Recent events, such as terrorism committed by Muslims, have led to some people banking on it as a rationale for wanting religion wiped off the face of the Earth. Atheists especially are excited, using this as proof of their claim that religion is the cause of all conflict. However, I disagree. It is still a slippery slope to prove this since most experiential knowledge has shown that violence occurs for many other reasons other than religion. Yet the militant anti-religionists are vehement in promoting this view to the point of treating it like Gospel truth and perhaps even insulting others who disagree or conflict with them. Let’s get back to Earth, then.
One of the things in the news lately is the discovery of a possible stone age massacre site – perhaps the earliest known massacre. Archaeologists working in Nataruk, Kenya, found over 27 skeletons of people who may have been killed with various types of weapons. One skeleton of a pregnant woman was even found in a position where she was bound hand and foot. The event is dated to 10,000 years ago based on the evidence. If anyone believes the stone age people were non-violent and pure – this should tell them otherwise.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
Whatever really happened, it is hard to connect religion to it. According to the Reuters report, the victims may have possessed food that the attackers wanted – leading to one conclusion that it was a pillaging attack. Even if the attackers might have held a religious belief of some sort – which could not be proven – it could also not be proven if this was the motivation of the attack. At least one can conclude, there was conflict, murder and violence long before religion, much more organized religion, existed. It thus most likely precludes the thesis that religion is the cause of warfare.
What would then be cause of conflict and violence? I have written in my personal blog about it, using the example of two men finding a well or oasis in the desert. Because they perceive it as a limited resource, each doesn’t want to share it. They each want exclusive ownership of this. The way to resolve this: kill the other one. The successful killer owns the well and rules over it. For me, this is the most basic way to describe conflict in the world. It’s mostly about resources and domination.
Back to the case of Islam, while I have read resources saying that the Quran in some verses encourages modern violence, many Muslims have lived without doing harm to anyone. In the end, whatever religion one belongs to, the decision to live ethically falls to the individual person. Yet the paranoia being spread in the Internet tries to gives the idea that Muslims are “sleeper murderers,” and will one day attack you even if you’re kind to them. This is baloney that tries to encourage you to be the first one to be violent.
Muslims are not engaged in a world conquest mission to force their culture onto other nations and parts of the world. This is a made-up story to make people feel threatened and to increase hatred and anger against Muslims. So when a military like the U.S. decides to invade another country, which these days tends to be a Muslim country, these people riled up in hatred will support it. But what the U.S. and participating invaders are really after are resources, like oil. Something that Mnar Muhawesh of Mint Press News explained in an excellent big-picture way.
Also, the claim that the Cologne attacks are part of an Islamic cultural effort to “conquer the world” or part of a so-called rape game are untrue. German police have already revealed that the sexual assaults are actually a modus of a criminal gang that uses the groping and other sexual assault acts to cover up their stealing or robbing their victims. Some Muslims, a few refugees, Arab-looking men and North Africans may be involved; but it is not an act of religion. It is the act of a crime group. In related news, the 13-year-old Russian-German girl who earlier claimed to have been raped by refugees or migrants after disappearing on Jan. 11 rescinded her story and admitted that she made it up. And claims that the rapes are part of “taharrush gamea” – a so-called rape game (“game” probably a mishearing of “gamea”) – are actually false.
Perhaps these overly idealistic anti-religionists should also realize that religion, as demonstrated by the explanation about Islam above, is part and parcel of culture these days. But for sure, even if you eliminate religion and any form of spirituality, conflict would still remain. As explained above, there are so many reasons people can find for hurting and killing someone. Get Real Philippines has always pointed to culture as the cause of many problems. Culture consists of the things that you actually believe and practice in everyday life. Certain cultures can have their own reasons for killing people even without religion.
For example, teens and gangs today. They don’t fight because of religion. Some want to kill someone because they were insulted or the other person seduced their girlfriend (or even simply because)! Look at the Maguindanao Massacre: it was done for political reasons. Look at headhunter culture, too. Really, people kill for the pettiest things.
Thus, if religion was eliminated from the world, violence won’t be significantly reduced; it’s likely to remain the same. If you really want to eliminate violence, why not eliminate the entire human race, since violence seems natural to humans. Or, change the nature of people in how they behave towards each other. That’s probably why religion was founded in the first place, to introduce through spirituality the idea that since we are all created by and equal before a certain deity, so we shouldn’t be hurting each other. But of course, ideas throughout time become warped and movements get hijacked, so sadly, we are back to square one.
What sullied religion was simply being tied to political interests. Getting political power can corrupt anyone, religious or not, because they get the desire to force others under their will. It is for this reason that the American founding fathers thought of separation of church and state.
I will agree with what some people from both pro- and anti-religion camps would say: the best way anyone can show that their way works best is through their personal conduct and example. Show us you live ethically (or at least that you have basic decency), we’ll believe you.
I believe, as my cohorts here do, that what Filipinos embrace as their culture is what actually pulls the country down. And those who seem to be anti-dictators, who may also believe themselves to be “heroes,” are the real dictators.
I can kill you because you are a religious person but that wont kill religion. So do I need to kill the pope to end religion world wide? Useless. There will be a new pope. So killing to eradicate religion is stupid and useless.
Can you pls quit using words like ethics and morality. I dont live with those words. I dont eat my breakfast in an ethical way, I dont sleep in an ethical way, I dont do my errands/groceries in an ethical way; I dont do my job in an ethical way.
How do you eat your breakfast in an ethical/moral way?
If a cannibal ate another man for breakfast, would you still eschew morality or ethics in this case? Otherwise it would seem you want to say he did no wrong for killing somebody.
No, I will not quit using ethics or morality because those are the standard words for describing a system of good and bad, or something you can do versus something you should not do. Live with it.
If you and I are in a plane crash and all I can do to stay alive (i give more emphasize/meaning to stay alive) is to eat your dead body (for breakfast, lunch or dinner) then I will do that. You may call that unethical, immoral but I will do it anyway.
That what is normal, we will never speak about of. Because it is obvious. Whats the point in emphasizing that I dont steal. If I will say publicly that I dont steal, it will make me very suspicious. Probably I want to hide something.
If I’m already dead, eating my dead body won’t necessarily be wrong. But if you deliberately murdered me to eat me, wouldn’t that be wrong, or would you eschew “morality/ethics” in order to not call it wrong? It’s hard to find a basis of right/wrong actions without morality/ethics.
I really dont know what I would do if you were still alive. I never been in such a situation BUT I can imagine that one’s will to survive the ordeal, makes him/her do things, we couldnt imagine. So I will not rule out that option. Even at my age. I might even think that the other person might think the same way. Its a matter of wanting to live or to die.
I may be jailed for my action but I still live. And 2 years later I will be a free man again.
It may be a far-fatched scenario but in case we both will die for sure or one will survive ….
Or should I consider all ethics/morals and die ….
And that is my most honest answer.
For the scenario of “you” being already dead and I eating your body, I like to suggest you watch the movie “Alive” (1993). All passengers were catholics by the way.
So when you murder me just to survive, you won’t consider it wrong? But that’s the mindset that causes problems in the world. I don’t care about others, I just want to survive, so I can kill and steal. Isn’t it that as a human being, you can think of alternatives? That’s the difference between a person and a mindless brute. I’m afraid you are proving to be more like the latter.
I will probably think hard (and twice) about it before doing it. But whats the point of dying both? And what if thoughts keep on creeping in my mind that you might want to kill me for you to survive? Events can make us to do strange things. Especially in such far-fetched situations. And believe me in such situations, morality and ethics will be thrown out of the window.
And in a case of a plane crash it will be hard to proof that one killed the other.
ChinoF, I admire your wish to construct the ideal/perfect society. But its naive.
I hope you appreciate for me telling my honest opinion. Even when you dont agree. But why should we die together both?
I also could have said: I totally agree with you, ethics and morality are on top of my list, no ifs, no buts. Now, that would be very hypocritical.
My point is, without a universal agreement on what’s right and wrong, humanity would be stuck in conflict and might even be extinct.
As long as there are people who are religious and atheists we will always have a different view about whats wrong and whats right.
You are – probably – against abortion (to name just one issue); I am pro-abortion.
How will you/we will ever get universal agreement?
I think that everything most Dutch people stand for is regarded as wrong by most people in PH. Most Dutch people stand for everything that is not available in your country or is even against the law.
I am pro-choice. But people in PH dont have a choice. At least not by PH-law.
What is wrong about same-sex marriage? Because the bible says its unnatural? Because it ruins the family code? Gays and lesbians are also human beings who are free to choose their partner.
Ah well, enough said.
I think your discussion about eating my dead body did prove that violence can happen without religion. LOL
Thats affirmative.
I will not know that you are religious and my motive to kill you also has nothing to do with you being relgious. Its a matter of surviving, not want to die (in again a far-fetched situation).
In normal circumstances I will never kill you or anybody else. I dont even own a gun (against the law; we dont want American situations),
One last thing,
if I am in a situation where my life/body is at stake (in danger) I will first try to get away from the situation (trying to save my ass). Is that an ethical/moral decision? I dont think so. I just want to live.
But in case, I cant run anywhere then it becomes a different matter. Then it becomes you (or who ever) or me. Or should I let myself be slaughtered?
My point is this: I just cant promise that I will never hurt a person physically in (again) extreme situations. In such cases, its just a matter of me or the other person(s). I dont want to be a dead hero.
And therein lies the whole debate with the rise of machine/artificial intelligence.
Whether it is using input from religious dogma or cold ethical logic, a machine would process that input much the same way that you, Robert, would. Fundamentalists process religious dogma the same way an atheist who takes a reductionist approach to ethical reasoning processes the mathematics of that Alive scenario being used here.
That’s a cop out as far as I see — delegating one’s humanity to machine-style processing. It’s cowardly and lazy thinking.
Humanity is a cognitive substrate that exists somewhere above algorithmic rules-based data processing and is an emergent property of the brain that defies modelling using classic computing science — which is why a new generation of thinkers are working on that problem.
You, Robert, may as well be replaced by a machine if that is your way of evaluating such moral or ethical dilemmas. The debate is simple to you. One survivor is better than two dead. So you will use that logic to kill the other, and you will expect the other to use the same thinking and attempt to kill you as well.
Your brain seems to be binary in nature, Robert. In that sense, an automobile carburettor works a lot better than your brain. At least the earlier finds a fuzzy balance and keeps a car humming like the fine piece of engineering a car is.
“…an atheist who takes a reductionist approach to ethical reasoning …”
This is actually how higher education (college and university) works in my country. And also in a job-environment. To look at the smaller, individual parts and also the big(ger) picture (and everything in between).
So, I take it, that for the sake of ethics and morality – 2 people must die while one can/could have survived.
Morality does not mean anything with an absolute/objective basis. It just becomes personal preferences.
What is wrong about same-sex marriage?
Since marriage is already objectively defined, adding “same-sex” to it opens a can of worms
Because the bible says its unnatural? Because it ruins the family code?
What do the Dutch laws say? Do you follow it?
Gays and lesbians are also human beings who are free to choose their partner.
So is a child. Why are children not free to choose their partner?
The absurdity of using ‘also humans too’ to substantiate a position just reveals itself further.
Because in reality, just because you are human being does not entitle you to the same privileges as another human being.
“it opens a can of worms”
We have same sex marriage since 2001 (give or take a few years).
I dont see the can with worms.
“What do the Dutch laws say? Do you follow it?”
