Today,in my home country a group of armed man assaulted the redaction of "Charlie hebdo" newspaper with war weapons.At least twelve reporters and policemend died with four others in a critical state and twenty injured.It's a terrible act against the right of free speech and the French Republic.
Here is a video taken by reporters hiden on the roof : http://www.francebleu.fr/infos/fusillade/video-fusillade-charlie-hebdo-les-premieres-images-de-l-attaque-2050818
You can hear the murderers yelling "Allahou Akbar".
Here is an article in English with an other video:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/1-killed-3-injured-shooting-french-satirical-paper-article-1.2068486
What do you think about this?

This is fucked up. The whole terrorist attacks issue is getting out of hand lately. There's been an attack in my country too, a week ago. The first terrorist attack ever (here). I'm genuinely scared...

Any other Dollars in Paris? Those suspects haven't been apprehended if there's a network of members over the city that notice anything strange they can call authorities and post

They probably left the city, they have changed their car during the day in order to escape more easily (Rumors says it's a gray Citroen C3). Anyway, Paris is placed under heavy guard now, with police officers in every mall, press headquarters and places of worship. I hope they'll catch them soon before they go too far...

Moreover,as they are extremists,they might be willing to strike again because they have nothing to loose...

I saw the news when I woke up today. That's a sad thing to see happen. My prayers are with France.

I literally just saw this on the news as I came home from school. I came on here to find out more. My family are talking about how this highlights the freedom of speech problem in the UK. In France, until now, the press have been able to get away with articles like that which are provocative and controversial. However in the UK, any newspaper or magazine that tried to publish an article like that would never hear the end of it. Even the government would be against that sort of article. Freedom of speech is definitely going to become more artificial than it already is because these terrorist attacks are inciting fear in the public and in business.

I just heard on TV that serveral French newspapers will publish together some provocative drawings from Charlie Hebdo during the week as a protestation. They invited every newspaper, french and foreign, to join them to show to the terrorists that even if they attacked us, we aren't afraid of them. I wish that many will follow the call to protect freedom of speech.

My condolences from Spain.

Violence is despicable and terrorism is simply savage.

To be honest, I'm not 100% informed about the freedom of speech issues in France or the UK. In Spain is already non-existent so I can only hope for your countries to improve regarding this. I hate to be treated like a stupid goat by the government and the manipulative mass media.

Anyways, do you know why they attacked this redaction?
Why Charlie Hebdo? Were they from an extremist, religious group?

A ce qu'il parais, les tireurs se deplacerais vers l'est de la France...
Plus de 35000 personnes a Paris. Et sa augmente d'heures en heures..

JE SUIS CHARLIE
Je ne peux pas m'empêcher d'avoir la nausée à chaque fois que j'y pense. C'est un crime, c'est une barbarie sans nom, de s'attaquer ainsi à la liberté d'expression.
Le président a annoncé que demain sera une journée de deuil. Nous sommes tous touchés, et c'est une part de nous qui part avec ses superbes dessinateurs.
Ce soir, tout particulièrement,je pense aux familles des victimes, aux policiers et aux journalistes. Il faut, plus que jamais, être unis.

Laija : Charlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper, they published several drawings of Mahomet (which is forbidden according to the Coran) with a bomb above his head in 2011. They received many threats from integrists. Today, 2 terrorists took action... you know the end of the story.

About 100,000 people took to the streets of France!

JE SUIS CHARLIE.
La liberté d'expression est selon moi plus sacré que toute les religion confondu.

Apparentlty, the RAID (French SWAT equivalent) seems to have found the terrorists at Reims, in the north-east of France. Searches are in progress.

They also have identified the names of the suspects.

The french police has arrested three young men suspected of being involved in the massacre.
They are two brothers: Said K. and Chérif K. ages 34 and 32 respectively. There was another man of 18 called Hamyd M. (Surnames omitted due to privacy policy). The three of them of French nationality.

The weapons used were AK47.

The antiyihadist protocols are on maximum alert in France and Spain, the latter for fear of the terrorist tide spreading to its territory as the country has been threatened numerous times.

Source: EL PAÍS http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/01/07/actualidad/1420629274_264304.html

Its in Spanish but if you scroll down you can watch a video taken by some civilians who were close by.

This is SICK, both sides of this battle. One side is attacking innocent civilians in a peaceful place and the other side are publishing offensive cartoons not to just the terrorist group but a WHOLE religion for the sake of free speech.

This really is disgusting news to hear.

