Essaux
New Member
Religion = intolerance.There is nothing wrong with religion, it's intolerance that is the problem.
No religion = Freedom and tolerance for everything.
Religion = intolerance.There is nothing wrong with religion, it's intolerance that is the problem.
Suddenly when acts are carried out in the name of Islam all religions get drawn into this? Why don't we as a society condemn Islam just like we criticize the Catholic church for covering up child abuse? It's fecking sheepishness. Call a spade a spade.Another thing to thank religion for. Awful, awful news.
There is nothing wrong with religion, it's intolerance that is the problem.
Because this is what happens, this is why Islam is incompatible with Western societies. This is why people are starting to get more and more apprehensive of Islam and of the political establishments as there is nothing done to stop the murder death kill by Islamic extremists.I love how Ricky Gervais trolls Christians whenever something comes up about Gay marraige but yet him nor any other mainstream comedian don't have the balls to criticize Islam when people massacre people in the name of Muhammed.
I love how Ricky Gervais trolls Christians whenever something comes up about Gay marraige but yet him nor any other mainstream comedian don't have the balls to criticize Islam when people massacre people in the name of Muhammed.
English, with its etymological root in Latin.But certain religions promote intolerance. Where do you think the word 'infidel' came from?
Yeah, you seem like a paragon of tolerance.Religion = intolerance.
No religion = Freedom and tolerance for everything.
Mind you people calling people racist for criticising an ideology and a religion are the worst racists of them all. Islam is not a race, there are white, arab, black and asian muslims.Might have something to do with the fact that people are promptly called racists when they do.
I love how Ricky Gervais trolls Christians whenever something comes up about Gay marraige but yet him nor any other mainstream comedian don't have the balls to criticize Islam when people massacre people in the name of Muhammed.
Exactly.Might have something to do with the fact that people are promptly called racists when they do.
Are you fecking serious? What about nationalism? You don't think nationalism causes wars just as a much as religion? Look at Northern Ireland. Look at ETA.Religion = intolerance.
No religion = Freedom and tolerance for everything.
I am indeed intolerant of the intolerant. There is no question about it that I would not tolerate Islam and any religion for that matter if it were up to me, since organised religion in its nature is a tyrannical concept.Yeah, you seem like a paragon of tolerance.
What does nationalism have to do with my statement?Exactly.
Are you fecking serious? What about nationalism? You don't think nationalism causes wars just as a much as religion? Look at Northern Ireland. Look at ETA.
No religion = Freedom and tolerance for everything.
You saidWhat does nationalism have to do with my statement?
No religion doesn't mean the alternative is nationalism. What kind of line of thought is that? Seriously.
I'm advocating for common sense. No religion. No nationalism. Instead live a world in which we maintain humanist, secular values. No killing. Focus on prosperity for all, focus on technological advancement, focus on developing civilisation towards a future where we get better, kinder and stronger as a species.
At least it won't be for an imaginary deity which inspires them to kill, murder and destroy everyone who disagree with them and their interpretation.You said
"No religion = Freedom and tolerance for everything."
I'm saying that is bollocks. Man will always fight, be it for nationalism, be it for political rights, be it for oil, be it for money.
No, instead it'll be tangible resources which inspire them to kill and start wars.At least it won't be for an imaginary deity which inspires them to kill, murder and destroy everyone who disagree with them and their interpretation.
It would be a nice start to a civilised world.
Getting rid of religion isn't a a genuine solution. And a superficial analysis of religion isn't particularly helpful either. Your posts smack of "my team is better than yours", which is exactly what Islamists think themselves.I am indeed intolerant of the intolerant. There is no question about it that I would not tolerate Islam and any religion for that matter if it were up to me, since organised religion in its nature is a tyrannical concept.
I do not believe in equality of cultures. I believe that Western Humanist and Secular culture is far superior than any theocracy or religious motivated ideology.
You on the other hand are just a smart ass as your comment above the one I'm replying to indicates.
Care to actually contribute some genuine solutions?
The thing I would argue is that a lot of "religious" wars are a cover for a real motivation. For example, the crusades were to do with greed and control rather than religion. The worry with Islam and the people who carried out these attacks today is that they genuinely seem to be doing it solely for religion.At least it won't be for an imaginary deity which inspires them to kill, murder and destroy everyone who disagree with them and their interpretation.
It would be a nice start to a civilised world.
Rather have a man to be rational about their motives than killing non believers wholesale for the sake of their imaginary deity.No, instead it'll be tangible resources which inspire them to kill and start wars.
More people have been killed in the name of Democracy and by Democratic governments in the last 100 years than by any religion. Human beings are cnuts.At least it won't be for an imaginary deity which inspires them to kill, murder and destroy everyone who disagree with them and their interpretation.
It would be a nice start to a civilised world.
No, the Crusades were about retaking Christian lands. For your information, the Muslims conquered these Christian lands in the Levant (Syria, Libanon etc.) and dispersed the Christians who lived there for centuries (Islam's founded centuries after Christianity). The Crusades then happened to retake those lands, much like the reconquista of Al-Andalusia in Spain.The thing I would argue is that a lot of "religious" wars are a cover for a real motivation. For example, the crusades were to do with greed and control rather than religion. The worry with Islam and the people who carried out these attacks today is that they genuinely seem to be doing it solely for religion.
Ever cared to wonder why it wouldn't have been attacked 50 years ago? How about there weren't as many Muslims in France as there are now. People were also much much more averse to minorities causing any trouble than people are nowadays. That is why it wouldn't have happened 50 years ago.Getting rid of religion isn't a a genuine solution. And a superficial analysis of religion isn't particularly helpful either. Your posts smack of "my team is better than yours", which is exactly what Islamists think themselves.
The atmosphere that has built up around certain movements is fairly new and, most likely, temporary. Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have been attacked 50 years ago. A political movement has taken root amongst some muslim people in modern times. It's more nationalism than religion.
Again, taking land was the goal. Religion was the excuse.No, the Crusades were about retaking Christian lands. For your information, the Muslims conquered these Christian lands in the Levant (Syria, Libanon etc.) and dispersed the Christians who lived there for centuries (Islam's founded centuries after Christianity). The Crusades then happened to retake those lands, much like the reconquista of Al-Andalusia in Spain.
Of course there are plenty of other motives that play a part.
But a nice start would be made by having no religion /religious motives to play a part in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with religion, it's intolerance that is the problem.
That doesn't exempt religion for its horrid teachings, the Qu'ran more so than Christianity's new testament.Again, taking land was the goal. Religion was the excuse.
Which is my worry. Like I said earlier, a lot of wars are called "religious wars" when religion isn't the main issue. Northern Ireland for example. What are the two sides normally called? Catholics and Protestants. When in reality it was nationalism vs. unionism. The worry I have with ISIS and the men who carried out todays attack is that it's solely in the name of religion, and when that occurs it very hard to stop or negotiate.That doesn't exempt religion for its horrid teachings, the Qu'ran more so than Christianity's new testament.
In case of Islam it's not only greed for money and land, it's also because the Qu'ran and hadiths command the spread of the ummah, the caliphate. By force and by other means. These teachings are part of the religion, whether you like it or not.
I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you, Lynk. Now if only I can change your mind about Welbeck...Again, taking land was the goal. Religion was the excuse.
Whether it represents over a Billion people or not is irrelevant, it doesn't take over 1 billion people to cause damage.
I know I posted this before but I think it needs to be seen.
In the case of ISIS what other motive could it be than spreading their religion in order to establish absolute control and dominance over its subjects? Sure the motive is money and land, but it is carried out with the backing of Islamic doctrine. They have established a very purist Islamic caliphate, so how anyone can say it's not religiously motivated is beyond me.Which is my worry. Like I said earlier, a lot of wars are called "religious wars" when religion isn't the main issue. Northern Ireland for example. What are the two sides normally called? Catholics and Protestants. When in reality it was nationalism vs. unionism. The worry I have with ISIS and the men who carried out todays attack is that it's solely in the name of religion, and when that occurs it very hard to stop or negotiate.
I think there's a better chance of ISIS being rational than that happening!I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you, Lynk. Now if only I can change your mind about Welbeck...
This is such a fallacy.Correct. The ultimate root cause is the meddling of outside powers into middle eastern affairs.
The attack may not represent ISLAM, but it was definitely carried out in the name of ISLAM.
That's not a generalisation at all.
In the case of ISIS what other motive could it be than spreading their religion in order to establish absolute control and dominance over its subjects? Sure the motive is money and land, but it is carried out with the backing of Islamic doctrine. They have established a very purist Islamic caliphate, so how anyone can say it's not religiously motivated is beyond me.
This is why I said before, if religion ceased to exist, that would at least be one step into a more civilised world. The other motives would become more transparant then and we could deal with them in a more swift way.
It will never happen though, too many people across the world are drunk and high on religion.