Practitioners of the "Religion of Peace" kill 12 in France for publishing cartoons

[One Bad Pig]

I agree that Islam's scriptures are more violent than some other religions', but I don't see how that correlates to more violent believers. It would make sense that violent individuals would be drawn to more violent religions, but the vast majority of believers inherit their religion. In that case, how someone is raised and what their religious leaders preach would have more clout than the tenets of a religion they didn't "choose" to follow.

Presumably, how someone is raised in a religion and what their religious leaders preach would more or less correlate to that religion's scriptures/tenets, yes?

[Psychic Missile]

Presumably, how someone is raised in a religion and what their religious leaders preach would more or less correlate to that religion's scriptures/tenets, yes?

Consider my prior statement that you agreed with : "any belief system can be interpreted or emphasized to fit any agenda". What's the difference between extremists and moderates in any religion? It's certainly not the religion.

[firstfloor]

Loving the contradiction. There is nothing in atheism itself except to answer "no" to the question "do you believe God exists?", and then you tell me that real atheism is interested in finding the truth through science. Well which is it? An answer to the question "does God exist?" or a search for truth through science (or both)? And what about those atheists under Stalin who suppressed, imprisoned and executed scientists who did not line up with the party view? Were they also interested in the truth or were they not "real" atheists?

I don’t see a contradiction at all. Atheist is simply a word that tells you how a person would answer one single question. However, most if not all people are interested to know what is true. Atheists are a subset of all the people who are interested in truth. At least one tool available to that group is science. Other people look to religion, or science and religion, or science, religion and crystals, or whatever. The possibilities are practically endless. Not all atheists are sceptics on every topic.

The concept “real atheist” means nothing special to me. You don’t add anything to ‘atheist’ with the word ‘real’. A coin flip is either heads or tails.

[One Bad Pig]

Consider my prior statement that you agreed with : "any belief system can be interpreted or emphasized to fit any agenda". What's the difference between extremists and moderates in any religion? It's certainly not the religion.

I think you're getting me confused with another poster; I haven't agreed with that. It sort of depends on who's doing the defining, I suppose. Palestinians like Abbas are considered moderates by the press in general, apparently because they're actually willing to talk with the Jews (though he's more than willing to agitate for their destruction when he's speaking to his own people). AFAICS extremism is nearly all in the eye of the beholder.

[firstfloor]

BBC latest:
“French police have stormed two hostage sites in Paris and north of the city, with the hostage takers reported dead.
Explosions were heard at a warehouse in Dammartin-en-Goele, where two suspects in the Charlie Hebdo magazine shootings had been holding one hostage.
Explosions and gunfire could also be heard at a supermarket in eastern Paris, at Porte de Vincennes, where several hostages were held.
Reports suggest a gunman there was linked to the Charlie Hebdo suspects.
After the operation started, several hostages could be seen leaving the supermarket.
Police told French media that four hostages in the supermarket had been killed prior to security forces storming the site.
The hostage at the warehouse in Dammartin has been freed, while a police officer at the scene was injured, AFP news agency said.
Twelve people were shot dead and 11 were injured in Wednesday's attack on the office of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine.
The unprecedented attack shocked France and there has been an outpouring of sympathy and solidarity worldwide.
The two suspects of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, had been on the run for two days, before being surrounded at the Dammartin warehouse on Friday.
French police said they came out firing, at which point police stormed the warehouse.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30752239

[Psychic Missile]

I think you're getting me confused with another poster; I haven't agreed with that. It sort of depends on who's doing the defining, I suppose. Palestinians like Abbas are considered moderates by the press in general, apparently because they're actually willing to talk with the Jews (though he's more than willing to agitate for their destruction when he's speaking to his own people). AFAICS extremism is nearly all in the eye of the beholder.

Wow, you're right. Sorry for the misidentification.

[Adrift]

However, most if not all people are interested to know what is true.

I disagree. I think most people are interested in burying their heads in the sand. I don't know about you, but I live in a culture where the latest celebrity disaster is far and away more important than the search for the big answers in life.

Atheists are a subset of all the people who are interested in truth. At least one tool available to that group is science. Other people look to religion, or science and religion, or science, religion and crystals, or whatever. The possibilities are practically endless. Not all atheists are sceptics on every topic.

So what you're saying is that the investigation of truth via science is nothing unique to atheists. Well...no duh. What was the use of bringing it up in connection to atheism as though atheists had the patent then? Also previously you said that science was corrosive to faith in the search for truth, but here you're fine with saying that both science and religion are tools for searching for truth? Are you thinking about what you're typing?

[Darth Executor]

The concept “real atheist” means nothing special to me. You don’t add anything to ‘atheist’ with the word ‘real’. A coin flip is either heads or tails.

[firstfloor]

I disagree. I think most people are interested in burying their heads in the sand. I don't know about you, but I live in a culture where the latest celebrity disaster is far and away more important than the search for the big answers in life.

Fair point.

So what you're saying is that the investigation of truth via science is nothing unique to atheists. Well...no duh. What was the use of bringing it up in connection to atheism as though atheists had the patent then? Also previously you said that science was corrosive to faith in the search for truth, but here you're fine with saying that both science and religion are tools for searching for truth? Are you thinking about what you're typing?

My point is that there is no connection between atheism and anything else. It is an isolated decision on a single question and that really is all and everything there is to it.

Atheists do not have a monopoly when it comes to science but they are probably less conflicted because there is no clash with religious views about creation, resurrection of the dead, life after death, miracles and so on which have no physical counterpart.

I do think that science is corrosive of religious faith; there is a well documented history of conflict and the troubles continue to this day. And religion is a tool used by many in their search for truth. Again, I find no contradiction there.

[firstfloor]

AC - “What’s the most you ever lost on a coin toss?”
“Call it.” “I can’t call it for you. That wouldn’t be fair.”

DE – “Edge.”

[One Bad Pig]

150107hebdo.jpg

[Tassman]

I disagree. I think most people are interested in burying their heads in the sand. I don't know about you, but I live in a culture where the latest celebrity disaster is far and away more important than the search for the big answers in life.

I share your contempt for celebrity worship, but what makes you think that “life” has any big answers? What’s the question??

So what you're saying is that the investigation of truth via science is nothing unique to atheists. Well...no duh. What was the use of bringing it up in connection to atheism as though atheists had the patent then? Also previously you said that science was corrosive to faith in the search for truth, but here you're fine with saying that both science and religion are tools for searching for truth? Are you thinking about what you're typing?

Science is nothing unique to atheists, certainly. But, that said, atheism does not have a powerful, well-funded equivalent of religious presuppositionism to contend with either, whereby science is actively resisted if and when it conflicts with religious beliefs.

[Darth Executor]

Science is actively resisted if and when it conflicts with any deeply held beliefs. Atheists may not have a religion but most certainly do have other quasi-religious philosophies like liberalism.

[Zymologist]

Science is actively resisted if and when it conflicts with any deeply held beliefs.

I agree.

[Jedidiah]

Science is actively resisted if and when it conflicts with any deeply held beliefs. Atheists may not have a religion but most certainly do have other quasi-religious philosophies like liberalism.

If I find my beliefs conflicting with science I need to figure out which one is accurate. This is not always possible, but should be, in my not so humble opinion, the first thing in line.