Off Topic Terrorists attacks in Brussels
- Thread starter Hertfordshire Qpr
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
No - I'm saying exactly the same thing you agreed with on another thread - so I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. But maybe I didn't phrase it clearly enough.
What I'm saying - as I'm sure you agreed with me before - is that religion is the construction man puts around faith, so that we can understand and define it in terms that make sense in the real here-and-now world instead of (for want of a more all-encompassing word) heaven. The majority of religion, as practiced by people all across the world, is peaceful, loving, gracious, kind, and has nothing to do with the killings and violence that we saw last week in Brussels. But some religious constructs are just that - take the 'faith' element out of it and you get the get-rich-quick merchants, the IS terrorists, Al-Qaeda, the IRA / UDF, the idiots at Westboro Baptist, the list sadly goes on. It's when adherence to the religion takes over and adherence to the faith is lost.
Is that clearer?
Which - if it's the level you're prepared to have that conversation on - doesn't surprise me...
I believe I've been clear enough. Faith is a positive thing. Religion can be either positive, negative or neutral. I trust that avoids your next response, towards which your loaded question seemed to be leading.
What does your question have to do with the terrorist attacks in Brussels?
My criticism earlier in the thread was of religion, in this case Islam. The people that committed the Brussels atrocities were professed Islamists. They have faith in something don't they? I would suggest that debunking dangerous faiths is a positive thing.
The problem I have is when people say 'dangerous faiths' and actually mean that they think all Muslims are dangerous terrorists, much as they think all protestants and Catholics are out to murder each other over a few acres of Irish fields. It's the expression of the religion, not the faith, that's the issue.
I may have expressed myself poorly. I meant that individual faith, which surely has to be based on a personal revelation rather than simply being taught/culturally inherited, is beyond reason and rationality and hence pointless to argue against, because by definition I have not had the same revelation as you. If you tell me that God has spoken to you, I may doubt it but there is no mileage in arguing about it. What I can support or object to are the actions your revelations lead you to as soon as they have an impact on anyone else - which is not the same as questioning your faith. As soon as you move that faith into something institutionalised, based on holy books and prophets etc with alleged historical backgrounds it's fair game for debate, because even though I don't believe, my interpretations of the writings and events are just as valid as yours. I don't see any basis for saying that if your faith, whether it be expressed through Islam or Christianity, or any other religion is genuine if you are 'nice' but fake if it leads you to murder. In fact it could be argued that a suicide bomber must have incredible faith to do what he/she does.
The criticism on this and other threads is of the impact of religion when some people (doubtless in good faith) interpret their beliefs in a way which causes catastrophic harm to others. And unlike the TV evangelists who clearly are insincere crooks, and doubtless some of the Irish terrorists who manipulated faith for political ends, I don't see any evidence to suggest that the IS foot soldiers who are killing themselves are acting out of anything other than a sincere belief that they are doing what they see as Gods will, in exactly the same way as sincere, gracious and kind believers act. The terrorists may be psychopaths, but I think they are psychopaths with, from their perspective, sincere and genuine faith. That their faith leads them to do things which you and I find abhorrent does not mean that they are beyond the pale of true faith.
It's a cop out for believers to say that other people who have belief and do horrible things can't be 'real' believers. The fact is that faith, by its very nature, is totalitarian and exclusive - it's deals with a revealed 'truth' which is only apparent to those who have the faith. It's not up to atheists to explain why God chooses to reveal himself in different ways to different people leading to radically different actions, because atheists believe all those with faith are acting under some kind of delusion or cultural pressure. That's a problem for believers, and one which they struggle with without resorting to 'well, the one genuine truth has been revealed to me and people who think like me, everyone else is wrong'.
Regarding the Loch Ness monster, yetis, tooth fairies, Santa Claus etc, you may find the comparison odious, but the principles involved are exactly the same as in proofs of God. "Something that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Hitchens' Razor.
Unrelated to these specific points I am reading a very good book at the moment, 'The Quest for a Moral Compass' by Kenan Malik. It's a history of thought around morality and ethics which is really fascinating, and not, to reassure you, written from an overtly atheistic perspective, it's a genuine and readable history of religious and philosophical thought.
Last edited:
The problem I have, Chaz, is when people suggest that I think things that I don't.
If someone believes (has faith) that killing a non-believer will see them to heaven, that's dangerous isn't it? I don't care what anyone's faith tells them unless and until it impinges on my life.
It was partly territorial. There were also cultural, nationality and religious differences . I would substitute the word subjugate with the word discriminate. The unionists were trying to maintain the status quo whereas the nationalists were trying to end the discrimination they had suffered for centuries, That is why the nationalist community revolted in the first place. They were being treated like second class citizens when it came to housing and jobs. They are the reasons the troubles erupted in 1969, it wasn't only a case of reunification.
Who is that directed at? I spent a bit of time and deep thought (well deep in my terms, which is probably pretty shallow) responding to one of your posts. And attempting to avoid inflammatory language in the process. As I have said on here before, I can't demand that you respond, that is not the way this place works, but I would be genuinely interested in your comments. Your call, naturally.
much as they think all protestants and Catholics are out to murder each other over a few acres of Irish fields.
Chaz
That's an appallingly flippant throw away sentence, that to be honest, is incredibly disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who were butchered during the British occupation of Ireland. Taking it a step further, it's also disrespectful to the innocent Irish Catholics, Irish Protestants and British soldiers who lost their lives not forgetting the innocent English people who were murdered on English soil.
You obviously know nothing of the Irish troubles and our history to so blatantly and flippantly suggest it was over a "few acres of Irish fields".
Shame on you
Chaz
That's an appallingly flippant throw away sentence, that to be honest, is incredibly disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who were butchered during the British occupation of Ireland. Taking it a step further, it's also disrespectful to the innocent Irish Catholics, Irish Protestants and British soldiers who lost their lives not forgetting the innocent English people who were murdered on English soil.
You obviously know nothing of the Irish troubles and our history to so blatantly and flippantly suggest it was over a "few acres of Irish fields".
Shame on you
Wasn't aimed at you, mate. Ill reread and then try to respond, but others seem to try and provoke more than debate, and as you know, nothing I post will satisfy them or stop yet more of the same.
It wasn't my intent to offend and my choice of words was clearly poor. But having nearly been caught up in the Warrington bomb (change of plans meant I wasn't there) I am very aware that latterly, its was more political than religious,seeing as the targets of the IRA became far less legitimately protestant and far more indiscriminate. That's what I meant, but phrased badly, so I apologise.
No Chaz what others are saying is that you are not necessarily right in your views.......hence the discussion....
And hence my decision not to engage with those for who no response I give will satisfy, because we clearly don't have a common frame of reference. And why their posts appear to be more aimed at provoking because they are more numerous. I clearly can't say why I feel the way I do with any satisfaction to the rest because it's so personal and unique. No amount of explaining will get that across to people with no relevant experience themselves. And if I try to do so more here, it's clear that it will cause more division, when my whole reason for posting in the first place was that faith shouldn't do that.
Sorry Chaz but I don't get it........in relation to this thread why don't you try to explain what is so "personal and unique" and explain what the relevant experience it is that you have that makes your argument so compelling.......you never know other may have equally as much experience and they can then consider your view point.....
Apology accepted
Fair play
I really don't think we'll ever get to a situation where we could debate the Northern Ireland issue without this board descending into chaos.