Islam and depictions of Muhammad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LosOjos

Just listen to the way Richard Dawkins, for example, speaks to and about religious people; he clearly sees them as total idiots. Of course I'm not suggesting he literally wants to shake them in to submission, don't be so literal!

---

Right. So you were indulging in 'inflamatory' rhetoric and there is no evidence for your claim. Fair enough.

Quote:

---

It's a perfectly reasonable proposition to believe in something without seeing fit to harm/kill somebody who doesn't believe the same thing.

---

That might be. But if you believe something, it does change the way you act. If it didn't, how do can anyone tell that you actually believe it? I was under the impression (for instance) that Christians were obliged to take the word of Jesus out into the world and save other peoples souls. It is a sin for them not to. So how exactly does that work with "not shoving it down other peoples throat"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SYNACK

:) Classic - that was not my intention.

On that note though this all gets quite philosophical quite quickly with regards to killing of the innocent. Yes I agree that it is wrong and bad but the world is not perfect. Large amounts of civilians were killed in world wars to prevent greater genocides, it quickly descends into needs of the many weighed against the needs of the few and un-crossable lines that end up being crossed for survival. Its not a binary thing but rather a constantly changing border as to what is right and what is justified created by the many.

In this and many other situations certainly killing the innocent civilians is unjustified but at a different time in a different set of circumstances may even have been a necessity.

The truly dangerous thing in a constantly changing and adapting society is absolutes, this is the one true god for everyone and it is unarguable for example. This perceived truth does not adapt and so quickly becomes dangerous as for those that will not allow for the possibility of it being disproved end up stuck applying an absolute from a different time and environment to a situation that it may be entirely unsuited for.

Right and wrong themselves as a fixed concept is extremism.

---

A controversial view about killing in wars is that it is good for society. For example, we now have a massive 'lower class' group of people (eg. chavs etc...) which in earlier times would have been soldiers for their lord, king or country depending on the time period. We don't have that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

A controversial view about killing in wars is that it is good for society. For example, we now have a massive 'lower class' group of people (eg. chavs etc...) which in earlier times would have been soldiers for their lord, king or country depending on the time period. We don't have that now.

---

That's just it, right and wrong are determined by the majority of the time and place. You can have your own personal views but these will also be coloured by your own situations. Society is not a worked out thing really and largely amounts to barely suppressed squabbling between different sized groups whether that be sports teams or countries.

Morals and correctness are also somewhat separate in cases like the above. Plagues, wars and medical stuff used to wipe out huge amounts of the population keeping it a little bit in control. Now people are living longer, dyeing less and helping everywhere else to do the same. Morally right but possibly a bit stupid thanks to overpopulation, food and water shortages, conflict over land and resources increasing. So in the end it may end up being much more destructive and lethal than not doing the right thing to start with.

Morals and logic are different and by relying on morals alone you put yourself in danger of doing more damage.

It is a mess now in various wars, WW2 civilians were killed left, right and centre. Now a group of ten innocents mistakenly done in by a cruse missile from hundreds of kilometres away is a massive tragedy. There is a definite disconnect between morals and the 'right' thing, it all depends on your situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

A controversial view about killing in wars is that it is good for society.

---

An interesting thought, war what's it good for? Absolutely Noth... Actually:

Population control - suddenly enough land and food to go around without all those extra mouths to feed
Unemployment rate - Someones gotta do the work of those who've been killed
New technology (computers, internet, satellites, mobile phones, etc)
Having an external foe to focus your efforts on reduces internal problems

I'm sure there's more.

Maybe the answer to many of our current political problems is to invade Poland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

I can see his point though - if those moderate religious people didn't exist, then there couldn't be any extremists doing stupid things.

---

How far do you take it though? If there weren't any humans, there'd be no war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcstru

Right. So you were indulging in 'inflamatory' rhetoric and there is no evidence for your claim. Fair enough.

That might be. But if you believe something, it does change the way you act. If it didn't, how do can anyone tell that you actually believe it? I was under the impression (for instance) that Christians were obliged to take the word of Jesus out into the world and save other peoples souls. It is a sin for them not to. So how exactly does that work with "not shoving it down other peoples throat"?

---

Look, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I'm having a discussion. I won't be drawn in to your "define every single point you make to the letter", because I don't have to. I'm not looking for followers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tmcd35

Maybe the answer to many of our current political problems is to invade Poland?

