NationStates Jolt Archive

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?
I agree both can be a threat ... I personaly find religion to hold more potential but thats just an opinion

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?
This seems like a very silly question. A better question would be, "Can extremist ideologies do anything other than threaten world peace?"

I'd be shocked if anyone said no.

I'd be shocked if anyone said no.
Someone out there will probably defend their own extremist belief.

Give it time, this is NS.

True.

After all we've got raving anti-semites, neo-nazis, christian extremists, muslims, atheists. Wide range of weirdos here.

Someone out there will probably defend their own extremist belief.
Someone that denies not only the Holocaust, but the very existence of the Second World War, presumably.

Yeah, I think extremism is a major threat.

I agree both can be a threat ... I personaly find religion to hold more potential but thats just an opinion

Oh? What about Nazism, Soviet Union, Mao etc...

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?


Thanks for the Credit DK:D I knew someone would post it as a thread.

The answer is yes! I think they are are. Religion from my experience promotes intolerance and inequality. I haven't personally experienced extremist political ideologies but previous evidence has shown that it has.

You can't stop it, my solution is a very optimistic, new agey one: Education!
Proper and unbiast education could solve so many problems through out the world. I know its wishfull thinking but well thats me. Educating Westerners about other cultures/religions/ideologies and vice versa. Ensuring a complete crack down on militant extremism.

Someone out there will probably defend their own extremist belief.

Give it time, this is NS.
Does anyone consider their own belief to be extremist?

Does anyone consider their own belief to be extremist?
I have beliefs that I know are very radical and extreme. As I understand it, an extremist is one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, and I also do that.

And yes, I totally acknowledge that my behavior and beliefs are a threat to peace, since they piss off a great many people. :)

Any belief set, at all, is a threat to peace. Because, unless everyone agrees, there will be conflict of some sort. And under no conditions is it possible to get everyone to agree.

Any belief set, at all, is a threat to peace. Because, unless everyone agrees, there will be conflict of some sort. And under no conditions is it possible to get everyone to agree.

Agreed, i think the Idea of extremism is quite a subjective term. It is something that holds radicly different beliefs to the present society we are used to. That is inevitable in any society.

Someone that denies not only the Holocaust, but the very existence of the Second World War, presumably.

I think most of those idiots are gone now. Back to Stormfront and their essays on "The Elders of Zion and the Jewish Conspiracy".

I think most of those idiots are gone now. Back to Stormfront and their essays on "The Elders of Zion and the Jewish Conspiracy".
The Iranian President is still around.

woot I voted no!

I wouldn't say extremist beliefs are a threat to world peace there a plenty of other things that do that which can allow extremism to flourish but I wouldn’t say its extremisms fault for causing the problems in the first place.

Also there are things like extremist pacifist and so on and so forth

Also there are things like extremist pacifist and so on and so forth
That's a good point.

The Iranian President is still around.

He posts on NS?

Of course extremism is a threat to world peace. Extremism does an excellent job of poiting out our differences and making us fight over them. Extremism is a definite threat to world peace.

He posts on NS?

Hah, theres so many crazy people on NS i wouldn't be suprised if he did. ;)

He posts on NS?
Ocean == President of Iran

Ocean == President of Iran

Of course! It makes so much sence now :D

I don't think the president of Iran is anti-semetic enough to be Occean.

Of course extremism is a threat to world peace. Extremism does an excellent job of poiting out our differences and making us fight over them. Extremism is a definite threat to world peace.

it can (not saying it always does) create scapegoats which bring people together in hate and such think about groups unifying to defeat the great evil of the A's

So we can get the groups of BCDEF working against group A it certainly isn’t peace but its more peace than all 6 groups fighting each other

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?

Well without those extreme ideals then where would the line stand between good and bad? You have to admit, if there was no good Torah or Bible then nothing else would help us consider "bad" or at least in need of punishment? Without these measuring "stones" may we instead consider killing each other acceptable, would incest be allowed? How would our world look like without these ideals that in every way restrict some of the more violent and primitive acts of ourselves? Yes, these stones sometime reach an disagreement but in all honesty isn't that the first step to change? You have to accept that you have a problem to fix it and sometimes that is hard to do, but shouldn't people understand that these measuring stones in certain ways let us see that the measuring stones themselves have inherent flaws? Would we consider the beliefs violent without them at all? Would we see people trying to take down airlines even bad? Where would we get a grasp on what can be done and what can't be done without them? I look around today and am happy, I see little if any reason to changing anything in my past since I am so happy with my present, maybe you feel that your present is not good enough, just keep in mind not good enough is still a lot better than almost good.

