"A Society that believes in nothing?"

[zanwan]

"thou will have no other God but Me"

I'd forgotten that one. Only a tyrant demands allegiance. Any half decent god would have asked us to follow. But then those words were never written by any god; they were written by man. (It's a pretty fair bet that it wasn't a woman. ) I sense the foul stench of politics creeping in already.

I think with your views, you better hope their really is no God coz your just making God angrier everytime you type slating the big guy

If God exists, your in big trouble Space cat

Anyway I think faith has always been a force for good and I will admit i know many parents who are Muslims who told their kids not to even think about getting involved with these riots. Saying that most muslim kids i know have been raised with such strong religious and moral values that they wouldnt wish to get involved in this.

I assume the same would be said for children raised in strong Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh households. Religion does have a very storng and positive influence on its followers.

I'm sure religion can be misused and wars in the past have been down to religion, but many modern day wars especially those fought by the west in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia etc have been more to do with nationalism and the spread of "democracy" through extreme violence. Even the two world wars were largely down to nationalist extremism as opposed to religion.

 

[Space cat]

--just making God angrier everytime you type slating the big guy

Actually, I was slating the bad men who use the concept of "God" to further their own ends.

 

[cantaloup63]

--just making God angrier everytime you type slating the big guy

Actually, I was slating the bad men who use the concept of "God" to further their own ends.

It does seem to be an all too common situation that religion "professionals" are the most irreligious of us all.

 

[Alarm]

I

I assume the same would be said for children raised in strong Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh households. Religion does have a very storng and positive influence on its followers.

Also for non religious familys with strong values too. Why should religion have the monopoly on being well behaved? Its the cause of more wars than anything else.
In fact if it was banned, most of the sh1te going on would be stopped overnight!

 

[Nige F]

[The way I read the atricle, I get the impression it was her father who jacked up in a KFC - but the article is poorly written IMO.

Perhaps it would make more sense, written like this....

as.

jacked off

 

[cantaloup63]

I'm sort of with Alarm on this one. It is entirely possible for the human species to agree to live together with commonly agreed moral and ethical codes which basically take on the "live and let live" attitude without feeling the need to have to follow some curiously manmade and largely b@stardised religions which as I've argued elsewhere completely contradict their own existence by their very precepts.

 

[Susiejb]

Quote Space cat:

..... But then those words were never written by any god; they were written by man. It's a pretty fair bet that it wasn't a woman.


Obviously Space cat ..... if it had been written by a woman it would have been full of common sense, and we wouldn't be having this argument

(why do my smiley things not copy when I copy and paste )

 

[cantaloup63]

Obviously Space cat ..... if it had been written by a woman it would have been full of common sense, and we wouldn't be having this argument

On the contrary, I think that most if not all religions are based on arguments created and continued by women, and their cunning desire to remain non-responsible for the whole thing. "Virgin Birth", and hiding themselves in Burkhas springs to mind

It seems a curiousity that the original person involved in "creating" a religion (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed) are all male and thus trying to prove that men aren't as useless as women would like to make out

 

[Susiejb]

oooooh weak argument cantaloup63......must try harder

 

[zanwan]

I

I assume the same would be said for children raised in strong Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh households. Religion does have a very storng and positive influence on its followers.

Also for non religious familys with strong values too. Why should religion have the monopoly on being well behaved? Its the cause of more wars than anything else.
In fact if it was banned, most of the sh1te going on would be stopped overnight!

Oh you athiets have no moral backbone joke!

In terms of religion being the cause of all or most of the wars, i disagree. Religion can and IS used a sa rallying cry and call to arms. However you'll find most wars today are fought over resources and land.

The wars in Africa (Sudan, Cambodia, Sierra Leon etc) are largely to do with Oil, Minerals wealth. Wars in Iraq and Libya were down to the prize of controlling vast amounts of oil and gas reserves. The same with Afghanistan, its all about the oil and gas from the vast reserves recently discovered in the Caspian sea. America have already built the pipeline through Afghanistan into Pakistan!

So in reality, religion has little to do with these wars.

 

[cantaloup63]

So in reality, religion has little to do with these wars.

You are of course correct when you state that non- religious wars have nothing to do with religion. However, this is hardly a defence in support of religion since you have also admitted that there are theologically related armed and violent disputes quite often related to the desire to spread and expand a religion's area of influence to different lands. My personal beef is that these are far more morally corrupt than a desire to control an area for it's mineral or wealth resources, by the very fact that more often than not one is claiming to have the ethical high ground as one proceeds to stick a dagger in a "non-believer's" neck whilst raping his wife and pillaging his goods.

It is, IMO, as insane a stance as any serial killer's attempted justification and just because it is done by large groups of peopler as a "crusade" with some purported theological intellectual egging it all on in the background (and usually at a considerable distance from the battle front) doesn't make it either acceptable nor valid.

 

[Big Tone]

..if it had been written by a woman it would have been full of common sense, and we wouldn't be having this argument

As Robin Williams said, “Only a man would invent a bomb which kills. A woman would invent one that just makes you feel bad for a while”.

My Personal Bible: Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.

Simples – and it saves a lot of time reading rubbish when you could be reading about history or doing something more constructive...

 

[zanwan]

So in reality, religion has little to do with these wars.

You are of course correct when you state that non- religious wars have nothing to do with religion. However, this is hardly a defence in support of religion since you have also admitted that there are theologically related armed and violent disputes quite often related to the desire to spread and expand a religion's area of influence to different lands.

this may have happened in the past but this kind of thing is almost unheard of today from proponents of religion.

The only wars where ideology or belief systems are being spread with violence seem to be those promoting secular liberalism and democracy. These people use extreme violence to promote this, perfect example of this is the attempts to spread western democracy through the east, asia and arabia.

My personal beef is that these are far more morally corrupt than a desire to control an area for it's mineral or wealth resources, by the very fact that more often than not one is claiming to have the ethical high ground as one proceeds to stick a dagger in a "non-believer's" neck whilst raping his wife and pillaging his goods.

this is where Islam differs. The rules of military engagement/military Jihad (Jihad does not mean holy war, it means "struggle") are very clear and there are no disputes over this from Islamic scholars worldwide. These include things like its totally forbidden to target innocent men. Its forbidden to target women, children, animals or the old.

Its forbidden to lay seige to cities. Its forbidden to burn down homes of your enemies, its forbidden to destroy their cattle and crops. Its forbidden to engage in raids where the risk of civilian casualties is high. This is the fundamental requirements of military Jihad. Therefore with that in mind, the barbaric behaviour of suicide bombers, terrorist attacks etc is totally in violation of Islamic rulings. In an Islamic state, those responsible for preparing such attacks would be executed.

 

[cantaloup63]

I thought there was something in the Qu'ran that suggested that infidels lie outside those laudable sentiments and rules of engagement on the battle field, but I've not read it and so am quite probably incorrect.

As for your point about in an Islamic state, people who plot towards suicide bombing etc would be executed. I trust you can see the harsh irony about this - an Islamic (i.e. religion based) state would sanction and use executions, in the name of its religion.

That's an example of the sort of nutty thing that emerges.

 

[zanwan]

I thought there was something in the Qu'ran that suggested that infidels lie outside those laudable sentiments and rules of engagement on the battle field, but I've not read it and so am quite probably incorrect.

No thats definately not true! The Islamic rules of engagement in warfare are universal, they apply to any Muslim soldier regardless of who he/she is fighting.

As for your point about in an Islamic state, people who plot towards suicide bombing etc would be executed. I trust you can see the harsh irony about this - an Islamic (i.e. religion based) state would sanction and use executions, in the name of its religion.

That's an example of the sort of nutty thing that emerges.

Yes, in the name or religion, as a just punishment for their crimes.

The justice system should be there to not only hand out justice, but to protect society.

Criminals MUST be punished for their crimes accordingly. These punishments should also act as a deterrance to others. There is no deterrance to sending a murderer to prison for 20 years when he knows he will be out in 10, sending him to a prison where he will live a relatively comfortable life, have time to socialise, play pool, table top footie, work out in a gym, get training to learn new skills, all whilst the family of the victim suffer and mourn the loss for the rest of their lives. How is this justice?