RE: Paris under attack

RE: Paris under attack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 11:51:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/religious-children-meaner-than-agnostic-and-atheist-kids-study-finds/story-e6frg6so-1227597959661 An international study has found children in religious families are meaner than their godless peers. The report, published today in the journal Current Biology, challenges notions that equate piety with charity. The study is here, for anyone who might care to have a look at it. Other studies have produced different findings... Thinking About God Leads To Generosity, Study Suggests Thoughts related to God cultivate cooperative behaviour and generosity, according to University of British Columbia psychology researchers... "These are compelling findings that have substantial impact on the study of social behaviour because they draw a causal relationship between religion and acting morally -- a topic of some debate. They by no means indicate that religion is necessary for moral behaviour, but it can make a substantial contribution." Reminding people of their religious belief system reduces hostility, study shows New research conducted at York University, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, may shed some light on religion's actual influence on believers -- and the news is positive... Across nine different experiments with 910 participants, the results consistently supported the hypothesis for Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus alike. The religiously reminded were significantly less hostile and punitive K.

MariaB -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 11:52:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b were the attacks in Paris carried out by Atheists? As none of the apologists for religion seem prepared to answer this question, I will. No the attacks in Paris were not carried out by Atheists. In fact, the people who carried out the attacks - members of the Islamic State organisation - are exclusively religious in their motivation and inspiration, according to their own account. In their view, they were acting on behalf of their God (Allah). The stated goal of the organisation they belong to and believe in is the (re-)creation of the Islamic Caliphate, a medieval theocracy. So it is, IMHO, fair, accurate and reasonable to state that the Paris attacks were carried out by believers for religious reasons and that the attackers believed themselves to be performing some kind of religious obligation or duty in their attacks on the people of Paris. Actualy I did answer it. I will elaberate some though. ISIS is a deviant offshoot of Islam as representative as the Nation of Islam. ISIS has murdered more Moslems than Christians. To hold ISIS up as representative of all relegious people is like holding the KGB up as an example of the typical atheist. The fact that a group, like ISIS, does something claiming to be in the name of religion does not mean they follow the tenants of that religion. Totally this ^ Their claim to be Islamic is a false one; ISIS is little more than a gang of criminal thugs that have attached their name to Islam in an excuse to rob, pillage and murder. Its time the West stopped naming them Islamic and its time all 'real' Muslims denounced them as nothing more than a mafia type organization that have nothing to do with their religion.

BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 12:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b were the attacks in Paris carried out by Atheists? As none of the apologists for religion seem prepared to answer this question, I will. No the attacks in Paris were not carried out by Atheists. In fact, the people who carried out the attacks - members of the Islamic State organisation - are exclusively religious in their motivation and inspiration, according to their own account. In their view, they were acting on behalf of their God (Allah). The stated goal of the organisation they belong to and believe in is the (re-)creation of the Islamic Caliphate, a medieval theocracy. So it is, IMHO, fair, accurate and reasonable to state that the Paris attacks were carried out by believers for religious reasons and that the attackers believed themselves to be performing some kind of religious obligation or duty in their attacks on the people of Paris. Actualy I did answer it. I will elaberate some though. ISIS is a deviant offshoot of Islam as representative as the Nation of Islam. ISIS has murdered more Moslems than Christians. To hold ISIS up as representative of all relegious people is like holding the KGB up as an example of the typical atheist. The fact that a group, like ISIS, does something claiming to be in the name of religion does not mean they follow the tenants of that religion. Totally this ^ Their claim to be Islamic is a false one; ISIS is little more than a gang of criminal thugs that have attached their name to Islam in an excuse to rob, pillage and murder. Its time the West stopped naming them Islamic and its time all 'real' Muslims denounced them as nothing more than a mafia type organization that have nothing to do with their religion. I will point out again. Most of their victims are Muslims. The only people really trying to destroy them are Muslims.

