Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: 12 dead after gunmen storm newspaper's HQ

1151618202124

Comments

  • caifan82caifan82 Mexico CityPosts: 321
    fuck wrote: »
    It's incredible that we can question so many things in our society (religion, etc.) and yet hold up other ideals in such dogmatic ways without questioning them as well!

    Just a comment: that's the thing with science...It IS ALWAYS QUESTIONED. As you said it yourself, it's all theories.
    Theories get disproven and new ones are formulated all the time. Evolution and gravity for example, even though they SEEM to be correct and have been around for a long time, are still theories.
    No one knows how the universe works, and yeah, I guess I prefer science's theories to religion's stories... but that's because science never settles with anything. It IS flawed. Yet it keeps striving to get better.
    Maybe tomorrow some dude in India will find that imaginary numbers are a load of crap... And that's fine! We will have a new theory to work on. But to settle on something, written thousands of years ago as gospel? I could never accept that…
    Mexico City - July 17th 2003
    Mexico City - July 18th 2003
    Mexico City - July 19th 2003
    Monterrey - December 7th 2005
    Mexico City - December 9th 2005
    Mexico City - December 10th 2005
    Mexico City - November 24th 2011
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    edited January 2015
    Science is not a religion. Oh where to start but does it really matter. If one truly believes this then there is no convincing.

    Biggy, Science actively seeks challenges and will evolve to new evidence.

    Yes there are many unanswered questions but answers are not found in religious texts written by relatively ignorant humans reinterpreted by many more and now used as gospel.

    The comparison is silly at best.

    Allow science to work the facts and use golden rule for our morals and laws.
    Post edited by callen on
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,076
    fuck wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    Atheism is as much a belief system as any other, you can not without doubt proof that God does not exicist... So it is a certain view on the world.... If you say atheists are smarter than people who belief in any God, you do classify you own belief system as better than others, so in my point of view the only thing that is different between you and these terrorists is the violence, yet. And even there you could have doubts... But in the way of thinking I see, someone who claims to know and understand an entire religion, by some extreme examples. which do NOT exemplary for the religion as a whole. These are similar examples as saying all atheists go to hell, or are witches who have to be slaughtered. The easy way to assume things without a real search if you assumptions are true, to check your facts who does belief in such a religion, is dangerous. It will divide us only more, instead of uniting us

    atheism is not a belief system any more than non-communism is a political affiliation. I don't even call myself an atheist/agnostic anymore. Why identify with something you are NOT? they are a scientist, a naturalist, a humanist, etc.

    proving something in the negative is backwards. that's not how it works. the onus to prove something is on those wishing to prove a positive result.

    yes, while it is true that many people who do not believe in a supreme being have beliefs that they are more intelligent and/or stronger-willed than those who do believe, there are just as many theists who believe the opposite; they are more enlightened, they feel sorry for the non-believer, etc. that's not a trait of a belief system; that's a trait of an individual human.

    I find atheism particularly fascinating, because people who define themselves as such like to pretend that they live outside the concept of living under an all-powerful God, etc. And yet, they define themselves entirely in relationship to the idea of "God" itself. This is still very much a world in which God is present, both among those who believe in God as well as among those who don't.

    As for your last paragraph, I agree with you that humans often think of themselves as superior in general. The ironic thing is that those outside of religion often blame religion for the ills of human society, including this false sense of superiority due to a belief system, without realizing that they themselves are employing this very same logic. Interestingly enough, atheists often leave religions (or live outside of it their whole lives) without realizing how heavily influenced they are by some of its most dogmatic concepts.

    exactly why I no longer identify myself as such. it doesn't make any sense to me to identify myself by a belief I do not hold.

    I think anyone who blames religion as the sole reason for any ill on society is simplifying the matter way too much. in essense, most religions have morals and ethics that are generally good in nature. it's the false interpretation and/or bastardization of the texts and of these guidelines by stupid humans that leads to injustices in the world. and this is what lead to the happenings in France.

    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    But why keep up this charade. Let's kill this religion disease.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 35,008
    callen wrote: »
    Science is not a religion. Oh where to start but does it really matter. If one truly believes this then there is no convincing.

    Biggy, Science actively seeks challenges and will evolve to new evidence.

