Terror attack on Paris satire comic 'Charlie-Hebdo' (for drawing Mohammed)

[Sharky]

But what if I said that British people were genocidal, because of things like the Irish Famine and their invention of concentration camps? Is that stereotypical racism for example? As you said I think it's a blurry line. It's easier to see a distinction when it's something light like music preference, but doesn't this also count as not 'True Racism'?

It would fall into stereotypical, because clearly not all British people are genocidal. I think when you delve into the past you can dredge up all sorts of terrible acts from any nation. But is that even really racism? It’s more hate towards a nation than a race. I’m personally not offended if someone says that to me. I don’t attribute that to myself, it isn’t my sin.

That's fine, but if you want to say 'religion is idiotic and here is why' and then just make up something insulting, isn't that a direct insult to the followers?

I'm going to call out again the other thread, where you basically said that Muslims can't eat pork due to 'Mohammed spinning in a circle and doing a dance'. While you didn't directly say "Muslims are all idiots", by suggesting that their chosen belief is so asinine aren't you just calling them idiots?

I can’t really help what I believe though... Deep down I am not religious and I DO find all religion asinine and ridiculous. I find it little more than a relic of the past and often it causes a lot of problems in the world. Perhaps that comment was a little insensitive, but I’m no saint. Some times I absent-mindedly upset people. Most of the time I try to not be a cunt about it and that’s all I can do.

By comparison if you were proud of British Culture, and I said "Just a shame that British Culture mandates to kill black people and have horrible teeth!", I'm not insulting YOU, but aren't I just doing it by proxy by insulting your culture/belief with some fictional reasons I made up?

(Fun Fact: British People actually have amongst the best dental Hygiene in Europe.)

Those are the kind of comments I find the most easy to laugh off, because again it’s just a stereotype. I feel no connection to what you’re saying, like the words don’t ring true or touch any nerves. I’d say well there’s no smoke without fire but I’d feel more that you were misinformed than anything.

As I said above, this simply isn't true.

First of all, not all religions are the same.

Some religions are fundamentalist and refuse to deviate from their written word to the letter. Others challenge that and interpret it differently. Again, the Catholic Church believes in evolution, they don't believe that 'the world was made in exactly 7 days and dinosaur bones are the devil's tricks'. Catholic Schools teach their students evolution.

Sure, some are open to change more than others but it all boils down to absolute faith that there is a god. No matter how much give there is, eventually you hit the unmovable god wall.

Small point, but I think you have this the other way around. I think the burden is to prove a theory rather than not be able to dis-prove it. Otherwise you get into the flying spaghetti monster nonsense, where you can say it's fact that the Spaghetti monster exists because it can't be disproven.

As I said above, most religions will accept scientific discoveries, I don't know where this idea comes from that they all ignore science.

No I have it the right way around, and there are thousands of weird silly theories flying around about all sorts of things as you say. But they need evidence, they need to show absolutely and undisputed evidence that it’s real for it to be taken seriously.

A big part of this is down to a Christian/Western belief that Church and State should be seperate (EG: "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar..."). In Europe the sciences were relatively unimpeded compared to other cultures, for example, the Ottoman Empire, that believed that Religion and the State were inseparable.

Having said that, it's also worth noting that the Church in Europe was one of the only bastions of learning and eduction during the Dark Ages. Without it, much knowledge would have been lost. It was the church who were making records, translations of texts, preserving literature and setting up universities around Europe (University of Paris and Cambridge for example).

Religion can be used to oppress people, no doubt, but it's not accurate to say that about all religions impede progress or shun learning in favour of blind faith.

Valid point, but today in 2015 things are different. There was a time when religion was absolutely necessaries the fear of god and punishment was a brilliant way to scare morals into people too. It helped found society in a way... But now? We can do without I think.

Considering that the shooters were both French born nationals, and even looking at the 2005 London Bombings, three of the bombers were born in the UK, one born in Jamaica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Bombers), I don't think that's accurate.

I think it's this particular brand of religion that's causing it. Not all of Islam, but this particular type of fundamentalist/radical teaching is what's causing it.

You can bet your arse they were radicalised by teachings from those countries though! Ideas spread.

[Sharky]

"The Catholic Church believes in evolution for example"
And you assume that's progressive because evolution is a fact....? It's not factual, it is used as interpretation. Personally I think it's a shit interpretation, but it's in their right and there's nothing wrong with that.

Out of pure interest what do you think is a more likely explanation to lifes beginning?

[crackdude]

Out of pure interest what do you think is a more likely explanation to lifes beginning?

Firstly, God. Since I believe in a superior being, it's easy to believe he created life.

And while I can understand why someone wouldn't believe in God, I can't understand why people believe in (macro)evolution.
I'm finishing my Physics degree this year, and after 5 years of really digging into what makes things function like they do in the Universe and any sort of matter at all I can only conclude that it's impossible that life just came to existence as a fruit of the perfect conditions. It's a statistical impossibility that everything happened by cosmic chance.

That being said, evolution itself is a very flawed theory. It's like searching for star wars images, picking the first 5 or 6 pictures and trying to deduce the whole story. You can't.
Evolution can't explain the upbringing of the first living cell without entering the domain of the one in a 10^40 (that's 100000...at least 40 zeros) chance of basic molecules combining into something complex and interacting with another complex system with the same odds of existence, and repeating this several times. It's impossible.

Then it can't explain the sudden (one era's lenght) "evolution" of some simple basic life forms into complex sea creatures, nor the amazing diversity that supposedly evolved from those creatures into basic birds, dinossaurs or early felines, even faster!
And when it tries to explain human evolution, it presents a weak variety of samples (for a species that covered the whole of earth) that can't link itself to the homo sapiens anyway.

All in all, I believe, with research and deep thought about it, that evolution as an hypothesis is valid, but as a theory fails. Completely. And I understand it's heavily pushed anyway because it is the only explanation that doesn't involve god or aliens or some sort of PROJECT.

So in resume (I could talk about this for hours, but it would be boring for everyone :c):
I'm certain that life is part of a project. I would have to disregard a lot of my own field if I was to think it's all just a game of cosmic chance.
Personally, I believe in god. If I didn't, then I would simply accept that maybe the convincing explanation is yet to be thought up. And theres nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to everything.

[Sharky]

Firstly, God. Since I believe in a superior being, it's easy to believe he created life.

And while I can understand why someone wouldn't believe in God, I can't understand why people believe in (macro)evolution.
I'm finishing my Physics degree this year, and after 5 years of really digging into what makes things function like they do in the Universe and any sort of matter at all I can only conclude that it's impossible that life just came to existence as a fruit of the perfect conditions. It's a statistical impossibility that everything happened by cosmic chance.

That being said, evolution itself is a very flawed theory. It's like searching for star wars images, picking the first 5 or 6 pictures and trying to deduce the whole story. You can't.
Evolution can't explain the upbringing of the first living cell without entering the domain of the one in a 10^40 (that's 100000...at least 40 zeros) chance of basic molecules combining into something complex and interacting with another complex system with the same odds of existence, and repeating this several times. It's impossible.

Then it can't explain the sudden (one era's lenght) "evolution" of some simple basic life forms into complex sea creatures, nor the amazing diversity that supposedly evolved from those creatures into basic birds, dinossaurs or early felines, even faster!
And when it tries to explain human evolution, it presents a weak variety of samples (for a species that covered the whole of earth) that can't link itself to the homo sapiens anyway.

All in all, I believe, with research and deep thought about it, that evolution as an hypothesis is valid, but as a theory fails. Completely. And I understand it's heavily pushed anyway because it is the only explanation that doesn't involve god or aliens or some sort of PROJECT.

So in resume (I could talk about this for hours, but it would be boring for everyone :c):
I'm certain that life is part of a project. I would have to disregard a lot of my own field if I was to think it's all just a game of cosmic chance.
Personally, I believe in god. If I didn't, then I would simply accept that maybe the convincing explanation is yet to be thought up. And theres nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to everything.

Of course there are holes in the theory of evolution, plenty of things we can't explain yet. It's one of the hardest things to study since it takes so long that we can never directly observe it. But we can observe macro evolution as you mentioned, and you accept. It shows that over time things evolved by tiny incremental changes and mutations. Over many thousands of years surely you accept this is a good possibility?

I should mention that, as much as I don't believe it I have not ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer of some kind, even the 'aliens did it' theory has a slim possibility but that only further pushes back the question of who made them. But if there is an intelligent designer, and it's a supreme being of some kind, I still look at every holy text from every religion and go 'lol no.' It's not going to be something we know about, it wont have such black and white rules and regulations... A theory of god can exist without any religion and it would need scientific evidence for me to believe it. I have no 'blind faith' in anything.

[max_cady]

One major misconception about the Theory of Evolution: It's not about the origin of life itself, it's main focus is on how species might have adapted / changed behaviours  / went extinct based on certain conditions be it enviromental / social / chemical /etc.

If there is a First Cause / Primum Movens , it's outside of evolution's scope or field of research.


We are indeed in 2015, but I think misinformation on variety of topics is still an ongoing thing, be it religion /science / sociology,etc.


