French Spurs fans...

[NASpurs]

US/UK/BigOil invaded Iraq for oil and then to regime change also Syria and Iran, too. ISIS arose DIRECTLY from the Repug-destabilized Middle East.

You mother ers are hilariously gullible, stupid, ignorant.

You're going to get banned

[RD2191]

US/UK/BigOil invaded Iraq for oil and then to regime change also Syria and Iran, too. ISIS arose DIRECTLY from the Repug-destabilized Middle East.

You mother ers are hilariously gullible, stupid, ignorant.

For once, I agree with you.

[ajh18]

US/UK/BigOil invaded Iraq for oil and then to regime change also Syria and Iran, too. ISIS arose DIRECTLY from the Repug-destabilized Middle East.

You mother ers are hilariously gullible, stupid, ignorant.

Can you not see this???

UNT, Mal and Bouton
Take your stupid and immature posts to the political forum. if in light of what happened in Paris and Beirut the only thing you can do is argue in an offensive and quite uneducated way it has no place in this thread.

Fair warning

A thread devoted to mourning the tragedy and expressing support for each other and the victims of this horrible event is NOT a place to air your personal agendas... whatever they are.

There's a time for debate. This isn't it. Calling each other morons is selfish, petty, and not worthy of the intentions behind this thread.

[RD2191]

Christians were doing it in the 1950s, when black people wouldn't cooperate with Jim Crow laws. Christians did it when Dr. King was marching for peaceful equality. Christians do it today, at abortion clinics, at LGBT events. Are their attacks as severe, or as devastating, or as frequent? No. What's been pouring out of Northern Africa and the Middle East are, in sheer numbers, vastly more devastating. The point I was hinting at without really expanding on too deeply is that the core mentality is the same - a group of people, as a subset of a larger ideology that they do not fully represent, get it in their heads that their religion is the Final Solution and must be implemented as law, whether on official law books in state houses or in practice. There are Christians - not nearly the number of militant ones compared to the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. - that want the US operated as a theocracy. They say no, they say it's just about upholding Christian principles, but in reality they're asking for exaltation to federal supremacy under the belief that the United States is a majority Christian and that "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" is exclusively a Christian idea - which it is not.

Part of the reason militant Christianity isn't as prevalent today as militant Islam is because of differences in the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the regions of the world where each ideology is dominant. Half a century ago, the Middle East was far more stable and democratic than it is now. Terrorist groups were smaller, weaker, less prevalent. The Golden Age of Islam, wherein Bagdhad was the cultural epicenter of a region leading the world in scientific progress, ended as religious doctrine became favored. This did not itself lead to violence, but rather destroyed the best defense against theocratic influence and religious fanaticism, which is education. The inability of the three Abrahamic religions and the nations that seek to advance their doctrine, including the United States, to come to a peaceful agreement regarding Israel and the Palestinian state is a another instigating factor. The Cold War escalated the West's involvement in controlling territory in that region. The US armed rebels, armies, guerilla groups, you name it, all to either stabilize a government or topple one. United States foreign policy towards Israel is largely influenced by a widely held public belief that because Israel is the prophecized holy land from the Bible, that it's existence is the will of God and those allied with her are to be shepherded into the promised land with her people. The US alliance with Israel and the billions of Western dollars we pour into helping that state defend itself only serves to aggravate those who would uphold Islamic indoctrinization of the region. Throw in how the various states comprising the area were formed out of the Ottoman collapse, and thus are largely devoid of any sort of national iden y, and you have a prime breeding ground for militant religious doctrine - people in that part of the world identify as their religion before their nationality, and it's why ISIS has had little trouble operating out of multiple countries. The region collapsed into a state of oerpetual war, exacerbated by Western involvement and increasingly extreme Islam as a response to the efforts of the West. As the region became further destabilized, increased Western intervention was needed, and the problems got worse even as the United States and Western coalitions conducted successful campaigns abroad. Militant Islam grew into what it is now because the region it originates from is wildly unstable, and now that these groups exist and our militaries must intervene, the cycle perpetuates. This is just a hugely simplified analysis of it.

Many more personal take is that religion is toxic, and the teachings of Christopher Hitchens on why it's toxic adequately sum up my beliefs. I just think the present political state of the world contributes to the idea that "their" religion is inherently worse than "our" religion. People divide themselves into us vs. them in times like these, something religion already does for us anyway.



I wanted to conclude my comment with how I felt towards the people of France and a recognition of their nation's contributions to ours. I appreciate your feedback. I know the first paragraph of what I said is more divisive, as I simplified an analytical point of view of the last 50 or so years of world sociopolitical history, and I'm fine with people not agreeing with my assessment of religion's place in all this. Thank you for your response.

