Paris Terrorist Attack

The best wedding I ever went to was when my Catholic mate married his Jewish girlfriend. Those 2 religions know how to party hard. Let's not kick all religions...

 

Yes. One good wedding makes up for the rest of it. Good on them.

 

UK papers have ballsed it up by for some reason putting huge photos of the poor policeman lying on the ground about to be executed on their front pages, rather than display the cartoons like much of the printed press around Europe has done.

 

**** scared of retaliation I'd imagine. Should have printed the cartoon though.

Edit: The Independent has gone with;

 

Matt in the Telegraph

 

Are they cartoons of the M man's dish on the pitch (copies from Charlie Hebdo's previous portfolio maybe) or simply defiant cartoons as in the two posts above? I wanna see the M man's dish with his weird, squint nose plastered everywhere (is he related to Mick McCarthy?) although I admit that will require a lot of bravery and I won't be the one in the firing line. Well not yet anyway. But if it was wall to wall what would they do? Murder the entire journalistic corps of the western world?

I'd like to see them humiliated. And I don't just mean the terrorists themselves. I mean all of them who say we can't caricature the guy's face and take the p*ss if we want to because their damned religion's so much more important, precious and sacrosanct than everyone else's. We can and we will. Wanna war of cultures? - bring it on. Absolutely no more special consideration. Time to take the gloves off. There'll be only one winner in the 21st Century v Medieval cup final.

Edit: OK Hornet23 #74 and Nascot #76. I see you're indicating that the euro press are going with the genuine article. Must take a peep.

 

The French authorities seem to know who the perps are. Likely to be caught then.

Edit: Got one it would seem. The young one.

Edit: Mugshots of the older two published. Brothers.

Why is this insomniac sending updates when everyone else is comatose? Pointless really. It'll be old hat when you all wake up.

 

I'd hazard a guess there'd be a lot less wars, murders, violence, rapes and child molestation in the absence of religion. Specifically, in the absence of the Islamic religion although the Christians have plenty of previous too.

The agnostic v atheist debate is to some extent a semantic one. My position as an agnostic (and I do know what I am!) is pretty close to yours. You are certainly not a fundamentalist atheist. Richard Dawkins (a previous hero of mine - now I'm not so sure) is one. He asserts his assuredness that there is no God. This p.sses me off because on the one hand he points out the distinction between the questions that science can answer and those it can't, then goes on to answer one that it can't with faux science. He seems to have lost the plot because he's got fed up with presenting a reasoned argument in the bible belt and then receiving in return, something supposed to be a counter argument which always goes - but it says in my fairy story blah, blah, blah ... So he's become a fundamentalist atheist which is as fundamental and unjustified as the religions he criticises. You however have an open mind but, on the balance of probabilities, thinks there is no God. Fair enough. Sensible atheism then.

My position is, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on their being something out there which we as yet know nothing of, but which might look like 'God'. G o Barry Endean @ #63 has said much the same thing. I'm not gonna place a bet though, but simply acknowledge there's no real evidence one way or the other so it's pointless speculating. And I know that nobody else has any real evidence either because they only have access to the same information as me. Therefore any surety expressed is ridiculous. That's not indecisive. Simply pragmatic and realistic. Not very different from yourself then.

As for being critical of religion. Well I have no wish to 'purge' it. Your word. Much of it is harmless enough and can also be organised to deliver real social benefit. If someone finds it easier to get through life by believing in fairy stories then so be it. What I object to is 'my religion is better than your religion stuff' (which undoubtedly leads to conflict), expecting special treatment for their religion which flies in the face of free speech laws in their adopted land (and there is a majority of Islamists that have a problem with that - not just the terrorist element), that they want all sorts of other special treatments so that they can practise their religion in exactly the way they want and, most importantly for me, that they counter-argue a reasoned scientific argument with - but it says in my book of mumbojumbo ...

We all argue various issues back and forth across this forum. Sometimes it gets a bit heated. But we all know that we have to be reasoned or we'll look ridiculous. So if I was to propose that human beings could fly on broomsticks because I read it in Harry Potter I think I might be ganged up on and ridiculed on here because everyone else knows, by observation, that it's simply not true. But I could further argue - look I know it to be true because I've been reading about Harry Potter every day ever since I could read. In fact, it was read to me every day before I could read, well actually as soon as I could hear, which was the day I was born and I might have overheard some of it in the womb too and there's not been a single day in my life ever since I can remember that I haven't studied Harry Potter. Sometimes I've studied Harry Potter five times a day and I've read it upside down and back to front too. In fact, I've been so busy with Harry Potter I've never had time to read any other books at all. So I've read it properly OK and I know it to be true. My Mummy and Daddy told me it was true too and all my aunties and uncles, every day since I can remember as well. They didn't go out much and meet many other people though - especially the ladies lots of whom didn't read anyway and just did what they were told. And my Mummy and Daddy told me it wasn't actually written by the prophet J.K. Rowling, she was merely a vehicle of delivery and her pen was guided by the hand of God who I know not as God or Allah but as Maradonna. So it must be true then. Stop saying bad things and confusing me and trying to make me think. I don't want to think. I just want to be right and I am because I've got a really good argument. So there. I've won!

