DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 i agree; atheism is the only way forward .........these riduculous belief systems belong in the dark ages Atheism is for tree huggers who have a problem living in a society where many people participate in organised religion, hence expressing a view that is contrary to that of the said tree hugger. If you don't wanna jump on the bandwagon, then good for you. Too bad so many mouthpieces decide to form 'atheist societies' where they eat scons and sit around talking about what they dont believe in, as opposed to what they do, all the time not realising that they have shit dribbling down their chins. A more useful suggestion would be the advocation of understanding and respect between peoples and faiths.
macbeth Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 Atheism is for tree huggers who have a problem living in a society where many people participate in organised religion, hence expressing a view that is contrary to that of the said tree hugger. If you don't wanna jump on the bandwagon, then good for you. Too bad so many mouthpieces decide to form 'atheist societies' where they eat scons and sit around talking about what they dont believe in, as opposed to what they do, all the time not realising that they have shit dribbling down their chins. A more useful suggestion would be the advocation of understanding and respect between peoples and faiths. tree hugger ? just because i don't believe in the fairy stories that you religious lot believe in... au contraire ..i don't belong to any society , i try to think for myself not believe in outdated doctrines from thousands of years ago
Dr The Singh Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 No, this thread was about Israeli aggression in Lebanon. I did not realise it was about Islam. But chalo, khair! The groups you mention, such as HT, al-Mouhajiroun (they are the same people running these things) are also banned from the majority of mosques. The difference is compared to the number of mosques and the number of Muslims the Sikh community is tiny. It is far easier to implement the hukams in a relatively few number of buildings then it is to implement in a fairly large and disparate community. Nearly every mosque in the UK is Sunni and therefore there is no clergy or “pope†figure to issue orders, hence the growing importance of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Nobody is safe from Israeli aggression it seems – not even the poor guys in the UN. I have enormous respect for the Sikh community, I think everyone should be more like them. Al-Mouhajiroun has a membership of less than a hundred. That rally at Trafalgar square was not even held properly because nobody turns up. The leaflets you talk of were not done by HT. How do I know this? I saw one of them funnily enough posted up on a sikh forum a year or 2 ago, and studied it closely. You know its not written by a Muslim hand because they can’t even get “assalamualaikum†written properly, nor follow the proper etiquettes of writing the name of Allah or Muhammad etc. I could be completely wrong of course which just shows how stupidly moronic these guys really are. The Sikh/Muslim hatred is in reality Sikh/Pakistani hatred. I know this because I am of Indian origin and never even had a discussion like this with any of my friends who were Sikh, it was only when I went to Bradford and Birmingham that I learnt of this rivalry (incidentally the majority of Muslims in Bradford and Birmingham are of Pakistani origin). You just don’t find this rivalry between Sikh and Muslims of other origins. Do you think that is true? I mentioned earlier anti-socialism, yob culture and hooliganism is a modern disease permeating every community. In Muslim communities its manifesting itself most violently. Which of it do you disagree with? I can’t claim to know the whole of Sharia law, that is like claiming I know English law. Do you have a problem with Sharia wholly or certain parts? No no, I don’t think you are a racist! Yes, it is a thread about Iraeli aggression but in looking at the Israeli aggression, we have to seek there motives and why.........as you know that lead to Islamic terrorism and current Islamic issues, such as radicalism, and differing methods and interpretations that muslims may have and a whole loads of other stuff!!! Sikh\Muslim difference's are alot more prominant between pakistani's than indian for a major fundamental reason is the way pakistani's are taught in schools, maybe also at home..............it is a well known fact that pakistani's get taught a very muslim biased history, of which there is a sikh chapter, in which portray Sikhs as anti musim etc ........this obviously has lead to a predisposed idea that Sikhs are there enemy etc.......also duo to alot of pakistani's not having contact with sikhs had lead to alot of misnomers and utterly daft reality of sikh\muslim issue........I remember at uni a muslim guy on my course saying 'we were always told that sikhs will wear turbans until all muslims are dead and will cut them off only after that...'