CharlieHebdo

1252628303145

Comments

  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What I mean is that there are ideologies that trigger, sometimes breed fanaticism. They are not all religious ideologies. But you can bet that any single religion has fundamentalist elements in its ideology.

    Absolutely right.

    Religion, due to the illogical nature of some of its aspects, is more susceptible to perversion, no doubt, especially if one takes all aspects literally.

    I posted the above link because they were having a go at the late Nimoy, who epitomized logic and common sense over passion in his character, Spock. The irony is chilling.

    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.



  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What I mean is that there are ideologies that trigger, sometimes breed fanaticism. They are not all religious ideologies. But you can bet that any single religion has fundamentalist elements in its ideology.

    Absolutely right.

    Religion, due to the illogical nature of some of its aspects, is more susceptible to perversion, no doubt, especially if one takes all aspects literally.

    I posted the above link because they were having a go at the late Nimoy, who epitomized logic and common sense over passion in his character, Spock. The irony is chilling.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What I mean is that there are ideologies that trigger, sometimes breed fanaticism. They are not all religious ideologies. But you can bet that any single religion has fundamentalist elements in its ideology.

    Absolutely right.

    Religion, due to the illogical nature of some of its aspects, is more susceptible to perversion, no doubt, especially if one takes all aspects literally.

    I posted the above link because they were having a go at the late Nimoy, who epitomized logic and common sense over passion in his character, Spock. The irony is chilling.

    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".
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What I mean is that there are ideologies that trigger, sometimes breed fanaticism. They are not all religious ideologies. But you can bet that any single religion has fundamentalist elements in its ideology.

    Absolutely right.

    Religion, due to the illogical nature of some of its aspects, is more susceptible to perversion, no doubt, especially if one takes all aspects literally.

    I posted the above link because they were having a go at the late Nimoy, who epitomized logic and common sense over passion in his character, Spock. The irony is chilling.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What I mean is that there are ideologies that trigger, sometimes breed fanaticism. They are not all religious ideologies. But you can bet that any single religion has fundamentalist elements in its ideology.

    Absolutely right.

    Religion, due to the illogical nature of some of its aspects, is more susceptible to perversion, no doubt, especially if one takes all aspects literally.

    I posted the above link because they were having a go at the late Nimoy, who epitomized logic and common sense over passion in his character, Spock. The irony is chilling.

    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.

    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.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What I mean is that there are ideologies that trigger, sometimes breed fanaticism. They are not all religious ideologies. But you can bet that any single religion has fundamentalist elements in its ideology.

    Absolutely right.

    Religion, due to the illogical nature of some of its aspects, is more susceptible to perversion, no doubt, especially if one takes all aspects literally.

    I posted the above link because they were having a go at the late Nimoy, who epitomized logic and common sense over passion in his character, Spock. The irony is chilling.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    One of the reasons I dislike indiscriminate attacks on 'religion' is because it ignores the rich diversity of human history, culture, experience. Do we really want everyone to think the same? Religion has contributed a lot of good to human civilisation. We'd definitely be culturally a lot poorer without the Old and new Testaments. So much of our art and culture continues to take inspiration in and from some of out most ancient stories and myths. It's a wonderful inheritance - one we should cherish and respect even if we don't 'believe'.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but the religious nuts in the US ate not slitting throats, as far as I know. Big difference.

    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.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but the religious nuts in the US ate not slitting throats, as far as I know. Big difference.

    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.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 4,603
    To link up with another thread, it's not co-incidence that in Star Trek, religion and money don't exist. Gene Roddenberry predicted that nether of these things would be required in a more advanced culture than ours. Spock was the embodiment of someone who always used logic and rationality when faced with a situation. Spock made his own mind up (rather then seeking guidance from a God) but was still portrayed as a good and caring person (hence, the outpouring of grief this week). Obviously its fiction but it is a very easy offering when given the cliched question "but where would we get our moral guidance from". Kirk and his crew never have to attend church or pray to know what the right thing is. They work it out themselves.
    "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. "
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Can't really agree as there is plenty of evidence of those without religion making awful decisions too. And many of our finest brains have and continue to be people with religious faith. I love Trek though and it's idealism, don't worry.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    patb wrote: »
    To link up with another thread, it's not co-incidence that in Star Trek, religion and money don't exist. Gene Roddenberry predicted that nether of these things would be required in a more advanced culture than ours. Spock was the embodiment of someone who always used logic and rationality when faced with a situation. Spock made his own mind up (rather then seeking guidance from a God) but was still portrayed as a good and caring person (hence, the outpouring of grief this week).

    =D> \m/
  • Posts: 4,603
    If those without a religion make an awful decision (of course they will, they are human), at least they make that decision in their own name and know that they are accountable for their actions. Religion enables adults to act like children in that they give away personal responsibility (" it wasn't my fault, he told me to do it") and are given rewards in heaven that no other person can replicate. It also denies the rational amongst us an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about the decision making process.
  • Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    If those without a religion make an awful decision (of course they will, they are human), at least they make that decision in their own name and know that they are accountable for their actions. Religion enables adults to act like children in that they give away personal responsibility (" it wasn't my fault, he told me to do it") and are given rewards in heaven that no other person can replicate. It also denies the rational amongst us an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about the decision making process.

    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.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 4,603
    How do religious people decide what is good. Have they worked it out for themselves or waited for 10 large stone slabs to come down from the sky with a definition of what is good. They cant have their cake and eat it. If they make a good decision, it is based on the moral framework that has been ordered by their god and not by their own ability to make good decisions. Once you sign up to a religion, you relenquish any credit that you may deserve for working out what is morally good and bad. You have effectively "contracted the job out" to a third party and just become a follower of their own morals. If I decide not to kill someone, its because I have worked out it's a bad thing. If I change my mind, thats up to me. Christians know murder is a bad thing, not because they have worked it out, but because their God has commanded them not to kill. (although God did not mention slavery or rape, perhaps he ran out of stone?)
    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?
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I think the idea that religious people don't battle with moral decisions all the time is a little silly. And the implication that only atheists are capable of thinking for themselves equally nonsensical. Many religions do not actually provide the day by day guidebook to living that you imply. Life is a bit more complex for most people.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    One of the reasons I dislike indiscriminate attacks on 'religion' is because it ignores the rich diversity of human history, culture, experience. Do we really want everyone to think the same? Religion has contributed a lot of good to human civilisation. We'd definitely be culturally a lot poorer without the Old and new Testaments. So much of our art and culture continues to take inspiration in and from some of out most ancient stories and myths. It's a wonderful inheritance - one we should cherish and respect even if we don't 'believe'.

    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.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 4,603
    The fact that we have to respect faith because it resulted in some nice buildings or paintings speaks for itself (it smacks of desperation). I think those who have been killed in religious wars would be quite happy to sacrifice the arty stuff for a more peaceful existence.
    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?
  • Posts: 15,106
    What role does god fulfill? What use does he have? In the end, none at all. An atheist can be irrational and immoral. But faith IS irrational to begin with. And worship is not moral, although the faithful will confuse and interchange both terms.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    From my perspective freedom of speech must be allowed and contradictory views should also be allowed, particularly at Universities, and especially at English Universities, which have a long tradition of open debate & intellectual rigour.

    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.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    One of the reasons I dislike indiscriminate attacks on 'religion' is because it ignores the rich diversity of human history, culture, experience.

    Well, religion separates men from women, to start with. I guess all those defending religions here are male, am I right ?

  • Posts: 4,603
    Yes, nothing about gender equality in the ten commandments, funny that, almost as if they were written by men of their time rather than the big man himself.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't think there is actually much in the teachings of Jesus Christ about seperation of men and women. He was actually a bit of a radical lefty if you think about it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think there is actually much in the teachings of Jesus Christ about seperation of men and women. He was actually a bit of a radical lefty if you think about it.
    Jesus Christ would have loved Star Trek. In fact, I'm sure he did.
    :))
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think there is actually much in the teachings of Jesus Christ about seperation of men and women. He was actually a bit of a radical lefty if you think about it.

    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.

  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think there is actually much in the teachings of Jesus Christ about seperation of men and women. He was actually a bit of a radical lefty if you think about it.

    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.
  • Posts: 4,603
    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/stop-executing-apostates-and-blasphemers-and-release-them-now/

    Just in case anyone had forgotten what a peaceful religion Islam is, here is another reminder
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    patb wrote: »
    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/stop-executing-apostates-and-blasphemers-and-release-them-now/

    Just in case anyone had forgotten what a peaceful religion Islam is, here is another reminder
    In my world, I'd execute anyone making fun of Brosnan's bond...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/stop-executing-apostates-and-blasphemers-and-release-them-now/

    Just in case anyone had forgotten what a peaceful religion Islam is, here is another reminder
    In my world, I'd execute anyone making fun of Brosnan's bond...

    I suddenly feel stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Sign In or Register to comment.