7/7 lest we forget

[Guest]

Three years ago today Islamist extremist suicide bombers killed 52 innocent people in a series of four explosions in London's public transport system.

Remember them. Remember the evil that religion can bring.

[Delts]

Quoting from 21:30, 7th Jul 2008
Three years ago today Islamist extremist suicide bombers killed 52 innocent people in a series of four explosions in London's public transport system.

Remember them. Remember the evil that religion can bring.

Yes, remember them, but don't let their deaths be an excuse for the government to erode our freedom. It was a tragedy, but so is the climate of fear that the media and gov't impose upon us.

42 should only have a D.A. relevance, not a detainment one.

[hr]

Quotes: For when you can think of nothing to say yourself.

[Power Metal Dom]

I let this through with hesitation. Remembering the victims should be just that without a tiresome and wholly inappropriate religion-bashing addendum.

I accept that religion CAN do great harm but surely 'minority' and 'fundamentalist' should be added before we condemn all religions everywhere at all times a.k.a the Dawkins argument.

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon metal I drool

[Batman]

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:
mors et fugacem persequitur virum
nec parcit inbellis iuventae
poplitibus timidove tergo.

[hr]

Have you ever danced with the Devil in the Pale Moonlight!

[Duggeh]

I don't remember a thread on the anniversary of the 1996 Manchester bombing telling us of the evil that the Irish bring ¬ _¬

[hr]

IMAGE:www.thismanwillkillyou.com/avatars/tb3-100.jpg
Duggeh: Master Of Ceremonies

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting from 21:30, 7th Jul 2008
Remember them. Remember the evil that religion can bring.

The evil of which you speak is not inherent in religion. It is part of who we, as human beings are. Without religion you'd have no concept of 'evil' with which to condemn such violence.

It is so much easier for us to blame some institution, such as religion, or some object (guns, drugs, rap music) for the evils that befall us than it is to acknowledge that deep inside of all of us is the criminal, the animal, the potential for inhuman cruelty. We do ourselves a disservice when we forget that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions and we transfer guilt to something that doesn't remind us that we ourselves are capable of the unspeakable and that the line between civilisation and barbarism is a thin and fragile one.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[stevienicksfan]

Religion is the very meaning of destruction itself. The fervour that all people show who believe so strongly in something is actually madness. Before proof you can only have faith. faith is purely an argument and as we have seen time and time again these arguments are the constituients of most wars, even more so in the "modern" era. Only the end of religion will bring peace to the world.

[Humphrey]

It is difficult to argue that religion has been the major source of conflict since the end of the thirty years war, despite the efforts of people like Hitchens. The only way you could do it is to argue that ideologies like nationalism, Nazism, Communism and even the Jacobin ‘cult of reason’ were all religions. In his book The Third Reich: A New History, Michael Burleigh actually does calls Nazism a "political religion", a theory he goes on to expand in ‘Earthly Powers’ and ‘Sacred Causes’. But what he meant was that Nazism was a substitute for religion, as were all the major post-enlightenment ideologies with messianic prophesises and utopian strains. Burleigh actually thinks traditional religion is generally a good thing and a necessary part of being human and when you get rid of it and replace it with a political ideology you can get into big trouble. Luckily, since the collapse of communism the only contending political religion worth speaking about is environmentalism, which seems pretty harmless aside from the Biofuels debacle. I approve of the English scientific atheism of Dawkins because it is basically Christianity with a bit of free love thrown in for good measure. I’m less enthused with the European atheism of Onfray who claims that the new atheists are basically atheist Christians and that we should abandon our reverence for human life as well as reorientate our legal system to eliminate the Christian concept of free will. I suppose you could argue that Onfray is at least being consistent. As William Provine, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, at Cornell University summarises:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

The question is, having adopted a materialistic worldview do you then go on to accept all that it entails and reorientation it accordingly, or do you then work to re-establish all those ‘illusions’ we have been carefully maintaining throughout human history?.


[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[exnihilo]

How is "Dulce et decorum est" appropriate or relevant? How did the victims of 7/7 die for their country? Unless you're suggesting that they were unwitting soldiers in some war against Islam?

[househunter]

Not to sound like a prick or anything, but I honestly forgot.

