Middle East Crisis

[Prufrock]

Of course they would. As I've said many times, I absolutely do not claim or believe that religion is the or a cause of every war or conflict or wrong. It's the cause of some though, and if we got rid of it we'd have less of those things (though not none of those things) and the ones we did have would at least be based on things that exist.

See, that's where you and I disagree. People cause wars. That could be because they decide on the basis of some arcane old paragraphs in old manuscripts that it's a noble thing to do, it could be because "the other lot are "different"", but it's still people (or groups of people) at the basis of it.

I'm not at all convinced there'd be less of those things because Religion went away...

spot on - me neither. It displays what looks to me like a charming naivety about the human condition...

That's precisely the specious reasoning that the NRA rely on when they say "Guns don't kill people; people kill people".

As I've said many times, I don't for a second claim that religion is the cause of every conflict, or that getting rid of it would lead to a peaceful lovely Utopia, but if you're both suggesting that no conflict, war or atrocity has been caused or aggravated (and that second one is crucial: guns don't cause "murder" but they make it a lot worse) by religion then I'd suggest it's not me displaying the charming naivety.

[thebish]

That's precisely the specious reasoning that the NRA rely on when they say "Guns don't kill people; people kill people".

no it's not.

[Prufrock]

That's not really an argument.

"Guns don't kill people; bad people with guns kill people. If you took the guns away, there'd still be bad people, and they'd still find ways of and committing violence and murder. Human nature is what causes this, not guns. Therefore, guns don't cause violence or murder. It's naive to think that simply taking away guns would stop or reduce those things."

Sounds familiar to me.

Do you genuinely not accept that religion has ever caused or aggravated any conflicts or wars or violent acts?

[thebish]

That's not really an argument.

no - it was simply a refutation of your claim!

here's the thing...

Religion - like it or not - has been a massive shaper of society across the entire world for centuries. Not to have had religion to have shaped us as we are (not least - education, culture, politics, literature) and to have shaped many of the ways we think would have led to a very different world indeed than the one we have now. It might have been better or worse - we have no way of knowing that...

but - the world WOULD undoubtedly be very different - which means that the course of history would have been VERY different.

It is stupid to claim with as much youthful swagger as you do, that given such an obvious fact, (the huge impact of removing "religion" - good and/or bad) - that there would be fewer wars...

there might have been wars that wouldn't have happened - there also might have been other wars that would have happened - likewise for the future if you were only starting "now" and entirely purging the world of religion tomorrow morning.

what DO we know in a world of such uncertainty?? we know that humans are a violent and aggressive species...

your confidence that we need religion to create as many wars as we have had - or will have - or could have - is simple naivety (but nonetheless admirable!)

[Prufrock]

Except that whilst religion has shaped our culture, I don't accept that it has a fundamental impact on our day to day life anymore. Historically I might not have been here had it not been for religion, but that's just an extended version of the butterfly effect, not an argument for or against it. My morality is not dependent on religion, nor my politics, nor very little else. The cultural quirks of what I do at Christmas to a very minor extent, the phrases I use to swear without properly swearing, otherwise not much. That's true for plenty. And lo and behold, how many people do we have gallivanting around hacking people's heads off? Not many, and those that do? Well, they're not secular democrats, put it that way.

I'm not suggesting we go back and erase religion from the very first time it appeared. As you say, who knows what would have happened. The first people could have lost their shit at having no explanation, however wrong, for what the sun was and committed mass suicide. I'm sure over history some people would have done better things without it, and some people worse. We have absolutely no way of knowing.

Now though, we've out-grown it. Science has got its shit together, we know enough not to need to make stuff up to get through the day. We don't need it for morality and over the past few centuries the countries that have got more secular have got more prosperous, invented more cool stuff and got less violent compared to those that haven't.

More of that, please.

[Worthy4England]

That's not really an argument.

"Guns don't kill people; bad people with guns kill people. If you took the guns away, there'd still be bad people, and they'd still find ways of and committing violence and murder. Human nature is what causes this, not guns. Therefore, guns don't cause violence or murder. It's naive to think that simply taking away guns would stop or reduce those things."

