Paris shootings

Wolfetone

Drew_fx said:

Your two points are ... problematic:

- Right to offend must be upheld and maintained

- If you open your door and get punched in the face (metaphor for being bombed in this case) then change your thinking

sssoooooo... you don't have the right to offend and it shouldn't be upheld and maintained then? How do you address this inconsistency? Should people be dying because of the things they say? Personally I don't think they should - even if it is something I don't like.

What I'm saying is that you should have the right to offend but don't be surprised if you get twatted as a consequence. 

If you stick your hand in the tigers cage you can expect it to be bitten off. That's how the world works. 

Snap

randomhandclaps said:

It's simple - If your God is so certain that he's right why would a man in Paris having a laugh at his expense bother him?  If your God is so powerful and ultimately in control of the universe why did he need you to do he killing?  Acting violently in the name of religion just smacks of frailty of your own personal beliefs and an elementary deep mistrust of your own almighty God's ability to take care of business himself.  You aren't acting in the name of your God, you are elevating yourself above him.  It's seems futile for you and your kin to try and convince me of your God's existence and righteousness when you clearly lack the ultimate conviction yourself.

there's a basic flaw to your argument here: you are using logical thinking to question faith. That's the thing with faith, it wouldn't be faith if it could be logocally explained.

A bit like believing in fairies.

Christians - all powerful god right? so, why have we got child killers, for example, how does that serve humanity? Aah well you see, god moves in mysterious ways and we aren't the ones to question the big god are we?

See, no logic, you can't argue with em.

an absolute load of total shite

Drew_TNBD

Wolfetone said:

Drew_fx said:

Your two points are ... problematic:

- Right to offend must be upheld and maintained

- If you open your door and get punched in the face (metaphor for being bombed in this case) then change your thinking

sssoooooo... you don't have the right to offend and it shouldn't be upheld and maintained then? How do you address this inconsistency? Should people be dying because of the things they say? Personally I don't think they should - even if it is something I don't like.

What I'm saying is that you should have the right to offend but don't be surprised if you get twatted as a consequence. 

If you stick your hand in the tigers cage you can expect it to be bitten off. That's how the world works. 

But humans are'NT (thanks Vim!) tigers. Or lions. Or bears. They have the capacity for logical thinking (yes even religious people can connects dots!) empathy and reasoning. That people have opted to ignore those things in favour of violence ... that is the problem here, and it does need addressing.

We shouldn't ignore or accept it because "that's the way the world works" because that is not necessarily how the world works. The world works in many different ways, and these ways all constantly shift and move and overlap. You've not approached your seemingly contradictory statements in a satisfactory way for me, and it seems a bit defeatist.

Some people happily play with tigers without getting their hands bitten off. I think you're being a bit too reductionist.

VimFuego

*ahem* aren't. Humans aren't tiger or lion or bears (well, some are bears, but it's a totally different sort of bear and not really relevant to this conversation).

Fretwired

Snap said:

mellowsun said:

Snap said:

three gunmen, armed to the hilt, shouting god is great, in arabic, I'm just saying

'They shot on Wolinski, Cabu... it lasted 5 minutes... I had hidden under my desk... they spoke French perfectly... they said they we're al-Qaeda.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11329976/Paris-Charlie-Hebdo-attack-live.html

So potentially home-grown terrorists?

they were outside shouting god is great in arabic, which is a signature statement made at nigh all of the islamic extremist atoricities, whether that be on video or otherwise. The fact that they could be french nationals doesn't detract from the likelihood that they are either AlQeeda or IS. I don't see what the nationality has to do with anything, in respect of this clearly being a targeted act against satirists of islam.

the issue is that these lunatics, under the justification banner of it being their god's will, can, and do, strike as they like and we (the non extremist majority) seem to be able to do very little to a) prevent it, and b) strangle their ideologies at birth and stop them developing under our own noses, and in "our own backyards" so to speak.

I suppose what is also surprising is that France has been at the forefront of not tolerating islam at it's more extreme ends, and was the first western nation to ban the full veil in public (with which I agree).