The Dutch law and constitution is about the individual and not about the family. Family is just a creation of a number of individuals (reductionist approach). And therefore same sex marriage is legal. Thank god (pun intended).
“So is a child. Why are children not free to choose their partner?”
Kids are free to choose their partners and then we – adults – call it “puppy love”.
“Because in reality, just because you are human being does not entitle you to the same privileges as another human being.”
So who is who?
Yeah that, indeed, clarifies a lot of things about you.
Benign0 states well what I will sum up in these sentences: if you submit to the idea that you should kill the other in a desperate situation, and that both of you will die when you put your heads together to try and survive, then you are not thinking. What Benign0 calls being like a binary machine, and what I call being a mindless brute, it is lack of thought, and that is likely what contributes to the violence in the world today. Call it laziness too, like Juan Tamad.
Thank goodness your opinion is a minority among the Dutch populace. Not everyone operates in black/white, unfeeling logic like you. I’m not religious in any sense, but your callousness and your “my way or the highway” mentality won’t do you much good in the real world just as much as the overly religious and devout that you so despise.
“my way or the highway”
Not my style.
Despise = a negative energy (and thus a waste of my time).
But recognizing stupidity is another thing.
And it’s all hot air unless you can actually convince the same people you criticize with your words. The way you say about things certainly won’t make a difference.
There, since “ethics” and “morality” are kind disturbing for someone, I added “decency.” That should be clear enough.
@ChinoF,
There are a lot of reasons NOT to kill a person(s):
– the law
– decency
– ethics
– morality
BUT I dont nd will not kill anyone because
a) owning a weapon is against the law
b) its useless
c) it leads to nothing
However, I can understand that there might come a moment where I have to defend myself Now, because owning a weapon (gun, arms) is illegal and I dont mingle with types that can provide me with arms, I have to do it with my bare hands. And maybe, just maybe the other person might end up dead (hopefully not. Not my intention to kill anyone). Thank god, I never was in such a position/situation but believe me in such moments all those nice words (decency etc) will be thrown out of the window. The first thing I will try to do, is to walk away from it (and him/her) but that cant be enough some times.
I will fight back to save my own ass.
You dont have to agree, you dont have to accept all the above. But I will not let myself be slaughtered.
Now, my problem is that altough I am tall but I am not strong (no 6-pack, no biceps). So probably I will lose anyway.
Lets assume and pretend that you (or just anybody) are breaking in in my house. Then I am allowed to defend myself (and my belongings) and use force proportionally, which can lead to your death (for instance with a baseball bat). In such cases – in a court of law – I will be acquitted.
You’re defending yourself because the other person was indecent by breaking into your house, so that is understandable. Of course, common sense says that.
A good burglar will do his/her homework before he will hit. Its better for him/her to wait till you are not at home.
It wlll either be a drug addict or a “professional”.
Most killings – in my country – do happen in the drugs scene. You are a drugslord and was a victim of a rip-off. Then you will retaliate.
Other possible klllings (although rare) happen under the label of “crime passionelle”.
Let’s not speculate. Let’s deal with fact. Muslims, wherever they are worldwide, are adherents of a monolithic, inflexible and unrelenting religion… Islam. All Muslims strictly follow the tenets and strictures of the Quran, as well as the Hadiths and the Sunnah which were handed down by their prophet Muhammad as a companion guide to the Quran. The Muslim you may encounter in trouble spots like Iraq, Palestine, Nigeria or Syria, are of the same fabric… cut from the same bolt of cloth… as the fractious Muslim in Mindanao, Sulu and Basilan.. and Metro-Manila. All of them are of the same mindset, that is, that theirs is the one true religion and that anybody who says otherwise is an unbeliever.. an infidel, who must either convert or, be taxed heavily; or, be put to death. The Mozarabes.. Spaniards who did not convert to Islam, in the 8th through the 15th century, Moorish Spain.. paid dearly to live in their own country during that period. All these are fact gleaned from today’s news and from books like ‘Introduction to the History of Western Europe’, ‘History of Spain’, and ‘History of the Moors of Spain’. Not surprisingly, these narratives are also, nostalgically, told and retold, from generation to generation by Muslims themselves.
Today, the Philippine Muslims who now comprise about 5% of the population have become more assertive in their life’s quest for a separate identity.. and territory. Their voices are now louder and more strident, their methods more aggressive and deadly. This new attitude matches their growing share of the population; and, is consistent with the flagrant Muslim skirmishes and assaults in countries like Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium… where Muslim populations have crossed the 5% mark. While we can’t say for certain that these developments are inter-connected, given the foregoing accounts, as well as the presently streaming news dispatches from various news agencies in Europe and the Middle East, it is reasonable to think so.
What is certain is that the root of all this turmoil, and the resulting displacement of the collateral, innocent victims, is ‘Religion’. It is the desire and intent of hard-line, fundamentalist Muslims, who represent some 25% of all followers of Islam, whose numbers in turn, are variously put anywhere between 1.5billion and 1.7billion, to establish a suitably wide area as a base for yet another ‘Muslim Caliphate’. It is their vision, that, like the previous Caliphates.. ‘Umayyad’, ‘Abbasid’, ‘Almoravid’, and ‘Almohad’, they will, one day, rule the world. The ‘ISIS’ incursions into Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria, as well as the insurgencies of Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Ansar Al-Sharia and Abu Sayyaf, (and don’t forget Al Qaeda), are all aimed at this one, singular purpose. Having said all these, we must say that the remaining 75% so called ‘moderates’, have been conspicuously silent, (not just quiet), in not condemning any or all of the bloodshed caused by their ‘Fundamentalist’ brethren. Why is this? Is it because they, too, read the very same Quran and follow the very same Haddith and Sunnah, mandated to all Muslims.. worldwide?
