A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

Political ideology acts as a legitimizer too,tribalism acts as a legitimizer, and in some countries the military act as a legitimizer. You could also say individual ambition or egomania

Isolating religion is a bit disengenius.

None of these carries with it the absolution and directive of a higher authority than any human device.

Religion alone stands as the king when it comes to artificial constructs capable of justifiyng, legitimising and encouraging acts of unspeakable violence.

Húrin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wish I could say that I believed that if more theists saw what their archaic beliefs and practices lead to, when concentrated in a single instant, when the perceived right to take life in the name of a chosen phantom over rides common sense and human compassion - that they would stop and re-evaluate their lives.

I wish it would happen that way. Instead, for most, it changes nothing. For a minority, it reinforces their zealotry and blood lust for all those who dare to disagree with their point of view.

That's a bit silly. It's like saying that the shooting of a woman in the chest by a "defender of the state" in a communist country (which happened a lot in the last century) is a good reason not vote Labour.

liah wrote: »

he's still continuing with the same tired argument that the religious always use when someone calls religion out for being destructive.

Human organisations are destructive? No way.

Zillah wrote: »

Well let's be clear here. To be prejudiced is to have made a pre-judgment; a conclusion without all the facts. If I met a person of a certain ethnicity and pre-judged them based on that ethnicity, then that is a prejudice. It is not the same thing to condemn religion and it's active adherents.

You don't know all the facts when you judge all religious people for the actions of a government in the Middle East.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

None of these carries with it the absolution and directive of a higher authority than any human device.

I can think of one. In the 20th century, Social Darwinists appealed to the laws of nature - bigger than any human and even all humanity - in attempts to gather support for their programmes of "improving" the gene pool by eliminating people they didn't like. In some places they were unfortunately successful.

Zillah

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Shocking video, in my years of internetting I haven't watched a beheading, or a shooting incident or any of the extreme real world violence you can watch on it.

I watched this video, and I feel sick, not the blood, not even the woman dying in front of me, the blood was shocking, the woman dying was upsetting, but the context of this incident, is what is making me sick.

I don't feel comfortable at all sitting in my home several countries away from the events in Iran, this violence and corruption feels so close to home its unreal.

I'm so grateful for the internet, it is really wonderful that this video on its own or combined with the media cover for context, has had such an impact on me. If the internet continues to provide a medium to get this real material across and further the global condemnation of the suppression and violence towards these people I'm delighted.

I'm a world away from these troubles and they have never felt closer to home, and I feel as though I have watched someone die for the first time, and I'm overwhelmed. Its hard to get that to sink in a little.

I don't know, I don't even know what I'm trying to say in this post.

On one hand I agree, it's awful to see, but on the other hand I'm well aware that stuff like this is going on all the time in places around the world. Every day in somewhere like Somalia its nightmarishly worse than this. I think it would be a little shallow of me to weep for the lady in the original post while turning a blind eye to the women gang raped and butchered in an African alleyway. It would seem to me that I'd be more mourning the fact that I had to see it than the fact that it occurred.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Let us know when you are ready to pull the fingers out.

TBH, I'm really not interested in such a head to head. I simply stick by my original post. Call it fingers in the ears if you like. All I hope, is that at least some of the atheists here don't agree with such 'reasoning'.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

You don't know all the facts when you judge all religious people for the actions of a government in the Middle East.

Well that would be just super if I had said anything at all about the Middle East.

I didn't.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Well that would be just super if I had said anything at all about the Middle East.

I didn't.

I assumed that you were commenting on topic. I must have been wrong.

Hivemind187

Húrin wrote: »

That's a bit silly. It's like saying that the shooting of a woman in the chest by a "defender of the state" in a communist country (which happened a lot in the last century) is a good reason not vote Labour.

They arent "defenders of the state". The militia is an arm of the government, a hardline Islamic government.

Had-me-dinner-dad is grasping hard to maintain control over the nation and he is invoking religion to do so. It is a theocracy. Religion is at the heart of the law, the politics and the general mind set of almost every person. Whether the man behind the trigger was deeply devout or not is irrelevant, we know that the government that ordered that man into a situation where he took a life needlessly is quite openly so. Like it or not, this is directly attributable to religion.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

I assumed that you were commenting on topic. I must have been wrong.

No I was simply speaking in principle.