That's the cost of free speech. Yes it offends people. But it's wrong to retaliate using violence!

>>19 That's my point, "one side is attacking innocent civilians in a peaceful place". Of course it's wrong if you reply with violence. However no one is truly doing the good on EITHER side.

>>2 being scared is what they want. You lose.

>>5 foot loose

>>20 Making cartoons is not equal to clapclapping.

>>18 I agree entirely.
Illustrating Muhammad is violating the rights that others have to their religion, especially since Muhammad is someone who is never supposed to have a visual representation. No one has any right to violate someones religion like that.
Also, no one has the right to terrorize innocent civilians who likely had nothing to do with the offensive content. Killing is NEVER the answer, and neither is violating an entire religious group's rights just for a jab at a terrorist organization.

>>22>>18

I see your point but honestly, I don't share it.
You can find COUNTLESS cartoons mocking Jesus, God, Judaism, Buddhist monks and even atheists. And as far as I've seen no Christian, Jew, Buddhist whatsoever has felt that offended nor has gone kill the cartoonists.

Also, if you get down to it, Islam also prohibits the depiction of horses. So what, now I can't draw horses? I mean, someone who isn't Muslim doesn't have to abide by Islam's rules.

I find it utterly RIDICULOUS to even go to the extent of prohibiting a movie (I'm talking about Exodus here) because Moses appears and he can't be represented. C'mon. And that movie is not mocking Moses in any sense, even less Islam. Personally, that is close mindedness incarnated. As an designer-to-be I feel repelled by censorship.

Now, what I do agree with you is regarding extreme cases of parody and mockery where they straightly insult either their doctrine or key religious figures (etcetera).

New question; if and when the terrorists are caught, should they:
1) Be killed on the spot by armed officers
2) receive a prison life sentence after they have been put on trail?

>>24 Well they won't be killed on the spot unless they're fighting till the death with officers. Otherwise they'll probably try to arrest them for trial.

>>23 I appreciate you looking at my perspective, but it isn't about following other's rules. That's what you don't have to do, every religion to their own and not intertwining each other. But where did you hear about not drawing a horse? I sketch and yes there are some boundaries I have to follow, not that one though.

It is keeping yourself to yourself and let the rest keep to themselves. The cartoonist was in the wrong for intertwining with the customs of the religion. But the extremists are even worse for taking out their frustration like that.

I'd be disgusted but I know there are the better ways to deal with my frustration, such as writing a sophisticated letter to the editor of the newspaper. (This is a good idea for some of you guys out there who may have extreme thoughts)

A Controversial Thought For Atheists Regarding The Religious-Based Terrorist Attack on the French Cartoon Artists
[Make sure you actually *read* and *comprehend* before replying. I know a lot of you post an ignorant reply without even reading the full comment]


Just because you live in a western world where there is “freedom of speech”…does NOT mean you’re free from any & all consequences. Just like in a court of law, no one can ever say that you *deserved* something… But we can suggest in whispers that you were asking for it.
Is violence wrong? Most certainly.
Is antagonizing and harassing a group of people wrong? Some may say it is, while saying that it’s still within their rights to do so. This is True.

But whether you’re religious or atheist doesn’t matter, only a fool aims to incessantly piss the same number of people off without expecting retaliation… Unfortunately, they attracted the non-peaceful kind that used blood instead of signs and shouts of protest.
That being said, God help all who were killed and injured in France, and I pray for support to come to their families.



Think of it out of context: If someone in the media kept calling someone close to you, say, your mother, a “cunt”. Repeatedly. For years. And you punch them in the face. You would most definitely get charged and likely convicted for assault. The attorney may argue that the client was under duress for having someone close to them shamed over and over again, no matter your letters to the media personnel asking them to stop, and you lost control and punched them in the face.In the end, what the attacker did was definitely wrong, but no one can argue that speaking your mind is not free; it comes at a price.
I can already see so many intolerant people wanting to call me stupid and uneducated because “There’s a difference in attacking someone for the sake of a real person and attacking someone for the sake of an IMAGINARY PERSON.” God is obviously real to us, and FYI, intolerance goes both ways. [I can already see so many intolerant people wanting to call me stupid and uneducated because “There’s a difference in attacking someone for the sake of a real person and attacking someone for the sake of an IMAGINARY PERSON.” God is obviously real to us, and FYI, intolerance goes both ways.

