40 Sikh lads defend themselves against Muslim sex predators?

[Manwell Pablo]

It's nationalism versus loyalism, it just happens that most nationalist are catholics and most loyalists are protestant.

What an amazing coinsidence!

[Webbo]

What an amazing coinsidence!

Not really we invaded Ireland, they were catholic we weren't. You might as well say that the Indians who fought for independence from Britain were Hindus versus Christian.

[leicsmac]

I'm not repeating myself again so please read up.

I'm sorry, but I could really do with some clarity here.

From what I can tell in the last few pages, you disagree with the whole idea of organised religion precisely because of all of the heinous acts carried out in its name, right? That's the point I think you're trying to make and I totally agree with it. There have been many, many terrible acts done in the name of some higher being or other.

My point is that these acts were carried out by people exercising free will. No-one forced them to believe the words written by other people...there's always a choice to reject what you're being told, even if its in the process of indoctrination (which religions and other regimes alike have both used in the past).

Of course, if you absolutely believe that organised religion is evil I'm not going to change your mind...but I think that human actions are what can make religion

evil, not the other way round.

[Manwell Pablo]

Not really we invaded Ireland, they were catholic we weren't. You might as well say that the Indians who fought for independence from Britain were Hindus versus Christian.

Well not really as they were a united country of people under one banner.

The Irish who wanted to stay connected to Britain wanted to do so as they wanted to as they wanted to live under Protestant rule, The Irish wanted to stay to be governed from Dublin wanted to be under Catholic rule.

It's directly connected to religion.

[Webbo]

Well not really as they were a united country of people under one banner.

The Irish who wanted to stay connected to Britain wanted to do so as they wanted to as they wanted to live under Protestant rule, The Irish wanted to stay to be governed from Dublin wanted to be under Catholic rule.

It's directly connected to religion.

So if we'd have been a catholic country, as we once were, Ireland would be quite happy to be ruled from London?

[Manwell Pablo]

So if we'd have been a catholic country, as we once were, Ireland would be quite happy to be ruled from London?

IMO it would have been a lot more straight forward yes.

[Manwell Pablo]

I'm sorry, but I could really do with some clarity here.

From what I can tell in the last few pages, you disagree with the whole idea of organised religion precisely because of all of the heinous acts carried out in its name, right? That's the point I think you're trying to make and I totally agree with it. There have been many, many terrible acts done in the name of some higher being or other.

My point is that these acts were carried out by people exercising free will. No-one forced them to believe the words written by other people...there's always a choice to reject what you're being told, even if its in the process of indoctrination (which religions and other regimes alike have both used in the past).

Of course, if you absolutely believe that organised religion is evil I'm not going to change your mind...but I think that human actions are what can make religion

evil, not the other way round.

This is very easy for you to say being brought up (I assume) in modern day Britain.

For hundreds of years in this country, you were burnt as a heretic for renouncing the state religion, this is not my definintion of free will.

Afganistan 15 years ago, same story.

Some countries still to do this to this day.

Of course there are other countries, North Korea for example, who follow the same line with their politics. But then I don't agree with that either.

[Captain...]

I am not saying it would solve everything you clown, it's not of case of "there would be different problems" there were different problems (although of all those motives for violence I think doing it in the name of a man in the sky is the least creadible anyway)there always will be. However, the removal of relgion from history would have saved a lot of suffering, war, and the impeading of advancing science. It is inarguable to say otherwise.

How can you say anything hypothetical is inarguable, nobody knows what would have happened if nobody had ever thought that there was a higher power, and sought explanations to the wonders of the world, you say that religion inhibited technological progress, I say it enhanced, if we did not look for answers to the questions that still trouble us now, we would not have made any progress, religion was early science, creating hypothesise and then having to defend them. Ok the majority of the hypothesise were "God did it", and it encouraged those that didn't believe god did it, to seek the truth. Without religion creating societies and a belief and support system we may never have progressed from living in caves.

Whether you agree with that or not, is irrelevant, it is arguable.

[Manwell Pablo]

How can you say anything hypothetical is inarguable, nobody knows what would have happened if nobody had ever thought that there was a higher power, and sought explanations to the wonders of the world, you say that religion inhibited technological progress, I say it enhanced, if we did not look for answers to the questions that still trouble us now, we would not have made any progress, religion was early science, creating hypothesise and then having to defend them. Ok the majority of the hypothesise were "God did it", and it encouraged those that didn't believe god did it, to seek the truth. Without religion creating societies and a belief and support system we may never have progressed from living in caves.

Whether you agree with that or not, is irrelevant, it is arguable.

No offence but your an illeducated fool if that's the case.

The church stood in the way of advances in Technology, Physics, and Biology for about 1500 years. It outlawed it. Many have been executed for it.

[leicsmac]

This is very easy for you to say being brought up (I assume) in modern day Britain.

For hundreds of years in this country, you were burnt as a heretic for renouncing the state religion, this is not my definintion of free will.

Afganistan 15 years ago, same story.

Some countries still to do this to this day.

Of course there are other countries, North Korea for example, who follow the same line with their politics. But then I don't agree with that either.

The choice was harsh (and that's an understatement, it's a terrible choice), but the fact is it was still there, horrible as it was.

History is full of people who chose torment and death rather than accept the whims and control (whether through religion or otherwise) of the power-mongers who dominated their country or state at the time, and those people are true heroes in my eyes. They proved that free will is absolute.

But I digress...those people that use religion (and other methods, like in North Korea) as a tool for control and domination are the ones with blood on their hands. They are the evil ones, not some mysterious entity based on words written hundreds of years ago by other people. Removing religion would remove one element of control, but given human nature it would be replaced by another shortly thereafter.

[Manwell Pablo]

The choice was harsh (and that's an understatement, it's a terrible choice), but the fact is it was still there, horrible as it was.

History is full of people who chose torment and death rather than accept the whims and control (whether through religion or otherwise) of the power-mongers who dominated their country or state at the time, and those people are true heroes in my eyes. They proved that free will is absolute.

But I digress...those people that use religion (and other methods, like in North Korea) as a tool for control and domination are the ones with blood on their hands. They are the evil ones, not some mysterious entity based on words written hundreds of years ago by other people. Removing religion would remove one element of control, but given human nature it would be replaced by another shortly thereafter.

Disagree completley, as the church lost it's infleunce in this country it began to thrive, the Industrial revolution followed and paved the way for the developed free world we live in today.

[Webbo]

No offence but you're an ill educated fool if that's the case.

I've corrected your spelling for you.

[FoxyPV]

Listening to Bill Gates last night was really interesting. He said that Polio is all but wiped out except for Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern Nigeria, which are all religious strongholds and won't allow the children there to be innoculated.

Take from that what you will.

[Captain...]

No offence but your an illeducated fool if that's the case.

The church stood in the way of advances in Technology, Physics, and Biology for about 1500 years. It outlawed it. Many have been executed for it.

But strength comes from adversity, having to prove science against oppressive religious regimes meant having to rigorously test and prove all theories to be able to stand up to religious scrutiny and to be able to convince people it is true in the face of religious dogma, I'm not saying religion deliberately advanced scientific thought, but by trying to oppress it they made it stronger.

So do you have the same problem, with politics, monarchies, nations, economic ideology/money?

All of these things are responsible for just as much blood shed as religion, and they are no less ridiculous than religion, the majority of people follow them peacefully and lawfully, the minority use them as excuses to go to war.

Listening to Bill Gates last night was really interesting. He said that Polio is all but wiped out except for Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern Nigeria, which are all religious strongholds and won't allow the children there to be innoculated.

Take from that what you will.

Some people are cvnts.

[leicsmac]

Disagree completley, as the church lost it's infleunce in this country it began to thrive, the Industrial revolution followed and paved the way for the developed free world we live in today.

I agree with you on this...organised religion has held scientific development back far more than pushed it forward.

Look...I'm no lover of organised religion (which for me is groups of people using belief to apply political power and influence on others). In fact I think it's been used by people as a tool for control in the way I mentioned earlier for far too long. However at the same time I strongly believe in the freedom for a person to believe in what they want to believe. Honestly, I'm not trying to defend organised religion here - just religion itself, which is in essence the right to belief.

Perhaps I should have made that clearer earlier in this conversation, though I think I did mention it in a previous post on this thread.

[Manwell Pablo]

I've corrected your spelling for you.

Think you've been on this forum long enough to know why my spelling is terrible.

And I think this is the smiley you were after

[Webbo]

Listening to Bill Gates last night was really interesting. He said that Polio is all but wiped out except for Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern Nigeria, which are all religious strongholds and won't allow the children there to be innoculated.

Take from that what you will.

But is that Islam or anti western suspicion? I'm sure it doesn't mention vaccination in the Koran. There are some parents in the UK who won't let their children have the MMR vaccine.

[Webbo]

Think you've been on this forum long enough to know why my spelling is terrible.