As I said in the other thread .... nah. Considering "World Peace" has never existed, it can't be so. Nothing can threaten that which doesn't exist.

ALL beliefs are a threat, political religious or otherwise. In the immortal words of Rufus the 14th Apostle it's better to have ideas

Yes, all belief is a falacy and inherently dangerous.

yes they are a threat anything can be taken as a threat to something if two nations had even the most tedios beliefs and disagreed it could lead to war

it is a question of when it stops being about the issue and when people cant live with other peoples beliefs whatever they may be

Religions and political beliefs hold weight only when reinforced by certain social environments.

Encourage mutual dependence and religions and political beliefs become secondary to providing for oneself and those that one care's about.

Yes, all belief is a falacy and inherently dangerous.
Faith is a fallacy, belief is not.

Yes, all belief is a falacy and inherently dangerous.

I believe I shall have a soda and some chips.

:eek: I are teh ebil!!

Faith is a fallacy, belief is not.

No, belief is a falacy, "faith" is just another word for the same mistake. All belief is necessarily an overstepping of the evidence. Solipsism may be meaningless to debate but it is also irrefutable. One may accept axioms about the world and live as though they believe the evidence of the senses, because to do otherwise would be to succumb to nihilistic suicide, but any belief held to be true without doubt is dangerous.

I believe I shall have a soda and some chips.

:eek: I are teh ebil!!

Very true.

Very true.

Yeah ... but my belief came true. :p

Yeah ... but my belief came true. :p

Never let anybody tell you that you can't get useful information from your senses and a careful comparison to the past. At the same time, never let anyone tell you that you can get perfect information from those sources either.

I'll make my stand for militant pragmatism.


Religious belief, political ideology, anything that gives human beings the capacity to unite and look beyond their petty individual needs is by any definition transcendental. Good thing, no? Animals have the pack and the hive, both (advanced) family units - we have social structures far grander, more immense, more beautiful in their ornate behaviours and rituals.

Change your perspective. See these monoliths of mankind's achievement like the cathedrals they have spawned.

A threat to world peace? Is world peace a worthy goal? Total consensus is total tyranny, if imposed and enforced; If you are not a totalitarian extremist (or one of the more uncommon kinds) then you believe that there is a duty to oppose such imposition, that such dominance is inherently wrong/unjust. Right?

If no overriding authority does impose, then there will be conflict. There will always be factions, whether states, religions or corporations, who will strive for advantage over their opponents and be ready to commit terrible acts to achieve those ends.

In all honesty, you might as well ask whether the existence of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft threaten Santa Claus. Whatever banners they march under, armies will march so long as human society labours under the most minimal degree of liberty.

Can religious extremism be a threat to World Peace?

My history book says yes.

But, I know some folks would take that a step further and say that religion in general is necessarily a threat to world peace. I find that point of view to be paranoid. There are definitely militant religions out there, but there are even more perfectly peaceful ones.

Ever think that perhaps World Peace is a threat to my religion and/or extreme political belief? :p



Uhm, yeah. It's not religion or politics that are a threat to world peace, it's 'other people's' religion or political beliefs that are a threat to it. As long we have differing opinions and the will to fight over them, there won't be world peace.

Never let anybody tell you that you can't get useful information from your senses and a careful comparison to the past. At the same time, never let anyone tell you that you can get perfect information from those sources either.

Well I *did* get my soda and chips ...

A threat to world peace? Is world peace a worthy goal? Total consensus is total tyranny, if imposed and enforced; If you are not a totalitarian extremist (or one of the more uncommon kinds) then you believe that there is a duty to oppose such imposition, that such dominance is inherently wrong/unjust. Right?Yes, this is what I was thinking, too, that world peace isn't inherently something to be strived for.

Yes, this is what I was thinking, too, that world peace isn't inherently something to be strived for.

I believe there's nothing wrong with the idea of world peace, just that people shouldn't expect some form of mass conformity/one world government to make it happen.