You guys can read a whole more on what exactly evolution is:


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1

[crackdude]

"It shows that over time things evolved by tiny incremental changes and mutations. Over many thousands of years surely you accept this is a good possibility?"
It is a widely used argument, but although we can indeed observe these changes and mutations within the same species or genus, it does not work that way in the grand scheme of things. Animals don't lose their basic characteristics over time (a certain kind of wolf may adapt, and generate a new kind of wolf, but it's still a wolf)
So much that biologists have moved away from that possibility. I'm just scratching the surface of course, and some people will have other arguments, but hey, that's science and why I love it

Also about holy texts I could go more in depth but I rather not do so in a public forum. I'll just say that I think the bible makes sense as long as you believe in a superior being that made us. The only one true dogma of the bible: God is real.
From that standpoint everything fits together neatly.

By now you must have noticed how much I like talking about this sort of thing lol

EDIT:
Thanks max.

[Sharky]

I get it, but there was no one time where a horse was a dog for example... But instead they were both the same creature at one point and took different evolutionary paths that over time separated them so much they were completely different.

If the only true and important dogma of the bible is that 'god exists' why not go with any given (one god) religion?

[crackdude]

I get it, but there was no one time where a horse was a dog for example... But instead they were both the same creature at one point and took different evolutionary paths that over time separated them so much they were completely different.

If the only true and important dogma of the bible is that 'god exists' why not go with any given (one god) religion?

That's what was idealized at first, yes. But it simply turns out that it doesn't quite work that way..
Again, it's the best idea humans have come up with other than "superior aliens/god", but as it stands you need quite a lot of "faith" to fully believe in it..

Because not all religions follow the bible. Catholicism, picking up what I had said, teaches that all people can go to heaven when they die. Well, that goes completely against what the book says (Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 for example).
It wouldn't make sense to believe in god and the bible and then follow a religion that doesn't comply with what it says.
As you probably know, Jesus himself said that not everyone claiming to be following him actually did.

[inthesky]

Well...tangents. hehehe.

"It shows that over time things evolved by tiny incremental changes and mutations. Over many thousands of years surely you accept this is a good possibility?"
It is a widely used argument, but although we can indeed observe these changes and mutations within the same species or genus, it does not work that way in the grand scheme of things. Animals don't lose their basic characteristics over time (a certain kind of wolf may adapt, and generate a new kind of wolf, but it's still a wolf)
So much that biologists have moved away from that possibility. I'm just scratching the surface of course, and some people will have other arguments, but hey, that's science and why I love it

Also about holy texts I could go more in depth but I rather not do so in a public forum. I'll just say that I think the bible makes sense as long as you believe in a superior being that made us. The only one true dogma of the bible: God is real.
From that standpoint everything fits together neatly.

By now you must have noticed how much I like talking about this sort of thing lol

EDIT:
Thanks max.

The biology stuff I'm a lot less versed in. That being said, what you're saying doesn't really prove anything - what possibility, exactly? A genus is such because it has a variety of species that share similar characteristics, some of which if not gone extinct often adapt due to changes in the environment. It's just classification. The Cro-magnon were the ancestors of humans and then after a bunch of changes we have the humans we are today. In the distant future if we live long enough we'll probably look different.

as for the bolded, that is a not-insignificant leap and underscores the tautological nature of belief in God - it is the word of Christ, it makes sense if you believe in Christ, etc. that's one of my personal problems with religions - meaning, why I am not religious. I don't begrudge anybody the practicing of a religion. But, I see no reason to presuppose the existence of an afterlife or anything supernatural. In the most inoffensive way possible, the most prominent religions I can think of have their historical origin during times when knowledge of the natural world was severely limited compared to what we've got. If it's about moral compasses, I've never found a group that suits my own, and I don't think I need a religion to have a functioning moral compass.

Also I'm skeptical of viewing the religious institutions as fundamentally progressive. Yes, things like missionary projects have been instrumental in things like developing English literacy/developing cultural connections and the missions are crafted with a service aspect in mind. But cultural coexistence has in the past not been the goal. Look at Hawaii and its missionaries, the native Hawaiians worshiped pagan deities, and Manifest Destiny was most definitely a goal in the mission projects alongside "civilizing" them. Christian missionaries also have a tortured history with India.

While I respect that for example, the current Catholic Pope has taken some reform-oriented strides towards how the orthodoxy should operate ("spiritual alzheimer's" and such) I have a hard time viewing as progressive institutions that propagate values/social mores that are not progressive. Some of the moral ideas are good of course, but when I was a Christian as I grew up I had to put so many qualifiers to my belief in God that I ultimately decided not to bother.

