US journalist beheaded by ISIS...
Discussion
The fact that we can discuss / argue these points relatively sensibly highlights important differences between religions that for the most part people are born into.
you can convert of course but the levlel of indoctrination varies - call it observation. I live in a largely jewish community and there are different levels of observance which to the outsider might look "extreme" or "fanatical" - observing sabbath, not mixing meat and milk in teh kitchn, not eating shellfish.
The issue is that even these slightly odd looking behaviours to the non observant or irrilegious don't really harm anyone.
I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in any god of any sort. am I a raving agnostic? or a mental aethiest. no. I have my views and I stick to them. I certainly don;t fall back on a blind faith that through some form or legitimisation in some gods' words or teachings compells me to kill other of differing religions.
Fanticism stretches far further it seem for far more people in a more damaging way for these Islamic religions than any others.
The modern take on non-conformism by the fantical religious is confronted with anger, not democracy, Violence not debate. The main thing for me is that there is no reasoning with fanatics for whatever reason their interpretation of similar texts in similar settings differs markedly. Some read peace some read the opposite.
I know the same could be said hundreds of years ago about the Crusades, blood has spilled and continues to be spilled over something I find difficult to relate to.
We find ourselves almost acquiescing through default to a new accepteable set of mores that says again, our guns are ultimately bigger than yours and the spectre of inevitability over a new future land based conflict feels ever closer.
sorry for the long post.
you can convert of course but the levlel of indoctrination varies - call it observation. I live in a largely jewish community and there are different levels of observance which to the outsider might look "extreme" or "fanatical" - observing sabbath, not mixing meat and milk in teh kitchn, not eating shellfish.
The issue is that even these slightly odd looking behaviours to the non observant or irrilegious don't really harm anyone.
I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in any god of any sort. am I a raving agnostic? or a mental aethiest. no. I have my views and I stick to them. I certainly don;t fall back on a blind faith that through some form or legitimisation in some gods' words or teachings compells me to kill other of differing religions.
Fanticism stretches far further it seem for far more people in a more damaging way for these Islamic religions than any others.
The modern take on non-conformism by the fantical religious is confronted with anger, not democracy, Violence not debate. The main thing for me is that there is no reasoning with fanatics for whatever reason their interpretation of similar texts in similar settings differs markedly. Some read peace some read the opposite.
I know the same could be said hundreds of years ago about the Crusades, blood has spilled and continues to be spilled over something I find difficult to relate to.
We find ourselves almost acquiescing through default to a new accepteable set of mores that says again, our guns are ultimately bigger than yours and the spectre of inevitability over a new future land based conflict feels ever closer.
sorry for the long post.
Nom de ploom said:
The fact that we can discuss / argue these points relatively sensibly highlights important differences between religions that for the most part people are born into.
you can convert of course but the levlel of indoctrination varies - call it observation. I live in a largely jewish community and there are different levels of observance which to the outsider might look "extreme" or "fanatical" - observing sabbath, not mixing meat and milk in teh kitchn, not eating shellfish.
The issue is that even these slightly odd looking behaviours to the non observant or irrilegious don't really harm anyone.
I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in any god of any sort. am I a raving agnostic? or a mental aethiest. no. I have my views and I stick to them. I certainly don;t fall back on a blind faith that through some form or legitimisation in some gods' words or teachings compells me to kill other of differing religions.
Fanticism stretches far further it seem for far more people in a more damaging way for these Islamic religions than any others.
The modern take on non-conformism by the fantical religious is confronted with anger, not democracy, Violence not debate. The main thing for me is that there is no reasoning with fanatics for whatever reason their interpretation of similar texts in similar settings differs markedly. Some read peace some read the opposite.
I know the same could be said hundreds of years ago about the Crusades, blood has spilled and continues to be spilled over something I find difficult to relate to.
We find ourselves almost acquiescing through default to a new accepteable set of mores that says again, our guns are ultimately bigger than yours and the spectre of inevitability over a new future land based conflict feels ever closer.
sorry for the long post.
Interesting post. One point I would like to make, and think about it. Look at the dialogue and the way PH posters speak on these threads. You get the people with the view of religion is bad, and then those that talk about religion as they believe in. Which of those people has the most extreme view? I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.you can convert of course but the levlel of indoctrination varies - call it observation. I live in a largely jewish community and there are different levels of observance which to the outsider might look "extreme" or "fanatical" - observing sabbath, not mixing meat and milk in teh kitchn, not eating shellfish.
The issue is that even these slightly odd looking behaviours to the non observant or irrilegious don't really harm anyone.
I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in any god of any sort. am I a raving agnostic? or a mental aethiest. no. I have my views and I stick to them. I certainly don;t fall back on a blind faith that through some form or legitimisation in some gods' words or teachings compells me to kill other of differing religions.