Sounds familiar to me.

Do you genuinely not accept that religion has ever caused or aggravated any conflicts or wars or violent acts?

I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't about control of land, power or resources (or jurisdiction) - I haven't thought very hard, so there could well be plenty. That might involve two religious groups, but the control of land, power or resources is generally more important than the religious aspect. The religious aspect just provides an "oh look, they're not like us" banner for folks to rally behind.

I don't think that's the same line of reasoning as the NRA in either it's context or applicability - I don't see the parallel on this basis. The purpose of a gun is to shoot something with it. More guns in circulation, more things get shot, including people. I don't think it follows that if there was no religion, large groups of people would find fewer things to go to war over.

[Prufrock]

That's not really an argument.

"Guns don't kill people; bad people with guns kill people. If you took the guns away, there'd still be bad people, and they'd still find ways of and committing violence and murder. Human nature is what causes this, not guns. Therefore, guns don't cause violence or murder. It's naive to think that simply taking away guns would stop or reduce those things."

Sounds familiar to me.

Do you genuinely not accept that religion has ever caused or aggravated any conflicts or wars or violent acts?

I'm trying to think of a war that wasn't about control of land, power or resources (or jurisdiction) - I haven't thought very hard, so there could well be plenty. That might involve two religious groups, but the control of land, power or resources is generally more important than the religious aspect. The religious aspect just provides an "oh look, they're not like us" banner for folks to rally behind.

I don't think that's the same line of reasoning as the NRA in either it's context or applicability - I don't see the parallel on this basis. The purpose of a gun is to shoot something with it. More guns in circulation, more things get shot, including people. I don't think it follows that if there was no religion, large groups of people would find fewer things to go to war over.

In many acts of violence the "I want to kill this person for their wallet/phone/membership of another gang/shagging my wife" is more important than the gun. It just provides an easy way to do the killing.

In any case, that only addresses the issue of causation rather than aggravation though. In reality it's very difficult to ever put a war down to one cause. I'd still argue that in many religion is a sine qua non, but I'd also accept in many others it's not, if it plays any part at all. But even if you don't accept that, it seems blindingly obvious that there are plenty of wars that would have been less bad. It might not be "the cause" without which there'd be no war, but it aggravates many (or even just "some") of the ones there are.

As I said, I'm not saying we'd end up in some Utopia, I'm not saying large groups of people would find many fewer things to go to war over. I'm saying some people would find fewer reasons to go to war. Some others would find fewer reasons to do such bad things within those wars. Given the justification is fictional, I'd take those small things.

I'm not arguing that religion is the number 1 cause of bad things, or the worst thing in the world. My problem with it isn't that it's the worst, but that it is bad and predicated on a fiction. I think the world would be a less violent place if we got rid of religion. I also think the world would be a less violent place if resources were unlimited, or if everyone felt they had all the land they needed. The difference is only one of those problems is based on something that can seemingly be got rid of. And if the others could be got rid of, say if someone could invent a perpetual motion machine, I'd be for that too.

[TANGODANCER]

Sooooo. We've outgrown religion and science has got its shxt together, hey. Oh goody, a major triumph for the world's two per cent of atheists.

No agreement will ever be reached for a very simple reason, and it's nothing to do with religion which has never been a cause of war but always a handy excuse for one. The simple reason is people. On here alone we have:

The believers in God, call us (well, me then) The Votives, a following who hold a firm belief in God, the after-life and the power of prayer and get off on the smell of candle-wax, incense, confession and celebrating Christmas and Easter. Maxims ( at least in principle) are not to murder anybody or covet their neighbours wives. Unfortunately, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions etc," oft applies.

The non-believers, call them The Sinatras (I'll do it my way) who deny the need for Christmas or Easter, but are quite happy with the chocolate eggs and presents. They'd probably like all Churches, Mosques and Synagogues to be turned into antique and second-hand furniture venues or curry palaces. Maxims : "If I want to covet my neighbours wife it's nobody's business as long as I don't get caught".

