Woolwich Attack

[CAM]

Sadly the ones in power or the loudest voice aren't the peaceful ones, they are the people who insist on Sharia law, religious warfare and fanaticism for a grip on power. This drowns out the peaceful ones, corrupts Islamic youth and the cycle repeats itself. It's also a very dangerous prospect to be a Christian in the Middle East as they get abused, massacred and imprisoned on a daily basis by vigilantes and the law.

[Theblacksheep]

Imagine the outcry if it was a Muslim man that was the victim on the street.

 

BBC News - Mohammed Saleem killed leaving prayers in Small Heath - Sorry just noticed it was linked earlier.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Theblacksheep

[LiamH]

Personally I think the sooner society and humankind grows out of religion and xenophobia the better. Causes so much hatred and chaos with little to no gain for humanity at all. If only it was a simple task to ban organised religion

[Flatpackhamster]

Personally I think the sooner society and humankind grows out of religion and xenophobia the better. Causes so much hatred and chaos with little to no gain for humanity at all. If only it was a simple task to ban organised religion

 

Atheists can be just as bad. Stalin was an atheist. People will carry out brutal acts in the name of an atheist system or demonstrate bravery and generosity in the name of a religious one.

 

It comes down to the individual at the end of the day.

 

And if you want us to 'grow out of xenophobia' I think you're going to be bitterly disappointed. Our inherent nature is tribal and has been for half a million years. You can't just wish that away.

 

You'd have as much success just banning dickheads as banning organised religion. We're wired for it, like it or not. Again, part of our evolutionary heritage.

[pcstru]

Atheists can be just as bad. Stalin was an atheist.

 

I look forward to your evidence that Stalin perpetrated his crimes in the name of "atheism".

[Flatpackhamster]

I look forward to your evidence that Stalin perpetrated his crimes in the name of "atheism".

 

It's like you didn't understand the words in my post.

[LosOjos]

It's like you didn't understand the words in my post.

 

It's like you picked an irrelevant fact out of mid air...

[pcstru]

It's like you didn't understand the words in my post.

 

You could try using words which make some sense or form a sentence which is a true reflection of the world. It might even make a pleasant change.

[Flatpackhamster]

It's like you picked an irrelevant fact out of mid air...

 

Why is it irrelevant? It's a good way to demonstrate that religion doesn't make you a bad person and atheism doesn't make you a good person.

[Flatpackhamster]

You could try using words which make some sense or form a sentence which is a true reflection of the world. It might even make a pleasant change.

 

Sorry, I forgot who I'm dealing with.

 

GOD NOT MAKE MAN BAD NOT GOD NOT MAKE MAN GOOD HURRR.

 

 

I hope that's clearer.

[LiamH]

Atheists can be just as bad. Stalin was an atheist. People will carry out brutal acts in the name of an atheist system or demonstrate bravery and generosity in the name of a religious one.

 

It comes down to the individual at the end of the day.

 

And if you want us to 'grow out of xenophobia' I think you're going to be bitterly disappointed. Our inherent nature is tribal and has been for half a million years. You can't just wish that away.

 

You'd have as much success just banning dickheads as banning organised religion. We're wired for it, like it or not. Again, part of our evolutionary heritage.

 

Stalin didn't commit crimes in the name of atheism, yes he tried weaken the religious hold on Russia since that was the main point of power for his rivals, once he was in power he actually reintroduced the church's and reelected a church patriarch.

 

The fact is that i can't recall any horrendous acts carried out in the name of atheism where as the number of acts carried out in the name of religion is too many to count. I understand that it is impossible to eradicate all "evil" people, but denying them a platform to gain support is always going to be a step in the right direction.

 

Edit:

 

Sorry, I forgot who I'm dealing with.

 

GOD NOT MAKE MAN BAD NOT GOD NOT MAKE MAN GOOD HURRR.

 

 

I hope that's clearer.