Fanticism stretches far further it seem for far more people in a more damaging way for these Islamic religions than any others.
The modern take on non-conformism by the fantical religious is confronted with anger, not democracy, Violence not debate. The main thing for me is that there is no reasoning with fanatics for whatever reason their interpretation of similar texts in similar settings differs markedly. Some read peace some read the opposite.
I know the same could be said hundreds of years ago about the Crusades, blood has spilled and continues to be spilled over something I find difficult to relate to.
We find ourselves almost acquiescing through default to a new accepteable set of mores that says again, our guns are ultimately bigger than yours and the spectre of inevitability over a new future land based conflict feels ever closer.
sorry for the long post.
s1962a said:
Nom de ploom said:
The fact that we can discuss / argue these points relatively sensibly highlights important differences between religions that for the most part people are born into.
you can convert of course but the levlel of indoctrination varies - call it observation. I live in a largely jewish community and there are different levels of observance which to the outsider might look "extreme" or "fanatical" - observing sabbath, not mixing meat and milk in teh kitchn, not eating shellfish.
The issue is that even these slightly odd looking behaviours to the non observant or irrilegious don't really harm anyone.
I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in any god of any sort. am I a raving agnostic? or a mental aethiest. no. I have my views and I stick to them. I certainly don;t fall back on a blind faith that through some form or legitimisation in some gods' words or teachings compells me to kill other of differing religions.
Fanticism stretches far further it seem for far more people in a more damaging way for these Islamic religions than any others.
The modern take on non-conformism by the fantical religious is confronted with anger, not democracy, Violence not debate. The main thing for me is that there is no reasoning with fanatics for whatever reason their interpretation of similar texts in similar settings differs markedly. Some read peace some read the opposite.
I know the same could be said hundreds of years ago about the Crusades, blood has spilled and continues to be spilled over something I find difficult to relate to.
We find ourselves almost acquiescing through default to a new accepteable set of mores that says again, our guns are ultimately bigger than yours and the spectre of inevitability over a new future land based conflict feels ever closer.
sorry for the long post.
Interesting post. One point I would like to make, and think about it. Look at the dialogue and the way PH posters speak on these threads. You get the people with the view of religion is bad, and then those that talk about religion as they believe in. Which of those people has the most extreme view? I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.you can convert of course but the levlel of indoctrination varies - call it observation. I live in a largely jewish community and there are different levels of observance which to the outsider might look "extreme" or "fanatical" - observing sabbath, not mixing meat and milk in teh kitchn, not eating shellfish.
The issue is that even these slightly odd looking behaviours to the non observant or irrilegious don't really harm anyone.
I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in any god of any sort. am I a raving agnostic? or a mental aethiest. no. I have my views and I stick to them. I certainly don;t fall back on a blind faith that through some form or legitimisation in some gods' words or teachings compells me to kill other of differing religions.
Fanticism stretches far further it seem for far more people in a more damaging way for these Islamic religions than any others.
The modern take on non-conformism by the fantical religious is confronted with anger, not democracy, Violence not debate. The main thing for me is that there is no reasoning with fanatics for whatever reason their interpretation of similar texts in similar settings differs markedly. Some read peace some read the opposite.
I know the same could be said hundreds of years ago about the Crusades, blood has spilled and continues to be spilled over something I find difficult to relate to.
We find ourselves almost acquiescing through default to a new accepteable set of mores that says again, our guns are ultimately bigger than yours and the spectre of inevitability over a new future land based conflict feels ever closer.
sorry for the long post.
What I mean and it might not have come across int eh way I intened is that I don;t HAVE to shout to denouce God or religion, I just say nothing and if I do say it It's not with a gun.
I'm not denouncing religion just the faux "in the name of..." legitimisation of actions it seems to offer the followers.
his person or that person in the name of god, allah etc its almost like a comfort blanket that is being increasing stretched to cover a multitude of actions.
its wearing thin to the point of transparency - surely it is not beyond the wit of most of man to see that the veil of religion is nothing more than that which a faith healer or astrologist might offer to justify their claims.
the problem is for the most part astrologists don't blow themselves up if you disagree with them.....
I'm not denouncing religion just the faux "in the name of..." legitimisation of actions it seems to offer the followers.
his person or that person in the name of god, allah etc its almost like a comfort blanket that is being increasing stretched to cover a multitude of actions.
its wearing thin to the point of transparency - surely it is not beyond the wit of most of man to see that the veil of religion is nothing more than that which a faith healer or astrologist might offer to justify their claims.
the problem is for the most part astrologists don't blow themselves up if you disagree with them.....
otolith said:
s1962a said:
I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.
Rational people don't believe in the supernatural.jmorgan said:
Realistically I expect that religion will wane as information is easier to disseminate.
I do not expect to see any dominant religion in the UK in power in 100 years or so.
This bunch out playing hard men are just hood winked onto a power trip.
Don't get me wrong I love the internet and believe we still have many years harvesting the benefits. But I do wonder about the extent the internet has enabled the current level of extremism? An eddy in a swirl from the disruptive splash of our collective consciousness.I do not expect to see any dominant religion in the UK in power in 100 years or so.
This bunch out playing hard men are just hood winked onto a power trip.
s1962a said:
Interesting post. One point I would like to make, and think about it. Look at the dialogue and the way PH posters speak on these threads. You get the people with the view of religion is bad, and then those that talk about religion as they believe in. Which of those people has the most extreme view? I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.
I think two things, firstly as someone who was culturally Christian, primary school etc... but religiously ambivalent through my teens to my thirties, then put a lot of thought (and research) into it as I reached my forties and ended up strongly atheist... when you remove all religious tint from your thinking you are left with a strong sense that you cannot believe any of it. I was frankly staggered at the end of my conversion. I had a sense of peace, almost blissful like arriving after a long journey. But it really is like the Emperor really is naked and still appearing on the six o'clock news with his tackle out! You just reach a state (well i did) when you are aghast at how any organised religion could still exist. And every time someone is cured of Ebola by a huge medical team of nurses, doctors, scientists and then, at the very steps of the hospital thanks god and not them. Jeez that is annoying. The very week the pope's nephews family was wiped out in a car crash. And nobody seems to see the insanity in this? Anyway, there is that.Secondly, we still aren't used to hearing criticism of religion. It is the only protected characteristic (enshrined in law albeit trumped by the others in recent legal tests) that you can change. So it remains having special status in terms of critique. I always say Criticise the Idea, Not the People. But sometimes people take offence because it suits them. Or gives them victim status. Or power to change the debate. Or just throw a smoke bomb.
The IS are an army going to nowhere, not sure why people are so bothered about them.
They are based in the middle of Iraq and Syria with all borders populated with people opposed to them. They are not going anywhere apart from that bleached barren desert holding. They'll never now invade any parts of that region where agriculture or commerce flourishes, they will just get driven back.
They are just like somalia based al shabaab but moved a few hundreds of miles into another region of somewhere that has facilities lacking in supporting a country or caliphate.
An army marches on it's stomach. Currently they might be quite popular in local regions, but given time if the borders of their small desert they live in are kept they will not want to stay there in it and toil. So they will feel the hardships, not of the US or weapons but of the place they are at. The people supporting them will too.
All that is needed is that they are cooped up on "reservations" in effect, and see how they go from there. Not even any need to bomb them that much unless they attack the peripheries.
All this talk of a new IS state being a big threat to the whole of the middle east is a bit like the worry in the 1960's of rebels taking over Vietnam. The domino effect that would lead to the whole of SE Asia being taken over. It never happened.
Best to just put a pen around them and see how long they want to stick it with no end in sight....
They are based in the middle of Iraq and Syria with all borders populated with people opposed to them. They are not going anywhere apart from that bleached barren desert holding. They'll never now invade any parts of that region where agriculture or commerce flourishes, they will just get driven back.
They are just like somalia based al shabaab but moved a few hundreds of miles into another region of somewhere that has facilities lacking in supporting a country or caliphate.
An army marches on it's stomach. Currently they might be quite popular in local regions, but given time if the borders of their small desert they live in are kept they will not want to stay there in it and toil. So they will feel the hardships, not of the US or weapons but of the place they are at. The people supporting them will too.
All that is needed is that they are cooped up on "reservations" in effect, and see how they go from there. Not even any need to bomb them that much unless they attack the peripheries.
All this talk of a new IS state being a big threat to the whole of the middle east is a bit like the worry in the 1960's of rebels taking over Vietnam. The domino effect that would lead to the whole of SE Asia being taken over. It never happened.
Best to just put a pen around them and see how long they want to stick it with no end in sight....
technogogo said:
jmorgan said:
Realistically I expect that religion will wane as information is easier to disseminate.
I do not expect to see any dominant religion in the UK in power in 100 years or so.
This bunch out playing hard men are just hood winked onto a power trip.
Don't get me wrong I love the internet and believe we still have many years harvesting the benefits. But I do wonder about the extent the internet has enabled the current level of extremism? An eddy in a swirl from the disruptive splash of our collective consciousness.I do not expect to see any dominant religion in the UK in power in 100 years or so.
This bunch out playing hard men are just hood winked onto a power trip.
Aphex said:
s1962a said:
I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.
CrikeyKareemK said:
People born in a country are entitled to 'agitate' for a change of society from within to a system that they'd prefer to live under or we'd never have had the American revolution or a thousand other uprisings throughout history.
Muslims make up over 2.5 million of the population and growing, fast. So democratically, they are well within their rights to call for Sharia law. When they start to outnumber everyone else then thats the time to start looking abroad for a bolt hole yourself.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff