|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 15 2015 23:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:29 Furikawari wrote:On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational. Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ? I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy. I don't see where I contradict myself? Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're not "believing" in the societal sense (it's not an organized belief), but it's still a belief : you did not have a real reflexion on it. You say you don't want people to kill each others because of simple philosophy. That sounds fair. But what if you had in front of you someone who's sure to die in a few hours, in agonizing pain? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who raped and tortured children, used them as slaves? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who wants to kill you once he gets his hands on a weapon? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? See? It's a belief. A belief in Tolerance and in the - theoreotical - values of France since the Enlightment. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you're a bad person for holding such beliefs, quite the contrary. But it's still a belief.
This is more like a conviction, a belief is when you have no rational arguments and it is not the case, Montesquieu or John Lock didn't throw away stuff without justify them with a lot of arguments, you can be wrong but you can't say there is not foundation and this is totally arbitrary, I guess you should read a bit.
|
Religion has caused so much conflicts. Despite the good intentions of their prophets, most organized religions seem to get twisted into hindrance of progress and science. Maybe it is finally time to stop blaming sub groups of religion for the deaths and come to the realization that the antiquated system designed to stem Tragedy of the Commons.
I've considered myself at least "somewhat" religious or at least not atheist.
My thoughts are with the victims and their families, but I will NOT pray.
|
On November 15 2015 23:38 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:29 Aluminumtribromide wrote:On November 15 2015 23:12 m4ini wrote:On November 15 2015 23:08 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate  Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality? Well, for example, any scientist who does not pay attention to the secondary effects and/or unintended consequences of what he's working on, because he's persuaded that Science can only lead to Good. Any scientist (or anyone for that matter) who thinks that when trying to cure a disease, the psychological aspect, the human aspect, doesn't matter, and that the body is only a mechanical-like thing. Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true, because he thinks that his own view of Science is the one, true view of Science (isn't that the pinnacle of irrationality?) - think Semmelweis. What you describe is being "stubborn". Not irrational. Rationality is based on facts and reason, that's why we nowadays have the theory of general relativity. Something that was laughed upon at the beginning, and was accepted when it was proven. It didn't matter than no one (apart from a selected few) didn't believe in it. They did, as soon as facts showed up. Apart from the obvious thing that a body certainly is only a biomechanical entitiy. Now for what makes "you", "you" - that's up for discussion, no actual scientist claims to know or understand that. That's being rational, again. Other than the polar opposite, "well i am, so MUST be magic". Any scientist (or person working closely with Science) who refuses to see that something new and revolutionary is true This part specifically is what i'm referring to. It's wrong. People refuse to accept something that isn't proven, that's literally being rational. See Cannae/EM Drive. It does something, nobody understands why really. For now people assume that there's measurement errors, instead of jumping on the ship that it defies known physics. That's, again, the literal translation of rationality. edit: they still test it, to see if something comes off of it - and if it turns out that it actually does defy our physics, they get rewritten. Like they did plenty of times before. "being stubborn" and being irrational is sometimes exactly the same. Yes, most scientist are first and foremost sceptical when it comes to unprecedented theories, but people in sciences often refuse to accept something even if there are evidences for it. Just check up on the history of quasi-crystals. Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and a bunch of other chemists/phycisists did not believe in the existence of quasi-crystals. What you mean is being sceptical of hypothesis. Not theories. And it all depends as to what you're labeling "evidence". Take the EMDrive. Not sure if you heard of that device - it's basically (very layman) an enclosed box with no propellant, which produces net-thrust. Something that literally defies our physics, not just in one way (newtons third law for example). Now you can say "it's doing stuff, so there's evidence for our physics being wrong". Yet, you almost never hear that from a scientist - they all say "well i don't know what it's doing, or how it does". Occams razor suggests, that there's problems with the enviroment that it was tested in (not in space). Etc. If it turns out to be actually something else, like pushing somehow against virtual particles - our physics have to be rewritten, and not for the first time. And it would be, obviously.
Yeah sorry i mix those up despite knowing the difference, should stick to the literal meaning.
I'm not too much into modern physics, so I'm not familiar with this debate, but the comments you're describing are not that much sceptical, they're hesitant or not preemptive. There's a difference in beeing sceptical and being hostile and accusing scientists of not being able to do their research right because their findings contradict contemporary theories.
Well with evidence I mean in this special case crystallographic data. And people just said "well it's not possible, there have to be other explanations, you didn't do it right" and the articles were rejected because of that. Well of course over time it was proven further that quasi-crystals exist but it sure took a while and it's not like scientists saw the data, said" well that's unsusual but you've proven us wrong" and easily accepted that concept.
Edit: First evidence was electron microscopy, misremembered that.
|
On November 16 2015 00:06 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:45 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 23:29 Furikawari wrote:On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational. Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ? I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy. I don't see where I contradict myself? Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're not "believing" in the societal sense (it's not an organized belief), but it's still a belief : you did not have a real reflexion on it. You say you don't want people to kill each others because of simple philosophy. That sounds fair. But what if you had in front of you someone who's sure to die in a few hours, in agonizing pain? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who raped and tortured children, used them as slaves? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who wants to kill you once he gets his hands on a weapon? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? See? It's a belief. A belief in Tolerance and in the - theoreotical - values of France since the Enlightment. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you're a bad person for holding such beliefs, quite the contrary. But it's still a belief. This is more like a conviction, a belief is when you have no rational arguments and it is not the case, Montesquieu or John Lock didn't throw away stuff without justify them with a lot of arguments, you can be wrong but you can't say there is not foundation and this is totally arbitrary, I guess you should read a bit.
Actually, Merriam-Webster defines "conviction" as "a strong persuasion or belief", and "belief" as "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon". I guess it's very different, uh?
And I am in no way saying that the philosophers at the origins of these values didn't think and had no arguments, because that's plain false. What I am saying is that all the people who apply what they say without reasoning on them are basically having a belief, having faith in their principles, much like other people can have faith in a god or in other values.
|
On November 16 2015 00:14 MaCRo.gg wrote:
Religion has caused so much conflicts. Despite the good intentions of their prophets, most organized religions seem to get twisted into hindrance of progress and science. Maybe it is finally time to stop blaming sub groups of religion for the deaths and come to the realization that the antiquated system designed to stem Tragedy of the Commons.
I've considered myself at least "somewhat" religious or at least not atheist.
My thoughts are with the victims and their families, but I will NOT pray.
And most people in France will be grateful for this. It's really ironic to see stupid hastags like #Prayforparis or other shit like this. It's like some other religious people want to use this to show thay are not the same.
|
On November 16 2015 00:15 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 00:06 stilt wrote:On November 15 2015 23:45 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 23:29 Furikawari wrote:On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational. Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ? I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy. I don't see where I contradict myself? Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're not "believing" in the societal sense (it's not an organized belief), but it's still a belief : you did not have a real reflexion on it. You say you don't want people to kill each others because of simple philosophy. That sounds fair. But what if you had in front of you someone who's sure to die in a few hours, in agonizing pain? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who raped and tortured children, used them as slaves? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who wants to kill you once he gets his hands on a weapon? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? See? It's a belief. A belief in Tolerance and in the - theoreotical - values of France since the Enlightment. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you're a bad person for holding such beliefs, quite the contrary. But it's still a belief. This is more like a conviction, a belief is when you have no rational arguments and it is not the case, Montesquieu or John Lock didn't throw away stuff without justify them with a lot of arguments, you can be wrong but you can't say there is not foundation and this is totally arbitrary, I guess you should read a bit. Actually, Merriam-Webster defines "conviction" as "a strong persuasion or belief", and "belief" as " conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon". I guess it's very different, uh? And I am in no way saying that the philosophers at the origins of these values didn't think and had no arguments, because that's plain false. What I am saying is that all the people who apply what they say without reasoning on them are basically having a belief, having faith in their principles, much like other people can have faith in a god or in other values.
I guess we reach the point where we can't discuss anymore.
|
On November 15 2015 23:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 23:29 Furikawari wrote:On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational. Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ? I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy. See? It's a belief. A belief in Tolerance and in the - theoreotical - values of France since the Enlightment. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you're a bad person for holding such beliefs, quite the contrary. But it's still a belief.
the difference to religion is that our set of values dont stand for itself or to reach a hypothetical goal of a ridiculous idea like heaven or hell and most importantly they dont have any other legitimacy than that they work. we dont believe in free speech because someone told us so, we believe in free speech because its a perfect way to create stability within a society. together with democracy, free speech lets the people participate and thus abolishes the need of violent uprisings to change things. if you look at history, once people really got behind the idea of democratic values with all that it entails, countries are much more stable than all autocracies in the world. america, the uk, france, switzerland are among the oldest countries in the world and that is not a coincidence. china, russia, germany, they all crashed and burned multiple times in the last 100 years.
similar things can be said for other values like equality which boosts the manpower to insane amounts and just let us outmuscle everyone else even if they have a larger population.
our beliefs arent really beliefs, they are policies that have a clear goal.
a second big difference between ideologies and our values are that our values arent set in stone, they are very soft and get edited into whatever we need them to be. free speech doesnt mean your speech is truly free, it still has boundaries and those boundaries differ on a culture to culture basis. in america you can not show moving pictures of dead soldiers, in germany you can not deny the holocaust. both are incisions into the very idea of free speech but we are fine with them because free speech doesnt stand for itself, it has a purpose and when it needs to be modified, well than it has to be modified.
in reality, a lot of religious people handle it very similar. they cherrypick whatever tiny bits they want out of their religion and ignore everything else. thats totaly fine but i cant call those people really religious. they are brainwashed by their parents and community into believing something completely arbitrary but are smart enough to see what bullshit it is and make the best out of it. soothing their concsiousness and live happy lifes, nothing wrong here.
but the real religious people, the ones who live rigorous lifes and where everything they belief in and live by is an unchangable fact, they have nothing in common with our beliefs. they dont adapt to changes, they dont change at all while for "us" changes are the very core of our value system.
|
On November 16 2015 00:15 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 00:06 stilt wrote:On November 15 2015 23:45 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 23:29 Furikawari wrote:On November 15 2015 22:51 OtherWorld wrote:
Why did you condemn them, then, if you didn't have a 100% rational, reasoned, reaction? Because you most likely believe in Tolerance, in Humanism, in the Human Rights. Yes, that's not a god. Yes, that's still a belief, something that isn't rational. Tu te contredis dans cette affirmation, problème d'anglais ? I condemn them because I dont want people to kill me and as such I dont want people to kill others. My belief if u want one is that I dont want to do others what I dont want others to do to me. And by extension I dont want others to do that to other neither. It's not believeing in I dunno what, it's just applying simple philosophy and understand than most of our society is based on such simple philosophy. I don't see where I contradict myself? Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. You're not "believing" in the societal sense (it's not an organized belief), but it's still a belief : you did not have a real reflexion on it. You say you don't want people to kill each others because of simple philosophy. That sounds fair. But what if you had in front of you someone who's sure to die in a few hours, in agonizing pain? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who raped and tortured children, used them as slaves? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? What if you had in front of you someone who wants to kill you once he gets his hands on a weapon? Do you think it's ok then to kill him? Are you going to use the same justification to answer this question? See? It's a belief. A belief in Tolerance and in the - theoreotical - values of France since the Enlightment. Doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you're a bad person for holding such beliefs, quite the contrary. But it's still a belief. This is more like a conviction, a belief is when you have no rational arguments and it is not the case, Montesquieu or John Lock didn't throw away stuff without justify them with a lot of arguments, you can be wrong but you can't say there is not foundation and this is totally arbitrary, I guess you should read a bit. Actually, Merriam-Webster defines "conviction" as "a strong persuasion or belief", and "belief" as " conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon". I guess it's very different, uh? And I am in no way saying that the philosophers at the origins of these values didn't think and had no arguments, because that's plain false. What I am saying is that all the people who apply what they say without reasoning on them are basically having a belief, having faith in their principles, much like other people can have faith in a god or in other values.
I am not a native, in french, the distinction is pretty clear: convince someone is with reason, persuade is with feeling, people can find it artificial but still. (I don't really know since when this distinction came from, it will be pretty interesting to see)
For your second point, yes maybe but these values in themselves are not beliefs. You have the right to no share them because you don't agree with them (for a lot of reasons which can be determined by an infinite of stuff) not because you don't believe in them.
|
On November 16 2015 00:32 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 00:14 MaCRo.gg wrote:
Religion has caused so much conflicts. Despite the good intentions of their prophets, most organized religions seem to get twisted into hindrance of progress and science. Maybe it is finally time to stop blaming sub groups of religion for the deaths and come to the realization that the antiquated system designed to stem Tragedy of the Commons.
I've considered myself at least "somewhat" religious or at least not atheist.
My thoughts are with the victims and their families, but I will NOT pray. And most people in France will be grateful for this. It's really ironic to see stupid hastags like #Prayforparis or other shit like this. It's like some other religious people want to use this to show thay are not the same.
Religion has become more of a societal commitment than a search or contemplation of the divine. Hashtags like those are usually just means to serve their need for societal recognition.
Very ironic how institutions that preach self-sacrifice and meekness is so focused on self-serving promotion.
|
I think the problem is not religion per se. The underlying ideology is 'might is right'. Such an ideology is usually present in most if not all extreme views. Since extremists pretty much always believe their cause is greater than the life and as such they are justified to use any means necessary to win the war.
I am just afraid that western humanism combined with the capitalism is not equipped to deal with 'might is right' type of thinking. Every terror attack raises the approval rate of the far-right ideologies, then the far-left and Muslim extremists gain new recruits due to the influx of the far-right rhetoric. The extreme ideologies have been steadily growing recently in Europe. Not only extreme right, but the left and the Islam also.
People should be figuring out how we stop the circle before we have the next continent wide war on our hands. I personally think that we either have to give up the humanism, privacy rights or the capitalism. Most likely at least two of them.
|
On November 15 2015 22:32 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. Could you point out all of the terrorist attacks that were made in the name of video games? Islam is not just an influence that prompts these people to kill others. Islam is the reason why they do this, without Islam these attacks would not take place. Sure its possible that even if Islam didnt exist, these people could be radical members of some other religion doing similar attacks, but what is not possible that these attacks would be done if these people were not members of any religion.
You mean like the Tamil Tigers, who fought for independance in Sri Lanka using suicide bombers and were by all accounts secular?
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's exactly the point OtherWorld was going for, but if I may jump in, I think what's important to draw from this is that an absence of religion doesn't equal rationality (or "sanity", as I was told in a precedent debate here that we're using rationality here in a context where we should really use "sanity"). There is such a thing as dogmatic atheism, a lot of so-called "Harris followers" are a prime exemple of it. If I'm going to define myself as a secularist and an agnostic, which I am going to, I'm not going to do it so that we can unite around those "new" ideas and treat them just as we would the old ones, as an ideology. I like to question, and I will continue doing so.
|
I just want to say this here
I'm sad, but I'm not dead.
For the second time in 2015, we face terror.
I'm afraid, I'm not weak, I will live more & more my life because my ancester works for this : Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
|
On November 15 2015 22:32 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. Could you point out all of the terrorist attacks that were made in the name of video games? Islam is not just an influence that prompts these people to kill others. Islam is the reason why they do this, without Islam these attacks would not take place. Sure its possible that even if Islam didnt exist, these people could be radical members of some other religion doing similar attacks, but what is not possible that these attacks would be done if these people were not members of any religion.
I think what the person you quoted argues is, blaming religion is akin to blaming video games when it comes to acts of violence. Gamers know intuitively that video games don't make them more likely to commit mass violence, just as non-extremist religious people know that being religious does not make them more likely to commit mass violence.
|
On November 16 2015 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm not sure that's exactly the point OtherWorld was going for, but if I may jump in, I think what's important to draw from this is that an absence of religion doesn't equal rationality (or "sanity", as I was told in a precedent debate here that we're using rationality here in a context where we should really use "sanity"). There is such a thing as dogmatic atheism, a lot of so-called "Harris followers" are a prime exemple of it. If I'm going to define myself as a secularist and an agnostic, which I am going to, I'm not going to do it so that we can unite around those "new" ideas and treat them just as we would the old ones, as an ideology. I like to question, and I will continue doing so.
Sanity has nothing to do with it, sanity concerns the judgment altered of a person because of some mental desease, I am pretty sure most of the guys of Daesh are not psychotics they just evolve in a different environnement.
Anyway, an absence of religion does not equal rationality, yes, I am agree with that, an absence of religion does not erase faith and silly superstitions that everyone has but religion equals irrationality. It is not rational to believe in all the stuffs that Bible implies (cf the darwinism debate). In fact, faith is not rational. Moreover, science explains what is nature but nature has still been explained in religious book, if I was religious, I would probably be against science, at least, I find it coherent.
I am not saying that religious people are irrationals on every aspects, and a lot of atheists are pretty irrational too with their superstitions, habits, what I am saying is religion and this system of thought is irrational in its core because it needs faith. Scientists can be believers but they do not science as believers.
Moreover, if you consider islam as an ideology, why don't you condemn it for its doctrines? It is pretty strange because I know there are différents interpretations and blabla but still, people killing people for it. I know there are social and historical reasons to it, poverty, racism, colonialism, chaos in Irak, Syria, palestinian conflict, (I would dare say paternalism) but there have been a lot of others massacres in the name of some modern ideology which are almost universally condemned despite the fact that there emerged in a period of social tensions too. We can take a cause of this stuff and say "no it is not" or say "yeah it is just it and only it" just because we want it, otherwise, it will strike again... And in fact, I am pretty sure it will strike again.
|
Canada13402 Posts
Something happened at the memorial, police are out, reports of gunfire. Still no solid news to report at this time. CBC showed a live Reuters feed and it was just a confused reporter walking around with a camera, and police also speaking and in a confused state, some were scrambling.
According to twitter, some people have returned to the square, but details are not being reported on at this time.
CBC news has had very strong coverage I suggest for people to watch their livestream if you would like to know more, and avoid CNN/Fox.
|
On November 16 2015 03:03 ZeromuS wrote:
Something happened at the memorial, police are out, reports of gunfire. Still no solid news to report at this time. CBC showed a live Reuters feed and it was just a confused reporter walking around with a camera, and police also speaking and in a confused state, some were scrambling.
According to twitter, some people have returned to the square, but details are not being reported on at this time.
CBC news has had very strong coverage I suggest for people to watch their livestream if you would like to know more, and avoid CNN/Fox.
no gunfire apparently
source : BFMTV + Itv
|
On November 16 2015 03:05 VelJa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 03:03 ZeromuS wrote:
Something happened at the memorial, police are out, reports of gunfire. Still no solid news to report at this time. CBC showed a live Reuters feed and it was just a confused reporter walking around with a camera, and police also speaking and in a confused state, some were scrambling.
According to twitter, some people have returned to the square, but details are not being reported on at this time.
CBC news has had very strong coverage I suggest for people to watch their livestream if you would like to know more, and avoid CNN/Fox. no gunfire, just panic apparently source : BFMTV + Itv
|
Canada13402 Posts
On November 16 2015 03:05 VelJa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 03:03 ZeromuS wrote:
Something happened at the memorial, police are out, reports of gunfire. Still no solid news to report at this time. CBC showed a live Reuters feed and it was just a confused reporter walking around with a camera, and police also speaking and in a confused state, some were scrambling.
According to twitter, some people have returned to the square, but details are not being reported on at this time.
CBC news has had very strong coverage I suggest for people to watch their livestream if you would like to know more, and avoid CNN/Fox. hoax apparently source : BFMTV + Itv
I sure hope so :O if it is a hoax then the people responsible should definitely be arrested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
