Middle East Crisis

[Prufrock]

It doesn't have to be the only reason anyone does anything bad!

Of course people do terrible things for politics, or territory or power, but they all actually exist.

[Prufrock]

Religion poisons everything.

Okay Pru, I'll take the bait on that one, albeit unwillingly as it will solve nothing anyway:

Being fully aware that you love scoffing loudly at all forms of religion and "imaginary friends", and that you claim to possess a fair degree of intelligence, how can you claim something that almost universally promotes peace and love of the fellow man, poisons everything? Why not admit that power-hungry people, regardless of their beliefs, are totally responsible? A Bible, Koran, Torah or any other text, never pulled triggers, pushed buttons or sliced somebody's head off, that's left to those seeking power, wealth or dominance who use their forms of God to motivate the mindless. Behind every single war that purported to be God inspired is a controlling faction who pull all the strings and send millions to their deaths. I don't excuse the church and state including our own who were responsible for sending multi-thousands of uneducated peasants, armed with pitchforks, out to die by claiming "God wills it" despite the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is a core belief in most religions. What was the motivation if it wasn't wealth and power? Is the IS a world peace promoting entity or a lunatic element who are prepared to wipe out half the globe to prove their dominance? God sanctioned that did he?

Religion, in its concept, its pure form, is the one thing that forever seeks world peace. Greedy, mindless men in positions of power manipulate it, and its devotees into realising their own aims by using it as a power tool and preaching lies and hate, the very things religion decries. Historically, what could a skint King, desperate to keep an army he couldn't afford or lose his throne and power base, do? Manipulate the church into backing him by claiming his enemies were decrying God and sent the army into pointless battles knowing half of them would die in pursuit of gold-paved streets that existed only in the minds of the mindless. History backs the claim many times.

Religion is a choice anybody has. It's rewards are all of the celestial variety not the earthly. " What doth it profit a man if he gains the whole world?" etc. Manipulating people by claiming it as God's will it is the work of charlatans, not the will of the people. Forcing people to convert to another belief on threat of having their heads cut off is religion? No, it isn't, it's lunacy and nothing to do with any man's God or his religion.

Amen.

I was being somewhat facetious in quoting the motif from the excellent 'God is not great', a book you've already indicated you've no interest in reading because it doesn't agree with you.

Though shalt not kill is not just a core belief in most religions; it's a core aspect of human morality, which religion has no particular claim over.

"Religion, in its concept, its pure form, is the one thing that forever seeks world peace."

The one thing? Really? And it isn't doing a very good job of it.

For an omnipotent f*cker he's not very good at stopping people killing each other for stupid reasons.

[Hoboh]

Religion poisons everything.

Okay Pru, I'll take the bait on that one, albeit unwillingly as it will solve nothing anyway:

Being fully aware that you love scoffing loudly at all forms of religion and "imaginary friends", and that you claim to possess a fair degree of intelligence, how can you claim something that almost universally promotes peace and love of the fellow man, poisons everything? Why not admit that power-hungry people, regardless of their beliefs, are totally responsible? A Bible, Koran, Torah or any other text, never pulled triggers, pushed buttons or sliced somebody's head off, that's left to those seeking power, wealth or dominance who use their forms of God to motivate the mindless. Behind every single war that purported to be God inspired is a controlling faction who pull all the strings and send millions to their deaths. I don't excuse the church and state including our own who were responsible for sending multi-thousands of uneducated peasants, armed with pitchforks, out to die by claiming "God wills it" despite the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is a core belief in most religions. What was the motivation if it wasn't wealth and power? Is the IS a world peace promoting entity or a lunatic element who are prepared to wipe out half the globe to prove their dominance? God sanctioned that did he?

Religion, in its concept, its pure form, is the one thing that forever seeks world peace. Greedy, mindless men in positions of power manipulate it, and its devotees into realising their own aims by using it as a power tool and preaching lies and hate, the very things religion decries. Historically, what could a skint King, desperate to keep an army he couldn't afford or lose his throne and power base, do? Manipulate the church into backing him by claiming his enemies were decrying God and sent the army into pointless battles knowing half of them would die in pursuit of gold-paved streets that existed only in the minds of the mindless. History backs the claim many times.

Religion is a choice anybody has. It's rewards are all of the celestial variety not the earthly. " What doth it profit a man if he gains the whole world?" etc. Manipulating people by claiming it as God's will it is the work of charlatans, not the will of the people. Forcing people to convert to another belief on threat of having their heads cut off is religion? No, it isn't, it's lunacy and nothing to do with any man's God or his religion.

Amen.

I was being somewhat facetious in quoting the motif from the excellent 'God is not great', a book you've already indicated you've no interest in reading because it doesn't agree with you.

Though shalt not kill is not just a core belief in most religions; it's a core aspect of human morality, which religion has no particular claim over.

"Religion, in its concept, its pure form, is the one thing that forever seeks world peace."

The one thing? Really? And it isn't doing a very good job of it.

For an omnipotent f*cker he's not very good at stopping people killing each other for stupid reasons.

Pru, I have serious doubts about religion but bugger me mate you're well burning your bridges

[TANGODANCER]

I was being somewhat facetious in quoting the motif from the excellent 'God is not great', a book you've already indicated you've no interest in reading because it doesn't agree with you.

Though shalt not kill is not just a core belief in most religions; it's a core aspect of human morality, which religion has no particular claim over.

And we learned about human morality from where?

"Religion, in its concept, its pure form, is the one thing that forever seeks world peace."

The one thing? Really? And it isn't doing a very good job of it.

You mean people who use it for their own ends and even those who profess no belief in it by ignoring its teachings want to blame it for what exactly? Their own shortcomings?

For an omnipotent f*cker he's not very good at stopping people killing each other for stupid reasons.

You obviously not only don't believe in God, you don't even know the first thing about him.

As I said, Pru, without malice, I was loathe to comment originally, because nothing about religion will ever be solved by arguing, but your statements have more holes than a string vest. Have your beliefs and welcome to them and if Christopher Hitchen's "God is not great" is your bible, fine, go for it. I read the reviews on it, that was enough. Whatever floats your boat. I have no argument with that. Pax Tecum.

[Prufrock]

And we learned about human morality from where?

Where do you think we 'learned' human morality from?

[thebish]

personally I think we "learned" this slippery and changeable thing we call "morality" simply from trial and error and the varied experiences of being human and trying to live together in communities...

[Worthy4England]

Human morality comes from humans, but wars, they come from God.

Fcuking brilliant. So simple, I wish I'd have thought it up.

[bobo the clown]

Fear.

Fear and loathing.

Fear, loathing and a need for somewhere to leave our things.

Fear, loathing, a need for somewhere to leave our things ... and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

.... oh, OK. "Lots of reasons".

[bobo the clown]

Human morality comes from humans, but wars, they come from God.

Fcuking brilliant. So simple, I wish I'd have thought it up.

....... is the winning entry.

Fck Pru, you're on a roll.

[Prufrock]

It's pretty unlikely that I think God causes wars, to be honest.

[Worthy4England]

[Montreal Wanderer]

It's pretty unlikely that I think God causes wars, to be honest.

If s/he did, the casualties would be from imaginary friendly fire no doubt.

[Prufrock]

BOOM!

On a serious note, I'd go with what Bish said, give-or-take. Certainly makes more sense than morality being invented with the ten commandments.

[Worthy4England]

BOOM!

On a serious note, I'd go with what Bish said, give-or-take. Certainly makes more sense than morality being invented with the ten commandments.

Agreed - although I keep a set here with me in my Ark of the Covenant.

On a serious note too, it's all too easy to blame the flag of convenience for "war" being something called religion. Folks would still find shit loads to fight about without it.

In fairness, smiting infidels does seem like a fairly noble cause though.

[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.

[thebish]

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.

hmm.. philosophical sophistry there... land borders (another key reason for wars) - lines on maps - only "exist" because humans have decided they do (and because humans have drawn them) - and they don't always exist the same for different groups of humans - hence the disputes (land borders are not self-evident truths)...

which isn't all that different from what you say "religious" wars are about - something that only exists because humans say it does - and different groups with different interpretations.. is it?

[Worthy4England]

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...

[thebish]

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...

[Worthy4England]

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...

Well it fits a particular train of thought neatly.

[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.

hmm.. philosophical sophistry there... land borders (another key reason for wars) - lines on maps - only "exist" because humans have decided they do (and because humans have drawn them) - and they don't always exist the same for different groups of humans - hence the disputes (land borders are not self-evident truths)...

which isn't all that different from what you say "religious" wars are about - something that only exists because humans say it does - and different groups with different interpretations.. is it?

It's not sophistry to draw a distinction between the abstract and the imaginary. Further, whilst borders are abstract, disputes about borders aren't about concepts, they're about tangible land, which definitely exists.