Begging your pardon as I digress a bit.. I should add by way of a footnote, that ISIS is also, ominously, called ISIL. The ‘L’ stands for the ‘Levant’, the old name for that area of ‘Asia Minor’ south of Istanbul, and across the Bosphorus ; a dominion that stretches from Syria, through Northern Iraq and Jordan, then on to Lebanon and Israel. How much more ominous can this be?
We really would be well advised to take ISIL , as well as all other ‘Muslim-related’ disorder worldwide.. seriously.
Are you sure it’s fact that Muslims want to eradicate all “infidels?” I’m pretty sure that’s a misconception that is part of propaganda. Only few Muslims want to kill others not like them, as with few Christians, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, etc. And we’re seeing that Muslims are fighting each other, i.e. Syrian Civil War, Iran vs. Saudi, Yemen conflict. That’s a fact.
ChinoF…
I’m just an interested follower of events and a history buff. Occasionally I read between the lines when the news releases seem vague… but that’s just me. Don’t take my word for it. You can very well make up your own mind. Cheers…
U.S. Intelligence also said ISIL/Daesh presents no threat to the U.S., as repeated by Mnar Muhawesh. They’re not as powerful as the scaredycats think they are.
And if someone is going to point to the Illuminati or New World Order orchestrating everything… I tore that apart already.
Postscript: I’m told the putting the words “U.S.” and “intelligence” together are pretty much contradictory. I agree. Perhaps maybe “Filipino” and “intelligence” too? LOL
“..scaredycats..”? I’d really like to have the confidence you have. It probably feels good. You’ve got to tell me the brand of weed that you’re on. I must have some of it.
I’m not on anything, that’s why I’m sane. I just have an expanded reading base. I avoid the shill sites. Expand yours, too.
However, if you think I’m pro-BBL you got another thing coming. BBL is a different thing. It could open the door for Malaysia to take businesses and land. If that’s your issue, then yes, I frown upon the BBL.
hey guys, you’re all moving backwards to the days of Rameses and Moses…of Gods and Kings. me am not an atheist, but the story of the books is unbelievable. it’s just a matter of who really has revelations to God. and the killing goes on. the early Incas knows better who’s God.
I guess not much has changed since then, eh? I mean in terms of the violent nature of man.
Humans kill one another regardless of whether there is religion or not. Religion was a piece of social technology that enabled rulers to organise human individuals into bigger groups thereby increasing their killing capacity and efficiency.
Whether it is people organised into national armies or a gang of 5-10 individuals protecting their turf in a neighbourhood, the base human instinct to belong to a collective and play one’s part in said collective’s success at dominating the other is very primal. It is there. Tribes, states, nations, corporations, and other forms of organisation — including religion — are just methods for making the ability to execute that instinct more efficient and effective.
This is the reason symbols are effective. The crucifix worked as well on the crusaders as the swastika did on Germany as the “L” sign and the colour Yellow, for their part, did on Filipinos. Organisations that are able to rally people to symbols (whether or not there is actual substance to those symbols) is what spells success or failure of said organisation. The common denominator there is human beings’ instinct to belong and act within groups.
And that is the really simple explanation for why humans do what they do.
That I agree with. Religion has become a tool for organizing people and making killing more efficient. It proves that people with organized effort can accomplish a lot of things. But it shows that religion is not the cause of conflict in the world.
Contrast to Filipinos who want to organize for things like fiestas and Pinoy Pride movements, but don’t organize that much in order to improve society.
@Chino: Indeed. It seems Filipinos just can’t get it right — even to the extent of using organisational capability to pursue the wrong things. This is why despite the Philippines’ enormous population, that number of warm bodies hardly translates to collective strength.
Because the warm bodies are occupied by “cold” minds?
We have same sex marriage since 2001 (give or take a few years).
I dont see the can with worms.
That only means that you are blind.
The Dutch law and constitution is about the individual and not about the family. Family is just a creation of a number of individuals (reductionist approach). And therefore same sex marriage is legal. Thank god (pun intended).
You did not answer the question. Do you obey the Dutch law?
Kids are free to choose their partners and then we – adults – call it “puppy love”.
See? They are humans but we do not let them marry.
I have no idea how many laws we have. I am sure I am abiding to most laws.
Mind you, we have a few laws that are opposite to PH law (legal same sex marriage, legal abortion, legal euthanasia, legal divorce, to name just a few).
So, why do you abide by most of the laws?
If one person wants to drive on the left side of the road (we drive on the right side) then the consequences will not be that severe. (the driver will be escorted off the road and will most likely be fined. When the driver caused an accident, we will most likely see him/her in court. His/her insurance company will have to pay for the damages anyway. If the driver is not insured (this is compulsory/mandatory in my country when owning and driving a car) then he/she has a much bigger problem.
If 50% will do that (driving on the left side) then you will have chaos.
This (driving on the left side) does happen but as far as I know, never have caused an accident. Most accidents happen for other reasons/causes.
In short, to stick to the rules (and laws) will most likely keep one alive longer. Just a practical thing.
One who wants to do things against the law (whatever that might be) must make sure she/he will never get caught and then live with it.
No wonder European population is dwindling!
@Zaxx,
that is correct and we are already paying the price for that. We need to work longer before going into retirement.
Most people were able to go into retirement at the age of 65 (some earlier); now it is 67. And it may get even higher in the near or far away future (68 or 69 or 70).
To give you a short insight into the system of pension/retirement:
Everybody who has a job pays a certain percentage of his income to a pension fund. The pension fund will invest that money and with a high ROI it can pay out todays pensioners. So, I am working today for those who retire today. The next generation is basically paying my pension/retirement.
But when “tomorrow” less people are working its needs more time to accumulate in order to pay my pension. It also means that most pensions (the actual pay out) cannot be indexed anymore.