. i've heard so many just like this!!!! On the other side, Sikhs duo to the partition where alot of Sikhs and muslims were agrieved, also duo the obvious moghul empire, alot is also of what is taught at home.........the reason why it's not towards the Indian muslims is that they Sikh\Muslims live in peace and time is good healer yet Pakistani is seen as a threat (wars) and hence Sikhs mistrust them(this has been a major issue in freeing punjab from India, the influence which pakistan has had on freeing punjab has lead alot of punjabi's doubting there motives and see the underlying threat from pakistan) !! Leicester is abit unique, the muslims are alot more integrated into mainstream society then those such as bradford\parts of Brum, hence alot of contact is recieved unlike with those from bradford\North, this obviously brings mistrust, which brings about speculation and hence trouble!!! I also claim that I do not know much but I have alot of issues with Sharia Law, it bias towards testomonys of men , issues on rape, homosexuality, alcohol, temporary marriage, divorce, rights of non muslims. As I have stated before the quran, hadiths, sunna, and biography of Mohammed, is 'disputed' and can be interpreted in many ways.....I would prefer a conclusive law system devised by man which is applicable for the people at that time, rather then one that is off a text where one may disagree with another. This is a massive debate with many outcomes, probably not applicable to this thread
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 tree hugger ? just because i don't believe in the fairy stories that you religious lot believe in... au contraire ..i don't belong to any society , i try to think for myself not believe in outdated doctrines from thousands of years ago Some of the 'fairy stories' will obviously be just that - stories, and indeed outdated. Most doctrines of religions in general however are still applicable to humanity on basic levels, though it has been a failing of many religious administrators across to world to appropriately adapt their doctrine to the modern condition. I find it interesting that Christianity in itself was a reformation religion, but 2000 years down the track we're unwilling to reform much today - like the contraception argument someone brought up before. It's good you think for yourself though - many people don't, both religious and not. Just that most atheists I've met seem to be hippies with a general contempt for establishments regardless of any merits the establishment might have.
Ultra Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 I think until a few years ago Hamas did want to fight till there was no more Israel. Then they pretty much realised that wasn't going to happen, so then it was a case of "if you can't beat them, join them". I think that was progress in the right direction, much like in NI. This latest Israeli adventure in Lebanon and the hidden story in Gaza is going to test Hamas' new outlook on life to the limit. I hope they remain firm for the sake of Palestine. I think Hamas's position on the destruction of Israel is unsustainable. But Israel's continued belligerence makes it very difficult to modify it. Unless outside bodies such as the EU (obviously the US won't do it) create conditions which make it possible for both sides to recognise and ultimately respect the rights of the other side, this conflict will continue.
Lemon Harpic Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 The British Empire killed thousands of people in the name of progress and wealth, going so far as creating the first concept of the concentration camps. Actually, it was the Spanish who first used campos de reconcentramiento in Cuba, a few years before the British first used concentration camps. In short, what I am trying to say is if somebody wants to kill somebody else, they will always find an excuse for it. Religion is strangely the most credible one. Exactly why I believe that humanity is better off without religion. If we were to replace irrationality and superstition with reason and logic, it would be a lot harder for dictators to get away with it. They would have no excuse. If we were to listen to our conscience rather than blindly following dogma, the world would be a much better place.
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 I think Hamas's position on the destruction of Israel is unsustainable. But Israel's continued belligerence makes it very difficult to modify it. Unless outside bodies such as the EU (obviously the US won't do it) create conditions which make it possible for both sides to recognise and ultimately respect the rights of the other side, this conflict will continue. This is a good point. And from the Israelis' point of view Hamas' position on the destruction of Israel will make them less likely to concede any ground, and so the vicious cycle continues. Intervention by outside bodies seems almost a necessity to provide both sides with a way out. Clinton almost made it, but things started unravelling when Rahbin was killed.
Ultra Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 This is a good point. And from the Israelis' point of view Hamas' position on the destruction of Israel will make them less likely to concede any ground, and so the vicious cycle continues. Intervention by outside bodies seems almost a necessity to provide both sides with a way out. Clinton almost made it, but things started unravelling when Rahbin was killed. The assassination of Rabin was a turning point. No Israeli leader since has been willing to take the risks he did. In fact their policy seemed to be to wait until Yasser Arafat dies, in the hope that his successors would prove more agreeable to their terms. That clearly hasn't happened. Perhaps if the occupied teritories were made a UN protectorate, with the UN assuming security for those areas, it would be an initial step towards peace, as the Israelis and Palestinians would have less cause to attack each other. It would cost a lot in terms of personnel and resources to implement this plan, but so did the intervention by Britain and the US in Iraq. The least these countries can do is to put as efforts into peace in that region as they have into war.