What religion did Pol Pot practice? What about Stalin? Mao Zedong?

[NASpurs]

You stupid s were already warned by Slomo and keep going

[ChumpDumper]

You stupid s were already warned by Slomo and keep going

They'll be shcked when they are banned too.

[TXstbobcat]

Classy move by Sprint. Sprint is waiving all fees and charges on calls to and from France for their customers.

[HI-FI]

thoughts and prayers to those affected.

Thoughts and prayers for the Kurdish victims of the Turkey bombing as well tbh. Didn't see a thread on that either

good point as well.

[Horry Hipcheck]

What religion did Pol Pot practice? What about Stalin? Mao Zedong?

I never said religion is the only source of the evil men commit against their fellow man. I'm no stranger to history's most heinous murderers, some vastly more powerful than others. If you're going to count bodies killed by non-religious figures against religious ones to defend your God, you may wish to reconsider. Simple truth of Abrahamic religions is that the endgame of each one of them is Final Judgment, in which their deity cleanses the planet of human life and casts nonbelievers into eternal damnation, which is - in my personal, minority opinion - barbaric and evil. Religion and morality are mutually exclusive and I feel for those who think they need the former to give them the latter, and alternatively those who believe atrocities committed by men with no religion and no morals (Stalin, Mao) are further proof of this. Correlation does not imply causation and therefore, while I find religion to be antiquated, inconsistent, barbaric, and degrading, I also do not subscribe to the belief that it is the source of all evils in the world. I do, however, recognize the sociopolitical and cultural reasons for the current state of religious extremism, and understand that militant Islam is centered largely around a core belief that is not shared by the rest of the Muslim world, which is that Islam and the West are destined to be at odds with one another and that Islam is destined to win the resulting war that ISIS is actively trying to goad the West into.

[Robz4000]

Good work Slomo imvho

[EVAY]

Classy move by Sprint. Sprint is waiving all fees and charges on calls to and from France for their customers.

[-21-]

Thoughts and prayers to those affected not just in Paris but in the other places attacked as well. I don't understand why people would do this... I just don't.

[Brazil]

Thoughts and prayers for the Kurdish victims of the Turkey bombing as well tbh. Didn't see a thread on that either

You absolutey right like the massacre in Nigeria... Wish all this madness could stop...

[spurraider21]

Thoughts and prayers for the Kurdish victims of the Turkey bombing as well tbh. Didn't see a thread on that either

the world always ignores Turkish crimes against humanity, nothing to see here

[Kikoluna]

Terrible what's happening every day it seems.

[jeebus]

Je Suis lefty

[exstatic]

UNT, Mal and Bouton
Take your stupid and immature posts to the political forum. if in light of what happened in Paris and Beirut the only thing you can do is argue in an offensive and quite uneducated way it has no place in this thread.

Fair warning

THANK YOU

[Macca76]

It`s France, they`ve already surrendered

Good timing to express your ideas, piece of

[midnightpulp]

Christians were doing it in the 1950s, when black people wouldn't cooperate with Jim Crow laws. Christians did it when Dr. King was marching for peaceful equality. Christians do it today, at abortion clinics, at LGBT events. Are their attacks as severe, or as devastating, or as frequent? No. What's been pouring out of Northern Africa and the Middle East are, in sheer numbers, vastly more devastating. The point I was hinting at without really expanding on too deeply is that the core mentality is the same - a group of people, as a subset of a larger ideology that they do not fully represent, get it in their heads that their religion is the Final Solution and must be implemented as law, whether on official law books in state houses or in practice. There are Christians - not nearly the number of militant ones compared to the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. - that want the US operated as a theocracy. They say no, they say it's just about upholding Christian principles, but in reality they're asking for exaltation to federal supremacy under the belief that the United States is a majority Christian and that "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" is exclusively a Christian idea - which it is not.

