Who will complain about home security and TSA now? Or Trump banning travel from high risk countries?
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.
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.
Panic then, surrender your rights, strip others of theirs and, live in a basement.
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.
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.
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 !
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!
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
"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?
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 .
It would seem that you are interpreting it with an equally shallow vision in favor of it. As I said before; the Stockholm Effect is very powerful.
The "Stockholm affect " is perhaps your interpretation of a "faith "based belief in religion , that doesn't make it everyone's ,
No, the Stockholm Effect is a very real psychological result of being exposed to the ideologies of ones captors over a length of time, in this case the "gods" are the captors and "millenia" is the time frame. Call it faith if you will but changing the moniker doesn't change the cause and effect. The fact that believers, if you will, call it faith does nothing but prove its total effectiveness.
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
"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 ;
and mainstream the acceptance of islamic terrorism ,
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
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 ?
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
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.
Did you think to ask the victims families that question ?
UK opinion on gun control in 2010. I doubt if anything much has changed since:
31% think there should be a complete ban on all gun ownership by civilians
38% think there should be greater restrictions on guns.
23% think the current restrictions on gun ownership are about right
4% believe the restrictions should be relaxed.
http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/Y … 030610.pdf
Next from you ;
- 66 % would ban beer glass'
- 43 % ban on folding chairs
- 87 % ban on work vans
- 52 % ban delivery vans
- #8 % ban machetes
Why are you avoiding talking about banning Islamic Extremist's , their teachers , there sanctuaries , their supporters , there social media , the MISSION IN LIFE ,All these terrorists were on TERROR watch lists ?
Instead you talk hate about America's love of guns .? Seriously ICM .POLLS in the UK show the Home Office is saying a growing number of UK .police officers using guns in incidents of crime since 2010 , depending on who's polls you check , OVER HALF of cops polled want police to carry guns , police alone polled say by upwards of 30 % , we should have more armed police. over 70 % of conservatives polled want more firearms on cops .
So much for UK's "Public Policing Policy " confidence.
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 .
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
Oh where to begin , first ,
Take one look at the ethnic make -up of America .........Oh please ! While England has systematically dominated the British Isles for instance , WE came here , Irish , Scots , English , Franco- Americans ,
Germany , every country , every country in the world is who America is , Check you facts , I mean real facts not today's leftist agenda "adjusted " facts .
No ethnicity in America even approaches 79 %.Fact.
Your gun facts lack a certain all around knowledge of truth , like did you ever even hold a gun ? You compart overused , worn out , liberal cherry picked ,"hash tag " facts without for instance comparing populations of these countries to ours. ; Canada 10 % of America's population .The UK?
Is banning knives in the UK working very well ?
So if I use a beer glass , I'm going to go to jail BUT radicalizing Islam and I stay forever free ?
Is banning beer glasses working ?
Your facts don't represent truth , Of your 40 % conservative Pop. number eighty percent of them support more guns for policing in the UK ---Home Office.
If I were in the UK , I would stop defending butter knife , butcher block steak knife and beer glass' legislation and social media "facts " and start working progressively to end the public acceptance of radicalization , un-vettable immigration and even non- violent "Public Policing " that apparently isn't working.
This may sound cruel and coarse , but the denial of truth , is far worse .
Ahorseback. When you say ‘more guns for policing in the UK’ can you be specific. If you are claiming it’s 80% in favour of arming the British Police then I would like to see the link, because that is contrary to what I see.
However, if the poll you refer to refers to increasing the number of ‘Authorised Firearms Officers’ then that is a different matter; and is a political hot potato that has dominated the British news today because of the General Election which is due in 2 days’ time.
As you might be aware we are in the last couple of days of six weeks of campaigning for a snap General Election called by Teresa May (Prime Minster) seven weeks ago because her Conservative (Capitalist) party had a massive 25% lead over Labour (Socialist), which would have guaranteed a landslide victory for the conservatives and another five years of Capitalist rule. Historically, in British politics polls during a general election campaign don’t shift significantly e.g. 5% or 6% at most. So Teresa May thought she was on to a winner.
However, in the past couple of weeks the polls have narrowed from the original 25% to just 1%; so no one now knows what’s going to happen on election day in 2 days’ time.
There’s been many factors in the past few weeks that have contributed to the increase in popularity of the Labour party and decrease in popularity of the Conservative party; the main factor in the past 24 hours is the embarrassment to the Conservative Government that for the Five years between 2010 and 2015 Teresa May was ‘Home Secretary’ and personally responsible for not only cutting the police force by 10,000s to save money, but the fact that she also was personally responsible in cutting the ‘Authorised Firearms Officers’ from 6,976 in 2010 to 5,639 in 2015 to save money.
