Things changing in London, and the world

[SSH]

Firstly, on topic:

Car drivers kill more people in a day worldwide than all terrorist activity in the whole of the past few years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop terrorists, but it does mean that we should not throw away our civil liberties and piles of cash for the sake of a relatively minor threat.

And the ongoing terrorism in Iraq is far worse than any indivdual event in US, UK, etc.

And the rule of dictators like Mugabe, Hussein, Stalin, etc. has/had the state wiping out many more lives still, directly or indirectly.

now, back to the religious "debate"

the point i'm trying to make with the santa claus letter reference is that just because a letter is supposedly written by or to somebody doesn't mean that person exists or that the events took place, i could write a series of fictional letters right now and bury them somewhere and in 1000 years time somebody could discover them and jump to the conclusion that because they're dated back 1000 years that they must be real and the events actually happened because they're ignorant as to what actually did happen.

But boyd, you said:

also, i don't tar all religious (not reilgous) with the same brush, only the pick and mixers that choose to ignore parts of their particular rule book, if every religious person actually followed their faith to the letter and other people realised that the majority of all religions are born from the same story there would be less religious hatred.

You say that religious people should follow their faith to the letter. It's actually then irrelevant to that argument whether their religion is true or if anyone existed or not. Christians who follow, say, the New International Version translation of the New Testament to the letter would therefore have to believe that Jesus is the only way to God, as  that is explicitly said in that version by Jesus himself. Therefore is it inconsistent of you to demand that reilgous people follow their faith to the letter AND that they also acknowledge that all religions come from the same story.

and do you still really not understand the point i'm trying to make about why drugs laws don't work?
they don't work because the use of drugs carries no consequences other than the associated good feelings and eventual addiction.

If that is the point you are trying to make, then why when I read back through the thread have you not said a single thing about this before. You're trying to wriggle away again!

Also, don't you think that dependency on something that puts you in a state incapable to drive and work is a bit of an issue? Be it alchohol or drugs or even something like co-dependent people it ruins their lives. There's all these rich people out there who get around the issues of badly cut drugs and illegality and yet they still check into rehab when they realise that its screwed them up...

I'm all for eliminating drug prohibition, but your arguments once again are bogus. Sometimes I agree with your objectives and sometimes I disagree, boyd, but you ALWAYS seem to argue one way or another on completely fallacious arguments. It looks like you're the one who hasn't done any research.

suggest you do some research on the origins of religion and stop accusing me of being het up about religion when it's obvious that what i'm saying is pissing you off more than what you're saying is pissing me off.

I'm not pissed off, I'm just pointing out that you can't argue a point for toffee. And surely, a religious person will believe that the origin of their religion is God, so what further research is necessary for that worldview?

also i am not pick and mixing anything and didn't even say anything about jesus, and i'm not blaming religion for all the problems in the world, i'm just blaming it for a majority of all terrorism, fighting and warfare that has taken place in the last two millenia, most of which can be proved just by picking up a history book.

Oh, OK, as long as its only the last 2000 years of human conflict then, taht's OK.  :

Firstly, religous wars were going on before Jesus. Why stop at 2000 years unless you have a particular grudge against Christianity?

Secondly, I think you'll find that any decent historian will point out that most conflicts in the last 2000 years are essentially political and not religious.

[InCreator]

There's a strong difference in harrassing laws which are made to:

- Lesser the chance for innocent people to be blown up
and/or
- Lesser the chance for something to happen that will make numerous forces, such as police, international organizations (such as UN), military,  and of course, government - look weak and helpless if it comes to protecting the country...

So who cares about your opinions anyway?
The mentioned forces have become paranoid - so why spare you? Thinking about someone observing when you e-mail/SMS/etc your fantasies to your boy/girlfriend will turn you paranoid any way.

[mätzyboy]

I think you guys should give up the religion as a cause for the terrorist attacks. It's all about recoil. We are dealing with people who are fed up with being treated like dirt by the west, and under such circumstances the worst kind of radical leaders, religious or political or whatever, are more likely to get followers. These lunatics are always present, individuals with mad ideas of bombings and warfare, but they only get listeners when a people really is upset and turn to extremes in order to get change.