And I think this is the smiley you were after

If you're going to call someone an Ill educated fool it's best to use a spell checker first.

[Manwell Pablo]

But strength comes from adversity, having to prove science against oppressive religious regimes meant having to rigorously test and prove all theories to be able to stand up to religious scrutiny and to be able to convince people it is true in the face of religious dogma, I'm not saying religion deliberately advanced scientific thought, but by trying to oppress it they made it stronger.

So do you have the same problem, with politics, monarchies, nations, economic ideology/money?

All of these things are responsible for just as much blood shed as religion, and they are no less ridiculous than religion, the majority of people follow them peacefully and lawfully, the minority use them as excuses to go to war.

Some people are cvnts. religious

Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

No, there is a point to them, some of their reasons for going to war may not be great but there is at least some gain from it, there is no point in going to war over mythology.

If you're going to call someone an Ill educated fool it's best to use a spell checker first.

In your mind maybe.

I don't really give a fvck.

[Captain...]

Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

No, there is a point to them, some of their reasons for going to war may not be great but there is at least some gain from it, there is no point in going to war over mythology.

There is no point going to war over where you stuck your flag thousands of years ago, there is no point going to war because someone somewhere supports an economic concept that you disagree with, there is no point going to war because one country is richer, there is no point going to war because your king demands it and wants more land, more power, and there is no point going to war because of religious beliefs.

All wars are pointless, from the the point of view of the aggressor, from the point of view of those being attacked, then of course you have the right to defend your way of life, whether it be your politicial, economic or religious freedoms.

[Manwell Pablo]

I agree with you on this...organised religion has held scientific development back far more than pushed it forward.

Look...I'm no lover of organised religion (which for me is groups of people using belief to apply political power and influence on others). In fact I think it's been used by people as a tool for control in the way I mentioned earlier for far too long. However at the same time I strongly believe in the freedom for a person to believe in what they want to believe. Honestly, I'm not trying to defend organised religion here - just religion itself, which is in essence the right to belief.

Perhaps I should have made that clearer earlier in this conversation, though I think I did mention it in a previous post on this thread.

Oh don't get me wrong I don't lecture every religious person I meet, they can believe what they want, as long as they don't want to try and tell me I'm wrong I wont tell them there wrong. I think this only started because I some time ago pointed the orginal story was another display of the evils of organised religion and it has gone from there.

People have the right to believe what they want. These are just mine.

I don't see many religious types in here apart from El Empty though, just a load of people out for an arguement.

[Webbo]

In your mind maybe.

I don't really give a fvck.

Fuck's got a u in it

[Manwell Pablo]

There is no point going to war over where you stuck your flag thousands of years ago, there is no point going to war because someone somewhere supports an economic concept that you disagree with, there is no point going to war because one country is richer, there is no point going to war because your king demands it and wants more land, more power, and there is no point going to war because of religious beliefs.

All wars are pointless, from the the point of view of the aggressor, from the point of view of those being attacked, then of course you have the right to defend your way of life, whether it be your politicial, economic or religious freedoms.

Of course there is, land is power money is power economy is power it allows you to provide for your country better and it makes you richer, we're doing it to this day blowing the war on terroists out of proportion in order to gain oil. I don't agree with it, the reward is definitley not worth the loss, but it's not completley pointless, going to war over a mythic being is completley pointless.

[Captain...]

Oh don't get me wrong I don't lecture every religious person I meet, they can believe what they want, as long as they don't want to try and tell me I'm wrong I wont tell them there wrong. I think this only started because I some time ago pointed the orginal story was another display of the evils of organised religion and it has gone from there.

People have the right to believe what they want. These are just mine.

I don't see many religious types in here apart from El Empty though, just a load of people out for an arguement.

As one of those people I will tell you why I am disagreeing with you:

Just dismissing these atrocities of man as religious nonsense is dangerous and counter productive, as is lumping all religions together in that respect, this whole thread is because somemen attacked some other men, because they had raped one of their family/society.

Religion should not be brought into it, individuals commit atrocities not men, removing religion from the equation paedophile rapists will not suddenly go, oh right it is wrong to rape kids, silly me, I used to believe in a benevolent god with some violent tendencies, that is why I raped, now I am an atheist I realise rape is wrong. Address the societal or genetic causes of this behaviour the you might get somewhere, make it a war against religion then people will defend their right to a way of life and protect those in their society they believe are being subjected to religious persecution.

[danny.]

Fuck's got a u in it

He's clearly using the Elizabethan era version, a favourite of mine.