CLOSED

12930323435164

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @IGotTheMessage, 'radical' Islamic terrorism is a cancer. Once it starts, it takes on a life of its own and is very difficult to stop. Like any fundamentalist idea, it provides simplistic solutions to complex problems, and has appeal to the uneducated as well as those who have some grievance. Don't confuse that with Islam as a whole (as we've discussed here, there are millions of peace loving Muslims, and I'm sure you'll agree that the 'evidence' confirms that).

    Until the west stops going around the world bombing people 'in the name of democracy' and starts to enact policies at home that results in a better life for all its citizens, there will only be more extremism (religious or otherwise). Many confuse democracy with unbridled and uncontrolled trickle down capitalism. They are quite different ideas.

    911 was 16 years ago. The Afghan war has been ongoing since then. The Iraq conflict for only slightly less time. Countless innocent lives have been lost and some teenagers have only known occupation and war at home. That's a breeding ground for extremism and resistance (it doesn't need to be religious, although religion is the convenient rallying cry that they use as it's an easy way for them to mobilize, just like we mobilize under the context of democracy and spreading the gospel).
  • Posts: 4,615
    Not sure if I accept the claims re curiousity. How can one be religious and curiouis? genuinely? because curiousity means questions and religions hates questions:

    "Welcome to our Sunday service. Instead of simging songs and praying, we shall be asking if all this is actually true"

    What is interesting is that we are able to divide up what we are curious about. I am, always amazed re the Apollo 8 crew reading from Genesis. Surely, Apollo represents the ultimate in the curioisity of the human species and, when at its peak, we fall back on our primitive beliefs....two steps forward, one step back.
  • Posts: 1,031
    patb wrote: »
    Not sure if I accept the claims re curiousity. How can one be religious and curiouis? genuinely? because curiousity means questions and religions hates questions:

    "Welcome to our Sunday service. Instead of simging songs and praying, we shall be asking if all this is actually true"

    What is interesting is that we are able to divide up what we are curious about. I am, always amazed re the Apollo 8 crew reading from Genesis. Surely, Apollo represents the ultimate in the curioisity of the human species and, when at its peak, we fall back on our primitive beliefs....two steps forward, one step back.

    Many churches regularly have midweek events where they will deal with the typical questions people have eg. Why does a good God allow suffering?

    I find it hard to agree that Christians hate questions - they (or some) do use catechisms which are questions!
  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Not sure if I accept the claims re curiousity. How can one be religious and curiouis? genuinely? because curiousity means questions and religions hates questions:

    "Welcome to our Sunday service. Instead of simging songs and praying, we shall be asking if all this is actually true"

    What is interesting is that we are able to divide up what we are curious about. I am, always amazed re the Apollo 8 crew reading from Genesis. Surely, Apollo represents the ultimate in the curioisity of the human species and, when at its peak, we fall back on our primitive beliefs....two steps forward, one step back.

    Many churches regularly have midweek events where they will deal with the typical questions people have eg. Why does a good God allow suffering?

    I find it hard to agree that Christians hate questions - they (or some) do use catechisms which are questions!

    Often on a Sunday, many churches have paper slips in the Bibles so you can write a question down with your email address or you can simply ask a question of the pastor or those that are members of that church.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RE: Curiosity - what I meant was we all want answers to questions about life. What (if anything) happens after we lose consciousness. That's the 'curious' aspect. How we satisfy that curiosity depends on our individual predilection for fact based evidence vs. anecdotal observations. It also depends on how skeptical we are.

    Some of that is inherent and genetic, and some of it is conditioned.

    There are many non-religious people in the world who just believe what their friends tell them and what they read without seeking out evidence to substantiate what they've learned and without skepticism. In fact, I would say more people are like that than the other way round. That again plays into religion's ability to seduce people (humans are naturally susceptible to cognitive bias according to landmark studies on behavioural psychology).
  • Posts: 4,615
    "Why does a good God allow suffering?"

    Yes, I have attented many of these, (normally a little balder on exit due to puling my hair out), your example is typical of the type of agenda that is already set with assumptions made right from the start. The deck is stacked.

    IMHO hard to see why a curious person would pick a particualr religion other than the fact that they were brain washed before they could become curious (hence Father Christmas)
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    RE: Curiosity - what I meant was we all want answers to questions about life. What (if anything) happens after we lose consciousness. That's the 'curious' aspect. How we satisfy that curiosity depends on our individual predilection for fact based evidence vs. anecdotal observations. It also depends on how skeptical we are.

    Some of that is inherent and genetic, and some of it is conditioned.

    There are many non-religious people in the world who just believe what their friends tell them and what they read without seeking out evidence to substantiate what they've learned and without skepticism. In fact, I would say more people are like that than the other way round. That again plays into religion's ability to seduce people (who are susceptible to cognitive bias).

