Paris

[glorygloryeze]

The thing with all of these organised religions is that to fully understand how absurd they are you need to look at their history. You need to understand how they came about, when they came about, try to get an understanding for the historic and political sphere in which they were created. Islam got to the party a little after everyone else but certainly didn't shy away from working at convincing people the world over that there 'brand' was the best one to follow. They utilised very similar methods to medieval Christianity, in that they spread the word and you followed or died. You can't create a concept like this and have people ask tricky questions or say no thanks. Note how in every instance it was down to man to do GHod's will. Funny that. Man was always happy to speak on GHod's behalf, to pass his message on.

Religion was about control and it always has been. It is about revenue generation. That is why religion is just another form of Government. What you see now are people desperate to maintain control. To try to step back in time because modernisation, freedom, liberty all lead to a waning of control and power. We do need the moral teaching that some religions were once about but we certainly don't need the indoctrination and brain washing of the various death cults. Religion was always about conquering. If you conquered the minds of men, you grew stronger, your armies swelled and therefore your chest was full of gold. It is no different today. Every one of these religious armies is paid. They are rewarded. They are allowed to act outside the law to do the bidding of their controllers. They are brainwashed into acting the way they do, they do so through fear. When the money dries up so does the fervour and desire to fight. In Afghanistan the ranks of those fighting, be it the Northern Alliance, The Taleban or even the West were doing so over control and money.

Look at how Islam began, look at what the ruler of the time was trying to achieve? It was a crusade to spread his idea throughout the World, certainly throughout the Middle East, Africa and Europe. it was done so by the sword, it was done by letting blood. Why? Well these others all had their own set of beliefs, most which predated Islam. Look at what the religious landscape looked like before Islam. It was pretty much the same as everywhere else. Someone always turned up though and said I'm the main man, don't worship those idols, it is all about me. To be taken seriously they needed power, they needed control. The very shrine that Islam holds most holy was scrawled with hundreds of differing deities long before the first ideas for Islam appeared on paper. The religion of the time looked very similar to every other religion. We also still have huge numbers of people in the World who are impoverished, uneducated who rely on goodwill to survive. In every one of these regions we see radical medieval Islam beating them with a stick to bring them under their 'protective' wing. If they stop fighting, they lose fear and control. If they stop fighting they'll struggle to recruit. If they rule by peace then their religion will only dwindle and be seen for what it is as people become truly enlightened through education and learning. Such a very sorry state of affairs.

Very good post. Sums up my feelings of the current 'crusade' battles between the 'Christian West' and the opposing 'Islamic fundamentalist bloc', which are ultimately about global control of minds and resources

 

[DTA]

This is an interesting article

 

[DTA]

This is an interesting article

Thought I would include the article this time:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

 

[DTA]

That was in the name of communism.

A far worse crime than any religion.

He was an atheist though right?

So would a fair comparison be that:

A terrorist may be muslim, like Stalin was atheist, but Stalins actions were born out of the fact that he believed in certain type of communism (and the fact that he was a crazy cu nt) and the terrorists actions are born out of the fact that believe in whabi-ism (or how ever you spell it) and that they also are crazy cu nts

 

[DTA]

Ergo, no need to bash atheists or Muslims, Christians, those of the Jewish faitg or any other faith for that matter, just bash crazy Cu nts?

Also see article I posted above

 

[Bonsaiboy]

Look at how Islam began, look at what the ruler of the time was trying to achieve? It was a crusade to spread his idea throughout the World, certainly throughout the Middle East, Africa and Europe. it was done so by the sword, it was done by letting blood. Why? Well these others all had their own set of beliefs, most which predated Islam. Look at what the religious landscape looked like before Islam. It was pretty much the same as everywhere else. Someone always turned up though and said I'm the main man, don't worship those idols, it is all about me. To be taken seriously they needed power, they needed control. The very shrine that Islam holds most holy was scrawled with hundreds of differing deities long before the first ideas for Islam appeared on paper. The religion of the time looked very similar to every other religion. We also still have huge numbers of people in the World who are impoverished, uneducated who rely on goodwill to survive. In every one of these regions we see radical medieval Islam beating them with a stick to bring them under their 'protective' wing. If they stop fighting, they lose fear and control. If they stop fighting they'll struggle to recruit. If they rule by peace then their religion will only dwindle and be seen for what it is as people become truly enlightened through education and learning. Such a very sorry state of affairs.

I think that does a disservice to Mohammed. The Arabs were a divided people, many different tribes always fighting amongst themselves, and, obviously influenced by Jewish and Christian teachings he'd come across, he preached the idea of one GHod to them instead of the many and managed to convince many people to follow him and fight for him, using the power of his personality and lyrical quality of his verse. It was actually the people that came after him that really created Islam, mythologised Mohammed, and used it as a force as one of the greatest expansions and conquest in human history. In these times, it was either conquer or be conquered and it's wrong to judge them by today's standard. And Religion was also at the centre of things because the concept of atheism barely existed.

Arabs are very proud of this period and what was achieved by them and justly so and it partly explains their reverence for Mohammed and why they take such exception to disrespect shown to him. He's not just their Jesus but their Winston Churchill and Shakespeare too.

 

[LutonSpurs]

He was an atheist though right?

So would a fair comparison be that:

A terrorist may be muslim, like Stalin was atheist, but Stalins actions were born out of the fact that he believed in certain type of communism (and the fact that he was a crazy cu nt) and the terrorists actions are born out of the fact that believe in whabi-ism (or how ever you spell it) and that they also are crazy cu nts

The Wahabi movement is the one you mean, I suppose Wahabiism and Salafist are also words to describe it.

 

[scaramanga]

He was an atheist though right?

So would a fair comparison be that:

A terrorist may be muslim, like Stalin was atheist, but Stalins actions were born out of the fact that he believed in certain type of communism (and the fact that he was a crazy cu nt) and the terrorists actions are born out of the fact that believe in whabi-ism (or how ever you spell it) and that they also are crazy cu nts

No, their actions were born out of their interpretation of their religion, not their views on economics.

Not a comparison at all.

 

[scaramanga]

We do need the moral teaching that some religions were once about

Great post - sums it up very well

Regarding the part I've quoted, it seems as if you've fallen for a very common misconception. We don't need their moral teachings at all.

I'll try and find a link later, but there have been a number of studies that have entirely disproved that. One that sticks in my mind was based on the trolley problem and pretty much everyone, regardless of religion or even levels of exposure to it, tested the same. In fact, the only group to regularly test outside the norm were psychopaths as they had the freedom to push the fatty to save 4 others.

I did read in some notes that in some cases people would choose to save fewer of their own religion over more of another, but it wasn't statistically significant.

 

[NWND]

Religion grew powerful because at the time when the major religions grew, most people's lives were c*** and it's a bit s*** to think, i'm going to live this short c*** life then die and that's it. It's a way of rationalising that there's something better to come and a way of coping with the concept of death.

It's no surprise for me that the poorest countries in the world are the most religious and that Islam's strongholds are in some of the most poverty-ridden nations in the world.

Goes for Christianity too though, everywhere in the western world, Church attendances are dropping drastically. The number of young priests and ministers coming through has dropped to a trickle. The remaining strongholds of Christian practice are in the poorest neighbourhoods of the west, South & Central America, Africa etc.

The strength of religion goes hand in hand with poverty and suffering IMO.

There maybe the odd well-off believer, but its rare compared to the masses.

I agree with Dorothy that a lot of the lashing out is about power and control. We see this even in non-extremist or non-terrorism events.

Honour killings, forced marriages, the trojan horse incident.

These are mostly perpetrated by older first-generation immigrants into the West. They can't handle their children growing up westernised, getting a western education and mixing with or even having relationships with westerners. They lash out, because they feel threatened and disrespected.

The young muslims now attracted to extremism are probably in my view, as i've said, dissaffected youths that feel cut off from both their families and from the western society they live in. They're caught between the human need to socialise with their peers and their parents and grand parents pulling them in the opposite direction.

 

[Baleforce]

He was an atheist though right?

So would a fair comparison be that:

A terrorist may be muslim, like Stalin was atheist, but Stalins actions were born out of the fact that he believed in certain type of communism (and the fact that he was a crazy cu nt) and the terrorists actions are born out of the fact that believe in whabi-ism (or how ever you spell it) and that they also are crazy cu nts

you can't really label someone as an atheist and extrapolate cause

atheism isn't something you are, it's something you are not, there is no instruction, no revered text, no greater cause to hide behind

Stalin did what he did because he was a crazy ****, that's all there is to it, I think that terrorists are the same, they are just crazy ***** as well, they are mostly just too cowardly to work without an excuse

some people just want to watch the world burn

 

[DTA]

No, their actions were born out of their interpretation of their religion, not their views on economics.

Not a comparison at all.

