Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[LutonSpurs]

Oh and prevent is awful. It really hasn't worked. It needs reforming. It needs to be focused on online stuff more and it should have a larger focus at KS2 to educate young people. Some of the people who advise prevent, like Maajid Nawaz, are idiots. It doesn't work well with mosques or schools. I don't want it gone. I just want a version that actual prevents violent extremism.

 

[scaramanga]

I agree it is. The Hebdo stuff we have discussed before Scara. My views are clear. But we must remember the question was not if they were happy that the terrorism occurred. It was whether they understood the grievances of the nutters. Not the violent actions. Clearly being angry about offensive (subjective) cartoons is not something we can police. It's what it is. Condoning violence is something we can talk about. I don't think the data suggests anything but a tiny amount of people did.

Similarly the amount of people who want refugees to be drowned at sea in this country is terrifying. Also a violent act of terror if done deliberately.

There's some awful people out there.

As someone who has never really held anything as sacred and rarely (if ever) finds offense in anything , I find it incredibly hard to imagine how anyone could possibly consider a cartoon of a deity a problem.

It's such an archaic mindset that I do believe it lacks compatibility with modern culture. Just as much as believing women shouldn't be in control of their own bodies or that men shouldn't be allowed to put their bits in other men.

 

[scaramanga]

Again yes. But even if you think those concepts are not allegorical the idea that murder is a route to such a thing is not one included in any mainstream theological discourse I've read.

Fortunately it's not in mainstream discourse. That's the problem with millions basing such strongly held belief based on the words of bigots from the Stone Age though - it's pretty easy to find parts of religious texts that do condone such actions.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Oh and prevent is awful. It really hasn't worked. It needs reforming. It needs to be focused on online stuff more and it should have a larger focus at KS2 to educate young people. Some of the people who advise prevent, like Maajid Nawaz, are idiots. It doesn't work well with mosques or schools. I don't want it gone. I just want a version that actual prevents violent extremism.

The two big unions in universities (UCU and NUS) both advise their members to conscientiously object to it on the grounds that it's basically hostile environment (i.e. spy on the brown kids) stuff.

 

[LutonSpurs]

The two big unions in universities (UCU and NUS) both advise their members to conscientiously object to it on the grounds that it's basically hostile environment (i.e. spy on the brown kids) stuff.

I'm not fond of it right now. It's ambiguous and they refer stuff like support for Palestine which is hardly a data point for hardcore isis types as they consider Hamas to be infidels too. This is the thing, they haven't really understood the landscape and have not engaged with people who understand it. And they seem to do very little around far right

 

[JerusalemMan]

Sorry I've had wine. Not sure I get your meaning. Explain it to me as if I was a 4-year-old child who's had too much wine.

I think the moment has passed and I'm sure something worthwhile has been added amongst the...less helpful comments since. I'm (not-so-humble-brag) on holiday in Lanzarote and the internet signal is very poor so I am only just seeing your reply. Another time perhaps. This endless debate keeps rearing its head and I'll engage some other occasion.

 

[Rorschach]

I think the moment has passed and I'm sure something worthwhile has been added amongst the...less helpful comments since. I'm (not-so-humble-brag) on holiday in Lanzarote and the internet signal is very poor so I am only just seeing your reply. Another time perhaps. This endless debate keeps rearing its head and I'll engage some other occasion.

Any volcano trouble? We're supposed to be heading down there in the new year.

 

[DTA]

Not at all, apparently.

Dawkins, Harris and all the other usual suspects regularly link studies showing that there's no causal link between religion and objective morality. In fact, there's a reasonably strong correlation at a national level between secularity and morality (Sweden/Denmark Vs Iran/Saudi Arabia, for example).

Morality is much like the scientific process - it constantly evolves and is shaped by regular testing, with an active input from the one being moral. Religion was set (literally) in stone in the Stone Age and just isn't relevant to the modern world.

I’m not sure those studies would cover the 6000+ years of civilisation that would be needed to actually make that assertion, if I’m wrong though I would really be interested in reading them.

Re Iran and Saudi… no arguments there at all. And secularism is undoubtedly the way to go. But secularism doesn’t equate to atheism.

 

[DTA]

It is hard not to respond when people say you called for things that you did not.

Please get your facts right. I did not call for these camps. I opened a discussion re. responses to radical Islam. Over and over and over I constantly said that I don't believe Chinese camps locking innocent Muslims up are anything but abhorrent. You choose to ignore this, and that is on you.