---

Nah, there's another war storming its way towards us, I can feel it. Japan and China are at each other's throats over some rocks. The Middle East is basically constantly at war, and Syria is heading towards being a catalyst to a more serious conflict including Russia and the USA/Europe, Iran and Israel are on a knife's edge.

I can seriously see another world war in my lifetime. Horrible thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LosOjos

How far do you take it though? If there weren't any humans, there'd be no war...

---

See above. Won't be an issue in a few decades time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by localzuk

Nah, there's another war storming its way towards us, I can feel it. Japan and China are at each other's throats over some rocks. The Middle East is basically constantly at war, and Syria is heading towards being a catalyst to a more serious conflict including Russia and the USA/Europe, Iran and Israel are on a knife's edge.

I can seriously see another world war in my lifetime. Horrible thought.

See above. Won't be an issue in a few decades time...

---

Unfortunately, I think you're right about a war brewing. As you say, the whole of the Middle East is one big war zone, they just haven't started fighting each other on a massive scale [yet].

Whilst there are parts of this video I don't believe (lots of parts take this idea to a degree I find preposterous), it's certainly interesting viewing if you have a couple of hours to spare: Wake Up Call - Remastered Edition - Full Movie - YouTube

In a nutshell, it provides convincing evidence supporting the idea that the super-rich have been sat behind the scenes for years pulling the strings on our society in a bid to eventually have total control over the planet. Sounds very far fetched I know but honestly, it is worth watching even if you're a complete sceptic.

EDIT: just to bring it back to topic a little, there's some very interesting footage of some high level US politicians taking part in a secret religious cult and performing a fake human sacrifice to a giant owl (I kid you not!), with a follow up interview with one of the said politicians that goes quite awry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LosOjos

Look, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I'm having a discussion. I won't be drawn in to your "define every single point you make to the letter", because I don't have to. I'm not looking for followers.

---

You claimed that "extreme atheists" were making some demands on "believers" - which you backed away from when called on it. While you might not define every point to the letter (not that I have asked you to do any such thing), a 'discussion' has to take place around some mutually agreed definition. If you just want to shoot off specious rhetorical jibes though, do carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcstru

You claimed that "extreme atheists" were making some demands on "believers" - which you backed away from when called on it. While you might not define every point to the letter (not that I have asked you to do any such thing), a 'discussion' has to take place around some mutually agreed definition. If you just want to shoot off specious rhetorical jibes though, do carry on.

---

My exact words were: "I also disagree with the "extreme atheists" (granted, no atrocities have been committed by them yet!) who believe that everybody with religious beliefs is a damn fool and should be shook until they denounce all faith."

Clearly, it was not meant literally, I don't really believe there are atheists out there shaking religious folk 'til they're blue in the face (though there may well be!), I was obviously using an analogy to paint a caricature of the kind of person I was referring to, as most people seem to have understood.

This is the last time I'm responding to you now, as I don't have time to hold your hand and painstakingly explain exactly what I mean by every statement I make, nor do I care to.

The implication seemed to be, sans shaking, that these "extreme atheists" want more than simply to state that all such belief is foolish. Either that or it's not a problem of meaning it literally (and I didn't think you meant shaking them), you didn't actually mean ANYTHING.

You don't have to hold my hand, no, but to blame someone else for misinterpreting your lack of clarity is ... a bit rich. Do carry on though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earthling

Several thousand years of human history says........apparently not.

---

There's always a time to start.

That film is so fun it got to be a mickey take they need to get in on the joke. It a bit like the life of Brain but with Muhammad as the focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kernewek-sam

There's always a time to start.

---

Absolutely, completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take an evolutionary step forward to a higher form of human being. Homo Superior or something of that name.

While following it avidly, I'm staying largely out of this discussion. Religious extremity disturbs me deeply, as do the the people who indulge in it.

In fact, religious belief disturbs me, it doesn't have to be very extreme at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Earthling

Absolutely, completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take an evolutionary step forward to a higher form of human being. Homo Superior or something of that name.

While following it avidly, I'm staying largely out of this discussion. Religious extremity disturbs me deeply, as do the the people who indulge in it.

In fact, religious belief disturbs me, it doesn't have to be very extreme at all.

---

I violently agree.

I see France is gearing up for trouble as a French magazine published some more of "those" cartoons.