Relgious hatred/my sig.

[Damien_lucifer]

i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

[verissimus]

im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

It's certainly not fact. Definitely opinion. That said, you're entitled to one.

[Damien_lucifer]

as i said in my reply to this person, religion does promote hatred (christians vs gays for example), religion does promote fear (9/11 ring a bell?) and religion does pomote war (how many wars have been fought in the name of god?)

but yes is just an opinion :D

[JSchmidt]

i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

I'm not religious, but I can see why people would find it offensive.

[samurai80]

While I am not a big fan of religion, I also do not feel that I should belittle those who are involved in religion. Religion isn't the answer for everyone, but I know very good people who are deeply religious. I can see how people would be offended by your signature. I'm not taking sides, just playing devil's advocate. What if you replaced the word religion with black people? I'm pretty sure a lot of people would want to kick your ass (including me). Your signature is a little rough. I can't say I don't understand how you feel about the whole religion thing, but maybe your kendo signature isn't the place for that particular opinion. The flames section is a good place to have such a discussion, but to constantly wave that statement in their face is probably not the best way to go about things. Hope you don't think I'm trying to kick dirt on you, cuz I'm not.

[Decado]

as i said in my reply to this person, religion does promote hatred (christians vs gays for example), religion does promote fear (9/11 ring a bell?) and religion does pomote war (how many wars have been fought in the name of god?)

but yes is just an opinion :D

It's not religion that is the problem, it's people who use religion for their own ends or for their own personal agenda or hatreds. They pick out the bits that back up the "facts" they want to promote and forget the rest. If they didn't have religion they'd find another reason.

And to answer your last question - surprisingly not many, if you mean how many wars have been about one religion against another. Most wars are about differing ideologies (not religion), land, one person's wish to dominate or to make people forget about the problems in their own country or a combination of all of those.

[AlexM]

Never noticed your signature before but now that you mention it... Your sig just makes a ridiculous blanket statement about religion which is neither really true or untrue. You could replace the word religion there with capitalism, marxism, poverty, wealth, etc. Any number of concepts could fit in there.

I don't take personal offence to your sig (tough to have an opinion about such an inocuous statement, at least to me), but to me it just looks like you want to provoke and don't really understand
A) Religion
B) Sources of conflict (i.e. war)

[Sparv]

i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

Yes it is just your opinion (and a fact IMO , but that is too an opinion :p )
If the reaction to it is hatress, you are right, and so you should not change it.
If it is not hatress, you can keep it.
There are no problem.
I understand why people can think it's offensive, and that's why you should keep it. But I think that you chose it for that, am I right ? :rolleyes:

Now let's light the flames!

Get a look at my signature, and get a look there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ffu95fORAg&mode=related&search=

[Bokushingu]

It's not religion that is the problem, it's people who use religion for their own ends or for their own personal agenda or hatreds. They pick out the bits that back up the "facts" they want to promote and forget the rest. If they didn't have religion they'd find another reason.

And to answer your last question - surprisingly not many, if you mean how many wars have been about one religion against another. Most wars are about differing ideologies (not religion), land, one person's wish to dominate or to make people forget about the problems in their own country or a combination of all of those.

Thank-you for stating the truth! so many people are willing to believe the easiest things to comprehend rather than seek the truth.

[Kenzan]

i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

If you ask me, I think that your sig is inaccurate;
By itself, religion is nothing. It's just a word.

I think it would be more accurate to say:

Attachment is hate, ignorance is fear, and the pain of both causes war.

[Kuma]

I'm gonna go ahead and side with Richard Dawkins that religion is dangerous and hurtful. I do find the sig inaccurate in as far as it makes a metaphorical statement, rather than saying that religion leads to or fosters hate, war, fear, etc. Religions certainly use all three as tools to further their respective agendas, with few exceptions.

That being said, I wouldn't put that in my signature on a kendo website, since it is bound to make enemies, which isn't exactly the point here.

[Nakura]

i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

I'd only glanced at your sig and not really thought about it but now that it's been mentioned...

I'm not religious but I can definitely see how the pious might take offence and, to be honest, it might be an opinion, but it's a highly uninformed one. Christians vs gays? Where exactly in the New Testament does it say "thou shalt hate homosexuals"? (Note: I don't have my copy at hand and I don't specialise in Christianity but I'm 95% positive it never says so much as touches on that subject) How many wars have been fought in the name of god? As Decado has already very rightly pointed out, not that many; the leaders of those so-called religious wars usually had ulterior motives (land, power, prestige to name but a few).

IMHO, religion gives people something to believe (should they need it) but this is by no means necessarily negative; look at the Dalai Llama! As David Morse said in the film Contact, we are "an interesting species. Capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares." Religions can be used for good or ill and were usually created with good intention.

[ahmed61086]

I was the one to make the comment about the sig, because I was highly offended by it.

Also, I dont think that this forum can come to a truthful conclusion on whether or not that sig should stay up, because this forum is mostly anti/non-religious.

The fact of the matter is, that that sig is highly offensive to religous people, and is something which creates hate. So basicaly, I feel that you are doing the same thing that you believe religion is doing.

In conclusion, You are not practicing what you preach.

[tgsfg]

I was the one to make the comment about the sig, because I was highly offended by it.

Also, I dont think that this forum can come to a truthful conclusion on whether or not that sig should stay up, because this forum is mostly anti/non-religious.

The fact of the matter is, that that sig is highly offensive to religous people, and is something which creates hate. So basicaly, I feel that you are doing the same thing that you believe religion is doing.

In conclusion, You are not practicing what you preach.

I agree. The people who ardently complain that religion is a source of hate is being incredibly hypocritical. The "religion" wars are caused by people such as you (as in Damien not Ahmed) who believe that another person's belief promotes "evil."

This reminds me of that one episode of South Park where Cartman can't wait for the Wii to come out, so he freezes himself. The atheist kill off or aggresively converts all the religious people, but the atheists still fight amongst each other. They fight because they can't decide on the best suitable name for an international aetheist organization.

"They are illogical, we must kill them!"

[Nakura]

I was the one to make the comment about the sig, because I was highly offended by it.

Also, I dont think that this forum can come to a truthful conclusion on whether or not that sig should stay up, because this forum is mostly anti/non-religious.

The fact of the matter is, that that sig is highly offensive to religous people, and is something which creates hate. So basicaly, I feel that you are doing the same thing that you believe religion is doing.

In conclusion, You are not practicing what you preach.

Ah yes and you (Damien) need to change that part of your sig...:p

[Kenshi]

Somebody mentioned Richard Dawkins... I suggest if you are interested in religion in any way - whether as a cultural phenomenon, historical reasons, or as a believer - his stuff is worth a read. Especially the controversially named "God Delusion."

One of the things that he does say that everyone would be hard pressed not to accept is that in our modern world we do have a certain amount of freedom of speech.... but not when it comes to religion.

[tgsfg]

One of the things that he does say that everyone would be hard pressed not to accept is that in our modern world we do have a certain amount of freedom of speech.... but not when it comes to religion.

Lot of people say that freedom of speech should be limited in the case where it would infringe upon the rights of others. I guess, judging the religious freedom of others may classify as that. Being prejudiced towards religion isn't different from racism and sexism.

[Nakura]

Somebody mentioned Richard Dawkins... I suggest if you are interested in religion in any way - whether as a cultural phenomenon, historical reasons, or as a believer - his stuff is worth a read. Especially the controversially named "God Delusion."

One of the things that he does say that everyone would be hard pressed not to accept is that in our modern world we do have a certain amount of freedom of speech.... but not when it comes to religion.

I've seen that book floating around and seriously considered reading it. I agree that freedom of speech is more limited when it comes to religion...


I'm gonna go ahead and side with Richard Dawkins that religion is dangerous and hurtful.

...but not this...see my first post on this thread...

[Kenshi]

Being prejudiced towards religion isn't different from racism and sexism.

You cannot compare race and gender to religion... its different. I wont get sucked into this debate anyway.

Seriously, if this topic interests you, please read the book. It may or may not change your mind, but at the very least it might make you think.

I think Kuma "Dangerous and Hurtful" is easily attacked. Again, read the book. Dawkins puts it much better than anyone on these forums could ever.

This discussion will get nowhere and we all know it.

[Decado]

I'd only glanced at your sig and not really thought about it but now that it's been mentioned...

I'm not religious but I can definitely see how the pious might take offence and, to be honest, it might be an opinion, but it's a highly uninformed one. Christians vs gays? Where exactly in the New Testament does it say "thou shalt hate homosexuals"? (Note: I don't have my copy at hand and I don't specialise in Christianity but I'm 95% positive it never says so much as touches on that subject) How many wars have been fought in the name of god? As Decado has already very rightly pointed out, not that many; the leaders of those so-called religious wars usually had ulterior motives (land, power, prestige to name but a few).

