Paris

[parklane1]

Is your issue with people that claim ending religion will end war or with people that claim ending religion is a good thing in its own right?

Because only one of those things has been done in this thread and those two posts of yours seem to conflate the two.

I have really tried to stay away from this thread which like most discussions about these atrocities ends up in a debate about how good/bad a thing religion is. I am not in any way religious but that does not mean I do not respect the right of others to have a belief in what ever GHod they believe in.

If anyone really believes it will stop nutters from killing people that as I say they live in cloud cuckoo land. What these type of debates usaully end up being is that bigots for and against a GHod/s taking it away from the actual event. As I said I really tried to avoid getting into this ( but stupidly) I let the rants of the few ignorant drag me in.

 

[parklane1]

I don't think anyone truly believes it would be the end of all conflict, but it would certainly decrease the number of unnecessary deaths in the world. People killing others is always terrible, but even more so when it's done in the name of something they have no evidence for.

It doesn't matter to me whether you're killing people because of weapons of mass destruction you have no evidence of (see Tony Blair) or whether you're doing it because of an almighty powerful being that can't be observed because they are conveniently placed outside the realms of existence. Killing people because of superstition or anything that can't be 100% documented is a terrible waste of human potential and causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering.

And sadly once you say your religion is the one true, pure method of living life and appeasing your maker there will always, always be fundamentalists trying to win themselves a free ticket to the after life.

I I can't dance with that really, as you say Blair took us into a illegal war and used his GHod as a excuse when it all reality he was kissing the arse of that other warmonger Bush ( who also thinks he had GHod on his side). Its all gonads at the end of the day.

 

[DTA]

You see people often fall back on the whole but a lot of people do good in the name of religion. Well you do not have to be religious to give to charity, i donate each year money and time to the Lifeboat association and money to my local hospice and also money to help train guide dogs. If it is because of religion your doing charity then that is deeply troubling. I give to these charities because I feel they deserve my time and help and money. I am not doing it cos a guy on a cloud tells me if I dont I will not get into heaven or fcuk virigins(no point in the virgins anyway as my penis is big)

Yeah never understood guys that are obsessed with 'having' virgins either... whats that about?

But thats not my point, my point is if there is no hammer people will use a screwdriver for good and bad... so getting rid of the hammer doesnt solve anything

 

[braineclipse]

Are you really telling me that they have not been posts in here that suggest getting rid of religion would be a good way to go?

Just re-read your own post mate... This is not at all what you said in the post I quoted.

I respect a choice to stay away from a debate. I respect a choice to only get involved a little bit. But if you're going to jump in and make claims like that you have to expect getting called on it.

It is a cause for concern yeah, i cant argue with that (assuming its Isis like bullcrap). But again the way to defeat him and his views and those of his ilk is not to ridicule the 99% of people that dont follow him its to change the minds of those that do by showing how flawed his arguments are and how it doesnt fit into the religion that they are supposed to be following.

And how hard is that? Thats a question by the way.
I read the Koran once over 20 years and i can tell you three things just from memory that means according to the koran that abhorant things like the paris attack would never be justified within Islam (im going to paraphrase here)

1.killing one innocent is like killing the whole of humanity
2. No one that commits sucide will be allowed in to heaven
3. When you live in foriegn land you abide by their rules.

Someone who knows much more about it, can find much more and im guessing just off the top of their head.

Im going off into tangents here, so excuse that.

But how does someone like that get that amount of followers? Who are his financial backers? Why are we not backing moderates from within the muslim community that will challenge his views from a position of knowledge? Would that be another way to defeat Isis and the ilk?

Again. Big book of multiple choice. Can you honestly claim that there aren't parts of the Koran that are seemingly encouraging violence?

At least you admit it's a cause for concern. Sam Harris argues that seriously troubling views exist in much more than just a fringe of the Muslim population. It's difficult not to take his arguments seriously.

If you see religion as a tool, lets say a hammer.you can use a hammer for good (making things) or for bad (a weapon to hit people with). If a hammer never existed people would use a screwdriver again for good or bad, and as hammers never existed screwdrivers would be used twice as much.

There are actually good reasons to believe that less religion would make the world a better place. It's not hard to seek out the argumentation or evidence. I can promise you it's a lot better than just a simple analogy.

Do you actually believe this kind of argument is convincing in a serious discussion about the benefits and downsides associated with religion?

 

[parklane1]

Just re-read your own post mate... This is not at all what you said in the post I quoted.

I respect a choice to stay away from a debate. I respect a choice to only get involved a little bit. But if you're going to jump in and make claims like that you have to expect getting called on it.
?

Feel free to call me out as much as you want mate I will not lose any sleep about it, your words below make the point I made a relevant one, what you saying is nothing more then a opinion with no basis of fact.


(There are actually good reasons to believe that less religion would make the world a better place)

 

[Papercut]

It's like groundhog day on GG... No one is going to convince the other of their choice/opinion/belief re re...

Using ridicule - thought out posts isn't going to make a difference either.

One thing I've learnt from my days posting on forums is to do your best not to totally show your cards. That way you'll enjoy the forum more.

I will show my cards on Spurs related topics - that's because it's an interest we all (including Neymar haha) have in common.

Every morning I check this and similar threads hoping I've not been drawn in (thankfully I don't post on FB and my profile pic is still the same as it was 8 years ago - fat and in the South Downs)

Of course it's great to debate but they are aaaaalwaaaays the saaaaame people saying the same things (from thought out to repetitive posts),

Damn you guys! I posted in this thread!!!!

No one is going to convert another through this forum in my opinion. I have my thoughts and I always question and support them in my own head.

I will say though - religious or not - it takes a different kind of person to kill (be it a fox, ant or human). Sheet - I'll stop there...

 

[SpurMeUp]

To understand all this, to understand ISIS, religion is actually way down on the list. Politics, history, instability and power are the keys to understanding what is going on in the Middle East now. Yes a cause needs a rationale, but religion is not the driver. Ireland is an example, there were religious undertones to sectarian violence, but far more important were those divides in society and the history of them. Same applies to what is happening in Syria and Iraq with IS.

Yes those trying to hold onto power use religion to send young people to their deaths, but that is a effect rather than a cause of the instability and violence. Religion is not the issue. You are missing the more fascinating truth if you think it is.

 

[braineclipse]

Feel free to call me out as much as you want mate I will not lose any sleep about it, your words below make the point I made a relevant one, what you saying is nothing more then a opinion with no basis of fact.


(There are actually good reasons to believe that less religion would make the world a better place)

I notice you've still not pointed towards a single person here or elsewhere that actually seems to believe that " the end of religion would mean the end of conflict". Well done jumping into a discussion arguing against an opinion no one actually holds. To me that seems the opposite of relevant.

An opinion can be based on facts. There are plenty of facts included in the arguments supporting the claims I make. It's not an objective truth, I've not presented it as that. It's my opinion. I find it strange to imagine me presenting anything other than my opinion in a discussion like that. But yes, if you want it stated explicitly yes it is my opinion. I really don't think it's fair to call it an opinion with no basis of fact though. I could expand on this, but seeing as you've already said you're not really that interested in the discussion I don't see much point at this time.

If you're actually interested in why people think less religion would make the world a better instead of just throwing out straw man arguments the actual arguments are both interesting and easy to find.

 

[parklane1]

I must admit you are good at waffling, personally mate you can carry on with your war and peace as its just another opinion with no real basis for fact. I will now leave the thread for those who want to make judgements on religion. Spur me up above is at least trying to get the thread back on topic and not blaming religion for the worlds troubles.

 

[Robspur12]

I agree, I am not a religious person by no means but those who say the end of religion would mean the end of conflict are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Indeed you just have to look at the two world conflict in the 20th Century. Neither was overtly religious.

 

[LutonSpurs]

@Papercut bang on the money

As my edit was apparently after you started writing your reply:

Do you similarly feel that the presence of other ideologies (religious and non-religious) that leads nutters to do horrible things is a reason not to attempt to "stop fascism or marxism"?



You're assuming that the division created by our words leads to the actual chaos they want and thrive in. I really don't think this can be asserted without reason or evidence and be taken seriously.

I don't see it like that. Quite the opposite, a society, culture or sub-culture that is insulated from criticsm is a very dangerous thing. Pretty much regardless of how that insulation arises. But particularly if someone attempts to insulate themselves from any kind of criticism by threatening violence the reaction shouldn't be less of the criticism.

We want to move forward. We don't want to appease the extremists, because we cannot accept all their demands. Giving in to their threats by treating them and their faith with a reverence not given everyone else (and they certainly don't give anyone else) is exactly the opposite of moving forward.

I really think a lot of the extremist groups are very happy about moderates self-censoring themselves, largely out of fear of causing more violence. Sam Harris talks about his rather well in his latest podcast (http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/still-sleepwalking-toward-armageddon)

Sam Harris is a new atheist hate monger. But my thing isn't that the ideology is necessarily the key player in creating nutters. It plays a part but other experiences and life events nurture this in most cases.

Also on his latest podcast Sam Harri repeated some earlier claims also made in this article: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

To put it as briefly as I think I can while being fair, one fact is presented and one opinion:

The fact: Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi has over 13 million followers on twitter (updated number from the article that is a year old). He has twice the number of followers on twitter that the pope has.
The opinion: Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain.

I must say right out I'd never heard of the guy before listening to the podcast. A very quick google seems to at least support a claim that he's made some rather... controversial statements.

