibenevolent god who takes care of us during life and after death. When you have that kind of psychological mindset, most people aren't worried about improving life for the rest of the planet, or looking long-term into the future, which is what we need right now.

[thekremlin]

Really? You agree that it has been beneficial for thousands of years of human history, but in 2011 it is not so? Because "this time is different".

[Mr. Blonde]

What advantages does being religious have now versus not being religious? If you were to go back in time and eradicate all religious things, and wipe the minds of everybody in regard to religion, do you think that a new religion would spring up? I do. But that's not saying anything other than "humans have a tendency to make up magical beings to tell them what to do". It doesn't mean religion is right.

You need to read more about the history and psychology behind religion in order for you to truly understand the psyche behind it and how, if it may have been beneficial at one time (which no one is sure of, as I already mentioned it could be an evolutionary by-product), it was shaped by how we evolved. You're still hiding behind the assumption that "It's been around this long and religious nations always win so it must be advantageous" , which I think is ignoring other possible reasons as to why religion is so prevalent. As I mentioned, it makes a lot of sense to have come as a by-product of human evolution and the tendency to "need" an authority figure to listen to earlier in human evolution in order to survive.

Daniel Dennett talks a lot about how religion may (and probably did) come to exist, and why it is such an ubiquitous phenomenon. I haven't actually finished this book yet but from what I've read it's fantastic.

Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

I wish I had the book on me now, because at one point he actually talks about how it may have been beneficial for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, in one facet because it still gave people a form of hope if in a very dangerous situation (As our ancestors surely almost constantly were), therefore they were more likely to suffer through the struggle and persevere, whereas a non-religious person (or a person without the "god gene", if it exists) may have realized the futility of the situation and just given up.

In this scenario, on both sides, perhaps almost all of them ended up dying anyways, but on the freak change that somebody survived the ordeal, not only would they be heavily psychologically affected by the strangeness of them surviving and thus attribute it to whatever religion they prayed to, they would also be more likely to "pass on the god gene" (if something like that exists, and it could be actually genetic or memetic) to their ancestors, happening enough times over the generations to result in billions of credulous humans.

This would be an example to how it would have been advantageous in our early beginnings when we were a struggling people not having internet debates while drinking coffee in our climate-controlled domiciles, but running from a pack of wolves with a baby in their arms. So my point is today, lacking most dangerous situations where one might psychologically be forced to pray to a deity, we don't really "need" that anymore.

Interestingly enough, almost all of the science-based hypothesis on religion seem to result in the likely possibility that homo-sapiens may not have survived long enough without their credulity in regard to folk religion (or it's proto-ancestor, evolving to listen to authority), all of this meaning that your point has some value--- my argument is that it doesn't make it true, or more useful in modern times (other than being an obvious social faux-pas).

It's a very good book.