Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Je Suis CharlieFollow

#52 Jan 13 2015 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world where posters are "defending" religion. In any case, people use religion as a scapegoat for their actions because of the social acceptance to not question one's religion. It's just like when people don't support an action (i.e, SSM) because of religion, but sees no problem with fornication.


I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jan 13 2015 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.
Can you clarify your point? Are you saying that I'm over simplifying the issue at hand or the people who are using religion as a scapegoat are over simplifying the issue at hand?
#54 Jan 13 2015 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.
Can you clarify your point? Are you saying that I'm over simplifying the issue at hand or the people who are using religion as a scapegoat are over simplifying the issue at hand?


The first option. You (or the person saying that) are over simplifying the issue at hand.

Edited, Jan 13th 2015 3:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jan 13 2015 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world where posters are "defending" religion. In any case, people use religion as a scapegoat for their actions because of the social acceptance to not question one's religion. It's just like when people don't support an action (i.e, SSM) because of religion, but sees no problem with fornication.


I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.


Huh? That "Allahu Akbar" seemed like a dead giveway to me. Cue people linking Charles Ramsey.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#56 Jan 13 2015 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world where posters are "defending" religion. In any case, people use religion as a scapegoat for their actions because of the social acceptance to not question one's religion. It's just like when people don't support an action (i.e, SSM) because of religion, but sees no problem with fornication.


I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.


Huh? That "Allahu Akbar" seemed like a dead giveway to me. Cue people linking Charles Ramsey.


Yes. And "because of religion" is a terribly simplistic explanation of what is actually going on. I'm unsure how you think your post adds to the discussion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Jan 13 2015 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world where posters are "defending" religion. In any case, people use religion as a scapegoat for their actions because of the social acceptance to not question one's religion. It's just like when people don't support an action (i.e, SSM) because of religion, but sees no problem with fornication.


I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.


Huh? That "Allahu Akbar" seemed like a dead giveway to me. Cue people linking Charles Ramsey.


Yes. And "because of religion" is a terribly simplistic explanation of what is actually going on. I'm unsure how you think your post adds to the discussion.


I am sorry. My contribution actually pointed out how the simple explanation actually ******* fits best; occcam's razor and all that ****. I know, I know.. you can't write a 12 page post about it, but there you have it. Sometimes, simple, bah, even simplistic explanation, is the correct one.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#58 Jan 13 2015 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.
Yeah, you'd have to think that to continue to support some terrible views your party has. Because there are sound logical reasons for so many GOP plank issues that just couldn't be "because of religion".
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#59 Jan 13 2015 at 9:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

I think that saying people do something "because of Religion" is a massive over simplification of the issue at hand.
Can you clarify your point? Are you saying that I'm over simplifying the issue at hand or the people who are using religion as a scapegoat are over simplifying the issue at hand?


The first option. You (or the person saying that) are over simplifying the issue at hand.

Edited, Jan 13th 2015 3:45pm by gbaji


Are you saying that there aren't people who use "It's against my religion" as an excuse to either do or not do something?
#60 Jan 13 2015 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The "issue at hand" in this case was the killings in France (or, more broadly, Islamic extremism in general). Whether or not someone says don't drink because it's against their religion doesn't really relate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Jan 13 2015 at 9:41 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The "issue at hand" in this case was the killings in France (or, more broadly, Islamic extremism in general). Whether or not someone says don't drink because it's against their religion doesn't really relate.
I was referencing to the belief that the Muslim religion is bad because some Islamic extremist kills in the name of religion. My argument is that people tend to use religion as an excuse for their actions from something as simple as "not drinking" to "killing someone" when it's more aligned with their actual feelings and not the religion itself. This especially true if they are not following all of the teachings.
#62 Jan 14 2015 at 12:01 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I feel like I'm in Bizzaro world where posters are "defending" religion. In any case, people use religion as a scapegoat for their actions because of the social acceptance to not question one's religion. It's just like when people don't support an action (i.e, SSM) because of religion, but sees no problem with fornication.

Well, it's more like classifying religion as a subset or expression of tribalism. Religion is probably one of the more harmful forms of tribalism, because of its severity and rigidity, and because the eternal life promises outweigh earthly concerns in the minds of followers. But indeed humanity would still be senselessly killing each other reasons without religion. For example, and I don't want to go Godwins, but Hitler demonized Jews for their ethnicity and genes moreso than their religion. Pol Pot wasn't about religion. Slavery across history has rarely been about religion.


Edited, Jan 14th 2015 12:02am by trickybeck
#63 Jan 14 2015 at 1:51 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Trickybeck wrote:
Religion is probably one of the more harmful forms of tribalism, because of its severity and rigidity, and because the eternal life promises outweigh earthly concerns in the minds of followers.
If religion weren't primarily all about peace, then you would have a point. Given that the top religions are indeed peaceful, I would continue to argue that religion is the scapegoat for individual actions.
#64 Jan 14 2015 at 3:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
Maybe that's what we'd war about instead, intellectual property. A potent force of division if ever there was one.


As long as we could go to war, I think people would be ok. The problem with these kinds of terrorist attacks is that french people don't know where to target their retribution. So it's, you know, mosques and kebab shops. And in time, Marine.


Can't they just bully Algiers or shoot up Syria a bit? It's a bit busted up from people raging against demographic shifts anyway, so it's a convenient target.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#65 Jan 14 2015 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The "issue at hand" in this case was the killings in France (or, more broadly, Islamic extremism in general). Whether or not someone says don't drink because it's against their religion doesn't really relate.
I was referencing to the belief that the Muslim religion is bad because some Islamic extremist kills in the name of religion. My argument is that people tend to use religion as an excuse for their actions from something as simple as "not drinking" to "killing someone" when it's more aligned with their actual feelings and not the religion itself. This especially true if they are not following all of the teachings.


They do, but not the way you seem to think they do. The fact that most people seem to have eclectic approach to religion ( which makes for fun conversations about how they are not really believe what the church teaches ). They believe. They do. They believe their personal unannounced version that is more aligned with their core. You are right there.

Where you are not correct is the part that those feelings DO come from somewhere; they are TAUGHT that idiocy to begin with. People do not get born with pre-conceived notion about Jesus saving your ***. To say religion is not an issue in this equation is to be willfully blind.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#66 Jan 14 2015 at 7:02 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Trickybeck wrote:
Religion is probably one of the more harmful forms of tribalism, because of its severity and rigidity, and because the eternal life promises outweigh earthly concerns in the minds of followers.
If religion weren't primarily all about peace, then you would have a point. Given that the top religions are indeed peaceful, I would continue to argue that religion is the scapegoat for individual actions.


No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core. If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.

Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#67 Jan 14 2015 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Where you are not correct is the part that those feelings DO come from somewhere; they are TAUGHT that idiocy to begin with. People do not get born with pre-conceived notion about Jesus saving your ***. To say religion is not an issue in this equation is to be willfully blind.
Of course they come from some where. I wasn't denying that ideas didn't originate from religion, but that as adults, people are mature enough to believe and follow what they want.

angrymnk wrote:
No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core. If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.

Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).
Please provide a citation of Jesus that supports your claim.
#68 Jan 14 2015 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Several lines I could have quoted, but this may be the most direct. So here goes:

Almalieque wrote:
Are you saying that there aren't people who use "It's against my religion" as an excuse to either do or not do something?


People rarely actually use "it's against my religion" as a complete rationale for actions they take. If you were to ask the guys behind the shootings in France (or just about any terrorist attack) why they did it, you'd likely get a very long explanation of the actions the journalists were doing, the reasons they believed these actions were bad, the reasons why they felt violence was justified, and probably a complete history of the thinking behind whatever principles they are upholding in the process. It's not nearly as simple as "it's against my religion".

It is usually those denouncing the acts of religious people who simplify it down to "they did it because of their religion". Which is the point I was trying to make here. It's just not a terribly useful argument to make because it focuses on whether the thing they are talking about is associated with religion instead of actually assessing the thing itself. It's just lazy. And it leads people to just associate "Religion==bad", rather than actually looking at the actions being taken and the rationale for those actions. You'd be hard pressed to find any religious position that isn't based on some kind of logical rationale. You may not agree with the rationale, or the assumptions they're based on, but just saying "it's because of their religion" is a monumentally stupid way to deal with it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Jan 14 2015 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core.


Compared to what it replaced? Um... I'm not even sure where to start. While Christianity adopted ideas like "thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not steal" from the Jews, Christianity was responsible for spreading those base moral concepts through the western world, and eventually around the globe. I think you simply don't grasp that the moral assumptions you hold of right and wrong almost certainly exist because of Christianity. That's not to say that some other belief system might not have risen to the same prominence and spread the same kind of ideals, but those were pretty rare in the pre AD time frame, so who knows.

No system is 100% peaceful, but there are far worse alternatives than Christianity's influence on western civilization.

Quote:
If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.


Well, it's a good thing that people who don't believe in grey are very rare then. You're talking the most extreme positions and assuming that's what every single member of a broadly defined religion believe. You're wrong. Horribly wrong. Wrong if we're talking about Christianity, and wrong if we're talking about Islam, and wrong if we're talking about any other largely held religion.

Quote:
Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).


You're creating an excluded middle. Most of us live quite comfortably in the space in between "all about peace" and "it's about a lot of things, but peace ain't one of them". Most religions are at least the diet coke of peace.

Oh. And you also switched to talking about "religion". Um... Which religion? Be specific. This is what I was talking about earlier. When you broaden your scope this much, your argument ceases to be about this action, or that position, and just "I don't like religion. period". Which is a legitimate opinion for you to hold, but is not terribly compelling for the rest of us.

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 2:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Jan 14 2015 at 4:44 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If you were to ask the guys behind the shootings in France (or just about any terrorist attack) why they did it, you'd likely get a very long explanation of the actions the journalists were doing, the reasons they believed these actions were bad, the reasons why they felt violence was justified, and probably a complete history of the thinking behind whatever principles they are upholding in the process. It's not nearly as simple as "it's against my religion".
.....
It is usually those denouncing the acts of religious people who simplify it down to "they did it because of their religion".


I will merge these two statements as we're mostly saying the same thing. I would state that most social arguments are at least based on "my religion". The reality is, as you stated, there is probably a complete history of thinking behind it all. In reference to the violence, you cannot deny that the propaganda videos aren't saying "in the name of....". Whether or not there are feelings of justifications based on perceived logic is irrelevant as it often gets lost in the videos. This is how and why people who denounce those acts simplify their cause to "it's my religion".

My point was that their logic isn't about "their religion", but it is often expressed as such for either simplicity (for the more complicated reasons) or out of laziness (typical social beliefs to avoid having an actual argument).
#71 Jan 14 2015 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Where you are not correct is the part that those feelings DO come from somewhere; they are TAUGHT that idiocy to begin with. People do not get born with pre-conceived notion about Jesus saving your ***. To say religion is not an issue in this equation is to be willfully blind.
Of course they come from some where. I wasn't denying that ideas didn't originate from religion, but that as adults, people are mature enough to believe and follow what they want.

angrymnk wrote:
No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core. If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.

Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).
Please provide a citation of Jesus that supports your claim.


Heh, you kinda walked into that one, but I will be merciful ( for angrymnk is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind ). Linky

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Also, you have a lot of faith in humans. Smash was not incorrect when he suggested that even most intelligent can be a little silly at times.


Edited, Jan 14th 2015 6:32pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 6:32pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#72 Jan 14 2015 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
No, they are not. Christianity has been mostly rendered toothless ( 'cept the good old US of A ) over the past decades, but to claim it is peaceful is to completely misunderstand its core.


Compared to what it replaced? Um... I'm not even sure where to start. While Christianity adopted ideas like "thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not steal" from the Jews, Christianity was responsible for spreading those base moral concepts through the western world, and eventually around the globe. I think you simply don't grasp that the moral assumptions you hold of right and wrong almost certainly exist because of Christianity. That's not to say that some other belief system might not have risen to the same prominence and spread the same kind of ideals, but those were pretty rare in the pre AD time frame, so who knows.

No system is 100% peaceful, but there are far worse alternatives than Christianity's influence on western civilization.

Quote:
If you believe, and I mean truly believe, there is no grey, there is no concord with the sinner, because the wages of sin is death.


Well, it's a good thing that people who don't believe in grey are very rare then. You're talking the most extreme positions and assuming that's what every single member of a broadly defined religion believe. You're wrong. Horribly wrong. Wrong if we're talking about Christianity, and wrong if we're talking about Islam, and wrong if we're talking about any other largely held religion.

Quote:
Alma, I get that you attended college course on religions of the world once to satisfy your diversity requirement, but don't me give me that silly religion is all about peace. It is not. It is about a lot things, but peace ain't one of them ( unless you mean peace we get after we kill all the unbelieving heathens... ).


You're creating an excluded middle. Most of us live quite comfortably in the space in between "all about peace" and "it's about a lot of things, but peace ain't one of them". Most religions are at least the diet coke of peace.

Oh. And you also switched to talking about "religion". Um... Which religion? Be specific. This is what I was talking about earlier. When you broaden your scope this much, your argument ceases to be about this action, or that position, and just "I don't like religion. period". Which is a legitimate opinion for you to hold, but is not terribly compelling for the rest of us.

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 2:21pm by gbaji


Just because you believe in it does not make it true. See what I did there?:>
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#73 Jan 14 2015 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I would state that most social arguments are at least based on "my religion". The reality is, as you stated, there is probably a complete history of thinking behind it all.


Not "probably". "Is". The religious person knows them. The person reacting to that person often does not and thus simplifies it to "it's because of his religion". But that's a failure on the part of the second person to understand the first. And assuming our objective is to try to reduce the incidences of violent religious acts, it would seem to be critically important to delve farther than just blaming it on religion.

Quote:
In reference to the violence, you cannot deny that the propaganda videos aren't saying "in the name of....".


What propaganda videos? The ones that *you* have seen? The snippets of those videos that have been translated and put on some web site or shown on a news program? This is what I'm talking about. I guarantee you that no one is going off and joining a jihadist organization solely because he saw a video that just told him to kill infidels in the name of Islam because... religion! No one. Ever. Years of learning a religion first are required. Then years of some perceived authority figure within that religious framework teaching a particular (violent in this case) version of the religion is required. Then, finally, you can point to others around that person, tell him that they're bad because they violate a large swath of already accepted assumptions, and spur him to action with inspiring videos.

You're looking at the very tiny tail end of a much larger and longer process.

Quote:
Whether or not there are feelings of justifications based on perceived logic is irrelevant as it often gets lost in the videos.


Only to those whose entire understanding is the videos and calls to violence contained within. That's you, btw. Not the guys actually answering that call.


Quote:
This is how and why people who denounce those acts simplify their cause to "it's my religion".


Yes. Because you don't see the whole picture. This is my entire point. By simplifying it down like that, you are missing the really important parts and focusing on the least important.

Quote:
My point was that their logic isn't about "their religion", but it is often expressed as such for either simplicity (for the more complicated reasons) or out of laziness (typical social beliefs to avoid having an actual argument).


Again, that's not really correct. The expressions that you are exposed to, usually by a media that wants you to react just as you are reacting, simplifies it down to religion. That's the point. The terrorist does not do this. The media that wants you to react in the most basic negative way to the terrorist does. And while that's fine with regard to motivating people to oppose terrorism, it's a terrible method to use if we want to learn why the terrorist does what he does.


He doesn't do it because of his religion. It's far more complex than that.

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 3:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jan 14 2015 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Just because you believe in it does not make it true. See what I did there?:>


Correct. My belief in something does not make it true. The large mountain of historical evidence does create a high probability of it being true, however.

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 3:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Jan 14 2015 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Just because you believe in it does not make it true. See what I did there?:>


Correct. My belief in something does not make it true. The large mountain of historical evidence does create a high probability of it being true, however.

Edited, Jan 14th 2015 3:44pm by gbaji


You are joking right?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#76 Jan 14 2015 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Just because you believe in it does not make it true. See what I did there?:>


Correct. My belief in something does not make it true. The large mountain of historical evidence does create a high probability of it being true, however.


You are joking right?


No. Why would you think so? Do you actually know what sorts of moral systems were in play prior to the rise of Christianity in western civilization? The reason you view atrocities (and blame them on religion even) so negatively is because you've grown up in a world where everyone you know, and everyone they know, for dozens of generations back in time had adopted Christian moral structures (yes, technically modified Jewish), which almost uniquely among historical moral systems viewed such things negatively. Our society and its rules formed in this environment. I don't think you understand just how deep this goes. It's not about going to church and praying, it's basic concepts like "killing people is wrong".


Let me be clear. I'm not saying that only Christianity could have brought about the moral/ethical changes over time that lead us to where we are today, but it's kinda silly to ignore the fact that in our society, that's the vessel that did do this.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 365 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (365)