Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The War ISIS Wants

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–228 of 228 posts

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#221

Post by fineman »

kaz1 wrote: post #214
fineman wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And actually that's Mormonism anyways. They were the last to be visited by god, and had the most-recent prophet, according to whom their mortal leaders speak ex-cathedra. Mormonism is even growing faster than Islam. It is the ultimate(1) Abrahamic religion. Mormonism is even truly a religion of peace. Its leader was under persecution at the time and he does not speak out for killing and injustice. 1) Judging all reli…

Mormon religion is a case in point given the timeline of its emergence. It's not clear what objective standard you have in mind, and whether any consensus can be reached on that purely through an exercise of argumentation where a lot of predispositions and other factors quite often lurk behind (it's rampant even in sciences, more so probably in soft/wet sciences: http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themsel…

The only objective standard possible, the words of the religions themselves, combined into one greater piece of theology. Everything is assumed true unless it conflicts a greater set of doctrine.

Thus we know mormon leadership speak ex-cathedra because Smith said so, and so forth. Where things conflict however, like Mohammed's statement that he's the last prophet, obviously he's wrong because Joseph Smith, etc, meet the same criteria.

Going by the truth revealed in each document, Mormon's are the closest to god - the latest, most direct, pipeline to the divine. It's essentially religious science.

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#222

Post by prawn »

chongli wrote: post #132
seiji wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are only so many young people willing to sacrifice everything for fanatic dreams of afterlife fulfillment as payment for promises of improving the here-now. Most youth, in other words, aren't that stupid. Startups seem to be pretty good at convincing a never-ending stream of youth to surrender 500% productivity now in exchange for (usually lies about) riches in the future. "Yeah, it's linkedfacebox, you know, a…

I'd like to think there's a key difference between losing sleep all night making the latest social media fad and raping helpless women and girls after beheading their husbands, fathers, and brothers. Between siphoning off another million with a tweak to your high-frequency-trading algorithm and shooting dozens of people to death in a concert hall.

That goes without saying. They're saying that the parallel means there is an endless supply of people signing up to the vision. No matter how horrible it is, people are doing it now and in the future.

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#223

Post by kaz1 »

fineman wrote: post #221
kaz1 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mormon religion is a case in point given the timeline of its emergence. It's not clear what objective standard you have in mind, and whether any consensus can be reached on that purely through an exercise of argumentation where a lot of predispositions and other factors quite often lurk behind (it's rampant even in sciences, more so probably in soft/wet sciences: http://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themsel…

The only objective standard possible, the words of the religions themselves, combined into one greater piece of theology. Everything is assumed true unless it conflicts a greater set of doctrine. Thus we know mormon leadership speak ex-cathedra because Smith said so, and so forth. Where things conflict however, like Mohammed's statement that he's the last prophet, obviously he's wrong because Joseph Smith, etc, meet…

Say, I claim Prophethood today, and therefore there is n+1 religions meeting the said 'objective standard' now. Well, that number is not quite correct 'now' that you are reading it though; it has to be n+k given other potential claims made in the meanwhile, and k remains effectively indeterminate due to the impossibility of a distributed synchronization.

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#224

Post by fineman »

kaz1 wrote: post #223
fineman wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only objective standard possible, the words of the religions themselves, combined into one greater piece of theology. Everything is assumed true unless it conflicts a greater set of doctrine. Thus we know mormon leadership speak ex-cathedra because Smith said so, and so forth. Where things conflict however, like Mohammed's statement that he's the last prophet, obviously he's wrong because Joseph Smith, etc, meet…

Say, I claim Prophethood today, and therefore there is n+1 religions meeting the said 'objective standard' now. Well, that number is not quite correct 'now' that you are reading it though; it has to be n+k given other potential claims made in the meanwhile, and k remains effectively indeterminate due to the impossibility of a distributed synchronization.

The details of n+k don't matter as much. It's not just the latest, it's the latest that self-claims to be in a certain lineage, etc. Ultimate Abrahamic religion... And it has to make a non-self conflicting claim to be the definitive text.

Once you meet the rigorous standards of 1) writing it down and 2) claiming to override all previous prophets, yes. I'd count you. (However, this will void your membership in the CotFSM.)

Until then though, Mormonism, FTW.

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#225

Post by kaz1 »

fineman wrote: post #224
kaz1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say, I claim Prophethood today, and therefore there is n+1 religions meeting the said 'objective standard' now. Well, that number is not quite correct 'now' that you are reading it though; it has to be n+k given other potential claims made in the meanwhile, and k remains effectively indeterminate due to the impossibility of a distributed synchronization.

The details of n+k don't matter as much. It's not just the latest, it's the latest that self-claims to be in a certain lineage, etc. Ultimate Abrahamic religion... And it has to make a non-self conflicting claim to be the definitive text. Once you meet the rigorous standards of 1) writing it down and 2) claiming to override all previous prophets, yes. I'd count you. (However, this will void your membership in the Cot…

I believe I, or anyone else for that matter, can do meet "your objective" standards 1. and 2. fairly easily (; you can help with clear points/texts and without cryptic acronyms). I mean there can be literally a billion 'fork' at will, which renders the whole thing meaningless.

