Curse

DreamRunner · Sep 07, 2008, 04:58 PM // 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

By the way, good attempt at stereotyping, but not everyone who disagrees with evolution is a "religious freak".

You mean generalizations? Anyway, the point is that people who do disagree with evolution don't bring empirical research or any science theory to the table at all. People just criticize and don't bring any alternative or what it might be considered instead of and with all of Creationist bullshit going around, it easy to fall into a trap of religion generalizing.

I once met a creationist who wanted to have creationism as a part of the scientific evolution studies in high school. A friend of mines younger brother was having his end of year school dinner and I met him through my friends parents. I didn't like him very much now I think about it, but anyhow I asked how science teachers are meant to teach alternative theories without any scientific data which some religious studies hold. He replied that faith was the way to hold such creationist theories and so I asked him the same question again "how can science teachers teach such theories without any empirical evidence?" Then the he ignored me and walked away and talked to other people. The subject sorta just got dropped there, I didn't mind really because I was curious about creationism although I did feel like he was kinda of person who was just full of shit?

Dante the Warlord · Sep 07, 2008, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Why can't we just leave them to their own affairs instead of giving them the money? Why can't wars just become good ole fashioned attrition. The US has as much power as a sentimental bully nowadays, why dwindle it. Besides, where is this money coming from? Weren't they going to make more money for us in attempts to boost our economy..

And I hate the candidates running for presidency...neither of them is a good fit for president. I wish Bloomberg ran though...

sindex · Sep 07, 2008, 08:34 PM // 20:34

I think the OP is right in some way that it is ridiculous in which we are spending money on that supposed “cause,” when we know Georgia struck the first blow. We are labeling the Russian government as “bad guys,” because of the lingering Cold War rhetoric. Instead of looking at the whole picture, we are starting to slip back in time with our old hatreds, which there is no need for it.

Furthermore, it disturbs me that the U.S. has nothing but a selective process about who we help and how we help them. When genocide happens in other nations around the world, we will not bat and eye. Nevertheless, we will help those who will give us a better profit in the end (usually wishful thinking on our part). We have a bad policy that states an “enemy of our enemy is our friend.” We put some of these psychopaths in the power position they are in now and of course trying to kill us (go figure). I agree either we stop dealing with international problems if we can’t get our thinking straight or help those who actually deserve our help (not war mongers).

That goes for the entire Middle East in which we have no business in telling how people should live out their lives. If people want to over-throw, their own government because things are dire, then let the people do so. We don’t need to start a war on old grudges and faulty intelligence that’s how things end up escalating. It’s the people’s decision not ours; especially if the people put these type of people in power in the first place.

I believe in peaceful resolutions and not some big-stick policy.

As for this being a religious problem, in some ways it kind of is and kind of is not. People seem to forget we have domestic terrorism in the U.S., which has nothing to do with religion. These people include the likes of Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Robert Rudolph. I think the problem actually comes from several things. When people tend to pervert their own way of thinking, so that extreme hostility is the only answer to their problems that’s when it crosses the line. This goes with every ideology from politics to religion. The extreme nature of the human mind has unlimited potential for cruelty and we all know this.

It does not matter whom or what you are. It’s the actions or statements you provide that make you unique, but you do have the same blood pumping through you as everyone else does. One of the things I severely dislike is when someone tells their reasoning behind their cruelty is because someone else told them to do it. You have your own dam mind to understand what is right to what’s wrong, so stop making lame excuses (it’s your own reasonability).

By the way, the people talking about an assassination (sarcasm) that’s real mature of you (/end sarcasm). I don’t care how you say it, but death threats are uncalled for. You put yourself up there with the nut’s like Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, Jr., Sirhan Sirhan, and so on. As for people putting Mc Cain on a pedestal, just make sure you know this same person talks about foreign policy like this. So yeah, because of this we need another president that is trigger happy with foreign affairs while we have economic troubles of our own?

zwei2stein · Sep 07, 2008, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

..., it easy to fall into a trap of religion generalizing.