    Yes there are many unanswered questions but answers are not found in religious texts written by relatively ignorant humans reinterpreted by many more and now used as gospel.

    The comparison is silly at best.

    Allow science to work the facts and use golden rule for our morals and laws.

    We're getting off topic a bit here but, yeah, calling science a religion is like calling a dog a toaster oven. There seems to be a plethora of books out there now that try to marry science and religion but to confuse the two is nonsense. Science is science, religion is religion.

    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • AafkeAafke Posts: 1,216
    edited January 2015
    No science isn't a religion, but the belief system of science has so much resemblance with the belief systems of religions... We do not know that many facts, and science can overrule facts as it has done many times in the past. (Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolving around earth, a flat world, etc,) all those facts have been proven wrong, but why is it so challenging for us, to give in to the fact that we do by fare not know all there is, and do just belief most scientific theories. It is just an other belief, I do do BELIEF most scientific theories, but I'm a child of my time. I do NOT belief in a GOD, but I don't say that my beliefs aren't any better than someone elses. They are just different.
    Post edited by Aafke on
    Waves_zps6b028461.jpg
    "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
    "Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 7,177
    fuck wrote: »
    jeffbr wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    As long as we classify belief systems, the radical terrorism will win, instead of letting ourselves get more and more defied, why can't we learn from our different belief systems, and learn to listen to others?

    I have no interest in listening to mythologies which cause people to believe it is OK to kill people because of cartoons they draw, or have clerics issuing fatwas on snowmen, or parents who think it is OK to disown children because they're gay, or people who can't eat meat and dairy on the same plates. You talk about belief systems, and the problem is, many of us aren't interested in suspending disbelief and looking for some mythological road to salvation. Belief systems are just that - one must believe in something they can never actually know. I'd rather be informed by reality, science, logic and reason as opposed to old books and fairy tales. When something isn't known, there's no reason to make up fantastic stories to fill in the blanks.

    What's interesting to me is that people so often reduce science to the realm of reason and religion to the realm of the imagination and "fairy tales" without realizing that the two are more connected than one thinks.

    Well, I don't really want to pile onto what caifan82 and callen have already pointed out, but I think you've completely missed the mark. Everything that follows your premise above did nothing to lend credence to that premise. Science and religion/mythology could not be more different. There are certainly things which can't be known or proven. The approach with science is to postulate or theorize, and then attempt to prove or disprove. If disproved, a new theory will be published with the new data. Data is always being considered, and theories are always being tested and revised if necessary. With religion, some man wrote something in a book and others will then follow along. Any attempts to disprove or refute what is written is not condoned, and is often punished. Adherents are taught to have "faith", not question. There are plenty of fundies in southern states who try to pass laws to teach creationism alongside evolution because after all, they're both theories. That sounds like an argument you'd embrace, since you see science and religion as "more connected than one thinks." That is an argument that reason doesn't allow, since one "theory" is something one has to learn and believe from holy texts, and the other is something which science continues to question and evaluate.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,445
    fuck wrote: »
    jeffbr wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    As long as we classify belief systems, the radical terrorism will win, instead of letting ourselves get more and more defied, why can't we learn from our different belief systems, and learn to listen to others?

    I have no interest in listening to mythologies which cause people to believe it is OK to kill people because of cartoons they draw, or have clerics issuing fatwas on snowmen, or parents who think it is OK to disown children because they're gay, or people who can't eat meat and dairy on the same plates. You talk about belief systems, and the problem is, many of us aren't interested in suspending disbelief and looking for some mythological road to salvation. Belief systems are just that - one must believe in something they can never actually know. I'd rather be informed by reality, science, logic and reason as opposed to old books and fairy tales. When something isn't known, there's no reason to make up fantastic stories to fill in the blanks.

    What's interesting to me is that people so often reduce science to the realm of reason and religion to the realm of the imagination and "fairy tales" without realizing that the two are more connected than one thinks.

    The logic employed by those like you is that you base reality and imagination only on what we can perceive through the senses. And yet, we know that scientists did not, for instance, discover electrons with their eyes. Electrons were discovered through rational deduction. They witnessed a phenomenon in the lab, they saw something do something without cause, so they deduced that there must be invisible sub-atomic particles that caused it. And through thousands of experiments, with the same results, we now believe that electrons exist, even though until this very day, no one ever saw an electron.