Um... No. His purges were ideological not econimical (at least as far as I know and in the main).

His religious purges for instance, Muslim, christian and Jew were targeted because of their belief in GHod, and his belief in atheism and that his way was the right way.

It could also be argued that on a wider scale because he was an atheist, purging 20 million+ people had no moral or spiritual meaning to him, they were just a means to an ends.

 

[DTA]

you can't really label someone as an atheist and extrapolate cause

atheism isn't something you are, it's something you are not, there is no instruction, no revered text, no greater cause to hide behind

Stalin did what he did because he was a crazy ****, that's all there is to it, I think that terrorists are the same, they are just crazy ***** as well, they are mostly just too cowardly to work without an excuse

some people just want to watch the world burn

Yeah some are just crazy ***** and the terrorist fit in to that.

Was trying to play out that if you blame terrorism on Islam then you can blame the purges on atheists

Neither make sense, as itbis the individual that is ultimately reposnsible.

Not saying atheists are bad, evil, stalinesq etc.

 

[DTA]

Yeah some are just crazy ***** and the terrorist fit in to that.

Was trying to play out that if you blame terrorism on Islam then you can blame the purges on atheists

Neither make sense, as itbis the individual that is ultimately reposnsible.

Not saying atheists are bad, evil, stalinesq etc.

Apart from scars

 

[scaramanga]

Um... No. His purges were ideological not econimical (at least as far as I know and in the main).

His religious purges for instance, Muslim, christian and Jew were targeted because of their belief in GHod, and his belief in atheism and that his way was the right way.

It could also be argued that on a wider scale because he was an atheist, purging 20 million+ people had no moral or spiritual meaning to him, they were just a means to an ends.

Nothing has any spiritual meaning - there is no such thing as spiritual meaning.

The reason religion was banned was that nothing could be held as a higher power than the Communist Party. The purges were because of his political beliefs, not his atheism.

Correlation != Causation. He may have been left-handed for all I know, that doesn't mean that being left-handed made him kill people. Being a Communist **** did.

 

[Baleforce]

its been proven that morals do not come from religion

and Scara, I have to stop you there, left handed people are evil, thats just science

 

[DTA]

its been proven that morals do not come from religion

and Scara, I have to stop you there, left handed people are evil, thats just science

I would be interested in the studies of that, not the left handedness. As religions have had such a big influence on where we are now, both good and bad, could it not be argued that even some atheists are influenced moralistically by the teachings in the scriptures, even if this is on a subconscious level.

Not sure if I'm explaining myself well.

Um... Athiest takes a what he views a decision based on his own morals, but these morals are also based on history, society law etc which have obviously been influenced by religion over the years???

How do these studies account for that

The above (all of it) is more of a question rather than a statement

 

[DTA]

Nothing has any spiritual meaning - there is no such thing as spiritual meaning.

The reason religion was banned was that nothing could be held as a higher power than the Communist Party. The purges were because of his political beliefs, not his atheism.

Correlation != Causation. He may have been left-handed for all I know, that doesn't mean that being left-handed made him kill people. Being a Communist **** did.

Stalin would agree that nothing has a spiritual meaning perhaps that's what 'allowed' him to do what he did? But plenty of people do believe in spiritual meaning and some use it for good and some for bad....

Common theme is that, its not about religion or non religion but about c u n t s

 

[scaramanga]

I would be interested in the studies of that, not the left handedness. As religions have had such a big influence on where we are now, both good and bad, could it not be argued that even some atheists are influenced moralistically by the teachings in the scriptures, even if this is on a subconscious level.

Not sure if I'm explaining myself well.

Um... Athiest takes a what he views a decision based on his own morals, but these morals are also based on history, society law etc which have obviously been influenced by religion over the years???

How do these studies account for that

The above (all of it) is more of a question rather than a statement

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0349118094

I'm sure there are less than legal methods of obtaining the book if you don't want to line the pockets of a filthy atheist!

In order to control for years of exposure to religion, he has a protected South American tribe who have had minimal contact with the rest of the world and have no religion take the same tests and their results are the same as the rest of ours.

 

[scaramanga]

Stalin would agree that nothing has a spiritual meaning perhaps that's what 'allowed' him to do what he did? But plenty of people do believe in spiritual meaning and some use it for good and some for bad....

Common theme is that, its not about religion or non religion but about c u n t s

That doesn't make sense, as religious people commit similar (and worse) atrocities. So clearly atheism isn't a prerequisite to allow for mass murder.