Currently the ‘Authorised Firearms Officers’ make up just 4.4% of the total police force. So in answer to your question, yes most British people would like to see the levels of ‘Authorised Firearms Officers’ increased back to what they were when Labour was in power pre-2010 e.g. 6,976 (4.8% of the total police force), but the British public would not want to see all police armed with guns.
Also, all surveys of British police consistently show that over 80% of them do not want to be armed with guns.
To put it into perspective, if you did your homework properly; 58% of the British public would however like to see all police armed with Tasers (device that delivers an electric shock do immobilise a person), and 28% do not want police to have Tasers (with 14% undecided). [Survey Aug 2016].
I agree with you, England does still dominate the UK, although its grip is loosening. It lost southern Ireland following the 1920’s Irish revolution; and I would love to see Scotland get their Independence; plus I would love to see Northern Ireland unified with the Irish Republic, which may yet happen with the way things are going.
However, I wasn’t talking about our roots e.g. mine is from Normandy, France following the Normans conquest of England in 1066. I was talking about the minority groups, such as the Racism against Native Americans, Racism against African-Americans, Jews, communists and more recently Muslims etc.
Not a real gun, no, I’ve never held one; and I have no desire to. Yes, banning knives in the UK does work; it was how on the 27 April this year a terrorist plot was foiled by police, when they found three knives in his rucksack during a security search as he was making his way towards Westminster, London with intent to carry out a terrorist act: https://youtu.be/1NAGuR3oJdE
Well, our non-violent public policing methods work far better than the armed police method in the USA; at least our police haven’t killed 495 citizens this year; unlike in America. And our 34 terrorist victims this year is still insignificant compared to the 6,468+ American citizens killed by gun violence. Plus of course the further five innocent Americans shot dead in Florida yesterday:-
Sheriff: 5 Killed In Workplace Shooting In Florida https://youtu.be/4_sU3PyDuwI
It's foolish to compare the UK to the US , I say that again , our cultures are very different , populations alone where the UK - including Ireland -has what one sixth the US's in a far far smaller area How is it that the gun debate always comes up , for Brits it's as if you are excusing increasing terrorism to the comparison of our gun culture in America ? We have nuclear weapons too - does that mean we are more violent than terrorists are too ?
If you're interested in gun facts in America , sometime take a look at cities that have "no gun zones " like Chicago , NYC , Baltimore , LA, check out the crimes against cities where there are no such limitations . Chicago- Obama's home city is the prime study area for you .
As in the US , statistics , charts , "facts " , especially today , are as variable as the debater's that use them . Show me your "facts " , I can show you my "facts " , apparently the UK has progressed to a standardized european form of socialism that first , takes away the guns in order to protect the "rights" and the "liberties " of it's populace.
Bottom line , If the people of the UK .wish to support and defend Islamic "no go zones " , their incredibly abusive violence against women and children , the un-vetted immigration of twenty something year old male "refugee's ", Sharia courts , advisory only or in parallel to your own courts , the non-assimilation of a violent eleventh century culture , then so be it .
Yep, ahorseback, most Americans have misconceptions about Muslims in Europe; which is why I recently published an article about it on HubPages to put the record straight.
To start with we don’t have ‘no go zones’ in Britain. That was Fake News originally broadcast by Fox News a couple of years ago; and further perpetuated by Trump. But at least Fox News had the guts to apologise for their fake news, albeit they still tried to insinuate that we have ghettos like in America.
Fox News Apology for Fake News about Britain and France: https://youtu.be/sz1k37TPA8U
I agree the Islamic culture do make women and children 2nd class citizens. However, it’s not as bad as the early Victorian values in Britain during the first half of the 19th century when women didn’t have many legal rights and children were expected to work hard labour from the age of six. It’s more like 1950’s Britain when women were expected to stay at home and do the house work and cooking; and the Edwardian period in Britain when children were expected to be ‘seen but not heard’. If you lived alongside Muslim families, like we do in Britain you would know that in any descent Muslim home women and children are treated with respect; albeit you get some violent and abusive Muslim husbands/fathers, but no more percentage wise than you get violent and abusive husband/fathers in white English or American homes.
All the terrorists in Britain have been British people who have become radicalised, not the refugees; so get your facts right.
Also, get your facts right about Sharia courts in the UK:-
• There are no Sharia courts in the UK, its Sharia Councils; which is not compulsory; it has to be a voluntary agreement between the parties.
• The Sharia Councils do not run in parallel with British courts, because nobody is above the law of the land.