On topic I'm probably going to surprise some people and say that I don't think religion is in any way to blame for this. We have a bunch of men illegally in power over a nation, that nation has become educated enough to try to oust them in favour of democracy and violence has ensued as the cabal in power tries to suppress it. It's happened a hundred times before and there is always violence, there are always young women bleeding to death in the street, clashes with police, burning missiles, screaming mothers. This aint religion kiddos, it's revolution.

That said, Iran's Theocracy (and indeed all Theocracies) is awful and I'll be glad to see it go if the current generation of educated Iranians can trample it beneath their feet, but the video in the original post would exist whether Ahmadinejad was a communist, a fascist or an emperor.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

None of these carries with it the absolution and directive of a higher authority than any human device.

Neither should religion BTW.

Stercus Accidit

Zillah wrote: »

On one hand I agree, it's awful to see, but on the other hand I'm well aware that stuff like this is going on all the time in places around the world. Every day in somewhere like Somalia its nightmarishly worse than this.

My point is that regardless of the facts I read in the paper, the coverage of other world events and documentaries, statistics of all the above etc. etc., it was that uncensored video, and the image of the womans eyes darting back and forth as she bled to death that impacted me most.

I wrote that post quite ramblingly yeah, but in hindsight, it is exactly your point I was getting at. I'm certainly not unaware of these other as you put it, worse atrocities, but there is no denying the impact of the uncensored evidence, and that is a statement on how we perceive our media entirely, in its clean cut fit for western eyes form and then contrast that with how one honestly and fully delivered piece of media can affect our empathy completely differently.

Zillah wrote: »

I think it would be a little shallow of me to weep for the lady in the original post while turning a blind eye to the women gang raped and butchered in an African alleyway. It would seem to me that I'd be more mourning the fact that I had to see it than the fact that it occurred.

Just these lines in particular, I'm a fierce cynic myself, and would have the same objective criticism of my own emotions and how I am justifying them as you show here. But in this case, I would disagree that because I read an article about so and so many hundred deaths from starvation and continued to drink my coffee, and then was so shocked by contrast later in the day by the above mentioned video, that I should reduce my reaction to one because of the other. At some stage I have to accept that some ways of telling a story will affect me more, that I will care more or less depending on how tired I am, hungry, or what's on the other channel on TV. These are shallow reasons to care less, but I would, and I do care less sometimes because of these things. I don't mourn that I saw that video, I didn't enjoy watching it, but I am glad I did now. There is nothing shallow about accepting this variance in peoples reactions based on the medium in which news is reported to them, its part of the human condition, and it is a greater tragedy to force yourself to care less in some attempt to equalise you reaction with a previous one. There is no great shame in not being able to care as fully as you 'should' at times, but more of a loss if you feel less towards an event because of some self perceived inequality in your morally outrageous event versus emotional reaction standard.

That would be one element of my own cynicism that I have reigned in a little.

stevejazzx

CDfm wrote: »

Political ideology acts as a legitimizer too,tribalism acts as a legitimizer, and in some countries the military act as a legitimizer. You could also say individual ambition or egomania

Isolating religion is a bit disengenius.

I completely agree.

Húrin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

They arent "defenders of the state". The militia is an arm of the government, a hardline Islamic government.

Had-me-dinner-dad is grasping hard to maintain control over the nation and he is invoking religion to do so. It is a theocracy. Religion is at the heart of the law, the politics and the general mind set of almost every person. Whether the man behind the trigger was deeply devout or not is irrelevant, we know that the government that ordered that man into a situation where he took a life needlessly is quite openly so. Like it or not, this is directly attributable to religion.

So does that mean that all people of any religion share the blame? Do Labour voters share the blame for communist atrocities?

Hivemind187

Húrin wrote: »

So does that mean that all people of any religion share the blame? Do Labour voters share the blame for communist atrocities?

No. Labour is socialist not communist (and even socialist is a bit of stretch if I'm honest). Political ideologies are different to Religion in that they are constantly evolving to maintain their control. Religion does this through the invocation of terror and thousands of years of tradition.

And yes, in a sense all religious people share some of the blame for things that happen due to their support of a religion. As I have pointed out, it is the so-called religious moderates who make the extremists as dangerous as they are.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

And yes, in a sense all religious people share some of the blame for things that happen due to their support of a religion. As I have pointed out, it is the so-called religious moderates who make the extremists as dangerous as they are.