NorthernGent -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 12:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Chamberlain followed suit with his predecessors from centuries back. The British policy was always to avoid war at all costs (almost all costs). See Napoleon, WW1, WW2 etc. Not true. The britts had declared war on germany when germany attacked poland. They had sent an expiditioary force to france to fight the germans. I am simply pointing out that calling the french cowards when it was the britts who ran away is historically inaccurate. It is absolutely true. I think it was me who posted on here that the French defended the ports while British soldiers, and I should add hundreds of thousands of French soldiers too, escaped to England. Britain risked her whole reputation to avoid a conflict with Germany. She threw Czechoslovakia under the bus and a couple more in a vain attempt to keep a lid on it, but once the cat was well and truly out of the bag in the sense that Germany for Germans was not the aim then it was felt it had to be stopped - otherwise they would take control of France and threaten our navigation of the seas. What you term as 'running away', I would classify as follows: Germany had been preparing for war since 1933 and beyond; France had also spent a boatload of money on defensive armaments; Britain on the other hand had completely demilitarised since WW1 for two reasons: firstly, we have never had a large standing army and always believed that armed forces should be voluntary not conscripted unless really backed into a corner (unlike say Germany, France and Russia for example who had huge regular armies at the outbreak of WW1 - into the millions - compared with Britain's 100,000 professional soldiers); secondly, we had no money - we had borrowed huge sums from the Americans to use for ourselves and to pass to the French and Italians to keep them fighting in WW1. We didn't get that money back and we spent a lot of our reserves. The French actually tactically fucked the whole thing up. They believed that the Germans couldn't march through the Ardennes. They were told the Germans were coming through the Ardennes and simply refused to believe it when the gap could have been closed as there was time. Instead the Allied armies went merrily marching into Belgium and once the Germans were through the Ardennes it was too late as they were then behind the Allied armies and to the front - which in any war is a recipe for disaster. But, yes, let's be fair, the French fought bravely to help British and French soldiers escape to England.

NorthernGent -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 12:48:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Let's keep protecting this religion. I'm not protecting any religion. It's merely a reasonable proposition that the vast majority of people have no design on murder. Not only is it a reasonable proposition, it is supported by facts. We have 2.5 million muslims in England and 99.9% of them have never engaged in any such acts. When you can show me a pattern among this 'religion', then I'll agree. In the meantime - nothing you have to say is remotely interesting.

NorthernGent -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 12:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 In my personal experience, although there seem to be alot honour killing with Hindu communities in the UK. I don't know why. A lot of honour killings in England?! There are a few a year or something. Still too many, but you'll see a thousand times more battered and murdered wives among 'Christian/white' couples. Greta, you should re-evaluate your whole state of mind as you make no sense whatsoever. Just lots of noise with no grounding in reality.

MariaB -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 1:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I will point out again. Most of their victims are Muslims. The only people really trying to destroy them are Muslims. I don't know if you are aware of the history of ISIS and I'm certainly not going to teach you how to suck eggs but for those who don't know...ISIS have been here before; in fact ISIS never went away, they just hibernated in the dessert. ISIS consider themselves Wahhabists, though their history and reputation questions that. Wahhabism started back in the 14th century by a religious scholar called Muhammad Ibn al Wahhabi who believed Islam was too fractured and set about trying to uniform it. This all remained peaceful up until the late 17th century when his predecessor, Abd al Wahhabi, mapped out a Takir (A written version of Muslim purity). He was subsequently exiled from his homeland and took refuge in the Saudi dessert with a notorious Bedouin tribe led by a ruthless leader called Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud saw this Takir as a new opportunity to rape and pillage neighbouring towns and villages; to murder all Shi'ites and Suffis and make armies from submissive Sunni Muslims. His tribe had always raped and pillaged but now they could do it under the banner of Jihad. In 1801 they massacred thousands of Shiites in the holy city of Karbala, Iraq. They destroyed shrines including the shrine of Muhammad’s grandson and they took thousands into slavery. Before long, the Ottoman empire rose up against the Wahhabis and pushed them back into the dessert and here they remained until the west poured in millions of dollars for Saudi oil. The predecessors of Ibn Saud became the Saudi Royals we know today. ISIS are not Saudi royals though the Saudi royals (who have adopted the true form of Wahhabism) certainly have blood lines running directly back to Ibn Saud, the corrupt Bedouin who caused devastation across the Middle East and this is why Saudi Arabia is supplying great wealth and weaponry to the ISIS of today. ISIS rose from the remaining Bedouin tribes still living in the desserts. When you understand their history, its easy to see these murdering despots are nothing more than a growing Mafia organization.