I believe there's nothing wrong with the idea of world peace, just that people shouldn't expect some form of mass conformity/one world government to make it happen.Well, yes, I can agree with that, but in most cases that's what it would take for world peace to occur.

Well, yes, I can agree with that, but in most cases that's what it would take for world peace to occur.

1. Get running water to the majority of the world's people.
2. Put prozac in the water without their knowledge.
3. Hand out hashish to everyone who wants some.

Maybe we don't have to agree - maybe we all just have to not give a shit.

Well, yes, I can agree with that, but in most cases that's what it would take for world peace to occur.

We could always just agree to disagree and stick to our own little corners of the world. With the increasing fuel costs, we may have to anway. Everybody will be too far away to fight. World Peace by default.

1. Get running water to the majority of the world's people.
2. Put prozac in the water without their knowledge.
3. Hand out hashish to everyone who wants some.

Maybe we don't have to agree - maybe we all just have to not give a shit.Don't be silly, if everyone had access to all the hashish that they wanted, the economy would tank. The powers that be would never go for that.

We could always just agree to disagree and stick to our own little corners of the world. With the increasing fuel costs, we may have to anway. Everybody will be too far away to fight. World Peace by default.Lol. Perhaps, but I imagine that someone will come up with an alternative fuel that's cheaper.

Don't be silly, if everyone had access to all the hashish that they wanted, the economy would tank. The powers that be would never go for that

But there would be world peace!

Lol. Perhaps, but I imagine that someone will come up with an alternative fuel that's cheaper.

Good point. Global conflict and energy consumption is a much better alternative to an Amish lifestyle. *shudders*

Yes of course there are, I see no alternative, there is no way to stop them, and nothing you cna do about, you just have to enjoy the ride...

Yes of course there are, I see no alternative, there is no way to stop them, and nothing you cna do about, you just have to enjoy the ride...
Why exactly should we just go for a ride and let them dictate our lives?

Religious and Political beliefs are excuses; rarely are they in themselves reasons for violence. I don't think they are a threat in themselves. They're more a catalyst for the disruption of world peace than an active cause.

Religious and Political beliefs are excuses; rarely are they in themselves reasons for violence. I don't think they are a threat in themselves. They're more a catalyst for the disruption of world peace than an active cause.
While people are the ultimate problem these tools allow them more freedom even in their own mind to justify the things they do

The things people are allowed to do in the name of some invisible un-provable deity...

Well I *did* get my soda and chips ...

Prove it. I bet you can only prove that you think you got them. You trust your senses but if they're wrong then your whole proof falls apart.

1. Get running water to the majority of the world's people.
2. Put prozac in the water without their knowledge.
3. Hand out hashish to everyone who wants some.

Maybe we don't have to agree - maybe we all just have to not give a shit.

Brave New World much? :p

My radical right wing opinion: If the entire world shares 1 belief (say, republican Christianity) THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM

Prove it. I bet you can only prove that you think you got them. You trust your senses but if they're wrong then your whole proof falls apart.

There is no spoon....


I agree with...well, I forget. But, whatever he said was right. It's not extremist ideas (as extremism is open to much interpretation), its differing ideas and human fallibility. If someone has differing ideas, they can agree to disagree and carry on. The problem arises when it deals with the structures of society itself. I personally don't want to live under a socialist state, therefore refuse to, and will fight all attempts to make America Socialist. Most Sweedish probably don't want a lassiez-faire capitalist society, therefore will fight to prevent it.

To achieve world peace, you'd have one of two options:

1) One world government (or two or three), forced conformity. 1984esque, only just with a single gov. Or exactly like 1984.

or

2) Everyone with the same ideas groups together and forms their own nationstate, somewhere. They don't fight each other, because that would involve their ideology being smashed as well. Recourses are shared.

Two is not going to happen. Ever. So, the option is one.

I have a feeling that isn't going to happen, either. Not without massive resistance.

I know a lot of people consider me an 'extremist,' simply because I'm a Christian. More so because I'm a Calvinist. Last time I checked, I haven't taken up arms against anyone.

People will fight each other, regardless of the reason. The only way to stop it is to alter the human conscious (sp?), which would require losing part of your very humanity and identity.

Dystopia ahoy.

My radical right wing opinion: If the entire world shares 1 belief (say, republican Christianity) THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM

So, what, we shoot anyone who doesn't agree? And what about those who don't believe in a fictional character and an 'afterlife'? Shoot them as well?