    Or better yet, when we consider black holes, which science has accepted as "fact" but actually is only a reality because it satisfies all our other realities. In order to hold onto the logic of gravity, we have to give up all other logic. So in order to explain why a visible star is orbiting something invisible (when we know that smaller things orbit bigger things, not the other way around), in order to maintain the laws of gravity, we have to imagine that a star swallowed itself by its gravity force (collapsed into itself), and we're willing to imagine that it became as small as a non-dimensional dot. You want to believe that something that has no dimensions actually exists because science told you to. So something that doesn't exist, exists, and we have to believe in it to be true until this theory is proven otherwise. And yet this is the very concept of faith itself. To believe in the unbelievable through sense perception.

    Or consider mathematics, a part of science, which we say proves beyond doubt "reality". But to mathematically prove something, all you need to do is to plug in the numbers, and when the equation works itself out, you claim that you discovered the correct value for the unknown variables. In the equation y + 5 = 2, you naturally deduce that y is equal to -3, a number that only exists in our imagination, like all numbers do.

    What people like you want others to believe is that in order to prove that something is truly real or not, we must use a language of numbers and signs that we created with our heads, based on our human logic. We're talking about a system that's so faulty, that we had to create the concept of "unreal numbers" in order to give answers to equations that cannot produce an answer, like the square root of negative six. Plus, let's not ignore the fact that math can be used to manipulate facts. Economists, for example, have used mathematics to prove that a certain policy is good or bad for society. The math comes out right, but the results are so divorced from reality it's embarrassing to call it scientific.

    It's incredible that we can question so many things in our society (religion, etc.) and yet hold up other ideals in such dogmatic ways without questioning them as well!

    fuck, I agree and disagree with various parts of what you've written.

    I think one of the major differences between science and modern religion is that science posits hypotheses, and works towards finding empirical evidence. It's also notorious within most facets of science that those who research a theory's feasibility are looking to a disproportionate degree for the things which will in fact break and invalidate the theory. Many modern religions seems to be designed in an opposite way. It posits a deity's responsibility for the way things are, and when empirical evidence is sought after to validate these notions (i.e. a search for logic from a foreign non-religious set of framework deductions), the search itself is snuffed, and the seeker of knowledge is often condemned. Just ask Galileo.

    This isn't the case in all religions, by any means, and perhaps you've witnessed the opposite in Islam. Regrettably, I've seen very little that amounts to anything more than hocus-pocus in Judaism, as without a belief in the Jewish god (that is, a conscious god who "gifted" the Torah), the absolutism of the words of "holy" texts is reduced to the subjective will of men.

    On the other hand in the war of science vs. religion, another ancient group saw things differently. Back in Incan culture, in most South American nations, there was a near-obsession with astrology. Understanding the cycle of the moon and sun - the gods of the time - was rewarded by an understanding of agricultural seasons, and the agricultural success which came with it. This was not the case, however, in the Ecuadorean region, where the weather is nearly consistent year-round, and hence the agricultural season is consistent year-round. This didn't stop the Incas of the region from studying astrology: this was scientific inquiry whose sole benefit was an empirical approach to finding faith and strengthening belief their religion. I quite loved when I learnt that, as it really demonstrated to me how we could be using science to ground one's faith as opposed to letting science and religion be at war.

    I agree with you that there's a major disconnect between self-proclaimed atheists and self-proclaimed followers of a religion. Both recognize a framework that their governing laws of ethics, morality, and natural phenomenon all reside within, both seem incapable of comprehending the other's framework, and thus write the other off entirely (this seems to be the case most of the time, although there are times when people try to see if there is overlap, as in the example of the Incas).

    1) Both are based on a framework, and only with religion is the framework potentially absolute: otherwise, they can be assumed to have been invented by mankind. Religion promotes that life can be explained through a god, science promotes that life can be explained numerically. It's debatable whether we invented the framework of religion, it's undeniable that we invented the framework of science (i.e. numerical systems).
    2) We go to great lengths to explain each with logic relevant within each framework. By this I mean that, typically, we do not seek to explain science through mythology or allegory, similarly we don't quantitively observe religion to validate or invalidate it, but rather debate within the framework of which ever religion being focused on. Who are we, seriously, to say that one human construct is more valid than another?