The Agnostics, call them The Prudentials, who commit to no view because they can't prove or disprove either so they take out an insurance policy by sneakily uttering a silent prayer or two, just in case, and carrying both a Bible and a copy of The Blind Watchmaker in their briefcases. They have no maxims because they're not sure what they are.

And you think we'll find agreement or solutions?

[thebish]

Now though, we've out-grown it. Science has got its shit together, we know enough not to need to make stuff up to get through the day. We don't need it for morality and over the past few centuries the countries that have got more secular have got more prosperous, invented more cool stuff and got less violent compared to those that haven't.

More of that, please.

I think that is a very rosy-eyed and dare-i-say-it-again? "naive" view of science... "power" has every bit as much capacity to corrupt and pervert the course of science - just as it does religion - with potentially even more devastating consequences...

you remind me of whatsisface on the Fast Show..

MilkScience's brilliant, isn't it!

[Prufrock]

It's not that science has fixed everything, but that we're at the point that science means we don't need religion anymore. The "good stuff" religion could do or was needed for has shrunk massively.

That doesn't mean science won't lead to discoveries that bring about the end of us, can't be used for terrible things, or that power won't corrupt it, but keeping religion isn't going to stop that. And, crucially, science exists! It's easy to stop power corrupting religion - get rid of religion; it's based on a man made of imaginary straw. It's not as easy to stop power corrupting science. The stuff that science comes from is real!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Marvellous, so to sum up: these cxnts all lined up and sliced the living heads off of a random selection of Syrians because -
(Monty) they want more oil
(WtW) they don't want to cause war, this is self evident
(Hoboh, bish, Bobo, Worthy) they're just trying to demonstrate their affinity to the rest of humanity.

Nothing to do with their allegiance to the Islamic State, nothing to do with being Muslim, nope nothing at all.

[Worthy4England]

Good, glad that's all sorted then.

[TANGODANCER]

It's not that science has fixed everything, but that we're at the point that science means we don't need religion anymore. The "good stuff" religion could do or was needed for has shrunk massively.

That doesn't mean science won't lead to discoveries that bring about the end of us, can't be used for terrible things, or that power won't corrupt it, but keeping religion isn't going to stop that. And, crucially, science exists! It's easy to stop power corrupting religion - get rid of religion; it's based on a man made of imaginary straw. It's not as easy to stop power corrupting science. The stuff that science comes from is real!

I'm beginning to wonder, do you even have the faintest idea what religion, most of it anyway, is about Pru? That believers live an earthly life in preparation for the the afterlife? That this life isn't about just enjoying the fxck out of it now and bollox to the rest? Is that your philosophy, a man made of imaginary straw? Well, at last I'm beginning to understand you.

[Hoboh]

Marvellous, so to sum up: these cxnts all lined up and sliced the living heads off of a random selection of Syrians because -
(Monty) they want more oil
(WtW) they don't want to cause war, this is self evident
(Hoboh, bish, Bobo, Worthy) they're just trying to demonstrate their affinity to the rest of humanity.

Nothing to do with their allegiance to the Islamic State, nothing to do with being Muslim, nope nothing at all.

What! They are nothing but a bunch of nasty barstewards who want blowing back to the age they allegedly want to live in, fuelled and empowered by simpleton misfits conned into believing that their religion supports it.
Mind you having said all that, most of the Middle East cannot be trusted and why the feck our fore fathers left them sat on all that oil instead of shipping them off to the Antarctic beggars belief.

[Hoboh]

It's not that science has fixed everything, but that we're at the point that science means we don't need religion anymore. The "good stuff" religion could do or was needed for has shrunk massively.

That doesn't mean science won't lead to discoveries that bring about the end of us, can't be used for terrible things, or that power won't corrupt it, but keeping religion isn't going to stop that. And, crucially, science exists! It's easy to stop power corrupting religion - get rid of religion; it's based on a man made of imaginary straw. It's not as easy to stop power corrupting science. The stuff that science comes from is real!

I'm beginning to wonder, do you even have the faintest idea what religion, most of it anyway, is about Pru? That believers live an earthly life in preparation for the the afterlife? That this life isn't about just enjoying the fxck out of it now and bollox to the rest? Is that your philosophy, a man made of imaginary straw? Well, at last I'm beginning to understand you.

When you've a couple of months spare explain it to me mate.

[thebish]

It's not that science has fixed everything, but that we're at the point that science means we don't need religion anymore. The "good stuff" religion could do or was needed for has shrunk massively.

That doesn't mean science won't lead to discoveries that bring about the end of us, can't be used for terrible things, or that power won't corrupt it, but keeping religion isn't going to stop that. And, crucially, science exists! It's easy to stop power corrupting religion - get rid of religion; it's based on a man made of imaginary straw. It's not as easy to stop power corrupting science. The stuff that science comes from is real!

given the tendency of humans to invent/turn-to religion over millenia - I suspect it is not at all easy to stop power corrupting religion - because it simply is not that easy to get rid of religion - humans still very much appear to want/need it...

as for your other point about the civilised west not being very violent in this new scientific age... all I can say is - utter toshbags!

now... hmmmm... as for leaning on the virtues of science to lessen the number/scope/death-toll of wars.... forgive me if I am wrong - but is it not true that by FAR the biggest science budgets across the world are dedicated to military research?? Even a massive proportion of the yummy space-budget was/is motivated by America's ongoing desire to militarise space!! I'm sure you won't be leaning on the old "it's not weapons that kill people" argument just now - will you? thanks for the weapons, science! and for all the tasty peace-loving new ones - biological/chemical/remotely operated that you are so busy inventing for us right now - but don't worry about it, Pru loves his i-phone!

(now don't get me wrong - I love science - I have a science degree - I am a bachelor of science no less (go me!) - but I don't share your misty-eyed view that science is the answer to the human predicament of violence and aggression, any more than religion is...)

[bobo the clown]

Comedy. That's what we need. More laughs.

Cartoons of Mo should help.

[Hoboh]

It's not that science has fixed everything, but that we're at the point that science means we don't need religion anymore. The "good stuff" religion could do or was needed for has shrunk massively.

That doesn't mean science won't lead to discoveries that bring about the end of us, can't be used for terrible things, or that power won't corrupt it, but keeping religion isn't going to stop that. And, crucially, science exists! It's easy to stop power corrupting religion - get rid of religion; it's based on a man made of imaginary straw. It's not as easy to stop power corrupting science. The stuff that science comes from is real!

given the tendency of humans to invent/turn-to religion over millenia - I suspect it is not at all easy to stop power corrupting religion - because it simply is not that easy to get rid of religion - humans still very much appear to want/need it...

as for your other point about the civilised west not being very violent in this new scientific age... all I can say is - utter toshbags!

now... hmmmm... as for leaning on the virtues of science to lessen the number/scope/death-toll of wars.... forgive me if I am wrong - but is it not true that by FAR the biggest science budgets across the world are dedicated to military research?? Even a massive proportion of the yummy space-budget was/is motivated by America's ongoing desire to militarise space!! I'm sure you won't be leaning on the old "it's not weapons that kill people" argument just now - will you? thanks for the weapons, science! and for all the tasty peace-loving new ones - biological/chemical/remotely operated that you are so busy inventing for us right now - but don't worry about it, Pru loves his i-phone!

(now don't get me wrong - I love science - I have a science degree - I am a bachelor of science no less (go me!) - but I don't share your misty-eyed view that science is the answer to the human predicament of violence and aggression, any more than religion is...)

I thought you were married..................... or are you a mate of Maverick?

[bobo the clown]

^^^ yay. That's a start Hobes

[jaffka]

Religion, the ones that I know and practised by the ones that I know certainly aren't anything like the ones you see associated with atrocities.

Idiots are out there but to suggest or even think that everyone who follows a religion wants to or has the potential to start beheading, killing etc, is quite frankly idiotic.