IMHO, religion gives people something to believe (should they need it) but this is by no means necessarily negative; look at the Dalai Llama! As David Morse said in the film Contact, we are "an interesting species. Capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares." Religions can be used for good or ill and were usually created with good intention.

Well, it doesn't exactly say that but it does say "man shall not lie with man" which is what the religious "fanatics" use to justify the persecution of homosexuals. Strangely enough, female homosexuality is not illegal in the UK as far as I know. Again, the bible does say "thou shallt not covet thy neighbour's ass" but I think that means something different! There are also many other things in the bible which are of the times that the various bits that make up the bible were written that are no longer valid in this day and age.

"but it's a highly uninformed one." - think you do yourself down there a bit Nakura. Your second para sums it all up pretty well IMHO.

[bobdonny]

as i said in my reply to this person, religion does promote hatred, religion does promote fear and religion does pomote war

Damien, your sig does not offend me. Frankly your ignorance is a different matter. You obvioulsy just threw something in your sig that you thought was "deep" fact of the matter is you fail to comprehend what religion is. Also you fail to comprehend what fear, hate and war are......

If you want to go with a similiar theme in your sig you must do so without seeming like a tool.....

Try


The misunderstanding of religion by elitist minorities can sometimes lead to the promotion of hate.
The misunderstanding of religion by elitist minorities can sometimes lead to the promotion of fear.
The misunderstanding of religion by elitist minorities can sometimes lead to the promotion of war.

Other than that you may as well say that KFC leads to hate.... but honestly you should avoid things you dont understand and just say something like,


Girlzzz RoCk, or im LEET

On a side note, your opinion is your opinion, but if someone takes offense to it, maybe its better to keep it to yourself. Now you are entitled to self expression, but what have you got to lose by making some1 else happy?

[Fonsz]

This discussion will get nowhere and we all know it.
Quite right, religion, politics and the lack of culture in the USA are off limits. You enter at your own risk and be prepared to get hurt deeply, as deep as your soul if you have one.

[bullet08]

damn.. everyone's so politically correct here..

pete

[Decado]

Somebody mentioned Richard Dawkins... I suggest if you are interested in religion in any way - whether as a cultural phenomenon, historical reasons, or as a believer - his stuff is worth a read. Especially the controversially named "God Delusion."

One of the things that he does say that everyone would be hard pressed not to accept is that in our modern world we do have a certain amount of freedom of speech.... but not when it comes to religion.

I've just bought the book and glad to know it's good. His other stuff is very much worth a read although I suspect he's mainly preaching to the (de)(non) converted.

I agree partly with the second para. Some religions do not brook any form of dissension against the teaching of the "experts" whilst others do. In the UK I am able to lambast, should I choose to do so, the Christian religion (not Christians) but the police would be around in a few minutes if I did the same for the Muslim religion. It's a matter of sensitivity and, quite rightly, is there to stop people stirring up religious hatred which some people seem determined to do so for their own twisted ends.

[Decado]

damn.. everyone's so politically correct here..

pete

They used to say (was it Mark Twain) that the 2 topics of conversation to avoid are politics and religion. It's now religion unless you tread on egg shells - at least here. Politicians are fair game. At least here you can tell when they are lying - you can see their lips move. :cheeky:

[Decado]

Quite right, religion, politics and the lack of culture in the USA are off limits. You enter at your own risk and be prepared to get hurt deeply, as deep as your soul if you have one.

No, no, no! Politicians are there to be shot down - verbally I mean!

[Decado]

Lot of people say that freedom of speech should be limited in the case where it would infringe upon the rights of others. I guess, judging the religious freedom of others may classify as that. Being prejudiced towards religion isn't different from racism and sexism.

I disagree. But using that prejudice to stir up hatred is the same. And I mean both non-religious vs religious and one religion against another. The second is far, far, far worse. Take Northern Ireland, Shiite vs Shir - and these are examples of different aspects of the same religion!

[Kenshi]

damn.. everyone's so politically correct here..

When it comes to religion we basically have to be. Based on where you live, some religions are more off-limit than others. Sometimes you cant even comment on your own religion.

[Decado]

I'd only glanced at your sig and not really thought about it but now that it's been mentioned...

I'm not religious but I can definitely see how the pious might take offence and, to be honest, it might be an opinion, but it's a highly uninformed one. Christians vs gays? Where exactly in the New Testament does it say "thou shalt hate homosexuals"? (Note: I don't have my copy at hand and I don't specialise in Christianity but I'm 95% positive it never says so much as touches on that subject) How many wars have been fought in the name of god? As Decado has already very rightly pointed out, not that many; the leaders of those so-called religious wars usually had ulterior motives (land, power, prestige to name but a few).

IMHO, religion gives people something to believe (should they need it) but this is by no means necessarily negative; look at the Dalai Llama! As David Morse said in the film Contact, we are "an interesting species. Capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares." Religions can be used for good or ill and were usually created with good intention.

Out of rep but I would say this will make people think - or it should!

[Decado]

When it comes to religion we basically have to be.

I'm afraid you are right. But, as long as it isn't meant as preaching racial hatred my own personal belief is that we should question everything that religious leaders say rather than taking what they say as gospel (sorry for the pun). That's how the human race has advanced - by questioning things. If the answers stand up then all well and good. If not, then find another answer. Unfortunately, too many times the answer is "that's how it is and that's how it has always been and always will be". That's not an answer that's just rhetoric!

[Fonsz]

No, no, no! Politicians are there to be shot down - verbally I mean!
There was a time not too long ago, when in this hallowed institution, you mocked the US president. Or even mentioned that there are always two sides of a coin you would be cast on the same heap as terrorists and therefore responsible for the all the deaths during 9/11. I shit you not. The offended ones were from the USA no surprise. Nowadays the things that I don't know the name have fallen from their eyes and the voice of reason is sounding again. I think that this is a good development.
You are right politicians should be mocked, verbally shot down and what have you. They are there for that reason, and that reason only.

[Decado]

I was the one to make the comment about the sig, because I was highly offended by it.

Also, I dont think that this forum can come to a truthful conclusion on whether or not that sig should stay up, because this forum is mostly anti/non-religious.

The fact of the matter is, that that sig is highly offensive to religous people, and is something which creates hate. So basicaly, I feel that you are doing the same thing that you believe religion is doing.

In conclusion, You are not practicing what you preach.

This is a genuine question and may help Damien realise why his signature is offensive to religious people. What exactly offends you about the signature? I know what Lucifer refers to but as a non-religious person I never even thought about the fact it may be considered offensive much less create hate.

Other people are putting opinions forth but as the person who made the original comment I would be genuinely interested in your reasons. And please take this question at face value and not as any sort of a trap.

[Decado]

There was a time not too long ago, when in this hallowed institution, you mocked the US president. Or even mentioned that there are always two sides of a coin you would be cast on the same heap as terrorists and therefore responsible for the all the deaths during 9/11. I shit you not. The offended ones were from the USA no surprise. Nowadays the things that I don't know the name have fallen from their eyes and the voice of reason is sounding again. I think that this is a good development.
You are right politicians should be mocked, verbally shot down and what have you. They are there for that reason, and that reason only.

Yes, I did mock the US president as well as our own Prime Minister and sidekick, Gordon Brown, and I'm happy to do so again at the drop of a hat. I don't remember saying anything about what you say in the second sentence though although I'd be happy if you can find the post where I did say what you say I said. My memory is not all that good.

But the rest of your post is so true! We pay politicians, despite what they think, and so have a perfect right to mock them for their mistakes (and they give us plenty of ammunition for that!). We should try to applaud them for what they do right as well but then we should expect them to do right as a matter of course.

The word you don't know the name for is "blinkers" I think. Unfortunately, they seem to have put them back on again.

[Fonsz]

I don't remember saying anything about what you say in the second sentence though although I'd be happy if you can find the post where I did say what you say I said. My memory is not all that good.


That was me, I was flamed until eternity because I mentioned that there are always two sides of a coin. Next thing I knew I condoned the terrorist attacks and was thus a Terrorist with blood of the innocents on my hands. It has changed now for the better. Thank God (pun intended)

[Nakura]

Well, it doesn't exactly say that but it does say "man shall not lie with man" which is what the religious "fanatics" use to justify the persecution of homosexuals.

Glad to be proven wrong...although I did say I didn't have my copy to hand and I don't specialise in Christianity...get back to me next year when I'll have taken that course in Christianity...:p


No, no, no! Politicians are there to be shot down - verbally I mean!