• In the UK Sharia councils can only deal with civil matters, and cannot deny the legal rights of anyone under British.
• The role of Sharia councils in civil matters is nothing more than arbitration, similar to the Jewish system and to the various arbitration services for marriage and the arbitration service between employer and employee.
• Most important, any aspect of Sharia law which is contrary to the rights and laws under British law is illegal in the UK.
This video shows you what it’s actually like inside a Sharia Council in the UK: https://youtu.be/Ctyr5FaZJtI
Finally, Most Muslims do assimilate into British society very successfully in the UK, as I know as I live here. And, as explained above, Muslims don’t have violent 11th century cultural values; it’s closer to 1950s Britain values, and not violent.
Yes the Cultures in Europe is totally different to the American culture; and that’s not going to change unless America strives to improve things. It took Britain from 1919 to 1967 to become a gun free society, but we did it. So I’m sure if America ever decided to aim towards being a gun free society it’s going to be a long painful path, but surly that’s no reason to accept fait accompli e.g. change for the better isn’t going to happen unless America commits to taking the first steps and has the determination to see it through to the end for the sake of future generations.
IF AND I SAY IF , Muslims and the New Liberals that support them cared about real progress , love ,peace and understanding ;
They might begin by stopping the everyday practices of ;
-Exporting your militancy rather than your poor , your children
-Female genital mutilation
-Honor killings of children for wearing lipstick and a dress
-Homosexual torture and genocide
-Making women a third class citizenry
-Raising just ONE voice of terror opposition
-Begin Assimilation rather than domination
- Welcome Yourselves and Your Children , Boy or Girl Beyond the 10th century
- Interesting that liberals bend over backwards defending the destruction of liberal ideals ?
- Update , ;Also interesting is the new video of UK police SHOOTING terror perpetrator dead ,
Kind of takes the wind out of your ANTI-GUN tirades ,
Can you all say "Thank you Gun Toting cop "
The biggest flaw with your argument is stereotyping.
I’m equally as guilty in that I tend to have a stereotype view of Americans, but I am slowly learning through these forums that not all Americans have the same general views and attitudes on issues.
The sorts of Muslims you are talking about in Britain are in a minority; and their actions do not have the support of the majority; and the percentage of bad apples in the British Muslim community is no higher than bad apples in the rest of the population in Britain or America e.g. there are just as many white American and British people (as a percentage of population) who rape and murder, are violent and have disregard for others etc. There’s good and bad in all societies, and social ethnic groups; Muslims don’t have a monopoly on it.
Taking your points in turn:-
1. It’s not the Muslim community who ‘export militancy’ (radicalisation). Radicalisation is predominantly done online, through websites supported by ISIS; which is evidence when the authorities seize computers from those they arrest. It’s also why the British Government want’s tough laws to quickly shut down such websites.
It’s the young, or uneducated, or mentally unstable, and loners who are most vulnerable to becoming radicalised from online ISIS propaganda on the web.
The Muslim community work very close with the Authorities to stamp out extremism, and do often report to the police anyone they think is becoming radicalised. The Muslim community always condemn the terrorist acts because it doesn’t represent their views or religion and only serves to cause division. It’s division between Muslims and non-Muslims that ISIS wants, because it’s then easier for them radicalise even more people.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which was established in 1997 as an umbrella organisation to represents both Sunni and Shia as a single voice across the UK, is highly respected by the Government and works very closely with the Authorities. The MCB (run by the Muslim community) help to assimilate Muslims new to Britain into British society, help to build bridges between Muslim and non-Muslim through education and communication, and work very close with the police to stop terrorism, and to stamp out prejudices through ignorance.
2. Female genital mutilation (which is a worldwide problem) is a criminal offence that carries the same penalty as child abuse in the UK; it’s a problem which is being tackled in Britain, but not all Muslim families support the practice.
3. Honour killings in the UK are extremely rare; brutal family violence by white parents in America and Britain is more common.
4. At least in Europe Homosexual Muslims are free from persecution; it’s why some Muslims escape the Middle East to come to Europe for political asylum.
5. As previously explained, Muslim family attitudes in Britain tends to be more like 1950’s British attitudes; but those attitudes are changing, it’s just a matter of time.
6. “Raising just one voice of terror opposition”; I don’t understand what you are trying to say, so I can’t comment.
7. As I said before, most Muslims do assimilate into British society; it’s just your perception which is wrong because you don’t live here.
8. Muslims in Britain do not live in the 10th century, their values are more like early Victorian values in 19th century Britain; but attitudes are changing, it’s just a matter of time.