    I see no reason to hold science on a higher pedestal than religion, and that's as someone who calls himself spiritual (not religious), and who typically follows quantitive deductions to bring about conclusions.

    I'm sorry about the disorganization of this post, it's been a while since my head's been in a cogent space.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,992
    Great posts....I like the way this thread has evolved.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,076
    Aafke wrote: »
    No science isn't a religion, but the belief system of science has so much resemblance with the belief systems of religions... We do not know that many facts, and science can overrule facts as it has done many times in the past. (Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolving around earth, a flat world, etc,) all those facts have been proven wrong, but why is it so challenging for us, to give in to the fact that we do by fare not know all there is, and do just belief most scientific theories. It is just an other belief, I do do BELIEF most scientific theories, but I'm a child of my time. I do NOT belief in a GOD, but I don't say that my beliefs are any better than someone elses. They are just different.

    science doesn't resemble religion at all. one evolves with new information, the other does not.

    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Ben! Welcome back bro. Your input is needed my friend
  • dignin wrote: »
    Great posts....I like the way this thread has evolved.

    I second this.

    Regardless of position, people have done a very good job articulating their perspective.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    caifan82 wrote: »
    fuck wrote: »
    It's incredible that we can question so many things in our society (religion, etc.) and yet hold up other ideals in such dogmatic ways without questioning them as well!

    Just a comment: that's the thing with science...It IS ALWAYS QUESTIONED. As you said it yourself, it's all theories.
    Theories get disproven and new ones are formulated all the time. Evolution and gravity for example, even though they SEEM to be correct and have been around for a long time, are still theories.
    No one knows how the universe works, and yeah, I guess I prefer science's theories to religion's stories... but that's because science never settles with anything. It IS flawed. Yet it keeps striving to get better.
    Maybe tomorrow some dude in India will find that imaginary numbers are a load of crap... And that's fine! We will have a new theory to work on. But to settle on something, written thousands of years ago as gospel? I could never accept that…
    Certain aspects of science are questioned, sure, but can anyone reasonably question the idea of a black hole, gravity, evolution, or any thing else in science that you insist are "theories"? It's funny that evolution is treated as both a "theory" and a "fact" whenever it is convenient to treat it as such.
    The fact is that most people who question these theories would be laughed out of the room. Why? Because unless you have another theory to present in its place, then you're just questioning for questioning's sake. So it's not enough for one to say, "Prove to us that Evolution exists beyond a doubt!" for us to reject evolution (i.e., the onus is not on you to PROVE that evolution exists beyond a doubt) but then this person will have to prove why evolution is also false (i.e., he/she will have to prove something that they don't believe to exist in the first place, doesn't exist) to actually get anyone credible to listen to them.

    People who accept science believe in things written hundreds of years ago (the theory of evolution was presented hundreds of years ago...) and accept it as gospel. Do you honestly believe someone will come along and prove that evolution is false? I think someone like you (as me) is highly doubtful of that...
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    brianlux wrote: »
    callen wrote: »
    Science is not a religion. Oh where to start but does it really matter. If one truly believes this then there is no convincing.

    Biggy, Science actively seeks challenges and will evolve to new evidence.

    Yes there are many unanswered questions but answers are not found in religious texts written by relatively ignorant humans reinterpreted by many more and now used as gospel.

    The comparison is silly at best.

    Allow science to work the facts and use golden rule for our morals and laws.

    We're getting off topic a bit here but, yeah, calling science a religion is like calling a dog a toaster oven. There seems to be a plethora of books out there now that try to marry science and religion but to confuse the two is nonsense. Science is science, religion is religion.
    A dog a toaster oven? It's true, science IS science and religion IS religion. Those are astute word observations you made there. But I think the point that someone else made comparing science to religion regards how easily some here accept and apply it as a dogmatic canon.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 35,008
    fuck wrote: »
    brianlux wrote: »
    callen wrote: »
    Science is not a religion. Oh where to start but does it really matter. If one truly believes this then there is no convincing.

    Biggy, Science actively seeks challenges and will evolve to new evidence.

    Yes there are many unanswered questions but answers are not found in religious texts written by relatively ignorant humans reinterpreted by many more and now used as gospel.