BTW: the government has no say – whatsoever – in/about the pension fund/company (the company that receives my monthly pension fee contribution nor the actual pension pay out).
Then why does the population still dwindle? To want kids is a personal, individual decision (obviously). We also are dealing with the fact that NED/NL is one of the densiest countries. So space is limited. And most of us want to live in a house with a front and back yard. And besides all that, having kids is not cheap (Mind you: kids have to pay nothing to their parents. Nothing).
You wont hear me say that taking/having kids is a sacrifice. But when there are kids, you have to compromise. Not everyone is prepared to do that.
This is the irony of Robert’s philosophical position. He claims to obey certain laws for better survival. And yet he is also obeying laws that has negative effects to the survival of the Dutch.
If he studied history, most civilizations that followed what Europe and Japan are doing suffered the same things.
And yet somehow, such social experiments are considered innovations by the people leaning ‘left’ or consider themselves progressives.
They are, in reality, shortsighted people.
@Toby,
“… he is also obeying laws that has negative effects to the survival of the Dutch.”
Which laws do you refer to here exactly?
“They are, in reality, shortsighted people.”
Pls tell/teach me – in this specific case – how to be not shortsighted.
Pls tell/teach me – in this specific case – how to be not shortsighted.
I will have to start teaching you how to read first…
“If he studied history, most civilizations that followed what Europe and Japan are doing suffered the same things.”
See? That was in my post where you replied with your rhetorical question.
It would be best for you to control your emotions first before reading things here.
Sorry chap, I have a heart of stone. Such people never get emotional.
You are not the first European to claim that despite what can be seen, Rob.
These words of yours alone,
Gays and lesbians are also human beings who are free to choose their partner.
disproves your claim of having a heart of stone.
Dear oh dear Toby
why should my claim to fame about giving gay and lesbians their right to have a civil wedding (and hell why not also a church wedding) be an emotional decision?
They will never take over planet earth. Well okay maybe in 2000 years from now. But between today and then, scientists have already come up for people to have eternal live on planet earth. And once that is here, proceation becomes useless. Or is that the reason NASA et al are searching for other planets to live on permanently? Or is all this something like a conspiracy theory or wishfull thinking?
If giving gay and lesbians not the human rights to marry, then I could also start to raise questions about women right to vote; or allowing dysfunctional societies to still be alive. Maybe dysfunctional societies should be crushed from the face of the planet.
There is really nothing emotional about such decisions. It is not even an calculated risk.
Rob, you need to amp up your reading comprehension skills.
why should …
Should? Where the hell did you get that? It’s an is, not an ought.
There is really nothing emotional about such decisions.
That is because you fail to understand that the gay marriage proposition started from this emotional complain – ‘its unfair!’
I could also start to raise questions about women right to vote;
*chuckle* If you ever start, your started very late.
Okay,
maybe gays and lesbians cried a river to get that right. I really dont know how they got that right. They have it. Kalas.
I am okay about them having those rights. And that me being okay about it, is not something emotional. I cant find any emotional reasons why they must be blocked (in hindsight) from such right nor rational reasons.
Are we talking semantics here or are we talking about me being rationale/emotional about it? I dont see the point. G(ays)L(esbians) do have the right. Can we or must we turn back the clock?
Whats next?
– GL allowing to adopt kids?
– One woman allowing to marry multiple guys? (this will be an interesting one)
I am okay about them having those rights
Irrelevant. There are others who do not agree with you.
And that me being okay about it, is not something emotional.
It’s not the what that defines being emotional. It’s the why.
I cant find any emotional reasons why they must be blocked (in hindsight) from such right nor rational reasons.
You already provided an emotional justification in favor of same-sex marriage.
Can we or must we turn back the clock?
Of course we can. Must we? I say yes.
– One woman allowing to marry multiple guys? (this will be an interesting one)
Why not? If gender is not a logical justification to prohibit marriage, then a number is also not a logical one.
I get the notion you want to change everything in such a way that only heterosexuals are allowed to marry.
If that is the case, I invite you to go to every country and change those laws. I will not even kill you for it.
“There are others who do not agree with you”
I am very well aware of that, that there are people who dont favor same-sex marriage. And so … ?
Are they killed for it? No.
I get the notion you want to change everything in such a way that only heterosexuals are allowed to marry.
ProTip: Just because you are heterosexual does not mean you are allowed to marry.
I mean, seriously, marriage is not a basic human right.
“But between today and then, scientists have already come up for people to have eternal live on planet earth….”
>>> IMPOSSIBLE. Unless scientists discover being “TO BE” by essence. Existence is only possible after being TO BE, or being “is”. But, being “TO BE BY ESSENCE” is to be God. That should also give the reason why there can only be ONE God. TO BE BY ESSENCE can only be one. Everyone, everything, can only participate in their “TO BE” from the ONE who is TO BE BY ESSENCE. This is the reason that what we see in the entire universe, the entire cosmos, all within it, and the universe itself, are all CONTINGENT. They have a CAUSE. They can NOT justify OF themselves, them per se, WHY they exist. There is only one being who exist that is NOT contingent. It doesn’t have a CAUSE, precisely because it is TO BE BY its very essence.
But, we have to be careful in categorizing HIM as a BEING. Unfortunately, human mind cannot invent a word beyond TO BE, IS, or BEING, because that is already the very floor, the base. How can we fathom something beyond that very base, the very foundation of languages. Thus True religion is really about that “IS”.
The problem in categorizing HIM as a BEING is we could think of HIM as another being among many other beings. But, that cannot be IF HE is TO BE BY ESSENCE. There is more danger to that because humans, by their very experience, can only think within TIME and SPACE. This is the reason we andromorphise God. We think of HIM within our terms. But, HE is NOT ANOTHER COMPETITIVE BEING, another genus or specie. He is a non-contingent being (again the word being, we can’t avoid it) In that sense, we can only think, talk, of God of what/ who HE is NOT. Human Language falters, falls infinitely short, when we start really defining WHO/ WHAT HE is. He is God. We are humans. Humans are not gods.
I know already your reply, Robert: YOU DON’T CARE about these things. Well, go ahead. There is nothing to stop you. It is a free world. But, you have to know why most of your replies here in this particular article, not other articles, look so shallow. You fail to appreciate the big questions.
Addendum…
Another danger of thinking of HIM as just another Being is to think of the universe, because it seems to have the qualities of infinity, as THE God. This is pantheistic, which is very common among Hollywood movies. But, this cannot be. Big Bang, the father of whom is a Dutch, by the way, George Lemaitre, says the universe had a beginning. It’s the best theory by far, maybe someday there will be a better theory. But, the universe can’t be the God because it is not the THE TO BE BY ESSENCE. Science will always try to come out with a theory that will try to come closest to that which is TO BE BY ESSENCE. They have an infinite way to go. But, that has always been human since the days of Adam. They want to be that TO BE BY ESSENCE. In a way, that makes living exciting, but in many ways not “realistic”. Religion does not cease to attract for it is the attempt at realism, not on being TO BE BY ESSENCE.
By the way, pantheism is also common among the New Age, this is a polished Hinduism and Buddhism. Very popular among intellectuals, just check Steve Jobs.
The opposite of pantheism is gnosticism, from where much of the language and thinking of same sex marriage is being derived from. You want to know their arguments, read about the gnostics.
Indeed, Add, the point of discussing God is not whether or not you believe in a god. This is why Robert is a big fail in this discussion – because he dismisses said discussion on the basis of whether or not the theme of the discussion is consistent with or in the same trajectory as his belief. It is an attitude driven not by curiosity but by a cowardly and lazy approach to thinking, which makes him no different from the next fundamentalist jihadist or bible-thumping nutjob.
A true intellectual exploration undertaken by truly curious minds is marked by an exchange of ideas that build upon a postulated foundation such as what you provide in your above comment.
That’s a good point you make about the limits of human thinking. Philosophers have proven that it is not just language that has its limits articulating ideas. Mathematics itself has been proven to be incomplete of itself.
The brain, too is physically limited to pondering structures that are less complicated than its own physical structure or the structure with which it can model conceptual constructs in its circuitry. Of course we still have a long way to go and a lot to learn before our science starts to approach those limits but it is hardly a stretch to consider that those limits do exist.
Point is, there are actually things that are unknowable and will forever lie beyond the reach of any thinking machine (be it an artificial or natural one) limited by the physical constraints imposed by the physical structure of our universe.
@Add,
Let me try to rephrase myself.
I personally would not be surprised, that it will be possible to live for ever on planet earth for human beings.
Am I convinced? No, I am not.
Will I be there/here to see that day? No, I wont.
Would I want to be there when it is possible? Yes but only if I were younger.
Maybe just maybe the first/next step is living +/- 150 years.
I guess we raise God in this discussion since religion remains one of the main sources of the measures of decency in history. For example, why you consider just killing a person out of whim wrong, and why it’s wrong to steal, why you must respect another person same as your respect yourself, etc., has usually come from religious, or even philosophical sources. Of course, it’s hard to prove that religion has been the only source of this, but indeed, many religions have been sources of standards for declaring decent behavior as opposed to undesirable behavior.
Consider this before decrying religion as something to be eradicated:
There was a man who ascended to leadership and saw a facet of humanity as an obstacle to its progress. He aimed to eradicate it within his own country’s borders, earning the praise of certain quarters at the expense of others, who were often dismissed as having that facet of humanity this man wanted removed.
The man had many names: To get the obviously invoked to undeath out of the way, the Germans called him Adolf Hitler. To the Russians (who in his time were still Soviets), he was Iosif Stalin (né Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili). The Chinese knew him as Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), and the Cambodians, Pol Pot (né Saloth Sar). Italians knew him as Benito Mussolini (who was known for the saying “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”), while the Koreans knew his line as the Kims (videlicet, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un). In other words, this man is every totalitarian dictator that has existed in the past, still exists to this day, and (God Almighty forbid!) will exist in the times to come. He will suffer no diversity of thought, no disparity of conscience. He and he alone bears arms and controls the flow of information to his subjects.
With the arms only he may bear, he wages War. With his Totalitarianism, he subjugates his people. Against those he views as vermin to be eradicated, he brings Genocide. This is the kind of person anyone with a sense of decency can never support, and if need be, must send down the pits of Hell (or its equivalent), for tyranny demands nothing short of rebellion.
Libertas!
I do believe there is a big difference between Islam and other religions. The connection between the existence of so many radical muslim groups and Islam is not a coincidence. While Catholicism has passed through a lot of stages (establishing a reliable text thru philological research, criticizing parts of the Bible seens as outdated, interpreting some other parts as metaphors, or even apologizing for the destruction caused in its behalf), nothing like that can be said about Islam, who does not allow a minimal reform or repinterpretation of its holy book. Even when some moderate Muslim groups claim they reject terrorist attacks, they refuse to explicitly extirpate or reform any part of Quram dealing with violence. There is a huge mismatch between the medieval text and today’s society: the very call for the implementation of sharia in most Muslim countries indicates that they do not accept the separation of Church and State, and that for them there is in fact little diference between a theologian and a judge. Not to mention the consequences of apostasy… That does not exist outside the Muslim world, and it is quite worrisome.
I don’t think what you say is necessarily true about criticizing the text. Better research a bit more and don’t just look at the sites that are obvious fear-mongering sites against Muslims.
You have to see this link.