This so called "war on terror" is nothing but means for already dominant countries to extend their bombing, attacking and violence in countries where they have interests. The only true way to stop terrorism is to stop terrorizing. The worst terrorists are us westeners! What this world needs is more aware citizens, especially in the countries in the west. People who dare think for themselves and question the media that feeds them with what to think. People who will no longer accept to be kept in a state of ambivalence and apathy. Democracy my ass!

...Yes, I've recently dug into the works of Noam Chomsky. I can warmly recommend the film "Manufacturing Consent" for a great first approach, and then follow up with his books. This man speaks truth, backed up with facts and fully presented resources, about our world and how it repeats itself since the colonializm. It's scary, but brings enlightenment that for the first time in many years has triggerd my interest in politics and made me think that you can make a difference!

[BOYD1981]

Secondly, I think you'll find that any decent historian will point out that most conflicts in the last 2000 years are essentially political and not religious.

and i think you'll find that you're talking bollocks, millions of people died in world war 2 just because hitler didn't like jews (well, there were other reasons), other people have been killed because they were said to be witches, and religious warfare still goes on to this day.
you find me one example of atheists declaring war on religious people and i'll eat a bowlful of cock, atheists used to be very secretive so that the religious masses wouldn't kill them.
and politics is often used as an excuse for religious people to kill eachother, in fact politics is no better than religion.

[Nacho]

The cause of Hitler's hate to Jews was racial en economical, Hitler was an atheistic and religion gave a fuck to him. Don't try to reply to anything Boyd... You're pissing it off constantly... 

[Dambuilder]

Those terrorist attacks must've been most welcome to the government.
After all, as was pointed out before, they get the opportunity to attack other countries legally (virtually) and they can pass laws to gain more and more control over their folks.

So why even bother to seriously stop terrorism, when it works for them?

[mätzyboy]

Those terrorist attacks must've been most welcome to the government.
After all, as was pointed out before, they get the opportunity to attack other countries legally (virtually) and they can pass laws to gain more and more control over their folks.

So why even bother to seriously stop terrorism, when it works for them?

Word!

[LGM]

I refuse to get too deep into this debate.. But honestly Boyd, you lost all credibility in your first post when you generalized and stereotyped every religion and belief into one stupid, insensitive comment.

I'm a christian, but does that mean I want to kill people? Does that mean I don't think my farts stink and I am perfect? NO.

I'm confused as to why people have even given you're comments attention, as they lack any reasoning whatsoever.

All you have to say is "God doesn't exist and I don't care what you say."

[InCreator]

"God doesn't exist and I don't care what you say."
Well, typical response to this would be
"You're ignorant and immature/intolerant"

And this thread wouldn't be 3 pages long.


You're making online debating too easy, lgm. Where's the fun?

[shbaz]

you find me one example of atheists declaring war on religious people and i'll eat a bowlful of cock, atheists used to be very secretive so that the religious masses wouldn't kill them.
and politics is often used as an excuse for religious people to kill eachother, in fact politics is no better than religion.

Purely for the interest in seeing someone eat a bowlfull of cock, I have an example. The Soviet Union fought any inclination for it's people to practice religion and encouraged atheism with loyalty to the country. It declared war on several countries, but to name one: Afghanistan.

Where do you find bowlfulls of cock, anyway?

[Erenan]

May I make an observation and a suggestion? In my opinion, debates (and those on the Internet especially) tend to be motivated by personal agendas rather than by a desire to do some good. This particular debate seems to me to be so. We're naturally inclined to prove that we're right to everyone who disagrees with us. That's understandable. But I think we'd be far better off if first we acknowledge that we don't know everything and go into these sorts of discussions with the intention of learning things we didn't before know and potentially discovering solutions.

Think about it. Even if you do the impossible and convince somebody that you're right on the Internet, what have you gained? Essentially nothing. One more person agrees with you, and you've solidified your own confidence in your opinion, whether you're actually right or wrong.

Do we really need to prove ourselves to people we don't even really know?

And lest anyone think that I'm addressing them personally and feel the need to defend themselves, I'm not trying to attack anyone's intelligence or anything like that. I am speaking generally, and I don't believe that everyone here is being infantile.

~~~

The only true way to stop terrorism is to stop terrorizing.

But everybody has to do that, and that probably won't happen because so many people are so ingrained in their ideas that they won't be convinced to stop. They believe too much that they're right, much like people who argue on the Internet.

So it seems to me that in order to eliminate the violence, you'd have to eliminate everyone who's creating the violence, or else convince everyone that such violence is not in their best interest.

So in light of what I wrote up above, I'll offer a question in the interest of learning what people think. Does anyone here think that there is any possibility of the latter of those options? Personally, I think both options are a bit idealistic and virtually impossible to accomplish.

So maybe another question is in order. Is there any other option, perhaps something that's more realistic, something involving compromise, perhaps?