Is the description/opinion from Sam Harris correct? If it is the sheer amount of followers seems to me somewhat troubling for anyone claiming that only the extremists are the problem and that they are a small minority.

For the record Sam Harris argues repeatedly that there is a problem with Islam itself, not just the extremists. The article gives a fair representation of his opinions for anyone interested.

Al Areefi hates ISIS more than most people even though he is very conservative. Sam Harris is making stuff up again.

I think a much better plan, and evidence driven thinking, is needed in troubled areas when "the West"/NATO or the UN get involved. And one of the pieces of evidence seems to be that a quick transition to democracy is difficult.

I've asked you before, but this thread grows very quickly and it's difficult to keep track. How do you imagine a post-Saddam Iraq would have looked without the outside military intervention? Are there any reasons to think it wouldn't have ended in just as much chaos, or with another military ruler getting comfortable over decades while the people suffer?

Post Saddam Iraq would have been chaos. The problem goes deeper. Saddam was put in to power to fight Iraq according to many political commentators. Armed by the west. Allowed to gas Kurds. And then when he went nuts and approached Kuwait he needed taking out to make sure the oil was preserved. The country was a wreck but I cannot see how it could have ended up worse than it has.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Every morning I check this and similar threads hoping I've not been drawn in (thankfully I don't post on FB and my profile pic is still the same as it was 8 years ago - fat and in the South Downs)

Do you have pictures of this on here, were you naked was custard involved.

 

[Papercut]

Do you have pictures of this on here, were you naked was custard involved.

Haha! Fortunately not naked (it was bloody freezing!). Never really got into custard...

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

were you up the dyke? I go up the dyke all the time.

 

[scaramanga]

Indeed you just have to look at the two world conflict in the 20th Century. Neither was overtly religious.

I don't think anyone's claimed that ending religion would end conflict, but as you raise that point:

Why limit suffering caused to world wars? Why not include civil wars? The institutionalised protection of child rapists? The subjugation of women and homosexuals?

Considering the beliefs your posts would suggest you have, I'm guessing it's not as important to you as it is to me but what about freedom of thought, will and speech? What about all the wasted lives awaiting the next one that will never happen? Or all the Catholic women forced to give up children or stay with abusive or cheating husbands? The systematic theft and enforced poverty or the restriction of access to reading material?

Nobody is claiming that religion causes all suffering, but it will take a lot to convince me that it has had an overall good effect. It has done nothing but terrorise (and I choose that word intentionally) billions of people for millenia and then has the front to claim ownership of all the good traits that are inherently human anyway.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The question of how do we act following Paris is the most interesting. Possibly the most difficult as well. Ban religion, troops on the ground, ban migrants, increase intelligence power...Not for me. I think the most important thing is to expose the truth. To deconstruct the history of how we got here. Understand both what happened on the ground in Iraq and also what inspires disaffected westerners to join the cause. So two things, the history of the IS movement and why humans like us, living in same countries as us, believe in IS.

It may take years, but if we can get to the bottom of this, expose it all, then it will diffuse the problems. There are number of key facts which I think are worth exploring...

 

[Robspur12]

Well that's entirely at odds with their stated aims. According to ISIS (and I can't see how anyone else can judge their motives) they simply want to take over the world and if not, they want Islam to.


I am not aware of there stated aims mate. My information comes from Middle East observers suchas Robert Fisk and Tony Blair.

There is not a single good religious teaching that cannot be achieved via Secular Humanism, and Secular Humanism has none of the downsides.

I cannot comment mate don't know enough about it. But you know what I'm not sure that humanism can provide adequate answers to things like creation and life after death, 2 huge questions which adherents believe are answered by their religion.

A few good teachings doesn't nullify all the bad ones.


There is no application of an open, enquiring mind that can lead to religion.
Not true. I have a science degree but find no conflict in believing in a higher being. To many learned people the Big Bang theory could be considered just as implausible as creation for explaining how the universe was formed. When you consider the complexities in one cell and then multiply that a thousand times to make the human body how does that come about? Chance? Or is it possible to believe there is a force giving order to all these systems.

.

 

[glorygloryeze]

The lives of my family are worth more than that of my neighbour. I would be more concerned about this happening to my neighbour than on the other side of the city. I'd be more concerned if it happened to my city than to Rotherham (no offence to those in Rotherham but I think bombs would improve the place).

The difference is twofold. Firstly, I've spent a lot of time in places like Paris and London and will again . Threats to those places are very real and relevant to me and my family/friends. I'm not going to Beirut any time soon and neither is anyone whose safety I consider a priority to me.