By such means do the tenets of major religions survive over millenia. You can extrapolate most of the above straight from rural, medieval Pakistan to Alabama and Texas too. And they've got far less excuse having had access to some sort of education.

Science argues its case in a different way. By observation, experiment and constant self-criticism. It proposes hypotheses and theories and then trys to devise experiments, not just to promote the ideas, but to knock them down too. It all depends on the observations made and the empirical evidence derived. If a scientist breaks this code and is discovered he/she will become a pariah. Not celebrated for intransigence. So, given the superiority of the scientific method, am I gonna give a Harry Potterist respect and the time of day? No. I'm gonna lay into them and take the p.ss.

Imho modern science began with Copernicus and his proposal that the earth went around the sun rather than vice-versa. A heliocentric solar system. That was in 1543. His theoretical work was confirmed by Galileo's observations for which he was persecuted by the Catholic church. The church finally caved in in 1822. So it took 279 years then. The big questions we ask concerning the universe and how we got here remain much the same as those asked by shepherds in fields 2000 years ago. We have a better way of answering the how questions now though. Many of the whys remain imponderables. Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. That's 156 years ago then. I'm not prepared to wait another 123 years before the mumbojumboists grow up this time.

 

Whoops. Sorry ...

 

Can someone please summarise in a cartoon

 

I'm curious why, after 156 years, the Theory of Evolution is still that, a theory. It's not called the Law of Evolution for a reason. That's nothing to do with any church.

 

Well partly inertia I think - religion does have influence when it doesn't accept it. Religion is pretty all pervading and is given far too high a profile after all particularly over this. It's directly contradictory. But mostly because stuff in biology tends to remain a theory because it doesn't get proven mathematically in the same way as laws in physics and chemistry. It's more an accumulation of evidence which in the case of evolution is voluminous. Millions of pieces of evidence. Of course something could always be found to contradict it. But don't hold your breath. The religious alternative has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

 

Don't have the facility. But a dish with a squint nose, a zigzag scar on its forehead, a towel on its lid and bust nhs specs should do the bizzo ...

 

Although wars are fought and oppression carried out in the name of religion the causes are more often economic and political.

It's quite hard to disentangle Islam from Islamic Terrorism, it seems counter-intuitive. But if we consider the recent Northern Irish conflict different Christian sects killed each other often randomly selecting individuals of the other faith just because that was what they were, but this precipitated no wider crisis of Christianity and those of us who were not involved, Christian or brought up Christian did not feel responsible.

If this is the case, why should non-involved Muslims, 99% of them feel responsible?

 

It's only a theory insofar as we can only theorize as to how it happened. That it happened is fact, as far as all evidence and scientific consensus is concerned. As far as the theory part goes, it's also pretty well concluded that is how it happened, just that in science there are very few actual ' facts.'

Intelligent design is not a theory, it's a fantasy.

 

That's right. We just don't know all the mechanisisms. In it's simplest form evolution just notes that the survivors survived and so their offspring with their characteristics endured. Indisputable.

 

Boss just spoke to our Paris branch who have told us another terrorist attack is happening in Paris right now. I can't find anything on the news whatsoever?

 

Police officer and a council official shot and injured by masked gunman with automatic weapon. Not much else known.

 

Evolution isn't an absolute cast iron fact though is it. No one was around to see if little fishes really jumped out the water and grew legs. Both creation and evolution are theories.

 

The point of science is not to rely on witness statements. By your logic, we actually don't know anything for sure.

 

The vast majority of Germans weren't Nazis, didn't support nor vote for the Nazis but that hasn't stopped them feeling a national shame and the need to make amends to Jews.

I don't even see how you can begin to compare the troubles in NI with what is happening today. The Ulster troubles were local and sectarian whereas the Islam war is against the entire infidel west. In their eyes they are fighting their jihad (the war against those that do not submit to Muslims).

If I was one of the 99% non-involved muslims having all this carnage done in the name of me and my religion I would convert. If the 99% are not part of the solution (which, despite the odd open letter in the Telegraph they are not) then they are part of the problem. If the 99% can't control the 1% then it's because they don't want to and are tacitly supporting them.

 

We know what we can see, measure, test, calculate... evolution is none of those

Lets say an advanced race arrived on earth billions of years ago and decided to give evolution a kick start by playing with fish genetics, then got bored and pi55ed off. That would also fit the facts wouldn't it?