    The comparison is silly at best.

    Allow science to work the facts and use golden rule for our morals and laws.

    We're getting off topic a bit here but, yeah, calling science a religion is like calling a dog a toaster oven. There seems to be a plethora of books out there now that try to marry science and religion but to confuse the two is nonsense. Science is science, religion is religion.
    A dog a toaster oven? It's true, science IS science and religion IS religion. Those are astute word observations you made there. But I think the point that someone else made comparing science to religion regards how easily some here accept and apply it as a dogmatic canon.

    Exactly. Science viewed as a dogmatic (I see a "dog" theme evolving here) canon makes as much sense as expecting a toaster oven to roll over or bark. They work on completely different principles.

    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    jeffbr wrote: »
    fuck wrote: »
    jeffbr wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    As long as we classify belief systems, the radical terrorism will win, instead of letting ourselves get more and more defied, why can't we learn from our different belief systems, and learn to listen to others?

    I have no interest in listening to mythologies which cause people to believe it is OK to kill people because of cartoons they draw, or have clerics issuing fatwas on snowmen, or parents who think it is OK to disown children because they're gay, or people who can't eat meat and dairy on the same plates. You talk about belief systems, and the problem is, many of us aren't interested in suspending disbelief and looking for some mythological road to salvation. Belief systems are just that - one must believe in something they can never actually know. I'd rather be informed by reality, science, logic and reason as opposed to old books and fairy tales. When something isn't known, there's no reason to make up fantastic stories to fill in the blanks.

    What's interesting to me is that people so often reduce science to the realm of reason and religion to the realm of the imagination and "fairy tales" without realizing that the two are more connected than one thinks.

    Well, I don't really want to pile onto what caifan82 and callen have already pointed out, but I think you've completely missed the mark. Everything that follows your premise above did nothing to lend credence to that premise. Science and religion/mythology could not be more different. There are certainly things which can't be known or proven. The approach with science is to postulate or theorize, and then attempt to prove or disprove. If disproved, a new theory will be published with the new data. Data is always being considered, and theories are always being tested and revised if necessary. With religion, some man wrote something in a book and others will then follow along. Any attempts to disprove or refute what is written is not condoned, and is often punished. Adherents are taught to have "faith", not question. There are plenty of fundies in southern states who try to pass laws to teach creationism alongside evolution because after all, they're both theories. That sounds like an argument you'd embrace, since you see science and religion as "more connected than one thinks." That is an argument that reason doesn't allow, since one "theory" is something one has to learn and believe from holy texts, and the other is something which science continues to question and evaluate.

    That's a very bizarre and rudimentary understanding of both religion and religious history you have presented here. I don't blame you entirely - this is probably colored by your encounter with many ignorant religious folk over the course of your life - but you do have some responsibility I think to actually read up on this shit. Religion is FAR more complex than you are making it out to be, and the idea that religion doesn't teach you to question is not entirely true. Some religious people (clerics, rulers, etc.) who find it politically convenient to have a bunch of blind followers certainly teach you not to question, but this is true of EVERYTHING that involves power, not just religion. But historically some of religions' biggest critics (if not most) have been from members of that same religion. Someone on here for instance mentioned that science always continues to evolve while religion stays the same (something you yourself hinted at). This is completely and utter nonsense. I mean, just think about the history of Christianity -- you actually wanna believe that it hasn't evolved? That it didn't have different conditions throughout history it was dealing with? That's just not true. Religious thinkers were building on the works of those preceding them,and they had some canons that they had to accept, true, but they questioned and they dealt with so much more that it's criminal for you to reduce world history to this... There's a reason that some of the best scientists known to man, who came up with discoveries related to travel, developed the sciences of Algebra, Chemistry, Medicine, and so on, were also Islamic jurists living in the Middle Ages.

    On the other hand, scientists have done the same thing. They accept some of the canonical work that science tells us to accept and they work to build on that. These are the similarities I see.

    As for your last little quip, I think the US educational system is far more flawed actually, and the way science is taught needs incredible reform. The philosophy of it is completely lost and we are taught that there are only data sets and rational experimentation, which is far from the truth.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    paulonious wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    No science isn't a religion, but the belief system of science has so much resemblance with the belief systems of religions... We do not know that many facts, and science can overrule facts as it has done many times in the past. (Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolving around earth, a flat world, etc,) all those facts have been proven wrong, but why is it so challenging for us, to give in to the fact that we do by fare not know all there is, and do just belief most scientific theories. It is just an other belief, I do do BELIEF most scientific theories, but I'm a child of my time. I do NOT belief in a GOD, but I don't say that my beliefs are any better than someone elses. They are just different.

    science doesn't resemble religion at all. one evolves with new information, the other does not.

    I responded to this point above, but yeah...not true...lol. Religion absolutely evolves with time.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 15,277
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/paris-supermarket-attack-hero-lassana-bathily-receives-french-citizenship-n289451

    PARIS — A 24-year-old Malian immigrant who hid a group of hostages during a terror attack at a kosher supermarket was awarded French citizenship Tuesday in a ceremony that showcased his courage and selflessness.

    Lassana Bathily, who has lived in France for about nine years and filed his citizenship papers last summer, was fast-tracked for citizenship, sparing him from the notoriously arduous process of becoming a naturalized Frenchman.

    Bathily, dressed in a black suit and white shirt, walked into Tuesday's ceremony flanked by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve. He stood with his head bowed and his hands clasped as Cazeneuve praised his actions as "the highest gesture of Islam and peace" and welcomed him as "the newest citizen at the heart of this country."

    Bathily was given a letter from French President François Hollande, a medal and a book on citizenship. Then he stepped slowly to the podium. "People tell me I am a hero. I am not a hero. I am trying to stay myself," he said, visibly moved. He expressed his desire to see and help his family back home. He received a standing ovation when he finished with: "I am very happy. Long live liberty! Long live friendship! Long live solidarity! Long live France!"

    The story of Bathily, a Muslim who saved Jews from possible death, has provided France with a heroic figure after a horrific spasm of violence that began with the Jan. 7 attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

    Bathily was working at a Hyper Cacher store on Jan. 9 when it was attacked by Islamist gunman Amedy Coulibaly, the radicalized son of Malian immigrants. Four hostages were killed before police shot Coulibaly dead.

    According to accounts given to French media and to a friend who spoke to The Associated Press, Bathily was in the store's basement when the attacker burst in upstairs. Bathily then hid a group of frightened shoppers, including a 2-year-old-child, inside the freezer before escaping to communicate with police. Security officials initially thought he was the attacker, and he was forced to the ground and handcuffed.

    Once police realized their mistake, he provided them with the key they needed to open the supermarket's metal blinds and mount their assault. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later praised Bathily and said he "helped save seven Jews."

    Pierre Henry, the president of the French government's refugee assistance agency, described Bathily as "a righteous one among the righteous' who should serve as a role model to our youth." He added: "Lassana Bathily enriches us by joining the French nation."
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,076
    fuck wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    No science isn't a religion, but the belief system of science has so much resemblance with the belief systems of religions... We do not know that many facts, and science can overrule facts as it has done many times in the past. (Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolving around earth, a flat world, etc,) all those facts have been proven wrong, but why is it so challenging for us, to give in to the fact that we do by fare not know all there is, and do just belief most scientific theories. It is just an other belief, I do do BELIEF most scientific theories, but I'm a child of my time. I do NOT belief in a GOD, but I don't say that my beliefs are any better than someone elses. They are just different.

    science doesn't resemble religion at all. one evolves with new information, the other does not.

    I responded to this point above, but yeah...not true...lol. Religion absolutely evolves with time.

    I haven't personally seen any edits to the bible recently. have you? I was referring to the texts that the teachings come from. but your condescension is appreciated.





    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    paulonious wrote: »
    fuck wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    No science isn't a religion, but the belief system of science has so much resemblance with the belief systems of religions... We do not know that many facts, and science can overrule facts as it has done many times in the past. (Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolving around earth, a flat world, etc,) all those facts have been proven wrong, but why is it so challenging for us, to give in to the fact that we do by fare not know all there is, and do just belief most scientific theories. It is just an other belief, I do do BELIEF most scientific theories, but I'm a child of my time. I do NOT belief in a GOD, but I don't say that my beliefs are any better than someone elses. They are just different.

    science doesn't resemble religion at all. one evolves with new information, the other does not.

    I responded to this point above, but yeah...not true...lol. Religion absolutely evolves with time.

    I haven't personally seen any edits to the bible recently. have you? I was referring to the texts that the teachings come from. but your condescension is appreciated.
    Haha, more of a challenge than a condescension. But take it as you want. I argue that it's not true. You can refer to texts but then say texts. "Religion" is an institution far greater than texts...
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    I always look forward to Callens responses when the subject is religion.Cal,I bet you get fired up with a buzz on.:)
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Hey Fuck,don't you think it's time we stop using the past injustices as an excuse( or reason) for actions happening today? I don't see how a bomb dropped in the first gulf war or land colonized 100 years ago translates ,explains and excuses the reasoning for an act of murder against non military civilian soft targets in today's society.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,076
    fuck wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    fuck wrote: »
    paulonious wrote: »
    Aafke wrote: »
    No science isn't a religion, but the belief system of science has so much resemblance with the belief systems of religions... We do not know that many facts, and science can overrule facts as it has done many times in the past. (Earth the center of the universe and the sun revolving around earth, a flat world, etc,) all those facts have been proven wrong, but why is it so challenging for us, to give in to the fact that we do by fare not know all there is, and do just belief most scientific theories. It is just an other belief, I do do BELIEF most scientific theories, but I'm a child of my time. I do NOT belief in a GOD, but I don't say that my beliefs are any better than someone elses. They are just different.

    science doesn't resemble religion at all. one evolves with new information, the other does not.

    I responded to this point above, but yeah...not true...lol. Religion absolutely evolves with time.

    I haven't personally seen any edits to the bible recently. have you? I was referring to the texts that the teachings come from. but your condescension is appreciated.
    Haha, more of a challenge than a condescension. But take it as you want. I argue that it's not true. You can refer to texts but then say texts. "Religion" is an institution far greater than texts...

    I thought it was obvious by saying "new information".

    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    edited January 2015
    Come on RR, you're smarter then that bro. You know DEEP down inside he's right. How can it NOT have ANYTHING to do with it? Have you not heard about what's happened in Iraq recently or in the last just couple of years with the rape stories of little boys by OUR servicemen? Have you not cared to see? Is last year to far in the past for it to have any reasoning to all of this? You're smarter then that man. Plz don't make me think otherwise.
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    rr what gets me fired up is not being able to quote. Ha.

    >:)
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • caifan82caifan82 Mexico CityPosts: 321
    edited January 2015
    fuck wrote: »
    Certain aspects of science are questioned, sure, but can anyone reasonably question the idea of a black hole, gravity, evolution, or anything else in science that you insist are "theories"?
    Sure, why not? It’s extremely likely that those theories are correct, but I’d be surprised if they were 100% true. Gravity, for example. Did you see the movie Interstellar? It’s based on some fascinating (and rather recent) theories about how maybe gravity itself could be considered some kind of other dimension along with time and space. I recommend it. The movie does make a great job on explaining this theory to moviegoers.
    I would add black holes to this. Nobody knows for sure what they are. Even Stephen Hawking can’t seem to make up his mind on what they are and how they work. He does have some damn fine theories, though… and considering it’s the best explanation I’ve heard, I say it’s the most plausible one… Would I consider it a fact? Nope.
    fuck wrote: »
    It's funny that evolution is treated as both a "theory" and a "fact" whenever it is convenient to treat it as such.
    Whoever treats a theory as fact is wrong. Well, maybe not wrong, but they sure are taking a big leap of faith. Be it evolution, gravity, big foot or the flying spaghetti monster.
    Ironically, I think the only way a theory could become a fact is if god itself appeared one day and said: "Yeah, I created gravity and it works exactly like this...".
    I will say though, that, considering all the evidence and logic, evolution is by far the soundest theory about the evolution of species we have... and most likely correct.
    fuck wrote: »
    The fact is that most people who question these theories would be laughed out of the room. Why? Because unless you have another theory to present in its place, then you're just questioning for questioning's sake. So it's not enough for one to say, "Prove to us that Evolution exists beyond a doubt!" for us to reject evolution (i.e., the onus is not on you to PROVE that evolution exists beyond a doubt) but then this person will have to prove why evolution is also false (i.e., he/she will have to prove something that they don't believe to exist in the first place, doesn't exist) to actually get anyone credible to listen to them.
    Yes! That is exactly how it must work… Until someone presents a better (supported by data) alternative to a theory (or at least disproves it with sound arguments), the person that questions should be laughed out of the room. If not, that’s when you end up with people trying to teach creationism in school…
    fuck wrote: »
    People who accept science believe in things written hundreds of years ago (the theory of evolution was presented hundreds of years ago...) and accept it as gospel. Do you honestly believe someone will come along and prove that evolution is false? I think someone like you (as me) is highly doubtful of that...

    No theory should be accepted as gospel. At least I don’t. And if those persons exist, they shouldn’t do that. Because when that happens, that’s when we stop seeing breakthroughs… That’s when the status quo is the norm. Can someone come along and prove evolution false? Sure, why not?! I agree, it’s HIGHLY unlikely. And until, and if, someone does… evolution is by far the best explanation we have.
    Post edited by caifan82 on
    Mexico City - July 17th 2003
    Mexico City - July 18th 2003
    Mexico City - July 19th 2003
    Monterrey - December 7th 2005
    Mexico City - December 9th 2005
    Mexico City - December 10th 2005
    Mexico City - November 24th 2011
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I have always said "believe as you wish" someday you will know the truth.
    scince is great it's full of all kinds of interesting stuff,theory is what makes scince interesting and never ending.

    Godfather.
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Do u mean science or since? I'm confused with your spelling and what u mean GF?
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    Gf. Goes back to believing as you wish but not at my expense.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    badbrains wrote: »
    Come on RR, you're smarter then that bro. You know DEEP down inside he's right. How can it NOT have ANYTHING to do with it? Have you not heard about what's happened in Iraq recently or in the last just couple of years with the rape stories of little boys by OUR servicemen? Have you not cared to see? Is last year to far in the past for it to have any reasoning to all of this? You're smarter then that man. Plz don't make me think otherwise.

    BB,I'm in no way dismissing then outrages that Muslims have had to endure through out time.Yes I know that these indiscretions have led to uprisings and actions of retaliation in the past.Some more then justifiable.Others not so much.
    Muslims are also not the people that have had to endure such atrocities.Many other groups also can claim the same.But they are not calling for Jihad!
    Any act of violence that is written off as justified or at least understood,as a response for passed injustices is a cope out.This same defending of the reasoning by supporters of your faith is actually in my opinion going to have a longer lasting adverse affect.Let me try to explain as there is a lot going on in my head and sometimes I don't do a great job of getting my point across in the proper way from head to keyboard.

    First understand Nart,I consider you a friend on these here boards and wouldn't want to offend you or your faith in any way,not even a little.
    I kinda look at it like this,and please feel free to correct me if needed.
    Muslims are one of the largest religions in the world.Many countries claim to be Muslim countries and Muslim holy lands.Millions upon millions of people finding peace within their faith.Doing all the right things that good humans do.But there is a cancer amongst your ranks.Deep down a very small but growing subset is hijacking your faith,perverting it,using it for atrocities upon innocent children,women,gays,other religions,westerners or anyone who doesn't agree with their ultra conservative views.They(not the west) are the real enemy of Islam.They are the ones who are the infidels.It is these media loving thugs who are giving a black eye to your people.It cannot be up to the west to further intervene into stopping these crazies,that only makes it worse.Change has to come from within Islam.Imans and clerics must be at the forefront.Everyday Muslims must say enough!Give us back our good name.Muslim families be vocal about these kinds of people assimilating within their communities.
    When you give understanding to the reason why they commit these acts you on a subconscience (or not) level are giving some form of silent support.It must be stopped from within.Nonexcuses can be made,No finger pointing can be cast at any other people or religion.You guys have a little house cleaning that is needed and only you can clean it right.
    Maybe start with the backwards suppressive societies with Middle East that fuel hatred and bigotry.Hello Saudi Arabia.
    this whole thing saddens me and I really worry that escalation and more divisive actions could be in our near future.I could see more violent acts,maybe on American soil and then the Muslim backlash and a McCarthy like situation with innocent everyday Muslims being the victims of fear.
Sign In or Register to comment.