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 The assassination of Rabin was a turning point. No Israeli leader since has been willing to take the risks he did. In fact their policy seemed to be to wait until Yasser Arafat dies, in the hope that his successors would prove more agreeable to their terms. That clearly hasn't happened. Perhaps if the occupied teritories were made a UN protectorate, with the UN assuming security for those areas, it would be an initial step towards peace, as the Israelis and Palestinians would have less cause to attack each other. It would cost a lot in terms of personnel and resources to implement this plan, but so did the intervention by Britain and the US in Iraq. The least these countries can do is to put as efforts into peace in that region as they have into war. That would certainly dampen things down in the long term, but I'd suspect the UN would want the situation there to be somewhat more sustainable before taking control. Rabin was a man willing to engage, discuss, and concede where necessary. The Left need to somehow regain control. The PLO still existed then and Arafat was still hanging around, yet progress was made which is more than can be said of the current situation.
moseeds Posted 4 August 2006 Posted 4 August 2006 Actually, it was the Spanish who first used campos de reconcentramiento in Cuba, a few years before the British first used concentration camps. Exactly why I believe that humanity is better off without religion. If we were to replace irrationality and superstition with reason and logic, it would be a lot harder for dictators to get away with it. They would have no excuse. If we were to listen to our conscience rather than blindly following dogma, the world would be a much better place. Oops sorry my bad. I didn't know that, I always thought the British set up concentration camps when fighting I think the Boers? I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say regarding always finding an excuse. If it's not in the name of religion then its for the advancement of civlisation, a new way of living or any other reason to justify muderous actions. Religion is one excuse of many.
Ultra Posted 5 August 2006 Posted 5 August 2006 I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say regarding always finding an excuse. If it's not in the name of religion then its for the advancement of civlisation, a new way of living or any other reason to justify muderous actions. Religion is one excuse of many.
crazy horse Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Actually, it was the Spanish who first used campos de reconcentramiento in Cuba, a few years before the British first used concentration camps. Exactly why I believe that humanity is better off without religion. If we were to replace irrationality and superstition with reason and logic, it would be a lot harder for dictators to get away with it. They would have no excuse. If we were to listen to our conscience rather than blindly following dogma, the world would be a much better place. the fairy story believers skipped over thais one LH
The People's Hero Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Thought I'd bring this back to the top so we can argue about it a little more. I mean, it's an important thread, it's not like people who know a lot more about it than us haven't been trying to solve this for years...
Knighton Matt Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 The flange to the table. Metaphorically speaking of course. Thought I'd bring this back to the top so we can argue about it a little more. I mean, it's an important thread, it's not like people who know a lot more about it than us haven't been trying to solve this for years...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Great minds think alike (and do a Google image search).
Fez of Mahrez Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Have you seen this man? Merseyside Police are investigating a missed opportunity of criminal proportions. The crime is believed to have taken place in the Aston area of Birmingham around 12 years ago. Anyone who saw anything is urged to ring Crimestoppers on 0800 344 5445
Lemon Harpic Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Thought I'd bring this back to the top so we can argue about it a little more. I mean, it's an important thread, it's not like people who know a lot more about it than us haven't been trying to solve this for years... Perhaps it'd be best to get the admins to split General Chat into two? Leicester City Forum General Chat (Po-Faced Posturing About Heavy Shit) General Chat (Banal Cliquey Drivel About Sheds And Stuff) Ticket News and Travel etc, and so on...
Daggers Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 But what about the people that like to be Po-faced about the shed shit?
Knighton Matt Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 I think Ronnie Rosenthal's contribution to this thread has been largely ignored. Shame on you guys. The man has feelings you know.
The People's Hero Posted 6 August 2006 Posted 6 August 2006 Perhaps it'd be best to get the admins to split General Chat into two? Leicester City Forum General Chat (Po-Faced Posturing About Heavy Shit) General Chat (Banal Cliquey Drivel About Sheds And Stuff) Ticket News and Travel etc, and so on... So no home for the predictable, tedious and often ridiculous left-wing rantings I've come to expect from you?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.