 

It was somewhat different in Ireland, as all the main players said that religion was not important. But we know that some of the murders were purely sectarian. But all the main political parties said that they were not sectarian, although there is no doubt that people were born into their political views based on which religious faith they had. As we know, there were numerous peace movements, negotiations, etc, etc to stop the violence, but it was a political "solution" not a religious one that has held the "peace" together.

Whereas I don't think the extreme Islamists are that bothered about political solutions and they will certainly not respond to Non-Muslims telling them what their faith does or doesn't mean. They will only listen to their fellow Muslims.

Of course ordinary Muslims should not feel responsible for what happened yesterday. But the Muslim movement as a whole has a responsibility to ensure that the the extremist movement does not grow and thrive.

 

Where did you see this Moose?

 

I don't know where Moose saw it but it's on the BBC website's running log 'live' thingy about the manhunt.

 

You are either a religious zealot or playing devils advocate for the sake of it.

Either way, I have avoided getting involved in these sort of pointless arguments on here before and I'm not going to get drawn into one with you.

Evolution is a proven fact. Read a book or two, because I can't bring you up to speed on the whole body of evidence in a forum post.

 

LTC68 lives in Somerset though, so finding evidence of any kind of evolution, esp that of humans, may be hard to come by.

 

'Their war' includes a war against other Muslims who do not share their vision of Islam. In fact other Muslims are numerically the greatest casualties of their violence.

In Northern Ireland in the 1970's there was considerable rhetoric about the ungodliness and blasphemy of the other side. The war was really about civil and political matters. Irish Catholics felt excluded from jobs, housing and the Police. Irish Protestants feared becoming second class citizens in a united Irish Republic. However Religion was the public face of these disputes and acts of considerable barbarity were carried out by people who declared themselves true Christians. My point remains, I don't recall people feeling the need to examine Christianity itself, the words of the Bible and New Testament to see how that may have caused the atrocities.

'Christians' did not take collective blame for what was done by other Christians.

 

Indeed. Likely a lone wolf copycat or another group.

It's pretty much war on the streets of Paris.

 

I'll see your book or two and raise you Ancient Aliens

 

Mosque attacks kicking off in other parts of France apparently.

Je suis Charlie

 

This is nonsense. People might use religion as an excuse but that does not make it the cause. People have and will always identify into groups, and some will use these groups to justify evil acts. Whether this be black or white, hutus or tutsis, rich or poor.

Hitler, famously an atheist, used Darwinian ideology to justify killing 6 million Jews, but also the disabled and ethnic minorities. Are those deaths the fault of Darwin? Are Atheists evil because some committed such horrendous acts due to their beliefs?

If somebody sprayed bullets into a newspaper office which drew Mr Potter with an erection, shouting that J.K. Rowling is great, would you blame Harry? Would you blame J.K. Rowling? Or would you just say some idiotic fanatics are doing despicable acts because their miserable lives have led them to do so. I suppose it would all be down to your views of Harry in the first place.

Science gives 'theories'. All non observable Scientific proposals are theories, as they are proved to a probability set by the researcher. In most cases, a certain number of times per 100, this theory deviates through something unexplained. On some occasions, a new theory can lead to many other theories, only to find out that the initial theory was wrong, and so the other studies were based on a less plausible idea. The offshoot studies will at the time have claimed that their study proved something. This is the problem with calling something in science a fact, as a new theory can completely pull the carpet away from what we already know.

Saying this, evolution is pretty proven as it stands. Certainly within our current Genus. Further evolution from that is far more sketchy and makes far greater leaps, but has greater evidence for it than other theories.

I guess my issue is with people who say 'I know religion isn't real and it is evil, causes wars etc.' Firstly, I find those who are most certain about these things probably know the least about them. And they are often willing to criticise religion for its lack of evidence but then make statements which are pure fallacy with little scientific reasoning behind it. I believe there is more to us than our brains, and I do not believe that we are 'entirely nature' over nurture. I also think it is extremely dangerous in modern science to make ridiculous suggestions that we have found the God gene, or the love gene, from looking at 5 people in a lab looking at a picture of a loved one. People, like they have done with religion, take something which is pure and good and stretch it to ridiculous extremes to fit their own agendas.

Do I think that there is room for a 'soul' or a 'I' beyond our brains? Yes. Do I believe that humans are in some way special? There is evidence that we are so. Do I also think that there is a lot of truth in the new testament, and in some parts of Buddism in pure metaphorical (call it fairy stories) way, in terms of being happy, which seems incredibly counter intuitive to our biological selves. Yes.

Concrete thinking on both religious and Darwinian ideology is both incredibly reductionist and limiting.

 

They took collective responsibility by sorting out their own problems without threatening Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc, in their own homelands. If the IRA or UDR were setting off bombs in Jerusalem, or Jeddah, then it would have been totally different. To try and compare the current situation with Ireland is really quite silly.