Does it have to be just verbally??


Out of rep but I would say this will make people think - or it should!

Glad to provide food for thought...:p


Shiite vs Shir

Assuming you mean in Islam, it's Sunni vs Shi'a (Shiite and Shi'a are two words for the same thing)

[bullet08]

"that's how it is and that's how it has always been and always will be". That's not an answer that's just rhetoric!

yes, but isn't that the answer to most religious questions? such as.. is there a god?

pete

[Nakura]

yes, but isn't that the answer to most religious questions?

Only when it comes to the deepers and more fundamental teachings...take the Samaritans (not the people you call up when you've got problems). For their entire history, they weren't allowed to marry non-Samaritans but, considering there's only around 450 of them left now, they've changed it so they can marry any other Jew, not only Samaritan Jews...

[Decado]

Does it have to be just verbally??

Assuming you mean in Islam, it's Sunni vs Shi'a (Shiite and Shi'a are two words for the same thing)

It's very tempting sometimes isn't it!

You are right - Sunni vs Shi'a. I don't really understand why different factions of the same religion hate each other so much or really care, which probably accounts for my mistake. It's usually (as far as understand it) some minor difference that is magnified out of all proportion.

[JCM]

You are right - Sunni vs Shi'a. I don't really understand why different factions of the same religion hate each other so much or really care, which probably accounts for my mistake. It's usually (as far as understand it) some minor difference that is magnified out of all proportion.

See judaism vs. catholicsm, catholicsm vs. Islam and all the other combinations of the three... :wink:

We dislike people with different beliefs, people from other countries, people from other regions inside our own country, people from the town 5 miles down the road, people on the other side of the river in our own town, and those posh f*ckers from the district beside us, not to mention your flashy neighbour. Is human nature

[Decado]

See judaism vs. catholicsm, catholicsm vs. Islam and all the other combinations of the three... :wink:

We dislike people with different beliefs, people from other countries, people from other regions inside our own country, people from the town 5 miles down the road, people on the other side of the river in our own town, and those posh f*ckers from the district beside us, not to mention your flashy neighbour. Is human nature

I really wish I could disagree with you, although my neighbour is really cute!

[crabbi]

"...religion is the opium of the people and a defence against the misery of reality..." - Karl Marx.

At worst, this opiate is a tool used by religious leaders, politicians, cults and others who want to exert influence on weak minds. It is also used as a shelter from reality for these weak minds...

It is used to encourage fear and hate of other groups (for whatever reason... typically more to do with acquiring scarce resource (land, oil, influence) than any true idealogical motive) and used from time to time to induce the proletariat to support conflict on a larger scale (military action, revolution, victimisation of a minority).

These are the aspects of religion that generated this thread and it is naive to think that religion (in this aspect at least) is any more than a tool for the unscrupulous.

If you look at religion or strong value systems per se and the potential benefit to the individual and communities, then you will find that the true value is as a metaphor to describe one's own reality.

If you really want to find out about what underlies religion and its purpose, then you should look at the writings of the genius Joseph Campbell... There was a man who really understood metaphor and myth - to each our own religion...

[Nakura]

You are right - Sunni vs Shi'a. I don't really understand why different factions of the same religion hate each other so much or really care, which probably accounts for my mistake. It's usually (as far as understand it) some minor difference that is magnified out of all proportion.

Well...in this case, not really...I could go into more detail but I'm sure you don't want to read 3000+ words on it :p


If you really want to find out about what underlies religion and its purpose, then you should look at the writings of the genius Joseph Campbell... There was a man who really understood metaphor and myth - to each our own religion...

Hmm...Joseph Campbell was really more of a mythologist...I read part of his Hero With A Thousand Faces and I wasn't really convinced...

[Decado]

Well...in this case, not really...I could go into more detail but I'm sure you don't want to read 3000+ words on it :p
..

Nakura, you have my eternal gratitude for sparing me that! :cheerful:

[Kenshi]

First chapter of the God Delusion online (http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion#firstChapter).

Fabulous HOAX article called Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content (http://richarddawkins.net/article,836,Kansas-State-School-Board-Bans-Pokemon-Due-to-Evolution-Content,DailyGamingnet).

Both of the above are from Dawkins website.

There are lots of things to make you think on the site including sections entitled Science of Religion, Religion as Child Abuse etc. Enjoy.

[Nakura]

Fabulous HOAX article called Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content (http://richarddawkins.net/article,836,Kansas-State-School-Board-Bans-Pokemon-Due-to-Evolution-Content,DailyGamingnet).

:laugh: I love that penultimate paragraph: gay dinosaurs! Brilliant! :laugh:

[Kenshi]

:laugh: I love that penultimate paragraph: gay dinosaurs! Brilliant! :laugh:

yeah, the exact quote is :

rampant homosexuality amongst dinosaurs is what led to their fiery destruction at the hand of God.

Ace.

[Kenshi]

This is totally great.... Does Richard Dawkins Exist? (http://richarddawkins.net/article,626,Does-Richard-Dawkins-exist,Anonymous)

[Obulco]

Never noticed your signature before but now that you mention it... Your sig just makes a ridiculous blanket statement about religion which is neither really true or untrue. You could replace the word religion there with capitalism, marxism, poverty, wealth, etc. Any number of concepts could fit in there.

I don't take personal offence to your sig (tough to have an opinion about such an inocuous statement, at least to me), but to me it just looks like you want to provoke and don't really understand
A) Religion
B) Sources of conflict (i.e. war)

Agreed. Ideological indoctrination (based on religion or not) has been a good source of conflict. Human beings did not seem to do much better under fascist, Nazi or communist regimes just to name a few that declared themselves as non-religious or anti-religious systems.

[Kuma]

But Obulco, the regimes that you mention were driven by the same blind fanaticism that can make religion so dangerous. Just because they replaced a god with a cult of personality surrounding a charismatic leader makes it no less like a religion. The rhetoric is the same, the ideology is the same, only the theology differs.

Listen to some of the legends surrounding Kim Jong-il's past. They sound downright biblical. Often, tyrannies persecute the followers of religion to discourage the worship of any but themselves. The same is true of many "anti-religious" tyrants. They seek only to seat themselves in the place of the divine in the hearts of their people. Sounds pretty damn religious to me.

Even in the absence of a god as the center of worship, the central problems of religious fanaticism can still be just as hurtful.

[Dervish]

:laugh: I love that penultimate paragraph: gay dinosaurs! Brilliant! :laugh:

Barney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_%26_Friends) and Charmander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmander)? For real??

[rainmaker]

It is not a religion that cause such hate, war or offense.. I think it is people who make religion as execuse to cause such hatre. Gun or Sword itself cannot kill people. People has to press trigger or swing to kill others.


i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

[Obulco]

Even in the absence of a god as the center of worship, the central problems of religious fanaticism can still be just as hurtful.

Correct. That is why I think that religion by itself is not the cause. Any doctrine that seeks to promote the belief that an Absolute Something is the answer to everything is bound to cause the same problems. I would not call that religious fanaticism, just fanaticism. Unfortunately, zealotry seems to come in as many flavors as Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.

[Nakura]

Gun or Sword itself cannot kill people. People has to press trigger or swing to kill others.

Excellent analogy...

[DarQik]

Damien_Lucifer, with regards to both your name and sig, I'm not bothered. (Thanks for the youtube links to Catherine Tate in another thread...) Abnormally, I'm going to actually drop my opinion down on this.
The fact of the matter is, that that sig is highly offensive to religous people, and is something which creates hate.This is the problem with religious people! They accept what they are taught and tend to violently challenge any countering arguments or statements.

Now that I've tossed out that rather offensive statement, for those whose vitriol is raised, please pause and consider it. I was raised under a few brands of protestant Christianity, with religious schooling. I have seen a number of examples of this. I've seen parents reject children, spouses split, churches and families torn apart, and outrageous behaviour from people who claim to be above that sort of thing. They always have their excuses and religious exemptions for their behaviour, but rarely is it justified by careful examination of the religious teachings they claim to be following.

Religion tends become very deeply intertwined with a persons identity. It is common to consider an assault on their beliefs is an assault on them. I did at one time--I had a "required" Joseph Campbell, bash religion class in college. I might have gotten something out of it if the instructors weren't so clearly anti-religion with their agenda.

As for sect wars, even small changes in doctrine by a perceived up and coming leader can produce a split resulting in a different sect/faction. Often the rift created is considered such a betrayal to the main group that huge barriers and ill feelings are created between them. Kuma hit on a common issue in some church splits--cults of personality. People follow charismatic leaders regardless of the teachings--they accept the teachings emotionally not logically.


What scares me most these days, is that it is becoming accepted for certain religious people to be offended on any level and retaliate with physical violence. Assaulting or punishing those expressing or holding different beliefs is no way acceptable nor should it be tolerated in any society.

[Nakura]

This is the problem with religious people! They accept what they are taught and tend to violently challenge any countering arguments or statements.

It's not just religious people; it's people in general. Disagree with someone's politics/opinions/religion/anything else you'd care to name and that person has the potential to turn violent. Much as humans would like to think they're rational beings, the vast majority are not and violent responses to being challenged is just one irrational trait.

[AlexM]

Agreed. Ideological indoctrination (based on religion or not) has been a good source of conflict. Human beings did not seem to do much better under fascist, Nazi or communist regimes just to name a few that declared themselves as non-religious or anti-religious systems.

Actually most academic literature dealing with conflict doesn't examine ideology or religion. The dominant schools of thought in International Relations studies examines balances of power and threats between states. It doesn't have much to do with hatred or persecution or religion.

That's why when someone thinks that religions (or ideologies or belief systems) cause conflicts and wars he's totally out to lunch and not in tune with what is being taught and studied in International Relations.

If I'm a nation-state I worry about what the next threat to my sovereignty will be. If the guy next door is a religious zealot I could care less... if the guy next door is reasonable, has an army that dwarfs mine and the means to use it, then I worry. Welcome to the causes of war, or at least one of the most common apparently.

[ahmed61086]

This is the problem with religious people! They accept what they are taught and tend to violently challenge any countering arguments or statements.



So you are saying that I am violently challenging his statements?

I dont understand if you are throwing out this statement to religous people or to me. I dont see how I violently challenged Mrs. lucifer. All I did was tell him that I thought it was inappropriate and that I thought he should change it.

If he didn't change it, so be it. But it would make me happy if he would, and I dont see how it would sadden him if he did.

[Obulco]

Actually most academic literature dealing with conflict doesn't examine ideology or religion. The dominant schools of thought in International Relations studies examines balances of power and threats between states. It doesn't have much to do with hatred or persecution or religion.

In international conflicts, that is probably true. I was referring to people living in a given nation/state. Within those, conflict and persecution of people have been often based on ideologies and belief systems; even if some times these are just economical issues in disguise.

[ahmed61086]

Well, so-called science has also created oppression.

If you look at the eugenics movement, you will see how people fell to "science" to prove that they were superior to other races, which led to oppression.

[DarQik]

Ooooo... National sovereignty, now there's a concept we don't see much use for unless it applies to our own interests. That's a topic we won't see addressed on CNN, unless it backs US goals. Respecting national sovereignty is my usual complaint about our foreign policy.


Ahmed, I quoted you as you used the term hate in the context of speech which may be offensive to some causes hate. Such emotional responses are often the basis for radical actions in perceived defense of faith, which then prompt the negative attention and scorn of religious people.


If someone believes an offensive sig line or avatar is an appropriate way of expressing themselves or their opinions I will respect their choice, but I'll also form an opinion of them based on it...

Oh, and Alex, Starbuck's dead; it's time to move on... ;-)

[Paikea]

Oh, and Alex, Starbuck's dead; it's time to move on... ;-)Like hell. Portland girls never die, they just get weirder.

[AlexM]

Like hell. Portland girls never die, they just get weirder.

She's not dead man! She'll never die! She.. she lives on... in all of us!

(bursts into uncontrollable sobbing)

How could they... How could they...

I can't believe we have to wait until 2008 for season four...

There are maybe six people reading this who have any idea what we're talking about.

[crabbi]

Hmm...Joseph Campbell was really more of a mythologist...I read part of his Hero With A Thousand Faces and I wasn't really convinced...

I'm sure that Uncle Joe would really appreciate your detailed assessment of his life work ... (check out : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell for a short overview).

He was indeed a world-renowned expert on Myth and Religious Metaphor and that is exactly my point...

You may also want to check out Robert Anton Wilson... (check out : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anton_Wilson ) although you may well have read the back cover of the Illuminatus Trilogy and decided that he was of little value also... Check out his thoughts on 'Reality Tunnels'... or perhaps you are already a Discordian Pope (?).

[Paikea]

She's not dead man! She'll never die! She.. she lives on... in all of us!

(bursts into uncontrollable sobbing)

How could they... How could they...

I can't believe we have to wait until 2008 for season four...

There are maybe six people reading this who have any idea what we're talking about.Those that don't get it are not important. See? We are building Yankee-Quebecois understanding here.

Pssst...she's a machine, but that's OK by me.

[crabbi]

Like hell. Portland girls never die, they just get weirder.
...Coincidentally Paikea, I noticed that Robert Anton Wilson studied at Paikea University... Wow...! (or was that Paidea?)

[Paikea]

...Coincidentally Paikea, I noticed that Robert Anton Wilson studied at Paikea University... Wow...! (or was that Paidea?)..and an editor of Playboy. A giant of literature and progressive thinking.

[crabbi]

..and an editor of Playboy. A giant of literature and progressive thinking.
...Joking aside... I have been watching a DVD of his talks today and the man is amazing... very inspirational.

The interviews on the DVD were conducted whilst he was suffering from Post Polio Syndrome and he is truly heroic in the way he copes with pain through his positive attitude (and his hash brownies...!).

[Damien_lucifer]

Wow, i dont log on for a couple of days and this thread seams to have exploded!

a few things to address (tho in no particular order),

the sig came on for a couple of reasons, as a Philosophy i follow Modern Satanism (please read into modern Satansim BEFORE posting any 'devil-worshiper' rubbish :D ), im quiet well read on both Religeous and Anti-religeous texts, the Quote in my sig, although at first seems rather vague and uneducated, is infact a line from a song, and just seemed rather fitting :D

i must admit i added it to my sig to get a "bit of a rise" from some more devout god-followers, but not just to annoy, moreso to find someone who would challange it with inteligent argument based on fact, rather than just get defensive and spout random bible quotes at me.

on a small side note, i belive i read earlier in this post that someone claimed science to have caused wars (dont qoute me on that :P), unless im much mistaken, in the middle ages Science was "the work of Satan" and if the christians had their way we would be conducting this

[Damien_lucifer]

Also i cant see why the Kendoi forums ARE NOT a place to have a sig like mine, arent sigs supposed to show an insight into the poster?

it not like i entereda "normal" posting room and posted abusive material, it is a part of me and my opinion, of which i am alloed to express in an unobtrusive way :D

[Damien_lucifer]

Aditionally, your link to the dawson site was hilarious, if a little close to the truth, a link further down the page, which i will repost here, is a prime example of the extremes of SOME religionist,

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/3/75145/6274

[EasyMeat]

I hadd a frend hoo wurshipt santa as wel... u ar nott alown

[AlexM]

Those that don't get it are not important. See? We are building Yankee-Quebecois understanding here.

Pssst...she's a machine, but that's OK by me.

Are you saying she's a frackin' toaster? How can you say that??? NEVER! It can't be!

She's still hot though.

[ahmed61086]

on a small side note, i belive i read earlier in this post that someone claimed science to have caused wars (dont qoute me on that :P), unless im much mistaken, in the middle ages Science was "the work of Satan" and if the christians had their way we would be conducting this


I actually said that Science was used many times as a way of oppressing a certain group of people and I used eugenics as an example, which is very easy to understand if you have ever studied the history of eugenics.

[ahmed61086]

...i must admit i added it to my sig to get a "bit of a rise" from some more devout god-followers...




Also, I think that is a sick, disgusting mentality. And how do you claim to be any better than those people you despise?

[Kendoka_Han]

Christians vs gays? Where exactly in the New Testament does it say "thou shalt hate homosexuals"?

Not really a hatred towards homosexuals, but the KJV does say "Its an abomination in Gods eyes to practice it".

[Kendoka_Han]

No, no, no! Politicians are there to be shot down - verbally I mean!

They need to be shot down for real.

[Decado]

She's not dead man! She'll never die! She.. she lives on... in all of us!

(bursts into uncontrollable sobbing)

How could they... How could they...

I can't believe we have to wait until 2008 for season four...

There are maybe six people reading this who have any idea what we're talking about.

You've just ruined it for me now! I haven't got Season 2 yet and now I find Starbuck's dead in a later season! We are behind the times here in the UK I'm afraid.

[tgsfg]

on a small side note, i belive i read earlier in this post that someone claimed science to have caused wars (dont qoute me on that :P), unless im much mistaken, in the middle ages Science was "the work of Satan" and if the christians had their way we would be conducting this

Social Dawarnism?