    And yet I am a Christian and do not have any family background in Christianity. I knew no one who was a Christian until the age of 19.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RE: Curiosity - what I meant was we all want answers to questions about life. What (if anything) happens after we lose consciousness. That's the 'curious' aspect. How we satisfy that curiosity depends on our individual predilection for fact based evidence vs. anecdotal observations. It also depends on how skeptical we are.

    Some of that is inherent and genetic, and some of it is conditioned.

    There are many non-religious people in the world who just believe what their friends tell them and what they read without seeking out evidence to substantiate what they've learned and without skepticism. In fact, I would say more people are like that than the other way round. That again plays into religion's ability to seduce people (who are susceptible to cognitive bias).

    And yet I am a Christian and do not have any family background in Christianity. I knew no one who was a Christian until the age of 19.
    Which is absolutely fine. You have satisfied your curiosity to the extent that you feel comfortable with and have found/sought out a set of beliefs (and evidentiary proof) that you can live (and die) with. Nothing wrong with that.
  • IGotTheMessageIGotTheMessage United States
    Posts: 194
    @bondjames

    Of course the two are not the same, no one would say that they are.

    The problem is with you conflating radical islamic terrorism with the your political objections as to the insufficiency of the British social system or to the policies of the west in general. It is nice and convenient, but to say that only if Western countries had sufficient social systems and lower levels of income inequality that youth would be much less likely to look to radical movements like ISIS is frankly speakly, neither stimulating nor sophisticated. What it does is deflect from the real issue at hand. These types of ideas get people killed.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 4,615
    Im an atheist who regularly goes to church, chats to local religious groups when they have stall at events, attended Alpha courses, have all the main religious texts on the bookshelf etc. Curiosity makes me wonder why people believe what I dont.

    So, my question to Dennison and others who want to answer. What efforts do you make to understand those who have a different belief. This is the essence of curiousity. To get back on track. I dont think Islam has a good track record on this. Not exactly lining up to go to a Dawkins speech.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames

    Of course the two are not the same, no one would say that they are.

    The problem is with you conflating radical islamic terrorism with the your political objections as to the insufficiency of the British social system or to the policies of the west in general. It is nice and convenient, but to say that only if Western countries had sufficient social systems and lower levels of income inequality that youth would be much less likely to look to radical movements like ISIS is frankly speakly, neither stimulating nor sophisticated. What it does is deflect from the real issue at hand. These types of ideas get people killed.
    It is not a coincidence that some of these individuals come from East London. Social cohesion and upward mobility are critical to defeating radicalism and 'crime' (whether it be Islamic or otherwise). It's not the only issue, but it is certainly an issue.

    You seem to be fixating on a few words I mentioned as I've seen others do here in the past. It is part of the problem. Not the only issue by any means. However, we have to acknowledge it. We cannot ignore it, because they certainly aren't.

    I posted a youtube video a few pages back showing an Islamic roadshow indoctrination drive by Abu Izzadeen. You can see that he makes the direct link between Western foreign policy and Islam. He is playing into tribalism, communal sympathies and cognitive bias when recruiting. Let's not give him further ammunition.

    Here it is again.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RE: Curiosity - what I meant was we all want answers to questions about life. What (if anything) happens after we lose consciousness. That's the 'curious' aspect. How we satisfy that curiosity depends on our individual predilection for fact based evidence vs. anecdotal observations. It also depends on how skeptical we are.

    Some of that is inherent and genetic, and some of it is conditioned.

    There are many non-religious people in the world who just believe what their friends tell them and what they read without seeking out evidence to substantiate what they've learned and without skepticism. In fact, I would say more people are like that than the other way round. That again plays into religion's ability to seduce people (who are susceptible to cognitive bias).

    And yet I am a Christian and do not have any family background in Christianity. I knew no one who was a Christian until the age of 19.

    You are in a significant minority.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,255
    @bondjames

    Of course the two are not the same, no one would say that they are.

    The problem is with you conflating radical islamic terrorism with the your political objections as to the insufficiency of the British social system or to the policies of the west in general. It is nice and convenient, but to say that only if Western countries had sufficient social systems and lower levels of income inequality that youth would be much less likely to look to radical movements like ISIS is frankly speakly, neither stimulating nor sophisticated. What it does is deflect from the real issue at hand. These types of ideas get people killed.

    It isn't directly related, and @bondjames hasn't said it is, but it is connected. Look at the countries hit hardest: France, Belgium, Britain, Germany. they all have huge areas where only poor immigrants live. These are areas where hardly any white person comes, even though they are the majority in the country. These are areas with the worst schools, with the most people on benefit and those who can (especially as they make some money) leave as soon as they can. Youth growing up here are (as are all) dissatisfied with theri way of living, and seek purpose. It's these areas where radical thinkers find their listeners. They offer 1. eternal life 2. belonging 3.purpose (marterdom). All the things people crave and are usually given through religion.

    The countries in Western Europe with lower income disparaties and/ or more mixed neighbourhoods have, up until now, had far fewer incidents. They haven't been completely exempt, but the frequencies and intensity have been a lot lower.

    One needs to attack these problems with a holistic view, not hammer down on one aspect.

    But it isn't a matter of religion alone. The US, the Western country with the biggest income differences and the lowest living standards for the poor of all Western countries also has the highest violence records, and thanks to the gun laws, these also have a very high mortality rate.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 4,615
    This is an interesting video. We discuss "the religion of peace" etc but there are different forms of violence. The psychologic threat that your loved ones would disown you is clearly not good and I cant imagine what its like dealing with that emotional stress every day.Its a form of bullying and impossible to justify.

  • IGotTheMessageIGotTheMessage United States
    Posts: 194
    @CommanderRoss

    Well, firstly, income inequality in itself tells us essentially nothing. You would certainly prefer to have a much larger pie with higher levels of income inequality than a much smaller one with far lower levels of income inequality. Hence, talking about income inequality in a vacuum is a pointless exercise. Tis' not interchangeable with poverty or the living conditions of the population.

    Secondly, your correlation falls apart with even a cursory analysis of the facts. A Socialist government has been in power in France for the last five years and they have been hit as hard as anyone. You are really mingling together concepts which are really very different.

    Thirdly, the reality is that the United States is the wealthiest country in the history of the world, by a good margin, so that line also unfortunately does not hold weight.
  • Posts: 4,615
    I should not be shocked by this but I am. Just a lack of the most basic human decency and respect. The Ozzies should have cancelled the match and sent these guys home. Just more evidence of the cultural abyss between Western culture and ....others.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/08/saudi-arabia-footballers-ignore-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims
  • Posts: 19,339
    I read about that...disgusting but not surprising.

    At least Australia won 3-2 .
  • Posts: 4,615
    You can go back through these threads and people have claimed its about kids being isolated, foreign policy, social exclusion, poverty etc etc,

    None of these factors in any way explain why a foreign footbal team cant even be bothered to pretend to care when people are knifed down in the street. I wonder if T May has the time to watch this on the TV? too busy lining up the next arms order
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Can someone please explain to me what a football game in Adelaide has to do with a terrorist attack in London? I realize two Australians were killed, but is it customary to hold moments of silence for every event that results in the death of an Australian across the globe by nefarious means? If not, perhaps it should be, for consistency's sake and out of respect for the others.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dry+Bones+Believer.jpg
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    These things are hard to understand for atheists, but it's all biological wiring which atheists overrule by rational thinking. This doesn't make them smarter in any way, they just chose (or are wired) differently.

    Sorry but I have to refute this tosh. Of course rational thinking overrules biological herd instincts. That's what separates us from animals.

    It wasn't biological wiring that created fire or the wheel or powered flight or the internet it was rational thinking. Humans without rational thinking are just apes that walk upright.

    For what it's worth religion also stems from rational thinking. Firstly as a way to explain and make sense of the universe and then later on the shrewd clergy realised they could use it as a means to subjugate the masses, still governed by the herd instinct, and empower themselves.

    To say using rational thinking doesn't make someone smarter flies in the face of all notions of human civilisation right back to that first creature who rubbed two sticks together.

    Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking.

    That's a quick list off the top of my head of prominent rational thinkers. Over to you. Can't wait to see your list of great contributors to human history who eschewed rational thinking.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Says a lot about the state of British politics that we can't even summon up a General Election thread for this evening.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512

    These things are hard to understand for atheists, but it's all biological wiring which atheists overrule by rational thinking. This doesn't make them smarter in any way, they just chose (or are wired) differently.

    Sorry but I have to refute this tosh. Of course rational thinking overrules biological herd instincts. That's what separates us from animals.

    It wasn't biological wiring that created fire or the wheel or powered flight or the internet it was rational thinking. Humans without rational thinking are just apes that walk upright.

    For what it's worth religion also stems from rational thinking. Firstly as a way to explain and make sense of the universe and then later on the shrewd clergy realised they could use it as a means to subjugate the masses, still governed by the herd instinct, and empower themselves.

    To say using rational thinking doesn't make someone smarter flies in the face of all notions of human civilisation right back to that first creature who rubbed two sticks together.

    Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking.

    That's a quick list off the top of my head of prominent rational thinkers. Over to you. Can't wait to see your list of great contributors to human history who eschewed rational thinking.

    Lovely stuff.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Getafix wrote: »
    Says a lot about the state of British politics that we can't even summon up a General Election thread for this evening.

    There is a thread a few pages back,but you are right,i couldn't be arsed to resurrect it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2017 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »

    These things are hard to understand for atheists, but it's all biological wiring which atheists overrule by rational thinking. This doesn't make them smarter in any way, they just chose (or are wired) differently.

    Sorry but I have to refute this tosh. Of course rational thinking overrules biological herd instincts. That's what separates us from animals.

    It wasn't biological wiring that created fire or the wheel or powered flight or the internet it was rational thinking. Humans without rational thinking are just apes that walk upright.

    For what it's worth religion also stems from rational thinking. Firstly as a way to explain and make sense of the universe and then later on the shrewd clergy realised they could use it as a means to subjugate the masses, still governed by the herd instinct, and empower themselves.

    To say using rational thinking doesn't make someone smarter flies in the face of all notions of human civilisation right back to that first creature who rubbed two sticks together.

    Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking.

    That's a quick list off the top of my head of prominent rational thinkers. Over to you. Can't wait to see your list of great contributors to human history who eschewed rational thinking.

    Lovely stuff.

    Apologies old chap I forgot to answer your searching philosophical question from earlier about life and the universe.

    For me on a bacon sarnie I generally go tomato ketchup. I'll veer to the brown side from time to time (not like that) but usually red on bacon.

    Now a sausage sarnie (made with lovely pig meat none of your halal turkey or chicken rubbish) 99% of the time I go brown.

    Must stipulate though for red must be Heinz and for brown HP. That's non negotiable. I'm not the sort of chav peasant who could entertain the notion of Daddies or supermarket own brand.

    Glad you brought it up though as I think that really gets to the nub of the human condition.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,136
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I read about that...disgusting but not surprising.

    At least Australia won 3-2 .

    Hopefully this link works.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/football/socceroos-v-saudi-arabia-video-highlights-moments-that-mattered-in-a-crucial-wcq/news-story/73ded69f4a03e378472d0a36a4acb31b

    Disgraceful display from the Saudi players. Some of the Twitter responses are interesting. Seems it's one way traffic with some.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Well the Tories were the only ones who said enough is enough and talked about clamping down on murdering scum coming back from Syria to live amongst us unchecked but the public have clearly stated they prefer the guy who can't bring himself to denounce the IRA on camera.

    Fair enough. Let's have Diane Abbott as Home Secretary. Just don't moan when your children get slaughtered on a daily basis and we have sharia law within 3 years.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »

    These things are hard to understand for atheists, but it's all biological wiring which atheists overrule by rational thinking. This doesn't make them smarter in any way, they just chose (or are wired) differently.

    Sorry but I have to refute this tosh. Of course rational thinking overrules biological herd instincts. That's what separates us from animals.

    It wasn't biological wiring that created fire or the wheel or powered flight or the internet it was rational thinking. Humans without rational thinking are just apes that walk upright.

    For what it's worth religion also stems from rational thinking. Firstly as a way to explain and make sense of the universe and then later on the shrewd clergy realised they could use it as a means to subjugate the masses, still governed by the herd instinct, and empower themselves.

    To say using rational thinking doesn't make someone smarter flies in the face of all notions of human civilisation right back to that first creature who rubbed two sticks together.

    Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking.

    That's a quick list off the top of my head of prominent rational thinkers. Over to you. Can't wait to see your list of great contributors to human history who eschewed rational thinking.

    Lovely stuff.

    Apologies old chap I forgot to answer your searching philosophical question from earlier about life and the universe.

    For me on a bacon sarnie I generally go tomato ketchup. I'll veer to the brown side from time to time (not like that) but usually red on bacon.

    Now a sausage sarnie (made with lovely pig meat none of your halal turkey or chicken rubbish) 99% of the time I go brown.

    Must stipulate though for red must be Heinz and for brown HP. That's non negotiable. I'm not the sort of chav peasant who could entertain the notion of Daddies or supermarket own brand.

    Glad you brought it up though as I think that really gets to the nub of the human condition.

    For me,for bacon or sausage it has to be brown sauce (unless its a hot dog,then its ketchup),and ONLY HP.
    Oh,and when I do use ketchup,as per you Wizz,it has to be Heinz only.

    Just thought I would mention that.
    Bloody hungry now.
  • IGotTheMessageIGotTheMessage United States
    edited June 2017 Posts: 194
    I hate to be caustic, but I really must say, for Conservative Parliament to have called this election, whilst sitting on a ten member majority, is nothing short of one the worst decisions in modern political history. It is mind boggling to be honest.
This discussion has been closed.