~~~

InCreator, I think [lgm] was saying that "God doesn't exist and I don't care what you say" is essentially the brunt of everything that BOYD1981 has said thus far, not that that's what he ought to have said.

[Tiki]

BOYD:  So all of World War II happened because of religion?  No, it happened because of an athiest dictator who declared war on a race of people.  How is this religion's fault?  Hitler did not attack religious Jews, he attacked those of the slightest Jewish heritage.  You are completely against religion, showing how much damage it has done, when in one of your examples it was an athiest doing the damage.  He was not a Christian, and while they said that they were killing Jews for Christianity on some occasions, at its core, the war was not started due to religion.  It was a man raising up his nation to gain control.

[Nacho]

Hey, don't re-write my post in a cultural manner, Tiki, it makes me look dumb... 

[Nikolas]

May I make an observation and a suggestion? In my opinion, debates (and those on the Internet especially) tend to be motivated by personal agendas rather than by a desire to do some good. Do we really need to prove ourselves to people we don't even really know?

So it seems to me that in order to eliminate the violence, you'd have to eliminate everyone who's creating the violence, or else convince everyone that such violence is not in their best interest.

So in light of what I wrote up above, I'll offer a question in the interest of learning what people think. Does anyone here think that there is any possibility of the latter of those options? Personally, I think both options are a bit idealistic and virtually impossible to accomplish.

So maybe another question is in order. Is there any other option, perhaps something that's more realistic, something involving compromise, perhaps?

Actually I don't thik that there is any way of convincing people that violence is bad, or kill them all. By killing all of them you become one of them (cliche), and on the other hand we, the westerners, don't want to help them, make them understand, make them better etc...

We want to f*** them, take their oil, their treasures, their women, theirs lives, their land, their ... everything. I may be a little bit exagerating here, but you got the idea.

Can anybody tell me why would the USA or UK help IRAQ. They just want oil, and shit, they don't have any under their countries, so the best solution. Lets built a war, call it war to terrorism and by the way steal everything they have...

Now, for some common good ideas:

First of all I remember someone saying that they would protest if the things I say in the first post were happening to him. Well it's happening here in the Uk., and I'm pretty sure about it. Maybe the results won't be the same, but still, if you have a mobile phone, isn't it possible for somebody just, to trace exactly where you are. I'm pretty sure that the 3G phone can do that. With just a cookie in the phone, you're done (I guess so anyway...)

What can we do about it here in the Uk? Nothing probably. I'm here one year and I've seen only one (1) strike, for a very good reason (the firing of 690 or something workers in the cattering company for BA). Now what do we have? The company was going to declare bankrapsy (spelling, sorry). Generally I odn't see anybody protesting here in the Uk.

One question: I know that in France things are different and people tend to protest a lot. What's happening to the rest of Europe, Australia, America and well, everywhere else.

In the Uk. Nobody seems to care, in Greece everybody seems to care (that's too much believe me...), what about the rest of the countries?

[Las Naranjas]

Street marching is quixotic and theatrical, and it shouldn't be assumed that it is the only form of protest.

[TheYak]

It is, however, a semi-effective way of combating dragons.

Really, the only talent of this thread seems to be to hit every major controversial issue brought up in the forums during the past year.  The only thing one finds out after pages of debate is that each side has its own brand of ignorance (or naivete).

[Cluey]

I think sacrificing freedom for safety is not cool, like someone kidnapping santa.

[Nikolas]

It is, however, a semi-effective way of combating dragons.

Ok., so let's take the whole vilage and go up to the grey mountains to kill the Dragon.
And the dragon will barbeque us all with one firebreathe...

Only a bard can save us... (Tolkien)

Really, the only talent of this thread seems to be to hit every major controversial issue brought up in the forums during the past year. The only thing one finds out after pages of debate is that each side has its own brand of ignorance (or naivete).

I wasn't here all year round (I'm here a couple of months only), so I think its cool to actually find out everything about everyone about every issue about nothing in the end (I know), by looking at one thread. Thank you