Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Charlie Hebdo republishes Muhammad cartoons on eve of terror attack trial" video.

Only those whose faith is weak, cannot stand mockery of their religion.
20
@DataJYdocs there is a childrens adage which sums this up: "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me". There is another that also seems appropriate, "live and let live". I do not impose my beliefs on others, and I expect them to do the same. Faith should be able to withstand the ridicule others. It should not be necessary to impose a faith on others inorder to support its shakey foundations. (Incidentally I am an atheist, who finds it difficult to accept most religious nonsense. Pascal suggested that the scientific approach is to be agnostic, since science can never be absolutely certain about anything, and there is nothing to lose and a lot to gain, should god actually exist).
6
@mustaphaadamji9829 there is no distinction, but I suspect your question is rhetorical. Much of the misery in the world can be traced to religious conflict and zealotry. Of all the world's religions, I think I have most time for Buddhism, since it is my understanding that it teaches a respect for all living things, nature and the environment. So many of the world religions are so obsessed with the here after, they have no respect for the world in which they live.
3
@mustaphaadamji9829 that maybe why I find it more attractive than other faiths.
2
@DataJYdocs religion was once the means of enforcing the law. The basis being the ten commandments. It was church and state that added the rest, designed to keep each in their station in life and make them happy with their lot, using the promise of a better sure and certain after life. For those who rebelled there was the threat of punishment in this life and the next. Much of the teaching of the world's religions are based on myth and fancy full stories from the middle ages, therefore few stand up to rational analysis. There is much about that the universe that is not understood, it is far more complicated than we can currently comprehend, as is hinted at by quantum mechanics, but there is little to justify the existence of a supreme deity or intelligence. Worship is therefor an irrational waste of time. It can be argued that the only reason that religion exists is because human beings cannot accept their own mortality and the cruel nature of existence. Without religion, life can appear pointless, but that is not a good reason to embrace an invented falsehood, it is a conceit to do so.
2
@wow i am lost WW1 was clearly political. WWII had an element of religion if you consider the NAZI view of different religions, particularly the Jews. The Catholic church fail to condemn the actions of the NAZIS. The support the NAZIS received from the Arab states was religiously based. But you are right that the world wars were not religiously motivated, however the revisions in the world at that time were partly along religious lines. So your argument that all wars are not all religiously motivated is only partly true. Since WWII there have been wars between Israel and the Arab states. A religious war in Serbia and conflicts between sunnies and shares in a number of regions. Since ethnic groups can often be identified by their religion, there have been a number of massacres based on religion. The partition of India and the subsequent conflect between Pakistan and India originate from a religious root. Then there is the oppression of religious groups around the world which are the seeds for future conflicts, such China in Tibet or the case of the rohingya minority. How many examples do you need? The most militant religions tend to be the most political, so Islam features prominently, but you can add Sikh and Hindu, Catholic and Protestant. The latter is still evident in Northern Ireland today.
1
@wow i am lost Pascal, produced a logical argument for believing in God based on a cost benefit analysis. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption thatGod's existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational.
1
@wow i am lost you are comparing old testament teachings with those of the new. Unfortunately, it appeared to be lost on the Crusaders and the Spanish, at the time of the Inquisition, give time I sure I can think of other examples where this applies. It really does not help when the conflict is between religions that do not share the views expressed in the New Testament. Through history, religion has been used as an excuse for achieving political of financial ends. The stated goal of the British empire was to bring Christian faith to the heathen on the world. The Spanish conquests were built on conversion of the heathen to Catholicism. Even the destruction of the native Americans had a religious element.
1
@wow i am lost I am not responsible from what others choice to believe or not, even if they are scientists. I would be interested in the reasons they believe,but I am not willing to accept second hand justifications. You have fallen into the trap of attempting to prejudge my reasons for not believing in God. It no doubt makes you feel better to label it as some form of myopic defect, rather than simply accepting it. Congratulations, you have taken the first step towards religious bigotry, a simple unwillingness to accept that others do not share your faith and must therefore be defective in some way or simply misguided and require education. You are now on the road to exterminating those who do not support your faith by believing as you do. At least you now know how it works. While we can all learn from true history, in this case, It is not i who has things to learn from history.
1
@wow i am lost Hitler was not an atheist, there is strong evidence he believed in ancient religions and spent some time searching for magical weapons. You are proving my point that religions were a means used to keep populations under control and justify wars for wealth and power. The Catholic church was certainly implicated in such schemes. It's only necessary to look at the history of the Medici to prove this. It has been suggested that the reason the Catholic church did not denounce Hitler, was because some in the church approved of his policy towards the Jews. Kingdoms or rather states still fight for the same reasons they always did. Conflicts in the middle East are still justified using religion.
1
@wow i am lost I am not your dear, so please do not patronise me. I did not say Hitler was christian, I said he was religious. If religion is a belief based on faith,without any supporting proof, then he had a religion. Please do not confuse Darwin's theory of evolution with Victorian ideas of eugenics, the latter is pseudoscience masquerading as science. The fact you do not know that, suggests your knowledge of science is limited.
1
@wow i am lost it is offer the case that the leaders of a state only profess religious belief in order to be able to use religion for their own ends. I have wondered how many atheists there are in the main Christian church establishments. Certainly in the past a belief in God was not a prerequisite for a career in the church. In upper class English society, the choice of occupation for the male offspring was the law if sufficiently intelligent, the military if less academically inclined, and the church for the stupid.
1
@wow i am lost interesting you associate Christianity with being a super power, I think you have made my point yet again. I think you will find that the Christianity practiced by American republicans has little to do with the teaching in the bible new testament. They carry guns to church, and look for loop holes in the story of the camel and the eye of the needle.
1
@wow i am lost my ideology is not Marxist, it is not even an ideology, as it is not system of beliefs. It is an unwillingness to accept anything with out evidence or reason, if that offends you, that is your problem, not mine. It is depressing that you fail to recognise the irony of carrying a gun not church. I suppose that it's sort of OK if you restrict your beliefs to the old testament, but it is somewhat incompatible with number seven of the ten commandments, and completely incompatible with that "turning the other cheek" stuff. And it's Mr Johnson to you, sir/ madam. Freedom is being free to believe and say whatever you like, without hurt or hindrance, a concept you clearly find to be alien.
1
@wow i am lost I simply stated that freedom is alien to your belief system.
1
@wow i am lost I am not even sure what you believe.
1
@wow i am lost in that case we do not have a problem. There are many who claim to be Christian, but their actions are at odds with their professed faith. Hence my comments about the Christian right in the US. But this thread has become so long, it is far removed form the original comment, which was aimed at the intolerance of some versions of the Islamic faith.
1
@tellawi7329 you mean the tenets of their religion is so weak that it is unable to stand up for itself. In effect defending the indefencable.
1
@wow i am lost are you sure, or was he just not playing safe.
1
@king-hs6cx i have not attacked any religion. I simply made the point that those of weak faith find it necessary to defend it against criticism, less that criticism shake the foundation of their faith. You assume I am attacking Muslims, because this report is an example of over reaction to criticism of their faith, all be it in the form of satire. Of all the world's religions, Islam must now be the most politicised, this makes a target for satire. Christians seem to have grown out of the need to defend their faith with violence. Attempts to silence criticism with violence, will not reduce doubt. So each violent event just confirms a weakness of conviction. It seems the only way Muslims can be confident in their faith is if all decent is eliminated and the whole world shares their beliefs (This is just safety in numbers), and woebetide any who have doubt and become apostates as a result, can't have such an infection spreading.
1
Blue C no they do not, they can only respond in kind of their is that weak. Sticks and stones remember.
1