ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Spoke to my other half tonight about all this.

She is a Christian and am a nobody, we both agreed that religion not matter what faith should be outlawed.

Its causing so much trouble and anguish, its not worth it.

We all just people and without religion, I think we would be a better race together.

All in the same pond, metaphorically speaking. ;)

We have 2 Gods the sun and moon or day and night.
That's it, nothing more and nothing less so can we all just get on PLEASE :D

The man made construct that is religion is causing so much trouble, only a man could have made it. Go figure? :rolleyes:

Imagine a world with no gods? That is heaven. ;)

Humans are tribal. We would invent something else to unite around and fight about.
 
Let's be honest. If it wasn't for religion we'd only find another reason to kill each other.

while I'm sure there would still be wars/conflict for plenty of other reasons you'd still potentially be rid of a good chunk of violence and oppression

it is more oppressive extremist ideologies that need to be tackled - both religious and political
 
while I'm sure there would still be wars/conflict for plenty of other reasons you'd still potentially be rid of a good chunk of violence and oppression

it is more oppressive extremist ideologies that need to be tackled - both religious and political

If religions weren't already in existence Id agree. To outlaw religion now would only work to heighten conflict deriving from it.

Short of killing everyone with religious leanings and removing all reference of them from history I can't imagine it having any positive effect.

The day we move on from religion and work together to worship and further humanity as a whole will be a great day indeed. I imagine the human race would be long gone before it happened.
 
Last edited:
Have I missed the bit where attending Race 101 was mandatory? Given Oxbridge's less than inclusive nature, it seems like a helpful session...

To be fair he is not a million miles out.

Whilst there are no lessons so to say, there are plenty of "recommended reading" for news and other bits of daily life. That's my experience anyway.
 
If religions weren't already in existence Id agree. To outlaw religion now would only work to heighten conflict deriving from it.

Short of killing everyone with religious leanings and removing all reference of them from history I can't imagine it having any positive effect.

The day we move on from religion and work together to worship and further humanity as a whole will be a great day indeed. I imagine the human race would be long gone before it happened.

just to clarify I wasn't referring to outlawing it - just commenting that I think we'd be better off without it
 
except it doesn't show whose correct - they can use all the nasty parts of that book to justify their actions just as you can make claims about how they should be disregarded because of x or some scholar claims y etc...

Not really they take quotes out of context & disregard a lot of the Quarn. Anyone anyone who read it can this .
 
Last edited:
Not really they take quotes out of context & disregard a lot of the Quarn. Anyone anyone who read it can this.

not really - they just have a different interpretation - usually the violent parts are explained away by some scholar with some convoluted explanation - it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion that a moderate interpretation is the logical one
 
As people and race I think we need to move on.

We all know deep down in the gut, the is no god.

Its just us trying to get by in life as we have done for thousands of years.

Yet religion, divides us, conquers us etc.

Its the 21st century for GOD sake, as a civilization we need to move on fast. Otherwise it just fight, fight, fight. Its getting on my tit now to be honest.. :mad:

To put things into perspective.....................

Its like me, killing you for not believing in Santa Clause. :confused:

How Santa gets off at about 9-10 years of age, but Allah and Jesus or what ever, they get the full life term ????
 
not really - they just have a different interpretation - usually the violent parts are explained away by some scholar with some convoluted explanation - it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion that a moderate interpretation is the logical one

Interpreter by missing out the parts that say don't kill innocent people? yea that likes them.
 
Last edited:
Exactly my point missing out parts.......

well yes, both moderates and fundamentalists have to say that certain parts aren't relevant or have been nullified by some other part or don't apply etc..

the argument works both ways and simply comes down to interpretation
 
well yes, both moderates and fundamentalists have to say that certain parts aren't relevant or have been nullified by some other part or don't apply etc..

the argument works both ways and simply comes down to interpretation

I don't see how anyone can try justify what happened in France by using the Quarn? Please show me and example .....
 
Like what ? do you have examples?

why - so I can cite a violent part and you can say oh but that doesn't apply because of X...?

and I can't point out that that is a moderate interpretation... i.e. what we've just been discussing

or are you unaware that there are violent passages in the quran
 
why - so I can cite a violent part and you can say oh but that doesn't apply because of X...?

and I can't point out that that is a moderate interpretation... i.e. what we've just been discussing

or are you unaware that there are violent passages in the quran

I am aware I would like you to give an example of how the Quarn justifies the attacks in France .

Their are passages that condone violence but only under certain rules its pretty simply really.
 
Back
Top Bottom