So, what, we shoot anyone who doesn't agree? And what about those who don't believe in a fictional character and an 'afterlife'? Shoot them as well?
Yet another athiest coming in the name of tolerance! No, TAX THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THEM

My radical right wing opinion: If the entire world shares 1 belief (say, republican Christianity) THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM
Yeah right how long does that last … people still find interpretations to fight with and brake into smaller groups … just look at the protestant movement.

In the end even if you killed everyone that was not Christian, Christianity would just fragment after a few years anyways

I will respond with this
"1 God, one State, one Ruler!"

While people are the ultimate problem these tools allow them more freedom even in their own mind to justify the things they do

The things people are allowed to do in the name of some invisible un-provable deity...
Hence "Catalyst".

Basically, even if you take religion and tribal politics out of the picture, you're still left with people stuck under the thumb of oppression and/or poverty. The people will simply try to find some other, though perhaps less successful, method of supplanting this situation.

Until these are dealt with, removing religion and political partisianship will only delay their repercussions.

Yet another athiest coming in the name of tolerance! No, TAX THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THEM

Yay! Mass Opression! I thought Christians were supposed to be loving, peaceful non-judgmental folk? Or am I mistaken here?

Yeah right how long does that last … people still find interpretations to fight with and brake into smaller groups … just look at the protestant movement.

In the end even if you killed everyone that was not Christian, Christianity would just fragment after a few years anyways
Fractured Christianity is better then anything else

Brave New World much? :p

Yeah, my instinct was to refer to Soma as well.

For a 'dystopia', that world wasn't really all that bad. Lots of drugs and group lovin'. And everyone just 'loved' their jobs. Could be worse.

Yay! Mass Opression! I thought Christians were supposed to be loving, peaceful non-judgmental folk? Or am I mistaken here?
I am an old-school Christian, oh and does the fact the I think Niccolo Machiavelli is a genious scare you? GOOD

Someone out there will probably defend their own extremist belief.

Give it time, this is NS.

Go for it....

I am an old-school Christian, oh and does the fact the I think Niccolo Machiavelli is a genious scare you? GOOD
Old-school Christian = Political Christian, then?

Fractured Christianity is better then anything else
How so ... they still fight and kill each other break into factions and generaly not get along ... how does that improve the peace?

I am an old-school Christian, oh and does the fact the I think Niccolo Machiavelli is a genious scare you? GOOD
Does not scare me more makes me think you are being trollish on purpose “see look how controversial I can be” so premadona

Yeah, my instinct was to refer to Soma as well.

For a 'dystopia', that world wasn't really all that bad. Lots of drugs and group lovin'. And everyone just 'loved' their jobs. Could be worse.

On the surface, no, it ain't bad. Assuming you don't mind not thinking.

Go for it....
Hey, I'm not the idiot claiming I have the way to world peace (other than through handing out hashish to everyone).

He posts on NS?
Why yes he does!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496915

On the surface, no, it ain't bad. Assuming you don't mind not thinking.

Oh it's still a Dystopia, don't get me wrong. But not exactly one of the levels of Hell or anything either.

Any ideology followed irrationally is a danger to world peace. Atheism can be as dangerous as militant Islam if the person who adheres to it doesn't think rationally or open their mind to other ideas. The same is true of anyone who supports Communism, capitalism, libertarianism, or anything else...they're all dangerous if you don't question and investigate the world's beliefs.

Honestly, I see most religions as conducive to world peace rather than in opposition to it.

This seems like a very silly question. A better question would be, "Can extremist ideologies do anything other than threaten world peace?"
:eek: You read my mind! (Don't do that again! :p)

Oh it's still a Dystopia, don't get me wrong. But not exactly one of the levels of Hell or anything either.

Well, maybe the first level. :p

I am an old-school Christian, oh and does the fact the I think Niccolo Machiavelli is a genious scare you? GOOD

If you haven't already, read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. You might be sorely disappointed in him.

fundamentalist/fanatical religion is a threat to world peace.

Moderate religion is not.

Extremist political beliefs are if they are violent ones (obviously). Extremist pacifism, I don't think could really be much of a threat, though.

My political beliefs were extreme until I got to college. My beliefs didn't change, I just met people with much more extreme views than mine.

fundamentalist/fanatical religion is a threat to world peace.