Most moral principles within Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. make sense, for example: one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. I hope those who name call and defame do not have the same done to them or their families. Discrimination in all guises is worth calling out.

That said, I greatly respect posters who wished to defend Islam (even though I was never attacking the religion and have constantly from post one been clear about a distinction between radical and non-radical forms of faith). There are many unconscious biases and prejudices against Islam in our society, probably because most news stories relating to Islam are negative. I can totally understand (and even appreciate) people wishing to shut down anything that hints at a negative criticism. It is not an easy thing to talk about. I regretted it and apologised for it. Never the less Libaz makes a valid point, if you can't have an open discussion about radical Islam and how to address it, without being vilified and chased out, you only let the issue fester creating greater polarisation.

mate explain to me a few things please:

what you meant by “a more subtle version of the Chinese re-education camps”

you said that right? It wasn’t my imagination?

you know those “re-education camps” are little more then concentration camps right?

you know that those camps don’t just contain terrorists, unless you think there are a million terrorists in china, you don’t think that right?

now I don’t think that you are Racist or anti Muslim, but you must see how endorsing even ‘subtle form’ of those camps is … abhorrent… right?

Because you know… they are concentration camps???

I personally think/hope that you didn’t think what you wrote through, and for some reason that I still don’t understand doubled down instead of saying that I used the wrong example, sorry guys.

this is not even me defending Islam, if it was any other group of people my reaction would be the same

 

[DTA]

I think the moment has passed and I'm sure something worthwhile has been added amongst the...less helpful comments since. I'm (not-so-humble-brag) on holiday in Lanzarote and the internet signal is very poor so I am only just seeing your reply. Another time perhaps. This endless debate keeps rearing its head and I'll engage some other occasion.

Sorry to push you on this, but I’m actually interested to hear your views as I quite like you as a poster.

 

[DTA]

As someone who has never really held anything as sacred and rarely (if ever) finds offense in anything , I find it incredibly hard to imagine how anyone could possibly consider a cartoon of a deity a problem.

It's such an archaic mindset that I do believe it lacks compatibility with modern culture. Just as much as believing women shouldn't be in control of their own bodies or that men shouldn't be allowed to put their bits in other men.

interestingly I think (and maybe @LutonSpurs can correct me if I’m wrong) the ‘objection’ to the visual depiction of Mohammed in Islam is the fact that the worship of idols is banned. So Mohammed is not to be idolised, which I’m not sure many Muslims actually understand… so again maybe the answer is more eduction on the the religion rather than less?

 

[SpurMeUp]

mate explain to me a few things please:

what you meant by “a more subtle version of the Chinese re-education camps”

you said that right? It wasn’t my imagination?

you know those “re-education camps” are little more then concentration camps right?

you know that those camps don’t just contain terrorists, unless you think there are a million terrorists in china, you don’t think that right?

now I don’t think that you are Racist or anti Muslim, but you must see how endorsing even ‘subtle form’ of those camps is … abhorrent… right?

Because you know… they are concentration camps???

I personally think/hope that you didn’t think what you wrote through, and for some reason that I still don’t understand doubled down instead of saying that I used the wrong example, sorry guys.

this is not even me defending Islam, if it was any other group of people my reaction would be the same

i think it’s you who are doubling down. In my first post, I was clear this was about radical extremists. People who deliver harm and hatred to others. I made a very clear distinction between 99% of Muslims and a death cult. It is there still it hasn’t been edited. You just chose to ignore it. As you did me saying chinas treatment of Muslims is abhorrent.

To call someone a racist and a bigot for this is quite disturbing. I wouldn’t wish others similar treatment and hope you don’t suffer such discrimination.

 

[Lilbaz]

I’m not sure those studies would cover the 6000+ years of civilisation that would be needed to actually make that assertion, if I’m wrong though I would really be interested in reading them.

Re Iran and Saudi… no arguments there at all. And secularism is undoubtedly the way to go. But secularism doesn’t equate to atheism.

The golden rule is basically what all morality is based on. Treat others as you wish to be treated. It is based on empathy not religion.

If anything religion took us away from it. Although they kept parts especially jesus and siddhartha. Maybe krishna, although i'm ignorant on that.

 

[DTA]

i think it’s you who are doubling down. In my first post, I was clear this was about radical extremists. People who deliver harm and hatred to others. I made a very clear distinction between 99% of Muslims and a death cult. It is there still it hasn’t been edited. You just chose to ignore it. As you did me saying chinas treatment of Muslims is abhorrent.

To call someone a racist and a bigot for this is quite disturbing. I wouldn’t wish others similar treatment and hope you don’t suffer such discrimination.