[Decado]

They need to be shot down for real.

They do that (quite) a lot in the US! We just assassinate ours in print. Don't forget the old saying, the pen is mightier than the sword - and a damn sight easier to write with!

[Decado]

Those that don't get it are not important. See? We are building Yankee-Quebecois understanding here.

Pssst...she's a machine, but that's OK by me.

Starbuck is a machine? This is getting worse. I'll have to get the later seasons now.

[Nakura]

There are maybe six people reading this who have any idea what we're talking about.

And I'm glad not to be one of them...sounds like a soap opera...excuse me while I vomit...

[Decado]

And I'm glad not to be one of them...sounds like a soap opera...excuse me while I vomit...

Battlestar Galactica - the new one not the 70's one with the dodgy hairstyles and Face from the A-Team. It's an acquired taste.

[Nakura]

Battlestar Galactica - the new one not the 70's one with the dodgy hairstyles and Face from the A-Team. It's an acquired taste.

Ah...I've seen clips...so bad! Just like anything that was on before I was born...except the A-Team. :p That's ace!

[Sparv]

Battlestar Galactica - the new one not the 70's one with the dodgy hairstyles and Face from the A-Team. It's an acquired taste.

Emule is very useful sometimes, I watch it in France. Yes she is alive! I'm not sure that's a good point for the season 4, because it might turn to a dull story of "destiny" and "prophecy" (that's typically american).

[Sparv]

Actually most academic literature dealing with conflict doesn't examine ideology or religion. The dominant schools of thought in International Relations studies examines balances of power and threats between states. It doesn't have much to do with hatred or persecution or religion.

I think that religion played a big role in many wars between states, because people won't agree to be killed for a small part of territory (until the 19th siecle). They accept to fight for religious reasons. So religion has been a necessary condition for many wars.

no religion => less war.

If G W Bush said: "we are going in Irak to give money to Halliburton", everybody would have laugh. He used the irrationnal justification of the mass destruction weapons.

Religion permit the same lies.

[Nakura]

(that's typically american).

Merci beaucoup for bringing up the Americans...it allows me to post this little gem from one of my first lectures:

During a radio discussion in California on whether Spanish should be adopted as an official language, one caller expressed the view that "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us!"

Genius!

[AlexM]

I think that religion played a big role in many wars between states, because people won't agree to be killed for a small part of territory (until the 19th siecle). They accept to fight for religious reasons. So religion has been a necessary condition for many wars.

no religion => less war.



As I said previously, most of the academic literature dealing with conflict examines balances of threat and balances of power (for example: who has how much power compared to the other guy). I would love to disagree with these guys but they are generally considered the 8th dans of Political Science.

When you look at trends in history you tend to find that religion and believe systems are minor factors compared to things like balances of threats and power. What one side believes over the other does not make it easier or less likely to go to war. That is what is born out by research by people who know what they're talking about (i.e. not me).

There may be one exception: which is a bit controversial. The fact that democracies do not fight other democracies. It's called "democratic peace theory" and it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. But the fact of the matter is that "democracies" (and just defining that is a problem) do not fight other democracies.

I know people want to just say all or most wars are caused by this or that. The truth is that the very young sub-field of Political Science, International Relations, has not come up with much of a conclusive answer to these questions (i.e. volumes are still being written on the causes of war). But the emerging (and dominant) explinations have little if nothing to do with religion, they have to do with power.

Decado, nothing you see in BSG is at it seems.

Paikea is a Cylon...

[Decado]

Decado, nothing you see in BSG is at it seems.

Paikea is a Cylon...

That explains a lot! :smiley:

Do you mean there are lots of other Paikeas as well?

[Decado]

As I said previously, most of the academic literature dealing with conflict examines balances of threat and balances of power (for example: who has how much power compared to the other guy). I would love to disagree with these guys but they are generally considered the 8th dans of Political Science.

When you look at trends in history you tend to find that religion and believe systems are minor factors compared to things like balances of threats and power. What one side believes over the other does not make it easier or less likely to go to war. That is what is born out by research by people who know what they're talking about (i.e. not me).

There may be one exception: which is a bit controversial. The fact that democracies do not fight other democracies. It's called "democratic peace theory" and it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. But the fact of the matter is that "democracies" (and just defining that is a problem) do not fight other democracies.

I know people want to just say all or most wars are caused by this or that. The truth is that the very young sub-field of Political Science, International Relations, has not come up with much of a conclusive answer to these questions (i.e. volumes are still being written on the causes of war). But the emerging (and dominant) explinations have little if nothing to do with religion, they have to do with power.


Personally, I would define a democracy as a country which allows a free vote to all citizens (or subjects in our case) above a certain age limit. And no-one gets to see who you voted for (secret ballot). And the voters are given a choice of parties/candidates to vote for. And those parties/candidates are not chosen by the state but are free to propose themselves without fear of state intervention or intimidation by anyone else. Which is why we allow the British National Party to put forward candidates and even get them elected and even candidates belonging to the Raving Loony Party.

The above criteria excludes a very large number of countries in the world, including the ones that delude themselves by putting the word "democratic" in the name of their country. That also excludes those that have free elections for one candidate. Saddam Hussein had an election to show how democratic he was. He was the only candidate but he only got 99% of the vote. I assume that the other 1% are now buried somewhere. And that excludes Mugabe in Rhodesia as opposition candidates are beaten up, arrested or killed. Need I go on?

The number of true democratic countries are quite few as true democracy is relatively new (Ancient Greece was never a true democracy). I'm trying to remember a true democracy declaring war on another one in the last 100 years but can't. Might be interesting if someone can come up with a couple. (Nazi Germany was not a democracy despite Hitler being elected in 1933).

[Mokujin77]

the sig came on for a couple of reasons...

So, it's not just a quote from a Slayer song, then?

[Kenzan]

They need to be shot down for real.

Politicians sure are super big-fat liars, aren't they, Han?

:chinese:

[Damien_lucifer]

So, it's not just a quote from a Slayer song, then?


Mokujin, please read further on in the paragraph you quoted me from, only about 3 lines, there you will see the words "a line from a song", see, reading is fun! :D

[Kuma]

Aww, Jeez. Ahmed, what exactly is sick and disgusting about trying to get a rise out of religious adherents? If someone can't have a sense of humor about something that they practice or adhere to, then they deserve to get ribbed about it. I've seen people on KW poke at people about stuff that they know that they are sensitive about. If you make it obvious that you are gonna freak out easily, then you're fair game it seems.

That being said, I think that there is generally a big over reaction about this. So someone new puts up a silly, ignorant sig, and someone overreacts and starts a big thing about it. Big deal. For Christ's sake, no one is going to change anyone else's mind about religion, its benefits or dangers. Maybe this should be locked already. This is getting stupid. I mean, when eugenics is introduced as a though it was a valid scientific concept, we are in real trouble. You might as well use Intelligent Design as an example of science being used to oppress people. Jesus.

[Luke]

from kuma

Jesus.


yes.:D

[Kuma]

from kuma



yes.:D

Yes, what exactly? I'm fully aware of my use of religious names for cursing. Did you have something to add?

[ahmed61086]

Aww, Jeez. Ahmed, what exactly is sick and disgusting about trying to get a rise out of religious adherents? If someone can't have a sense of humor about something that they practice or adhere to, then they deserve to get ribbed about it. I've seen people on KW poke at people about stuff that they know that they are sensitive about. If you make it obvious that you are gonna freak out easily, then you're fair game it seems.

I could be over reacting, but I do think its kinda sick to put something up just to offend/ "get a rise" out of a certain group of people. Its like trying to fan the flames of misunderstanding. I feel if you want to get a rise out of someone ask them a legitimate question that you would realy like the answer two. Dont make an offensive statement, so that when some reads it, they overreact and then point the finger at them saying, "look, religous people are crazy!"

Thats why I think its stupid.

Btw, obviously you didnt know that at one point in time, eugenics WAS taken a valid scientific concept and was used to oppress blacks after the emancipation. Obviously now, you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.

[tgsfg]

i must admit i added it to my sig to get a "bit of a rise" from some more devout god-followers...


Also i cant see why the Kendoi forums ARE NOT a place to have a sig like mine, arent sigs supposed to show an insight into the poster?

A little bit of contradiction in those post eh? You put it down to annoy people, but you wonder why people are annoyed.

[Masahiro]

this is KW forum, with several moderators for the purpose of keeping the forum relatively an open,decent enviroment. Thus, if one of the mods contacts you about changing your sig, then sure. You can definately tell them to bogger off, but then don't expect to blog on here any more.

while i agree that the sig can serve the function of letting other posters know a little more about yourself. Suppose if i said in my sig. .." i hate and want to kill all colored people". (of course since i am asian that also includes myself in the statement). It's not very "nice" is it? Unfortunately, free speach comes at a price. Especially with topics that are already sensitive, in this case, i think its best to just adapt to the majority. It shows good character.

[Kuma]

Obviously now, you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.

Obviously. Eugenics has always had detractors among the valid scientific community, decrying it as scientifically unsound and ethically repugnant. Eugenics is a pseudoscience. This, Ahmed, means although some nitwits have proposed that it is a validly scientific concept (present company excluded, of course), and though it may contain elements of truth (like any believable lie) I would challenge you to find a single scientist of note who would label eugenics as a field of science. It is and always has been a pseudoscience, like homeopathy and applied kinesiology.

Additionally, eugenics and religion traditionally go hand in hand. Can you name the single greatest historical driving force for genocide and racial purity? Care to guess, Ahmed? Huh? Go ahead.

Try not to be such an ignorant jerk, Ahmed. You have no clue what I know or do not. In other threads, I have shown a propensity for doing my research, so don't start some shit with me unless you have plenty of material to back it up. From this thread, you are showing me that you are a reactionary religious nutjob. Not a group that historically has a solid scientific footing for their positions. Try supporting your own arguments in the future, rather than personally attacking those who differ with you.

[ahmed61086]

Obviously. Eugenics has always had detractors among the valid scientific community, decrying it as scientifically unsound and ethically repugnant. Eugenics is a pseudoscience. This, Ahmed, means although some nitwits have proposed that it is a validly scientific concept (present company excluded, of course), and though it may contain elements of truth (like any believable lie) I would challenge you to find a single scientist of note who would label eugenics as a field of science. It is and always has been a pseudoscience, like homeopathy and applied kinesiology.

Additionally, eugenics and religion traditionally go hand in hand. Can you name the single greatest historical driving force for genocide and racial purity? Care to guess, Ahmed? Huh? Go ahead.

Try not to be such an ignorant jerk, Ahmed. You have no clue what I know or do not. In other threads, I have shown a propensity for doing my research, so don't start some shit with me unless you have plenty of material to back it up. From this thread, you are showing me that you are a reactionary religious nutjob. Not a group that historically has a solid scientific footing for their positions. Try supporting your own arguments in the future, rather than personally attacking those who differ with you.

There we go again with the religous bias. "You are a reactionary religious nutjob". And what are you, A non-relgious reactionary nut-job? I dont see you turning the other cheek...

Call me what you like, being religous doesn't make me worse than you, as you would hope to claim.

I dont personally attack those who differ from me, but I will admit that I was out of line in my last post and I apologise.

[Kuma]

I dont personally attack those who differ from me, but I will admit that I was out of line in my last post and I apologise.

I appreciate your apology. You're right about my own overreaction, and I apologize for my offensive tone.

[Damien_lucifer]

A little bit of contradiction in those post eh? You put it down to annoy people, but you wonder why people are annoyed.

no contradiction at all

the sig was put there to get a rise outa people, coz i was looking for an inteligent religeous debate, AND i DO think a sig should be about a person, even if it NOT to do with the board they are posting on.

please, tgsfg, point out clearly the contradiction :D

[Damien_lucifer]

i think its best to just adapt to the majority. It shows good character.


ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!

"adapt to the mojority" is THE MOST week willed thing i have ever heard. :D

[Kuma]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!

"adapt to the mojority" is THE MOST week willed thing i have ever heard. :D

Yeah, and being an arrogant, offensive prick=strong willed, so it's something we should all strive for.

[Damien_lucifer]

Yeah, and being an arrogant, offensive prick=strong willed, so it's something we should all strive for.

hey that is soo not what i ment, what if malcom X "adapted to the majority? or Bethoven, or da vinci, or Einstien or anyone else for that matter, "adapting to the majority" just to save face, IMO is the most week willed thing one can do, like the dog who rolls over and begs when he is kicked, instead one should stand on his haunches and fight hip and thigh for his individuality, not water him self down to fit in with others

[Kendoka_Han]

I think that religion played a big role in many wars between states, because people won't agree to be killed for a small part of territory (until the 19th siecle). They accept to fight for religious reasons. So religion has been a necessary condition for many wars.

And WHAT TYPE of religion is the course of that? Christianity at its pure self is NOT the course. Its the religion who oppose christ (like Islam for example), and the catholic society fuels it.


no religion => less war.

Thats an interesting opinion. Its debatable.

[Kuma]

Has anyone ever seen Kendoka_Han and Damien_lucifer together at the same time? I'm just askin'.

[Kendoka_Han]

Why the hell do you think i am Damien_lucifer?

[Obukan_dude]

And WHAT TYPE of religion is the course of that? Christianity at its pure self is NOT the course. Its the religion who oppose christ (like Islam for example), and the catholic society fuels it.
You do know that Christ is listed as a prophet in Islamic belief, right? :mad:

Oh, and one more thing,
There are Muslims on this forum. Keep that in mind. :mad: :mad:

[Damien_lucifer]

Has anyone ever seen Kendoka_Han and Damien_lucifer together at the same time? I'm just askin'.

i have many voices in my head, kendoka han is not one of them :D

[Kuma]

Yeah, sorry Damien. I guess that no one hates you as much as Kendoka_Han.

[Damien_lucifer]

Yeah, sorry Damien. I guess that no one hates you as much as Kendoka_Han.

im am SURE there are more people (and more inportant people) than Kendoka_han who dislike/hate/have a deathwish for me :D

[Damien_lucifer]

besides Kuma, what makes you think kendoka_han hates me? hes never said anyting against me (nothing i found important enough to remebr anyway) :d

[Kendoka_Han]

You do know that Christ is listed as a prophet in Islamic belief, right? :mad:

Yes a prophet....not the lord....a prophet....:rolleyes:

Tell me one thing about Muhammad:

How is he a prophet?

--------------

Every troubled action in the world is linked back to an Islamic state which is also fueled by the catholics.

It is a central tenet of Islam that the Qur'an is perfect, so criticism of the Qur'an is considered criticism of Islam.

Here are the main arguments of the critics:

- Critics argue the Qur'an has scientific errors, though Muslims have claimed that the Qur'an is perfectly compatible with science.

- Satanic Verses were two verses allegedly argued to have been added by Mohammad when he was tricked by Satan.

- Quranic verse 4:34 allows Muslim men to beat their wives

- Some critics believe that it is not only Islamists that preaches terrorism but Islam itself, a violence implicit in the Qur'anic text.

- The Quran is criticized for advocating the death penalty or other harsh punishments for acts like apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and theft.

- There is much criticism of the Quran on its position on slavery, since it specifically allows the practice.

- Critics point to the quran for being Incompatibile with other religious scriptures, for containing attacks, and for advocating hate against people of other religions.

- Critics claim that the Qur'an contains numerous verses which contradict each other.

Some medieval ecclesiastical writers portrayed Muhammad as possessed by Satan, a "precursor of the Antichrist" or the Antichrist himself.


Oh, and one more thing,
There are Muslims on this forum. Keep that in mind. :mad: :mad:

Should i really care?

[Kendoka_Han]

Yeah, sorry Damien. I guess that no one hates you as much as Kendoka_Han.

I dont hate anyone.

[Kuma]

Okay, now I am back on the "Kendoka_Han and Damien_lucifer are the same person" kick.

I meant that no one hates Damien as much as they hate Kendoka_Han. Groan. It wasn't that hard to figure out, was it?

And "Kendoka" Han, should you care? No, not really. You should continue to be the annoying little punk that you have been and keep on making all those friends. Seriously, what the hell are you doing here? You just like to spout off and argue? I think that several other members have made it abundantly clear that they fully realize what a wanker you are, and yet you persist in wasting time here.

As for explaining why Muhammad (PBUH) is considered a prophet, explain to me why Jesus is the son of god satisfactorily before you make other people explain their beliefs. You are probably confounded as to how I people can fail to believe in the Christian faith, but you'll understand completely when you actually realize why you only believe in your religion and think every other religion is silly nonsense. Try actually thinking about that. I mean really, really thinking about it. It may hurt a little, but a "warrior" can take a little pain, right?

Oh, and happy Easter.

[Nakura]

Oh dear...and here I thought this thread was intended not to pit one religion against another but just to tell Damien to be a bit more diplomatic in his choice of sig...how very foolish of me...

[bobdonny]

Oh Ahmed, this is the problem with islamic followers.... be it fair or not, you are now (based over the last few weeks/months) infamous on these forums not for your kendo, but for being islamic.

Its hardly fair, but the fact remains that if you got upset and kept it to yourself no-one would be having this conversation.... but by speaking out to what you believe is right... you fan the flames yourself.

Your arguements have backfired; wheter your opinion is right or wrong, there are many here that do not agree with them, and by your continued expression of them are you not yourself provoking this altercation?

[Mr. T.]

This is getting out of hand. Damian, dude, creating a sig just stir things up isn't smart. Especially if the goal is a good religious debate. Their is no such thing and these kind of debate will always get out of hand (you've got Ahmed and Kuma go at each other). Serious religious debates will always turn nasty because they're based on opinions and (very strong) believes, not facts.

I don't agree with a lot of religious views (I'm an atheist), but I'm not going to discuss that. Why? Because religious folks have their believes and I have mine and we will probably never agree. I don't mind and hopefully neither do they. I won't bother them as long as they don't bother me by trying to enforce their believes on me and so far I haven’t had any problems with the church next door (although it would be nice if they stopped using those church bells on Sunday at 9:50 AM,). I've been in a few religious flavoured discussions on this board and they always ended in 2 or more participants having to apologise for their behaviour because of the heated debate.

Although I partially agree with the sig I also think that you should change it. Religion and human nature is way more complex than the simple statement of yours. Besides that, you basically admitted that you wanted to "cause a riot" with it, without a proper understanding what your actions would do to some people.

So to nip this in the butt, can we drop the subject and let this ugly thread die? Oh, Damian, show some respect and change the sig.

[Decado]

I think that religion played a big role in many wars between states, because people won't agree to be killed for a small part of territory (until the 19th siecle). They accept to fight for religious reasons. So religion has been a necessary condition for many wars.

no religion => less war.

If G W Bush said: "we are going in Irak to give money to Halliburton", everybody would have laugh. He used the irrationnal justification of the mass destruction weapons.

Religion permit the same lies.

Sorry Sparv, I have to disagree with you on this one - the statement that religion played a big role in many wars between states. I agree entirely with you on the G W Bush one, though, as our Tony did the same.

Religion is not a major cause of war and has not been for several centuries. Most wars are about differing ideologies (not religion), land, one person's wish to dominate or to make people forget about the problems in their own country or a combination of all of those.

I really wish your statement that no religion would equal less war was true. Unfortunately, there will always be people in this world who, for their own ends, go to war with someone else for a whole slew of reasons. Some may dress it up with the rather dubious veneer that it is "for my god" but, quite frankly, they are using that excuse as a cover for their own inadequacies.

At the moment we have a situation where a small group of people have declared war (a terrorist war) in their name of their religion. What they are really doing is taking a very narrow and perverted view of that religion and applying that for their own twisted ends, which are nothing at all to do with religion per se. What that religion is is irrelevant as they wish to impose their own narrow view of the world on everyone else, including the very people they purport to be doing this in the name of i.e. the vast majority of the adherents of that religion who, quite rightly and very sensibly, want nothing at all to do with them.

To go back to the Bush thing. We have just managed to avert a situation where Georgie boy could have used a situation to invade Iran by inflaming an already delicate situation. Luckily, he was told to keep it down and we got our sailors back. Doing the right sort of talking sometimes works. In the situation I have decribed in the para above it won't, unfortunately.

[Decado]

This is getting out of hand. Damian, dude, creating a sig just stir things up isn't smart. Especially if the goal is a good religious debate. Their is no such thing and these kind of debate will always get out of hand (you've got Ahmed and Kuma go at each other). Serious religious debates will always turn nasty because they're based on opinions and (very strong) believes, not facts.

I don't agree with a lot of religious views (I'm an atheist), but I'm not going to discuss that. Why? Because religious folks have their believes and I have mine and we will probably never agree. I don't mind and hopefully neither do they. I won't bother them as long as they don't bother me by trying to enforce their believes on me and so far I haven’t had any problems with the church next door (although it would be nice if they stopped using those church bells on Sunday at 9:50 AM,). I've been in a few religious flavoured discussions on this board and they always ended in 2 or more participants having to apologise for their behaviour because of the heated debate.

Although I partially agree with the sig I also think that you should change it. Religion and human nature is way more complex than the simple statement of yours. Besides that, you basically admitted that you wanted to "cause a riot" with it, without a proper understanding what your actions would do to some people.

So to nip this in the butt, can we drop the subject and let this ugly thread die? Oh, Damian, show some respect and change the sig.

Mr T, I agree entirely. It may be a belief of Damien's that religion is an evil thing but it is inflammatory and bound to cause offense. Promotion of one's religious beliefs or lack thereof doesn't belong here. There are plenty of forums out there for that.

In the same vein. Ahmed, may I ask if your signature is designed to promote your religion as it is a direct quote from the Prophet? If so, then it is only a matter of time until someone asks you to change it as they will use the excuse that it offends them. Personally, I make the assumption that it is a saying that inspires you and is there for that reason (I hope I am correct on that assumption?).

[Sparv]

Religion is not a major cause of war and has not been for several centuries. Most wars are about differing ideologies (not religion), land, one person's wish to dominate or to make people forget about the problems in their own country or a combination of all of those.

I apologize for not being clear enough.
I agree with you, war are rarely about religion only. But the poor guy who will get killed by the club or the sword or the bullet, why did he accepted to go to fight?

He did not fight to give more power to his king or his tyran. He has other motivations. Religion is one of the most often used.

Exemples in Europe, mainly the wars between protestants and catholic:

- the thirty years war in Germany (1618-1648): the princes of all of the small kingdoms (Germany was not unified until 1870) decided to become protestant or stay catholic for political reasons. Their soldiers followed their priests.

- In France, in the begining of the 13th century: the Cathars ( an herectic sect) were exterminated by the king, who gain the control of the south of France.

- The wars between England and Spain during the whole 17th century

- the muslims had too their own internal wars.


I really wish your statement that no religion would equal less war was true. Unfortunately, there will always be people in this world who, for their own ends, go to war with someone else for a whole slew of reasons. Some may dress it up with the rather dubious veneer that it is "for my god" but, quite frankly, they are using that excuse as a cover for their own inadequacies.

If there are no more excuse, they will be less wars because who might get killed to give power to someone else? Yes there will always be people looking for more power, but if nobody agree to fight for them, nobody would get killed.

I did not remember who said this :"the worst things have been done for the best reasons"

Religion is a very useful "best reason" because of its irrationnal nature.

[Nakura]

Mr T, I agree entirely. It may be a belief of Damien's that religion is an evil thing but it is inflammatory and bound to cause offense. Promotion of one's religious beliefs or lack thereof doesn't belong here. There are plenty of forums out there for that.

Absolutely agree with both Mr T and yourself. Damien's sig, while an opinion, is offensive and, by his own admission, designed as such. Last I checked, this is a forum for budo, not religion and thus, although it is one of his opinions, it's maybe not the best one to put out there.


In the same vein. Ahmed, may I ask if your signature is designed to promote your religion as it is a direct quote from the Prophet? If so, then it is only a matter of time until someone asks you to change it as they will use the excuse that it offends them. Personally, I make the assumption that it is a saying that inspires you and is there for that reason (I hope I am correct on that assumption?).

But I'd have to disagree here. The main difference between Ahmed's sign and Damien's, is that the latter is a general comment covering all religions, not just his own, while Ahmed's is merely a quote from Muhammad. Numerous people on this forum have Confucius quotes in their sigs; does that mean they're promoting Confucianism (ok it's not a religion but you get my point)?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Decado again.

Blast!

[Nakura]

I apologize for not being clear enough.
I agree with you, war are rarely about religion only. But the poor guy who will get killed by the club or the sword or the bullet, why did he accepted to go to fight?

He did not fight to give more power to his king or his tyran. He has other motivations. Religion is one of the most often used.

Thus, religion was the tool used by his ruler to get him to fight but it probably was not his primary reason.


- In France, in the begining of the 13th century: the Cathars ( an herectic sect) were exterminated by the king, who gain the control of the south of France.

And why did he exterminate the Cathars? They were denounced as heretics by the Pope and, if he was on good terms with the Pope, he would be on good terms with the French poplation, the majority of which was (and still is, I suspect) Catholic.


If there are no more excuse, they will be less wars because who might get killed to give power to someone else? Yes there will always be people looking for more power, but if nobody agree to fight for them, nobody would get killed.

I'm taking Dec's side here; even if there was no religion, humans would find other reasons to wage war on each other. It's all a question of manipulation--very few religious texts are straightforward and crystal clear (the Bible is almost as difficult to decipher as the Qur'an)--and this can be applied to science and any number of other fields.

[Decado]

Absolutely agree with both Mr T and yourself. Damien's sig, while an opinion, is offensive and, by his own admission, designed as such. Last I checked, this is a forum for budo, not religion and thus, although it is one of his opinions, it's maybe not the best one to put out there.

But I'd have to disagree here. The main difference between Ahmed's sign and Damien's, is that the latter is a general comment covering all religions, not just his own, while Ahmed's is merely a quote from Muhammad. Numerous people on this forum have Confucius quotes in their sigs; does that mean they're promoting Confucianism (ok it's not a religion but you get my point)?


No problem about the disagreement. I don't believe that Ahmed's sig is a religious promotion, but someone is bound to think that. I suppose some people will think my signature is promoting the Jedi religion (it's not, btw - it's just a bit of fun). :cheerful:

[Decado]

Thus, religion was the tool used by his ruler to get him to fight but it probably was not his primary reason.

And why did he exterminate the Cathars? They were denounced as heretics by the Pope and, if he was on good terms with the Pope, he would be on good terms with the French poplation, the majority of which was (and still is, I suspect) Catholic.

I'm taking Dec's side here; even if there was no religion, humans would find other reasons to wage war on each other. It's all a question of manipulation--very few religious texts are straightforward and crystal clear (the Bible is almost as difficult to decipher as the Qur'an)--and this can be applied to science and any number of other fields.

You said more or less everything I was going to say.

Out of rep too!

[Nakura]

I suppose some people will think my signature is promoting the Jedi religion (it's not, btw - it's just a bit of fun). :cheerful:

Isn't the Jedi philosophy now an official religion since something ridiculous like 30,000 (or maybe it was even 300,000) people entered their religion as Jedi on the National Census?

May the Force be with you...

[Nakura]

Out of rep too!

As you said, it's the thought that counts. :p

[Decado]

Isn't the Jedi philosophy now an official religion since something ridiculous like 30,000 (or maybe it was even 300,000) people entered their religion as Jedi on the National Census?

May the Force be with you...

Scary isn't it? Do they not realise that Jedis are a work of fiction. I know that the original films were good (I remember the first one coming out and how it changed people's cinema going habits at the time) but to base a religion on them! Jeez! I think Monty Python's Life of Brian summed that sort of thing up for me.

The Farce is with those Jedis! :cheerful:

[Dervish]

Oh Ahmed, this is the problem with islamic followers.... be it fair or not, you are now (based over the last few weeks/months) infamous on these forums not for your kendo, but for being islamic.

Its hardly fair, but the fact remains that if you got upset and kept it to yourself no-one would be having this conversation.... but by speaking out to what you believe is right... you fan the flames yourself.

Your arguements have backfired; wheter your opinion is right or wrong, there are many here that do not agree with them, and by your continued expression of them are you not yourself provoking this altercation?

Did you actually believe that your bolded statement above would not be fanning the flames as much as you believe that Ahmed is?

I've been three religions in this lifetime (Islam being one of them); the sig in question speaks of religion in general, perhaps I should take the most offense because the remark implies a great span of religions (lol), and yet the sig doesn't bother me at all. Every religion has partaken of war and conflict in some way; any theist should see this sig remark more as a challenge to keep things truly peaceful one person at a time; not as something to clamor over and to draw attention to it.

[Ignatz]

Oh Ahmed, this is the problem with islamic followers.... be it fair or not, you are now (based over the last few weeks/months) infamous on these forums not for your kendo, but for being islamic.
. . .

Bad news, Ahmed is a good strong kendo player who practices regularly and continues to improve. He is also a thoughtful young man who is in the process of developing as an individual.

[Kuma]

In the same vein. Ahmed, may I ask if your signature is designed to promote your religion as it is a direct quote from the Prophet? If so, then it is only a matter of time until someone asks you to change it as they will use the excuse that it offends them.

This is just plain silly. I would defend Ahmed's right to have a quote from the Prophet just as vehemently as my own right to not believe in his divinity. There is nothing the least bit discriminatory in Ahmed's quote, nor anything exclusive to Islam. It is a sentiment that we would all do well to remember. And although such wisdom is by no means exclusive to religion, religious texts can be an excellent source of such inspiration to budoka of every variety.

[Mr. T.]

I took a look at Ahmeds sig. I kinda like it and I really can't find anything that could be insulting someone elses (religious) believes.

Now, about Ahmeds fame having more to do with his religion than his kendo. Although it's partially his own doing it's also that he has to defend his believes because of view that differ from or own (most of us have some kind of Cristian background). Even though I don't agree with him on a lot things, it can't always be easy for him having us going at him all the time.

[bobdonny]

2 things i try not to discuss online, religion or politics. I'm here for the kendo stuff ;) anything else needs to be discussed in a proper environment?

People should just bear that in mind, some one had a pic once when i started kendo and had a online fight with ignatz.... it was a good pic bout regardless of your standpoint, when you argue online both sides loose.

[bobdonny]

Duplicate, sorry!

[Decado]

This is just plain silly. I would defend Ahmed's right to have a quote from the Prophet just as vehemently as my own right to not believe in his divinity. There is nothing the least bit discriminatory in Ahmed's quote, nor anything exclusive to Islam. It is a sentiment that we would all do well to remember. And although such wisdom is by no means exclusive to religion, religious texts can be an excellent source of such inspiration to budoka of every variety.

I agree with everything you have said (except for the plain silly bit of course). Ahmed's sig is something I might aspire to. My point was, based upon the vehemently anti-Islamic rants I have seen on this and other threads, that attributing that quote to the Prophet might get some people's backs up. Why, personally, I have no idea but I was concerned. If people got the impression I objected to it then I apologise. Perhaps I was being too politically correct in this instance. Damien's sig is another matter.

[ahmed61086]

Im just going to stay out of this. Too much going on, lol.

[Decado]

Im just going to stay out of this. Too much going on, lol.

You are the wisest amongst us. Think I'll follow your lead.

[Kenzan]

I think you all need to stop this nonsense about these various deities and just accept Kenzan as your personal lord and savior.

My first commandment:

Chicken Pot-pies for all.
:D

[Decado]

I think you all need to stop this nonsense about these various deities and just accept Kenzan as your personal lord and savior.

My first commandment:

Chicken Pot-pies for all.
:D

vBulletin Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kenzan again.




Damn! Two pies for me please!

[Bokushingu]

I agree with decado: Ahmed's quote may be from an islamic prophet but it can be viewed as an universal saying applying to anyone regardles of belief. One could argue the motivation behind it is to enlighten anyone who could read it.

As for Damien's sig... the quotes should reveal more finite information or relate to a specific event which brought about his opinion or quote. Other-wise, one could argue his sig & name was created to enrage or cause discomfort amoung people with a specific type of belief.

(lot of verbage : )

[Kendoka_Han]

Muhammed is just a human being, one who sins.

Jesus Christ is God born in Human form, also known as the last Adam, and the saviour to end death and be victorious over satan.

[kartoffelngeist]

Well that's that sorted then...

[kartoffelngeist]

Damien will get out of puberty soon and all that angst will start to float away.
He obviously put a sig that would provoke people, which can be good in the right context, as it is, it just makes him come accross a bit of a muppet as it's obviously untrue.
Religion is religion, war is war, hate is hate and fear is fear...

[Mokujin77]

Mokujin, please read further on in the paragraph you quoted me from, only about 3 lines, there you will see the words "a line from a song", see, reading is fun! :D

Oh yeah, right you are.




Looking forward to kote drill with you when I get back. :evil:

[crabbi]

Religion is religion, war is war, hate is hate and fear is fear...

Succinctly expressed and incontravertable...

[Kyung]

i have a small question,

i recieved a comment today that the latter part of my sig is offence and in itself causes hatred, im inclined to disagree as nothing that is writen is untrue or abusive, just statement and fact, opinions...???

People may find that offensive because people tend to be hypocrits. Holy wars, Crusades, religious oppression, these have all happened. Often with motives other than said. And Christians consider religion as more of a guideline than law which is considered compromise. What ever suits them is the law, is their attitude from what I've seen.

[JCM]

And Christians consider religion as more of a guideline than law which is considered compromise. What ever suits them is the law, is their attitude from what I've seen.


Great observation mate, now, would you be offended if someone said "they all look the same to me" referring to people of your ethnicity whatever that may be?

[JCM]

"not learning theory is like saying, 'i dont want to use words to comminucate, i just want to rub my penis all over people"

Can't make any sense out of this sig either... :confused:

[Decado]

Can't make any sense out of this sig either... :confused:

I think it means "I need a spell checker". :cheeky:

[Neil Gendzwill]

And this one has about run it's course.