The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Malthus]

Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. 

Perhaps a portmanteau of poppycock and foppery? 

Hey, that could work. 

[Malthus]

Man both of the Paris attack threads got hijacked by religion.

I tried for an English Civil War hijack, but it didn't have legs. 

[Berkut]

Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?

No, I was sarcastic.

Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.

Agreed, and humans have been doing so. I don't think more people have died from religions. Seems more have died from other reasons. WW1, WW2, , various Euro wars, US Civil War, just to name a few. Communists killed a hundred million at least, and many other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.

This is such a bizarre attitude.

So...since humans kill each other for reasons other than religion, and maybe even kill each other for all other reasons combined more than they do for religion...therefore being concerned about the death toll from religious violence is unwarranted?

Huh?

So the only violence we can ever be concerned about is violence that results in more violence than all OTHER forms of violence combined?

WTF are you people babbling about? It makes no sense at all.

"Religious violence is bad, and something to be very concerned about"

That statement is not reliant on a presumption that religion is the sole, primary, or even most prevalent form of violence there is - and indeed, we DO worry about and act to prevent other kinds of violence all the time. We spend trillions trying to prevent wars, billions trying to prevent rape and murder, billions trying to decrease gun fatalities.

Why is religion special, such that anyone bringing up religious violence is immediately dismissed as if we cannot worry ourselves about it as long as there is any such thing as non-religious violence?

[Martinus]

Man both of the Paris attack threads got hijacked by religion.

Time to retaliate by hijacking the early Christian sects thread!

[Razgovory]

Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?

No, I was sarcastic.

Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.

Agreed, and humans have been doing so. I don't think more people have died from religions. Seems more have died from other reasons. WW1, WW2, , various Euro wars, US Civil War, just to name a few. Communists killed a hundred million at least, and many other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.

This is such a bizarre attitude.

So...since humans kill each other for reasons other than religion, and maybe even kill each other for all other reasons combined more than they do for religion...therefore being concerned about the death toll from religious violence is unwarranted?

Huh?

So the only violence we can ever be concerned about is violence that results in more violence than all OTHER forms of violence combined?

WTF are you people babbling about? It makes no sense at all.

"Religious violence is bad, and something to be very concerned about"

That statement is not reliant on a presumption that religion is the sole, primary, or even most prevalent form of violence there is - and indeed, we DO worry about and act to prevent other kinds of violence all the time. We spend trillions trying to prevent wars, billions trying to prevent rape and murder, billions trying to decrease gun fatalities.

Why is religion special, such that anyone bringing up religious violence is immediately dismissed as if we cannot worry ourselves about it as long as there is any such thing as non-religious violence?

People kill each other for all sorts of reasons but you only seem to be concerned with those that died people inspired by religion.  Kronn brings up communism, a materialist philosophy (like yours!), but you aren't interested in find out combating materialism despite the death toll being higher then religion.  You bring up rape.  Rape is a sexual act, but I don't see anyone trying to ban sex in an effort to stop rape.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.

The Jews would agree the Byzantines sucked and have no business pointing fingers at anyone else.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.

The Jews would agree the Byzantines sucked and have no business pointing fingers at anyone else.

The Byzantines would never have done any such thing anyway. They always believed their own sins were responsible.

Granted probably for being too tolerant of the Jews.

[The Minsky Moment]

the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.

The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence.  Exactly the opposite.

Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."

Plus the passages about peoples and entire nations being utterly destroyed for refusing to accept the gospel.
Deus vult.

[Valmy]

Plus the passages about peoples and entire nations being utterly destroyed for refusing to accept the gospel.
Deus vult.

Well that's different.

[The Minsky Moment]

Some religions, as they are understood and practiced today, are more accepting of violence than others.

Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical. 

It's a little bizarre for non-Muslims to be so vehement in saying that the Quranic interpretations of a minority faction of certifiable lunatics must be the true and correct ones in the face of millions of actual practicing Muslims who say the opposite.

[Valmy]

Well now you have to admit it is a pretty sizable minority. Entire groups of nations are being destabilized by them. Political parties supporting these interpretations have won democratic elections. They are not exactly a fringe, even if the are a minority.

[Admiral Yi]

Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical. 

It's a little bizarre for non-Muslims to be so vehement in saying that the Quranic interpretations of a minority faction of certifiable lunatics must be the true and correct ones in the face of millions of actual practicing Muslims who say the opposite.

I haven't heard millions of practicing Muslims say anything at all.

The Koran is not a series of parables or allegories; it's a list of commandments, of laws.  As such interpretation in the way we understand it doesn't have much place.  Allah told Mohammed not to drink booze.  You either obey Allah's will or you don't.

[Martinus]

The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.

[Valmy]

The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.

Well to be fair that also applies to their non-Muslim neighbors around where said Muslims live.

[Martinus]

The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.

Well to be fair that also applies to their non-Muslim neighbors around where said Muslims live.

True. Middle Eastern people are fucked up.