CharlieHebdo

1272830323345

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Never ever ever blame religion. Let s take the blame ourselves.
  • Posts: 15,106
    A reason to live? More like a reason to die. Or to murder.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Never ever ever blame religion. Let s take the blame ourselves.
    Our religions are extensions of ourselves.
  • Posts: 4,603
    did anyone note that during the 2 hour leaders debate on TV last week, ISIS, Islam and the whole issue never came up. As a newcomer to British politics, you would not have know that the issue even existed. Funding for the NHS was discussed for around 12 minutes. Politicians cant debate it as they have no solutions to offer and just give platitudes.
  • Posts: 15,106
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Never ever ever blame religion. Let s take the blame ourselves.
    Our religions are extensions of ourselves.

    Good thing I do not belong to any faith. Haven't taken part in the Crusades either.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    I have no idea what's going on, but the french tv channel/media 'TV5 Monde' has apparently been hacked by ISIS supporters. Saw some screenshots of their Facebook page and official website that had big 'WE ARE ISIS' banners on them. I checked the tv channel itself, and it stopped broadcasting, which is not normal at this hour.
  • Posts: 4,603
    its an interesting contrast in that, from an atheist perspective, to have such faith in the invisible boss in the sky and commit your life to him is not a clever thing to do BUT hacking in to a TV channel etc etc takes a fair amount of skill and not for the faint hearted (one could also say the same about flying an airliner into an office tower) the contrast between skill, intelligence and pure stupidity is hard for many (including me) to understand. There will be discussions about better IT security , better funding etc etc but no real solutions being offered. This needs to be much higher up the political agenda. I am looking forward to the party campaigners knocking on my door over the next 4 weeks or so and asking them face to face exactly what their party would do about this issue. They have no answers at the moment. They are happy to squabble about the few million quid concerning non-doms. Its just a matter of time before the UK suffers a major ISIS hack,
  • Posts: 7,507
    patb wrote: »
    its an interesting contrast in that, from an atheist perspective, to have such faith in the invisible boss in the sky and commit your life to him is not a clever thing to do BUT hacking in to a TV channel etc etc takes a fair amount of skill and not for the faint hearted (one could also say the same about flying an airliner into an office tower) the contrast between skill, intelligence and pure stupidity is hard for many (including me) to understand. There will be discussions about better IT security , better funding etc etc but no real solutions being offered. This needs to be much higher up the political agenda. I am looking forward to the party campaigners knocking on my door over the next 4 weeks or so and asking them face to face exactly what their party would do about this issue. They have no answers at the moment. They are happy to squabble about the few million quid concerning non-doms. Its just a matter of time before the UK suffers a major ISIS hack,


    It is a common problem with many so called "New Atheists" of today, to paint people of religius belief, almost by definition, as humans of lesser intellect or even inteligence than themselves (I am not saying you do it, necessarily). It is quite an unhealthy and in fact dangerous way of thinking, but it is nevertheless an idea which has been heavily promoted by intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Hitchens. It doesn't exactly do the modern understanding of religion or world politics much good.
  • Posts: 15,106
    What's there to understand though? once you hold something as true and sacred without a shred of evidence, you can and should be called on it.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created. What many atheists do is to create a religion of their own. A belief in science and rationality as all knowing and all powerful. That seems a littlebit naive to me as well. Many of them even sprinkle their faith with a light radical fundamentalism: The idea they are absolutely right, everyone else are wrong, and their job is to strip the world of religion.

    I am not religious myself, but I believe there is something more to this world than mere science. Something beyond, in itself inexplicable. Which language you choose to describe that which is inexplicable, that is irelevant. However I strongly react when atheists use their so called rationility to look down on people of other faiths, or even justify violence, like many atheists in fact do. They are sometimes not much better than the very religious fundamentalists they love to criticise.
  • Posts: 15,106
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created.

    But it is far worse than bad science: it is inaccurate explanation and erroneous claims based on nothing but more erroneous claims. At worst fraudulous ones. I don't mind someone expressing his spirituality, whatever that means. Claiming an hegemonic truth based on faith and no evidence whatsoever, claiming moral superiority because of a faith, confusing devotion with moral, THAT I have a huge issue with. Oh and killing out of deference for a hypothetical God and some guy dead a few centuries ago.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created.

