Increased violence in Israel, and to likely increase

[P4g4nite]

There is no proof that can conclusively prove god exists or does not exist.

Agnosticism is the rational solution.

And we can't disprove leprechauns either but nobody suggests suspension of disbelief is the most rational response.
I don't know for certain there are no gods but I think most human concepts of god are ridiculous and I've got no reason to treat them seriously.

[CdocZ]

Maybe...

Religion helped provide a strong basis of cooperation between humanity early on, and to develop more complex societies. Not just by getting people to work together, but to take on various moral codes and ethics in order to perpetuate this process and bind them together in their own unique way. It has been used to help start humanity as a powerful species, and it has been abused in the worst of ways. Whether or not it is TRUE, is another matter altogether that has been argued by many hundreds of men, believers and non-believers, radicals and moderates, and many of them far more intelligent than we.

Let us drop the issue of whether religion is real, and focus more on the reality of religion; it is currently being abused horribly, and what theories/actions can be done to stop/slow down this abuse.

One way to do this could be to use religion right back at them, but if anyone is activist enough and this is an issue they feel strongly about, to start the same kind of propaganda and protests and etc that they use, except the other way around.

NOTE: The above is a theory I am proposing for discussion, not a request! Sorry if it sounds like I am asking you to get out there and write up your picket sign for the next protest So anyone want to come up with pros and cons to that theory, or suggest something to change? Or something else, of course. I am not even sure this is a good idea for a direction to take this thread, haha

[henk4]

Maybe...

Religion helped provide a strong basis of cooperation between humanity early on, and to develop more complex societies. Not just by getting people to work together, but to take on various moral codes and ethics in order to perpetuate this process and bind them together in their own unique way.

I would rather say that religion has many times been used by those in power to exploit the people by incurring fear in a way that if they act against the will of the "higher being(s)" they will be severely punished....

[CdocZ]

I would rather say that religion has many times been used by those in power to exploit the people by incurring fear in a way that if they act against the will of the "higher being(s)" they will be severely punished....

That is abuse, just to note Just because one person abuses it to control the other believers, or many believers abuse it to justify atrocities, does not change the fact that it is abuse.

My idea on the matter is that Islam and Christianity have a focus on the afterlife. (Especially the radical fundamentalist Muslims - "die and get 40 virgins!"). The problem with this, which is what I love about Judaism (Judaism does not believe in an afterlife - any Jew who believes in one and thinks it is a Jewish thought is referring to when we were exiled among the Babylonians and got a bit assimilated ), is that Judaism teaches that people should help and perpetuate society, for society's sake, and for your own as a member of society. There is no "do this Mitzvah or you will not go to heaven" kind of mentality.

No, I am not saying that all practicing Christians and Muslims live the way they do just because of what they believe happens after they die. However, that strain of logic is not exactly rare, from what I have both seen and heard on my own/learnt in school.

One of the more "advanced"/complicated issues with this sort of mentality, is that it instantly becomes VERY easy to justify violence/suicide attacks, as the radical movements in Islam have been prone to do as of the past 10-20 years.

EDIT: So as not to single out Islam repeatedly, Christianity had the crimes commited during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and etc, that were justified because religious leaders, while they understood the pain and strife they often put people in, figured that what they were doing was not just God's will, but what they had to do to go to heaven/be a "good Christian" or whatever the equivalent would be in any other example.

Yes, I am trying to think of Jewish examples where violence was justified because the commiters of violence thought it would send them to heaven, but as mentioned, Judaism does not actually have much of an afterlife (there are various ideas of an 11-month purgatory after one dies, that is as painful as the person was bad during their life, but it depends on who you ask).

[henk4]

That is abuse, just to note Just because one person abuses it to control the other believers, or many believers abuse it to justify atrocities, does not change the fact that it is abuse.

My idea on the matter is that Islam and Christianity have a focus on the afterlife.