Define "fundamentalist." I would probably be considered a "fundamentalist," and last time I checked, I didn't blow anyone up/shoot anyone.

I suppose you could say religions and idealogies are a threat to world peace, although I don't think it's quite accurate.

But I think you would be missing the point. The biggest threats to world peace are ignorance, hatred, anger and greed.

I suppose you could say religions and idealogies are a threat to world peace, although I don't think it's quite accurate.

But I think you would be missing the point. The biggest threats to world peace are ignorance, hatred, anger and greed.

The biggest threat to world peace is humanity.

Define "fundamentalist." I would probably be considered a "fundamentalist," and last time I checked, I didn't blow anyone up/shoot anyone.

What variety of fundamentalist are you? Fundies come in several flavors. A lot of them hate each other, but seem pretty damn similar to those not part of their religion (example: fundy Islam and fundy Christianity).

What variety of fundamentalist are you? Fundies come in several flavors. A lot of them hate each other, but seem pretty damn similar to those not part of their religion (example: fundy Islam and fundy Christianity).

I don't hate other people because of what they believe. I can despise an institution but not feel the need to hate its members (people can't seem to grasp this). I, personally, am a Calvinist. I believe the pope is the antichrist. I don't like the Roman Catholic Chruch. Do I hate Catholicism? Yes. Do I hate Catholics? Lord no, my best friend is Catholic.

So yes, I do not like the other institutions such as the Roman Catholic church, the branches of Islam and Judaism, and...well, everything else. I don't like them on a doctrinal basis. I'm not going to go around killing the people or hating the people for it.

That's silly.

I don't hate other people because of what they believe. I can despise an institution but not feel the need to hate its members (people can't seem to grasp this). I, personally, am a Calvinist. I believe the pope is the antichrist. I don't like the Roman Catholic Chruch. Do I hate Catholicism? Yes. Do I hate Catholics? Lord no, my best friend is Catholic.

So yes, I do not like the other institutions such as the Roman Catholic church, the branches of Islam and Judaism, and...well, everything else. I don't like them on a doctrinal basis. I'm not going to go around killing the people or hating the people for it.

That's silly.

I wish more people were like this. People saying or believing "I hate _____ because he/she's _____" are damn scary. Example (although I might catch flak for this one, considering the number of atheists around): I'm not an atheist and I pretty much can't get it, but my closest friend is very emphatically atheist. There's no conflict there.

Radical beliefs in themselves can be harmless. The problem that arises is that those who form the beliefs seem unable to compromise at all, and feel that they must resort to violence.

I don't hate other people because of what they believe. I can despise an institution but not feel the need to hate its members (people can't seem to grasp this). I, personally, am a Calvinist. I believe the pope is the antichrist. I don't like the Roman Catholic Chruch. Do I hate Catholicism? Yes. Do I hate Catholics? Lord no, my best friend is Catholic.

So yes, I do not like the other institutions such as the Roman Catholic church, the branches of Islam and Judaism, and...well, everything else. I don't like them on a doctrinal basis. I'm not going to go around killing the people or hating the people for it.

That's silly.

Well, more power to you for living and let live.

My thing is, that fanatical Christianity isn't really all that different from fanatical Islam. Followers of both have been willing to kill in the name of their religion, and I'm just saying that to me (as I'm neither Christian nor Muslim), they look pretty much the same.

They both take a rather patriarchal view, and both have a history of degrading women.
They both hate gay people.
Both have a history of trying to convert people, sometimes by force.
Both believe that anyone who does not believe exactly as they do is going to hell.
Both have a history of prudishness.
Both have caused wars.
Both have many times tried to take over governments and in some cases succeeded, then forcing their beliefs upon the populace.

There's really not much that differentiates the two, in my eyes.

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?

Yes.

As to the root cause, I believe it stems from poverty.

My thing is, that fanatical Christianity isn't really all that different from fanatical Islam. Followers of both have been willing to kill in the name of their religion, and I'm just saying that to me (as I'm neither Christian nor Muslim), they look pretty much the same.

______ sucks because people are willing to kill in the name of _______.

What's your point?

From here, I can't and won't speak for Islam, just my particular branch of Christianity.

They both take a rather patriarchal view, and both have a history of degrading women.