Just to cover all bases: If you want to say that there is a difference between punching and killing, well yes, there obviously is. I was trying to reach out to the majority; the majority who would punch a person repeatedly than kill them when angered. But do people kill others when provoked or when defending a family member’s name? YES. This DOES happen, but on rare cases. Within the religious community, YES. Terrorism does happen, but when you look at the billions who are religious and take out the thousands of extremists who kill in the name of God, it can reflect the thousands who kill for any other name and the billions of atheists who don’t.


So I ask you… How come I get bullied by all ages, from bratty children to intolerant adults, for simply being Christian… As an African American, this wounds me as much as racism. Despite the fact that my friends and family support gay rights, contraception, and can accept those of other religions or atheists...
Atheists who bully the religious need to wake up, because they’re no different from the religious who bully the atheists (atheist ideologies like Nazism, anyone?)


Now are all atheists like Joseph Stalin? Or Chairman Mao? NO.
So can you please open your mind and see how not all religious folk are like Osama Bin Laden? Or Boko Haram?

>>23 "Now, what I do agree with you is regarding extreme cases of parody and mockery where they straightly insult either their doctrine or key religious figures (etcetera)."

That's pretty much what they did. You gotta look at the caricatures they published, because that is straight up what they did, even when the followers of Islam were asking them to either stop or, at the very least, tone it down. They responded by releasing a cartoon of Muhammad french kissing a man.

And from what I've heard of Exodus (have not watched it yet), it is indeed an unjust portrayal of Moses...
To ban it can be seen as crazy, but when some say that even when there are threats of a terror attack, a movie should still be viewed, is equally crazy.
Luckily, nothing happened when some theaters released The Interview.

>>27 >>28 dayum.....DAYUM. This guys got it down good. Like real good. So all of you butthurt people tone it down now, Magnolia has cleaned this shizz up.

>>26 The horse thing was a stupid example, I know, but it was to tone down my comment in a sense :)
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you've said and agree with you mostly. Seriously, I think you're right. However, from my point of view, religion (like other subjects such as politics, philosophy, science, art, education...etc.) shouldn't be "untouchable". May be that's not the correct word I want to use but I hope the idea is clear.

Extremes are always bad. We shouldn't approve of the position "I'm free of doing whatever I want with religion" and letting serious insults and discrimination take place, nor allowing the position of "Thou shalt no involve or critique religion in any way".

The cartoons were offensive, that is a fact. I won't deny it. I wouldn't have allowed them to publish the majority of them because even I, an ATHEIST, feels disgusted with that attitude towards other people's religion.
As you said, there are better ways to deal with that "frustrartion". True 100%

>>28 I've seen the caricatures. So I know why the Muslim felt bad and irritated about it. And it is reasonable.
I'm not going to defend a movie, because any movie makes mistakes and has flaws and ambiguous interpretations. We can't formulate a complete objective opinion about something like that.

As I said, it all relies in that grey zone area. It is not about watching it even if your life is threatened, nor banning it unilaterally. Personally, I think "The Interview" to be far more controversial but... whatever. That's subjective too.

For example, what Egypt did seems fine to me. They allowed to air the movie in the end, but censored two scenes that they felt wrong or inadecuate.

In my opinion even that the cartoons were offensive, people cannot kill people. There isn't a good reason to kill a person.

It is horrible. Charlie Hebdo hasn't done anything. And they were killed because of drawings! Those may be offensive, but it's not a reason to kill them all!
They wanted to kill Charlie. And now it is immortal.

Now police killed the terrorists! Don't know why but maybe they wouldn't collaborate and they started shooting?

It is terrible! Die people it is terrble. /oo

hi i'm from france and i just want say thank you to every poeple in the world for your support !

I will support and I pray that people who got hurt will stay safe and people who died will be safe in going to heaven.

I saw this news on my Newspaper two days ago. I am very disappointed and praying for all those who lost their lives.

bumping to get rid of trash

salut! juste pour te dire que je suis avec toi! et une grande partie de la Suisse est avec la France entiere :) je comprend juste pas comment des gens peuvent tuer pour une connerie pareille... autant juste eviter les choses non? et laisser passer?