I checked that source, and American Thinker, despite its name, looks biased. It also carried that exaggerated “over 100+” mosques raided, when more credible sources cite one to three mosques raided. There seems to be no follow-up on whether more mosques were closed. My advice is that you check up on the sources to see if they are shill sources. Please read the additional sources I showed below, too.
When a religion brings about a mindset that makes women stay in the kitchen and homosexuals to be lynched out on the streets, then yeah it’s kinda overdue for a Reformation.
Why?
I dunno maybe because we live in the 21st century?
Let’s see:
Let us legalize pedophilia.
Why?
I dunno maybe because we live in the 21st century?
How in the hell did you jump into that? Just an FYI pedophilia is still stigmatized even among the most lib of liberals. Your thought process is seriously screwed up man.
How in the hell did you jump into that?
Too fast for you? Let me type it slowly then.
You provided an answer to my WHY?
–I dunno maybe because we live in the 21st century?–
I just showed you how stupid that is. Which went over your head.
FYI pedophilia is still stigmatized even among the most lib of liberals.
Wrong. It just shows how you are not up to date with the recent pedophile protection and cuddling by the social justice warriors/hyper liberals.
Your thought process is seriously screwed up man.
You only say that because you are ignorant.
The author has low knowledge about Islam. Maybe you have to do a lot of readings about their Quran and other authoritative books (or visit faithfreedom.org/alisina.com/jihadwatch.com/answeringislam.com etc). There’s a big difference between the morality of Islam and other religions. Only Islam does not know about the value of Golden Rule. Even their holy book always cite to kill the infidels and denigration of women. The rests of the religion teach the golden rule. It is up to the person to follow the path to lead a moral life according to the teaches of his/her religion.
Among all the religions, I only have problem with Islam. You have to see it for yourself when you read the English version of their holy book. Their morality is quite the opposite of what other religions practice. The moderates are the quiets ones that silently agree of what they read on their holy book to establish a Caliphate worldwide. Look at the terrorism today, more than 90% committed by Muslims. They just follow the example of their Prophet.
To Mar, John and other posters with similar ideas,
I think you have a limited grasp of the topic.
Those sites mentioned by John are mostly fear-mongering sites against Islam, some of them likely still sites or those rumor-mongering sites that propagate drivel about the Illuminati and New World Order. Answering Islam, I’ve read, it seems more credible, yet the author admits that he has Muslim friends. Jihad Watch and similar could be funded by right-wing parties, or are shills, as I explained above, with the purpose of making Islam hated and justifying war against them.
To borrow Malcolm X’s words, “If you’re not careful, the newspapers (or in this case, websites) will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
I wonder if you are also part of this paid effort to spread fear.
Also, while an outsider perspective may be helpful, why don’t we ask how other Muslims living near us view the violent Islamic texts. Remember, even the Christian Bible has God telling the Israelites to wipe out the neighboring Canaanites. The atheists have a field day with these passages when attacking Christianity. We insist that those commands are outdated and Christians do not kill non-Christians, but the atheists will insist we stil do (just look at the white supremacist and fundamentalist groups).
As I said in my last line, we may look at the beliefs they state, but we should instead look at their actions. Shouldn’t we take the same approach with Islam? Of course, you can’t use Daesh or other violent Muslims as the representative, because no matter what they claim, they are a very small percentage of Muslims in the world.
I see some Muslim nurses working at the military hospital in V. Luna. Should we assume that they will soon break down your door and shoot you dead? That is a foolish and stupid thought.
I wonder if fears of Islamic terrorism and similar are related to mental illness and paranoia. If one fears that their Muslim neighbor is suddenly going to go jihad on them and will try to kill them, I think that one needs to see a shrink. Or, that person, like in the discussion with Robert above, is just not thinking.
Good day.
I understand your left-wing perspectives as I already expected your response. It was a rewind to me since I watch debates both oral and written and read books. Those non-violent Muslims are the ones not following the violent passages of Islam. I think you have to go through the history of Islam starts from Mohammad time if you find those websites fear-mongering. A lot of people (including the you),when people telling the truth about Islam, it is label as fear-mongering, racist, Islamophobe etc. They don’t see the truth but rather dive to conclusions right away. I don’t think that you read through the articles of those websites I referred. You need to read to see the truth. You just judge it right away as fear-mongering same as other left-wing parties. In truth, those terrorists use the violent texts in Quran to reference their acts. While (please quote me) if you find non-muslim terrorists justify their acts on the bible text. Simply the message of Christianity and other religions is to follow the GOLDEN RULE AND TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Mohammad from his mouth himself telling women are deficient in intelligence, to kill the infidels, kill the homo*, kill those who leave Islam among others violent passages. While the example of Jesus (diametrically opposite), no where in the Bible he promotes violence. That’s why your response about Islam is really not convincing because you just restate what other leftist said. I understand your left-wing perspectives as I already expected. It was a rewind to me since I watch debates oral and written and read books. It took me 4-6 months to read through every day and study those websites I referred and read some books. I also read Muslim websites like answeringchristianity.com (and other Muslim websites) to hear their side and defend the violent passages in Quran but it is as not convincing as it may seem. I may digress to the main message of your article. I just want to enlighten the readers about Islam. This is to tell everyone why terrorists are not running out of suicide bombers as they inspired themselves to the teachings of Quran. I have issues with Islam. I attack their theology but not the Muslims. A lot of Muslims are as good as Christians because they are non-practicing as they selectively (few good passages) follow the text in Quran. Thank you for your reply. See the truth and open your eyes. I have waited that GRP writers touch the topic about Islam if they truly have knowledge about it.
My apologies, there are redundant lines. I was not able to review it. As I quickly wrote my reply at work and have limited time to write not related to my job. Thanks.
Some belief systems have a greater tendency for its adherents to practice violence than others. repeat the following like you do the Rosary and you’ll end up like Jihadi John:
“So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until you have inflicted slaughter upon them.” (Qur’an 47: 4).
