The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

Originally Posted by mapuc

Quran versus our Holy Bible

I have been told there is a violent part and a peaceful part in the Quran and then there are these Hadith and some other book that a muslim also need to read to fully understand their holy book.

If I remember correctly our own bible have a violent part and a peaceful part

What is common for Islamic and Christians fanatics is they pick a sentence here and there and a letter here and there in their respective religious book so they can justify their "behaviour"

That goes for any religious fanatics. They take what they need from their religious book.

Markus

Why do you defend/relativise the Islam when you obviously don't know it?

One main difference between the Bible (that I don't give a damn about as an atheist) and the Quran is that one book doesn't command its followers to kill non-believers,
lie to them, or not to befriend them in any way but abuse them to advance the own cause.

Now guess which book that is...

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Why do you defend/relativise the Islam when you obviously don't know it?

One main difference between the Bible (that I don't give a damn about as an atheist) and the Quran is that one book doesn't command its followers to kill non-believers,
lie to them, or not to befriend them in any way but abuse them to advance the own cause.

Now guess which book that is...

I do NOT defend any of them-not if the followers of their holy book kills other. A peaceful person who has a belief but do not harm any-that person I have nothing against.

I'm not an expert on the Quran its only what I have been told-If not true then enlighten me.

Markus

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Following two sentences is from an Danish news paper the article was postet on Februar 2015-the law is still in force,

The municipalities struggle to provide housing for their nationals in housing shortage because they have to find housing for refugees first

That is the message from a number of municipalities, which is concerned that the refugees' legal entitlement to be assigned housing gets some citizens to see negative on refugees.

There have been another politician on Danish TV who said the law say we shall put the refugees first-this after we were told an handicapped person who was granted a special apartment, suddenly was placed further back in the queue.

Markus

Again - a problem was unsolved - there was obviously a housing shortage. Did it appear overnight? Were comes the difference from?
100 citizens but only 85 houses. Why is there 15 citizens without housing?

Not all of the native population willing to live in a house/appartment could get one. Were did they live then? Was this situation somewhat accepted? Were more housings been built?

Now 100 000 refugees come and look for help. Of course this adds to the former problem. But obviously the former problem was accepted. Even the handicapped person was living somewere - and does now have to live there further on, until enough housing is available.

The people not willing to help suddenly mention some own citizens have no homes and shall have them first. Until now they didn't try to help even the own people. But forcing them to help - they feel some need for solidarity. Funny, eh?

So the politicians say - everybody accepted it first and now we care for those without any housing - the refugees - first.

Same situation as above - the problems already existent, but denied or accepted, become suddenly urgent. Those motivated to generate hate against the refugees will start to complain. Our people first - the refugees shall have to wait.

Those in extremly dire shall wait, until those with less dire will be satisfied.
Ask a medic if this is appropriate.


Our societies are no homogen constructs. We have groups of different interests. But we agreed on some represenatives, some custodians, to make decisions for us. They represent the majority the day we vote for them.
We are told, we are not smart enough to decide problems when they occur, but are smart enough to designate a stranger to make decisions for us in our interest. We have a problem here - and it's not the refugees.

With a more direct democraty we citizens would have more influence on actual solutions - but the rulers controlling the politicians would have less.
So we stay with a representative democracy, until we are personally contolled to such a degree, that the rulers are able to allow the politicians to promote direct democracy - without loss of control.

The politicians will not like it.

A peaceful person who has a belief but do not harm any-that person I have nothing against.

Is there a difference what religion the person follows?

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

And who here said that or even remotely suggested that?
No one. Absolutely no one.
Can you at least try to make a valid point for once instead of resting your argument on things no one here said?

We shall listen to the media priests - link thier motivation to control our perception.
Your opinion is from priest A - writing in media “True”. You link the text to support your opinion - his opinion, his processed data, his motivation to see the world - you have accepted this opinion.

I do the same - link my motivator. I shall read yours, you shall read mine.

I don't think this kind of discussion to be useful. Let the media priests have that discussion by themselves. They don't need us for that.

The cleric priests explaining the world with the Bible has lost influence. You don't listen to them.