Whilst tolerance, acceptance and freedom of expression are the cornerstones of a civil society, it works both ways, and there is a fundamental problem in many western societies when it comes to integration of different cultures. Exacerbating this is that no goverment or political party is prepared to properly and honestly admit this. You go to any town or city with a large ethinic minority and you will see that if anything, division is greater now than ever before. That division is fertile ground for disenfranchisement and consequent extremism.

The two main perpetrators are French born and bred. One has already been in prison for terror related offences and both have recently returned from Syria where they fought and were presumably trained. There has been another gun attack in Paris and the French police say they expect the two brothers to attack again. It is only a matter of time before it happens here. The enemy within is hard to beat as we know in the UK from dealing with the Irish paramilitary groups.

randomhandclaps

Fretwired said:

randomhandclaps said:

It's simple - If your God is so certain that he's right why would a man in Paris having a laugh at his expense bother him?  If your God is so powerful and ultimately in control of the universe why did he need you to do he killing?  Acting violently in the name of religion just smacks of frailty of your own personal beliefs and an elementary deep mistrust of your own almighty God's ability to take care of business himself.  You aren't acting in the name of your God, you are elevating yourself above him.  It's seems futile for you and your kin to try and convince me of your God's existence and righteousness when you clearly lack the ultimate conviction yourself.

I thought the attack was in revenge for insulting Mohammed who is a Prophet not God.

That goes without saying.  Most religious acts are to do with profits.

Sambostar

I don't believe in God myself, but what grates me about the affirmed faith haters and atheists is that, whilst they berate god lovers, when they themselves don't actually know why we are here, nor do they know the reason why this tiny planet is doing revolving around the sun. 

Now, they will blind you with science and the fact that life bearing amino acids were most likely created by some random mix of chemicals, millions of years ago and that science and physics are logical and provide the answers.  But what they fail to grasp is that the core their very rational, black and white, grey areas eliminated, wrong or right science, is actually based on a huge grey area, assumption, in other words, faith and as such science is in fact a religion of sorts in itself or moreover a language to convey various interlocking logical theories and rationales in the present, around us.

Now if science can't explain the core of all the relative theories based within it, and more over is merely just a language to explain how things behave relative to each other, then surely it is nothing more than a faith of it's own, much like the faiths which are set out in books of verse that explain how things and people should behave relative to each other and inter relate.

Science can also be used to explain the world and be used as a force of oppression or moral guidance to keep society in check and on the same assimilated path by means of absolute truths, green taxes, logical thinking and technological progression, oh yeah, the very same use that religion once was purported for and is still widely still used for in poorer nations.

Anyway, no one can validly say without doubt and with indisputable evidence to hand that Allah is not the master of the cosmos.

I neither believe in God, nor not believe in God.

It's like saying someone is definitely wrong, when you have no idea of the right answer yourself.

And anyway, there is a human element here.  If science states that a person feels no pain in death with an instant shot to the head and is biodegradable as a carbon life form and that diesel emissions are limiting the life of townsfolk, it doesn't justify going around shooting Transit Tipper drivers at random does it?  It's the same with religion.

Col_Decker

^^^ Pop corn delivery for reply #87

 

 

here we go

Sambostar

Waiting for the rain to stop.  If there was a god, or if science was truly valid, it would stop raining.

Sambostar

Maybe they were just good capitalists but got a bit confused, after all, all they were doing was looking after their prophet by attacking people who attacked their prophets

fretmeister

Sambostar said:

I don't believe in God myself, but what grates me about the affirmed faith haters and atheists is that, whilst they berate god lovers, when they themselves don't actually know why we are here, nor do they know the reason why this tiny planet is doing revolving around the sun. 

Now, they will blind you with science and the fact that life bearing amino acids were most likely created by some random mix of chemicals, millions of years ago and that science and physics are logical and provide the answers.  But what they fail to grasp is that the core their very rational, black and white, grey areas eliminated, wrong or right science, is actually based on a huge grey area, assumption, in other words, faith and as such science is in fact a religion of sorts in itself or moreover a language to convey various interlocking logical theories and rationales in the present, around us.

Now if science can't explain the core of all the relative theories based within it, and more over is merely just a language to explain how things behave relative to each other, then surely it is nothing more than a faith of it's own, much like the faiths which are set out in books of verse that explain how things and people should behave relative to each other and inter relate.

Science can also be used to explain the world and be used as a force of oppression or moral guidance to keep society in check and on the same assimilated path by means of absolute truths, green taxes, logical thinking and technological progression, oh yeah, the very same use that religion once was purported for and is still widely still used for in poorer nations.

Anyway, no one can validly say without doubt and with indisputable evidence to hand that Allah is not the master of the cosmos.

I neither believe in God, nor not believe in God.

It's like saying someone is definitely wrong, when you have no idea of the right answer yourself.

And anyway, there is a human element here.  If science states that a person feels no pain in death with an instant shot to the head and is biodegradable as a carbon life form and that diesel emissions are limiting the life of townsfolk, it doesn't justify going around shooting Transit Tipper drivers at random does it?  It's the same with religion.

Axe_meister

Science is not a faith, it is a provable methodology that explains the world around us, it is happily proved wrong in light of new evidence. It has moved the human race forward whereas religion would have kept us in the dark ages.

There is as far as I can tell zero evidence that a god of any sort exists, yet lots of evidence for evolution/big bang, etc, etc.

The fact that science constantly questions itself and everything around it makes it totally the opposite of religion that sticks to the 

same old dogma.

Drew_TNBD

VimFuego said:

*ahem* aren't. Humans aren't tiger or lion or bears (well, some are bears, but it's a totally different sort of bear and not really relevant to this conversation).

hahahaha... that's what I get for typing whilst tired!

scrumhalf

Axe_meister said:

Science is not a faith, it is a provable methodology that explains the world around us, it is happily proved wrong in light of new evidence. It has moved the human race forward whereas religion would have kept us in the dark ages.

There is as far as I can tell zero evidence that a god of any sort exists, yet lots of evidence for evolution/big bang, etc, etc.

The fact that science constantly questions itself and everything around it makes it totally the opposite of religion that sticks to the 

same old dogma.

Are you saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive?

Axe_meister

scrumhalf said:

Axe_meister said:

Science is not a faith, it is a provable methodology that explains the world around us, it is happily proved wrong in light of new evidence. It has moved the human race forward whereas religion would have kept us in the dark ages.

There is as far as I can tell zero evidence that a god of any sort exists, yet lots of evidence for evolution/big bang, etc, etc.

The fact that science constantly questions itself and everything around it makes it totally the opposite of religion that sticks to the 

same old dogma.

Are you saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive?

Maybe not mutually exclusive, but to be honest people who are scientists and religious must be in constant conflict with themselves. At least the Pope has recently come out saying that he accepts a lot of scientific evidence, I just wish the rest of the religious world would be as enlightened.

scrumhalf

I think you're bing a tad unfair.

To be a bit simplistic, science deals with science and religion deals with an entire way if life at its most wide-ranging. I went to a religious Jewish secondary school (square peg, etc) and almost all of the science teachers were orthodox Jews. Whilst they would add a layer on top of "conventional" scientific argument that would explain why if you added chemical x to chemical y and ended up with substance z the thing that caused all of that was god, they didn't doubt the science behind it.

Extremism is the problem. Most things taken to extremes are bad.

I was in Cambodia last month - and I don't think you could find a worse example of non-religious backwards shitting-on-the-people than occurred under Pol Pot. No god involved there.

Religion is one thing, organised religion is another entirely.

IanSavage

Axe_meister said:

Science is not a faith, it is a provable methodology that explains the world around us, it is happily proved wrong in light of new evidence. It has moved the human race forward whereas religion would have kept us in the dark ages.

There is as far as I can tell zero evidence that a god of any sort exists, yet lots of evidence for evolution/big bang, etc, etc.

The fact that science constantly questions itself and everything around it makes it totally the opposite of religion that sticks to the 

same old dogma.

I'm taking that as a pressure relief valve - the more of Sambo's ill-informed bollocks I read the more agitated I got and the more likely I became to reply with a torrent of abuse. Thankfully you've articulated everything I wanted to say in a far more reasoned and polite way.

What a twat.

PolarityMan

Sambostar said:

I don't believe in God myself, but what grates me about the affirmed faith haters and atheists is that, whilst they berate god lovers, when they themselves don't actually know why we are here, nor do they know the reason why this tiny planet is doing revolving around the sun. 

Now, they will blind you with science and the fact that life bearing amino acids were most likely created by some random mix of chemicals, millions of years ago and that science and physics are logical and provide the answers.  But what they fail to grasp is that the core their very rational, black and white, grey areas eliminated, wrong or right science, is actually based on a huge grey area, assumption, in other words, faith and as such science is in fact a religion of sorts in itself or moreover a language to convey various interlocking logical theories and rationales in the present, around us.

Now if science can't explain the core of all the relative theories based within it, and more over is merely just a language to explain how things behave relative to each other, then surely it is nothing more than a faith of it's own, much like the faiths which are set out in books of verse that explain how things and people should behave relative to each other and inter relate.

Science can also be used to explain the world and be used as a force of oppression or moral guidance to keep society in check and on the same assimilated path by means of absolute truths, green taxes, logical thinking and technological progression, oh yeah, the very same use that religion once was purported for and is still widely still used for in poorer nations.

Anyway, no one can validly say without doubt and with indisputable evidence to hand that Allah is not the master of the cosmos.

I neither believe in God, nor not believe in God.

It's like saying someone is definitely wrong, when you have no idea of the right answer yourself.

And anyway, there is a human element here.  If science states that a person feels no pain in death with an instant shot to the head and is biodegradable as a carbon life form and that diesel emissions are limiting the life of townsfolk, it doesn't justify going around shooting Transit Tipper drivers at random does it?  It's the same with religion.

I think I do get the point you are trying to make, which is that there are a set of axioms that all derived theorems depend on, however these while not being "proven" are confirmed with staggering amounts of empirical evidence.

And it seems to me more rational to base my life on a small set of axioms with empirical evidence, that I can test myself than a a mixture of convoluted fairy stories (that have sections which are demonstrably false) and word of mouth traditions.

So I don;t really think it is about faith at all in the same way.

Snap

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are very much a neat fit for many people.

For example, the big bang theory - no reason why you couldn't be a believer in a god and this. After all, just what happened before the big bang, and how did the constituents necessary happen to align. Maybe it was this "god" notion?

What limits our understanding of the hyper physical, or is it metaphysical (as in the other stuff that goes on beyond our experience) is that we think and perceive in a linear 3D manner: everything has a linear time line, a start and a finish. We are beginning to learn that time and space may be elastic and circular and existing in multiple dimensions. That in itself could confound a lot of what we understand as science.

Maybe there never was a "before" the big bang at all, and the linear time path arose from it.

I don't know, but my point is, I find it preferable to put my stake in the side of science and the pursuit of knowledge as opposed to a contradictory and fanciful belief system based on a totalitarian structure of absolute obeisance, submission and worship.

I once asked a priest, why, if god is so almighty and compassionate, does it feel the need to demand worship? This seems a peculiarly human need. And what kind of loving god would demand that ABraham kill his son to demonstrate his devotion, and then relent at the last minute - soz mate, just wanted to see if you'd go along with it.

 He didn't give me a satisfactory reply.

I was raised a christian, and it's only when you take an objective step back from the dogma and mind control that is inherent to its success, that you fully appreciate what a load of cods it really is.

I don't refute the absolute notion of a higher being, but I do absolutely refute the religious portrayal of it.

ANd lastly, religion is not the same as faith: religion is a code of practice that hinges on a faith. big difference. YOu can have a fiath and no religion, but not vice versa.

Drew_TNBD

Snap said:

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are very much a neat fit for many people. 

Scientific METHOD and faith *are* mutually exclusive.