More Teenage Jihads

[Kaleredar]

My point is that religion does strange things with us humans, not having religion in this day of age would really cut down on violence world wide.

The two greatest man-caused death tolls in human history have been both orchestrated (yes, orchestrated) by two secular societies. Seems having no religion there didn't cut down on the deaths, killing, or disregard for humanity.

We went over this like three posts ago.

I find it somewhat amusing that so many plebs in the western world have been brainwashed into seeing things in such a black and white perspective.
Our governments tell us that groups like Islamic State and Al Qaeda are the root of all evil and should be stopped at all costs because they're doing bad shit, and at the same time America send unmanned drones throughout the Middle East, indiscriminately murdering civilians due to a 'hunch'.

Makes you wonder what's worse... accidentally killing civilians while hunting down terrorists as western countries have done, or intentionally killing civilians to spread terror and fear as ISIS has done.

*snip*

The 1970s called; they want their rant back.

Of course, never mind the fact that Iraq ASKED the US (and the coalition it's since accrued to combat ISIS) to fight ISIS, I'm sure the real deal here is that the US is once again single-handedly and unilaterally invading the middle east... cuz oil.

[Jackmoves]

Never liked gingers. There is something off with them. Be aware.

Seriously though, a lot of people can be indoctrinated given the wrong circumstances. You can self radicalise as well. Internet man.

[Deleted]

I agree completely. Finally a voice of reason. Getting fat from eating McDonald's is way, way worse than throwing acid in girls' faces for walking to school.

Because we'd never imagine doing such a thing over here.

[Merkava]

The two greatest man-caused death tolls in human history have been both orchestrated (yes, orchestrated) by two secular societies. Seems having no religion there didn't cut down on the killing.

We went over this like three posts ago.

A couple of ways to address this. The first way, when the objection comes from religious people, (which I don't know where you stand, but it's irrelevant either way) is to point out that what they're really saying is, "yes religion may be bad but at least we're not as bad as Stalinists or Nazis." I would think they'd have more respect for their faith than that.

The other way, is to realize that Stalin's regime wasn't as completely secular as people would think. He inherited a population of servile, credulous peasants who were used to worshiping a Tsar, not completely divine, but the head of the church. Stalin takes over, proclaims miracles, the Lysenko agriculture that was supposed to produce three harvests per year, sets up inquisitions, heresy hunts, and creates a cult of personality whereby the populace grovels before him and worships him as a father figure. The sadomasochistic, religious combination of being forced to love someone whom you fear. He took the the backwardness, the primitive servility of religion and created a political theocracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit - Which is close to what you said earlier

So then it doesn't matter whether a society, or more specifically, people therein, are religious or secular, as blindly following leaders who have their own interests in mind or who treat human life with flippancy can lead to appalling devastation regardless of whether said people think they're doing it in the name of a god or not.

Because we'd never imagine doing such a thing over here.

For walking to school?

[Kaleredar]

A couple of ways to address this. The first way, when the objection comes from religious people, (which I don't know where you stand, but it's irrelevant either way) is to point out that what they're really saying is, "yes religion may be bad but at least we're not as bad as Stalinists or Nazis." I would think they'd have more respect for their faith than that.

My point is not to say "At least they're not as bad as..." Seriously, this is the second time I've covered this damn subject in 15 posts in this very thread. It is irrelevant. People use religion as a means to do bad things. Like the inquisition, or the crusades. But to claim that "religion" is the greatest portent of violence or death in human history is simply... well, wrong. As demonstrated by Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Hell, early on, Maoist china went about intentionally dissolving religious institutions and destroying places of worship. The "no religion" policy didn't stand in the way of the deaths of somewhere in the ballpark of 45 million people.

And even on top of that. Was Vietnam fought for religious reasons? No. The Korean war? No. Was World War 2 fought for religious reasons? No. World War 1? No. And so on and so forth. People find plenty of reasons to hate and be driven to kill one another without religion playing any role. To profess that the "banning or dissolution of religion would cause a major reduction in the ongoing violence in the world" or some such is, yet again simply wrong.

The other way, is to realize that Stalin's regime wasn't as completely secular as people would think. He inherited a population of servile, credulous peasants who were used to worshiping a Tsar, not completely divine, but the head of the church. Stalin takes over, proclaims miracles, the Lysenko agriculture that was supposed to produce three harvests per year, sets up inquisitions, heresy hunts, and creates a cult of personality whereby the populace grovels before him and worships him as a father figure. The sadomasochistic, religious combination of being forced to love someone whom you fear. He took the the backwardness, the primitive servility of religion and created a political theocracy.

Fanaticism is not automatically religion.

[StayTuned]

When I was a kid I was quite fucked up

Still I knew that terrorist groups and the such is a place full of freaks and psychopaths and no matter how awful my life is, it is going to be worse there

[Merkava]

Fanaticism is not automatically religion.

No, but the goal of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity.

[Kaleredar]

No, but the goal of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity.

And the goal of communists is the create a brotherhood of mankind. That's also the goal of libertarians. And the goal of socialists. And the goal of freemasons...

[Merkava]

And the goal of communists is the create a brotherhood of mankind. That's also the goal of libertarians. And the goal of socialists. And the goal of freemasons...

I don't see the relevancy or how that counters my position.

[procne]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/australias...6.html#aD4f8Oz

That's just one of many but WTF is going on? I can understand those raised within an Islamic extremist environment but some/many of these teenagers wasn't

The violence in media, movies and games. Idolized movie characters that are arrogant (I mean "cool") and kill everything. Return to the law of raw physical strength. And children being brought up in the middle of this. So they want to kick ass, show their strength and superiority and humiliate their enemies. One problem! You can't do that legally in western countries!

Think of it all as violence-tourism.

[Kaleredar]

I don't see the relevancy or how that counters my position.

Lots of people want lots of things. Many people want the same thing. Sometimes, all they end up boiling down to is pretty words.

[Merkava]

Lots of people want lots of things. Many people want the same thing. Sometimes, all they end up boiling down to is pretty words.

There's no universal atheistic principle that Stalin sought to advance. There's no doctrine that he was championing. An atheist could still be a socialist, communist, anarchist, fascistic, etc.

[Stelio Kontos]

Of course teenagers and young people will be drawn to ISIS, especially young men.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...-not-religion/

[Deleted]

My point is not to say "At least they're not as bad as..." Seriously, this is the second time I've covered this damn subject in 15 posts in this very thread. It is irrelevant. People use religion as a means to do bad things. Like the inquisition, or the crusades. But to claim that "religion" is the greatest portent of violence or death in human history is simply... well, wrong. As demonstrated by Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Hell, early on, Maoist china went about intentionally dissolving religious institutions and destroying places of worship. The "no religion" policy didn't stand in the way of the deaths of somewhere in the ballpark of 45 million people.

And even on top of that. Was Vietnam fought for religious reasons? No. The Korean war? No. Was World War 2 fought for religious reasons? No. World War 1? No. And so on and so forth. People find plenty of reasons to hate and be driven to kill one another without religion playing any role. To profess that the "banning or dissolution of religion would cause a major reduction in the ongoing violence in the world" or some such is, yet again simply wrong.



Fanaticism is not automatically religion.

"Fanaticism is not automatically religion" No, but religion is automatically fanaticism! Just because you have stated something twice doesn't make it true. Religion has killed millions over the century's, and then im not even talking about the illnesses that missionary's brought with them.
It isn't about religion being bad, it is about what people do for said religion that is bad, the blind faith is what makes it bad. In the name of religion anything goes, it doesn't matter how perverted, if and when it is done in the name of a god, its OK. Look at the slavery of IS for instance, or how the Mormons can kick their own children out of their lives because they refused their version of the word of god.

Can there still be war without religion, sure there can. But the funny thing is that most of the wars you mentioned where fought because of blind faith. Whenever you follow something blindly you cease to think for your self, and that is the problem.

[Deleted]

No exactly religion yes. Has been going on for a long time with Christianity, Jews, and Islamists. Crusades ring a bell? The Inquisition? Just think, if we had no religion, how far progressed would we be? We would probably have everything from Back to the Future already with flying cars, hoverboards and all that jazz.

You're pulling that out of your arse while not listing any of the good religion has brought into this world.
And if there were no crusades then you'd be wearing a turban right now.

[ItachiZaku]

I like how the title picks on him for being ginger.

That's the best part. You ho-hum click the link, realize it's YAHOO and then see the first line "A red-headed...." and you just stop and laugh and go on with your day.

[Shiny212]

So then it doesn't matter whether a society, or more specifically, people therein, are religious or secular, as blindly following leaders who have their own interests in mind or who treat human life with flippancy can lead to appalling devastation regardless of whether said people think they're doing it in the name of a god or not.

That was my point.

The problem is doing it in the name of God has traditionally been a great excuse; and as we have seen most recently still is. No one's saying humans don't kill eachother for other things, my point was to do it based on religious reasons has happened and still happens an awful lot; and could possibly be prevented by adopting a more secular society.

You can't state your secular society as a reason for stoning adulterers, you CAN state your religion as a reason.

[Vizardlorde]

are you not culturally enriched yet?
simple answer:not occupied youth always leads to trouble.

poor, disillusioned, neet, or kids without a cause tend to look for reasons and causes, generally the world managed to take care of that depending on their generation, some were sent to war others took up national socialism others marxism..now there is nothing, everything is fake and plastic, no leaders and hardly anything to aspire to, that plus austerity or precariety only accentuates the need to believe in something further

Gee its like you are sugesting I should strap myself with an IED and blow up something. I was personally thinking of going out there and struggle a bit to try to make myself a better person but i guess I should just kill people cause I'm unhappy with life. / sarcasm

- - - Updated - - -

The crusades, holocaust and inquisition combined killed far fewer people than the secular regime of Maoist china. MILLIONS of people fewer.

keep in mind that the population of the world was much lower in the middle ages than in the modern era...

[Deleted]

Religion has nothing do with that. It's just those who are susceptible to religion can also be easily made sure some group of people are their enemies.

And yet i thought that radical Islam was religion thing.

[Deleted]

No exactly religion yes. Has been going on for a long time with Christianity, Jews, and Islamists. Crusades ring a bell? The Inquisition? Just think, if we had no religion, how far progressed would we be? We would probably have everything from Back to the Future already with flying cars, hoverboards and all that jazz.

Not really. Just take a look at the anti-religous regimes of the 20th Century.

During the time of the spanish inquisiton, which is considered the most brutal, in around 350-400 years around 2000 people got killed. Are this 2000 too much? Absolutly, but 5 times a year is laughable if you compare it to Pol Pot, a junior dictator in a regime with a atheistic system, killed in 2 million in a few years.

And its funny that you mention the crusades in this context of islamic terrorism. The crusades for the most part (not all though), are reactions to the islamic expansion. For example to first one was initiated because islamic forces in east rome, or the last one which freed west europe from islamic occupation.