Marc2b -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 2:11:34 PM)
quote: Your absolute faith that mankind is the penacle of knowledge and wisdom, and that there can be nothing greater. You presume too much. I've make no such assertion. Nor would I make any such assertion. It is people who believe that they have a monopoly on the truth who are the greatest danger to human happiness. My whole philosophy of life, the universe and everything is (in part) based upon the notion that there are limits to our knowledge, both as individuals and as a species. quote: I say you are evangelical because you demand that everyone believe as you do. No I do not. Ultimately I don't give a shit what nonsense people believe as long as they do no harm to others. Their actions, however, are another matter. Christians can gather in their churches and scream about how god hates homosexuals all they want. I think they are fucking hateful idiots, but I respect their right to their belief (and let us be one hundred percent clear that the notion that god hates homosexuals is a belief and not a fact as there is no evidence to back the notion up (or even affirm the premise). But, when those same Christians try to deny homosexuals their rights, then we have a problem. Same thing with Muslims. If they want to believe that god demands that they kill non-believers, I don't care. I will certainly criticize the immorality of such a belief but as long as they don't act upon it . . . so what? When they act upon the belief, however, as Daesh currently is . . . again, that is a different matter. quote: Your mindset has more in common with the jihadists than most Christians do. Oh, please.

Marc2b -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 2:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Now you're just making shit up. I haven't made any such assertion. I don't care if you've ever made any such assertion. It is not relevant to this issue at hand. Your indignity comes across as feigned and in the service of a diversion. Well maybe you should care, because you claimed that I did, and you're insinuating as much here. Feigned, eh? Well fuck you, bozo. I don't like liars, and I especially don't like people who try to imply that I'm one. quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Until then, your assertion of a positive (god exists) requires evidence. So far there is none to suggest any sort of a supreme being.... As for the rest of your post, everything you're repeating has already been covered. K. I'm not sure if this is worth the time and effort of a proper response. There is so much wrong here, it's hard to know where to begin. We'll see how mellow I'm feeling after dinner.

BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 5:07:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I will point out again. Most of their victims are Muslims. The only people really trying to destroy them are Muslims. I don't know if you are aware of the history of ISIS and I'm certainly not going to teach you how to suck eggs but for those who don't know...ISIS have been here before; in fact ISIS never went away, they just hibernated in the dessert. ISIS consider themselves Wahhabists, though their history and reputation questions that. Wahhabism started back in the 14th century by a religious scholar called Muhammad Ibn al Wahhabi who believed Islam was too fractured and set about trying to uniform it. This all remained peaceful up until the late 17th century when his predecessor, Abd al Wahhabi, mapped out a Takir (A written version of Muslim purity). He was subsequently exiled from his homeland and took refuge in the Saudi dessert with a notorious Bedouin tribe led by a ruthless leader called Ibn Saud. Ibn Saud saw this Takir as a new opportunity to rape and pillage neighbouring towns and villages; to murder all Shi'ites and Suffis and make armies from submissive Sunni Muslims. His tribe had always raped and pillaged but now they could do it under the banner of Jihad. In 1801 they massacred thousands of Shiites in the holy city of Karbala, Iraq. They destroyed shrines including the shrine of Muhammad’s grandson and they took thousands into slavery. Before long, the Ottoman empire rose up against the Wahhabis and pushed them back into the dessert and here they remained until the west poured in millions of dollars for Saudi oil. The predecessors of Ibn Saud became the Saudi Royals we know today. ISIS are not Saudi royals though the Saudi royals (who have adopted the true form of Wahhabism) certainly have blood lines running directly back to Ibn Saud, the corrupt Bedouin who caused devastation across the Middle East and this is why Saudi Arabia is supplying great wealth and weaponry to the ISIS of today. ISIS rose from the remaining Bedouin tribes still living in the desserts. When you understand their history, its easy to see these murdering despots are nothing more than a growing Mafia organization. I am not only aware of this but I posted it about 2 years ago. I consider ISIS to be evil, and choosing select protions of the Koran to justfy thier actions, but I consider them to be as truely Muslim as I considered the Waco people to be truely Christian, (or the IRA for that matter).

kdsub -> RE: Paris under attack (11/21/2015 5:26:09 PM)
Greta... I will join you and be labeled a racist... it seems the truth is not politically correct on these boards..will the hell with them. I cannot understand why so many people on these boards continue to defend…and yes they are defending a religion that; Breeds terrorists like no other religion today In many parts of the world crushes the human rights of its women Condemns to death any Muslim that denies the existence of God or the authority of Muhammad or decides to worship another religion. Stones, beheads, mutilates in their justice system Persecutes homosexuals Sexually mutilates its young women Honor killings Forced marriages The murder and mutilation of young girls attempting to get an education. Beat their women who dress incorrectly Punish rape victims Rape of children as young as 7 in marriage. Stoning of illegitimate children Force non-Muslims to pay tribute Deny non-Muslims the right to participate in their goverment I could go on and on… Now of course the above are not practiced by all Muslims but some if not all of the above are practiced in Pakistan…Afghanistan…Saudi Arabia… Iraq… Syria.. and many more Muslim majority nations Otherwise a far cry from a tiny minority… The vast majority of Islam practices one or more of the above to one degree or another. Islam is a curse on this earth and needs to be changed and brought into the 21st century… I would hope by education but if not then they will eventually make us do it by force just to protect our societies and rights. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Paris under attack (11/22/2015 10:43:23 AM)
You aren't interested in truth. You just repeat the same inaccurate assessments in disregard for actual data, whining you're being unfairly labeled. Reading your posts is in fact the proof. And you probably will go on and on. That's the way with the blindness of self-righteous.

kdsub -> RE: Paris under attack (11/22/2015 11:18:41 AM)
I am not whining... I do not care what you or anyone else thinks. My opinion is just that, backed by obvious fact... It just so happens that right now in the US it is the majority opinion.

Musicmystery -> RE: Paris under attack (11/22/2015 11:22:27 AM)
We're aware you don't. That's very clear.

Marini -> RE: Paris under attack (11/22/2015 12:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b were the attacks in Paris carried out by Atheists? As none of the apologists for religion seem prepared to answer this question, I will. No the attacks in Paris were not carried out by Atheists. In fact, the people who carried out the attacks - members of the Islamic State organisation - are exclusively religious in their motivation and inspiration, according to their own account. In their view, they were acting on behalf of their God (Allah). The stated goal of the organisation they belong to and believe in is the (re-)creation of the Islamic Caliphate, a medieval theocracy. So it is, IMHO, fair, accurate and reasonable to state that the Paris attacks were carried out by believers for religious reasons and that the attackers believeds themselves to be performing some kind of religious obligation or duty in their attacks on the people of Paris. Great point tweak. Many people often fail to state, that they DO have a "belief system". It is appalling, but the "belief system" exists.

lovmuffin -> RE: Paris under attack (11/22/2015 12:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You aren't interested in truth. You just repeat the same inaccurate assessments in disregard for actual data, whining you're being unfairly labeled. Reading your posts is in fact the proof. And you probably will go on and on. That's the way with the blindness of self-righteous. I read his post. How is his post, in and of itself, *proof*, of any inaccuracies ? What inaccuracies and what disregard for actual data ? Or are you just making a bold statement without anything to back it up ?

Musicmystery -> RE: Paris under attack (11/22/2015 12:41:06 PM)
So explain how a small group of medieval state builders -- who are fighting Muslims, by the way -- equals Islam is at war with other religions. THESE idiots are. Why don't other Muslims denounce them? They do. A LOT. In the US, people aren't listening. After all, many of them are being attacked by ISIS. That's what they're fleeing. Too bad many on in the US are bent on siding with ISIS against them...simply because they're Muslims, even though that point is irrelevant, as it's other Muslims doing the attacking. That any of this even needs to be said is just sad. And the real thing we should be fearing and fighting. If people were saying "Yeah, black crime is greater than other races, it's their culture," you'd be going ballistic, and rightly so--that would be a flat out racist (and ignorant) stance. And socially dangerous. When the gun nuts here are doing back-flips to defend the latest lunatic, they always point out (even though no one is doing that) "you can't condemn all gun owners over the actions of the crazies." And (other than their paranoia anyone is saying that), they're right--that would be an irrational stance. Yet, if it's a Muslim, bam! It's all Muslims. And anyone who points out how ridiculous that is become "an apologist." The scariness is right here in America. And it's not Muslim.

Marc2b -> RE: Paris under attack (11/24/2015 12:00:46 PM)
quote: Well maybe you should care, because you claimed that I did, and you're insinuating as much here. Feigned, eh? Well fuck you, bozo. I don't like liars, and I especially don't like people who try to imply that I'm one. Well, let’s see here. You jumped into this (post 541) in response to a post (538) I made to CreativeDominant, giggling over a typo and already hostile and indignant over the Santa analogy. Now, I’ll confess that at this point I did NOT presume you to have arrived without any context to the larger debate. That is, I did not presume an unreasonable hatred of the god/Santa analogy in and of itself, that there was no reason for your position. I presumed there was a reason. Rather than discuss my counter points (post 542), you made an assertion (post 543): quote: The only actual fact that remains is that your statement is simply an unsupported assertion. The burden is on you to prove that it's true. This is a rather odd assertion. You are essentially demanding that I support an unsupportable assertion (the same as CreativeDominant). I could only presume that you missed the point entirely - that an assertion that is unsupportable by its very nature, such as the non-existence of magic beings, automatically shifts the burden of proof. So I tried again. Now remember, I was operating under the presumption that you were not possessed of a bizarre, pathological hatred, of the god/Santa analogy in and of itself, that you actually had a position you were coming from. . . you know, like a normal person. Given that I was arguing against the existence of god, your inability (or refusal) to understand how burden of proof works, and your hostility . . . it seemed reasonable that you were arguing in favor of the existence of god. So I was mistaken. So sue me (but remember they usually don’t allow horses in court houses). Your implication that I was lying, or accusing you of lying is unwarranted. So, to sum up: You most emphatically do not assert a positive (that god exists). You do demand that unsupportable assertions be supported. Fuck the god/Santa analogy - not because it successfully demonstrates why demands to prove the non-existence of god are useless but just because. Okay, then.

Greta75 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/24/2015 6:36:35 PM)
quote: So explain how a small group of medieval state builders -- who are fighting Muslims, by the way Within their own fractions, they have deviation to interpretation and some even follow other prophets other than Muhammed. They will naturally try to kill each other, as anybody who is not following their sect's interpretation of Islam is the enemy. In Indonesia, the government who follows the more mainstream version of Islam, is prosecuting a tiny sect of Islam that follows a different prophet. All because they refuse to adhere to the mainstream version. And as I have explained in many other post. Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, or Judaism or whatever, they are just another interpretation of the same religion. These 3 all worship the same damn god. And if that god exist, I am totally putting him responsible for having such an inefficient way to put out his message, that humans are killing each other in disagreement of what that message is.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/24/2015 7:57:05 PM)
Hear, Hear Greta

Page: << < prev 28 29 30 [31] 32 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125