 

I agree, religion doesn't give people morals, but they're are very few things that can make moral people behave immorally, religion and patriotism are the two major ways the (gullible) people are persuaded to commit these acts.

[/off topic rant]

Edited May 23, 2013 by LiamH

[sted]

Why is it irrelevant? It's a good way to demonstrate that religion doesn't make you a bad person and atheism doesn't make you a good person.

 

well no but eating haribo dosent either and is about as relevant. The difference is people dont start wars and generally behave like people with no morals or conscience in the name of haribo. Religion might not be a force for evil but it has a bad track record in that department.

[john]

Very sad day, I was told by a colleague I might want to look at the TV in the kitchen area as I actually live in Woolwich and very close to the scene of the incident.

 

What annoyed me more is what happened later on that night with the protesting and kicking off in the town centre! I missed it as I was in central London until late but people were kicking off, abusing police etc... the EDL have photos on the twitter as did the BBC and other news sites, it is not going to solve anything "rioting" in the fairly newly refurbished town / market area of Woolwich all it does is make people have bad feelings. Having armed police all around last night and then all the news helicopters above this morning was uncalled for sad time but the more attention it gets the more the miniority who think this is a reason to fight have as they will keep getting attention.

 

Sad day though with the loss of that mans life.

[Flatpackhamster]

Stalin didn't commit crimes in the name of atheism, yes he tried weaken the religious hold on Russia since that was the main point of power for his rivals, once he was in power he actually reintroduced the church's and reelected a church patriarch.

 

Stalin and Mao both saw established religion as a threat to their power bases. But they ought to be salutary lessons as to what happens when you get rid of religion as an established power base. You end up with religion in another name, the cult of the individual - Stalin or Mao. The same applies in North Korea where the Cult of the Leader exists.

 

Crimes committed by Stalin and those who did his bidding aren't committed 'in the name of atheism' but they are committed by, and for, an atheist who persecuted the religious just as assiduously as he did anyone else. Would a truly religious individual have carried out such brutal acts against a church which represented his God? Of course not. So how do you separate a crime by or for an atheist from a crime 'in the name of atheism'? @witch wrote earlier that the Muslims who beheaded this poor soldier in Woolwich couldn't be Muslims because Islam doesn't allow them to do what they did. Yet they claim to have acted in the name of Islam.

 

 

The fact is that i can't recall any horrendous acts carried out in the name of atheism where as the number of acts carried out in the name of religion is too many to count.

 

And look at the flip side. In the name of religion, people have made huge sacrifices for other people. Can you name anyone carrying out huge sacrifices for someone else 'in the name of atheism'? I can't. I can't think of anyone standing up and saying 'I give my life for random fluctations in the universe'.

 

The sacrifice and the violence of religion are an inherent part of it and there's no way to separate them. You lose one, you lose the other.

 

Edit:

 

I agree, religion doesn't give people morals, but they're are very few things that can make moral people behave immorally, religion and patriotism are the two major ways the (gullible) people are persuaded to commit these acts.

[/off topic rant]

 

But religion and patriotism also create tolerance amongst people for other people with whom they would share nothing in common.

 

It's no co-incidence that religion arose once social groups became too large for a single individual to easily manage, and that patriotism arose once societies became too large for religion to easily manage.

 

If you get rid of religion and patriotism, you scrap any reason for people to look out for each other or work together for a common goal.

[LeMarchand]

Does anyone who thinks that if there were no religion (in the "deity worshipping" sense) really think that people wouldn't find another reason to hate another bunch of people?

[Theblacksheep]

Does anyone who thinks that if there were no religion (in the "deity worshipping" sense) really think that people wouldn't find another reason to hate another bunch of people?

 

Would removing religion stop the west invading other countries? Would it stop the murder of innocent civilians? Would it stop people wanting retaliation?

[LosOjos]

Stalin and Mao both saw established religion as a threat to their power bases. But they ought to be salutary lessons as to what happens when you get rid of religion as an established power base. You end up with religion in another name, the cult of the individual - Stalin or Mao. The same applies in North Korea where the Cult of the Leader exists.