Part of the reason militant Christianity isn't as prevalent today as militant Islam is because of differences in the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the regions of the world where each ideology is dominant. Half a century ago, the Middle East was far more stable and democratic than it is now. Terrorist groups were smaller, weaker, less prevalent. The Golden Age of Islam, wherein Bagdhad was the cultural epicenter of a region leading the world in scientific progress, ended as religious doctrine became favored. This did not itself lead to violence, but rather destroyed the best defense against theocratic influence and religious fanaticism, which is education. The inability of the three Abrahamic religions and the nations that seek to advance their doctrine, including the United States, to come to a peaceful agreement regarding Israel and the Palestinian state is a another instigating factor. The Cold War escalated the West's involvement in controlling territory in that region. The US armed rebels, armies, guerilla groups, you name it, all to either stabilize a government or topple one. United States foreign policy towards Israel is largely influenced by a widely held public belief that because Israel is the prophecized holy land from the Bible, that it's existence is the will of God and those allied with her are to be shepherded into the promised land with her people. The US alliance with Israel and the billions of Western dollars we pour into helping that state defend itself only serves to aggravate those who would uphold Islamic indoctrinization of the region. Throw in how the various states comprising the area were formed out of the Ottoman collapse, and thus are largely devoid of any sort of national iden y, and you have a prime breeding ground for militant religious doctrine - people in that part of the world identify as their religion before their nationality, and it's why ISIS has had little trouble operating out of multiple countries. The region collapsed into a state of oerpetual war, exacerbated by Western involvement and increasingly extreme Islam as a response to the efforts of the West. As the region became further destabilized, increased Western intervention was needed, and the problems got worse even as the United States and Western coalitions conducted successful campaigns abroad. Militant Islam grew into what it is now because the region it originates from is wildly unstable, and now that these groups exist and our militaries must intervene, the cycle perpetuates. This is just a hugely simplified analysis of it.

Many more personal take is that religion is toxic, and the teachings of Christopher Hitchens on why it's toxic adequately sum up my beliefs. I just think the present political state of the world contributes to the idea that "their" religion is inherently worse than "our" religion. People divide themselves into us vs. them in times like these, something religion already does for us anyway.



I wanted to conclude my comment with how I felt towards the people of France and a recognition of their nation's contributions to ours. I appreciate your feedback. I know the first paragraph of what I said is more divisive, as I simplified an analytical point of view of the last 50 or so years of world sociopolitical history, and I'm fine with people not agreeing with my assessment of religion's place in all this. Thank you for your response.

I won't address your comments on the Israel situation, because your thoughts there are speculative at best and reek of conspiracy theory at worst.

That said, Hitchens, Dawkins, and that whole New Atheist movement are polemical hacks, with opinions that any historians or (secular) theologians worth their weight would laugh at. They turn religion and belief into a crude caricature like the best propagandists have turned "the other" into a crude caricature in order to dehumanize. For a movement that preaches rationality and skepticism, they give into emotional kneejerking all too often, most likely willingly to rouse their cons uents. You might think I'm defending religion because I'm a believer, but I'm not. Simply put no historian would agree that religion is the "most toxic" of human ins utions. It's not even close to being a fact, which the supposed "fact" and "truth" lovers of the New Atheist movement should know. But that wouldn't be good for selling books, would it?

This is one of the most comprehensive examinations of war throughout history and the authors concluded that only about 7 percent of all wars had a religious component:

In their recently published book, "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod do ent the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people ...

http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-W.../dp/0816028516

And about that religion being antagonistic to science "fact?" Another myth.

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ric-scientists

And of course we know that Christian monks were responsible for saving all the books they could (irrespective of source) as Barbarians hordes ransacked and burnt their way through Rome.

http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medie...n-civilization

Religion also acted a a civilization force during that period:

As Christopher Dawson aptly writes: “The Church had to undertake the task of introducing the law of the Gospel and the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount among peoples who regarded homicide as the most honorable occupation and vengeance as synonymous with justice.”

Have bad, very bad things, been done in the name of religion? Of course. But in advanced basketball stat speak, religion has been a "net positive" to humanity overall. In reality, religion has actually amplified many of our innate traits of compassion, empathy, charity, love, and even desire for knowledge. More good things have been done in its "name" than vice versa.

The real problem is the human tendency toward tribal supremacy and the need for certainty in an indifferent universe. "Our" economic system is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" political ideology is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" race is more worthy of life and this land than "yours." Even the morally neutral science isn't free from human misinterpretation in this case. How many eugenic programs and forced sterilization programs were done by "scientists" who misread Darwin? How about the Nazis taking Nietzsche's Overman concept literally and actually trying to create an Overman through racial purification? , this tribal supremacy behavior is even on display at sporting events, when rival fans kill and beat each other (soccer hooliganism, stabbings in parking lots, etc).

Are science, philosophy, economics, and politics systems "toxic?"

No. Unfortunately, there's toxic people out there who will use these ins utions and ideas in a toxic way for personal gain and power.

This quote sums it up nicely:

We are unlike our animal kin in another way. Only human beings kill and die for the sake of beliefs about themselves and the nature of the world. Looking for sense in their lives, they attack others who find meaning in beliefs different from their own. The violence of faith cannot be exorcised by demonizing religion. It goes with being human.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1196...bloodiest-wars

However, I'm not a cynic nor a pessimist. All of these ins utions have been a "net positive" on humanity over all. If they didn't "work," we would've killed ourselves off long ago (you can say it got tense during the Cold War, but human goodness won out) and/or not gotten much further than caveman status in cultural progress. And statistically speaking, this is actually the most peaceful time in human history.

[RD2191]

I won't address your comments on the Israel situation, because your thoughts there are speculative at best and reek of conspiracy theory at worst.

That said, Hitchens, Dawkins, and that whole New Atheist movement are polemical hacks, with opinions that any historians or (secular) theologians worth their weight would laugh at. They turn religion and belief into a crude caricature like the best propagandists have turned "the other" into a crude caricature in order to dehumanize. For a movement that preaches rationality and skepticism, they give into emotional kneejerking all too often, most likely willingly to rouse their cons uents. You might think I'm defending religion because I'm a believer, but I'm not. Simply put no historian would agree that religion is the "most toxic" of human ins utions. It's not even close to being a fact, which the supposed "fact" and "truth" lovers of the New Atheist movement should know. But that wouldn't be good for selling books, would it?

This is one of the most comprehensive examinations of war throughout history and the authors concluded that only about 7 percent of all wars had a religious component:





And about that religion being antagonistic to science "fact?" Another myth.



http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ric-scientists

And of course we know that Christian monks were responsible for saving all the books they could (irrespective of source) as Barbarians hordes ransacked and burnt their way through Rome.

http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medie...n-civilization

Religion also acted a a civilization force during that period:



Have bad, very bad things, been done in the name of religion? Of course. But in advanced basketball stat speak, religion has been a "net positive" to humanity overall. In reality, religion has actually amplified many of our innate traits of compassion, empathy, charity, love, and even desire for knowledge. More good things have been done in its "name" than vice versa.

The real problem is the human tendency toward tribal supremacy and the need for certainty in an indifferent universe. "Our" economic system is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" political ideology is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" race is more worthy of life and this land than "yours." Even the morally neutral science isn't free from human misinterpretation in this case. How many eugenic programs and forced sterilization programs were done by "scientists" who misread Darwin? How about the Nazis taking Nietzsche's Overman concept literally and actually trying to create an Overman through racial purification? , this tribal supremacy behavior is even on display at sporting events, when rival fans kill and beat each other (soccer hooliganism, stabbings in parking lots, etc).

Are science, philosophy, economics, and politics systems "toxic?"

No. Unfortunately, there's toxic people out there who will use these ins utions and ideas in a toxic way for personal gain and power.

This quote sums it up nicely:



https://newrepublic.com/article/1196...bloodiest-wars

However, I'm not a cynic nor a pessimist. All of these ins utions have been a "net positive" on humanity over all. If they didn't "work," we would've killed ourselves off long ago (you can say it got tense during the Cold War, but human goodness won out) and/or not gotten much further than caveman status in cultural progress. And statistically speaking, this is actually the most peaceful time in human history.

[Horry Hipcheck]

I won't address your comments on the Israel situation, because your thoughts there are speculative at best and reek of conspiracy theory at worst.

That said, Hitchens, Dawkins, and that whole New Atheist movement are polemical hacks, with opinions that any historians or (secular) theologians worth their weight would laugh at. They turn religion and belief into a crude caricature like the best propagandists have turned "the other" into a crude caricature in order to dehumanize. For a movement that preaches rationality and skepticism, they give into emotional kneejerking all too often, most likely willingly to rouse their cons uents. You might think I'm defending religion because I'm a believer, but I'm not. Simply put no historian would agree that religion is the "most toxic" of human ins utions. It's not even close to being a fact, which the supposed "fact" and "truth" lovers of the New Atheist movement should know. But that wouldn't be good for selling books, would it?

This is one of the most comprehensive examinations of war throughout history and the authors concluded that only about 7 percent of all wars had a religious component:





And about that religion being antagonistic to science "fact?" Another myth.



http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ric-scientists

And of course we know that Christian monks were responsible for saving all the books they could (irrespective of source) as Barbarians hordes ransacked and burnt their way through Rome.

http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medie...n-civilization

Religion also acted a a civilization force during that period:



Have bad, very bad things, been done in the name of religion? Of course. But in advanced basketball stat speak, religion has been a "net positive" to humanity overall. In reality, religion has actually amplified many of our innate traits of compassion, empathy, charity, love, and even desire for knowledge. More good things have been done in its "name" than vice versa.

