Guns Guns Guns, Now Paris!

[D-Type]

On the religious issue, France is unusual in that it is constitutionally a secular country.

[henners88]

Would you expect a newspaper office to have sufficient weaponry to fight off an attack by what appears to be trained soldiers.

Whatever the root causes of this it has nothing to do with gun control. So if you think you can score cheap points off the back of it please stop.

Indeed, I don't think an act of terrorism where AK47 assault rifles are used to attack a magazine really compares to other countries and their take on gun control. The people who say if civilians had guns this act would not have happened are absolute clueless morons and this topic is not about them.

I feel terrible for the people and the families of the people who lost their lives yesterday. I hope the brothers are caught alive and can pay for their awful crimes.

[Robinho]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-2...one2809d/41376
Yet, there is no fool-proof way to define “religion” that will include such belief systems as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism while excluding nationalism, political ideologies, capitalism, pop culture, sport and more.
- Joel Hodge, ABC - The Drum, 22 Nov 2010.

No fool proof way to define “religion” eh?

How about:
Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.

The thing is that everybody believes in something. It might not necessarily involve a formal set of practices but ultimately it's impossible to be a human being and actually not have any belief set whatsoever. Ever atheism is a belief that there is/are no/lack of god(s).

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.

I was purely referring to religion in its simplest form, eg, belief in a deity/creator and subsequent doctrine to follow for the believers. Ideologies, fans etc are not religions, they are following something tangible, often to extremes. Atheism cannot be accurately described as a religion. Their is no doctrine, no ideology, no dogma. It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god. What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual. Therefore, I feel that we, as humans, utterly and completely do not need religion, especially those based on the abrahamic god

[Rudy Tamasz]

Their is no doctrine, no ideology, no dogma. It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god.

On the practical level, this is exactly your weakness in countering Islamist fanatics. When you deny the moral authority you don't have much to base your opposition to them on. Ultimately, your theory will lead to recognizing the validity of any views, including those denying your right to live.

What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual.

I wonder how a society based on such beliefs and practices would be able to come up with a solution to any issue. Would it be a society at all? You and Rollo don't have much in common coming from the same country, do you?

[Starter]

I would catergorise myself as atheist, strongly in fact. I genuinely do not believe in any god. I'm not agnostic is the sense that I don't feel I can know for certain, I am certain there is not a god. But, like many in the world I expect, who do identify themselves as Christian, I do observe the cultural festivities, just not identifying with the ideology or story behind them. .

Although I would say that your argument is much more likely to be the correct interpretation of the world around us, since there is no way of knowing for sure it's still possible there is a god with a perverse and twisted sense of humor.

If the old saying that "the proof is in the pudding" is true, then a reasonable conclusion is that a large number of people around the world don't truly believe in their religions either.

[Starter]

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.

Having respect for other intelligent beings not qualify in any sense of the word as a "religion". Nor does taking action to prevent harm, present or future, to said beings qualify as a religion.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-2...one2809d/41376
Yet, there is no fool-proof way to define “religion” that will include such belief systems as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism while excluding nationalism, political ideologies, capitalism, pop culture, sport and more.
- Joel Hodge, ABC - The Drum, 22 Nov 2010.

No fool proof way to define “religion” eh?

How about:
Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.

The thing is that everybody believes in something. It might not necessarily involve a formal set of practices but ultimately it's impossible to be a human being and actually not have any belief set whatsoever. Ever atheism is a belief that there is/are no/lack of god(s).

"religion of any type" has "no place in modern society"? Really? I would suggest that if someone were to shoot your family, your belief set would very quickly come to the surface: ergo, you don't actually believe your own statement.

But is someone going to shoot the editor of a magazine because they are mocking the lack of god..............?

[Storm]

On the religious issue, France is unusual in that it is constitutionally a secular country.

so are we (on paper)

Atheism cannot be accurately described as a religion. Their is no doctrine, no ideology, no dogma. It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god. What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual. Therefore, I feel that we, as humans, utterly and completely do not need religion, especially those based on the abrahamic god

Exactly my thoughts.

[odykas]

The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris

Two heavily armed attackers, who apparently knew the magazine’s staff would be gathered around a table late on Wednesday morning for a weekly editorial meeting, forced themselves into Charlie Hebdo’s office and shot 10 people dead

The terrorists massacred them in the meeting room.
Even if they had guns they wouldn't have the time to get and use them.

[Rollo]

What else you believe, how you live your life, what informs your behaviour is entirely individual.

Exactly. Then it must follow that said person has an individual religion - total followers: 1.

It is a lack of belief, it wouldn't even exist as a concept of religion had not been invented. There is nothing to follow or that binds atheists together, other than not believing in god.

Lack of belief is NOT atheism but elleipsitheism.
Atheism is from "a" (none) and "theos" (gods). Atheism is a positive belief in the statement that there is/are no god(s).

It's kind of strange for someone to defend a faith structure they don't believe in. Could this be a demonstration of religion; ergo, what I'd said in the first place?