[stevienicksfan]

"I approve of the English scientific atheism of Dawkins because it is basically Christianity with a bit of free love thrown in for good measure."

I think you should email him this and find out what he thinks of this. In regard to your question about materialism, all meaning has forever been derived through the world of ideas. The physical world, which most individuals attempt to ascribe a religious basis to, has forever adhered to its own laws outside of humanity. Dawkins ideas do not in any way resemble anything to do with chrstianity and when you read his book he reduces to the world of the ridiculous any idea of ANY god, monotheistic or otherwise.

You are correct to state that mass-group actions such as Nazism should be grouped as religions. It is clear that the same psychological process has taken place as described by Simmel and Weber, with mass actions being precipitated by ideas propogated by talismanic figures aka Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler.

The inherent need to believe in something else outside of this world, described by Nietzsche as haters of life itself, is what drove the 7/7 bombers to do what they did. It is the action of religion and not the actual naming as a religion I mean, so I stand corrected. I truly believe individuals are unable to think for themselves under these conditions and are suffering a form of mental illness.

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting from 21:30, 7th Jul 2008


Remember them. Remember the evil that religion can bring.

5/04/93 - IRA bomb City of London. Remember the evil that politics can bring.

Religion is irrelevant to this as it is only one of multiple 'causes' for terrorism.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Haunted]

Oh joys one of these again.

I disagree with the OP in so much as religion is not to blame, but that the brainwashing thats goes on in some religions is. Little is done to address it for fear of being called intolerant or islamophobic or whatever.

Without religion you'd have no concept of 'evil' with which to condemn such violence.

One does not need to buy into jewish zombies, talking snakes and evil galactic warlords to know right from wrong. Biology is where morality begins, not mysticism.

We do ourselves a disservice when we forget that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions

As much we'd like it to be, the individual is not always ultimately responsible. Of the muslim bombers, they had been brainwashed into thinking that killing for islam was an act of goodness and that they would get into paradise for it. We can blame the Imam or whoever convinced them of this or whoever wrote the extremist material they had been reading, to a certain degree. Another thing that comes to mind was that extremist madrassa that was under seige in Pakistan last year, can the students shoulder all the responsibility?

The only way you could do it is to argue that ideologies like nationalism, Nazism, Communism and even the Jacobin ‘cult of reason’ were all religions.

I quoted a lengthy essay on this by Hitchens last time which makes this very case, if you can find it it may be worth a reread. See also "The God That Failed".

I approve of the English scientific atheism of Dawkins because it is basically Christianity with a bit of free love thrown in for good measure.

You'll have to point out the part where he telepathically accepts Jesus and begs forgiveness for his sins.

Onfray, William Provine

Two appeals to authority.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Darwin never argued or made a case against free will or meaning of life, though he may have mused over them as he slowly lost his christianity. Though it's easy to see that someone, having been brought up a good believer, suddenly being convinced it's all bollocks may also be convinced therefore that there is no point in living at all. However, it is a complete non-sequitar.

If you've ever truly thought about what free will entails you will know it is illogical and disproves itself, even if we allow for any unprovable supernatural voodoo. As an interesting read you may like Dan Dennetts "Freedom evolves".

The question is, having adopted a materialistic worldview do you then go on to accept all that it entails and reorientation it accordingly

Another shameful non-sequitar.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Humphrey]

Thanks all. I'll have to come back to this tomorrow. In the spirit of things, here are some cheap shots.

Quoting Haunted from 13:44, 8th Jul 2008
Oh joys one of these again.

You love it.

One does not need to buy into jewish zombies, talking snakes and evil galactic warlords to know right from wrong. Biology is where morality begins, not mysticism.

You'll have to point out the part where he telepathically accepts Jesus and begs forgiveness for his sins.

Reductio ad absurdum ad nauseam

I quoted a lengthy essay on this by Hitchens last time which makes this very case

Appeal to authority (or at least as much an appeal to authority as mine was!).

Non sequitur

One thread of this discussion is about replacing religion in order to usher in a free thinking utopia. I don't think I actually strayed too far from that topic.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Haunted]

Fair play.

Though I was hoping for you to rigiously defend your accusation that the "new" atheism is intrinsically christian.

With the Hitchens ref. It wasn't so much as an opinion piece, more of a collection of facts (Things like Church sponsored fascism, "church of atheism in Russia", Papal endrosement of Hitler etc).

The OP made the point that religion is to blame for such atrocities, someone else added "therefore we must do away with religion" and you have just added "..in order to usher in a free thinking utopia". I am of the opinion that religion per se isn't to blame, merely the practices it protects (though these liberal religious moderates we hear so much about would do well to start coming out and condemning all the bullshit they claim they are tainted with).

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Humphrey]

Quoting Haunted from 16:11, 8th Jul 2008
Though I was hoping for you to rigiously defend your accusation that the "new" atheism is intrinsically christian.

Controversial and hard to establish but, rather than eating my words I'm going to prepare a rigorous defence of that one and email it to Dawkins for good measure. Superficially there is no similarity but one can reject a belief and continue with certain categories of thinking which derive from that belief.

With the Hitchens ref. It wasn't so much as an opinion piece, more of a collection of facts (Things like Church sponsored fascism, "church of atheism in Russia", Papal endrosement of Hitler etc).

All these relate to the Catholic church (and the Russian Orthodox) who I am not going to go out of my way to defend. Mainly because Hubert Butler, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Butler ) an Irish relative of mine went to great trouble to expose Catholic atrocities in Croatia during WWII. Because of this he sparked a massive row with the Catholic church, was boycotted and eventually chucked out of the Kilkenny archaeological society. What I will say is that, having read Burleigh's 'Sacred Causes', the waters are considerably murkier than you might think having read Hitchens.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[LonelyPilgrim]

Even the Thirty Year's War had at least as much to do with secular politics as religion. The beginnings of the war in Germany, after it expanded out of Bohemia, were over the distribution of political power between the Emperor and the Electors.

Sweden's involvement was a quest for territorial aggrandizement using religion as an excuse.

And France... had France been motivated by religion, Cardinal Richelieu (a Catholic Cardinal and regent of France) would have joined the war on the other side of the one he actually supported! Catholic France fought on the Protestant side for strictly political, anti-Hapsburg reasons.

I'd say that only the Papal States and Spain were primarily motivated by religious zeal, but even then there were serious dynastic politics at play.

Anyway, point is, if the quintessential 'religious war' isn't that much about religion where does that leave the statement that "Only the end of religion will bring peace to the world."?

Seriously, grab a few history books and take a look at all the conflicts in the history of the world that had absolutely nothing to do with religion and then maybe you'll comprehend, regardless of the merits of religion itself, how incredibly stupid that statement is. Allow me to posit an alternative: Only the end of humanity will bring peace to the world.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[tom]

why on earth is it called "7/7", like its on any scale as bad as 9/11. i myself just call it 'the london bombings', everyone would know what i'm referring to. about 50 people died that day, but thats nothing compared to the 3000 that got wiped out on 9/11.

no disrespect to the dead, mind.

[RandomMusings]

Personally, religion means very little to me. However, the general idea correctly seems to be that extreme followers of extreme factions of certain religions sometimes commit atrocious and cowardly acts.
I just wonder how many of these acts are committed under the 'guise' of religious fundamentalism when in truth they are not - merely acting as a mask for people wanting to take out their frustration with life on innocent others who appear to be better off, or worse, if you believe all the conspiracy theorists out there (but then again, why would you?) when they spout such 'drivel' as "it was actually our government who did it as an excuse to attack ..... for oil etc".

What with bombs and knife attacks and gun crime and muggings and racial/sexual abuse and recessions, you sometimes wonder what kind of future we may have. Maybe the Orwellian Distopia is a future possibility

[hr]

I like paper.

[Haunted]

The source of the problem is the nature of faith.

If someone is told that they don't need evidence to believe in something, then they'll believe anything (and respond to criticism with "hey that's my faith asshole"). You can't argue with someone who says "I have faith that by murdering these people I will get to paradise and ensure my family will get there to". He is convinced he is doing the right thing therefore he is not an evil person. To paraphrase Steven Weinburg, sure evil people do evil things and good people do good things, but for a good person to do an evil thing, that takes religion (or at least the blind faith part of it).

In order to prevent such atrocities from being commited in the future, the idea that "faith" is a virtue to be championed needs to end. No, not all faith leads to evil, but it opens up the doorway to it. A doorway unavailable to those without it.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn