World events

I know, mate! I agree with you!
My comments weren't directed at you particularly in any way.

I'm not surprised you hold that view, as over the years, I've noticed that we seem to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Through all the atrocities and terrorist attacks, I maintain that it is wrong and destructive to lambast entire religions. This is only about fringe communities and interpretations of said religions. Furthermore, the cause of these terrorist attacks isn't only found in religion, but also social, political and economical circumstances. Bashing religions as a sole cause is a very narrowminded way to explain a very complex issue.

I don't usually engage in these debates, because I find it difficult to discuss constructively with extremists on any side (some of the 'anti-religious' people on this forum would fall in the 'extremist' category; yes atheists can be extremists too!).

A quick look around the net led me to combining two elements.

Definitely it's something that's quite inclusive. Something that works subliminally must be found. Religion has the (often psychologically positive) power of the myth. We don't have secular creation myths. Myself, I consider myself to be a very moderate (in fact, very liberal) lapsed Catholic, but I had periods of actually attending service, last time very traditional (Tridentine!) service and the power of ritual (something Freemasons tried to keep!) and power of myth has something deep to say about the world. I'm not talking of symbolism in the traditional (almost Jungian) terms, more like perhaps of something the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "the symbolic goods market" and "symbolic violence".

I never said it was the primary factor. I said it was an interpretation of Islam by those who feel that they need to resort to violence in order to deliver on their own beliefs.

I wonder how many ways there are to interpret this gem of moral guidance:




And before the usual "But The Old Testament has bad stuff too" pops up, yes, it does. But most Christians ignore those parts now. Christian theology is potentially just as bad, but the difference is the number of people who take the worst parts seriously. And that prize goes to Islam.

Extremist atheists?

Well, atheism has certainly made it's bloody stamp on the history of the 20th century. But that was not humanist or philosophical atheism but a derived atheism that was part of the ideological package known as Communism.

There are hysterical church and religion bashers like those Brights oddballs, but who takes them seriously anyway?

Humanist atheism can't be extremist. It's a contradiction in itself.

Volker

This reminds me of a guy who refused to sell something (I think it might have been guns, even) to people who adhered to a "literal understanding" of the Quran. And I chuckled as I started wondering what did the poor Quranists (ie. Quran counts only, you have to take the whole text into account, because there is no abrogation... and the hadith don't matter at all) do to him? They're a separate branch from Shi'a and Sunni. There are no Quranist terrorist organizations whatsoever.

How is the "terror" interpretation literal or figurative? The situation is complex as hell, I do understand why things are the way they are. It's trying to control the response to be proportionate (you could talk about the state monopoly of violence, even!) and control the population not to lynch fellow citizens, of course. But my only problem with #NotAllMuslims is that it simplifies the situation in another way. It doesn't address the war of and, actually, war on symbols, it doesn't address the recruitment/radicalization issue. It just gives a kind reminder that, after a radical Muslim kills many people, there are Muslims who don't kill anyone. Well., sure.

See, I think otherwise than you here: I don't think the idea is a problem itself. It's how the idea which is based on writing is manipulated. Same with the Bible - it's a very long an important tradition for a certain culture than can be mangled beyond repair. This is what is happening. It's like jihad which can be, on the one hand, saving the life of a child in the hospital (hell, I can imagine that a Muslim surgeon after a 10+ hour operation could even utter an Allahu akbar, should the operation be successful) and on the other hand blowing up dozens of random civilians in a major European city. How are both plausible and how to compute it without going all "no true Scotsman" on anyone? To me this is the real war. We shouldn't wage a war on Islam (which the Western response may plausibly and easily be framed as due to the collateral damage of any airstrike, especially since The Donald took over) itself. It's like Netanyahu once said that Israel has the "most moral army" in the world. Yeah, right. I'm sitting on the most moral chair in the world. Same with the anti-immigrant/refugee sentiments. That's, as Thor say, where the terror wins. Because once you can easily say "they hate us", they will be very eager to continue. War on terror is also if not mostly a symbolic one.

I think what I just described is the real problem we are dealing with. This and the Saudis.

I've been wondering which party has benefited most grom these terrorist attacks. The Tories who are in power and can continue on with policy. Or Labour, who can do something since this government can't stop them from having some 'success'.

I'm amazed the Tories aren't suffering more from it. They're standing there saying Corbyn's weak on this stuff, opposed all the anti terror legislation and so on, and they may or may not have a point - but they've been in power for seven years and these things are happening right now. If I were in Labour's campaign I'd be making sure that the videos of Corbyn saying this sort of thing would happen as a result of Iraq at the time of the war, went viral.

I agree, however, as a devil's advocate, would a humanist be really militant?

Any idea can be taken to the extreme. But it matters what the idea is. An extreme atheist might be someone who writes books and gets into arguments all the time with religious people. An extreme Muslim is likely to chop your head off.

Apparently those two are the same thing to Thor. I'm as bad as ISIS I guess.

In terms of rhetorics? Absolutely.

You're smarter than to come up with that old pars pro toto fallacy, Captain.
No one was EVER killed IN THE NAME OF atheism ("derived", "humanist" or otherwise).
Yes, there were regimes that incorporated a rejection of (or indeed active persecution of) religion, but that had sod-all to do with atheism as a point of view (there was no Big Book Of No-God that told them to do this), and everything with the political necessity to annihilate church and religion as any kind of valid alternative to the totalitarian hold the state needed to hold on its citizens!

So to suggest, following this logic, that "atheism has made a bloody stamp" is as odd as suggesting that barley is responsible for alcoholism.