The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[TrentVilla]

As bad as it sounds I say leave them to it.  

 

Religion is like drink driving,  do it if you want but you and your family are at an increased risk of been hurt or killed.  It is a decision by them alone to follow false prophets in the face of fact and it is their decisions alone that lead to the atrocities from that region on a daily basis. 

 

 

 

Trouble is with drink driving that peoples decision to do it ends up costing the lives of innocent people minding their own business and going about their lives. A little like oh I don't know, religious fundamentalists.

 

So I agree with your analogy but perhaps not in the way you intended.

 

Just like with drink driving, sometimes society or those who represent it /them needs to step in.

 

I'm not sure what the answer in the middle east is, but for me leaving them drunk behind the wheel isn't it.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The only answer is to educate kids and hope future generations take a more considered approach than blowing up a market place because of a centuries old sectarian hatred.

[TrentVilla]

I would agree, if people weren't killing people for letting girls go to school.

[blandy]

I blame the above problems on the ALL people who believe in this stone age crap.

...I have now taken to immediately insulting religious belief, and its adherents, the moment I encounter either.... In short, insulting these uneducated morons at every opportunity, should be a secular duty.

...Atheists are entirely different to our religious bretheren....Please tell me, what is extreme about my views?

Yes, that Dalai Lama is clearly responsible, as you say for the Iraq problems. As is the vicar in the church up the road. And the little old lady who prays on a Friday in a mosque somewhere. Yep, they're the ones with blood on their hands. Nothing extreme there. Nor is there anything extreme in immediately insulting people as soon as you encounter them. Very level headed and normal, all that.

I'm with you on religion as a load of old bunkum and fairy tales, though.

[Mantis]

Religion is just an easy scapegoat for some people. As nice as it is to think that so many problems are caused by one thing (and thus removing that one thing would also remove the problems), it just simply isn't the case.

 

Politics is word that can cover pretty much everything... even football.   As for resources and land, everywhere one looks both of these exist in abundance, but in recent times it’s rare for conflict to break out for their control.  The thinking world has realised, through bitter experience, there are better way of resolving such issues.  Even in the Middle East, I struggle to remember any wars aimed at resource control, other than those begun by Saddam Hussein.

 

As for the Israeli-Palestine conflict: ‘Yes’, I do believe this would not have occurred without the religious differences.  Christians, let’s not forget them, took great pleasure slaughtering  Jews for over 1,000 years; but they followed their most recent Holocaust, by giving the Jews their own state.  Your idea that war would still exist in the lands we now call Israel were it all controlled by Muslims, is frankly laughable.

 

Atheists are entirely different to our religious bretheren.  Secular thought is based upon reason... religion is the antithesis of reason.  There are more stars in this universe than there are grains of sand on the earth... just imagine how many planets there are... yet the ‘bretheren’ believe each and every one of them is in constant telepathic contact with the creator of all this.  It’s not that this idea is laughable, arrogant, or even wicked... the real worry is how dangerous it is.  If you don’t believe me, just look today's news.

 

No, we have given this filth and its adherents air time for much too long, and in more ignorant times, when they had power, they invariably used it to kill those who disagreed with them. 

 

Please tell me, what is extreme about my views?  I believe that  2 + 2 = 4, I believe our roundish world goes round the sun, and I believe we evolved from more simple forms.

 

‘Extreme’ is thinking some Jewish carpenter was the son of god, or some murderous Arab warlord was the divine messenger, or that Noah marched all the animals into the arc before the big flood... now that is ‘Extreme’... and anyone who believes such rubbish is an extremist.

 

As for Stalin, probably the greatest mass murderer in history, like all his fellow communists, he  murdered to repress his political opponents... not in the name of atheism.

 

Sorry to be so long winded, but I hope I covered all your points.

 

Look at the motivating factors behind conflict and not just the rhetoric spouted by the leaders involved. I can't think of many major conflicts over the past century where religion could be said to be the primary factor. It's more of a historical thing but even then, a lot of historical conflicts which people blame on religion can just as easily be blamed on other factors. If you look at it closely the real problem is certain individuals, not religion. Iraq is a good example. When Saddam was in charge Sunni's dominated government despite being a minority in Iraq and since he was overthrown have faced discrimination, especially under al-Maliki. That's where a lot of the sectarian problems come from. You have to ask yourself - if religion is to blame for these conflicts then how come there are many other countries in the world with religious divides with no sectarian conflicts? In the end the ultimate problem is often division (religion is just one of many divisions), but that only becomes a problem when those divisions are exploited for personal gain.

 

Actually I'd say the real differences are between the moderates and extremists. Extremists from both sides often exhibit similar characteristics - intolerance, an inability to disagree with others without hurling insults, an "us and them" mentality, fear-mongering, rigid adherence to dogma, scapegoating and a tendency to generalise. You've provided examples of some of those already in the post above. I'm a Christian but I don't consider myself extreme or fundamentalist in any way. I have far more in common with moderate atheists (the live and let live type and not the ones who have this kind of attitude) than my fundamentalist Christian "brethren".

 

There's nothing extreme about being atheist (or being religious for that matter) - it's all about how you put it across. If a religious person came in here and had the same kind of attitude towards atheists as you do towards the religious then you would rightly call them an extremist.

 

I never said Stalin persecuted anybody in the name of atheism, I was just pointing out that contrary to what many seem to believe there are plenty of examples in history of the non-religious persecuting the religious, just like there are plenty of examples of the religious persecuting the non-religious (or other religious people). Ironically the persecution of religion in the Soviet bloc was justified with some of the sort of language you're using.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mantis

[Kingfisher]

The first thing we need to do in the west is to stop funding terrorists and dictators. Second thing we need to do is to stop actively participating in acts of terrorism, in the form of illegal wars and drone strikes etc. We need to stop profiteering from war, and manipulating situations for our own selfish ends.