Its ridiculous how Muslims are being blames for this. I mean a few crazy people kill and say its for god, doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists. If we were going to do that then, the kkk attacks black people for the sake of god and therefore all white Christians, including myself, are racists.
And where was the need to draw the pictures in the first place. Everyone acts like Charlie Hedbo was a martyr for free speech. He clearly drew those knowing they would anger and incite hatred.
Sorry for ranting but my friend at school was being picked on because of this. She might were a headscarf but she is a normal person.
And the media are not helping. Everyone seems to associate terrorism with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion. And if you take the time to learn about it, you can see that killing is not allowed and is a major sin. But if all you do is listen to the news all you learn is hate. Like the 77 virgin thing was a lie made up by the press.
The greatest terror crimes in history were done by Muslims. Colonialism, the opium war, jfk assassination, ww1, ww2, Cuban missile crisis, cold war, the list goes on.
I say this a white Christian. This is getting ridiculous. Islam means peace, peace and terrorism are not the same thing.

i totally agree with that picture, seriously not every muslim is bd

>>40 I think like you. My dad is Muslim, but I'm a Christian. Every Saturday I'm going to the arabic school. We learn read and write, my friends tell me about them religion. Muslims are very respectable and peaceful religion. One time in year, tey make "Muslim culture days". They make lectures about Islam, traitional food and songs. I think Muslims are very nice people and if other people thinks they're terrorist it's from lack of knowledge about Islam religion.

Charlie Hebdo

>>27 >>28 >>30 >>40 I understand all of your views, and I agree with most of the things all of you said. Nevertheless, I'd like you to (re)consider a few points.

-------------------------

The magazine's caricatures were cheap and tasteless and published to provoke, offend and insult people. I am a religious person myself, a Christian believer, and God is just as real and tangible and dear to me as any other close family member. I feel for the Muslims who were hurt by Charlie Hebdo's mockery.

However, it is and remains wrong to go on a rampage and kill the responsible journalists as an act of revenge. Just like it is wrong for victims of bullying, helpless students who have faced humiliation day after day, year after year, all on their own, to go berserk and massacre their bullies; just like this, it must remain wrong for the offended party to use violence against their aggressor or to make them stop by intimidating them.

Why must it remain wrong? Isn't it right for the victim to seek retribution or to try to stop the offenders?
No, it isn't. Not because the victims feelings are wrong or because the aggressors are right in what they're doing, but because violence or the restriction of free speech aren't constructive.
Does harming your aggressor improve anything? Does censorship change the offender's attitude of disrespect?
No, it doesn't. In the end, revenge and bans only fuel the aggressors determination to (re)act in an even more extreme and harmful manner. Censorship doesn't eliminate problematic intentions, it only hides them and diverts their harmful consequences.

So, shall the victim, the muslims in this case, just ignore and endure the relentless insults and offences? That isn't correct, either. Just because you should not use violence or prohibitions doesn't mean that you have to stay silent and just bear with everything. As a reasonable person, you've got plenty peaceful and more effective counter-measures, and you should make use of them to fight the offenders.

For example, you can assemble other victims, offended people, and supporters. Showing ignorant or unaware people in which way the aggressors actions are wrong, help them see the ridiculousness of such mockery. Convince them. Politicise and mobilise others. Get them to spread the truth, and take the wind out of the aggressors sails, even if you may not be able to make them stop insulting you, you can let the truth become your shield. That way, the insults will lose their impact and be revealed as what they really are: nothing but weak and cheap and tasteless attempts to stir up conflicts between different people.

Only if an open dialogue with all parties is possible, can we hope to unveil prejudices and set them aside in order to achieve a lasting shift towards more tolerance and respect. And such an open dialogue is only made possible through unrestricted freedom of opinion.

I believe that the majority of Muslims are level-headed enough to be aware of these facts and that they have done their share to disarm the caricatures' harm. They bear no blame for what has happened to the journalists at Charlie Hebdo's. Whoever points their finger at them is but an idiot.

The terrorists on the other hand (if they are really religiously motivated Muslim extremists as the media claim) deserve no empathy, even if their motives may have been justified to a certain degree. Just because I understand the terrorists' resentment does not mean that I accept their actions.
Who are we to take lives that were lent to us temporarily? By killing their offenders, the terrorists discarded their own humanity, and they revoked any human or divine legitimation they may have had.

-------------------------

Now, how does my long-winded speech to relate to this thread? A lot, for there's one thing I think needs to be clarified: The statements "Je suis Charlie" / "I am Charlie" and "Nous sommes Charlie" / "We are Charlie" should not be interpreted as support of the magazine Charlie Hebdo's horrible caricatures. They are meant to defend the freedom of speech and opinion, which "Charlie" stands for, even if the symbol's choice might be a little unlucky.
I think we're unanimous in our intention to voice our empathy for the dead's families and to condemn and brave anyone that seeks to change society through threats and intimidation or that turns against humanity by killing fellow humans.