I don't see a problem with patriarchy, personally (maybe that's because the people speaking against it advocate a matriarchy, who knows), but the degradation I do have a problem with. Granted, I suppose it depends on your definition of "degradation." 'sides, Europe and America have histories of slavery. By your argument, Europeans and Americans are racist now.

They both hate gay people.

Nope. See my previous post -- you can hate a lifestyle or institution and not hate a person. Don't tell me you can't, because I know I can, as I do it. Homosexual acts etc. are strictly forbidden in the Bible, hence, we will not support such activity. Ever.

Both have a history of trying to convert people, sometimes by force.
Both believe that anyone who does not believe exactly as they do is going to hell.

Really, you just answered your previous complaint for me by the latter one. You are correct, Christians believe that only those who believe in Christ (generally, Calvinists believe in predestination, but we'll overlook this ATM) will go to Heaven. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," etc. BECAUSE we believe that, we try to convert people -- in fact, Christians who refuse to try to convert aren't very Christian, as they're basically saying "I don't care if you go to hell or not." Granted, timing is key, too, and in Calvinist theology, you can't and won't save everyone, but you get my point.

Converting by force is silly, though. You have to really believe and have faith, though. That's kinda the point of it all.

Both have a history of prudishness.

Only because of the showiness of the Roman and Eastern Churches. You won't find that in most Protestant ones.

Both have caused wars.

Christianity doesn't cause wars. Powerhungry leaders do.

Both have many times tried to take over governments and in some cases succeeded, then forcing their beliefs upon the populace.

Which is crap. If there's a theocracy, they should give the oppertunity to allow those refusing to convert to leave. In Christianity's case, this is because the Popes got powerhungry and became to attached to worldly things, as well as some of the more...shall we say revolutionary Protestant reformationists (John Calvin included, I have to admit), who tried to make their small communes of Christianity. Imposition is impossible, as it requires faith. Such acts are simply power-hungry individuals acting in the name of religion, as Stalin acted in the name of Communism.

There's really not much that differentiates the two, in my eyes.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?

People need to be shown a world without God. To see that there is life without religion and that it is good. They also need to be taught to think, rationally, for themselves.

Then again, the average person may well be incapable of accepting the nonexistence of the supernatural (God, etc.) so it might be better just to manufacture a religion and convince everyone to follow it. The religion would have to be very open so as not to offend (e.g. just have "turn up to <building> on <day>", "be nice to people" as it's rules).

Define "fundamentalist." I would probably be considered a "fundamentalist," and last time I checked, I didn't blow anyone up/shoot anyone.

Well that's a good question; what exactly defines a 'fundamentalist'? I'm not sure if I would classify you as one. The way I see it, there are 4 'levels' of religiosity;

- Spiritual - People who believe in 'God', but don't subscribe to a particular doctrine, don't attend church, etc.

- Religious - People who are dedicated believers and practitioners of faith, who follow the doctrines of the faith and preach it to the members of their family.

- Fundamentalist - Not only religious, but work at changing society to reflect their faith, through radical change via legislation, knocking on doors, rallies and literature.

- Extremist - Fundamentalists who impose their views through violent means.

People need to be shown a world without God. To see that there is life without religion and that it is good. They also need to be taught to think, rationally, for themselves.

I honestly think a great many people do not even realize that it is possible to live without god-belief. I've had countless religious individuals inform me that I must actually believe in God, deep down, and that I'm just angry and trying to deny it. They seem totally unable to accept that I might simply not believe in God.

I honestly think a great many people do not even realize that it is possible to live without god-belief. I've had countless religious individuals inform me that I must actually believe in God, deep down, and that I'm just angry and trying to deny it. They seem totally unable to accept that I might simply not believe in God.

I don't inform anyone that they "must actually believe".

Either you do or you don't, you can or you can't.

I don't inform anyone that they "must actually believe".

Either you do or you don't, you can or you can't.
Yeah, it seems very bizarre to try to do that. I'm not going to go around telling people they don't believe in God when they say they do. How the fuck should I know what goes on in their head?

I certainly wasn't meaning to suggest that all religious people do this. Or even most. Just that a surprising number of religious people appear to never have been exposed to godlessness in any real sense. They don't seem to be able to empathize with the godless, in the sense of being able to imagine how a human being might function if they did not believe in God.

