help!

[Mike Cl]

Galileo, I don't think I can buy into your hypothesis that religion=terrorism, or that terrorism and religion is always linked to each other.  I think of terrorism as a special form of fear.  Back when humans were in small groups, terror was used to scare or terrorize the other to make them weaker and easier to defeat.  It has been used often in history to defeat the enemy.  And will continue to be used.  I do not deny that organized religions have used terror and will continue to do so, as well.  But terrorism does not need to be linked to a religion to be used.  Regular armies use it all the time.  Insurgents,  groups rebelling, or any time of civil unrest will produce one side or the other, or both, using terror tactics to make their point.  Religion can be a driving force, but so can poverty or political isms. 

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Sorry kids..Religion isn't going anywhere.  It's a money making control apparatus to keep people from rising up to kill off the kings..

[antediluvian]

Fossils?

[stromboli]

Fossils?

[Solitary]

I'm not a fossil, but I am a dinosaur.  Terrorism is caused by pure emotionalism running amok, for many reasons, from poverty to despots that are looking out for their self interests and lie, and people that don't question their authority. Like Nietzsche said, "In individuals insanity is rare, but in groups it is the norm."  Any group of even normal people can become terrorist with the correct incentive by a leader with authority to control others, that's why we have armies that can even teach men that the enemy isn't a human being, but a threat, even if they aren't like Saddam Hussein who was actually put in power by us and hated the terrorist Ben Laden, who we also put in power. Our country politicians and military were the first terrorist when we invaded Vietnam and Iraq, religion had nothing to do with it, it was politicians and military leaders instilling fear, hate and patriotic tribalism in people with lies. Solitary

[galileo]

Galileo, I don't think I can buy into your hypothesis that religion=terrorism, or that terrorism and religion is always linked to each other.  I think of terrorism as a special form of fear.  Back when humans were in small groups, terror was used to scare or terrorize the other to make them weaker and easier to defeat.  It has been used often in history to defeat the enemy.  And will continue to be used.  I do not deny that organized religions have used terror and will continue to do so, as well.  But terrorism does not need to be linked to a religion to be used.  Regular armies use it all the time.  Insurgents,  groups rebelling, or any time of civil unrest will produce one side or the other, or both, using terror tactics to make their point.  Religion can be a driving force, but so can poverty or political isms.

So, do I have it then that you would swap out religion for "socio-economics" in the equation?  In that case, we will just have to agree to disagree.  I know of no instance in which either poverty or political disagreement have moved people to beheading or other ideologically-driven atrocities of that kind.  By my own experience, I can tell you that it didn't happen in Vietnam, a hotly contested war.  Do you think that Boko Haram, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula and ISIS are pressing for a higher minimum wage, or do they kill people for their religious affiliation?

[antediluvian]

they don't kill because of religion.  They kill because of their genetic makeup. 
Mine is lip-gloss, a nice smoky eyeliner and bronze blush.

[galileo]

Your link. I can post it.

http://galileos-revenge.com/note-2/

Well forgive me for sticking a pin in your balloon there, Galileo, but you need to downsize your thinking a tad. First of all this is a forum of individuals that come from disparate backgrounds and different situations that led us here. We are not per se a recruitable army of activists. There is a big age range from high school to well past retirement. We are, in the vernacular of the day, a herd of cats. We do not line up or snap to attention as a group.

Secondly, your "rise to the call" attitude is fine, but lacks methodology to go with it. Rising to a challenge, save world, etc. is fine, but you need a plan. You need some form of a system or method that allows people to "get on board" in a more specific way. I'm afraid I find your scheme to be a bit nebulous.

you need to hook up with Secular Humanists in a more formal way. Visit their websites, places that are specifically proactive to change. We are a forum, we discuss stuff. This isn't the action front I think you are looking for.

Well, I had thought that I was addressing a special breed of cat, those particularly averse to nonsense (we might even style them atheists).  The methodology is transparent it seems to me, laughter abetted by mockery until the purveyors of nonsense shrivel to the point that their dicks fall off.  Either we are on solid ground here with respect to what constitutes reality, or we are not.  I'm betting, based on the body of forensic evidence compiled by our best minds in science, that we have it essentially right.  Perhaps my message should be "Say, folks, let's get off the dime, shall we?  It's time, time to pick a worlview that is, as best we can determine at this juncture, consistent with what we absolutely do know of reality!"  Of course, that would require that the cats in question inform themselves.

You are correct that I am seeking folks ready to act on the strength of their conviction.  And you might very well be right that I am barking up the wrong tree here.  Thanks for your take on the matter.

Cheers, Galileo

[Mike Cl]

So, do I have it then that you would swap out religion for "socio-economics" in the equation?  In that case, we will just have to agree to disagree.  I know of no instance in which either poverty or political disagreement have moved people to beheading or other ideologically-driven atrocities of that kind.  By my own experience, I can tell you that it didn't happen in Vietnam, a hotly contested war.  Do you think that Boko Haram, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula and ISIS are pressing for a higher minimum wage, or do they kill people for their religious affiliation?

Not just socio-economic reasons.  Yes, religion does use terror as a tactic.  But religion does not have a patent on it's use.  The rebel yell in the civil war was not religious--it was to scare shit out of the Yankees so they would just quake in fear and not fire back.  The Zulu's pounding their shields with their spears was a terror tactic.  A banzi attack in WW II was a terror tactic.  In Nam, the screaming of jets overhead making a napalm attack was a terror tactic.  Terror tactics are built into every armed conflict that ever existed--or will ever exist.  I really do wish the word 'terrorist' would stop being used.  It simply fuels what ISIS is doing.  Call them what they are, violent, destructive people.  They want to be labeled 'terrorist' for it gives them more clout or so it seems. 

[stromboli]

Well, I had thought that I was addressing a special breed of cat, those particularly averse to nonsense (we might even style them atheists).  The methodology is transparent it seems to me, laughter abetted by mockery until the purveyors of nonsense shrivel to the point that their dicks fall off.  Either we are on solid ground here with respect to what constitutes reality, or we are not.  I'm betting, based on the body of forensic evidence compiled by our best minds in science, that we have it essentially right.  Perhaps my message should be "Say, folks, let's get off the dime, shall we?  It's time, time to pick a worlview that is, as best we can determine at this juncture, consistent with what we absolutely do know of reality!"  Of course, that would require that the cats in question inform themselves.

You are correct that I am seeking folks ready to act on the strength of their conviction.  And you might very well be right that I am barking up the wrong tree here.  Thanks for your take on the matter.

Cheers, Galileo

Right. I posted your website. short and simple. A call to arms is just fine, but it requires a methodology and a means to do it. The reason I directed you to Secular Humanist websites is that secular humanism is a recognized body with a purpose and a built in purpose of expanding awareness, etc. I'm just saying that this forum is not a band of rabble looking to rise up in arms. I'm not knocking what you are attempting, it is laudable. I'm merely suggesting some refinement and better directions on the "how to" aspect.