    But it is far worse than bad science: it is inaccurate explanation and erroneous claims based on nothing but more erroneous claims. At worst fraudulous ones. I don't mind someone expressing his spirituality, whatever that means. Claiming an hegemonic truth based on faith and no evidence whatsoever, claiming moral superiority because of a faith, confusing devotion with moral, THAT I have a huge issue with. Oh and killing out of deference for a hypothetical God and some guy dead a few centuries ago.

    It's true that spirituality (which can be very personal, not always or necessarily rational, but certainly beneficial for individual well being & calm) is often confused with organized religion (which unfortunately and particularly in the case of all Abrahamic faiths has been abused throughout history both conceptually and with dogma in a self-serving way to suit certain violent points of view).

    Having said that, it's also true that religious people are not necessarily stupid, and it would be foolish to assume so, which is I think @jobo's point. One can be extremely intelligent and still deeply religious - an apparent contradiction.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created.

    But it is far worse than bad science: it is inaccurate explanation and erroneous claims based on nothing but more erroneous claims. At worst fraudulous ones. I don't mind someone expressing his spirituality, whatever that means. Claiming an hegemonic truth based on faith and no evidence whatsoever, claiming moral superiority because of a faith, confusing devotion with moral, THAT I have a huge issue with. Oh and killing out of deference for a hypothetical God and some guy dead a few centuries ago.

    Of course you have an issue with that. Like most of us, billions of muslims included.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created.

    But it is far worse than bad science: it is inaccurate explanation and erroneous claims based on nothing but more erroneous claims. At worst fraudulous ones. I don't mind someone expressing his spirituality, whatever that means. Claiming an hegemonic truth based on faith and no evidence whatsoever, claiming moral superiority because of a faith, confusing devotion with moral, THAT I have a huge issue with. Oh and killing out of deference for a hypothetical God and some guy dead a few centuries ago.

    It's true that spirituality (which can be very personal, not always or necessarily rational, but certainly beneficial for individual well being & calm) is often confused with organized religion (which unfortunately and particularly in the case of all Abrahamic faiths has been abused throughout history both conceptually and with dogma in a self-serving way to suit certain violent points of view).

    Not only "arabic faiths" (either it be Islam, Christianity, or whatever). Every ideology or faith can be used to promote violence and injustice. A deep look at history will tell you that. New atheists do it today, as well as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Capitalists, Communists... you name it. The list goes on. To say Islam is unique because some use it to promote violence, is incredibly simplistic. Yet, its a common practice of today.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created.

    But it is far worse than bad science: it is inaccurate explanation and erroneous claims based on nothing but more erroneous claims. At worst fraudulous ones. I don't mind someone expressing his spirituality, whatever that means. Claiming an hegemonic truth based on faith and no evidence whatsoever, claiming moral superiority because of a faith, confusing devotion with moral, THAT I have a huge issue with. Oh and killing out of deference for a hypothetical God and some guy dead a few centuries ago.

    It's true that spirituality (which can be very personal, not always or necessarily rational, but certainly beneficial for individual well being & calm) is often confused with organized religion (which unfortunately and particularly in the case of all Abrahamic faiths has been abused throughout history both conceptually and with dogma in a self-serving way to suit certain violent points of view).

    Not only "arabic faiths" (either it be Islam, Christianity, or whatever). Every ideology or faith can be used to promote violence and injustice. A deep look at history will tell you that. New atheists do it today, as well as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Capitalists, Communists... you name it. The list goes on. To say Islam is unique because some use it to promote violence, is incredibly simplistic. Yet, its a common practice of today.

    Agreed. It is definitely a major problem today but it is not unique to Islam. It is unique to any organized, dogmatic, unyielding or illogical point of view, philosophy, ideology or way of thinking. Nazism was not a religion but it was a relatively unyielding, uncompromising dogma & point of view.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I'm not saying religious people are all stupid but that faith makes a number of unsustainable claims.

    Regarding new atheists, give me one action done by say Dawkins, Hitch or Harris comparable in negative impact to what organized religions do today?
  • Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not saying religious people are all stupid but that faith makes a number of unsustainable claims.

    Regarding new atheists, give me one action done by say Dawkins, Hitch or Harris comparable in negative impact to what organized religions do today?

    I can't give you any 'actions', at least as of date... But they have all made a career this last decade in justifying incredibly violent acts against the middle east.. which was the point. I am sure you know that yourself? You will also find several acts of discrimination against muslims, all over Europe, influnced by the same line of thinking.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not saying religious people are all stupid but that faith makes a number of unsustainable claims.