 

I don't think anybody has said that religion makes people evil so I don't really know where this is all coming from, but what we can see is that terrible things have been done "in the name of $deity."

 

Also, although I disagree with aforementioned cult worship, it seems to me that's slightly less insane than devout religious worship - at least we can undeniably state that Stalin and Mao existed!

 

And look at the flip side. In the name of religion, people have made huge sacrifices for other people. Can you name anyone carrying out huge sacrifices for someone else 'in the name of atheism'? I can't. I can't think of anyone standing up and saying 'I give my life for random fluctations in the universe'.

 

You're confusing atheism with religion - of course an atheist has never done a great deed "in the name of Atheism" because atheism isn't a tangible (provable or otherwise) thing! However, many thousands of people do great things every day simply because they are good people, not because they expect to be rewarded in the afterlife.

 

It's no co-incidence that religion arose once social groups became too large for a single individual to easily manage, and that patriotism arose once societies became too large for religion to easily manage.

 

I agree, it is no coincidence. Man made religion as a way to control the masses, and boy did it work!

 

If you get rid of religion and patriotism, you scrap any reason for people to look out for each other or work together for a common goal.

 

I'm hopeful that one day society on the whole will be intelligent enough to see the benefit to working together in this life rather than hoping for something better in the afterlife.

[TechMonkey]

i can't recall any horrendous acts carried out in the name of atheism

]

 

I dunno, some of Dawkins books are fairly horrendous!!

[Flatpackhamster]

'm hopeful that one day society on the whole will be intelligent enough to see the benefit to working together in this life rather than hoping for something better in the afterlife.

 

I suspect that the only way that will happen is for the earth to be invaded by aliens. At that point the entire human race would work together, obliterate the aliens - and then turn on each other again with shiny new PodBlasters or whatever they've salvaged from the alien death ships. Either that, or once they've defeated the aliens, they'll develop interstellar flight and spread out in to the galaxy - and then the galaxy really will be in trouble.

[nyiss]

This news is absolutely disgusting. Nobody should have to suffer like that and My thoughts go to his loved ones. What really angers me is the way people reacted to it. The attention should be on the man who died but 99% of what I have seen focuses on a whole religion or a whole race. Reading comments about how Muslim = murder its hard to see how they are any different than the two men who singled out the poor man just because he was a soldier. Generalising is dangerous not religion. Bad people are bad whatever they attach their hate to. We have had police patrolling our primary school all day because it's attached to a mosque which a huge number of our students attend. They are there incase there is an attempt at revenge by people who believe every Muslim is to blame for this horrible incident. They should try having to reassure a 6 year old child who is scared because an grown adult has pointed them out as being of 'the same beliefs' as cold blooded murderers!

[localzuk]

Does anyone who thinks that if there were no religion (in the "deity worshipping" sense) really think that people wouldn't find another reason to hate another bunch of people?

 

Nope, but at least people wouldn't be able to blame their insanity on imaginary beings...

 

It'd come down to resources, culture and countries then.

[LiamH]

Stalin and Mao both saw established religion as a threat to their power bases. But they ought to be salutary lessons as to what happens when you get rid of religion as an established power base. You end up with religion in another name, the cult of the individual - Stalin or Mao. The same applies in North Korea where the Cult of the Leader exists.

 

Those leaders of the cult don't claim to be immortal super-beings who can read your mind, I admit it would be next to impossible to eradicate organized religion in a instant like the a fore mentioned attempts, thats why i said i hope humanity grows out of religion.

 

Crimes committed by Stalin and those who did his bidding aren't committed 'in the name of atheism' but they are committed by, and for, an atheist who persecuted the religious just as assiduously as he did anyone else. Would a truly religious individual have carried out such brutal acts against a church which represented his God? Of course not. So how do you separate a crime by or for an atheist from a crime 'in the name of atheism'? @witch wrote earlier that the Muslims who beheaded this poor soldier in Woolwich couldn't be Muslims because Islam doesn't allow them to do what they did. Yet they claim to have acted in the name of Islam.

 

They were also by, and for a man with a mustache. Religion has a vast and horrendous history of persecution of religious people, often encouraged and ordered by the head of the religion, does your opinion of what the bible means supersede that of popes? Its all well and good saying "well they aren't "proper" Christians because.." when clearly they believe they are, most religions are a pick and mix due to the contradictory writings and outdated world views.

 

The point about "Would a truly religious individual have carried out such brutal acts against a church which represented his God? Of course not." is complete rubbish, Christian, Jewish and Islamic people all worship the same "deity" yet are quite happy to knock 10 bells out of each other. The Pope is quite happy to tell people who worship the same deity, in the same church that "condoms cause AIDS" sentencing millions to death.

 

And look at the flip side. In the name of religion, people have made huge sacrifices for other people. Can you name anyone carrying out huge sacrifices for someone else 'in the name of atheism'? I can't. I can't think of anyone standing up and saying 'I give my life for random fluctations in the universe'.

 

That's because atheism is not a cause, its an absence of belief, its like saying nobody does charity work in the name of "the nonexistence of the purple unicorn", plenty of atheist people have done great deeds for charity, Bill Gates has contributed billions of dollars to charity in the past few years, wouldn't surprise me if that is a higher figure than the Roman Catholic Church, which is the wealthiest organization on the planet partly due to the pillaging and plundering of the past.

 

 

But religion and patriotism also create tolerance amongst people for other people with whom they would share nothing in common.

 

It's no co-incidence that religion arose once social groups became too large for a single individual to easily manage, and that patriotism arose once societies became too large for religion to easily manage.

 

If you get rid of religion and patriotism, you scrap any reason for people to look out for each other or work together for a common goal.

 

I would strongly disagree with that, I'm not religious or overly patriotic and i wouldn't wish harm on anyone, or refuse to help anyone in need. If that's your view on humanity i'm sorry that it is so bleak

Edited May 23, 2013 by LiamH

[edutech4schools]

If you get rid of religion and patriotism, you scrap any reason for people to look out for each other or work together for a common goal.

 

So you need religion to look out for each other.

Edited May 23, 2013 by edutech4schools

[ConradJones]

this is going the same way as the thatcher thread

[Flatpackhamster]

Those leaders of the cult don't claim to be immortal super-beings who can read your mind, I admit it would be next to impossible to eradicate organized religion in a instant like the a fore mentioned attempts, thats why i said i hope humanity grows out of religion.

 

I hope it doesn't. The reason I hope it doesn't is that if it does then it's grown in to a far more efficient means of social control.

 

 

They were also by, and form a man with a mustache. Religion has a vast and horrendous history of persecution of religious people, often encouraged and ordered by the head of the religion, does your opinion of what the bible means supersede that of popes?

 

Yes, yes, I recognise that you think religion makes people do bad stuff. My point is that I think that the actions of the people were dictated not by the religion but by the nature of the people themselves. I think that some people would do bad things regardless, and some good things regardless. Religion is no more and no less than a tool and it is how that tool is wielded that matters, not the existence of the tool itself.

 

I would strong disagree with that, I'm not religious or overly patriotic and i wouldn't wish harm on anyone, or refuse to help anyone in need. If that's your view on humanity i'm sorry that it is so bleak

 

Wouldn't you? What if someone cut up your mum with an axe? Would you wish harm on them then? What if you had a daughter to feed and were nearly out of food and someone came to you and asked you for your last bit of food? Would you refuse to help them or let your daughter starve? Would you kill to feed your family?

 

Is it bleak to recognise the feral nature of the animal beneath the civilised exterior? Three meals away from anarchy, as the saying goes. It's only when you realise that it's there that you can learn to contain it.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Flatpackhamster