I was not talking specifically about Islam or Christianity. Animistic religions in primitive societies have shown the same tendencies and even the old Romans had some problems with it.

[CdocZ]

I was not talking specifically about Islam or Christianity. Animistic religions in primitive societies have shown the same tendencies and even the old Romans had some problems with it.

I never said you were - I just try to stick with the examples that I know about I am trying to learn about more religions around the world (more about my own too, while I am at it), but there is only so much time in a day. My goal is to, in the 7 months I have before college, to read through the Old Testament/Tanakh, New Testament, and Koran, and if I finish that, perhaps some of the commentary that major religious philosophers/thinkers have come up with in each of the three. Anything after that is too far in the future for me right now, as there is too much I want to do right now

[henk4]

One of the more "advanced"/complicated issues with this sort of mentality, is that it instantly becomes VERY easy to justify violence/suicide attacks, as the radical movements in Islam have been prone to do as of the past 10-20 years.

I think the basis for what you describe there was laid on May 15th 1948..

[CdocZ]

I think the basis for what you describe there was laid on May 15th 1948..

First, I am going to just clarify if you are referring to the 100,000+ Palestinian refugees who were displaced right as/after Israel was created?

1. That was not with suicidal intent, unless they knew the "war" would last past even today.
2. A lot of the Israeli government was busy first off with dealing with founding their own country in the first place, and second, there was a belief (how widespread, I am not sure, but there WERE multiple major government officials who acted on this belief) that the neighboring Arabic countries (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan in particular) would take in many of the Palestinian refugees. That this was not done by EITHER side, is where a problem comes in.

One of the things I find sad is similar to the social/political infighting among Jews today - These Arabic countries said they were fighting for religious+political reasons, but would not, as the teachings of Islam say they should, take in a fellow believer in need of help. I am not saying that it is all their fault, as they WERE indeed displaced, I will not deny it.

An interesting theory that I have heard, that is a little late to try out now, would have been if Yassir Arafat had originally agreed to an "Isra-stine" --> Create a nation that at its essence, was both the home land the Jews have always wanted since the days of exile, but also a state that incorporated the Palestinians not just as "other residents", but as integrated with their Jewish counterparts, and therefore a displacement would not have been able to go through. I understand, that this would have depended on a will to survive and work together that perhaps did not exist at that point, but it is still a theory to be considered.

EDIT: I realized I answered the question with irrelevant information - Sorry. I won't delete what I wrote, but only add to it, as it is still new information to bring to the table, and is relevant to my new answer

Both the Jews AND the Palestinians needed an official homeland of their own. There WAS a very noticable presence of Jews in the Mandate of Palestine (called Sabra's), and hundreds upon thousands who wanted to immigrate to a Jewish homeland to escape persecution and anti-Semitism. Here is where the "Isra-stine" theory can still come into play.

[henk4]

I merely wanted to state a fact. Not to point the finger at anyone.

[CdocZ]

I merely wanted to state a fact. Not to point the finger at anyone.

Entirely acceptable There needs to be more of this, I say.

[roosterjuicer]

exactly, ur right its one of those the bad counts a lot more then the good. it's a shame

unfortunately that is very true. thats why they call moderates the "silent majority".

bad news always has better ratings then good news.

[roosterjuicer]

Abortion or homosexuality are subjects that come to mind ...

here's the million dollar question...would people still be against abortion or homosexuality if there was no religion whatsoever or if the religions werent against them?

my take=
abortion-yes
homosexuality-no/maybe

[nota]

1947

[Gt1Street]

I vote yes on both cases.
Regarding homosexuality, as long as it makes a person happy and does not hurt the other party its should be allowed.
And regarding abortion, exactly in the same way conception is a decision so is this.

[henk4]

I vote yes on both cases.
Regarding homosexuality, as long as it makes a person happy and does not hurt the other party its should be allowed.
And regarding abortion, exactly in the same way conception is a decision so is this.

I think you mean to say that you vote "no" in both cases