There is not trap. There is simple nature of religion. Any religion.

1) Basis of religion is bargain with your soul:

You recieve feeling of security: Answers to all important questions. Membership to group. Promises of eternal happiness, Anything.

Tradeof is that you stop asking unconfortable questions, you stop thinking for yourself to keep illusion of having all the answers. You comply with your groups taboos and rituals to stay member.

You recieve answers, you give up looking for them yourself.
You recieve morals, you no longer have to figure out what is right and wrong.
etc...

Exchange of personal intengrity for your faiths intengrity. Anything that has something to do with faith is personal. Attack on faith is attack on them.

People do not want their worldview shattered and will fight to keep it as intact as they can.

Religion makes life simple. As stated, it provides all the answers.

"Perun, the god of storm makes lightning by throwing his spears".

Theese answers form stories that are easily graspable by even person with less than average intelligence. There is never "i have no idea about this". People don't require reall answers, they just want scary blank unknown gone.

Science never gives simplicity and ease of mind religion can give. People prefer fairy tale world they can understand because it was made to be understandable.

You can especillay see this as people get older they get to believe more and more: They know death is comming and religion gives all the answer they need at moment. It gives hope. It is very hard to accept "nothing after the end", it is easy to accept eternal paradise comming soon.

There is no place for thinking. All that is required is faith and following few taboos/rites.

There is strong appeal at authority with thousand year old books and everything, making all presented answers seem oh-so-true.

This is true for all religions: It's Opiate. Getting all answers, Falling in place, Feeling assured abotu everything ... they are all enjoyable feelings.

---

There is very good reason to expect religion to be behind backwards thinking, because that is point of religion:

It gives ultimate answer. But that answer is always made up hogwash.

---

PS: If you want to really REALLY upset and taunt christian, Call him out on Arrogance of claiming to have better answers than religions thousands years older. Religions existing longer than Christianty dates age of universe. (!)

PS2: It's about 300 years since christians burned people alive for looking a bit weird. Look up salem witch hunt.

Master Fuhon · Sep 07, 2008, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Although I've read and disagreed with enough of what you wrote, I don't think theres a reason to go point-counterpoint with the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

We are labeling the Russian government as “bad guys,” because of the lingering Cold War rhetoric. Instead of looking at the whole picture, we are starting to slip back in time with our old hatreds, which there is no need for it.

Just because there are two side in a war doesn't mean one is going to be right. My beliefs about Iraq is that the conflict came up again when Saddam Hussein decided to bluff the U.S. into either taking action while already in Afghanistan or to look like wimps. It's pretty safe to believe that old hatreds can come up again at any time we choose to forget history (American Confederacy and German Nazi parties have not gone away completely).

Putin had things to say about the U.S. war in Iraq when he was still president, so we have things to say about the Russian invasion of Georgia. That's about it, you'll notice that only condemnations have been given which is standard political fare. Russia is clearly in the wrong for having placed tanks in Georgia; if this conflict was really about the independence of South Ossetia they just wouldn't be there. The U.S. isn't denying the existence of a conflict in any place we have our armies. I think when it comes down to it, the U.S. realizes that Georgia is playing it's own part, and that is why we are sending out feelers to determine whether the Cold War "rhetoric" is really over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

Furthermore, it disturbs me that the U.S. has nothing but a selective process about who we help and how we help them. When genocide happens in other nations around the world, we will not bat and eye.

Some of those countries that really need help aren't even strong enough to lift a finger in defense of themselves. It's a difficult choice to decide as a lone country to fight a war entirely for those people when it's not clear if they will even be grateful about it. We only give support to places when it is clear that they will fight for objectives. You can't fight for people who don't want to fight for themselves and expect not to get drained. That's too much like our failing welfare system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

stuff

I didn't check everything you wrote about religion but the argument sounded about right.

Religion gives you all the answers with none of the proof.

Science gives you all of the proof but none of the answers.

Equally self-righteous in my opinion to mock how someone has wrong answers when you haven't tried to answer the question yourself.

But don't hold Christians entirely responsible for the witch trials. Enough people used them to get people they disliked killed without any belief in God whatsoever. Kind of like the Communism scare.

Inde · Sep 07, 2008, 11:26 PM // 23:26

Wow, way to leave it to off-topic for going off-topic. I'm not sure why we are allowing this thread to remain open, besides morbid curiosity maybe, but it's so full of politics, religion, hate speech, even misinformation that I can only guess we'll allow you to continue as some of us enjoy watching the self-destruction of a thread.

Snow Bunny · Sep 08, 2008, 02:25 AM // 02:25

Inde, as soon as someone makes a thread along these lines, it inevitably turns into an "America, religion, and shit, etc. suck" thread

It's pathetic, but whatever.

Taurucis · Sep 08, 2008, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Time to throw in something which I hope is contributive.

There is usually never a "bad guy" in war, except for rare cases (like) when you've got some crazy psychopathic guy who thinks that everyone except for his favorite people should be wiped out) And there is usually never a "good guy" in war, but there are exceptions (like a country who is being bullied from every side, and they decide to stand u for themselves)

Basically, in this case you can't point to Russia or Georgia and say "They're the bad guys, they started this!" I would guess that both sides probably play a role in it, although I am not an expert on the situation and therefore I'm not 100% sure on every bit of fact.

fenix · Sep 08, 2008, 02:55 AM // 02:55

In my opinion, America, religion, and shit, etc. suck.

Daenara · Sep 08, 2008, 04:10 AM // 04:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

In my opinion, America, religion, and shit, etc. suck.

^
I couldn't have said it better myself.

sindex · Sep 08, 2008, 05:31 AM // 05:31

I’m sorry but I can’t simply ignore bigotry or conspiracy to commit murder. So forgive me if I went off topic just to answer to what others have stated before. As I have stated before I believe in peaceful resolutions and not some big stick policy. I know asking for world peace is a bit much but at least we can start tolerating each other instead trying to exhibit harm to one another. This goes with the conflict at hand with Georgia and Russia in which there is no need to escalate things out of proportion to start WWIII. Peace man, and I am done discussing politics and religion because all it does is cause more harm then good here.

DreamRunner · Sep 08, 2008, 03:54 PM // 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

There is not trap. There is simple nature of religion. Any religion.

1) Basis of religion is bargain with your soul:

You recieve feeling of security: Answers to all important questions. Membership to group. Promises of eternal happiness, Anything.

Tradeof is that you stop asking unconfortable questions, you stop thinking for yourself to keep illusion of having all the answers. You comply with your groups taboos and rituals to stay member.

You recieve answers, you give up looking for them yourself.
You recieve morals, you no longer have to figure out what is right and wrong.
etc...

Exchange of personal intengrity for your faiths intengrity. Anything that has something to do with faith is personal. Attack on faith is attack on them.

People do not want their worldview shattered and will fight to keep it as intact as they can.

Religion makes life simple. As stated, it provides all the answers.

"Perun, the god of storm makes lightning by throwing his spears".

Theese answers form stories that are easily graspable by even person with less than average intelligence. There is never "i have no idea about this". People don't require reall answers, they just want scary blank unknown gone.

Science never gives simplicity and ease of mind religion can give. People prefer fairy tale world they can understand because it was made to be understandable.

You can especillay see this as people get older they get to believe more and more: They know death is comming and religion gives all the answer they need at moment. It gives hope. It is very hard to accept "nothing after the end", it is easy to accept eternal paradise comming soon.

There is no place for thinking. All that is required is faith and following few taboos/rites.

There is strong appeal at authority with thousand year old books and everything, making all presented answers seem oh-so-true.

This is true for all religions: It's Opiate. Getting all answers, Falling in place, Feeling assured abotu everything ... they are all enjoyable feelings.

---

There is very good reason to expect religion to be behind backwards thinking, because that is point of religion:

It gives ultimate answer. But that answer is always made up hogwash.

---

PS: If you want to really REALLY upset and taunt christian, Call him out on Arrogance of claiming to have better answers than religions thousands years older. Religions existing longer than Christianty dates age of universe. (!)

PS2: It's about 300 years since christians burned people alive for looking a bit weird. Look up salem witch hunt.

Since this is a very huge generalization on religion. I guess I was hoping for something more, but this is the internet. Just to be clear, you made a bunch of statements which isn't really an argument... so I guess I will have to deal with what I have been given.

Firstly lets point out with the soul. You seem to accept that people do have a soul which is a religious concept yet you attack religion on answering spiritual questions. I think you're trying to attack more on organized religion, rather than religion itself. And yet you bring science which to say to you imply is the better alternative, but you forget that science can only answer an limited amount of questions. Yes, science is about what we can see in the physical realm.
Secondly, the morals which religion is based upon which is to say that our western society is based on, Christian morals is fundamentally relative which is moral relativism. Certainly that people go into the world and become confused on what is good and bad or become lost, and its a hard path to take because its not. However I am not sure what radical religious groups you have met with but religion isn't a mind cap of total control. That is to say once you identify yourself as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist or other religions that you are all the same.

This is the trap which I would say atheist people have argued the same thing that all religion is bad because its done some bad things. Its not. If you want to indoctrinate science as the key example of the best rational to be against religion or a subject which yourself might find yourself in, then by all means do it but you will find that there is MORE out there than our physical selves.

I am really not going to argue this anymore, its beyond pointless. I just hope people find more out there than the above person is trying to push the science rational is better. I am not going to say it's not and I am not going to say is but what I am going to say is that generalizations are bad and are WRONG.

Zahr Dalsk · Sep 08, 2008, 04:02 PM // 16:02

IMO religion is something that should be treated as bullshit until it provides some empirical proof or flawless logic that the stories it tells (whatever religion it may be) are true. That's how we treat science, isn't it? If you start up some random theory filled with circular logic and no solid evidence or indeed, any reason to believe it, it's dismissed as bullshit. The same should go for religion.

Master Fuhon · Sep 08, 2008, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

I’m sorry but I can’t simply ignore bigotry or conspiracy to commit murder. So forgive me if I went off topic just to answer to what others have stated before. As I have stated before I believe in peaceful resolutions and not some big stick policy. I know asking for world peace is a bit much but at least we can start tolerating each other instead trying to exhibit harm to one another. This goes with the conflict at hand with Georgia and Russia in which there is no need to escalate things out of proportion to start WWIII. Peace man, and I am done discussing politics and religion because all it does is cause more harm then good here.

So you advocate world peace without using the big stick?

Think of it this way, let's say you wanted something as simple as peace on these forums. First you deal with the trolls who only want to lure people into arguments. Second, you find out that people have a wide enough range of assumptions about each other, they enough don't even want to make an effort to agree on anything. Third, taking away the trolls and the assumptions, our belief systems aren't even compatible with each other. This thread proves it enough. So what's the solution to get peace: Is it to do nothing while other countries are making misteps? (possibly what the US could be doing by forging this particular alliance, probably won't know soon enough)

Now in dealing with the real world, do you allow trolls complete freedom to do whatever they please, which is mostly to disrupt peace. If you tell people they can't make assumptions and hate other people, they want the other people to change instead of learning to tolerate them. World peace is nothing more than putting an army in every part of the world that keeps people from acting on their beliefs out of fear of consequences. It was the lack of approval of other countries that is slowing the escalation of the conflict between Georgia/Russia. The two sides aren't agreeing on anything. Expressing disagreement works better at achieving peace than expecting everyone to see things one way.

