Charlie Hebdo

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

Not only do some people refuse to believe there is any link between the attacks in Paris and Islam, according to our national broadcaster, the BBC, they aren't even terrorists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... utive.html.

FFS !!

H's NOT a terrorist... He's just a very NAUGHTY BOY...

now where have I heard that line

ballysmate

bianchimoon wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Not only do some people refuse to believe there is any link between the attacks in Paris and Islam, according to our national broadcaster, the BBC, they aren't even terrorists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... utive.html.

FFS !!

H's NOT a terrorist... He's just a very NAUGHTY BOY...

now where have I heard that line

Shhh !!

Be careful, you will be into the realm of satire soon, and we know where that leads don't we?

pblakeney

The perfect answer to the question about "God".

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tv-h ... next300115

bianchimoon

PBlakeney wrote:

The perfect answer to the question about "God".

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tv-h ... next300115

The look on the interviewers face is priceless
Unfortunately won't change anything though, for those that believe in a god, logical thought goes out of the window.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

The perfect answer to the question about "God".

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tv-h ... next300115

Great answer. Mr. Fry has just gone up in my estimations.

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The perfect answer to the question about "God".

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tv-h ... next300115

Great answer. Mr. Fry has just gone up in my estimations.

I suspect Mr Fry, has been influenced greatly by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for the answer, it's almost verbatim from Mr Dawkins answers to the same question.

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The perfect answer to the question about "God".

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tv-h ... next300115

Great answer. Mr. Fry has just gone up in my estimations.

I suspect Mr Fry, has been influenced greatly by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for the answer, it's almost verbatim from Mr Dawkins answers to the same question.

Possibly, I'm currently reading Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' - wonder if it's in there?

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The perfect answer to the question about "God".

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/tv-h ... next300115

Great answer. Mr. Fry has just gone up in my estimations.

I suspect Mr Fry, has been influenced greatly by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for the answer, it's almost verbatim from Mr Dawkins answers to the same question.

Possibly, I'm currently reading Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' - wonder if it's in there?

Quiet heavy going the god delusion, I still haven't finished it from 2 years ago
this is worth a watch, very topical re: religious bombers and gives you the god delusion in an easily digestible form

http://vimeo.com/27692770
The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Love the quote re a catlick reigious gathering
"this is a benign herd'

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Possibly, I'm currently reading Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' - wonder if it's in there?

Couple off topic questions.

What was your religious orientation before you started reading it, and whaddya think of it?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Possibly, I'm currently reading Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' - wonder if it's in there?

Couple off topic questions.

What was your religious orientation before you started reading it, and whaddya think of it?

always been pretty much atheist - on the Dawkins scale I'm 6 going on 7, pretty much the same as Dawkins rates himself as I know that the non-existence of something can never be absolutely proven.

Less than 100 pages in but I like it and the way he breaks down the different arguments even if he is 'preaching to the converted' so to say. Then again I've liked what I read of his previously - Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable. The former is as close as I think I'll get to the answering question of 'why are we here?'

Yourself?

RDW

The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)

It's a common, and rather naive, article of faith for some atheists that religion is responsible for all the evil in the world, and that if it could somehow be suppressed, everything would be all right. Richard Dawkins seems to be the current high priest of this dogma, but I'm not sure whether he does his own cause rather more harm than good with this sort of approach - for anti-theists, it's just preaching to the choir, while believers are unlikely to be convinced by 45 minutes of sneering, and a few interviews staged with cherry-picked wackos. The whole effect is a bit like watching an extended party political broadcast by UKIP, or reading the Mail on Sunday, just with more intelligent, faux-polite presentation and different targets to be despised.

Isn't it rather more likely that we're just a members of a rather nasty and vicious species that evolution has honed into total bastards? Pretty much any excuse that creates an 'us' and 'them' seems capable of provoking us into extreme violence - yes, religion (or even apparently minor differences between branches of the same religion), but also perceived ethnicity (based on trivial genetic differences), nationality (even when artificial and recently contrived), political ideology (usually based on principles that neither side actually follows), or even allegiance to different sports teams (often especially vicious when they come from the same city). Chimpanzees, one of our two closest living relatives, seem to be nearly as bad as we are, so this trait may go back several million years.

In the 20th century, humanity (if that's an appropriate word) experimented with conducting large-scale killing, up to and including genocide, for primarily non-religious motives. The Soviet and Chinese Communists and the Khmer Rouge were avowedly atheists, and the latter were especially anti-theistic, with religion a good enough excuse for murder (a Muslim sub-group were singled our for particular persecution). The Nazis were prepared to come to an accommodation with Christianity, and its historical association with antisemitism in Germany, for reasons of political expediency, and Hitler continued to name check God in public, while planning a future 'reckoning' with the Church in private, and expressing strongly anti-Christian views. If the Third Reich really had lasted a thousand years, or even a couple of decades, it seems likely it would not have had any religion other then Fuehrer-worship. The Rwandan genocide was 'ethnically' motivated (though in fact the Tutsi and Hutu are very closely related), but religion may have played a subsidiary role, with some churches involved in ethnic politics (while others sheltered the victims).

Today we have jihadi terrorists who claim to act for religious reasons but who seem to be driven just as strongly by geopolitical motives. As a thought experiment, try imagining whether the current situation would even exist if, say, there had been no oil in the Middle East. Western interference in this region was the excuse for 9/11, which was in turn the excuse for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, from which everything else has followed. Without this chain of events, would Islamist militants even be on the radar as a significant threat?

(Edited for typos]

bianchimoon

Dawkins himslef hated the title, it was an executive decision by the producs quote "His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous. Dawkins's book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail. "

RDW

I guess with the addition of the question mark, Betteridge's Law applies!:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridg ... _headlines

bianchimoon

RDW - intelligent well thought out post, re the start point in the last para not sure what you mean, any relationship with the Saudi kings or Israel would be enough of an excuse for the disaffected to react, I think the religious / cultural differences were/ are enough for some to take action. In the Dawkins documentary there is an interview with a Jew turned Muslim who hates atheists more than Jews or Christians as non believers in a god are the lowest of the low, the fact that western women can wear what they want is enough in his mind to start a holy war.

VTech

bianchimoon wrote:

RDW - intelligent well thought out post, re the start point in the last para not sure what you mean, any relationship with the Saudi kings or Israel would be enough of an excuse for the disaffected to react, I think the religious / cultural differences were/ are enough for some to take action. In the Dawkins documentary there is an interview with a Jew turned Muslim who hates atheists more than Jews or Christians as non believers in a god are the lowest of the low, the fact that western women can wear what they want is enough in his mind to start a holy war.

I don't think that these kind of people really matter. Having someone or even a group of people with an ideal doesn't matter because they won't change anything. The sooner people realise that money sits behind all of the recent wars the better.
There are far more "real" reasons behind the disputes of the world than religion.

RDW

bianchimoon wrote:

RDW - intelligent well thought out post, re the start point in the last para not sure what you mean, any relationship with the Saudi kings or Israel would be enough of an excuse for the disaffected to react, I think the religious / cultural differences were/ are enough for some to take action. In the Dawkins documentary there is an interview with a Jew turned Muslim who hates atheists more than Jews or Christians as non believers in a god are the lowest of the low, the fact that western women can wear what they want is enough in his mind to start a holy war.

That convert is a right piece of work, isn't he? (which is, I suppose, exactly why the producers selected him for interview). As for Saudi Arabia, would the West be involved there at all, if not for the oil? Iranian oil money also funds Hezbollah, of course. Although there are clearly religious zealots on both sides, I suspect the continuing conflict between Israel and the Arabs would carry on perfectly well on purely 'tribal' grounds; certainly secular Jews and Palestinians have played major roles in it.

ballysmate

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

VTech

Ballysmate wrote:

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

I would strongly disagree.
Most Muslims would be upset of CH posting images of Mohamed in jest. I have plenty of Muslim friends and not a single one thought it was either good or decent.
At the same time, none of them agree with the actions taken by these extremists either.

CH are inciteful and I think what they have done after the terrorist Attack is to put others in a position of danger. After all, I am yet to see anyone post on this forum about the fact that several of the IS groups have said that France is now the major enemy of Islam having taken over America.
To me that puts French people in danger but I am sure everyone will post here to argue my point.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Possibly, I'm currently reading Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' - wonder if it's in there?

Couple off topic questions.

What was your religious orientation before you started reading it, and whaddya think of it?

always been pretty much atheist - on the Dawkins scale I'm 6 going on 7, pretty much the same as Dawkins rates himself as I know that the non-existence of something can never be absolutely proven.

Less than 100 pages in but I like it and the way he breaks down the different arguments even if he is 'preaching to the converted' so to say. Then again I've liked what I read of his previously - Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable. The former is as close as I think I'll get to the answering question of 'why are we here?'

Yourself?

I found it very irritating principally because he is preaching to the choir. It was a man trying hard and being quite argumentative to someone who already agrees in principal.

I've always taken more of a humanities/history view of religion, so his heavy heavy focus on the science of it all and 'proving' or not 'proving' I also found a bit tiresome. To me there are easier ways to be convinced, or argue which are more contextual to human existence and society, but then despite going to a very CofE primary school never did believe at all so it wasn't so much as being convinced as it's just what I've always thought.

To me it's always been just logical that it's made up (I mean, why wouldn't it be?).

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

I would strongly disagree.
Most Muslims would be upset of CH posting images of Mohamed in jest. I have plenty of Muslim friends and not a single one thought it was either good or decent.
At the same time, none of them agree with the actions taken by these extremists either.

CH are inciteful and I think what they have done after the terrorist Attack is to put others in a position of danger. After all, I am yet to see anyone post on this forum about the fact that several of the IS groups have said that France is now the major enemy of Islam having taken over America.
To me that puts French people in danger but I am sure everyone will post here to argue my point.

How can you post that with a straight face having argued that Islam is not linked to terrorist atrocities and that it is all the work of 'bad men' ?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

How can you post that with a straight face having argued that Islam is not linked to terrorist atrocities and that it is all the work of 'bad men' ?

Only in the same way any other religion or absolute belief is.

People have short memories.

VTech

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

I would strongly disagree.
Most Muslims would be upset of CH posting images of Mohamed in jest. I have plenty of Muslim friends and not a single one thought it was either good or decent.
At the same time, none of them agree with the actions taken by these extremists either.

CH are inciteful and I think what they have done after the terrorist Attack is to put others in a position of danger. After all, I am yet to see anyone post on this forum about the fact that several of the IS groups have said that France is now the major enemy of Islam having taken over America.
To me that puts French people in danger but I am sure everyone will post here to argue my point.

How can you post that with a straight face having argued that Islam is not linked to terrorist atrocities and that it is all the work of 'bad men' ?

Because like many millions of other people the world over, I think the people of IS are not good people.
I believe they use twisted Islamic beliefs to reign terror on normal folk in order to achieve there twisted goal.

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

I would strongly disagree.
Most Muslims would be upset of CH posting images of Mohamed in jest. I have plenty of Muslim friends and not a single one thought it was either good or decent.
At the same time, none of them agree with the actions taken by these extremists either.

CH are inciteful and I think what they have done after the terrorist Attack is to put others in a position of danger. After all, I am yet to see anyone post on this forum about the fact that several of the IS groups have said that France is now the major enemy of Islam having taken over America.
To me that puts French people in danger but I am sure everyone will post here to argue my point.

How can you post that with a straight face having argued that Islam is not linked to terrorist atrocities and that it is all the work of 'bad men' ?

Because like many millions of other people the world over, I think the people of IS are not good people.
I believe they use twisted Islamic beliefs to reign terror on normal folk in order to achieve there twisted goal.

So there is a link?

VTech

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

I would strongly disagree.
Most Muslims would be upset of CH posting images of Mohamed in jest. I have plenty of Muslim friends and not a single one thought it was either good or decent.
At the same time, none of them agree with the actions taken by these extremists either.

CH are inciteful and I think what they have done after the terrorist Attack is to put others in a position of danger. After all, I am yet to see anyone post on this forum about the fact that several of the IS groups have said that France is now the major enemy of Islam having taken over America.
To me that puts French people in danger but I am sure everyone will post here to argue my point.

How can you post that with a straight face having argued that Islam is not linked to terrorist atrocities and that it is all the work of 'bad men' ?

Because like many millions of other people the world over, I think the people of IS are not good people.
I believe they use twisted Islamic beliefs to reign terror on normal folk in order to achieve there twisted goal.

So there is a link?

Your making yourself look foolish. I have never said here is no link. I have said they use Islam but that this isn't the belief of normal Muslims.
These terrorists pretend that their cause is in the name of "xxx" but that's false, just like the way you are trying to twist this thread.

bianchimoon

and who funds IsIs, it's not other terrorists but wealthy, otherwise respectable muslims, Quataris being the worst offenders

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

VTech wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Interview with a Charlie cartoonist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aders.html

'Humour doesn't kill anyone. We can't be prisoners of the sense of humour of others.'

'I think that most Muslims don't care about Charlie Hebdo.
'Those who claim all Muslims are offended take Muslims for imbeciles, I think.
'We don't take Muslims for imbeciles.'

I would strongly disagree.
Most Muslims would be upset of CH posting images of Mohamed in jest. I have plenty of Muslim friends and not a single one thought it was either good or decent.
At the same time, none of them agree with the actions taken by these extremists either.

CH are inciteful and I think what they have done after the terrorist Attack is to put others in a position of danger. After all, I am yet to see anyone post on this forum about the fact that several of the IS groups have said that France is now the major enemy of Islam having taken over America.
To me that puts French people in danger but I am sure everyone will post here to argue my point.

How can you post that with a straight face having argued that Islam is not linked to terrorist atrocities and that it is all the work of 'bad men' ?

Because like many millions of other people the world over, I think the people of IS are not good people.
I believe they use twisted Islamic beliefs to reign terror on normal folk in order to achieve there twisted goal.

So there is a link?

Your making yourself look foolish. I have never said here is no link. I have said they use Islam but that this isn't the belief of normal Muslims.
These terrorists pretend that their cause is in the name of "xxx" but that's false, just like the way you are trying to twist this thread.

I am content to be judged by other forum readers.

VTech

I would rather have 1000 forum lemmings judge me as foolish than a single person I respect think of me as a fool.

Having said that, I honestly wouldn't lose sleep either way because if nothing else, I am consistent. I just find it odd how others will lie to achieve a rather daft point and even go to the lengths of making out others have lied to achieve that end.

Ok, lets do it this way, find a single post where I have said islam is that problem !
When you have wasted your sunday unable to find it simply come back, and we can have a chinwag.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I found it very irritating principally because he is preaching to the choir. It was a man trying hard and being quite argumentative to someone who already agrees in principal.

I've always taken more of a humanities/history view of religion, so his heavy heavy focus on the science of it all and 'proving' or not 'proving' I also found a bit tiresome. To me there are easier ways to be convinced, or argue which are more contextual to human existence and society, but then despite going to a very CofE primary school never did believe at all so it wasn't so much as being convinced as it's just what I've always thought.

To me it's always been just logical that it's made up (I mean, why wouldn't it be?).

Agree he does like to provoke an argument but in the book he does specifically say to people who may hold religious views to read particular chapters.

That said, part of the problem with many 'of the faith' is that they won't even entertain reading opposing viewpoints because they have been brought up to believe that there is only 'one truth' or something similar. So the likelihood of significant numbers of believers reading it is pretty low. In terms of writing a book that people will read, yep, he will naturally be preaching to the choir.

Still a good read for me. I am in a Catholic family family by marriage so I get a bit of a perverse kick out of reading it. And it helps when we have the occasional debate when the US contingent are over and think they can make me 'see the light' :twisted:

rick_chasey

Meh atheist parents - atheist friends.

Can't think of a close friend I have who is religious actually.

ballysmate

We have a bit of fun going on in BB and it would appear that there are more respectable folk than lemmings. :roll:

BUT

VTech
On 13 January you posted

This really isn't a race or religion matter, its just a few people using that as an excuse

You did seem to adhere more or less to this view until today.

Because like many millions of other people the world over, I think the people of IS are not good people.
I believe they use twisted Islamic beliefs to reign terror on normal folk in order to achieve there twisted goal.

You do appreciate the dramatic change don't you?. The second statement shows that you now think the bad men are drawing inspiration from their religion and are not using it solely as an excuse.
You do see the dramatic difference in your two statements don't you?

Perhaps this volte face could be explained by a mis type. I mean, anything else might seem to make you look foolish, wouldnt it?