I knew the Hare Krishnas were a dangerous mob. :rolleyes:

This is pure BS along the lines of the Jews being responsible for killing Jesus.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No. Labour is socialist not communist (and even socialist is a bit of stretch if I'm honest). Political ideologies are different to Religion in that they are constantly evolving to maintain their control.

Its probably that being politics they can get away not telling the truth. They have supported fairly nasty regimes.Cynical I know.:rolleyes:

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

I knew the Hare Krishnas were a dangerous mob. :rolleyes:

This is pure BS along the lines of the Jews being responsible for killing Jesus.

Hare Krishna's are a sect of Hinduism. Hinduism, though it is possibly one of the lesser offenders is responsible for wars, murder, death etc just as any other religion is.

I'm not saying that Hark Krishna's are perpetrators of atrocities on the same level as Christianity (the big one), Judaism (the initial genocidal monotheists) and Islam (the one with the beards and box-cutters). What I am saying is that the religiously moderate justify the existance of the extremists.

Think of it this way, human beings are always trying to one up one another. A nicer car, a better lawn, a prettier wife, a bigger pay check or a stronger sentiment or morality on something. These last two are a component of extremism.

In a culture wherein everyone holds similar beliefs it is natrual for some individuals to take a more extreme position. If this is an over arcingly liberal system you will see the emergence of moderatism (assuming these things to be constants for the purposes of this description). Where you get moderateism you'll start to see conservatism and extremeism.

I say again, it is the foundation of the moderate that allows for the expression of the extremist.

Hare Krishna's may not be directly responsible, but they have a share of the blame by preaching belief in non-existant higher powers which reinforces the idea of the supernatural.

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

Its probably that being politics they can get away not telling the truth. They have supported fairly nasty regimes.Cynical I know.:rolleyes:

Your point being?

A political ideology does not carry with it the threat of eternal damnation and being poked by horrid little devils?

Or are you suggesting that Tony Blair was the anti-christ until he resigned and left Gordon Brown as the Anti-Christ pro-tem?

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Your point being?

A political ideology does not carry with it the threat of eternal damnation and being poked by horrid little devils?

Or are you suggesting that Tony Blair was the anti-christ until he resigned and left Gordon Brown as the Anti-Christ pro-tem?

You are just being silly. Political ideologies and organisations are power structures in the same way.Iranian Islam is a political ideology. Extremists are extremists.

Whether it was Che Guevara executing dissenting Cubans in the 50s and 60s (and he did) or the Ayatollahs executing dissenting Iranians the result is the same.

Flamed Diving

Hivemind187 wrote: »

A political ideology does not carry with it the threat of eternal damnation and being poked by horrid little devils?

Not the threat. It's the promise of eternal salvation that motivates the most.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I say again, it is the foundation of the moderate that allows for the expression of the extremist.

The GAA were just a front for the IRA:rolleyes:

Not really getting your point and think you are hamming it up a bit- its just someone( a Politician who wants to attain power) using a religous population as a constituency in the same way they might use any loose social structure , class, occupation,tribe, nationality or whatever.

Your comparison is very like all "Irish are Terrorists"that you had in the UK.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not the threat. It's the promise of eternal salvation that motivates the most.

You have to train people to kill other people which is why armies are closed organisations. I can see no difference in the rationisation of a political ideologist and religious ideologist on killing.

I just cant see it.

Whether religion is used as a tool is another matter its still a "reward" like land or oil or whatever but the motivation of the Leaders is the same -Political Power.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

You have to train people to kill other people which is why armies are closed organisations. I can see no difference in the rationisation of a political ideologist and religious ideologist on killing.

I just cant see it.

Whether religion is used as a tool is another matter its still a "reward" like land or oil or whatever but the motivation of the Leaders is the same -Political Power.

Religion and politics can be very similar, I agree. It wouldn't surprise me if neuroscience showed us that both political/religious fervour come from the same parts of the brain.

Probably something to do with The Fall.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Probably something to do with The Fall.

The novel by Camus or Mark E Smiths Band.

Goduznt Xzst

my monkeysphere remains intact

Húrin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No. Labour is socialist not communist (and even socialist is a bit of stretch if I'm honest). Political ideologies are different to Religion in that they are constantly evolving to maintain their control. Religion does this through the invocation of terror and thousands of years of tradition.