[Sharky]

That's what was idealized at first, yes. But it simply turns out that it doesn't quite work that way..
Again, it's the best idea humans have come up with other than "superior aliens/god", but as it stands you need quite a lot of "faith" to fully believe in it..

Because not all religions follow the bible. Catholicism, picking up what I had said, teaches that all people can go to heaven when they die. Well, that goes completely against what the book says (Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 for example).
It wouldn't make sense to believe in god and the bible and then follow a religion that doesn't comply with what it says.
As you probably know, Jesus himself said that not everyone claiming to be following him actually did.

Yeah but I mean why the Bible? Of all the religions why did you personally choose Christianity, and the Bibles. I mean the logical scientific debate breaks down once you think deeply about why this potential intelligent designer would give us these rule books and guides that all seem really outdated in our current society. Why do they seem as though they were written for the time they were written in and have such little baring on todays lifestyle? Surely he would instruct a book to be written that was perfect for any time. Or show himself to write a sequel! He's got a lot to say about sleeping with other peoples wives or stealing their cattle, but nothing to say about internet/phone hacking and identity theft or off shore tax havens!

I'm willing to admit the possibility of an intelligent designer, with enough proof. But organised religion? Na...

EDIT: I hope this doesn't feel like we're grilling you and trying to knock your faith or whatever. Not trying to, just giving my side.

[crackdude]

"I hope this doesn't feel like we're grilling you and trying to knock your faith or whatever. Not trying to, just giving my side."
Not at all! It's nice to have a pleasant conversation on these matters

Sharky and inthesky: Why the bible, why believe in Christ.
Well, pretty much most historians will point out that Jesus was an actual person, regardless if you believe his miracles or not. In fact, there's "more chance" of Jesus existing than Socrates, and the second one is almost irrefutable.
Now, why believe he is the son of god? Well, for the same reason israelites thought so back in the first century: the prophecies. Many of the things that happened to Jesus were predicted several hundreds of years before.
Which leads to "why the bible". The bible's predictions weren't just about Jesus. For example, the book of Daniel predicts the progression of empires that would rule the "biblical" lands. Empires were predicted to fall centuries before they even rose.
Only someone a step above human intelligence could predict such things.

As for
"why this potential intelligent designer would give us these rule books and guides that all seem really outdated in our current society"
Because most of the rules (almost every one of the old testament) were for the Israelites before Christ, they do not apply for christians. Jesus abolished the Law, and laid down the groundwork for a righteous worship of god that could include anyone, regardless of nation (as opposed to before where the Israelites were god's only supported nation).

"identity theft or off shore tax havens!"
Pslam 26:4 ; Romans 13:7   be creative :p

But seriously, as you said before, the bible has excellent advice and guidance even for today. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted such a long ass time. And with careful examination, you'll come to the conclusion that the bible has very little rules to be applied today, rather gives guidelines to have a joyful life, regardless of the century we're on.

Of course I would say my religion is the right one. But rather I'll just give this food for thought:
There are only 2 religions: the right one and the wrong one. If the right one follows the bible, then you just have to hear what the bible has to say.

(I do hope I'm not sounding preachy. Totally not my objective..)

[Sharky]

Sorry for the late reply, had a weekend of sin...

Thanks for the reply, I can see your point. I especially like your one right and one wrong analogy of religions.
But on that same note, I could say there have been hundreds of Gods throughout history, you only believe in one. I only believe in one less! ;D

[crackdude]

I would like to apologize for completely derailing the thread, but I did enjoy it.

Maybe aliens did make you, Sharky!

[Sharky]

Na its all good. You didn't derail it this is just the path it took.

[CrazyT]

It was an interesting read plus the whole part about a religion causing such things is very much related. Questioning religion is only natural and logical imo.

Im actually impressed with crackdude's explenation myself. Couldnt have said it better. Its funny how essentially all abrahamic religions kind of believe the same thing when a little bit of common sense comes in to play. I believe most of the extremists are simply uneducated morons, very backwardthinking. And its sad that these people get support from the average uneducated person.

I feel like islam is in a huge conflict right now. Not just towards the outside but also from within. There's no definite or fixed thing everyone agrees about for some strange reason.

I dont think in history the islamic world has been in conflict like this with each other. Partially I blame the west a little bit with wanting to force their influence. They are the ones that have kept encouraging uneducated nutjob leaders. As long as they were submissive and easily corrupted/bribed. Basically people with no selfworth and no principles. I mean its just a small part.

The biggest part is we muslims ourselves. We need a reform in representation and overall mentality. A lot of people say that the newer generation is turning out more extreme than the previous. There's little questioning among the community and only actions based on emotion. Usually the idea of "west interference in middle east" is enough to rile up a croud and convince without any rationality challenging that sentiment