I don't claim to know much of mormonism; however the conflicts in such notions as 'ultimate', 'objective' here are difficult to reconcile: mormonism conflicts with Vatican/pope with respect to the core of any religious thoughts, namely, the identity of God; hence it is quite strange to insist on a notion of non-conflicting ideas, which is both logically impossible and non-existent. If mormonism was not correcting some ideas, which necessarily implies that there are conflicts, why Mr. Smith bothered to bring mormonism in the first place? Isn't it redundant, as long as it is not claiming to fix something (=>conflict)?

And if you concede the possibility of other valid new prophets and religious claims possible in the future following this Mr. Smith, how can you even choose to use the word "ultimate"? You see the logical contradiction there is too glaring to work out, no? Please make sure that the reasoning remains reasonably sound. Thanks and bye.

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#226

Post by prawn »

rjaco31 wrote: post #84
fennecfoxen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, its fair to say that french youth in general is disillusioned. The French economy is moribund, growth is nil, youth unemployment rates are over 25%, and lots of them are sitting around unemployed or in dead-end jobs - while their parents hold much cushier jobs with some of the world's best labor protections (or most-notorious, depending on your perspective). It's not shocking.

That makes you want to get a job or raise unemployment subsidies, not go kill people in the street..

Makes different people do different things in response. Idle hands, etc. Throw in unwelcoming locals, radical preachers in the community, stories of oppressive foreign governments on your home turf, etc and I can see how idle youths find a call to arms appealing.

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#227

Post by benjaminmhaley »

It's an old strategy. I was reading Grimm's Fairy tales to my wife this morning and the brave little tailor used the same clever approach.

* * *

Leaping into the woods, he looked to the left and to the right. He soon saw the two giants. They were lying asleep under a tree, snoring until the branches bent up and down. The little tailor, not lazy, filled both pockets with stones and climbed the tree. Once in the middle of the tree, he slid out on a branch until he was seated right above the sleepers. Then he dropped one stone after another onto one of the giant's chest. For a long time the giant did not feel anything, but finally he woke up, shoved his companion, and said, "Why are you hitting me?"

"You are dreaming," said the other one. "I am not hitting you."

They fell asleep again, and the tailor threw a stone at the second one.

"What is this?" said the other one. "Why are you throwing things at me?"

"I am not throwing anything at you," answered the first one, grumbling.

They quarreled for a while, but because they were tired, they made peace, and they both closed their eyes again. Then the little tailor began his game again. Choosing his largest stone, he threw it at the first giant with all his strength, hitting him in the chest.

"That is too mean!" shouted the giant, then jumped up like a madman and pushed his companion against the tree, until it shook. The other one paid him back in kind, and they became so angry that they pulled up trees and struck at each other until finally, at the same time, they both fell to the ground dead.

Then the little tailor jumped down. "It is fortunate," he said, "that they did not pull up the tree where I was sitting, or I would have had to jump into another one like a squirrel. But people like me are nimble."

Drawing his sword, he gave each one a few good blows to the chest, then went back to the horsemen and said, "The work is done. I finished off both of them, but it was hard.

* * *

From The Brave Little Tailor by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

Re: The War ISIS Wants

#228

Post by fineman »

kaz1 wrote: post #225
fineman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The details of n+k don't matter as much. It's not just the latest, it's the latest that self-claims to be in a certain lineage, etc. Ultimate Abrahamic religion... And it has to make a non-self conflicting claim to be the definitive text. Once you meet the rigorous standards of 1) writing it down and 2) claiming to override all previous prophets, yes. I'd count you. (However, this will void your membership in the Cot…

I believe I, or anyone else for that matter, can do meet "your objective" standards 1. and 2. fairly easily (; you can help with clear points/texts and without cryptic acronyms). I mean there can be literally a billion 'fork' at will, which renders the whole thing meaningless. I don't claim to know much of mormonism; however the conflicts in such notions as 'ultimate', 'objective' here are difficult to reconcile: mor…

Sure you can. It's a low bar. That's the point. In the absence of any possible evidence we have to work with what we've got. As for cryptic - if you can google it I don't consider it too cryptic. lmgtfy

And I only mean ultimate, now. Compared to the other religions we could be squabbling over. In a future religion, god could be all that + offer you a pony. We'll never know. But for now, of the choices, they're all obvious losers compared to Mormonism. Literally, you could upgrade a catholic or a muslim by giving them Mormonism.

As for Smith's motivations, who's saying he wasn't fixing things. He just didn't feel the need to get all stabby and make killing a sacrament.

And it conflicts nothing - it tells it how it is. The pope is god's voice, there's no conflict. Perhaps the pope is the missing element in islam. As the ultimate religion we can only assume it has not just a point, but a great one.

Post reply on HN