That would at least be a good start but we need to stop electing greedy business men otherwise it won't happen. The world seems to be run by greedy businessmen, we need politicians with a strong social conscience.

[TrentVilla]

Most conflict in the 100 years with the exception of WW2 has been the direct consequence of the division of people, either enforced or desired. While other factors are normally there such as nationalism and economic the one almost universal common denominator is religion. 

 

You could debate perhaps about if religion is a cause of division or a means to an end for it but what I don't think can be debated is the central place of religion in almost every conflict on the globe.

[TrentVilla]

That would at least be a good start but we need to stop electing greedy business men otherwise it won't happen. The world seems to be run by greedy businessmen, we need politicians with a strong social conscience.

 

Sounds a little like Socialism to me or even Communism... I guess those sort of systems would never result in conflict

[Kingfisher]

That would at least be a good start but we need to stop electing greedy business men otherwise it won't happen. The world seems to be run by greedy businessmen, we need politicians with a strong social conscience.

Sounds a little like Socialism to me or even Communism... I guess those sort of systems would never result in conflict

As many people know by now, I like the Green Party. That Caroline Lucas, she is a bit a war monger - frightening.

[Mantis]

Most conflict in the 100 years with the exception of WW2 has been the direct consequence of the division of people, either enforced or desired. While other factors are normally there such as nationalism and economic the one almost universal common denominator is religion. 

 

You could debate perhaps about if religion is a cause of division or a means to an end for it but what I don't think can be debated is the central place of religion in almost every conflict on the globe.

There are just as many conflicts where nationalism is central than religion these days. The only common denominator is division - the only reason religion often features is because of its size.

[TrentVilla]

 

Most conflict in the 100 years with the exception of WW2 has been the direct consequence of the division of people, either enforced or desired. While other factors are normally there such as nationalism and economic the one almost universal common denominator is religion. 

 

You could debate perhaps about if religion is a cause of division or a means to an end for it but what I don't think can be debated is the central place of religion in almost every conflict on the globe.

There are just as many conflicts where nationalism is central than religion these days. The only common denominator is division - the only reason religion often features is because of its size.

 

 

To say religion is only a feature because of its size is massively wide of the mark in my view, it is one of the primary causes of division if not the primary cause.

[Mantis]

 

 

Most conflict in the 100 years with the exception of WW2 has been the direct consequence of the division of people, either enforced or desired. While other factors are normally there such as nationalism and economic the one almost universal common denominator is religion. 

 

You could debate perhaps about if religion is a cause of division or a means to an end for it but what I don't think can be debated is the central place of religion in almost every conflict on the globe.

There are just as many conflicts where nationalism is central than religion these days. The only common denominator is division - the only reason religion often features is because of its size.

 

 

To say religion is only a feature because of its size is massively wide of the mark in my view, it is one of the primary causes of division if not the primary cause.

 

Maybe in the past but I'm not so sure about now. Nationalism seems to be just as prevalent these days, and I do think size has a lot to do with it.

 

Division isn't necessarily a bad thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of countries which are not homogeneous when it comes to religious belief yet there are no sectarian problems.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mantis

[TrentVilla]

Maybe in the past but I'm not so sure about now. Nationalism seems to be just as prevalent these days, and I do think size has a lot to do with it.

 

 

Division isn't necessarily a bad thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of countries which are not homogeneous when it comes to religious belief yet there are no sectarian problems.

 

 

 

That there are homogeneous countries in which there aren't sectarian problems is irrelevant, nobody is saying that religion ALWAYS results in sectarianism or that it will always result in conflict, if they were that would be a valid point. 

 

But that isn't the case anyone is making least of all me, the point is that religion continues to be a contributing factor in conflicts around the globe and in some instances it is the primary or only real cause, I struggle to see how anyone can deny that even if it is uncomfortable for them as a religious person.

[Mantis]

I don't see it that way - to me it's division which causes conflict, of which religion is one division (which I've never denied). That said, I don't think religion contributes to division as much as nationalism these days. I can't think of many modern conflicts where religion is the primary contributor to division.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mantis

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

A lot of the world's divisions would fall to the side of people had a fairer slice of the pie. Inequality is, and always has been, the biggest problem.

Edited June 16, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[blandy]

 

....there are plenty of countries which are not homogeneous when it comes to religious belief yet there are no sectarian problems.

True. Yet the ones where there are problems are those where there is discrimination on religious lines - where one religion's followers are treated as "lower" than another's -whether its prods and catholics, Muslims and Christians or Jews or different sects Sunni/Shia. There's plenty of my sky fairy is better than your sky fairy-ism about. 

[Mantis]

Are you talking about the countries which are not religiously heterogeneous or countries in general? Because I can think of plenty of divided countries and societies where religions plays little or no part at all.

[bannedfromHandV]

Am I correct in thinking that this ISIS who are executing Iraqis en masse and in atrocious ways are the same group opposing Assad in Syria?

If so, why on earth did we even consider helping them? They're hardcore Muslim fundamentalists and I thought the mission was to stop these monsters.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Well we wanted to support rebels, some of which were ISIS but mostly not IIRC. The fear was ISIS and co would take the arms handed to the more moderate rebels.

 

Or something.

Edited June 16, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Mantis]

^

Pretty much. Syria is a three-way civil war between the Assad government, secular moderates and hard-line Islamists.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mantis