It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
With these guys it's to be expected. They can't bear to be challenged. They hate to be called out on their freakish propaganda. And sure as h*** they scream murder when they don't get their way. Or the last word for that matter.
Communists in the early 20th century thought they were embracing 'logic' and rejecting the out-dated dogmas of religion. Marxism seemed to them to be the 'logical' next step in human progress. Turns out that they were just switching one theology for another, with much more disastrous and murderous consequences than any religion had ever achieved. Stalin murdered unknown millions.
The problem with expounding 'logic' and 'reason' is that human history show that logic and reason can just as easily be used to justify racial hatred and genocide (not to mention illegal wars) as religion.
The only lesson we can ever learn is that we need to be constantly vigilent for dangerous extremism, wherever it comes from. We need to be sceptical about any one or any ideology which claims to have a monopoly on 'truth'. We need to defend tolerance, freedom of thought and free speech. We must confront and address our own mistakes. We must be conscious of how our actions are perceived and sometimes misconstrued by others. We must be aware of how our actions can have unintended negative repurcuccions.
Defending freedom is an endless process of peaceful and constructive assertiveness, self-reflection, active engagement. Violence is an admission of failure and must only ever be used as the absolute last resort.
Very well said imho. I agree. I think we're on the same page. Perhaps I should not have held out 'logic' as the key element. There's more to this than just logic. Extremism (in oneself and others) must be avoided at all costs.
I agree that self reflection and self-critique is very important. Looking at things from the other party's point of view is also very important. It's a never ending struggle due to the way that we self-identity, our inherent tribalism or patriotism (part of the human condition) and our ego.
I even see that when people get into heated debates on these threads.
M's comments to Bond in CR are quite apropos in this particular respect. Step back and view the situation dispassionately. See the big picture. Vesper's comments are also relevant. Be mindful of the ego - of the "I'm better than you syndrome".
Marx was using utopian ideas that were anything but logical, although he may have used the word. And Stalin, if atheist, was a very superstitious man. Today's Russia has a government that is in bed with the Church, how are homosexuals treated? Utopias are not necessarily theistic, but they all have crypto-religious elements in them, I would dare to say at their core. Is North Korea atheistic when its leader is worshiped and supposed to be godly? It is certainly not secular.
I happen to think Marx was right on a lot of things - he has been used and distorted by idiots. Marx never actually set out what Communism meant in practice. All he did was critique capitalism - and much of the that critique still makes a lot of sense. But agree, Marx has been treated like religion by a lot of people.
I think we're proving our point again. It is a matter of extremist unyielding interpretation that is the problem. With any idea, whether it be theistic or aethestic.
Some people interpret Marx in an uncompromising way.
All these ideas have good and bad in them. One has to sift through and critique them objectively and try to find the best ones for particular circumstances at hand. The best approach from any particular toolkit will differ depending on the time and the times we live in and the type of threat or problem faced. There is no overall panacea
A flexible, intelligent, question based approach is required. Not an unyielding, uncompromising, dogmatic one. History has taught us that much.
How quickly are the attacks on personnel and buildings of abortion-clinics forgotten, also by the religious christian looneys, that now run way too much of the US to make us Europeans feel comfortable with the amount of religious zealots that are hidden under so-called politics.
Fair point. Also sad to see American Babtists and other nuts spreading their crazy doctrine across Africa and Latin America.
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will — and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain. "
=D> \m/
What I meant was that because someone is not religious does not stop them latching onto stupid ideas or doing stupid things. You may have failed to notice but a lot of relgious people appear capable of making good, sensible decisions on their own as well. I think too much weight is put on blaming religion for what people do. May be people make good and bad decisions and religion is not the key element in determining that.
Getting back to the original topic, terrorists are doing their best (via flags, shouting during raids, youtube etc) to show us that religion is at the epicentre of their decision making process. What more do they have to do to convince you that their religion is a key element?
Faith was at a time a frame in which arts and culture could express itself. But in itself faith is worthless. I can find a statue of Athena beautiful without believing in her.But its a long time since art and faith could work together. The pope don't ask a gay artist to paint the ceiling of his church anymore. His Church is all bent on oppression of homosexuals, which has dire consequences in Africa and elsewhere, and on covering up pedophile crimes of its priests. And this is only one faith.
I don't think a faith has to be respected because it is faith. There is nothing intrinsically admirable about holding something true without evidence, even less so when there is evidence to the fallacies of one's faith.
I take the point about moral decisions but, in the end, atheists have no God to pray to (phone a friend?). Where do religious people get their moral guidance from? If they are working it out for themselves, then what role is God playing?
I attended one, I'm proud to have attended one, and if there is ever any closing off of debate at English universities, no matter what the subject, I shall be sorely disappointed.
Having said all that, anything that is hateful or can be considered 'hate speech' should not be allowed.
It's a fine line, but I hope they don't go in the direction of stopping debate on any subject, no matter how uncomfortable or how politically convenient. The tone of the debate must be civil, and intellectual, focusing on the points at hand, rather than getting personal, hateful, and insulting. That is what universities should monitor imho.
I agree entirely with the last two paragraphs in that above article.
Well, religion separates men from women, to start with. I guess all those defending religions here are male, am I right ?
:))
Wow. Maybe it's too obvious to see ?
"Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor"
Eh, it could have been worse : there could have been one woman amongst them, turning out to be the traitor ! I guess that's how you spin the story to make religion something bothering about women's role.
He may not have existed and if he did his Gospel persona is a complete invention, but yes he is depicted as a radical lefty. Then again he said he hasn't come to chance the law... Which is phallocratic to begin with. And even as a leftist he is a bloody lunatic, case his point getting out of his way to beat up merchants.
Just in case anyone had forgotten what a peaceful religion Islam is, here is another reminder
I suddenly feel stuck between a rock and a hard place.