Amid Rising Heat, Hajj Becomes Test of Endurance for Pilgrims and Saudi Arabia (www.nytimes.com)
from TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 04:44
https://lemmy.world/post/30770097

The hajj, one of the largest annual human gatherings in the world, begins on Wednesday in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Amid rising temperatures and logistical challenges, the pilgrimage has increasingly become a test of endurance both for pilgrims and the Saudi government.

Millions of Muslims from around the world travel to the city to take part; Saudi Arabia said 1,475,230 pilgrims from abroad have arrived since Sunday. Last year, the Saudi government said more than 1,300 pilgrims died, many from Egypt. Most of those who perished had been unregistered, Saudi officials said, meaning they had made the trip without the permits that gave them access to heat protections.

#world

threaded - newest

Visstix@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 09:41 next collapse

Darwin awards

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 10:12 next collapse

It’s a requirement in their faith todo this at least once if you can.

rumimevlevi@lemmings.world on 04 Jun 13:22 next collapse

You know that the hajj change day every year. A muslim have plenty of opportunity to go when there is no dangerous heat

BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 14:10 next collapse

Faith is idiocy

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 14:58 next collapse

While Im inclined to agree with you neither atheists nor theists can prove the other wrong.

BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 15:20 next collapse

Sure, but atheists don’t organize together to persecute theists for their beliefs, in many theocracies right now being a non believer is punishable by death, not to mention the homophobia, the sexism, the tolerance for child rape, and many other kinds of abused towards vulnerable people, and other dogmatic nonsense. Religion creates in groups and out groups and twists people into being obedient fools who will do anything to stay part of the in group and guarantee their ticket to their so called heaven, I’d rather people learn to think for themselves and have the strength to live on their own, rather than becoming slaves to someone else’s ideology

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 15:32 next collapse

You might want to crack open a history book focusing on any of the attempts at socialism or communism in Asia. You will find many atheists persecuting theists.

There aren’t many theocratic states remaining.

Everything creates in groups and out groups, nothing does this better than leftism.

BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 15:46 next collapse

Religion is just a means of controlling the idiot masses like yourself, those political parties that clamp down on religion aren’t doing it because they are atheist but because they don’t want any competition when it comes to controlling people, and morons like you who think of the world in binary terms like left and right fall for this stupid shit. As I said before read more than one book in your life and form your own opinions for once, stop assimilating the views of the people around you like a good little sheep, stop worrying so much about being discarded by your flock, this isn’t the dark ages, you won’t die from starvation on your own

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 16:12 collapse

Considering that you are two comments in and you have already made a series of factual errors AND I have said Im an atheist I don’t think you are qualified to determine who is less intelligent than average.

You also need remedial English lessons because oof.

DragonSidedD@lemmy.ml on 04 Jun 17:00 next collapse

“Atheists” who make themselves, or the State, a swap-in replacement for God(s) are not much different from purely religious authorities who abuse their positions. It is apparently a common kind of power-seeking Dark Trait.

The Leviathan theory of the state – the Motherland who is greater than us, who we would die for as cells die to preserve the body, and whose Exegeses come from the Great Leader/Supreme Council/President for Life.

It’s exactly the same play on faith and credulity and servility that religions use.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 17:02 collapse

It’s almost as if there is a factual history of atheists murdering theists and that the claim I replied to is wrong about that very well known historical fact.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 22:26 collapse

The church has been a political power throughout history, and has often come into conflict with other political powers, such as totalitarian dictators. It is utterly disingenuous to claim that this has anything to do with atheists. It’s about the state eliminating the church and their message as a competing institution and influence.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 05 Jun 23:21 collapse

You need to crack open a book desperately if that’s your current perspective because Im not talking about churches. You absolutely have bigoted atheists, who murder theists. China loves murdering religious folk.

There are tons of atheists who are bigots.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 00:49 collapse

You gonna keep using that “crack a book” line repeatedly without citing any references? It’s getting tired.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 06 Jun 01:13 collapse

Are youasking me to refer a book about the CCP’s treatment of religious communities?

scarabic@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 21:07 collapse

I’m saying that references are more convincing than the condescending exhortation to “go read a book.” I’m also saying that if you persist in flogging people with the claim that you’ve read more than them, it won’t be long before you’re asked to show one bit of evidence for that. You can’t just run around saying “you’re wrong! I’ve read books that say so!”

Saleh@feddit.org on 04 Jun 21:33 next collapse

Sure, but atheists don’t organize together to persecute theists for their beliefs,

en.wikipedia.org/…/Stalinist_repressions_in_Mongo…

Estimates differ, but anywhere between 20,000 and 35,000 “enemies of the revolution” were executed, a figure representing three to five percent of Mongolia’s total population at the time.[2] Victims included those accused of espousing Tibetan Buddhism, pan-Mongolist nationalism, and pro-Japanese sentiment. Buddhist clergy, aristocrats, intelligentsia, political dissidents, and ethnic Buryats were particularly impacted.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Persecution_of_Christians_in_t…

Soviet Marxist-Leninist policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and it actively encouraged the propagation of Marxist-Leninist atheism in the Soviet Union.[2] However, most religions were never officially outlawed.[1]

The state established atheism as the only scientific truth.[14][15][16][17] Soviet authorities forbade the criticism of atheism and agnosticism until 1936 or of the state’s anti-religious policies; such criticism could lead to forced retirement.[18][19][20]

BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 01:11 next collapse

Of course more dumb what about isms, you think I can’t Google religious atrocities and find dozens and dozens of more links, and as I already explained to the other guy, if you pay even a fraction of attention to your own links, these are autocratic political organizations persecuting religions so as to eliminate any competition over control of the masses. Notice how in all of these examples it’s political organizations doing these things, where as for religion even the avg Joe turns into an asshole so as to not get ostracized by his little tribe of good for nothings

Saleh@feddit.org on 05 Jun 05:13 collapse

Did it cross your mind that where persecutions were done “in the name of religion”, religion was instrumentalized by autocratic political organizations for their political goals?

By the way, did you think that you are not on the track to get people persecuted, when you dehumanize people based on the fact that they are religious? You know, the broad generalizations and consistent insults?

Thats how genocidial regimes start, when they want to annihilate the people they hate a decade or two down the line.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 22:24 collapse

You should be able to understand that a totalitarian dictator attacking religion as a competing institution, in order to consolidate his power, says more about totalitarian dictators and absolutely nothing about atheists.

x_pikl_x@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 04:27 collapse

Apparently they do it online. Every single time something religious is even hinted at, or somebody does something in line with religious beliefs, or even if somebody posts a picture of someone that moderately resembles a religious figure… Send in the atheists to proclaim their denial en mass. It’s just as pathetic and annoying as the goat herder yelling about his sky god.

DragonSidedD@lemmy.ml on 04 Jun 16:52 next collapse

Atheists don’t need to disprove theists any more than they need to disprove Leprechauns. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 17:19 next collapse

Which is a different way of stating you are incapable of proving what you believe just like they are.

SkyezOpen@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 18:47 collapse

Lack of belief is not belief in nothing.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 18:51 collapse

The assertion that there is no God cannot be proven as you cannot prove a negative.

There assertion that there is a divine entity cannot be logically demonstrated in any valid way logically speaking.

The validity of either claim cannot be tested and thus have the same overall value and it is a matter of which you choose to accept.

SkyezOpen@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 19:08 next collapse

Lacking a belief in God is not asserting there is no God. I don’t know how to dumb this down any more.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 20:16 collapse

Lacking a belief in God, asserting there is no God, and asserting there is a God are all equally impossible to prove provided that by “God” we mean an omnipotent omipresent being.

I dont know how to make that any clearer.

SkyezOpen@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 21:00 collapse

“I make no claim”

“You can’t prove it!”

I mean, yeah, because no claim is being made. Do you genuinely not understand the difference between no claim and a negative claim? Even if you think they’re the same thing, the burden of proof is still on the person making the positive claim.

WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml on 04 Jun 19:20 next collapse

The assertion that there is no God cannot be proven as you cannot prove a negative.

Correct, no one argued that.

There assertion that there is a divine entity cannot be logically demonstrated in any valid way logically speaking.

Correct again.

The validity of either claim cannot be tested and thus have the same overall value and it is a matter of which you choose to accept.

Do you really mean that?

If I were to accuse you of something terrible like being a child molester with absolutely zero evidence…

That’s valid? You can deny it, but your denial is of equal value to my accusation right? So if everyone in this comment section chooses to believe you molester children from now on… do you have a problem with that?

The reason I’m an atheist is the same reason I don’t believe you’re a child molester yet. I think there is a burden of proof of evidence that would need to be met before the accusation needs to be taken seriously.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 20:09 collapse

There is no evidence of me being a child molester AND if I were there would be proof that’s why your example is a false equivalence.

If the Christian God exists, for example, there would be no way of knowing for certain because that God would be omnipresent and thus would be everything. If God is everything what do you compare it to?

If you spend enough time focusing on the truth of this you will eventually conclude you cannot prove your belief like they cannot prove theirs so neither side has anything demonstrable.

WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml on 05 Jun 01:01 collapse

if I were there would be proof that’s why your example is a false equivalence.

Not necessarily. This is lemmy, you’re on a completely anonymous account. I wouldn’t expect to have any proof.

Maybe you just didn’t get caught yet.

If the Christian God exists, for example, there would be no way of knowing for certain

I was willing to grant you the philosophical God argument, but if you want to evoke the Christian God you’re now making a whole bunch of positive claims.

Why don’t we look at the evolutionary record and see whether all of humanity comes from Adam and Eve or if animals evolved from a common ancestor?

We can look for evidence of a flood, or an exodus and see there is none.

We can track the history of Yahweh, and how he was syncretized with El and Baal from Caananite faiths, and morphed over centuries from a local Storm/war God to the only God.

The early Israelites engaged in polytheistic practices that were common across ancient Semitic religion, because the Israelite religion was a derivative of the Canaanite religion and included a variety of deities from it, including El, Asherah, and Baal. Initially a lesser deity among the Cannanite pantheon, Yahweh in later centuries became conflated with El; Yahweh took on El’s place as head of the pantheon of the Israelite religion, El’s consort Asherah, and El-linked epithets, such as ʾĒl Šadday (אֵל שַׁדַּי‎), came to be applied to Yahweh alone. Characteristics of other deities, such as Asherah and Baal, were also selectively absorbed in conceptions of Yahweh.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

We can compare the contradictions between the behavior of the Old Testament God and Jesus to conclude like early Christians such as Marcion of Sinope Yahweh and Christianity are incompatible

Study of the Hebrew Bible, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible. Marcion responded by developing a ditheistic system of belief around the year 144.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

We can compare the Gospels and see where they copied stories from the Iliad/Odyssey.

Odyssey Location Mark Location

Athena descends like a bird 1.319-324 Spirit descends like a dove 2:1-2 Sailors volunteer to follow Athena 2.383-413 Fishermen volunteer to follow Jesus 1:16-20 Nestor’s feast for 4500 men 3.1-68 Jesus’s feast for 5000 men 6:30-44 Menelaus’s wedding feast 4.1-67 Jesus’s feast for 4000 8:1-9 Odysseus enters city behind mules 6.252-261 Jesus enters city on an ass 11:1-11 Alcinous’s prolific figs trees 7.112-121 Jesus curses unprolific fig tree 11:12-14 Blind Demodocus among sailors 8.471-473 Blind man at “House-of-fisherman” 8:22-26 Lotus-eating, forgetful comrades 9.62-107 Forgetful disciples at sea 8:19-21 Polyphemus the cave-dweller 9.105-525 Dangerous demoniac from caves 5:1-20 Aeolus’s bag of winds and gale 10.1-55 Jesus calms winds and sea 4:35-41 Cannibals at the harbor 10.76-136 Hostile Pharisees at the harbor 8:10-13 Following a water carrier to dinner 10.100-116 Following a water carrier to dinner 14:12-16 Circe turns soldiers into swine 10.135-465 Jesus sends demons into swine 5:1-20 Odysseus’s last supper before Hades 10.546-561 Jesus’s last super and Gethsemane 14:32-42 Death of young Elpenor 10.546-560 Flight of naked young man 14:43-52 Blind seer Tiresias 11.90-94 Blind seer Bartimaeus 10:46-52 Death of Agamemnon at a feast 11.409-430 Death of the Baptist at a feast 6:14-29 Burial of Elpenor at dawn 12.1-5 Young man at tomb at dawn 16:1-4 Eurylochus’s vow 12.298-305 Peter’s vow 14:26-31 Eurylochus’s broken vow 12.367-396 Peter’s broken vow 14:66-72 Eumaeus’s Phoenician nurse 15.417-491 Syrophoenician woman 7:24-30 Odysseus’s transfiguration 16.172-301 Jesus’s transfiguration 9:2-13 Suitors plot to kill Telemachus 16.383-385 Vinedressers kill the beloved son 12:1-12 Conspiracy to kill Telemachus 17.182-213 Conspiracy to kill Jesus 14:10-11 Penelope’s hospitality 17.534-547 Generous widow at temple 12:41-42 Irus the beggar 18.1-94 Barabbas the brigand 15:6-15 Telemachus’s amazement at house 19.35-43 Disciples’ amazement at temple 13:1-2 Penelope’s request for a sign 19.102-271 Disciples’ request for a sign 13:3-8 Prophetic oak at Dodona 19.296-307 Prophetic fig tree 13:28-31 Eurycleia washes her master 19.370-575 Woman anoints Jesus 14:3-9 Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus 19.474-486 Peter’s recognition of the Messiah 8:27-30 Odysseus

Akasazh@feddit.nl on 04 Jun 19:24 collapse

You night wanna look up the history of philosophy of the middle ages, they do a lot of fancy reasoning to make Faith and empiristic data work. They couldn’t really find a way, so you might have the same trouble. Beautiful aruments, though.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 20:04 collapse

I have read them. The fact is you cannot prove either position. You only have the one that makes sense to you. In my case it is atheism but knowing I cannot prove my belief there is no God can you see why a believer might not be willing to dismiss their beliefs without proof?

Akasazh@feddit.nl on 04 Jun 22:20 collapse

The scientific method needs no proof to believe in. It embraces fallacy and tries to disprove rather than prove. This is way stronger as it argues from known things.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 23:38 collapse

The scientific method cannot be used to determine the truth of an inherently untestable claim. That’s why untestable claims are called unscientific because science has nothing to do with it and cannot by the inherent limits of the method.

For example, Abrahamic faiths assert that there is an omnipresent being that comprises the totality of everything. If such a being could exist then there could not be anything to compare it to as a control. Hence, you would not be able to use the method to test if this God exists as you have no not-God as a point of comparison.

The scientific method has limits. Hopefully you were taught that you use philosophical logic to determine validity of untestable claims.

Akasazh@feddit.nl on 05 Jun 01:11 collapse

That’s why the scientific method is created, to keep to the things we can know about.

For things we cannot know, there’s your space for faith. But it’s more of a ‘credo quia absurdum’, than anything else.

You’re perfectly fine in believing what you wish, but you’re not trying to know. There’s no apriori. Like Godel proved there’s no way for logics to be coherent enough to prove anything outside of it.

Saleh@feddit.org on 04 Jun 21:29 collapse

Do you believe in atoms? If so, prove them!

And no, linking to Wikipedia articles or to books about physics is no proof. That is just scriptures.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 22:22 collapse

But only one of them is making a claim. Theists claim there is a god. The burden of proof / unproof is on them. Really it’s pretty insulting to posit that such a fantastical cosmic being exists, and not be able to offer any evidence for it whatsoever.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 05 Jun 23:23 collapse

They can offer proof that’s the book that claims there’s an omnipresent being.

Both are making claims and neither can substantiate it. The difference is the more mainstream religious folk tend to recognize this whereas many atheists seem not to.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 00:47 collapse

I can show you a book about Hobbits and the dark lord Sauron and it doesn’t prove they exist.

Atheists don’t make any claim. They do not claim there is no god. They simply do not hold a belief in a god. If there were any reason to believe in one, any evidence for one, we would of course believe.

So really, there are just normal people interacting with the world as it comes, and religion, making up wild shit about what’s happening up in the sky.

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 06 Jun 01:22 collapse

The difference is the people who compiled the Bible at the Council of Nicea believed in it to varying degrees. The guy who wrote the Hobbit knew it was fiction.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 21:05 collapse

It’s a huge assumption on your part that they believed it. It was and it remains an instrument of control. They took considerable editorial liberties, too, with the supposed word of god.

Anyway, even if they believed it that is STILL NOT EVIDENCE. The position that the Bible is evidence is incredibly weak. If you want to keep arguing that position, you’re going to have a very hard time and then lose.

Bravo@eviltoast.org on 05 Jun 12:42 collapse

We all choose makey-uppy things to believe in, through which we interpret the purpose of our own existence. There’s no objective reason to be kind to strangers beyond what we can get out of it - there are plenty of billionaires in the world to prove that selfishness and greed is a valid life strategy - but we CHOOSE to BELIEVE in made-up concepts like fairness and love, because it makes most of us happier to live that way. I see no reason to look down my nose at people who choose a few more made-up concepts to believe in than I do. I’m only bothered by the people who are pig-headed about it, incapable of accepting that people believe in different things than they do… and that category includes people who say “faith is idiocy”.

Visstix@lemmy.world on 04 Jun 16:34 next collapse

That does not make it less stupid

DragonSidedD@lemmy.ml on 04 Jun 16:55 collapse

Bingo.

I have way more respect for ravers at Burning Man who OD on Ecstasy while dancing naked and copulating for 14 hours straight.

At least they enjoyed their completely unproductive dalliance

Saleh@feddit.org on 04 Jun 21:26 collapse

And you get to decide what people should or shouldn’t enjoy?

Different people can have different life goals and find fulfillment in different ways.

scarabic@lemmy.world on 05 Jun 22:20 collapse

I’ve done the BM thing he describes and he hasn’t. I absolutely laugh at his begrudging approval. And uh, I guess I have respect for the cable TV watching he did that week? Is that the appropriate thing to say ;D

6nk06@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 16:51 collapse

In software engineering, you change requirements when they are too stupid.

amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 04 Jun 12:57 collapse

islamophobe award

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 10:12 next collapse

Most of those who perished had been unregistered, Saudi officials said, meaning they had made the trip without the permits that gave them access to heat protections.

Why aren’t these protections available for all? In Islam Allah requires all that can to go on Hajj at least once in their life. Why would those who steward the project let any be harmed?

rumimevlevi@lemmings.world on 04 Jun 13:23 next collapse

Toy are right but squdi seems to only care about the revenua they will gwnerate from the hajj. Nobody should risk death for doing the hajj

philpo@feddit.org on 04 Jun 19:14 collapse

Tbh, the Saudis do put in a lot of effort to provide at least some protection. And their infrastructure is mostly temporary. But if you have tens of thousands of people extra it’s not that easy to protect them as well - when you already shelter millions.

Akasazh@feddit.nl on 04 Jun 19:16 next collapse

It’s not like its a yearly occuring event one can easily plan for…

QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works on 04 Jun 20:14 collapse

Thanks, Im not super familiar with the details of the Hajj

philpo@feddit.org on 04 Jun 20:40 collapse

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of the KSA government (really) - but I do work in disaster preparedness/planning and that also includes crowd management. And from that perspective the Hajj is pretty impressive. The conditions even outside the worst summer heat are extreme, the crowd has often only minimal education, there is a huge language barrier, people tend to be somewhat vacantly.

Read up on it, it’s quite interesting.

Jimmycakes@lemmy.world on 06 Jun 03:09 collapse

I don’t see any mister fans in these pictures. They need to get a fuckload of those and hook em up to iced water lines. Or some of that outdoor ac they used in the world cup. This is kinda lame money would solve this. They got money. So what’s the problem. You can look up some pictures of vip hotels and areas they have set up for this to know there is absolutely no money problem.