Can Christians strike back?
I’m afraid we don’t have an equivalent in the New Testament Bible, except in the Revelations when the returning Christ slaughters the final resistance. As of now, Christians can’t be terrorists, and are admonished to love even those who don’t share their beliefs. And even rejoice in the midst of torture/persecution.
Data should show that there are more Islamic terrorists than Christian ones. Much fewer Buddhist terrorists likely.
Islam is unique because it’s not just a religion – it’s also a political system that requires a territory and system of laws/government. No other religion teaches hatred the way they do.
But Islam is a peaceful religion if there are no infidels, and assuming everyone abides with Sharia law. So what makes Islam violent is the presence of infidels, much like Mosquitos can make one’s skin itch. No infidels – no itch – no violence.
In a perfect world, pure Muslims should live segregated from any other people of different faith. Mixing Muslims with anything is looking for trouble. I can understand why our Moro Islam bros. want to secede.
I don’t know, I’ve heard of accounts of Muslims living peacefully side by side with people of other religions. That’s been reported about Palestine in the Inter-War period. It’s been cited as a myth that Muslims have always been at odds with non-Muslims. I’d be thankful that religion is still subject to interpretation, and some people interpret their religion as being at peace with everyone, even those unlike them.
I agree with you Chinof.
But you have to dig differ of the situation in the Middle East and the history of Islam.
I have read a piece before that said Jihad during the medieval era was really just to conquer territory, not to spread Islam. Of course, they will spread their belief system in the areas they conquer, but that was not the original purpose. As Zaxx said, Islam is a lot more than a mere religion, and many conquests were done for territorial goals, not religious ones.
If you believe in God, and a religion; I respect you. If you don’t believe in a God; and a religion. I still respect you.
To me belief in God , is something personal. I believe in a Christian religion.
What is evil is, if you murder people, who don’t share or agree your beliefs.
In the Islamic religion; to die in Jihad (religious war or struggle), is the ticket to “Paradise”, with 72 virgins , as reward. Jihad is in their Koran and Haddith. Islamic Radicals and fundamentalists, are bent to spread their beliefs by violence, or killing all Infidels. Same as any religious radicals, in any religion. They believe their religion is the true one.
Human violence have been with us, since time immemorial.
So are many kinds of religions. Religion was the tool that ancient rulers, used to rule over people. There were High Priests/Kings. There were also human sacrifices, to appease their Gods.
Even, if we remove religion; human violence will still be in us. Because of the “survival of the fittest” concept in our genome.
Religion is good, if you use it for good use. However, if you use it as a tool: to exploit people, to slave people, to terrorize people, to discriminate people who don’t agree with you. Then, religion is evil. Made evil by you…
i remember the Baron of Ebelin (liam neeson) said in kingdom of heaven, “its a place where xtians amd muslim live peacefully together. Its a kingdom of conscience, a kingdom of heaven.”
To me, its always our coscience that will guide us to goodness.
Religion is just a ‘prop’ that Failipinos use to justify their aristocratic attitude and self-serving way of life; it is useless, as far as I am concern, and only contributes to the continued disparity in the country.
Organized use of suicide attacks in large numbers in history only occurs in 2 occasions which require religion as one of the factors. Under shintoism during ww2 and under islam. in the present day, post 1980.
Is it possible to have widespread organized persecution for radical scientific ideas without religion (like galileo and Giordano Bruno) or some sort of pseudoreligion (lysenkoism)?
The last three in this article seem to be a few examples, but who knows if we may discover more scientists persecuted but not for religious reasons. Maybe Alan Turing (you don’t need religion to condemn homosexuality).
“German Science,” complements of Nazi Germany.
Some articles:
No, ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. – 2 years old but likely still applicable today.
Mainstream Media loves Muslim Bogeyman – from RT, a site that anti-refugee (and thus, anti-Muslim) people often quote, and article is 6 years old
The Muslim Bogeyman is a cheap tool for the politics of fear
AYAAN HIRSI ALI AND THE HOPE FOR ISLAM’S ‘REFORMATION’
Criticizing Islam does not mean to be Islamophobic at all. It is quite typical from the Regressive Left to claim that.
Why Islam Needs a Reformation
Who do you think the most violent religion on Earth, was it Islam or Christianity?
To know more about it, here’s a website that is very interesting & it might surprise you: http://mic.com/articles/129820/viral-video-shows-what-happens-when-you-show-people-a-bible-with-a-quran-s-cover-on-it?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=relatedContent#.bGQiStdMY
But who says religion is the ONLY cause of warfare? It is A cause. This article is pointless.
Oh, there are some who believe religion is the only cause. Probably those people who are stuck with their computers and don’t get some sun.
Civilization should just be based on ethics and morals, not religion, to level out the playing field.
let’s be positive. if we want killings to stop, hide the books of revelations from the unborn and there will be peace. about God, the Sun is the God.
Without virtue, it is hard to bear the results of good fortune suitably. Those who lack virtue become arrogant and wantonly aggressive when they have these other goods. They think less of everyone else, and do whatever they please. They do this because they are imitating the magnanimous person though they are not really like him.
Sourcs of my impressions that Muslim societies were not always hostile or violent:
Pictures of Afghanistan before Soviet invasion/Taliban
Pictures of Iran in the 1960s
“even the Christian Bible has God telling the Israelites to wipe out the neighboring Canaanites.”
That Bible verse you are referring to (which can be read in Deuteronomy 7:1-2) is not just an outdated teaching, but one of the false writings made about God that was inserted in the Bible.
May i share an article about it : THE FALLACIOUS LAWS INTERTWINED WITH GOD’S TRUE BIBLICAL TEACHINGS IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL THE EVIL HAPPENING IN THE WORLD TODAY