9. Your last point is off beam, in Britain it’s nothing to do with whether you’re Liberal or not e.g. there isn’t the political divide in the UK on this subject like there is in America. In Britain those that are prejudice against Muslims (which thankfully is small) come from all political backgrounds. Besides, I’m not a Liberal, I’m a Socialist.
In the UK, this is how Muslims actually identify with Britishness: https://youtu.be/KBpQQbstmzg
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????
Evil doers are the victims. Based on various, somewhat revised and often unrelated historical events. The only thing left to do is appeasement.
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.
H U H ????
oh!!!!! according to … those guys!
I was just thinking back to 1812 the other day. I am feeling a little grievance.
I think there was a small disagreement or something.
Thats when the Redcoats burned the White House. I'm thinking with a well trained troop of Girl Scouts I can settle my grievance in Birmingham sometime after breakfast.
Appeasement is when you feed a crocodile or alligator in the hopes it eats you last. ~ some wise feller from the past quote.
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.
c. have I suffered brain trauma recently.
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 ?
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.
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.
It is that simple. And the answer is they are too afraid or not stupid enough to impose their own philosophy on themselves, personally.
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.
"what you are wearing"
An idealogy that is the antithesis to democracy and basic human rights cannot be changed at reitmans.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Maybe perspective is all there absolutely is. A scary thought with professional magicians and hypnotists. Plus one of the oldest professions, you know., what cnn does.
Americans are gunning up since the terrorist attacks in Manchester.
I would be curious to know which country in Europe had a socialist economy.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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.
Confusion is a key element in the control structure of most religions.
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 .
"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.
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 .
"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!
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 "..............
"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.
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 .
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.
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 !"
"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.
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 .
"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.
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 .
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 .
"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.
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.
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 ?
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.
"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.
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.
"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?
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.
"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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
"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.
So , Yes .......One more attack over the weekend in London ?
Except this one MAY involve "fight back " against Islamic terror perpetrated at a Mosque?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Westboro carries cardboard signs. Basically paper. You ever have a paper cut ?!? I didnt think so.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Ah, but we are a violent species. History is replete with charismatic leaders, from Genghis Khan to Hitler to the KKK to Kim Jong-un - leaders that have convinced people to harm others, with or without the tool of religion. In modern US society we still have thousands of murders every year, and without the need for any "pushing".
No, the average Imam won't get a lot of traction with most Americans, but they don't operate (for the most part) in America. They operate in a third world where violence is the norm and where life is cheap.
Well, I can't do much for a third world country but I think we do need to figure out why young people from first world countries are perpetrating terror. And, I don't see religion as the catalyst (other than being used as an excuse)
Find the reason they're killing each other, find why they vandalize anything in sight, find why they steal anything not tied down, find why fist fights are so common, why spousal or child abuse happens so often and you may get a glimmering. Somewhere, somehow we've left behind the idea that all people matter and given free reign to those inner emotions of rage and hatred. Couple it with copious free time and we have a problem.
Maybe it's rooted in the idea that we are never responsible for our negative actions - that someone or something else causes us to misbehave.
Resentment. There seems to be the darkside of ideological possession when they get to decide who their enemy is and then go after them for everything that's been done to them that isn't good. Punishing the innocent is a much darker and gratifying form of evil revenge than going after those who are responsible for the harm done to them.
I'm sorry. Are you talking about Muslims? Are they the they? I"m quite confused here.
No - the young people in our own country. Figure out why they are so violent, why they hold other people in such low regard and why they are so...disenfranchised... maybe. And you'll likely find why they become terrorists out to kill people.
The majority of university professors are self proclaimed Marxists. These kind of policies are thriving in universities. Those kind policies never turn out well for any country.
Its not social change or social justice that is the problem. The universities are turning out indentured servants with student loans they can not file bankruptcy on, and they cannot find high paying jobs to pay off their debt. While university administrators get the lion's share of the funding.
A person can file bankruptcy on anything in America, but not on student loans.
Well, we will pay you to take a course on 'White Privilege'. That kind of stuff is happening. They are brainwashing our young people. They would be better off going to trade school.
Again, we are talking about terrorism. I don't know any violent young people. None more violent than any were as we were coming of age.
I do think that the refusal to look terrorism in the face....pin it to where it is coming from....that is one of the primary problems we face in attempting to address it. And if we don't address it and resolve it; it will be as any other form of violence. It will only spread.
"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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"Oddly, you claim the Mulims which were attacked had “been misguided in their belief that "killing of the non-believer is okay". "
It's not "my claim", as you so erroneously state but rather it is in the Koran. I won't bother suggesting that you read it as it would prove things you don't wish to be true...Like commiting an act or telling a lie in order to put the non-believers at ease while you spread the faith all across the world until the ONLY religion is Islam...But I'm sure, in some future comment of yours, you will say those passages in the Koran are my "claims" and therefore not true.
And by the way, it's not just the muslims who have been misguided by their religion; Try learning about the christian "crusades" or the 97% genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, or the commonplace genocides at the hands of the Israelites...All done in the name or behest of the respective gods. So, call me "Islamophobic" if you like, but as usual, you would be incorrect.
"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."
The only newsletter I read is from medical watch organization. Anyway, and again, I made no such claim as claims provide no evidence, per se, whereas the world is saturated with all the evidence one would need to support the relationship between religion and violence, even though and more importantly, I said men use religion as an excuse for their globe wide atrocious behavior. Since you obviously give so little consideration to truth, as is evidenced by your true lack of understanding religions role in global violence, I won't bother to tell you to "seek some education" as education on such a subject requires a person to set aside their preconceptions, which you don't appear willing to do.
Finally; what is any more "childishly naive and uninformed" than believing that the onset of religion did NOT cause an extreme rise in violence? Or that it DOES not currently do the same? You obviously have never read the Koran but it also would seem that you haven't read the judeo/christian bible either. There are millions of them, try actually reading one...Then again, even if you do read it you will just deny what is written in it as it won't align with your personal beliefs.
"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."
You sure have alot to say about something that is "nothing to you". And I would wager that if you ever do actually read the Bible or the Koran you will stop commenting in this particular discussion. I would hope that you wouldn't stop commenting, but you will.
I think I pegged it here. You do sound incredibly Islamaphobic. I'm moving on. Nothing to see here which hasn't already been seen.
I don't see where anything I said sounds anything like other than what it is...Sanity. Everything I said, especially the part about the APA is true, whether your cognitive dissonance allows for it or not. The only thing that has been "pegged" is the insane nature of mono-deific theistic belief. But I guess the entire professional American psychological community is wrong and you are right. So, you can make all of the self-gratifying comments about how right you think you are that you want as it changes nothing...I am not Islamophobic, deific based religion is destroying society and the top psychological professionals in America understand it for the insanity that it is. I can't understand how being wrong must feel, but being wrong IS part of what supports societal evolution. Without the "wrongness" society would never move onwards and upwards, so thanks for that. Besides all of that, I can only imagine what it is that makes you say I am wrong when the highest order of psychologists in America obviously think I am right and absolutely nothing I said is even remotely "Islamophobic". Do you really think that anyone reading my comments will actually think that they are is Islamaphobic? 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...In this case it is even worse as there is not little but actually NO evidence of what you claim. But, it's all good, so move on as you wish, as one more check in the debate win column will serve my mission well...Thanks for that too. And one last thing...I did say that: "And I would wager that if you ever do actually read the Bible or the Koran you will stop commenting in this particular discussion." And apparently you have as is evidenced by your comment of "nothing to see here". Just know that being wrong is not the end of the world but rather it is the beginning of something better.
Ivan, again, please do not use terms you don't fully understand or don't have enough information to use.
Your believing that the victims in England were somehow responsible for their own deaths at the hands of a mad man is reprehensible, at best.
"Ivan, again, please do not use terms you don't fully understand or don't have enough information to use."
That is a classic response made by people who, even in the face of being proven wrong, refuse to accept the truth. It's what people do when faced with no other course of action. It is not my fault that your cognition does not allow for the understanding of the complexity of the issue at hand. The fact that you yourself do not understand the terms, the words contained in them nor the context to which any of them are used, explains your response. Again, simply saying someone shouldn't use terms they don't understand, without showing that lack of understanding, proves nothing but your own failure to understand what is said. I understand the terms I use, and although you can't or won't see it, the information they are based on is everywhere.
"Your believing that the victims in England were somehow responsible for their own deaths at the hands of a mad man is reprehensible, at best."
How do you know that he was a "mad man"? Perhaps he was just a man who was mad(angered)...There is a difference. And if he is a "madman", what makes his "reprehensible" actions any different than those who do it in the name of godly faith? The insane mental state of "madness", as is evidenced by answers like yours...Is apparently relative. So, "at best" my thoughts on the matter are in fact just as plausible as any whether or not you can understand or consider them "reprehensible". Turning a blind eye to the real cause won't make it go away but rather it will simply continue to enable it.
LOL. At no point in this exchange have you proven me wrong. You have proven yourself biased by prejudice on several fronts and willing to make claims which you cannot support with facts.
As to the guy being a mad man. Sane people do not kill other people who are not threatening their lives. For you to make this argument strongly implies that you think his actions were justified.
"You have proven yourself biased by prejudice on several fronts and willing to make claims which you cannot support with facts."
I never said I was not biased. What do you think it means to not believe in god, in favor of humanity handling it's own affairs? It is ABSOLUTELY biased. And I do present facts, you just choose to manipulate them to your own needs.
"As to the guy being a mad man. Sane people do not kill other people who are not threatening their lives."
You mean like those sane people who dropped the atom bomb on hundreds of thousands of japanese even after they had surrendered? Or like the affluent killers of the crusades? Or how about certain of the Arab governments that still hold public executions? Your grasp of what sane people will do is severely lacking in reality.
"For you to make this argument strongly implies that you think his actions were justified."
That is your interpretation. What really matters is not what you feel I have implied, but rather what matters is what he was thinking at the time of his actions; to "kill all muslims". And it has been discovered that Darren Osborne, 47, a resident of Cardiff in Wales Is White Christian.
Ivan, I didn’t really have time to respond at length previously and I would like to point out that several things you have claimed are not entirely true. As usual. You are digging your grave deeper and deeper.
The entire professional American psychological community doesn’t agree on anything, in its entirety. Your wishful thinking will not create a truth. What it does is make you state a lie, and a self-gratifying one, at that. The fact that later in your comment you claim they all agree with you is along the same line. Pathetic, really. I have no problem with any particular psychologist to believe anything that psychologist wants to but if that person starts claiming they are the entire psychological community I would suggest you take it with a grain of salt. As I do most of your comments.
I think it is quite hilarious that you claim you can’t understand how being wrong must feel. That is the type of thing that should be a warning signal to you. If you think you have never been wrong then, wow. Says a lot.
But, I do agree that recognizing wrongness (as you put it) is part of evolving to a kinder and gentler state.
You appear to be islamophobic by stating that those people who died brought it onto themselves because of your idea of how they should be acting because of your understanding of their Holy Book. It’s ignorant. The Bible is full of some crap that is so heinous no child should read it. Personally, that doesn’t bother me since that part is only a history of the Jewish people. It has nothing to do with anything other than showcasing why God cannot be an active force in our world. Shit like that would happen. So even though you think I should be slaying homosexuals and disobedient children it doesn’t mean I agree with you. It doesn’t mean you are right. What it means is that you want things your way so that (again) you can come up with the most simplistic conclusions possible.
Either way. You have not won a debate. What you have done is offer absolutely no logical argument, made up falsehoods to back up your claim at being right and
This is a rather lengthy response, albeit a simple one. Read it at the risk of self-discovery;
"The entire professional American psychological community doesn’t agree on anything, in its entirety."
And you know that how? At any rate, if wordplay is how you wish to handle it, then, there is a CONSENSUS within the American Psychological community.
"Your wishful thinking will not create a truth. What it does is make you state a lie, and a self-gratifying one, at that.
It would be a lie if it was intentionally stated to deceive, but it was not. The fact that you use contextual aberration to make an unnecessary and unsubstantiated claim of me "lying" only lends credence to my comment. Perhaps you should actually read the statement of the APA on the matter. Then again, maybe they are liars as well. And I see no gratifying aspect to a consensus on the matter of religious insanity. What I do see, however, is that there are intelligent people within intelligent organizations that are not blinded by fantasy.
"The fact that later in your comment you claim they all agree with you is along the same line"
If there is a consensus on something that I happen to believe as well, where is the lie? Other than in your own mind?
"I have no problem with any particular psychologist to believe anything that psychologist wants to but if that person starts claiming they are the entire psychological community I would suggest you take it with a grain of salt. As I do most of your comments."
Do you even understand the concept of an "association"?...Obviously not, so I'll clarify for you; it is not one person but rather it is a number of people within a specified organization:
association |əˌsōsēˈā sh ən; - sh ē-| noun 1 (abbr.: assn.) (often in names) a group of people organized for a joint purpose . I would suggest you apply a little reasoning and simply read the APA's summary on the subject. And who is this one person that you say has claimed to be the "entire psychological community"? You have a problem with "entire" as opposed to "consensus" yet you make such an egregious statement as that. I guess your statements should be taken with a little salt as well.
"But, I do agree that recognizing wrongness (as you put it) is part of evolving to a kinder and gentler state."
No, you do not agree with me because that is not what I said. I never said it would result in a "kinder and gentler" anything, ...I said "better".
"You appear to be islamophobic by stating that those people who died brought it onto themselves because of your idea of how they should be acting because of your understanding of their Holy Book. It’s ignorant."
Your lack of knowledge of the contents of the Koran is not my fault but it is one reason why my comments are lost on you. And, by your "reasoning" I should also be christian-phobic, judeo-phobic etc. etc.. I know I have asked this question before but, don't you read any more of my commentary then the parts that you can somewhat "spin" to your own angle? Of all the things I have said about god-based religion(s), you only apply it to Islam. Maybe YOU are in fact the Islamophobe and perhaps you are trying to alleviate your own cognitive dissonance on the matter. Maybe this will help:
How do you resolve cognitive dissonance?
Dissonance will be resolved in one of three basic ways:
1-Change beliefs. Perhaps the simplest way to resolve dissonance between actions and beliefs is simply to change your beliefs. ...
2-Change actions. A second option would be to make sure that you never do this action again. ...
3-Change perception of action.
"The Bible is full of some crap that is so heinous no child should read it. Personally, that doesn’t bother me since that part is only a history of the Jewish people."
Jesus was a Jew...In case you didn't know. And by that comment we can see your indifference towards the violent treatment of a specific people...Screw'em, they got what they deserved from their hateful god, right? And who's god do you think it is Jesus calls "father" in the "christian" new testament? It is one and the same god as the Jewish people. Perhaps you are tired, had a little too much wine or simply no longer feel the need to conceal the real you, but whatever the case may be you have shown your true colors through that statement.
"I think it is quite hilarious that you claim you can’t understand how being wrong must feel. That is the type of thing that should be a warning signal to you. If you think you have never been wrong then, wow. Says a lot."
It does say alot...Concerning your difficulty with context. I never said I was never wrong on anything. I said that I couldn't understand how being wrong on the subject matter must feel. That is a big difference, one you obviously have difficulties in grasping cognitively.
"You appear to be islamophobic"
No I do not, but you, based on your own succinct statement, appear to be okay with extremely violent atrocities towards the Jewish people. Does that make you an anti-Semite? I'm sure you THINK it doesn't but there are probably millions of Jewish people who'll think you are, based on that comment.
"It has nothing to do with anything other than showcasing why God cannot be an active force in our world."
What else is needed to prove my point? Have you ever heard the euphemism "shooting yourself in the foot"?
"So even though you think I should be slaying homosexuals and disobedient children it doesn’t mean I agree with you."
Well, let's get one thing straight, It's not me who you would be disagreeing with but rather you would be disagreeing with any gods or religious tenets that state those demands. And as such you would in fact NOT be faithful to your god or the supporting religion even if you claimed to be. See how that works? Isn't simplicity grand...Unless of course, even in it's simplicity you still can't grasp the concept.
"It doesn’t mean you are right. What it means is that you want things your way so that (again) you can come up with the most simplistic conclusions possible."
Obviously, by all of the misinterpretation of what I have said, "simpler" is what's needed here.
"Either way. You have not won a debate."
Isn't your "It has nothing to do with anything other than showcasing why God cannot be an active force in our world." say just the opposite? Or is that not what you meant?...Like your comment of: "Personally, that doesn’t bother me since that part is only a history of the Jewish people"...Freudian slips, perhaps?
"What you have done is offer absolutely no logical argument, made up falsehoods to back up your claim at being right and"
And what? Anyway, my argument is nothing but logical, even if you can't see it. And the only "falsehoods" are in your mind. Perhaps you could point out what you perceive as a falsehood on my part. I'll gladly re-explain it in simpler terms...Or not.
Are you capable of anything else?
It isn't word play to ask you to speak truthfully. Please provide your source information for this claim that there is a CONSENSUS within the American Psychological community. Actually, I'd need something from the Psychiatric community. That will make it easier to accept your claim.
I think what you are referring to is the following According to the American Psychological Association (APA), a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power, to the point where it impairs one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, will now be classified as a mental illness.
Can I assume that you are not lying but have an inability to comprehend? This does not support your claim. Unless your claim is that any belief in a higher power qualifies as the statement above. In that case I would say that a CONSENSUS of the APA would not support this claim.
I agree. It appears the only one who might be blinded by fantasy at this moment, on this issue, is you.
If the consensus is not what you claim it to be did you lie? Or were you simply unable to comprehend the meaning? You tell me.
You really, really are impressed with yourself. Too bad you didn't apply a little reasoning and simply take the time to understand what you read. If you did read it in the first place. Again, don't take everything in the atheist newsletter at face value without researching their claims.
Again. OK, sorry. I think kinder and gentler is how society has evolved because of looking at our actions, discussing them and accepting the 'wrongness' (as you put it) then adjusting our laws and actions to compensate. But, if you don't think correcting ‘wrongness’ results in kinder and gentler then maybe we don't agree.
I comment on it from an Islamic angle because that is where your comments are directed. If you direct them toward some other religion I'll respond. I have only commented on parts of your commentary previously in order to keep my responses short.
Perhaps you could do some self-reflection and use that information to alleviate a few problems of your own? Or not.
Wow. Did you just figure that out? At least you got something right in our exchange.
Wow. You really can be somewhat obtuse. I have no idea how you got that I was indifferent out of my statement. I said it was a history of the Jewish people. I don't know whether you know anything about human history or not but those were violent times. I have no idea if any of that stuff is true, or not. So you know, as a woman, a lot of that violent treatment was directed at my sex. I don't hold that against any deity. I hold it against men, in general, of that time.
The god of the Jewish people is the God of all people. Although each of us views God in a different light it doesn't negate the fact that it is the same God. If there is a God that God would be the God that all worship. I don't know whether you have noticed this or not but God isn't chiming in to point out who is right and who is wrong. He hasn't commented on which religion is the better one or which religion is full of crap. So, man is responsible for anything and everything they do. No God needed.
Um, no Ivan, you didn't. But if it eases your mind to believe that I won't (couldn't if I tried, anyway) stop you.
What? Point out where I appear to be okay with violence toward the Jewish people. I'd like to see where, and how, you came to that conclusion.
Again, please explain how you have come to that conclusion.
What point of yours does that prove Ivan? I realize the length of your comments and mine would make it difficult for the casual observer to see that you are simply attempting to use subterfuge in order to make it appear you have made a valid point but I'm afraid you'll have to clarify where, and when, you made that point.
This is where the problem with you attempting to argue against something you don't understand in the slightest comes in. I cannot explain to you how you are wrong because you are so far removed from being able to grasp the simplicity of the answer that it would be pointless to elaborate.
Say just the opposite of what? Again, pretending that you have made a valid point doesn't work. Again, you don't know the subject matter so are coming to some ridiculous conclusions.
I'd make the same offer but I see simple is above your grasp.
"Wow. You really can be somewhat obtuse. I have no idea how you got that I was indifferent out of my statement."
You can say that even after saying;
"The Bible is full of some crap that is so heinous no child should read it. Personally, that doesn’t bother me since that part is only a history of the Jewish people."
And you actually don't see your own indifference? Okay then, nothing more need be said here.
"I'd make the same offer but I see simple is above your grasp."
And that is coming from someone who thinks simple is the easy way out...Go figure. Anyway, it is painfully obvious that since you cannot see or will not admit your indifference to the atrocious behavior of the gods there is no point in "beating a dead horse" as you are lost on the logic. With that, have a nice life.
Honestly, I don't know how you get that gods are heinous out of that. Life was pretty heinous back then, for pretty much any citizen of any particular society. But, gee. If you want to blame gods for man's collective history don't let me stop you.
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?
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 !
"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 .
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.
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 !
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.
Right ! yet here , I just wonder at times who is the more 'evangelical ' believers or atheists ?
Kinda makes you wonder ?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 .
"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.
"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.
"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.
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 .
"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.
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 . .
"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!
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
and let live. These people are NOT bothering anyone, going on with their individual lives, and contributing to the community. They are fine, upstanding people. Again, why the strong animus towards this community?
by Elizabeth 6 years ago
Exodus International, the notoriously vocal organization committed to the idea that gay people can change their sexual orientation is closing its doors and changing it's message. Along with the press release containing their decision to end their "ministry", the leader of Exodus has...
by Victoria Van Ness 6 years ago
How do you feel about gay marriage?The Bible says absolutely not, but we are a country about everyone being equal. Where do you stand?
by crankalicious 7 days ago
There's a theme across most right-wing/Libertarian/non-Left responses to the Coronavirus in these forums and it's this:1. The response to the Coronavirus is overblown2. The government is taking away our freedoms3. Avoiding a police state is more important than not letting the disease spread4. We...
by dutchman1951 9 years ago
I Have a Question I would love folks here to participate in and answer, if you would be so kind to.It has been stated in Congressional meetings, that to have Equal Citizenship, and folks willing to participate in and want to be Citizens, we should gaurantee some rights exclussive to...
by Ralph Schwartz 19 months ago
Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain their security clearances so they can be called upon to consult with their successors in times of crisis - John Brennan has been accused of using his access to personally profit as a spokesperson on...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|