Secondly, ISIS and many other far more moderate Muslims (especially all the "Blair is a war criminal....illegal war....oil conspiracy" halfwits) have defined their borders on religious grounds, not by the real borders that people without imaginary friends recognise. So when these things occur in countries or cities that many in the West (rightly or wrongly) consider to be majority Muslim countries and cities, it's more of a civil war atrocity than one that crosses borders. History will tell you that people are always less concerned about far flung civil wars than they are about what they consider to be cross-border wars.

Obviously only the first applies to me because I don't recognise any religion as anything other than gullible people being conned out of their lives, morals and money.

That's all fine and explains your personal view, plus a fair point about Beirut.
But Governments etc have to look beyond Scara-of-Sussex to form policies etc (though no doubt there will be many others that also have similar links via family/friends to Paris/France).

For example, is the 'Solidarite' reaction because it was very close by (across the Channel)?
Is it because of the number of people killed?
Does the number of Treaties we have with the relevant nation come into play?
Is it because the UK and France were on the same 'side' in World Wars 1 and 2?
Do authorities etc judge it by the number of direct flights that are taken back-and-forth between the country or City where the atrocity happened?
Is it actually to do with the frequency of occurrence (i.e. there's no point marking such things if they start to happen more than 3 times in a year for example)?
Or is it actually because (irony or ironies) the Country in question shares a Religion with the UK?
Perhaps it's simply payback: did France mark our own 7/7 atrocity in a similar way and we are duly 'returning the show of friendship'?
Or maybe it's just built up because of a few Islington-types trending the slogan on Twitter and everyone else, including Corporations who want to look 'trendy' followed suit?
Is it simply because France and French culture is often considered 'cool' or 'chic'?

In your opinion, would the same reaction (i.e. minutes silence, statments of 'Solidarite' and its equivalents) be seen if the attacks happened in the following places. I'd be interested to hear your reasons:

- Germany
- Russia
- Finland
- China
- Norway
- Portugal (i.e. The Algarve)
- Cuba
- Republic of Ireland
- Spain
- The USA
- Canada
- Mexico
- Italy
- Poland
- South Africa
- Australia
- Japan
- Czech Republic
- New Zealand
- Jamaica
- Israel
- Greece

 

[glorygloryeze]

Indeed you just have to look at the two world conflict in the 20th Century. Neither was overtly religious.

Exactly! It's a if some people think there were never any wars before the advancement of Religion...

 

[braineclipse]

@Papercut
Sam Harris is a new atheist hate monger. But my thing isn't that the ideology is necessarily the key player in creating nutters. It plays a part but other experiences and life events nurture this in most cases.

Al Areefi hates ISIS more than most people even though he is very conservative. Sam Harris is making stuff up again.

Post Saddam Iraq would have been chaos. The problem goes deeper. Saddam was put in to power to fight Iraq according to many political commentators. Armed by the west. Allowed to gas Kurds. And then when he went nuts and approached Kuwait he needed taking out to make sure the oil was preserved. The country was a wreck but I cannot see how it could have ended up worse than it has.

Ideology/religion only plays a part in creating these violent extremists, I agree. But this is also only a very small part of the harm caused by religion. I see religion as also contributing to the experiences and life events you talk about. Through it's negative effect on gender equality, education, rationality and so on. These things are not separate from the continued development of violent extremists I believe. Again religion mostly harms its own believers.

I find it interesting that you describe Sam Harris as a hate monger, and that you describe Al Areefi as "very conservative". Would you mind expanding a bit on those? Particularly the latter...

Edit: Let's hope your lack of fantasy is an omen for things getting better in Iraq. I think history teaches us that saying that "it couldn't be any worse" unfortunately all too often is way too optimistic.

The question of how do we act following Paris is the most interesting. Possibly the most difficult as well. Ban religion, troops on the ground, ban migrants, increase intelligence power...Not for me. I think the most important thing is to expose the truth. To deconstruct the history of how we got here. Understand both what happened on the ground in Iraq and also what inspires disaffected westerners to join the cause. So two things, the history of the IS movement and why humans like us, living in same countries as us, believe in IS.

It may take years, but if we can get to the bottom of this, expose it all, then it will diffuse the problems. There are number of key facts which I think are worth exploring...

Is anyone worth taking even remotely seriously saying that we should ban religion or migrants? Not just talking about this thread, but in general. To me one thing that's absolutely not needed is a misrepresantation of what people are actually saying.

I think the most important part about how we act is to accept that this will keep happening. Any attempts at complete security is a pipe-dream. We need to react well now, but we also need to actully plan for how we respond in the future.

I think you underestimate how dificult exposing all the factors that goes into complex historical events is. I also think you overestimate the effect such an exposure would have on the current situation. I really don't see how it would diffuse the problems, that really seems like hopeful thinking to me. At the very least you need to connect the dots between one and the other. Are there examples of this happening in (recent) history?

More solid knowledge is needed of course. Particularly about how to actually improve societies, how to encourage stability and democracy in an effective manner, how to encourage peace.