It's like the people who honestly believe that it's not possible to be moral unless you believe in God. There are some odd ducks who really seem to think that there's no reason not to kill people unless you believe that God will punish you. Somewhere along the line, these people failed to develop the ability to empathize. I don't know why this happens to some people and not others. It's just weird to me.

I honestly think a great many people do not even realize that it is possible to live without god-belief. I've had countless religious individuals inform me that I must actually believe in God, deep down, and that I'm just angry and trying to deny it. They seem totally unable to accept that I might simply not believe in God.

They're actually doing that more to convince themselves than you, I think - they're trying to clear their minds of the knowledge that there are people who do not believe their God even exists.

There are some odd ducks who really seem to think that there's no reason not to kill people unless you believe that God will punish you. Somewhere along the line, these people failed to develop the ability to empathize.

In more ways than one! They can't empathize in the sense of understanding that you have differing beliefs, but empathy is also the main reason why people don't kill. Most religious non-murderers wouldn't become murderers if they lost their faith.

Suggested by Isiseye. Probably better all around.

Can extremist ideologies (whether religious or political) threaten world peace?Yes.

If so, what should be done to stop the problem from occurring in the first place?
Have enough economic flexibility and freedom to build a large, stable middle class.

Yes.
Have enough economic flexibility and freedom to build a large, stable middle class.

Let's say we succeed in that.

Say, 10 percent of the people in the world are rich, 80 percent in the middle class, and we still have about 10 percent poor.

Let's say that the poor aren't starving - we have a pretty good welfare system.

The majority of today's terrorists are not poor people. They aren't fighting for socioeconomic reasons. They're fighting for religious ideals.

So, let's say someone has some ideals. It doesn't seem to take more than a few dozen people to have a terrorist group.

That's what percentage of the Earth's population?

The majority of today's terrorists are not poor people. They aren't fighting for socioeconomic reasons. They're fighting for religious ideals.
That's true, but the religious ideals they fight for have evolved in extremely violent, unstable conditions. In order to have real political stability like you do in North America and Europe you need to have most people in the middle class or above and you need to have economic opportunity for as many people as possible. It took a century or so of relative prosperity in Europe before the reformation and enlightenment came because before you can have that you need to move from what Marshall McCluen called a "tribal" society to a "literate" society and that can only happen when most people can afford an education and have free time to pursue interests not directly related to survival.

If we were to suddenly wave a wand and make the entire Middle East economically like Kuwait or UAE/Dubai is tomorrow there would still be fanaticism but were those kinds of conditions to endure I think you would see that in a century you would have a pluralistic, stable society. The proof is actually in the pudding, as it were. The only two places I can think of in the Middle East that don't spawn a derth of terrorists are Kuwait and UAE/Dubai.

The majority of today's terrorists are not poor people. They aren't fighting for socioeconomic reasons. They're fighting for religious ideals.

There's some truth to that, but I'm not sure that's the whole truth. I believe in many cases, that it's about these people fighting for what they perceive as oppression amongst people of their religion or ethnic group. It's part religion, part fighting for oppressed kin back in the homeland.

If people were well off economically more or less everywhere, a lot of that impetus for supporting and engaging in terrorism would disapear.

Exactly what "world peace" are we talking about here? I don't ever recall seeing one...

Exactly what "world peace" are we talking about here? I don't ever recall seeing one...

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."


http://img.search.com/3/3e/300px-DNA_with_H2G2_towel.JPG

They're actually doing that more to convince themselves than you, I think - they're trying to clear their minds of the knowledge that there are people who do not believe their God even exists.
I don't get that. Why should it matter? There are racists in the world, but that doesn't mean I have to be a racist. There are people who are religious in the world, but that doesn't mean I have to be religious. Why should they feel the need to imagine me away, just because I don't believe what they believe?

I'd be shocked if anyone said no.

NO!:rolleyes: Shocked yet!

I'm suprised religion has not killed us all yet..from .." dont wear rubbers " ( consider aids ) . To Kill the infidel !...:rolleyes:

I don't get that. Why should it matter? There are racists in the world, but that doesn't mean I have to be a racist. There are people who are religious in the world, but that doesn't mean I have to be religious. Why should they feel the need to imagine me away, just because I don't believe what they believe?
Why do you think that all religious people want to imagine you away? Eh?