I would prefer to advocate a kind of chaos where people aren't constantly suppressing an urge to kill each other, because they have the freedom to express themselves and take sides. I figure that arguing is better than fighting, fighting is better than killing, killing is better than exterminating and so on. I just know it's unreasonable to demand that everyone hold hands and sing together at this time. We can already see that people who want nothing to do with Christianity (not even to research it) are willing to form their own opinions about how evil it is. People who do not know the specifics about the Georgia/U.S./Russian relations have already jumped to conclusions about right/wrong. These types of radical beliefs are only being held back during times of peace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

IMO religion is something that should be treated as bullshit until it provides some empirical proof or flawless logic that the stories it tells (whatever religion it may be) are true. That's how we treat science, isn't it? If you start up some random theory filled with circular logic and no solid evidence or indeed, any reason to believe it, it's dismissed as bullshit. The same should go for religion.

Actually, much of science exists in the hypothesizing stage right now. That's what religion really is, and that's why religion isn't too much of a problem. People always choose to focus on the aspects of religion that have the weakest arguments supporting them, but that doesn't give you the power to break down every religion like you just tried to. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But in the end, you can't discredit religion on grounds of science. Who's to say that a subjective reality cannot exist as firmly as an objective one? We spend most of our time arguing that the reality we know is the only one. I think the only agreement is that someone's subjective reality shouldn't interfere with the one we consider to be objective. I won't say that I believe in subjective reality, just that I think we are clueless about the state of what we call objective.

zwei2stein · Sep 08, 2008, 06:07 PM // 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Since this is a very huge generalization on religion. I guess I was hoping for something more, but this is the internet. Just to be clear, you made a bunch of statements which isn't really an argument... so I guess I will have to deal with what I have been given.

Be my guest

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Firstly lets point out with the soul. You seem to accept that people do have a soul which is a religious concept yet you attack religion on answering spiritual questions. I think you're trying to attack more on organized religion, rather than religion itself. And yet you bring science which to say to you imply is the better alternative, but you forget that science can only answer an limited amount of questions. Yes, science is about what we can see in the physical realm.

I meant "soul" as persons self and integrity and morals. I by no means believe in soul in religious sense.

Because religious "soul" concept is hogwash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Secondly, the morals which religion is based upon which is to say that our western society is based on, Christian morals is fundamentally relative which is moral relativism. Certainly that people go into the world and become confused on what is good and bad or become lost, and its a hard path to take because its not. However I am not sure what radical religious groups you have met with but religion isn't a mind cap of total control. That is to say once you identify yourself as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist or other religions that you are all the same.

That is only positive function of Religion: it enforces morals and gives higher morals to people who would be too stupid to work them out themselves or plainly malicious. But there is no need to support it with fairy tales, etc.

Yes, religion is not total mind control, it is control that everyone creates themselves: Your own prison of mind.

The stronger belief, the better control. The more you restrict yourself. Otherwise it would fall apart really fast and bloody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

This is the trap which I would say atheist people have argued the same thing that all religion is bad because its done some bad things. Its not. If you want to indoctrinate science as the key example of the best rational to be against religion or a subject which yourself might find yourself in, then by all means do it but you will find that there is MORE out there than our physical selves.

What trap? Religion still poisons minds. Religion still allows people to do insanely cruel things to each other and feel good about it. "God Wanted us to invade Iraq". It is not that much of past. All past examples illustrate religions as tools. Either to win public support for killing other humans.

All past examples illustrate religions as bastilions of ignorance and fear and preserving status quo, preventing knowledge and progress (guess what happened to most of books of Inca or pretty much any written testament of any nations that were gifted by misionaries? Yes, bonfires)

"More than our physical selves" See, science can accept that it has no answers. It does not need to make up stories to keep peace of mind. And science can accept that it was wrong and rebuild itself and more knowledge is discovered and verified and not made up.

That makes it superior to Religion which can't accept being wrong, which makes up answers and which claims it has all the answers.

Its Truth versus Lies.

Facts versus Wishful thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

But in the end, you can't discredit religion on grounds of science. Who's to say that a subjective reality cannot exist as firmly as an objective one? We spend most of our time arguing that the reality we know is the only one. I think the only agreement is that someone's subjective reality shouldn't interfere with the one we consider to be objective. I won't say that I believe in subjective reality, just that I think we are clueless about the state of what we call objective.

Being ignorant of true nature of reality does not excuse making up stuff about it.

Master Fuhon · Sep 08, 2008, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

That makes it superior to Religion which can't accept being wrong, which makes up answers and which claims it has all the answers.

Its Truth versus Lies.

Facts versus Wishful thinking.

Being ignorant of true nature of reality does not excuse making up stuff about it.

It is the universe that governs science, not the other way around. Your meaning of truth is not even governed by pure empiricism, but by your own assumptions. Humans have no mastery of the universe; you seem not to grasp this concept in practicing your own worship of science. The Chinese may shoot silver-iodide into the clouds to induce rain; we may run our society with fuels from the ground; electric flow has been harnessed well enough to operate our computers. This is no more than flailing your arms around in the ocean and calling it perfect swimming because you are able to stay afloat (even more, swimming doesn't require knowledge of the composition of water to do) Our current religions haven't been around forever. It requires the same type of breakthroughs to advance religion as it does science, only we can't just generate experiments to test our spiritual nature as easily.

If we choose to destroy our current spiritual knowledge base the way you want to, we have nothing. It doesn't make us smarter to begin working with no model in place. Do we just sit around and wait for thousands of years for an almighty being to make itself known as proof, because you can't prove empirically that something doesn't exist. Do we begin trying to make people have near death experiences and tell us what the end of life is like? And how about when we get the empirical proof, won't it just be dismissed as hallucination? Billions of people believe in something already and you still choose not to recognize those beliefs. So wait, why are we relying on everyone to get it before moving forward with religion? Some people are just slow learners.

We are limited to knowing empirically the things that we are able to percieve as humans. The objective reality is nothing more than the pool of our own subjective realities merged into one model. The rest cannot just be disqualified from the data pool. That is how science works, does it not? The data points so far away from confirming with the model are discarded as experiments gone wrong. But reality is not an experiment, and all data points need to be integrated to consider it "truth". You are absolutely discarding the viewpoint of billions of people; even if they may be wrong, it must be considered why they hold the beliefs that they do. It is the person who is discarding the view points of other people who is not aware of truth or reality.

And religion is really, really far off this topic; not to mention way beyond the scope of a single person's thinking. Even I don't see a point to challenging something in the manner you have attempted. So I'm going to point it out again: you sound like science is your religion.

Sleeper Service · Sep 08, 2008, 09:25 PM // 21:25

a lot of people confuse the system and structure with the concept and message.

oh. and youve all gone way OT btw.

business as usual.

Zorgy · Sep 08, 2008, 11:40 PM // 23:40

Information is not knowledge folks, as information may be biased.

Miraaz (Estonian citizen) wrote:"...Georgia got demolished, and I mean demolished by Russia. And in case you didn't know, Russia started the conflict, so why shouldn't US help Georgia?m After all US is one of the richest countries on earth..." this is not true Miraaz you were badly/wrongly informed !!!!!!!

In order to be well informed you have to read many sources of informations and then you are able to make your own statement.

Concerning Georgia, read this Washington Post article written by a young Russian journalist (The writer, a master's degree candidate at Duquesne University, is an intern at The Post.)

A Free Press? Not This Time.

By Olga Ivanova
Friday, August 15, 2008

I wish I could fly back to Russia. I have been in the United States for a year, and I am studying and working here to get experience in American journalism, known worldwide for its independence and professionalism. But in recent days it has felt as though I am too late, that the journalism of Watergate is well behind us and that reporting is no longer fair and balanced.
For years I have respected American newspapers for being independent. But no longer. Coverage of the conflict between Russia and Georgia has been unprofessional, to say the least. I was surprised and disappointed that the world's media immediately took the side of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili last week.

American newspapers have run story after story about how "evil" Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state. Many accounts made it seem as though the conflict was started by an aggressive Russia invading the Georgian territory of South Ossetia. Some said that South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, was destroyed by the Russian army. Little attention was paid to the chronology of events, the facts underlying the conflict.

Last week, Georgia's president invaded South Ossetia during the night, much as Adolf Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. Within hours, Georgian troops destroyed Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000, and they killed more than 2,000 civilians. Almost all of the people who died that night were Russian citizens. They chose to become citizens of Russia years ago, when Georgia refused to recognize South Ossetia as a non-Georgian territory.

The truth is that, in this case, Russian aggression actually made some sense. Russia defended its citizens.

Yet American newspapers published stories that omitted mention of the Georgian invasion. And American media as a whole have been disturbingly pro-Georgian. The lead photograph on the front page of Sunday's Post showed two men -- one dead, the other crying -- amid ruins in Gori, Georgia. Many other images could have been used. Monday's Wall Street Journal, for example, contained several stories about the conflict and even an op-ed by Saakashvili. Where was the Russian response?

I understand why the Georgian government would block access to Russian media Web sites. I understand why Russian media would present events in a light that favors Moscow's actions. But American media are not supposed to do the equivalent.

The much-revered American principle of a free press guarantees access to an independent source of information. It is supposed to mean that nobody takes a side, that journalists give readers the facts and let them draw their own conclusions. The Georgian president quickly became a chief newsmaker for Western media outlets, yet little could be found to explain the Russian side.

It's hard to understand how and why the terrible situation between Georgia and Russia has played out this way. Everything seemed too clear for the journalists writing about the conflict: Big, evil Russia tried to destroy small, democratic Georgia.

And the American media's willingness to choose sides provoked Russian media outlets. Russian newspapers did not waste time reminding readers that the true evil was the United States and that Washington was ultimately responsible for the conflict in Ossetia and Georgia.

Beyond the slanted coverage, I am also concerned about the lack of information on the number of civilians killed and wounded. How should we know which accounts to trust?

Over the past week, American media have achieved one thing for sure: They have lost prestige among a generation of young Russians who believed that America is a country of true, uncorrupted, independent information. Many Russian youths come to the United States for college and then go back to Russia to help build our own democracy. Russians believe in democracy. But I don't know whether many Russians will ever trust American media reports again.

U.S. newspapers have lost esteem among Russian journalists as well. These reporters have long looked to American newspapers as icons of quality journalism. They are supposed to stand for truth and serve the people's interests. But whose interests did newspapers serve by publishing stories in the best traditions of the Cold War?

I think that both the Russian and Georgian governments attacked civilians. I blame the governments for this war. But I am also saddened by the unfair coverage of the conflict from Russian and American media. If this is what freedom of the press looks like, then I no longer want to believe in this freedom. I prefer to stay neutral and independent, just like a professional journalist has to do.

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...48.html?sub=AR

Read as well all the comments.....they are very interesting

"...Geez Ms. Ivanova, talk about naive! The US media hasn't been "independent" in years, if ever! Did you not watch the 2000 & 2004 elections? Did you not see how the major media players pushed for war with Iraq, including and especially the Washington Post. How these same major media players refuse to admit how disinegenuous they have been in the runup to war and the suckup to bush? How in the 2008 elections they focus on trivia and soap opera rather than real issues?
No, the US media sucks. It is not independent. It is nothing but a rightwing tool espousing rightwing talking points. The rightwing have spoken, see McCain's imperious presumptuous, pathetic announcements as an example. They have decided that the Russians are to blame and to hell with the facts. And, Poof, there it is. That's all that need be said.
Independent? Not. A. Chance...."