The real problem is the human tendency toward tribal supremacy and the need for certainty in an indifferent universe. "Our" economic system is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" political ideology is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" race is more worthy of life and this land than "yours." Even the morally neutral science isn't free from human misinterpretation in this case. How many eugenic programs and forced sterilization programs were done by "scientists" who misread Darwin? How about the Nazis taking Nietzsche's Overman concept literally and actually trying to create an Overman through racial purification? , this tribal supremacy behavior is even on display at sporting events, when rival fans kill and beat each other (soccer hooliganism, stabbings in parking lots, etc).

Are science, philosophy, economics, and politics systems "toxic?"

No. Unfortunately, there's toxic people out there who will use these ins utions and ideas in a toxic way for personal gain and power.

This quote sums it up nicely:



https://newrepublic.com/article/1196...bloodiest-wars

However, I'm not a cynic nor a pessimist. All of these ins utions have been a "net positive" on humanity over all. If they didn't "work," we would've killed ourselves off long ago (you can say it got tense during the Cold War, but human goodness won out) and/or not gotten much further than caveman status in cultural progress. And statistically speaking, this is actually the most peaceful time in human history.

Well put across the board.

[moisaenz]

Survival of the fittest ,doesn't matter

[Lady M]

live and work near Stade de France in Saint Denis (3 suicides bombs) but not in Paris this WE.
Monday will be strange

[EVAY]

live and work near Stade de France in Saint Denis (3 suicides bombs) but not in Paris this WE.
Monday will be strange

Stay safe.

[TDfan2007]

I won't address your comments on the Israel situation, because your thoughts there are speculative at best and reek of conspiracy theory at worst.

That said, Hitchens, Dawkins, and that whole New Atheist movement are polemical hacks, with opinions that any historians or (secular) theologians worth their weight would laugh at. They turn religion and belief into a crude caricature like the best propagandists have turned "the other" into a crude caricature in order to dehumanize. For a movement that preaches rationality and skepticism, they give into emotional kneejerking all too often, most likely willingly to rouse their cons uents. You might think I'm defending religion because I'm a believer, but I'm not. Simply put no historian would agree that religion is the "most toxic" of human ins utions. It's not even close to being a fact, which the supposed "fact" and "truth" lovers of the New Atheist movement should know. But that wouldn't be good for selling books, would it?

This is one of the most comprehensive examinations of war throughout history and the authors concluded that only about 7 percent of all wars had a religious component:





And about that religion being antagonistic to science "fact?" Another myth.



http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ric-scientists

And of course we know that Christian monks were responsible for saving all the books they could (irrespective of source) as Barbarians hordes ransacked and burnt their way through Rome.

http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medie...n-civilization

Religion also acted a a civilization force during that period:



Have bad, very bad things, been done in the name of religion? Of course. But in advanced basketball stat speak, religion has been a "net positive" to humanity overall. In reality, religion has actually amplified many of our innate traits of compassion, empathy, charity, love, and even desire for knowledge. More good things have been done in its "name" than vice versa.

The real problem is the human tendency toward tribal supremacy and the need for certainty in an indifferent universe. "Our" economic system is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" political ideology is more truthful and morally superior to "yours." "Our" race is more worthy of life and this land than "yours." Even the morally neutral science isn't free from human misinterpretation in this case. How many eugenic programs and forced sterilization programs were done by "scientists" who misread Darwin? How about the Nazis taking Nietzsche's Overman concept literally and actually trying to create an Overman through racial purification? , this tribal supremacy behavior is even on display at sporting events, when rival fans kill and beat each other (soccer hooliganism, stabbings in parking lots, etc).

Are science, philosophy, economics, and politics systems "toxic?"

No. Unfortunately, there's toxic people out there who will use these ins utions and ideas in a toxic way for personal gain and power.

This quote sums it up nicely:



https://newrepublic.com/article/1196...bloodiest-wars

However, I'm not a cynic nor a pessimist. All of these ins utions have been a "net positive" on humanity over all. If they didn't "work," we would've killed ourselves off long ago (you can say it got tense during the Cold War, but human goodness won out) and/or not gotten much further than caveman status in cultural progress. And statistically speaking, this is actually the most peaceful time in human history.

Nice to see that your solid basketball writing translates to other topics. Great post. I'm not religious, but to demonize faith in these situations is not fair. In the absence of religion, it's highly likely that humans would just find another avenue to attach our faction-creating ways onto for all of the reasons that you just pointed out.