jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (178 posts)

Another Attack in england

  1. PhoenixV profile image81
    PhoenixVposted 3 months ago

    just heard

    1. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Very sad.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 months ago

    Who will complain about home security and TSA now?  Or Trump banning travel from high risk countries?

    1. Will Apse profile image88
      Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      People who know that risk can never be reduced to zero and people who care about individual freedom.

      We are all in a war that most of us never wanted to be involved in. We have to live with that and salvage everything we can.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        If we had the number of attacks the UK has suffered, in each state, I think there would be quite a cry for better security.  The entire UK isn't as large as Nevada.

        1. Will Apse profile image88
          Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Panic then, surrender your rights, strip others of theirs and, live in a basement.

          1. ahorseback profile image48
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            It's Pretty simple , Control Our Borders .

            1. Will Apse profile image88
              Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I suppose, if you had no foreigners to blame for all your ills, you would be obliged to look at the real problems.

              But then, there is always a scapegoat somewhere.

              1. ahorseback profile image48
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Border control IS a real problem , sort of  like the lack of common sense on the left Will.

            2. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              The NAFTA superhighway; The NAFTA, illegally signed into affect by Bill Clinton, makes securing our borders impossible, at least from Canada and Mexico. Part of it is that any Mexican or Canadian trucks on that highway can be stopped but not searched. So, those trucks can be filled with illegals but there's nothing that can be done about it. This being the case, and it is, Trumps' wall will do nothing to stop illegal immigration. And don't forget the fact that any terrorists (Musslim or other) can enter America through the same means.
              So, stopping illegal immigration is more like stopping ants from infesting your house; you have to stop them at the source. In the case of ants, kill the queen: in the case of musslim terrorists, get rid of their excuse, in which you have to kill the purpose, which is their religion.

              Can eliminating a religion eliminate the subsequent terrorism? Yes, but only to the extent that another religion will fill the void. So, in order to rid the world of any religious based terrorism the need to eliminate all religions would exist. Is that possible? Not anytime soon but maybe sometime in the future when mankind finally realizes the absurdity. Then we'll only have governmental terrorism to worry about.

              1. ahorseback profile image48
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Well another strange opinion heard from ,   eliminate them huh ?   One might think  eliminating an entire religion or three might actually be called  genocide ? No ?

                The most violent crimes and wars in the world today are because of NOT ENOUGH  FAITH AND BELIEF IN A GOD, ANY GOD ALL GODS  !

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Violent crimes and wars are also due to misunderstanding and misinterpreting: " ~ G ~ O ~ D ~ "
                  Would God as a force/source of love/joy really want us to be conquest-ing over others?
                  At some point all countries and people need to live and let live! And have respect!

                  Conquest:
                  1 defeat, vanquishment, annihilation, overthrow, subjugation, rout, mastery, crushing; victory over, triumph over.
                  2 seizure, takeover, capture, occupation, invasion, acquisition, appropriation, subjugation, subjection.
                  4 catch, acquisition, prize, slave; admirer, fan, worshiper; lover, boyfriend, girlfriend.

                2. Nathanville profile image90
                  Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Ahorseback, on the contrary, most wars in the past 1,500 years have been religious related.  Also, your broad statement holds little water when you consider that Europe is one of the least religious places on Earth, yet the violent crimes in Europe is no more than violent crimes in the USA where religion is far higher. 

                  For example over half the British population are now non-religious and only 5% of the British population actually go to church; as detailed in this video:-  https://youtu.be/Qgji4iVa-_g

                  I’m keeping this short because I and my family and friends are spending today and the weekend celebrating Labour’s (Socialist) unexpected and fantastic success in yesterday’s General Election e.g. a 10% swing from Conservative (Capitalist) Government to Labour, leaving Labour needing just a 3% swing in their favour at the next General Election (which is easily achievable under British Politics).  Labour's success being in spite of the fact that the Labour Parties current leader is the most radical extreme left wing socialist labour leader we’ve had in the UK since 1945.

                  1. ahorseback profile image48
                    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Europe is in a struggle between  modern day ,atheistic, selfish-self -entitlement ,  socialism and  6 th century Islamic mayhem , what are you talking about ........Your solutions to your wide of array cultural -economic problems in the UK  are just as elusive as all  understanding of failed psuedo-intellectual socialism elitism  in europe .

                    The direction of new liberal ideology is polluted by entitlement spending and  amounts to one more directionless  , failed socialism .

                    Why didn't you leave the UK alone and move to the incredible successful socialism of Venezuela ?

                  2. Nathanville profile image90
                    Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    ahorseback.  My feelings about Trump is the same as your feelings about Socialism in Europe; we are just two completely different cultures with polarized views.

                    I'm happy to be in a socialist Europe, you're happy to be in a Capitalist America.  So no problem as we are both happy in the countries we live. 

                    I'm willing to respect your culture in general, except for the guns issue (even if I don't agree with it all).  In that respect I am slowly learning from other Americans on these forums to better understand and appreciate the American culture.

                    Are you willing to give Europe some respect (even if you don't personally agree with everything), or is it your intent to continue to slam Europe's cultural values at every opportunity?

                3. Ivan Tod profile image60
                  Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  "Well another strange opinion heard from"

                  My opinion is only strange to you because it offends your decision to have faith in something that has done the complete opposite of what you claim it would do. Faith in your "gods" has done anything BUT make the world a better, safer place.

                  "One might think  eliminating an entire religion or three might actually be called  genocide?"

                  And one would be totally wrong in their thinking...Nothing new. You are (purposefully or accidentally?) confusing eliminating religion with eliminating people, which are two totally different prospects. Eliminating People of a certain race is genocide and has nothing to do with eliminating religion itself. Let's try a little critical thinking here, okay? You don't need to murder people to get rid of religion. The judeo/christian bible (the greatest terrorism handbook ever written), even though its prime operational edict is one of "do as I say or be killed", actually shows how to do it WITHOUT killing. The 40 years wandering in the desert was instituted to give enough time to alter the israelite way of thinking through age related attrition. The time in the desert allowed for the old ways to be slowly phased out and the new order phased in, with total effectiveness.

                  "The most violent crimes and wars in the world today are because of NOT ENOUGH  FAITH AND BELIEF IN A GOD, ANY GOD ALL GODS  !"

                  You mean believing in gods who justify killing the unfaithful? or gods who condone the genocide you mentioned, Or gods that put women in the position of a lesser subservient being, or like the judeo/christian god of whom okay'd the merciless murder of women, elders and children?...Those gods? All of which actually are still worshipped by billions of people to this very day (a prime example of the Stockholm Effect, which shows how truly effective properly applied terrorism can be).
                  In consideration of the fact that there are more "believers" than non-believers on the planet, I think you have it backwards as the greater the growth of the numbers of believers the more turmoil the world seems to manifest.
                  So, what's any more strange than saying that a "god" filled, tumultuous world would get any better by more people believing in the very gods that are at the base of the worlds current major issues?

                  1. ahorseback profile image48
                    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    You're still interpreting religion with a extremely shallow vision ,   You see evil in this world and blame the God of another world ,  You see  a crime against humanity and blame  the order of a moral and   faith based belief  ,  Why that is ?  I can only guess that some of you are so intent on your loss , a lack of faith in anything  that you simply cannot easily a righteously accept faithfully ,  that you too are that party of evil in man , Not God , not religion  ,not faith , but the evil in man.

                    Truth , Look in the mirror to discern the origins of evil in this world , not in the bible or koran .

        2. Nathanville profile image90
          Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, it’s more than just the pot calling the kettle black.  So far the number of people killed by terrorist in the UK in 2017 is 34.  This pales into insignificance compared to the 495 American civilians killed by American police so far in 2017, and the grand total of 6,468 fatal gun deaths in America to date for 2017.

          I think if we had the level of gun violence in the UK that you have in America there would be public outcry.  In fact I know there would be, as demonstrated by the 2011 riots across the UK sparked by the police shooting of just one person:-

          UK riots spread to three other cities https://youtu.be/ZG3GXmju9r4

          Riots across UK in 2011 for 3 days protesting against the police shooting one person, including in Bristol (where I live): https://youtu.be/YUZDeAjyfSQ

          Bristol Riots 2011: https://youtu.be/IdJ0C72SMss

          1. ahorseback profile image48
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            "Pot calling the Kettle black "  ......The ideology that , in so many ways ,  defends the unchecked spreading  of ISLAMIC terror across the west by pointing a finger at an inanimate object like an American made gun and then throws around the numbers of gun deaths in America to DO SO , seems to me to be not only  denying the existence of Islamic Terror , BUT defending it as well .

            Much like the Mayor of London who said ,  ".....it's normal for a large city to experience terror......"
            Now there  is an attitude which  supports the  normalization , mainstreaming and acceptance of terrorism.
            As an American ,I'm glad I voted for a man who doesn't ;
            support
            excuse
            defend
            deny
            normalize   
            and  mainstream the acceptance of islamic terrorism ,

          2. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Yep ahorseback, Tump knows how to alienate the British; and not for the first time.  Tumps personal attack of the Mayor of London did not go down well with the British Public; it just serves to further reinforce ill feelings between Britain and America.

            I may be pure British blood from when my maternal and paternal ancestors first settled here in 1066, and I maybe an atheist, but I have a lot of respect for the Mayor of London, and I am proud to have him as Mayor for our Capital:-

            Sadiq Khan elected new Mayor of London: https://youtu.be/ChY4nooWgGs

            I didn’t expect your reply to be any different.  I do defend the rights of law abiding Muslims and respect their Islamic faith; but I certainly don’t defend the evils of ISIS no more than that of the IRA during their 30 years of terrorism in the UK from the 1970s to 1990s (Christian terrorist who got much of their funding from sympathising American citizens).

            Of course terrorism doesn’t go unchecked in Britain (regardless to the religious faith of the fanatics); with the intelligence work done by GCHQ most plots are thwarted before any harm is done, but a few are bound to slip through the net. 

            What you fail to recognise is that it isn’t the refugees who are causing the terrorism, its home grown British citizens. 

            Also, it doesn’t alter the fact that the scale of terrorism in Britain is miniscule compared to the daily deaths of innocent American citizens because of the unchecked gun violence in America. 

            I’m just glad we don’t have the guns in Britain that are so prevalent in America.

            Mass Shooting In Mississippi https://youtu.be/ckjhwWBcfVg

            1. ahorseback profile image48
              ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Oh Lord , where do I begin , how about with the last  ,   You don't have guns in the UK  because  a world colonizing  nation like the UK  certainly cannot trust it's own citezenry  not to act up  to the tyranny perhaps .

              WHEN the daily threats of terrorism get to America  we certainly won't have to rely on civilians  to throw chairs and pints of beer at the attackers ,  that may sound offensive to weaker minds but its a simple truth -----except that is , IN the Obama era "gun free zones "

              Sadik Khan may be mayor of London  , but I'm sure the victims  won't blame him for saying ....we have to expect acts of terror in large cities as normal ........"

              My family heritage as well was  British , Scottish  and Irish , perhaps all this is why we've been in America since 1637. The UK can't decide between colonialism and pacifism .

              Trump has the Twitter  as his White House media because there is NO media in America besides a totally biased one .   Maybe a few insults traded will awaken  your sleeping mayor ?

            2. Nathanville profile image90
              Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Ahorseback. 

              So you think that in 2017 to date (just six months) that the 495 American civilians killed by American police and the grand total of 6,468 fatal gun deaths in America, along with all the mass shootings you have e.g. the recent mass shooting In Mississippi, are ok.

              And what about the 120 innocent college students and school children killed in the mass shootings in American schools and colleges since the year 2000; let alone all the mass shootings prior to that dating back to the first recorded incident in the University of Virginia on the 12 November 1840.

              At least when we get terrorism in the UK the terrorist only have knives; think of the carnage if they had access to guns. 

              Trumps unwarranted attack on our Mayor of London is based on fake news first published on the web on 22 September 2016, which was subsequently broadcasted by Fox News and now perpetuated by Trump; if you want the truth behind the false claims I suggest you watch this video:- https://youtu.be/z1KC-zgGt-o

              In fact if you listened to comments from the survivors, the families of the victims or even bothered to listen to any of the speeches made by Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London, then you would know how silly and divisive your comments are:

              Mayor Sadiq Khan speech on London Attack:-  https://youtu.be/_w-z4KapcsM

              1. Will Apse profile image88
                Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I think we can agree that those terrorists, armed with the lethal weaponry available in any US gun store, would have done far more harm than they did with a van and some knives.

                1. Nathanville profile image90
                  Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Well said Will.

                  1. ahorseback profile image48
                    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Did you think to ask the victims families that question ?

                2. ahorseback profile image48
                  ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  The fact that HERE in forums  , the left  spends more time on defending terror and the tactics  they use than on solution issues  like assimilation or immigration ; THAT say's the most to me. The first cop there with a gun could have ending it all.

                  What ,? Like terror is OKAY if they only use a knife and you only have beer glasses to defend yourselves? Maybe you should ban beer glasses too ?
                  It's really fun to debate liberals .

                  1. Nathanville profile image90
                    Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    On the contrary ahorseback it’s Americans who are prejudice against anyone who’s different; your own history, and current attitudes, shows that.

                    Assimilation or immigration isn’t the problem in Britain like it is in America; all our major cities are cosmopolitan.  In the 2011 census 77.9% of the population in Bristol (where I live) are White British, and I don’t have a problem with that; it’s a peaceful well integrated city where everyone lives, works and socialise as a community.

                    Your statement is illogical, if America is a prime example of how arming yourselves and your police with guns is the solution then it’s not a very good solution when this year alone (2017) 495 American civilians have been killed by American police, and 6,468 American’s have killed each other with guns.  Logic should tell you that guns are far more dangerous than knives.

                    Of course no terror is ok, but at least knives are less effective; and besides it’s not just guns that are banned in the UK, knives are equally illegal.  To be possession of a knife in public in the UK, even if it’s not used carries a maximum prison sentence of up to four years.   Picking up on your last point, under UK law if a beer glass was being carried with the intention of causing injury to another person then that too is classified as an ‘offensive weapon’ which carries a maximum prison sentence of four years; albeit, using a beer glass to defend yourself against a terrorist with a knife is legally ‘reasonable force’ and therefore classified as self-defence.

                    In Europe, we live in a different world to America; and it’s got nothing to do with politics over here.  As Will pointed out, in the 2010 survey only 4% of the UK population thought that gun control should be relaxed; in spite of the fact that about 40% of the population tends to support right wing politics.  In our world it’s far safer because we don’t go shooting each other up with guns.

                    In contrast to gun shooting criminals in the USA this video shows how our criminals commit a serious crime: - https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg

                    Also American visiting England encounters UK knife law: - https://youtu.be/n-isrXSPh5A?t=1m1s

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Individual freedom exists in safety. Promoting "general welfare" includes keeping out obvious evil doers who, as a destructive force, have existed for centuries now. Our own founding fathers had to fight them and did so when they were out at sea. Why wait for them to infiltrate for gosh sakes????

        1. PhoenixV profile image81
          PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Evil doers are the victims. Based on various, somewhat revised and often unrelated historical events. The only thing left to do is appeasement.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            … maybe you could explain further?

            1. PhoenixV profile image81
              PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              According to some.. the chickens have come home to roost. And we only have ourselves to blame. Its time for the menfolk to knit some white flags and have tea.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                H U H ????
                oh!!!!! according to … those guys!

                1. PhoenixV profile image81
                  PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  https://www.scoutlander.com/publicsite/GetImgVlt1.aspx?file=o43tc57ea6315400.jpg
                  I was just thinking back to 1812 the other day.  I am feeling a little grievance.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    what happened in 1812 specifically?

            2. PhoenixV profile image81
              PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Appeasement is when you feed a crocodile or alligator in the hopes it eats you last. ~ some wise feller from the past quote.

    2. PhoenixV profile image81
      PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Heres a multiple choice. Wilderness, You know I wear a Christian label.

      Tonight I am going to leave my front door unlocked. Tomorrow  i am going to invite any/all Christian Pentecostal Snake Handlers to come live in my home.

      a. likely
      b.. unlikely
      c. have I suffered brain trauma recently.

  3. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    Will, When you go to bed tonight ,   leave your front door wide open , Okay ?

    Tomorrow morning we will have a civil question and answer session on  the security and safety   issues present in your home .  Okay  ?

    Promise ?

    1. mike102771 profile image84
      mike102771posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Are you sure about that?

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, I am of the right , its the left that distorts the conversation . 
        Do you leave your door open at night ?
        It IS that simple.

        1. mike102771 profile image84
          mike102771posted 3 months ago in reply to this

          No, I meant being able to have a civil anything here about such a topic on hubpages. Most conversations end up in name calling and just plain nastiness. A conversion is two or more people talking not one person talking and everyone else listening or one person talking and everyone else just agreeing.

        2. PhoenixV profile image81
          PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          It is that simple. And the answer is they are too afraid or not stupid enough to impose their own philosophy on themselves, personally.

          1. Aime F profile image85
            Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            It's actually not this simple at all.

            First off, the U.K. does "lock their doors" in the sense that they screen refugees and immigrants coming into the country. This is the equivalent of someone knocking on your locked door and asking to be let in. It's then up to you to decide whether or not you think you should. If it's a family running from someone trying to harm them do you let them in or do you say "I don't know you, plus I can tell by what you're wearing you're from a bad part of town, so sorry but you're just gonna have to keep running and knocking"? I guess that's your choice. Personally, I let them in.

            You also have to keep in mind that nearly everyone who enters your unlocked home without permission is doing it to cause some harm to you or your house, otherwise they'd knock. The same can't be said for refugees/immigrants/foreign travelers as the vast majority are really just seeking a better life, wanting to visit family, etc. Entirely different scales and entirely different circumstances.

            Lastly, most attacks are carried out by citizens. They're already in your home. They've always been there. So you keep turning away those families who are asking you for help because you don't trust them, because you feel safer by not letting people in based on where they're from or what they look like. But how much safer will you be, really?

            I'm a liberal, as I'm sure everyone here knows by now, and I believe in "locking doors" in the sense that you have people apply to be refugees/immigrants, you screen them, etc.- basically the equivalent of knocking. But from that point on it's anything but simple.

            1. PhoenixV profile image81
              PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "what you are wearing"

              An idealogy that is the antithesis to democracy and basic human rights cannot be changed at reitmans.

              1. Aime F profile image85
                Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                So you're operating under the assumption that you know each person's thoughts and feelings on democracy and basic human rights based on the fact that they identify as a Muslim? (For the record I was referring to hijabs - and no, I don't think they sell those at Reitmans.)

                Do you believe that all Christians around the world have the exact same thoughts and feelings about those things based on their religion? Would you be comfortable saying that your views on human rights are similar to those of the Christians in Sudan or Ethiopia who practice FGM?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  I am more afraid of my Christian neighbor who has cameras all around his home, including one pointed into my backyard (I wave to him when I walk by that corner, and my husband intentionally places the one pot plant he is growing right there so the neighbor can see it--yes, it's legal); who has a basement full of weapons and survivalist gear; who spies on another neighbor so he can tell her, a young single woman, that he can save her from her life of sin; and who took my beloved cat, Willy, to the animal shelter knowing full well he was our pet, then lied about it. Oh, and who has a lovely, demure, subservient wife who averts her eyes when I ask about my other beloved cat, Word, who disappeared last year.

                  No, I'm not so worried about Muslim extremists, as I am confident our intelligence community and homeland security staff are doing a good job. I am worried about my loony neighbor, though, and have been for awhile.

                2. PhoenixV profile image81
                  PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  I believe your heart is in the right place. I see that you make rational arguments. Some mountains blow up all at once, like St Helens. Others dissolve in increments. The results are the same. Paris Of Troy, Paris of France.

                  1. Aime F profile image85
                    Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Thanks P, I'm sure your heart is in the right place as well. I actually have never doubted that's the case for most people, even those I vehemently disagree with. We just have different perspectives and that's okay. I would even go so far as to say I think it's not a bad thing that not everyone thinks the same way...

  4. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 3 months ago

    Americans are gunning up since the terrorist attacks in Manchester.

  5. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    I would be curious to know which country in Europe had a socialist economy.

    1. Nathanville profile image90
      Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Good point Will, if you were referencing my last point I was thinking of European social policies rather than economics e.g. the NHS in Britain and ‘Human Rights’ etc., which many American’s think of as left wing socialism.  They seem to miss the point that right wing Capitalist Governments in Britain also support some of these social polies e.g. the NHS (even if its begrudgingly) because of its popularity with the voting public.

      1. Will Apse profile image88
        Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        The socialist tradition has a long and noble history of humanising capitalism but has been clumsy and stifling in the economic arena (to date, at least).

        Having said that, modern economies are driving ecosystems to the edge and it will need a radical overhaul if they are going to see humanity through the next century.

        1. Nathanville profile image90
          Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Yep, some valid points and well put; you’re on the ball as always ‘Will’.

  6. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    Your argument isn't worth responding to in the sense of actually making sense but,.... So "lets get rid of  the faith  that people hold within "? Is that how I read your .........proposal  , for lack of a better word ?  What is  that forced atheism going to entail , perhaps pick people up by their heels and shake them ?  I suggest you check with past  socialism  of the past in the Soviet Union  and see how THAT worked there

    Listen....... ,In  this vast  humanity , all the problems associated with man  are directly related to the LOSS of familial  and religious morals , ethics ,   belief in faith , moral compass and the constructs of  compassion for fellow man !   Not because  OF  the direct association with a religion but because many are drifting AWAY from  that faith in a God.

    That is a fact , Not  an idea , ideal or popular  fad of youth and younger pseudo -intellectual  idealists .
    Quite frankly , that old Chomsky or Alinsky mindset has been  thrown around for decades and goes nowhere fast .

    1. Aime F profile image85
      Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Wait, I thought Islam was the problem? Are you all of a sudden a big fan or are you just talking about your religion's specific idea of morals? Because that's really no different than someone saying we'd be better off if everyone was an atheist. You're pushing your belief system all the same.

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        What you obviously and completely miss is that religion itself isn't the evil , It is the twisting of religion to meet the psyche of mans  evil.    If those of you who debate either all religion or no religion is  bad and can't see that difference , then go back to school and read a book , Islam is a faith based religion  ,  Christianity  a faith based religion ,  neither being evil in itself  until used by man to fit his interpretation .

        What is it within the shallowness of your minds that its all or nothing with religion .

        1. Aime F profile image85
          Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I actually completely agree with this but then you've contradicted yourself by saying that all of man's problems can be attributed to the loss of religious morals and faith. If religion is not inherently evil then it's not inherently good, either. Morality is not based in religion or faith and therefore shouldn't be a requirement for a well-functioning society as you've suggested.

          Not to mention "religious morals" can be very different and subjective depending on the religion, which is what I was getting at with my point about Islam.

          1. Ivan Tod profile image60
            Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Confusion is a key element in the control structure of most religions.

            1. ahorseback profile image48
              ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I suggest that shallow minds look up the definition of "faith ",  No , nevermind........  your  "stockholm syndrome"  understanding is probably a  direct result of your atheism  group think.

              Most  oppinions  of atheism I see  reminds me  ........The other day I was entering a Mcdonald's restaurant and met someone I knew to be  a vegetarian  , must be he needed  directions to somewhere .

              1. Ivan Tod profile image60
                Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Your "McDonalds" story is like your religion...Fraudulent.

        2. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          "What you obviously and completely miss is that religion itself isn't the evil , It is the twisting of religion to meet the psyche of mans  evil...
          ...Islam is a faith based religion  ,  Christianity  a faith based religion ,  neither being evil in itself..."

          I'm not so sure about that, especially when it is religious holy books that demand things like "killing of the infidels". I would argue that any religion that condones killing, to which the major religions have in the past (Christianity) and some still do to this day (Islam), is in fact evil. So how about this; Get rid of all god-based religions and start one that is based on people and have faith in ourselves. That way we may actually be able to come to a world-wide consensus on how to be and terrorism and the like can be dealt with without the concern of insulting someones' god. Also, terrorists couldn't use faith in said gods to hide behind in their murderous actions.   

          So, in response to your  "What is it within the shallowness of your minds that its all or nothing with religion ." I say the problem is with religions that employ fear tactics and/or killing (evilness) of any kind as part of its tenets.

          1. ahorseback profile image48
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            So go on out there and start your own Godless society , culture , congregation or tiki- bar !  I've been here for seven years and every year, year after year,  there is a new atheist writing against the Judeo- Christian faith ........So here's my question   .

            Nice to have free speech isn't it ?    But  wouldn't you rather be a real activist , Go to Iran  and tell them that you want to eliminate the Islamic faith , don't  piddle around with the western world's free speech forums, and "turn your cheek the other way " Christianity ,    be a real activist instead of a" blue glow" laptop screen  activist .

            Go ahead buy that L.A. to Tehran ticket , you can do this .

            I'm all about  free faith belief , although not such a goody two shoes Christian that I can't tell you you're being a hypocrite .

            Have a Good Day .

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "So go on out there and start your own Godless society , culture , congregation or tiki- bar !"

              I think I may just do that. I mean, things couldn't get any worse.

              "Nice to have free speech isn't it ?    But  wouldn't you rather be a real activist , Go to Iran  and tell them that you want to eliminate the Islamic faith , don't  piddle around with the western world's free speech forums, and "turn your cheek the other way " Christianity ,    be a real activist instead of a" blue glow" laptop screen  activist ."

              Like you perhaps? Although I don't quite know what it is you are an activist for. So, I'll tell you what, you and I BOTH go to Iran. You can preach your christian beliefs and I'll preach no religion at all and let's see who makes it out alive. Or was your "go to Iran" thing only meant for non-christians? I believe that was simply your covert way of following your christian faith without outwardly expressing its evil edict of eliminating non-believers directly. Either way, I plan to start my "crusade" (pun intended) via the internet as it is the fastest way to reach the most people.

              "Go ahead buy that L.A. to Tehran ticket , you can do this ."

              I'm well aware of what I can do. I'm also aware of my freedom of speech and it's funny you should mention it since your beligerent responses to what others say would indicate you think it only viable when people say things that you agree with. Well, guess what, not everyone agrees with you nor will they allow your beligerent responses to cause them to "keep quiet" in what they believe.

              "I'm all about  free faith belief , although not such a goody two shoes Christian that I can't tell you you're being a hypocrite ."

              Speaking ones' mind and allowing others to do the same is being open-minded and NOT hypocritical. Expecting to say whatever YOU want to say while attempting to shut down the free expression of others by making beligerent passive/aggressive statements does...Guess which one you are.

              "Have a Good Day ."

              I always do, and since there is no god...May life bless you!

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                [Applause]

  7. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    Or Maybe............... it's the collective   attitude of negative , childish rants that I always defy   , where liberals  don the same little Nazi- uniformed  tin - foil "safe suits "   and go out on there crusades of hating anything and everything traditional in the world .   As if spending their lunch money on protest signs was the coolest thing to 'face book' about . All you contribute to is more hate ,not less .
    Yea , thats it .
    My advice to the new -left , stop waving your new "snap -chat arms" in unison , learn to think independently for solutions to the human condition ,  stop blaming what you obviously know nothing about and start being part of the solution rather than the problem.  Want a picture of your message?

    Picture a small spoiled child ranting and pounding his fists ; "I hate god "..............

    1. Ivan Tod profile image60
      Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "Or Maybe............... it's the collective   attitude of negative , childish rants that I always defy   , where liberals  don the same little Nazi- uniformed  tin - foil "safe suits "   

      Free speech is free speech, so what you are actually trying to deny are the rights of others to have their own opinions...Or Maybe..........You just have anger management and control issues. At any rate, thank you for proving me right. 

      "...and go out on there crusades of hating anything and everything traditional in the world . " 

      Like freedom of thought? Anyway, I'm sure that being a "christian" you would know about "crusades" and "safe suits" as that's what was used during the christian reign of terror and murder known AS the "crusades". I guess old habits never die. I can see why you are so attatched to "traditional" things. Unfortunately, your love of the traditional world (slavery, freedom to beat women, the "god given" right to kill those who have different views than you etc. etc.) spills over through your vitriolic responses and tells the rest of us what you are really about. But I say once again, it won't stop anyone from exercising their free speech.

      "All you contribute to is more hate ,not less ."

      You obviously pay no attention to what even you say in light of what others say. It almost seems like your mouth is on autopilot, free of the burden of actual thought. Regardlessly, I'll ask anyway; How am I contributing to hate by offering an idea to which anyone can use their own mind in consideration of its potential positive outcome instead of continuing down the god induced spiral of destruction we are on now?

      "My advice to the new -left , stop waving your new "snap -chat arms" in unison..."

      Sounds like somebody never got picked for the team back in school!

      "learn to think independently for solutions to the human condition ,"

      Well isn't that what I'm doing? Thinking "independently?...The very thing that irks you so much. And you have the gall to call others hypocrits.

      "stop blaming what you obviously know nothing about and start being part of the solution rather than the problem."

      Well, I know quite a bit concerning what I talk about. That's why your beligerence waxes each time I reply to your rantings. Instead of giving confusion-based advice how about you take some for a change...
      Stop thinking your corrupted knowledge base is the end-all of truth and give the knowledge of others a chance. it's called "consideration". Or keep on with your shortsightedness and stay on the bench.

      "Picture a small spoiled child ranting and pounding his fists ; "I hate god ".............."

      Never said I hate god, that's your onesided view of it. What I do hate, however, is ignorance. It keeps people in bondage. Want a picture of that? Picture an entire race of ignorant humans believing in a being that no credible, intelligent human has ever seen or heard from yet those ignorant humans use that belief to commit the most heinous of crimes against humanity in the name of that as of yet unseen being...And call such atrocities "faith in action".

      I'm not looking to change your mind on the subject as you are like the elder generation of the Israelites who wandered the desert...Your compliance is not needed as time will phase you and your outdated ideologies out in favor of a new and much better set. It's called social evolution and like all matters of evolution...that which hampers progress is gotten rid of.

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you for your "out there" opinions ,all of them ,   There's no use debating  the hate filled new -left obstructionists of tradition however .    You're wrong about this though , " .....free speech is free speech..... " Liberals  especially in America have most recently taken free speech  to places never before seen , at least since the days of Yor , fantasy , lies  , unreasoning  and of  the spirit  of the intellectual elitists ivory tower dwellers  from the sixties "far out dude ".   
        Adolf Hitler would be extremely proud of the new -lefts language and ideas of free speech.   

        I would love to debate you , but only  in honest language unpolluted by your  naive  adoration of  the lefts "one speak"  debate style , outshout every other speaker to "win" a debate , not by winning  but by the loudest  shouting alone.  I'v been to the liberal enclaves and listened ,  A bright man once said " know thine enemy well "   ,  I knew in the sixties  the origins of the leftist drivel and guess what , nothing has changed .

          Leftists if today wouldn't know true "free thought " if they  were bit on the a$$ by it ,  all you  are capable of doing  is repeating  the same old worn out Sanders slogans  from the sixties ,the mentality of  " peace love and tie die " ,   "'make love no war " , "baby killers ", blah blah blah.

        The "Social Evolution "you speak of , shows it's ugly head every few decades to the youth that eats it up like candy ,   Hitlers Germany , Mussolini's Italy  ,    Stalins  Russia ,  Venezuela ,  Chile ,  keep on keepin  on though  we are getting close again .

        Any true scholar will give you hints on reading you can do if you can , on how  organized religions of the world  are far better at  producing a more moral , ethical , conscientious people   , than your opposite .   Try arguing them .

        1. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Well, it's starting to sound like you realize the futility in debating from a standpoint of outdated information and beliefs...It's a start. I am not wrong however but I will accept your onesided views and lack of consideration for any others as just that...Yours. You always want to scream "liberal this and liberal that" but guess what, America was founded on the efforts of liberalism. If that were not the case no one would have came here to escape totalitarianist forms of governing. Now you want to exterpate it from Americas history and development as if it never existed at all. Which is strange considering your cry for "traditional" ways. Mentioning Hitler does nothing for your argument as near history has shown that Naziism is the fallback genre when you fail to make your point through common sense debate. What will people like you do when Hitler and Naziism are all but forgotten? Where will you run to in defeat then?

          "I would love to debate you , but only  in honest language unpolluted by your  naive  adoration of  the lefts "one speak"  debate style , outshout every other speaker to "win" a debate , not by winning  but by the loudest  shouting alone."

          Actually, we were debating, even though YOU were the one doing the loudest "one speak" shouting. I let the evidence speak for me, which is something you could ill afford as it proves the foolishness of your belief system. In fact, your position holds no water at all in modern society hence, you feel the need to quit.

          "Leftists if today wouldn't know true "free thought " if they  were bit on the a$$ by it..."

          Actually free thought appears to be what you dislike the most as is evidenced by your rantings towards people, in your mind, who you believe are inferior in thought. Free thought is exactly that; the freedom to think as we choose, not as others feel we should be thinking. I offer alternatives while you shun the idea and belittle those who attempt it here on Hubpages.

          "The "Social Evolution "you speak of , shows it's ugly head every few decades..."

          There's a reason for that and that is the common understanding that the old or "traditional" ways have stagnated human development. And with each "showing" of its "ugly head" the younger generations are seeing it for what it is. As I said concerning the wandering of the Israelites in the desert; in time your old "traditional" ways will be phased out for something much better.

          "Any true scholar will give you hints on reading you can do if you can , on how  organized religions of the world  are far better at  producing a more moral , ethical , conscientious people   , than your opposite . "

          Sorry, but I never learned to read. Anyway, that statement of yours is only true about organized religion if you do not factor in the freedom of thought of modernity. Old ways (godly faith) were okay a few thousand years ago when people simply kept quiet and followed outdated and controlling rules. It's a new day with fresh new minds and that old "do as I say, not as I do" mentality is well on its way out. Besides, scholars simply reiterate the old and since it is time for something new, their "scholarly" usefulness is limited. And I would have no problem "arguing" with them concerning the subject.

          1. ahorseback profile image48
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Congratulations you have righteously  chosen and selflessly joined the new- alt- left .  Thank God it's the same one that has recently lost all of its political capital in America after starting with a fully loaded deck of cards ., ...and losing the game entirely   I know I can't alter your opines , that has always been ,is now and will always be useless  for your level of immaturity , i was however where you are now , once.   
            and for that I Thank God .

            One day when , if and only if you fully mature , you too can say , 'I thought I knew more than my Father then ,   but   man  was he ever right ,  i only wish I could tell him now  !"

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "Congratulations you have righteously  chosen and selflessly joined the new- alt- left .  Thank God it's the same one that has recently lost all of its political capital in America after starting with a fully loaded deck of cards ., "

              Wrong once again. The only thing I have chosen is to not believe in some fantastical story about an all loving and caring god, who also happens to think murder is okay as long as it is done discriminately in his name. Then again, I don't expect your responses to be in-line with my comments but I do realize that your regression to passive/aggressive attempts at insult show your growing impotence on the subject at hand. Fear not, for as long as you do it in faith to your god, all is well.


              "One day when , if and only if you fully mature , you too can say , 'I thought I knew more than my Father then ,   but   man  was he ever right ,  i only wish I could tell him now  !""

              If by "fully mature" you mean shut up and go along, then I assure you that will never happen. You obviously still think you know more than others so I don't see that much has changed there. People who are capable of having thoughts of their own come to their own conclusions and it's not your place to tell them they are wrong. You do, however, have the right to express your own thoughts in the hope of effecting a change in their minds. That is not to say that your thoughts and beliefs are superior to all others, as you apparently believe and as such everyone should follow your lead, but rather if you truly believe you are right then by all means continue to argue your position whether you win over converts or not.

              At any rate, I will continue to have someone read your responses to me, as I cannot read myself (as per your insightful comment), and I will reply. Be it known though, that I understand your point of view and where it comes from. That being said, I'll once again reference the Israelites time in the desert by saying your ideologies and mindset are going the way of the Dodo bird.

              1. ahorseback profile image48
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I guess I could easily read into your words that  you're easily insulted by someone defending anyone's else's right to believe in any  god that they want to ,  against your rant ,  I'll start with your last ,  If    "..........as per your insightful comment " offends you because you're sight challenged ?  Then maybe you have nothing else to do but  enjoy the creating of  friction in and of a faith -that you do not believe in nor rthink that anyone else should believe in .

                In  other words , How can an obviously avowed atheist ,  decry" faith "  itself ?    Because in most reasonable peoples minds  , It takes way , way more "faith " to believe all of THIS wonder in the world is created by a simple spark in a black hole ?   That is why I believe every atheist I've ever debated with  about that issue alone ,faith ,  has raised their  issues  to offend others--- and only to offend others .  Why else would you care ?

                It's a very  simple reasoning , If I didn't believe in  doctors and I thought they were all practicing witches , I wouldn't go to a doctor ,  but would I then  tell those who do that  they are  lesser human beings because they do ,no  I just wouldn't go ! 

                I happen to believe that "preaching"   atheist's  who decry another's ability to rely on faith alone are more than likely , simply envious  of that simple human quality .To believe in faith !  You're also wrong about my belief ,    I am not a practicing  Christian ,however that is  probably giving me far more intuition about  those who "spread the word ", either for a belief insimple  faith  or as you are , your faith  in atheism .

                Personally , I believe that the evils  of mankind are better served by no beliefs in any higher being .

                1. Ivan Tod profile image60
                  Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  "I guess I could easily read into your words that  you're easily insulted by someone defending anyone's else's right to believe in any  god that they want to..."

                  Actually, my openmindedness makes it impossible to be insulted by the words of others. It would, however, appear to be an excellent description of you...Based on your own ranting responses to ideas in opposition to yours.

                  "In  other words , How can an obviously avowed atheist ,  decry" faith "  itself ?"

                  I haven't, you simply failed to understand that it is faith in a non-existant god that I express. Faith itself has nothing to do with it. Again, your shortsightedness leaves you unaware of what is right in front of you.

                  "Because in most reasonable peoples minds  , It takes way , way more "faith " to believe all of THIS wonder in the world is created by a simple spark in a black hole"

                  Most reasonable people can see the science of it for themselves. Logic and reason, two of the things that make us "reasonable people", must be subdued in order to believe the universe was created at the whim of a so-called god, who through all practical observances, does not exist.

                  "Why else would you care ?"

                  Look around you! With all the god fearing, god faithful, god obeying occupants on Earth, it is in the worse condition ever and is getting even more so every day. The fact that so many believers of one god or another exist, the correllation between your faith in your gods and the condition of the world cannot be denied. More faith in gods, you say, even in light of the fact that earthly turmoil is growing commensurately with the growth of godly faith. Somebody with clear, reasonable and logical thought has to care before the world reaches the point of total godly warfare fought not by the gods themselves but by those of the faith. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you but, people are not expendable, not even for the gods and sooner or later the world will figure that out.

                  "It's a very  simple reasoning..."

                  You are absolutely correct insomuch as what the so-called gods have caused here on Earth. The reasonong is so simple, in fact, that it boggles the mind as to how so many do not see it.

                  "I happen to believe that "preaching"   atheist's  who decry another's ability to rely on faith alone are more than likely , simply envious  of that simple human quality ."

                  I'm sure many are, but not me. I'm not envious of anything but rather I am saddened by the prospect of the world continuing its downward spiral because of faith in absentee or non-existant gods, not faith in general as you think is the case. How can something so obviously detrimental to humanity(which it has proven again and again for thousands of years) continue to be upheld as something beneficial and good? God says kill, so people kill. Every god believed in stakes claim to being the one true god, so people kill in his name to prove that they believe it. I fail to see the beneficial value in such.

                  " I am not a practicing  Christian..."

                  You did, however, make reference to being some level of christian...Which is what most of them do...Be Christian when it fits.

                  "your faith  in atheism ."

                  Sadly, another misinterpretation as applying faith to Athiesism is an oxymoron.

                  "Personally , I believe that the evils  of mankind are better served by no beliefs in any higher being ."

                  No, not really, because without a so-called god to reference their evil actions to many would most likely be less inclined to commit said evil as they would have to take the blame wholly onto themselves instead of saying it was in their gods name.

                  At any rate, the only way to know which system would be better for humanity, belief and faith in an absentee god, or belief and faith in the human races' own ability to self manage,
                  will only be known once man takes his own lead as we already know what happens when people follow god...And it aint pretty.

  8. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    It's ridiculous to blame  the evils if the world or of mankind  on the general goodness of man and his faith . Because some idiot with a AK  47 yells" Alah Akbar "   and opens up on a school bus load of kids   all faiths are evil........you will find that I like to use a particular opinion word in forums ,  " shallow ".........that's about the best I can do here as well  .   

    My opinion of  what you're doing here ,  quite frankly, is in large part a habit of the new lefts  pop activist culture .  Its not enough to be an atheist , to be gay ,to be  transgender or trans-racial  for that matter .  What's important to you and the activists like you is to stir the pot until " cause " comes to the surface . Whip up the rhetorical frenzy until  you can claim your share of the  false flag of "being offended' by another to feed the flames of your internal fire . Even if that responder is simply religious

    Otherwise , why would you as an atheist who lives as freely as anyone , care about a man of the faith in his life's quest ?  Now , remember you brought on the rant about religions ,  not  I . Is theism responsible for more evil  than atheism ?  Only because there are ,far  far higher percentages of  theists in all populations ,In America  atheists make up 3 % of the population , thereby debunking your whole rant .  My opinion is that more atheists are focused on and concerned about  their own internal questions  , not someone else's . Why else would you be so bothered about something you don't wish to engage in ,to begin with.? Faith .

    May the force be with you .

    1. Ivan Tod profile image60
      Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "Its not enough to be an atheist , to be gay ,to be  transgender or trans-racial  for that matter .  What's important to you and the activists like you is to stir the pot until " cause " comes to the surface "

      Wow, that just about sums up your whole being and would explain your rude indifference. I would hope that all those who read your "opinions" truly understand them for what they are. I know I certainly do. As far as "stirring" the pot goes, the "cause" that comes to the surface will always have you and people like you catching a ride on it.

      "claim your share of the  false flag of "being offended' by another to feed the flames of your internal fire ."

      You really do have comprehension difficulties.

      "Otherwise , why would you as an atheist who lives as freely as anyone ,"

      No one with a conscious lives free. But, since you have become so accustomed to the superficiality of your own thought processes, I don't expect you to understand that.

      "Now , remember you brought on the rant about religions ,"

      Now, remember this; No one here rants but you. The only time you aren't ranting like a mad dog is when someone says something you don't entirely disagree with. So, remember this as well...Everyone who reads these posts know who the ranting, hater of free speech and free thought of others is you. You always refer to those in opposition to your desire for "tradition" (segregative, anti-anything different than you), as child-like ignoramuses when in fact your personality would seem to have quit growing at around 8-9 years old. So, perhaps you should work on that before getting involved in grown-up conversations.

      "Is theism responsible for more evil  than atheism ? Only because there are ,far  far higher percentages of  theists in all populations ,"

      With all of your talk about how foolish it is to believe that theism is not the problem, you go ahead and say something that actually proves you wrong. And if percentages is your best approach, here's one for you; By your atheist/theist percentage, we can say that, in accordance with your belief in the percentages, the majority of crime and terrorism in the world IS committed by your "theist". And if that is true, which you obviously believe it is, than reducing the percentage of the godly faithful, via a more human alternative, we would effectively reduce the amount of crime and terror by 97%, at least in America, and probably by just as much globally.

      America being 3% athiest, as per your statistic, and with crime and terror the way it is, even here in America, you do something as totally rediculous as give a statistic that shows minimal atheism and majority theism to prove theism has nothing to do with the condition?
      I hope the people you have "ranted" off of this forum are actually reading what you come up with when facing intelligent and knowledgeable people whom you can't shout off the topic.

      May life bless you.

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Just thought I'd chime in on this one.



        I think the point he was making is that people are people. If 25% of all people would commit a particular crime and 97% of those people are religious where 3% are atheist....you can't say that because 24 Christians commit a particular crime and 1 atheist does the same the atheists are more law abiding. You still would have roughly 3% of each group committing said crime.

        1. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Thanks for your clarification, Live to Learn.

          That would potentially be true were it not for the fact that we are talking about an entire population which consists of 97% theist and only 3% atheist as they relate to the associated crime rate, but we're not. We're talking one vs. the other in numerical terms as it relates to atrocity. But if we did have an equally shared amount of crimes between athiests and theists how does religious faith make things better, as he presented in past comments? And since there are far more theists, and crime is higher, isn't there an acceptable amount of blame to be placed on the theists for said worldly conditions? After all, by Mr. ahorsebacks' own admission, more people means more criminal atrocity, and there are many more theists than atheists. So who is committing these things if we are to believe the numbers game?  At any rate, I believe his statement only proved that the percentages show a commensurate rise in crime stats in relation to "theism" because there are simply more of them hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that atheism is not the problem but rather theism seems to be.

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            I will say I would agree with you but atheists are little different from theists. They refuse to claim the ones which are clearly a part of their group who are clearly guilty of atrocities. (Think atheist communist regimes)

            But, honestly. I will reiterate. People are people. Those inclined to commit atrocities don't need an ideology to back them. They will do it anyway, given the opportunity. Terrorists who cry 'Allah' just before they blow themselves up along with those around them are not doing this in the name of religion. They are using religion as justification to do what they want to do anyway. If religion were so bad then every religious person would be walking around with bombs strapped to their bellies. If every atheist were so bad they'd be starving entire populations.

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "I will say I would agree with you but atheists are little different from theists. They refuse to claim the ones which are clearly a part of their group who are clearly guilty of atrocities. (Think atheist communist regimes)"

              Well, that actually applies to both sides, but with that, the point is pretty much non-arguable but if the previously stated "percentages" are even close to being correct we end up at the same place; more theists seem to equal more atrocity. I really wish this were not true but sadly it is.

              "But, honestly. I will reiterate. People are people. Those inclined to commit atrocities don't need an ideology to back them."

              On an individual level, but its the global level that is at the forefront of major "god faithful" religious atrocity, and you're right, they really don't need one but it does make it a whole lot easier to move foward with their dirty deeds when they can use religion and god to hide behind.

              "Terrorists who cry 'Allah' just before they blow themselves up along with those around them are not doing this in the name of religion. They are using religion as justification to do what they want to do anyway."

              That may or may not be true, but I would have to argue that no sane athiests would kill themselves under such conditions. It begs the question of why would those who claim it an act of religious faith commit such a personal thing if it were infact not?

              "If religion were so bad then every religious person would be walking around with bombs strapped to their bellies."

              They do, in a figurative sense though, insomuch as how they approach non-believers or alternative faiths. They may not literally blow people up but as I'm sure you know, words can do just as much damage to peace and unity.

              "If every atheist were so bad they'd be starving entire populations."

              Don't know where that comes from but, I'm sure it has relevance somewhere.
              At any rate, it's not that every religion or every atheist is bad, it's just that current religion as we know it is inherently biased and since no one can realistically put their faith in and follow ALL religions simultaneously we find ourselves, as a people, trying to exist within a major religion fueled conundrum...Which is better; godly faith based religion or human faith based existence.

              All in all I believe your comments are well thought out and sincere, not like ahorsebacks which do nothing but take up space. And as I consider your point of view I suddenly realize an aspect of it I have overlooked; What if the worst contributors of worldly atrocities, who use god and religion as an excuse for their actions, actually ARE using god and religion as an excuse? Where does that leave the true believers and faithful who think they are doing what their god wants but are simply enacting the insanity of their religious leaders?
              That, however, doesn't take away from the fact that most, if not all, mainstream religions contain elements of evil in how they deal with those that oppose them. It just makes me wonder how people would feel if they knew the god they have faith in would let them be led astray by the very leaders that said religion and followers, give authority to?
              Sounds like an excellent topic for discussion.

              i will give credit where credit is due and in this case it is due to your calm well thought out commentary as it has done what it is supposed to do, cause people to think critically. As such I have been alerted to the one aspect of it all that had previously overlooked. It won't change my outlook on the subject but it has given me more layers to investigate, thanks.

              Have a good evening.

      2. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Well by all your reasoning and attitude towards  me  , I can tell that you probably gave up your common sense the same time you gave up on religion  ,  whatever your  faith , must be you are like all the other atheists I've  responded to in their H.P. rants too ,  you ALSO simply have had too much religion "stuffed down your throat ".........yea .......right  .  I have not seen an atheist yet on HP forums that first  didn't try to offend their opposites and then claim victimhood .   

        If I were to look at the worlds violence , wars and terror  by your reasoning , I might then assume that the 3 % of atheists of our population - actually were responsible for the  same 3 % of a population that perpetrates 100 % of all  evil.   

        I mean if we're going to completely throw out ALL the reasoning  of the spirited  world of humanity  , lets just use numbers  , 3 percent are atheists --- the 3 percent of the evil factor in humanity is because of atheism ?

        And ,May God bless you .

        1. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          "Well by all your reasoning and attitude towards  me  , I can tell that you probably gave up your common sense the same time you gave up on religion..."

          My "attitude" towards you is simply one of being the only present means of dealing with you brought on by your own sense of self importance. To truly and fully explain it would require much more time and space than anything I've written so far so that explaination will not be forthcoming. And I never gave up on religion, as you would know had you the ability to actually comprehend what I have said. What I do say is that religion and faith are not bad but it is religion based in and faith given to non-existant "gods"  that is the problem.

          "you ALSO simply have had too much religion "stuffed down your throat "

          So has the entire world population, and what has it accomplished other than the worldly stress and strife we ALL have to now live with?

          "If I were to look at the worlds violence , wars and terror  by your reasoning , I might then assume that the 3 % of atheists of our population - actually were responsible for the  same 3 % of a population that perpetrates 100 % of all  evil."

          Sorry, but that "reasoning" is actually yours as it is what you introduced to the situation. And since it was you who introduced the "%" application to the matter, and it was you who made the erroneous reference to the numbers showing just cause to your argument, you obviously are transferring your own thoughts and comments onto what you wish to be true about me. Now your, "3 % of a population that perpetrates 100 % of all  evil." is in complete opposition to your original claim of 3% atheists and 97% theists as it related to more people equaling more crime and responsibility of said crime being directly related to the numbers of atheist and theists. Which is it? You see, simply instituting the safe haven of "assumption" does nothing but show your own lack of belief in your own argument. 

          "I mean if we're going to completely throw out ALL the reasoning  of the spirited  world of humanity..."

          No one is doing that at all. I never said or implied at any time to throw out all reasoning of human spirituality nor do my comments suggest such. That is just an intentionally  short-sided interpretation intended to debunk or belittle what I do say in order to support a different view. Spirituality in and of itself has nothing to do with a god or gods therefore it can exist completely independant of any. And anyone saying that spirituality is dependant on the existence of and belief in gods would be wrong as that is a result of being psychologically conditioned to believe such. Just like racism is a matter of environmental conditioning, so is the belief that god is a necessary component of spirituality.

          I will say, however, that your "debating" skill has improved insomuch as your "demeanor" is not quite so quick to anger. It definately makes for a more beneficial relay of ideas as opposed to a simple "you're wrong and I'm right, so eat this" approach. So with that I will also say that I do appreciate the difference.

  9. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    I've said it before, but I might as well say it again, I am far too much of a liberal to go around denouncing religion or people of faith. Half the people I know are believers for one thing.

    At the same time, religions have elements of ideology or are co-opted by those wanting to push an ideology. The ideologies within religions have always been fair game for discussion and criticism.

    1. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Good points ,    wouldn't it be fair to say that because most people do believe  that there are more people in general  in all ideologies , by the factor of averages alone.   and yes including violent elements of populations as well ?   I wonder if more atheists are liberal or conservative ?

  10. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    It is senseless to debate the angry atheist , first , they are generally atheist and angry for personal reasons  unknown to the rest of us   ,  "Abused by a priest or minister " comes to mind as only one reason , another   "  I  had religion stuffed down my throat ",    I could go on and on  of the many debates I've had here on HP.'s  but the bottom line , they are generally far , far more bitter and downright angry  in general ABOUT their trials with  religion  than any other reason  , period .   

    Show me an non-angry atheist , I will show you a rarity of perhaps a really  thoughtful  and perhaps even an intellectual person , although   not that I care personally , I am not a practicing  Christian and  never have been  but the bitterness and  pent up raw -" god anger"  comes to light  immediately  in these perpetual forum trolls  , every single time  .

    And no , I do not dislike or disrespect REAL atheist's at all ,  yet they always show up HERE with an agenda  of accusatory and  even an  expressed psychological bitterness , again , I don't have to  "turn my cheek " like the normal christian , I am of a free conscience enough to tell it like it is.

    1. Ivan Tod profile image60
      Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "I could go on and on  of the many debates I've had here on HP.'s"

      In light of my own experiences with you..."Debate" is not the word I would call what you do.

      "Show me an non-angry atheist..."

      Sorry, I can't do that as I don't know any atheists aside from myself so I won't be so presumptuous as to think I know how they all are, but I see that doesn't stop you from presuming you know all there is about all of them.

      "...not that I care personally , I am not a practicing  Christian and  never have been"

      So then you just have a problem with people who think differently than you for sake of having something to argue about? And for somebody who doesn't care about the subject matter you sure have a lot to say about it. And by the way, how do you apply being "god angry" to people who don't believe gods even exist? It seems like you are projecting your own inner conflict on the matter onto everyone else who simply wish to debate the issue. Maybe a counselor is what you need rather than the unopposed free run of a social website.

      "And no , I do not dislike or disrespect REAL atheist's at all ,  yet they always show up HERE with an agenda  of accusatory and  even an  expressed psychological bitterness , again , I don't have to  "turn my cheek " like the normal christian , I am of a free conscience enough to tell it like it is."

      You certainly have disrespected them, have you forgotten that I and everyone else here has read your comments? And by "normal" christian do you mean that you are christian to some degree? If so it would go a long way in explaining your own angry comments towards atheists or even the slightest comment that disagrees with yours.

      "I don't have to  "turn my cheek "

      Welcome to the club, as neither do I, but that seems to irk you, as if you can say what you like but no one else should. Well, you are in the wrong place for that as that is what these forums are for...The thoughts and beliefs of anyone who so chooses to express them. You could learn much from individuals like Live to Learn in the proper way of making points without insult or debasement. Try it and others may actually consider what you have to say, and after all, isn't that why you are here?...That you have something to say.

      1. Will Apse profile image88
        Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I'm as close as you can get to being an atheist (after all, proving the existence/non-existence of a God is impossible) but before that, I'm a humanist. And if you look at the development of humanism you can hardly fail to note that it developed within Christian culture and has few moral divergences.

        Also, if you believe in the essential decency of humanity then I don't see how you can attack peoples' religions. There is nothing more human than religious faith.

        Learning to live with small differences in belief and outlook is well within human capabilities. Crazy, violent ideologies are another thing, but those are just as likely to come from secular thought as religious thought.

        1. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          "There is nothing more human than religious faith."

          On the contrary, there is nothing more human than free will. I know many people say that following religious tenets is not giving up free will because they choose to do it but what they don't seem to realize is that if something commands your actions then free will is gone if you follow it. If the gods are really who and what they say they are why put caveats on how they treat us?

          "Also, if you believe in the essential decency of humanity then I don't see how you can attack peoples' religions."

          Religion has nothing to do with the decency of humanity, to say it does in light of what we know it has caused people to do since its inception is something I don't quite understand. And I don't attack anything but rather I state the obvious to which many people seem to not want to acknowledge and so therefore call it an "attack". For instance; when a gods holy book explains how to treat slaves, I see it as a kind of condoning of the institution itself by that god; suffer ye not a man who lays with another man...they shall both be put to death etc. etc..The fact that over time some people have managed to shy away from following through on those types of godly demands tells me two things:1 - that the supposed gods really can't do anything about it even if they wanted to, and 2 - people don't REALLY care what god says as is evidenced by modern day refusal by adherents to do what they once were impelled to do out of fear of losing their chance at heaven. What do these changes in attitude towards their god and his demands really mean? Is the faith now superficial for all but the most orthodox observers? Or has man decided he knows better than his creator? Can anyone answer that question?

          "Learning to live with small differences in belief and outlook is well within human capabilities. Crazy, violent ideologies are another thing, but those are just as likely to come from secular thought as religious thought."

          Sure, why not. People can live with small differences, just as long as the difference is considered to be a flaw in that of the other belief system, as no religious faithful worth his church tithe would accept any part of their faith being less as a matter of difference, hence, we're right back where we started. As far as the crazy violent ideologies go, aren't they all? Since they all are predicated on the belief that each is the best, that wouldn't make them ALL violent but wouldn't that make them all crazy? You will never see true unity of belief systems as long as each thinks theirs is the "one true" way. The best you can do is hope the violent nature of some doesn't find cause to rear its ugly head. Unfortunately, history has proven that hope to be a lost cause. As far as crazy violent ideologies go the defining difference between that of the secular and that of the religious is that you would expect the religious ones to have no such crazy violence, but they do. And how much of modern day global violence is based in such crazy violent religious ideologies?

          1. Will Apse profile image88
            Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            The only people that I know who get this upset about religion are:

            .... those brought up in a strict religious setting, whose parents then let them down very badly in some way.

            .....people whose trust has been destroyed by inappropriate actions on the part of priests/pastors

            ......people who are in a rage as a result of completely unrelated past experiences and act out in any discussion

            Of course, some aggressive secularists simply seem to be cut from the same cloth as religious fanatics, a sort of fundamentalism that defies reason, tolerance and simple manners.

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "The only people that I know who get this upset about religion are:..."

              Perhaps, but your view on the matter is based on a handful of people out of a world of over 7.5 billion. That in itself will produce erroneous results on ones idea of what any particular reason may be for ones actions. I can assure you though that I personally do not fit into any of those categories. 

              "......people who are in a rage as a result of completely unrelated past experiences and act out in any discussion"

              This point in particular I will agree with you on. All of your points have merrit in some cases but this one in particular seems to rule the day. I myself don't go into a "rage" whenever someone disagrees with my viewpoint. I simply point out the aspects of any particular subject that I think many overlook because those points insult their particular belief system. I would think it simple common sense to at least consider ALL aspects of something rather than just the appealing ones. Your idea of "...completely unrelated past experiences" makes a lot of sense as it may pertain to how they respond to even the most benign of topics, no less ones of a religious matter. I don't believe that openminded people should be treated like lepers whenever they express their thoughts and opinions on an open subject. That IS the point...Free expression. No one has to like or dislike the views that stray from or are in opposition to their own, but neither do they have the right to even attempt to subdue the views of others, regardless of their reasons. Besides, it makes for better debate when everyone is allowed to fully express their own thoughts and ideas like we are presently doing.

              "Of course, some aggressive secularists simply seem to be cut from the same cloth as religious fanatics, a sort of fundamentalism that defies reason, tolerance and simple manners."

              I totally agree! Which leads me to the question of; if both sides have such similarities, and nothing has changed for the better, why not try something different. Perhaps a combination of secularism and religion...The religion of being human.

        2. Nathanville profile image90
          Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Ivan Tod, reference to your comment:-

          “Sorry, I can't do that as I don't know any atheists aside from myself”.

          You should come to Britain if you want to meet plenty of atheists.  Religion has been in decline in Britain since the mid-1950s and surveys in recent years have shown that 50.7% of the British population are not religious, about half of that 50.7% of whom identify themselves as atheists or agnostics and the other half just don’t have any religious faith.

          I myself am an atheist, as is my son.  My wife is an agnostic, and our closest and best family friend is a Priest.

          This short video gives a flavour of religion and non-religion in the UK:-

          Is Religion Being Marginalised in the UK?  https://youtu.be/zztAm4ep13k

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Considering Britain’s religious diversity (and its steep decline in Britain since the mid-1950s), you might find the lyrics (shown in this video) to the unofficial ‘English’ national anthem, adopted by the English, and often played at certain English events, rather bemusing!

            Jerusalem: https://youtu.be/SbskIcPZh8A

      2. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        All you have accomplished in all of your slather so far is to prove your anger towards and divisive view  of people of faith ,  pick and chose the lines all you want to steer your ship , It was you who pointedly  assume and accuse  those of faith as being  more responsible for the ills of man than an atheist , not  I .

        Firing the first salvo as you did , did you not expect any response?  I suspect you could easily work for the news media , Insight divide  without any fact , prove your point without any  truth , question  , what "good" did you do ?   Disprove the better nature of the faithful ? No. Prove  a more humane  non- faithful , ? No.

        I admit one failing  , I should do like most people of faith and simply ignore negativity like yours ,   I personally , will work towards that end.

  11. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 3 months ago

    I have never heard of a fridge blowing up and causing a towering inferno before.  That's the story.  Refrigerator attack kills six and many injured in London.  Very sad news.

    1. Nathanville profile image90
      Nathanvilleposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      It’s early days; we’ll have to wait for the investigation report by the ‘fire service’.  I very much doubt it was a fridge blowing up, more likely to be an electrical fault; but we’ll not know until the investigation is done.  And of course the reported casualties will (unfortunately) almost certainly rise; but considering the devastation and speed of the blaze if the deaths are in single figures it would be quite remarkable.

    2. Aime F profile image85
      Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Seems the "attack" here was done by negligent building managers. People complaining for years about the building posing a fire risk, no working fire alarms or sprinklers, one fire exit for 120 units... the fact that the building could be on fire to that extent with people in the top floors still sleeping having no idea there was a problem makes me feel sick.

      Such a heartbreaking story, I was up until 2am watching it waiting for it to stop and to hopefully get the good news that most people made it out. I hope the death toll stays relatively low as I was watching it unfold fearing it would be astronomically high.

  12. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 3 months ago

    https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/19060215_1151688628297647_5579001643710948363_n.jpg?oh=31db1fc50e694c59382c6bdf5e0da8b0&oe=59CD8BA1

    1. Aime F profile image85
      Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Hmm, seems to me most people are simply questioning why it's necessary that someone with a violent criminal history has guns. *shrug*

  13. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    One angry atheist is about the same as another ,   spirituality would perhaps "be all better now " if we all believe in and prayed to an object , a cow perhaps instead of a God or a panther on a throne , right ? Now you're really making sense .     If human spirituality is okay with you then the spirituality of faith in a god should be acceptable without your  demonizing it to the "blame for all the wars and violence "   , give it a try , simple faith in a God requires no other Idol .   

    It sure as hell ain't the gods that make us destroy each other , It's a man alones  fault  , accept your share of the blame , there's enough to go around .

  14. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    One of the techniques used by the Russians to disrupt the US election, (reportedly, lol) was to try to turn voters off all kinds of politics by using vile language, threats, slurs etc.

    The fewer the people who vote the less legitimate an election (and democracy, in general) is seen to be.

    It really is incumbent on anyone who participates in online debate to keep up some kind of standard.

    Which is why this thread is a bit depressing.

    1. ahorseback profile image48
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Will,  so true ,That's  actually funny !

    2. Ivan Tod profile image60
      Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "The fewer the people who vote the less legitimate an election (and democracy, in general) is seen to be."

      That is an excellent point. One I'm sure that has been completely overlooked by most, myself included.

  15. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    So , Yes .......One more attack over the weekend in London ? 
    Except this one MAY  involve   "fight back " against Islamic terror perpetrated at a Mosque?

    1. Ivan Tod profile image60
      Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      And if that is the case, how, or even will, most people see theism as an integral part of the terror? I know that it is actually flesh and blood people who commit such attacks but I believe the potential motivation you mentioned shows the  true fruitlessness of it all. As the saying goes; "Two lefts don't make a right". Perhaps there is a direction more fruitful for that of the human race.

      1. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Why would theism be an integral part of the attack on the mosque? I don't remember hearing that the guy called out 'God is great' or any such thing.

        I realize simplistic answers can appeal to the comfort zone of some people but I'm afraid things are more complex than 'golly gee, let's blame theism' for any violence encountered in the world.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          You're right - it isn't that simple.  It is not theism, per se, that is the root of the violence we see today; it is that people are being convinced by those that they view as "God's representative" that their personal god wants them, or even orders them, to kill others.  Which puts it back into the age old political power struggle we've seen since before man became human. 

          Whether it is Westboro church or the Christian crusades, witch hunts or inquisition, whether it is an Islamic minority or other sect of another religion, it is not the belief in a god.  It is the powers-that-be convincing believers that their god wants death and mayhem with a goal of more control of more people.

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Let's be honest, at the least. Westboro Baptist is not beheading anyone, throwing acid onto women or giving gays 50 lashes.  The Inquisition was a long time ago, as were the Crusades. Hundreds of years. There are no witch hunts.

            We can pretend that there are multiple religions wreaking havoc in the world through terror and subjugation but, is that entirely honest?

            1. PhoenixV profile image81
              PhoenixVposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Westboro carries cardboard signs. Basically paper. You ever have a paper cut ?!?  I didnt think so.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I stand corrected.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              You missed the point.  Whether long ago or yesterday is irrelevant; those things were caused and promoted by supposed representatives of God, telling their followers what to do.  None of them would have happened without the church power struggle, which is a far different thing than believing in a deity.  Religion is not theism; it is a tool using theism to force control of the masses.

              The Islamic terrorism we see today would not be happening without those same religious leaders promoting violence from their followers.  Let the leaders promote kindness, generosity and love towards all and it will disappear whether people believe in a god or not.  Religion makes a fine tool for fomenting whatever action is desired, but it isn't because of theism; it is because those in control want more control.  Religion is not theism; it is a tool to force control of the masses, using theism as a starting point.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I don't know. I'm not certain the terrorism we are experiencing today is being created by 'representatives of God' telling them to do it. Now, they may be convinced that they will go to some heaven if they die in the attempt but ISIS is not considered a representative of God, is it? Aren't they doing most of the recruiting these days?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Maybe ISIS, maybe not.  But the VIP's of the group certainly are, and they are feeding the story that killing infidels, and particularly American ones, is the road to heaven.  Plus, of course, you still find a good many Islamic priests (I'm sure that's the wrong term) advocating killing schoolgirls, rape victims, etc. and that will certainly bleed over to killing infidels.

                  It is my opinion only, but I don't think you will find that many Muslims, whether from America, England or the middle east, advocating a terrorist war on the rest of the world.  But all it takes is a few in the upper echelons of religious "guidance" to convince some that God wants it done.  And it only takes a tiny percentage of Muslims to create the havoc we're seeing.  A single Imam can create tremendous damage that way.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image82
                    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    I suppose. But, I think there has to be violence in the individual in order to allow such talk to take hold; at least here in the West. I can see someone being raised in it, immersed since birth. I can see a community within a theocracy not understanding the idea of human rights. But, in the West? There has to be an angst which pulls someone away from the norm of the values entrenched within the society. Or, there has to be a desire for violence. I doubt the average radical Imam would get any more traction than the crazy preacher standing on the street corner threatening the wrath of God does, without something already within the person to drive them to use that as justification for violence.

        2. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          "Why would theism be an integral part of the attack on the mosque? I don't remember hearing that the guy called out 'God is great' or any such thing."

          Whether or not those who attacked over the weekend had a religious basis for their actions, and I'm sure they did, the news report that I saw an hour or so ago, where a number of muslims were killed, the attacker was caught and reportedly said something to the affect of "I want to kill ALL muslims".

          "I realize simplistic answers can appeal to the comfort zone of some people but I'm afraid things are more complex than 'golly gee, let's blame theism' for any violence encountered in the world."

          Well, personally, I don't have a comfort zone. It makes for closed mindedness. At any rate, the phrase "I want to kill all muslims" does have a strong "theistic" tone to it, no? And since the most prolific and deadly violence of today IS a matter of differing theistic beliefs, putting blame where blame is due IS simplistic. Thanks to modern day political correctness though, that "simplicity" has been utterly corrupted.
          To complicate matters even further, we are made to have to deal with the violent perpetrators while being careful not to insult the religion itself. So how do you persecute and prosecute those who feel they are following the tenets of their chosen faith without indicating the faith itself as being complicit in what is considered a crime?...You can't. It is the proverbial, "you can't have it both ways". If any religion, by its tenets, promotes the killing of other human beings then there is and should be no place in the world for that religion. Even if people themselves refuse to follow through on said murderous tenets, the religion itself should go.

          1. Live to Learn profile image82
            Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            That is the most illogical thing I've heard. 'Theism was responsible for the attack.'?

            The guy said "I want to kill all Muslims'. Now, we can agree that Muslims are theists but we cannot conclude that the ones targeted are responsible for being targeted. The man who perpetrated the terror is responsible. If he does not use theism as a defense then it beggars belief that we can 'assume' the catalyst was theism. That's over reaching, at best.

            It is humorous that you say "Whether or not those who attacked over the weekend had a religious basis for their actions, and I'm sure they did," and then follow up with some nonsense about close mindedness of others. That is, unfortunately, the most close minded comment in this exchange. And, it came from you.

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              "That is the most illogical thing I've heard. 'Theism was responsible for the attack.'?"

              Really?

              "The guy said "I want to kill all Muslims'. Now, we can agree that Muslims are theists but we cannot conclude that the ones targeted are responsible for being targeted."

              As a matter of theistic tenets put into practice, we absolutely can. You see, even though many "want to have their pie and eat it too" when it comes to religion the fact of the matter is that if you follow a certain religion you accept its tenets and thereby condoning the actions set forth by them, violent or not, and that acceptence imposes responsibility for actions committed in the name of that religious faith upon ALL of its members. So, if one is, say, a faithful muslim and they accept the Koran as the final word, and If the practicing of the tenets of Islam have been and currently are directly responsible for heinous acts of violence, which we know it has been and currently is, then even though the attacker in this case was not reported to have said he practiced a particular faith in opposition of Islam, we can safely assume his actions were incited by the atrocities of many Islamic practitioners. If anyone claims to be, in this case "muslim" they accept its tenets of violence as well as its contrasting tenets of love. If they don't then they are not true muslims and should therefore distance themselves from the religion and its violent tenets.

              "It is humorous that you say "Whether or not those who attacked over the weekend had a religious basis for their actions, and I'm sure they did," and then follow up with some nonsense about close mindedness of others. That is, unfortunately, the most close minded comment in this exchange. And, it came from you."

              It's only humorous because you misunderstand it. The "religious" basis aspect does not insist that the attackers themselves were religious as one does not need to follow a different religion than others in order to kill them over their religion, they just simply need the dislike of a religion, the people who practice it or the violence it perpetuates. So, in that respect, I AM sure religion had a large part in it. There is nothing closed minded about my comment, especially in todays religion fueled global violence. To be closed minded would be to say that something the entire world knows to be true (that islam is violent and many now seek to "return" the favor of violence) is in fact NOT true. To say that an act of violence perpetrated against a particular religious group, by a non-religious person or persons, has nothing to do with theism IS closed minded.

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                That statement is asinine, in its entirety. A person who claims to be Muslim must take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of others they express support for. Nothing more. I realize that all sounds good to you but you don’t take responsibility for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or the actions of any atheist regime.  As you have stated, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you are willing to accept that atheism has been responsible for more mass murder during our age than any other form of belief then we can talk. Otherwise you can’t be taken seriously on this issue.



                I will disagree on this point because I don’t think religion is the impetus which is causing those in the West to embrace terrorism. They may use it as a crutch but it is not what created the angst within them to resort to such extremes. To blame Muslims for the violence of the terrorists is close minded. To the extreme. So, the guy who attacked the Mosque isn’t really lashing out at religion. He is lashing out at violence. Him being misguided does not mean theism is in any way responsible. No more so than we can claim that pet ownership causes violence.

                1. Ivan Tod profile image60
                  Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  "I realize that all sounds good to you but you don’t take responsibility for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or the actions of any atheist regime."

                  Well, I haven't done very much research on those folks but what my short endeavor did find was an excerpt from: "A Great Myth about Atheism: Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot = Atheism = Atrocity – REDUX", and I quote:

                  "Hitler (a baptised Catholic who was never ex-communicated) flirted with assorted deistic paganistic ideas of Christianity and religion, all of which basically amounts to not being an atheist in any recognisable way."

                  What we can say is that they opposed the "organizational" and "faithful to something other than the government" aspects of religion as they believed any organizing should be in the name of their particular regime, not god or religion. That simply gave them the excuse they needed to do what they did. So, any "gathering" or "organizing" of people for reasons other than the governmental cause was not tolerated in any way.

                  "I will disagree on this point because I don’t think religion is the impetus which is causing those in the West to embrace terrorism."

                  Someone from the "West" saying "I want to kill all muslims" does not give you cause to believe that religion is the impetus one way or another? That sounds more like denial or perhaps even some cognitive dissonance. People don't want to kill people of a certain faith simply because they want to kill them. They want to kill people of a certain faith because of what that faith has resulted in, and in this case that faith has resulted in the murder of thousands of westerners. You may believe that the westerner that killed those muslims may not have been acting on his own religious beliefs, but #1-you don't know that, and #2-that does not take away the fact that religion was the impetus for his actions whether it was his religion or the religion of those he killed.

                  "To blame Muslims for the violence of the terrorists is close minded. To the extreme."

                  How so? Especially if it is the religion that espouses the use of deadly violence against any non-believers. That's like saying the driver of a getaway car is not equally responsible for the bank robbery. If you espouse a violent religion knowingly, then you are as responsible for the violent actions perpetrated by others of that faith whether you actively engaged in the violence or not. There really is no argument against that. As I said before, you can't have it both ways, so if the violent tendencies of a faith are not acceptable to you then you are not a true believer and you should leave that faith to those who are okay with the violence.

                  "So, the guy who attacked the Mosque isn’t really lashing out at religion. He is lashing out at violence."

                  You're shortchanging the answer to fit your argument. If it was simply violence he was "lashing out" against, using violence to do that would not only be counter-productive but also nonsensical. There are much better ways to handle violent actions than reciprocation, unless of course you follow a religious belief that advocates such actions. A more plausible idea would be that since he could not do anything to the god of that religion, or the religion itself he did the only thing he could which was to attack those of a faith that condones major violence.

                  "Him being misguided does not mean theism is in any way responsible."

                  So if "misguided" is the word of the day, the same can be said of those whom he attacked insomuch as they have been misguided in their belief that "killing of the non-believer is okay" but only as it applies to them killing those of other faiths.

                  "No more so than we can claim that pet ownership causes violence"

                  Pet ownership doesn't have a god or religious tenets that advocate killing other pet owners who don't have a specific type pet, now do they?

                  Ever since the advent of religion men have engaged in violence in its name. That hasn't changed in modern times, even though some would like to re-direct the blame to the behaviors of the misguided. Call it what you will but it all stems from the variation of faiths even to the extent of involving the faithless. Now, considering that modern psychology has begun to look upon "faith in a god" as a type of mental disorder, you may very well be correct in your assumption of misguidedness, as what would be more misguiding than to cause people to believe that murdering others by the hundreds or even thousands will earn you a spot in heaven? Or as the male muslims are promised; "vestal virgins" once they get there. 
                  Mental disorder or not, religious faith and its accompanying violent tendencies are the scourge of humanity and if nothing is done about it humanity will kill itself off just to find out they've wasted their lives in want of something they will never get.
                  If the world can't live without religion why not have a religion of faith in the human race.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image82
                    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    LOL. You brought up Hitler. I didn’t. I don’t suppose anyone has to claim Hitler since he was a man of many faces. And, way to side step the problem of atheists not taking responsibility for atheistic regimes while insisting any person of any faith must accept lock, stock and barrel any beliefs of any person or organization which also uses the name of that faith.  I love the hypocrisy. No, wait. I don’t.


                    No, religion isn’t necessarily the impetus. For it to be the impetus we would have to ensure that the reason for the violence was religiously motivated. Muslims are a religious group but the term Muslim is used in varying ways. I’ve seen Sikhs and Hindus called Muslim because of their skin tone and the general part of the world they originally hail from. People argue vehemently here in America against Drumpf’s ban because it is discriminatory toward an ethnic group. Muslim is not an ethnic group anymore than Christian is.

                    You would also have to prove that the impetus for the actions of the person who attacked the worshipers coming out of the Mosque was religious in nature. I would think (in all probability) the recent bombing at the concert factored in as one of the reasons he snapped. I don’t agree that all Islamic terrorism is religious in nature. As I’ve stated some use religion as a justification but it is not the reason. It’s like me robbing a liquor store and using the fact that the bank wouldn’t approve a loan as justification when the real reason I robbed the liquor store was I wanted to buy a boat. 

                    As to the possibility my opinion is the result of cognitive dissonance I would suggest you refrain from using terms you don’t understand, or at the least don’t use them in situations where you are not in possession of enough facts to make an observation. I consider your stand to be one that lacks reason or understanding and lazily jumps to simplistic conclusions.

                    As to your claim that the Islamic faith has resulted in the murder of thousands of westerners this is only a portion of the reasons for the mayhem. Again, simplistic answers are not solutions and will not help us to resolve these difficult issues in a manner which is advantageous to all. Constantly claiming it is because of religion creates more animosity as it gives another crutch to someone who is looking for justification for their violence.

                    You comment that I don’t know what motivated the westerner who killed the Muslims. You are right. I have never attempted to assign a motive. I don’t think it is your place, or mine, to pretend we are clairvoyant enough to crawl into someone else’s head and accuse them of motives. I think the intelligent thing to do would be to wait and see if the truth can be discerned. Not to assign blame in a manner that makes us more comfortable.

                    You claim Islam espouses the use of deadly violence against non believers. Let’s look at that.
                    My husband is currently in Nashville TN. The Westboro Baptist church is there in protest. He saw the crowd standing against them and went to join in. Now, I have no idea how WBC comes to the conclusions they come to. They are a violent and hateful lot. Would that make me hateful and violent also, if I were a Baptist?

                    Certainly there are passages in the Koran which are abhorrent. This does not make all Muslims violent, it does not make all Muslims want to use deadly force against anyone else. As a matter of fact it can be easily shown that it does not make the majority of Muslims feel or act that way. I suppose it is your argument that all Muslims are the ‘driver of the getaway car’ used by all terrorists.
                    And, it is a standard atheist argument that if people don’t act violently they aren’t true believers. That is another problem I’ve found myself encountering with the average online atheist. They are regurgitating what someone else wrote. They don’t appear to be capable of independent thought on the topic of religion.

                    Your argument that violently lashing out at violence is counter-productive is something I would argue with but violence begets violence. It always has. Counter-productive or not, it is human nature.

                    Oddly, you claim the Mulims which were attacked  had “been misguided in their belief that "killing of the non-believer is okay". That’s funny, really, when the Imam on site shielded the perpetrator (at risk to his own life) to ensure he remained unharmed.  You are sounding more and more Islamophobic.
                    You claim pet ownership doesn’t have a god? Really? Have you ever owned a dog?

                    You claim that the advent of religion caused men to engage in violence. This is so childishly naïve and uninformed I won’t bother to rebut. I would recommend you seek some education other than the atheist newsletter.

                    And, honestly, it appears the rest of your comments came from that same newsletter. If it makes you feel special to believe such about others; feel free to do so. It’s nothing to me.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Not sure that the statement has theistic tones, although it could.  More likely, IMO, it stems from media and other rhetoric fanning the flames of hatred of anything different coupled with a strong dose of fear.

            If it isn't that, we find ourselves in the situation you indicate - how do you prosecute the madman that committed the crime without finding his particular religious beliefs (likely Christian in the US) is complicit as well?

      2. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        While I agree with that which you state ,  as it matters not the cause but that all violence is terror to the victims ,    there  are  also   more divisions between  ideologies HERE than ever , Apparently   these's now a congressional hit list to go along with the  shooting's of last week .       Never before have i seen such  rhetoric from the left for violence , it's in the streets and  on the campuses ,       

        My thought is if the right angers and awakens in response , blood will run in the streets ,I'm reminded  ,
        " From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots "...........Franklin ?  Jefferson ?    Not sure which without googling it .

        Peace to London !

  16. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    "Religion causes  violence , terrorism , wars "....................Simply put  ,  I takes mature and intellectual reasoning to discern the origins of purely man made violence and yet  Ivan Todd  thinks and states that it's God  who did it  ?    That all makes about as much sense as  saying "The Dog Ate My Homework Mommy !".   Where as it may be entirely possible that the dog did chew it up and spit it out ,   it only stands to reason that  Ivan will blame  religion  because  , well , "   If I don't understand or accept religion and I don't understand and accept the origin of such man made evil AND ..... I certainly didn't perpetrate any evil   ........then it definitely  has to be God's  fault " ,  because god is something he can wholly get away with blaming , THAT WAY , HE  WON'T HAVE TO LOOK WITHIN HIS  OWN HEART  for that eternally complicated answer .

    I didn't know that Atheists were just too lazy to think though .

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I was going to say they aren't necessarily too lazy to think. I thought maybe this instance was probably indicative of a young and impressionable mind but I viewed the profile. Too old to be young and impressionable. I'm stumped. Maybe sometimes your assessment of atheists is correct.

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I could in a way  understand atheism ,  It's just that every atheist I've debated here ,  seems to have a finer amount of  faith than even Christians , for one ,they are perfectly willing to except that this worlds incredible , amazing , outrageous beauty  is from what ?  ........a spark ?     Takes a lot of faith to see that huh ?   And two ,   they constantly claim theists are "stuffing religion down their throats"  .........I think
        for atheists theirs a "faith " driven attitude from another world there !

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Well I don't have a problem with atheism but a lot of times it beggars belief more to not believe in a higher power than to believe in it. But, that's just me. To each their own.

          1. ahorseback profile image48
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Right !  yet here ,  I just wonder at times who is the more  'evangelical '   believers  or atheists ?

            Kinda makes you wonder ?

            1. Live to Learn profile image82
              Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Yep. Rather egotistical when you think about it. One side thinks they are pleasing God by attempting to convert. I suppose the atheist simply seeks to please themself.

              1. Aime F profile image85
                Aime Fposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                See this is what I don't really understand about "preaching" atheism. I've never felt that strongly about it. What do people get out of it? I couldn't care less what anyone believes as long as they're not using it as a shield to spout hate (and even then it's the hate I take issue with) or trying to convert me. Why would I want to change anyone else's beliefs when I hate it when other people try to change mine?

                An open dialogue where people are welcoming discussion about atheism/religion is one thing but insulting each other back and forth is completely unproductive.

                1. ahorseback profile image48
                  ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  That's where I lose patience , when Atheists get "evangelical "  about their 's ,  who cares , I just don'r see theists who are that forceful !  I mean unless one is too weak in person to just say ," Hey leave me alone !"

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            You're (almost) right - lots of times it beggars belief more to believe in it than not believe in a higher power.

            Just as you say - to each their own. smile

            1. Live to Learn profile image82
              Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I think how you define the term determines how difficult it is to fathom.

              But, it fascinates me that atheists spend as much time proselytizing as the Bible believers.

    2. Ivan Tod profile image60
      Ivan Todposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      "I takes mature and intellectual reasoning to discern the origins of purely man made violence and yet  Ivan Todd  thinks and states that it's God  who did it"

      Well, I don't remember saying god did anything, even though the christian bible absolutely states that god personally killed many people, but I guess that's no proof of a violent god. I suppose, however, that those killings by god himself will somehow be attributed to my own misinterpretation by those who simply refuse to accept the truth. And since this is probably the 10th time someone who's lack of understanding has either purposely or accidentally caused them to say that I said something that I didn't, I will attribute it to people "seeing what they want to see". And where is the lack of intellectual reasoning when it comes to things ACTUALLY said in the bible? I guess in the fantastical world of theism intellectual reasoning has been abandoned for a seat in heaven.

      "That all makes about as much sense as  saying "The Dog Ate My Homework Mommy !".   Where as it may be entirely possible that the dog did chew it up and spit it out ,   it only stands to reason that  Ivan will blame  religion  because  , well , "   If I don't understand or accept religion and I don't understand and accept the origin of such man made evil AND ..... I certainly didn't perpetrate any evil   ........then it definitely  has to be God's  fault " ,  because god is something he can wholly get away with blaming , THAT WAY , HE  WON'T HAVE TO LOOK WITHIN HIS  OWN HEART  for that eternally complicated answer ."

      Again, I never said "THAT WAY , HE  WON'T HAVE TO LOOK WITHIN HIS  OWN HEART  for that eternally complicated answer ." What I said, and what you so erroneously misconstrued, is that men use violent religious tenets as an excuse to kill. I would ask how you got that so wrong...But I already know the answer. And what if the dog did eat the homework? You obviously have no understanding of what dogs do either.

      "I didn't know that Atheists were just too lazy to think though ."

      You twist and misconstrue what people say, and when they actually clarify and show your misunderstanding of what was actually presented you go right back to your childlike insults. Unfortunately for you, they won't make me leave the forum. What they will do, however, is show the very lack of maturity and intellect you claim necessary for understanding. So, since a childlike mentality can never  be made to see or understand anything beyond its reasoning ability, by all means continue with it as you have just as much right to be here and say whatever you like as anyone else does. Just don't expect it to be taken seriously for anything other than what it is.

      1. ahorseback profile image48
        ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Simply put ,Nor should your disdain for simple faith in religion be taken for anything but what it is my friend ,  a stated atheistic  disrespect  for those who believe religion is more of  a positive influence on man than the opposite  , Remember , If  it is  to be the intolerance of  others , in fact what the majority of humanity believes in  that fuels this divide  , it was you who started it .
        Not I .
        Peace.

        1. Ivan Tod profile image60
          Ivan Todposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          "Disdain"? Again, your interpretation. What I said was the "current" god based religions are the problem, not religion itself and if people have to have a religion then why not a religion of and for humanity rather than one of and for an absentee self proclaimed god? The growing numbers of the "secularly religious", those who only follow certain parts of their chosen religion in order to be religious enough while at the same time living a worldly life (something the christian god says to "go out from"), just goes to show that the so-called faithful do not completely agree with the idea that god is as beneficent and as all-powerful as once thought. If they did, they wouldn't feel they had the option of being "partially" faithful. Mans continual chipping away at the foundations of the "deific" nature of their chosen religions tells me that their "belief" in god is dependant on their freedom to pick and choose which aspects of the religion they want to follow. So why bother with a god in the first place if you're actions negate your claim?

          "Remember , If  it is  to be the intolerance of  others , in fact what the majority of humanity believes in  that fuels this divide  , it was you who started it .
          Not I ."

          Wrong again. If the statistics are accurate, and I believe they are, a major portion of the people on the planet are monotheistic so I don't see how the much lower numbered group could be the cause of your worldly divide, unless you actually believe a few million have that kind of control over billions. The fact of the matter is that there ARE billions of religious people and while that is not the problem, the fact that they have different gods IS. And the ludicris part is that they all think THEIR particular god is the one true god. They can't all be right.
          So, no, it was not me that started the division in the world but rather it was belief in half a dozen or so gods.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            "Mans continual chipping away at the foundations of the "deific" nature of their chosen religions tells me that their "belief" in god is dependant on their freedom to pick and choose which aspects of the religion they want to follow."

            It is necessary for the priesthood to change the tenets and requirements of their religion or they won't have the necessary following to support themselves.  Plus, of course, better and different moral structures developing over the ages dictates that people will no longer accept what used to be commonplace.

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              "It is necessary for the priesthood to change the tenets and requirements of their religion or they won't have the necessary following to support themselves.  Plus, of course, better and different moral structures developing over the ages dictates that people will no longer accept what used to be commonplace."

              That is absolutely true, especially when that "commonplace" leads to the death of millions of people. When god says "this is how I want it, don't ever change it", which the bible does say in so many words, are those who do change it and those who do follow the changes really following what their god wants them to? It just seems to me that if the tenets were actually something a god set down, to be followed and unchanged forever, that once the changes are made, accepted and followed, that the god himself is no longer the primary consideration. And if that is the case, why bother including what god wants at all? What people don't seem to want to realize is that by changing what is said by their god to be permanent, they are, in effect, dismissing god himself. Either that or they don't really believe in god in the first place and they just go along to get along, and that is why they have no problem with the changing of his word.

          2. ahorseback profile image48
            ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            You prove my point and my impression of your original post   more and more with every one of your lines ,  one of no apparent religious  faith yet knows intricately more about how the theists thinks , behaves and believes and defends  . than they do ,  My impression of your words is  the same   , that opinion  is of either pure  envy of the faithful  or the exiled heart  once faithful , now  disillusioned ---to be such an "expert "of what those if  true faith are .

            1. Ivan Tod profile image60
              Ivan Todposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              "You prove my point and my impression of your original post   more and more with every one of your lines"

              There's one major problem with your impressions:
              impression |imˈpre sh ən| noun 1- an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, esp. one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence.

              " one of no apparent religious  faith yet knows intricately more about how the theists thinks , behaves and believes and defends  . than they do ,"

              I've been around long enough and have seen enough god based religion in action TO know, and only the "cognitively blind" do not, and as such, the difference between our "views" on the matter is that I see it for what it is and does in the world and you...See it how you want to.
              impression |imˈpre sh ən| noun 1- an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, esp. one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence.

              "My impression of your words is  the same"

              Why wouldn't it be? Since "impressions" are apparently how you handle everything cognitive.
              impression |imˈpre sh ən| noun 1- an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, esp. one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence.

              " that opinion  is of either pure  envy of the faithful  or the exiled heart  once faithful , now  disillusioned"

              I can assure you that none of those impressions are accurate. How can someone be disillusioned by something they considered untrue right from the start? And the same goes for your "exiled heart" impression. Your impression of  MY mindset is really a showing of your own limitations of thought. impression |imˈpre sh ən| noun 1- an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, esp. one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence.

              "---to be such an "expert "of what those if  true faith are ."

              I don't need to be an expert on the subject. No one does. All anyone needs to do is look around and see for themselves. The psychological community has:
              "The American Psychological Association (APA), after a five year study on devoutly religious people, will now consider an unassailable belief in a deity or a higher power to a point where it impairs one's ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, as a mental illness..."
              "...The new classification of archaic beliefs as mental disorder is treated as a step towards positive direction by the APA."

              I guess your impressions of the American Psychological Association (APA) are about the same as your impressions of me. Fortunately for the world at large the APA does not factor in or make suggestions based on impressions...impression |imˈpre sh ən| noun 1- an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, esp. one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence...They make them based on actual study and literal evaluation of the evidence...It's called clinical psychology. Like I said before about the Israelites 40 year journey...Social evolution will phase out the old inhibiting ways.

              1. ahorseback profile image48
                ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                I just love it when the proof lies in the simple wording of such  pseudo-intellectual elitism ,   What those like you are debating   is proof of faith , admit it , you will never  and can never win such a debate .  What such  egocentric intellectualism  wants is to see the batteries behind the sunlight  ,   the pipeline behind the rain  , the lava lamp behind a rainbow ,  Such  Intellectualism  can'r watch a meteor shower without  wondering where the sound of moving stars  originates  .   

                Perhaps your problem is simply in this intellectualism itself ,   I believe that the more intelligence  one brings to most of the wonders of the world , the less that is understood .  It would actually be funny  if it your invented intellectualism didn't cause more problems than it can solve . 

                Your problem ;  What your intelligence  grossly rejects is that all the intelligence in the world doesn't allow for wisdom ,   ALL  your charts , studies , statistics cannot prove or disprove  the meaning or the importance of something as   simple as the definition of faith.  That is why more intellectuals tip over the edge of insanity than one who bases his life on simple faith .

                Here's a fact born of intellectualism , The entire world knows that those raised in such  lifestyles  such as having  the  moral foundation  of religion , are better cultures and better people .  The averages of our very existence  prove it . It is more the intent  of trying to control ,to disprove , to jail those of faith , to outlaw entire  religions  , to burn the churches and temples , for nations to ban faith ,that are the origins of truest  evil  on earth .

                Don't have faith if you so wish , that is your choice but your attempts at  blaming religious faith and all its qualities only proves  that the true value of overdosing  on such quantities of  "intellectualism " is questionable at best and phony at the worst . .

                1. Ivan Tod profile image60
                  Ivan Todposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  "Your problem ;  What your intelligence  grossly rejects is that all the intelligence in the world doesn't allow for wisdom "

                  So I guess by your statement intelligence isn't a pre-requisite for obtaining wisdom? That must be why so many here are of the "wise" variety.

                  "Here's a fact born of intellectualism , The entire world knows that those raised in such  lifestyles  such as having  the  moral foundation  of religion , are better cultures and better people ."

                  That is your own particular brand of "fact". Anyway, with that statement one would have to suppose that the history of religion and its relative atrocities have been removed from the public mind. And I would like to know how you know that the "world" believes such? Do you know everyone on the planet or are you simply imparting your own comfort zone beliefs on the subject? In all of your talk about the world being a better place because of religion you miss one key aspect; religion and spirituality are two very different things. Spiritual people absolutely do not need religion. Go find indigenous North American or Australian Aboriginal spiritual leaders and they will tell you the same thing, although I don't think you will belieive them either.

                  "Don't have faith if you so wish , that is your choice but your attempts at  blaming religious faith and all its qualities only proves  that the true value of overdosing  on such quantities of  "intellectualism " is questionable at best and phony at the worst."

                  Well, for the 10th time, let's get it right; I have no issue with "faith", as you so blindly state. I simply have faith in people as opposed to faith in a non-existant god. So, which is more questionable; a god that no one sees or hears but will kill for, or intellectualism? To answer that question will require the intellectualism you apparently have a problem with, so if you can't muster up the intellect to answer properly...Don't bother.
                  Have a nice day!

 
working