You mean it isn't poverty?

How could it not be poverty when the Pakistani middle-class have more terroristic tendencies, and when people from rich countries like Britain and Australia are drawn into these groups? How is it not poverty?

Yeah, fuck religion.

Huh, I was actual expecting it to be territorial disputes.

Considering the IRA and the Palestinians.

IRA are pussy drug dealers.

The Palestine conflict is sort of a theo-ethno territory war. Goes deeper than just religion.

Except we're actually living in the most peaceful periods in all of human history.

I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise.

So it isn't like terrorism, in the scope of things, is one of the world and most violent markings of our existence.

What is this sentence supposed to mean.

On top of that, the ten most deadliest wars were all fought over politics, not religion; fucking look at WWI: Millions of people died because some group killed a politician

YouTube

It's a little bit more complex than that.

Quote from: Lemy the Lizerd on November 21, 2014, 07:32:35 PM

Quote from: Kinder on November 21, 2014, 07:19:13 PM

Except we're actually living in the most peaceful periods in all of human history.

I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise.

Quote

So it isn't like terrorism, in the scope of things, is one of the world and most violent markings of our existence.

What is this sentence supposed to mean.

Quote

On top of that, the ten most deadliest wars were all fought over politics, not religion; fucking look at WWI: Millions of people died because some group killed a politician

YouTube

It's a little bit more complex than that.

It's supposed to mean, yeah terrorism is bad and horrible but it's not comparable to what the Mongols, Huns, vikings, and Germanic tribes did throughout Europe and Asia. It's said that Genghis Khan once killed 1,748,000 in a single hour but even though it may not be real, it reflects the harsh brutality he posed and is honestly on a whole different level than what ISIS does

in scale, maybe, but ISIS is pretty fucking barbaric, especially by modern, civilized standards.

Except we're actually living in the most peaceful periods in all of human history. So it isn't like terrorism, in the scope of things, is one of the world and most violent markings of our existence.

People are more willing to compromise their religion today thanks to modern enlightment, as opposed to hundreds of years ago where they would be murdered for lack of belief or questioning the church.

No one said religion is the worst thing ever created.  But as we can see certain religions are fundamentally broken and give excuse where there should be none.

Yeah, fuck religion.

No, screw extremists that take peaceful teaching and pervert it.

fucking look at WWI: Millions of people died because some group killed a politician

To deny the religious aspect of the Great War is to misunderstand the war.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 22, 2014, 03:17:05 AM

Quote from: Kinder on November 21, 2014, 07:19:13 PM

fucking look at WWI: Millions of people died because some group killed a politician

To deny the religious aspect of the Great War is to misunderstand the war.

That is why they are called "Extremists"

Is somehting still religious extremism if it's a wide held belief though?

Is somehting still religious extremism if it's a wide held belief though?

Extremism is a term that should be discarded in favour of fundamentalism, since the two seem highly correlated.

However, extremism suggests being on the extremity, which isn't true for fundamentalist Islam, and fundamentalism really highlights what the issue is - the fundamentals.

Nobody's worried about fundamentalist Jains, and nor should they be.

Extremist: "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action."

A highly contingent term; again, fundamentalism is better.

If people want to kill, they will find a reason even without religion.

This is self-evidently not true. People use religion as a justification for non-violence - one group, Quakers, even faced persecution for that belief - and thus it must hold that the reverse is true. We see ideologies like Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism - et cetera - as the proximate cause of violent action, religion is no different.

People are the problem.

What a facile thing to say. I'd have thought a semi-decent God would communicate ideas in such a way as to not allow his flawed creations to misconstrue them, and then be punished by dint of their own nature.

To try and palm it off as "people" being the problem is just hand-waving, since religion was made by people and is operated by people also.

Why did it say DAS BOOT quoted me? >_>

We're lovers, and have been merging into a single ontological entity for some time now. The transformation is almost complete.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 22, 2014, 10:28:16 AM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on November 22, 2014, 10:24:13 AM

Extremist: "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action."

A highly contingent term; again, fundamentalism is better.

Quote

If people want to kill, they will find a reason even without religion.

This is self-evidently not true. People use religion as a justification for non-violence - one group, Quakers, even faced persecution for that belief - and thus it must hold that the reverse is true. We see ideologies like Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Nazism - et cetera - as the proximate cause of violent action, religion is no different.

Quote

People are the problem.

What a facile thing to say. I'd have thought a semi-decent God would communicate ideas in such a way as to not allow his flawed creations to misconstrue them, and then be punished by dint of their own nature.

To try and palm it off as "people" being the problem is just hand-waving, since religion was made by people and is operated by people also.

muh free will

Yes indeed.

>thinking free will exists

my sides