PS/ Now you may understand easily why US to send $1,000,000,000 to Georgia...LOL COLD WAR IS BACK FOLKS......big weapons business & USA + republicans are n°1 in this biz

May the PEACE be with you....

zwei2stein · Sep 09, 2008, 06:39 AM // 06:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

It is the universe that governs science, not the other way around. Your meaning of truth is not even governed by pure empiricism, but by your own assumptions. Humans have no mastery of the universe; you seem not to grasp this concept in practicing your own worship of science. The Chinese may shoot silver-iodide into the clouds to induce rain; we may run our society with fuels from the ground; electric flow has been harnessed well enough to operate our computers. This is no more than flailing your arms around in the ocean and calling it perfect swimming because you are able to stay afloat (even more, swimming doesn't require knowledge of the composition of water to do) ...

Read into scientific method. We *KNOW* out knowledge is not perfect. We *KNOW* we are likely wrong about some stuff and we will throw away nonsense if it ever becomes apparent. But what Science presets you is always verifiable: fact and truth. Perfections is goal wqe will never reach but will aim for, not current state.

You speak of assumptions: A Theory. In science every theory is presumed wrong unless proven otherwise.

Also, i do not "worship" science, but i much prefer not to live life based on made up stuff. And prefer not having arrogance of having all the answers.

Also, your swimming example is wrong. It is not swimming and calling it prefect it is swimming and wanting to know why it works. Eventually deciphering it and improving. Only religion would call their "swimming" perfect without understanding a thing, because it does not require any real understanding to work (it only requires understading of underlying made up wishfull thinking stuff)

Master Fuhon · Sep 09, 2008, 04:57 PM // 16:57

In science, it is assumed that something is false until proven true. It is not concluded that something is false until proven true. In science we use numbers expressing probability until we have reached a conclusion.

The reason why it is done this way is because it is assumed that a person would be biased in favor of something they are claiming, so you take on the side of convincing the opposition. It has nothing to do with the logical proof of the statement at all; it relates to showing which side the burden of proof is on.

It's considered Argument from Personal Incredulity to say: this cannot be explained or understood, therefore it is false. Science has strict rules governing the creation of new hypotheses. If there can be no test for truth, then science doesn't touch it. Just because scientists avoid the tough questions, doesn't mean they stop existing.

I'm actually arguing that we stop arguing about religion here. No scientist would be dumb enough to deny that we can percieve things that cannot be tested empirically in the near future. If you can't sense these things, it must be something you are putting into your body that's doing it to you. Everyone should be sensing these things, just not every brain will know how to integrate them. 100% False until proven true is just guaranteeing us that we work with an outdated knowledge base forever; someone has to want to prove something true to get us going anywhere. Sometimes leaping to a second conclusion helps with proving the first one.

Science was meant to be just a knowledge base, but for the sake of stupidity, I think it's about time we include unanswered questions as being part of that knowledge. So study logic to learn how to remove assumptions from your arguments, and find a trained philosopher who gets paid to argue this stuff. Intelligence is about knowing that there is more to know than what we currently do; stupid people believe they know all that there is. I know that's not a good argument by logic standards, but stop using the brain to produce the same close-mindedness that you are complaining about religious people using.

And words should not have positive or negative charging like you are doing with both religion and science. Science is the knowledge obtained and tested through study in relation to the physical world. Religion is the set of beliefs, values, and attitudes attempting to explain the creation, nature, and purpose of the universe and the role of everything that may be a part of it. So when I say that you are worshiping science, I am pointing out that you are working with an emotionally charged version of something that should be neutral. This is called arguing semantics because you are warping definitions to try to keep this argument going.

So in regards to this thread, are you arguing that nothing has happened involving Georgia because no one can prove any of it?