Religions also evolve.

And yes, in a sense all religious people share some of the blame for things that happen due to their support of a religion. As I have pointed out, it is the so-called religious moderates who make the extremists as dangerous as they are.

All left-wing people share some of the blame for things that happen due to their support of a left-wing party. As I am pointing out, it is the so called moderate or 'democratic socialists' who make the radicals as dangerous as they are.

Does this make any more sense to you than it does to me? That is, not a lot.

I don't see how I as a left-wing person am responsible for communist atrocities any more than I am responsible for the atrocities executed by a government of a different religion just because I believe in God.

Moderate religious people do not legitimise violent religion. There is no reason to think that religious violence is seen as acceptable or legitimate. Moderates provide a third way between atheism (which we naively assume is inherently peaceful) and violent religion that is needed.

Húrin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Hare Krishna's may not be directly responsible, but they have a share of the blame by preaching belief in non-existant higher powers which reinforces the idea of the supernatural.

Can you think of any way to make your argument that does not rely on the certainty that God does not exist? If religion is as harmful as you claim it is, it should not matter whether God exists or not.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Can you think of any way to make your argument that does not rely on the certainty that God does not exist? If religion is as harmful as you claim it is, it should not matter whether God exists or not.

Religion is harmful pretty much because of the number of people who believe with absolute certainty something about which there is no certainty. In most things arguments can be settled through rational and reasonable debate but when two perfect holy books say contradictory things you've got yourself a problem. Even discounting the conflict it causes, people often dedicate their entire lives to something that is no more likely to be true than any of the other thousands of versions of the same claims.

When making important decisions, it is harmful to base your decision on something which cannot be shown to be true with any degree of certainty. You might get lucky, you might have been fortunate enough to be born to parents whose ancestors chose the right religion but until those odds increase dramatically from what they are today it's a big risk to take. You might as well write your options on a dartboard and pick the one the dart lands on as base your decision on what your religion says you should do

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion is harmful pretty much because of the number of people who believe with absolute certainty something about which there is no certainty. In most things arguments can be settled through rational and reasonable debate but when two perfect holy books say contradictory things you've got yourself a problem. Even discounting the conflict it causes, people often dedicate their entire lives to something that is no more likely to be true than any of the other thousands of versions of the same claims.

Well are you certain that God does not exist and you are saying more than likely? So you are denying something cos you cant conceptualise it- not because you have proof either way.

People who insisted the earth was flat did the same doncha know.

When making important decisions, it is harmful to base your decision on something which cannot be shown to be true with any degree of certainty. You might get lucky, you might have been fortunate enough to be born to parents whose ancestors chose the right religion but until those odds increase dramatically from what they are today it's a big risk to take. You might as well write your options on a dartboard and pick the one the dart lands on as base your decision on what your religion says you should do

Should we also discount political theory, philosophy, ethics and legal precedent when making decisions?

Religion isn't the only belief system.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

I don't see how I as a left-wing person am responsible for communist atrocities any more than I am responsible for the atrocities executed by a government of a different religion just because I believe in God.

Well Hurin on the political party issue.Are there any political paries you supported who supported dodgy regimes in foreign countries?

Lets see it from the political angle?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well are you certain that God does not exist and you are saying more than likely? So you are denying something cos you cant conceptualise it- not because you have proof either way.

No I'm not certain if the christian God exists or not, that's the point. Until we know for sure one way or the other there is an inherent risk in basing a decision on his claims/rules, dedicating your life to him or relying on him for protection or to get something you want
. I'm not saying he doesn't exist, just that it's dangerous to assume that he does

CDfm wrote: »

Should we also discount political theory, philosophy, ethics and legal precedent when making decisions?

Religion isn't the only belief system.

If a belief stands on its own merits then it doesn't matter where it came from, it just makes sense but the authority of the bible stems from the idea that there is an omnipotent being behind it. If you're doing something that's in the bible because you've thought about it and it makes sense then that's fair enough, it's a valid claim that just happens to be in the bible. But if you're doing something because you think it's what god wants or because your thought processes have been influenced by your religion or you're relying on god for something you are taking a risk that he is not there, meaning you may have taken the wrong action or not taken necessary precautions because you thought you would be protected.
One of many many examples would be Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transfusions

So you don't automatically reject something because it came from a religion but it's dangerous to accept something just because it does