    Regarding new atheists, give me one action done by say Dawkins, Hitch or Harris comparable in negative impact to what organized religions do today?

    Your point is also valid.

    At least Dawkins, Hitch or Harris are encouraging people to think independently, which can never be a bad thing.

    However, they also have to accept that more than half the world's population is religious (like it or not). That's not going to change as long as there's:

    1. death (the great unknown and also the great certainty) and
    2. fear (a natural human characteristic).
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 15,106
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not saying religious people are all stupid but that faith makes a number of unsustainable claims.

    Regarding new atheists, give me one action done by say Dawkins, Hitch or Harris comparable in negative impact to what organized religions do today?

    I can't give you any 'actions', at least as of date... But they have all made a career this last decade in justifying incredibly violent acts against the middle east.. which was the point. I am sure you know that yourself? You will also find several acts of discrimination against muslims, all over Europe, influnced by the same line of thinking.

    Such as? And no I don't know. You made the claim.
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm not saying religious people are all stupid but that faith makes a number of unsustainable claims.

    Regarding new atheists, give me one action done by say Dawkins, Hitch or Harris comparable in negative impact to what organized religions do today?

    Your point is also valid.

    At least Dawkins, Hitch or Harris are encouraging people to think independently, which can never be a bad thing.

    However, they also have to accept that more than half the world's population is religious (like it or not). That's not going to change as long as there's:

    1. death (the great unknown and also the great certainty) and
    2. fear (a natural human characteristic).

    And it is the rights of new atheists and myself to recharge rightly point out that religions are supported by no evidence and call them on their claims.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Regarding controversial statements justifying war acts against "the great threat of Islam" the list is endless. I can give you a few articles rasing the issue, but you are of course much better off doing the research yourself.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html
    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

    In Europe the matter of Islamophobia (in lack of a better word) is a growing issue, and sometimes they do lead to acts of rampage and malice. That is not to say it is directly infuenced by Harris or Hitchens of course (that was wrongly put), but the Islamophobia their atheist line of thinking is helping to promote, does. Of course its not nearly in the same league as the violent acts by religious fanatics, and that was never my point. The point I made was that some atheists hostile depiction of other religions, and Islam especially, can be used to promote violence. In that sense it is not some much different from other religions. And if these ideals are allowed to grow over time, it could very well lead to worse acts.

    The main point is that violence can always be justified. Even by thoughts that can be considered "rational" to some.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    Regarding controversial statements justifying war acts against "the great threat of Islam" the list is endless. I can give you a few articles rasing the issue, but you are of course much better off doing the research yourself.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html
    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

    In Europe the matter of Islamophobia (in lack of a better word) is a growing issue, and sometimes they do lead to acts of rampage and malice. That is not to say it is directly infuenced by Harris or Hitchens of course (that was wrongly put), but the Islamophobia their atheist line of thinking is helping to promote, does. Of course its not nearly in the same league as the violent acts by religious fanatics, and that was never my point. The point I made was that some atheists hostile depiction of other religions, and Islam especially, van be used to promote violence. In that sense it is not some much different from other religions. And if these ideals are allowed to grow over time, it could very well lead to worse acts.

    The main point is that violence can always be justified. Even by thoughts that can be considered "rational" to some.

    I agree with you on this - you have put forward the risk well. The tone of any criticism of religious violence has to be more nuanced and deliberate.

    Otherwise some of the less open minded and intelligent among us (both religious and non-religious) may become motivated to violence as they get stirred up in animalistic ways.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Islamophobia is often a buzz word used to shut up criticism of Islam as an ideology. and it's not like Harris and the others stygmatized Islam and gave a free pass to other religions.

    In any case, harsh criticism of Islam is in no way comparable to the application of sharia law, the murder of homosexuals, the war on condoms and contraceptives by the Catholic church, the teaching of creationism in school, etc.
  • Posts: 7,507
    bondjames wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Regarding controversial statements justifying war acts against "the great threat of Islam" the list is endless. I can give you a few articles rasing the issue, but you are of course much better off doing the research yourself.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html
    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

    In Europe the matter of Islamophobia (in lack of a better word) is a growing issue, and sometimes they do lead to acts of rampage and malice. That is not to say it is directly infuenced by Harris or Hitchens of course (that was wrongly put), but the Islamophobia their atheist line of thinking is helping to promote, does. Of course its not nearly in the same league as the violent acts by religious fanatics, and that was never my point. The point I made was that some atheists hostile depiction of other religions, and Islam especially, van be used to promote violence. In that sense it is not some much different from other religions. And if these ideals are allowed to grow over time, it could very well lead to worse acts.

    The main point is that violence can always be justified. Even by thoughts that can be considered "rational" to some.

    I agree with you on this - you have put forward the risk well. The tone of any criticism of religious violence has to be more nuanced and deliberate.

    Otherwise some of the less open minded and intelligent among us (both religious and non-religious) may become motivated to violence as they get stirred up in animalistic ways.


    Exactly!
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Islamophobia is often a buzz word used to shut up criticism of Islam as an ideology. and it's not like Harris and the others stygmatized Islam and gave a free pass to other religions.

    In any case, harsh criticism of Islam is in no way comparable to the application of sharia law, the murder of homosexuals, the war on condoms and contraceptives by the Catholic church, the teaching of creationism in school, etc.

    If that really is your line of thinking, there is of course no point in discussing this any further... Rational criticism is welcomed, irrational criticism is not...
  • Posts: 15,106
    Accusing someone of Islamomphobia does not make it so. Or implying he may be islamophobic. In any case, I fail to see when Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins, even when they did made mistakes, had done something as willingly malicious as applying the sharia law, murdering or calling for the murder of homosexuals, or contributing to the spread of STDs in Africa, or even the rise of teen pregnancy in say Texas, by preaching abstinence only sex ed classes. They are hardly mullahs, they are not even Rick Perry.
  • Posts: 15,106
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Islamophobia is often a buzz word used to shut up criticism of Islam as an ideology. and it's not like Harris and the others stygmatized Islam and gave a free pass to other religions.

    In any case, harsh criticism of Islam is in no way comparable to the application of sharia law, the murder of homosexuals, the war on condoms and contraceptives by the Catholic church, the teaching of creationism in school, etc.

    If that really is your line of thinking, there is of course no point in discussing this any further... Rational criticism is welcomed, irrational criticism is not...

    I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying that criticizing Islam as an ideology however hardly does not make said criticism islamophobic. And when did the words of Hitch, Harris or Dawkins had the kinds of destructive consequences listed above in my previous posts?
  • Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Islamophobia is often a buzz word used to shut up criticism of Islam as an ideology. and it's not like Harris and the others stygmatized Islam and gave a free pass to other religions.

    In any case, harsh criticism of Islam is in no way comparable to the application of sharia law, the murder of homosexuals, the war on condoms and contraceptives by the Catholic church, the teaching of creationism in school, etc.

    If that really is your line of thinking, there is of course no point in discussing this any further... Rational criticism is welcomed, irrational criticism is not...

    I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying that criticizing Islam as an ideology however hardly does not make said criticism islamophobic. And when did the words of Hitch, Harris or Dawkins had the kinds of destructive consequences listed above in my previous posts?

    So because their occationally very hostile depiction of muslims have so far not led to atrocities of the same kind, they can basically say whatever they want? Is that really your point?

    And Hitchens supported and promoted the Iraq war, with his "rational" line of thinking. (I cannot say if Harris or Dawkins supported said war, but they have at least done their best to justify many of the violent acts later on.)
  • Posts: 15,106
    I cannot say I read or listened to everything they have written or said on the subject, but to my knowledge they were critical of Islam, not Muslims. Hitchens supported the war and he was wrong doing so but what did he say that was a call to genocide or the constant oppression of a people, a race, or even exploitation? and what did they say that influence any sort of atrocity? Or could? And what violent acts did they justify? Or even excuse?
  • Posts: 11,425
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, what many atheists fail to understand is that religion is more than bad science. It is a way of expressing ones spirituality just as much as an explanation for why and how the universe was created. What many atheists do is to create a religion of their own. A belief in science and rationality as all knowing and all powerful. That seems a littlebit naive to me as well. Many of them even sprinkle their faith with a light radical fundamentalism: The idea they are absolutely right, everyone else are wrong, and their job is to strip the world of religion.

    I am not religious myself, but I believe there is something more to this world than mere science. Something beyond, in itself inexplicable. Which language you choose to describe that which is inexplicable, that is irelevant. However I strongly react when atheists use their so called rationility to look down on people of other faiths, or even justify violence, like many atheists in fact do. They are sometimes not much better than the very religious fundamentalists they love to criticise.

    Well said.
Sign In or Register to comment.