I specifically said that I don’t think you are racist or islamaphobic. Please answer my questions one by one, so we can have some clarity.

as for your clear distinction between the extremists and normal Muslims.

I would strongly suggest that china does not make that distinction and therefore you quoting ‘their method’ is the problem.

 

[DTA]

The golden rule is basically what all morality is based on. Treat others as you wish to be treated. It is based on empathy not religion.

If anything religion took us away from it. Although they kept parts especially jesus and siddhartha. Maybe krishna, although i'm ignorant on that.

And how do you come to that conclusion? Where is that empathy originated from? Is it inherent? Does it exist in the natural/animal world? I’m not saying it does or doesn’t?

is there an evolutionary advantage to it (not societal)… where there obviously is. Or the opposite? Do the narratives in the religions expose what you are talking about (even pre- monotheism) where did they come from?

do me a favour try to answer these questions one by one to continue this discussion in the nature I’m intending it to be, so we can both learn from each other’s perspectives rather than trying to ‘win’ an argument by glib ill- thought out responses. Opening that out to other atheists as well.

genuinely willing and eager to learn from an honest and cerebral discussion.

 

[Lilbaz]

And how do you come to that conclusion? Where is that empathy originated from? Is it inherent? Does it exist in the natural/animal world? I’m not saying it does or doesn’t?

is there an evolutionary advantage to it (not societal)… where there obviously is. Or the opposite? Do the narratives in the religions expose what you are talking about (even pre- monotheism) where did they come from?

do me a favour try to answer these questions one by one to continue this discussion in the nature I’m intending it to be, so we can both learn from each other’s perspectives rather than trying to ‘win’ an argument by glib ill- thought out responses. Opening that out to other atheists as well.

genuinely willing and eager to learn from an honest and cerebral discussion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41835-5

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077

 

[DTA]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41835-5

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077

I will read that in the morning, I’m up too late already. Let me know how whatever it says in the article relates to my questions.

 

[Lilbaz]

And how do you come to that conclusion? Where is that empathy originated from? Is it inherent? Does it exist in the natural/animal world? I’m not saying it does or doesn’t?

is there an evolutionary advantage to it (not societal)… where there obviously is. Or the opposite? Do the narratives in the religions expose what you are talking about (even pre- monotheism) where did they come from?

do me a favour try to answer these questions one by one to continue this discussion in the nature I’m intending it to be, so we can both learn from each other’s perspectives rather than trying to ‘win’ an argument by glib ill- thought out responses. Opening that out to other atheists as well.

genuinely willing and eager to learn from an honest and cerebral discussion.

For animals that are societal yes there is an advantage. You are able to create societies that benefit one another. Pack animals benefit from being a part of a pack. Better protection. Predicting anothers actions based on your own experience. Mitigating dangerous behaviour of others.
We even see different species working to benefit each other. That doesn't work if only one side benefits. Do you think dogs don't have love for their human friends when they try to protect them? Even to the point of giving their life? Did they get that from religion?

The most selfless creatures are the hives. Ants, bees etc... it's all about the colony, not the self. People might not call it empathy but it's definitely selflessness.

A parents love for their children and need to protect them, is very similar amoung mammals. Although kangaroos are tossers and will throw a joey out of their pouch in order to get more speed.

 

[Lilbaz]

Which religion gave us this great insight into morality anyway? There's been plenty, all across the world over hundreds of thousands of years.

The abrahamic religions descended from the babylonian, canaan and sumerian religions. In that, yaweh was just a little thundergod, or GHod of the forge. (Even the book of Deuteronomy, mentions El as the supreme GHod and yaweh as the GHod of the people of Jacob. Now muslims can argue that they worship El and not yaweh. But wouldn't that say there is more than one GHod? Baal is mentioned as another GHod, all gets a bit confusing). Till one group decided he should be worshipped above all others. This idea took over the middle east and now a lot of the world.

But before it did there were laws, society. Even if they had many gods or none.

Religion didn't come about to give us morality. We already had that. It was because people had questions about the world and why things happen. Why does it rain, where does the lightening come from, why does the sun come up every morning, why does the sea sometimes get rough?

Some bright spark came up with answers. Probably became very powerful.

Who wrote the holy books anyway? It wasn't Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Siddhartha... they were long gone before the books were written. Jesus it was 400 years later. You think they quoted him word for word?

 

[Lilbaz]

Sorry everyone. I dream of the day we can fully seperate religion from politics. But am very drunk.