But the media priests explaining the world with news and data have gained influence. You totally believe them. Muslims are all evil terrorists - you link to their hatemonger.

What's not written in the news is not true! = What's not written in the Bible is not true.


In the same tone you address me: please, for once, try to keep up and use your intelligence. Don't tell me I overestimate it.

And now please tell me, is this tone necessary and productive? Does it add to the discussion?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

One main difference between the Bible (that I don't give a damn about as an atheist) and the Quran is that one book doesn't command its followers to kill non-believers,
lie to them, or not to befriend them in any way but abuse them to advance the own cause.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 17

Do not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect or flaw in it, for that would be detestable to him. 2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 13

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. 6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18 because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes

Originally Posted by Numbers 31

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

[Mittelwaechter]

And 'the law' - the Old Testament is valid.

Sermon on the Mount - Jesus talking

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Christians consider Christ to be God - and God to be Christ. Christ stands for the old rules as God stands for them.

But what do I know.

Linking to some common knowledge.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Christians consider Christ to be God - and God to be Christ.

It's a bit more complicated than that, some do believe that yes, whereas others believe that the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) represent three different things which are united in their essence. Then, of course, there are Christian sects which don't believe in the Trinity at all, such as Jehovahs Witnesses.

Atheists should consider themselves lucky that they're still a young enough movement that no major splits/sects have happened yet. Seems to happen to most major religions/ideologies.

[Mittelwaechter]

Atheistm is no movement. Atheist is the name for nonbelievers, given by believers. But the difference is only relevant for believers. They form a movement.

Would you name yourself non-stamp-collector, a non-high-heels-wearer, a non-deep-sea-diver? Is it relevant for you - or for the philatelist who talks about you?

I accept them to name me for their purposes - and I may even use it in communication with them. It makes things easier.

But I don't consider me myself to be an atheist nor am I part of a movement or ideology.

But of course I could follow the common concepts - provided by believers and their priests.

[Oberon]

Everyone tends to follow some kind of concept which has been formed by influential people, the primary difference is how strict they adhere to such concepts and whether they also follow other concepts which may or may not contradict.

Humanity is strange.

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Humanity is strange.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Atheists should consider themselves lucky that they're still a young enough movement that no major splits/sects have happened yet. Seems to happen to most major religions/ideologies.

There have been people of note proclaiming that there is no God since ancient times. In the middle ages it was dangerous to do so, and the organized religion were in the habit of torturing and beheading people who spoke out against the existence of a God.

I this I agree with Mittelwaechter that, while there have been Atheist organizations springing up in recent times, they don't exactly adhere to a creed in the religious sense, and those who differ are more likely to go their own way or discuss it reasonably than get into holy wars.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

There have been people of note proclaiming that there is no God since ancient times. In the middle ages it was dangerous to do so, and the organized religion were in the habit of torturing and beheading people who spoke out against the existence of a God.

I this I agree with Mittelwaechter that, while there have been Atheist organizations springing up in recent times, they don't exactly adhere to a creed in the religious sense, and those who differ are more likely to go their own way or discuss it reasonably than get into holy wars.

I would perhaps ponder if that will change in this modern era, certainly records indicate that atheism has bloomed in a big way over the past fifty years in the western world, and I would say that there are now more atheists in the world than there has ever been in any point in history.
But it's a valid point that atheism isn't really a religion of its own, since it has only one real point to it, the disbelief of the presence of a God and thus it's an easier thing to adhere to without taking bits of it apart.
Instead, I imagine that Atheists fight over other ideological differences.

[Catfish]

OT? Is religion off-topic in this thread?

Originally Posted by Oberon

It's a bit more complicated than that, some do believe that yes, whereas others believe that the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) represent three different things which are united in their essence. [...]

And they also tried to kill each other, from Spain to England, because of that or various other opinions. Then catholicism, evangelism, judaism, the anglican church, baptism, and lots and lots of other "splinter groups".

I guess we can all say that
1. there are not much people today in the West who take the bible literally, if they believe at all.
2. There are a lot who bend the bible in their way, quoting what pleases them most and simply disregarding the "rest".
3. The bible is contradictory, depending on which parts and authors you read.
4. There has been a lot of discussing and abstraction in christian theological circles for centuries, to unite and come to a common view, but there are still lots of sects who still believe in their own. Most do not play a big role though. Thank.. God.

Islam being a slightly younger religion, it seems a lot of this theological discussion has not yet taken place, but also a lot of egoists with their own unethical goals quote those text components they want their followers to believe, and abuse it. Most "christian" atrocities have been perpetrated until the 19th century, when there were still some witches burnt, in the US. But the real big bad things did take place before and in the middle ages, some centuries ago.

You could say that the interpretation in Islam has not come to a more united view "yet", but this may be wrong. It is just that a few donkeyholes abuse and bend it to their liking, because every "leader" ever had to have a legitimation for their ruling, no matter how far-fetched it may appear.
The daesh leaders legitimate their crimes by the Koran, but they only quote what suits them. What we see are people blowing their own trumpet, for themselves and their power, just using religion to their personal advantage.
Any new christian leader could (ab)use the bible in the same way.

From own experience and perception:
Some 7 or 8 years ago, the local "muslims" or should i just say common people of another faith invited all to their "mosque" (being just another normal house here) for a secular celebration, and to talk about differences and possible "joint ventures" so to speak. All quite reasonable, organising charity events and generally trying to fit in. Some businessmen and women, some selling snacks, lots of children, all with german passport in the 3rd generation or so. They also showed us their praying chamber, a reasonable priest/Imam and they did not hold back much, if at all.

I failed to see aggressiveness or even the will to convert anyone. They did it for a better integration and coming to know each other.

With all those new immigrants, this is certainly another matter. But bedeviling all?

[Skybird]

Atheism is no religion to believe in. It is the refusal of just believing into claims about a theistic deity for which no evidence exists.

Atheists have always been around, just in varying numbers, and in the past they had all reason to hide . Some stepped for forward and stood up for their thinking, many paid with their lives.

Atheism is no ideology or theory or belief system in itself. All it wants is evidence for claims made by theistic religions. If you do not have such evidence, they want to be left alone and want at best that religious stop forming society to theistic demands.

Its not so much that they want something on their own behalf. They want something not. Freedom of religious practicing always must mean freedom from religion as well - else it is religious tyranny in more or less disguise.

Religions can be atheist when they do not center around a theistic deity. Religion must not necessarily be mono- or polytheistic. But usually atheists are areligious as well.

Some atheists I knew, just did not care for these religious issues, others wanted to be left alone by them. None of them fought for an atheist agenda, since there is nothing like an agenda, but they may set up a fight if religious people directly or indirectly press them to surrender to demands of theistic belief, or want to enforce theistic views on society.

The golden rule to get along with atheists and not even realising that they may differ from you? Do not push them, then they do not push you. They do not care for what your practice in your cabin a slong as you do not consume children or torture animals. The more you push them, the more they push back. Do not limit their freedom from your religion by increasing the demands of your religion and the role it should play in the world they also share with you. Try to make them belief in your deity, and see them asking you for evidence that it exists. The burden of evidence is on theists, not atheists.

As either Dawkins or Hitchens once put it: the theist is as atheistic as the atheist, both do not believe in Zeus, Apollo or Venus; Wotan, Tor or Loki; Isis, Apophis or Re, nor do they believe in Easter bunnies, Santa Claus or that the storch brings the babies. The atheists just goes all the way, he goes one deity's further in his refusal to believe.

Claims that "atheists" ruin the world" and "atheists triggered the war" and then pointing out that Stalin or Mao or Hitler were atheist (Hitler formally was Catholic, btw), are hilarious. Here, a correlation is taken for a causal link. Everybody knowing the basics of statistics know what the problem is. One could as well claim that bearded men kicked the world into WWII.

-----

BTW, hostage taking in a Northern French church. Two attackers, both shot dead by the police. 1 hostage dead, the priest. No word on the background so far. And just in: French officials base on terror suspicion.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

BTW, hostage taking in a Northern French church. Two attackers, both shot dead by the police. 1 hostage dead. No word on the background so far. And just in: French officials base on terror suspicion.

Yup... apparently the priest's throat was cut.