This is why I appeal to all of you, whatever religion you may or may not belong to: Let us stay as civil with each other as we have been so far. Let us not give in to fear or rage or confusion which cloud our judgement. Assignments of guilt won't help us move forward nor will they make it easier to cope the attack's aftermath.
Instead, let us think about how to improve inter-religious and inter-cultural relations to prevent such incidents in the future. That is where the Dollars' real strength lies.

After reading all these posts, I can definitely say the Dollars are pretty level-headed, strong and out there for a better cause. In my opinion, I don't think there's any other group out there where I would ever find wonderful people like the ones we have here.
My first thoughts when people started calling themselves Charlie was, 'why would you do that?'. But I know now that besides the name, we want a voice that can speak out in the chaos. Once again this is my opinion, but I think the voice of the Dollars is much louder and clearer and it's awesome to hear.

This is terrible. But many more people could die at the demonstration in Paris. Think about it a suicide bomber and the caos after that. The casualties would be immense. Honestly im really really scared.

I am French, I heard the news on the radio with friend. Initially I did not thought it was so surreal and horrible. Right now there is a big event in Paris with many heads of states. It's really amazing to see so many solidarity!

You guys must remember. No one thinks that all islamic people are extremists unless they are from the south.
>>40 Your only oppressed if the male majority of your race forces you to wear a head-scarf. The reason that is such a big issue is some people don't! Nuns are a very big minority, and in America, can stop being nuns. While in some other countries, that can be seen as immoral and terrible. Sure people who mis-interpret it in America are causing a problem, but the root of that problem is actual people who say, don't want women going to school, believe that wearing anything but a headdress is invitation to sex, and that women are lesser.

This is a serious problem in other areas of the world.

Finally, although some of you claim Charlie Hebdo was in the wrong. I would like to point out that Charlie Hebdo makes fun of all creeds and nationalities. Whether is catholics, jews, muslims. How can you expect a satirical magazine to make fun of everything but you? That's just not reasonable. If all satirical magazines were like that, we'd have none at all.

So while Charlie Hebdo was being offensive, that's what it does. Everyone gets shit here. If we don't let that stay, then groups will not allow any criticism in the future. People can't speak out against muslims, or christians, or the government. Freedom of speech is a right, because it's needed to STOP oppression.

In many countries controlled by religious extremists speaking out against unfair conditions can get you killed. That's why people are fighting back against the small portion of extremists (That don't represent the islamic religion as a whole), because if they don't other people will fight back, we won't be able to criticize anything. Do you really want French people to not be able to make a joke about islam? It's not in fact, in their religious scripture, it says to be honorable to anyone, even if they don't follow the same rules, or are a part of the same creed. Killing is also wrong according to the Quran.

So who is more in the wrong, the people acting using free speech, or the people who go against their own religious ideas because they were offended about something that doesn't create much of a difference in their lives.

>>47 Actually, such strong offensive imagery can spread ignorance and intolerance. So yeah, IT CAN AFFECT the lives of people. Just because you're not one of them or living in France, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For fuck's sake, look at Germany and their Anti-Islam protests. And these two countries are neighbors.

And yes, they made fun of all religions. If you read, they made fun of Islam the most after they received some complaints about it.

And I don't think you read carefully what people have already said on here.

Yes. We're all quite aware what satire is, and I've heard the same argument at least a hundred times within the past 3 days, and for the last time, no one's saying we should get rid of satire.

And yeah, freedom of speech and the use of satire and media can speak out against oppressive qualities within societies and cultures.

Charlie Hebdo's cartoons on religion weren't about that.
They were just another group of atheists who liked taking the piss out of any and all religious folk. In a way, they were abusing their freedom by using it to bully. What political agenda did they have in fighting oppression by portraying Muhammad as a gay man French kissing a personification of Charlie Hebdo? It was a middle finger; plain and simple.

And before you say, "Well, if you don't like it, then don't look at it!"
Guess what?

That's What Hundreds Of Thousands Of Religious People Did.

Except for about 3.

Freedom of speech is not fucking free. It comes at a price. Especially when you promote ignorance, hatred, or intolerance. Feel free to talk shit all you want, as long as you have substantial security. Because last I checked, people also have the right & freedom to be offended.

>>51 I'm going to say only one thing:

Not all atheists are hateful and intolerant towards religion. I am one and think religion as something culturally beautiful and meaningful for others. I have studied Christianism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism and a bit of Shintoism. Just for the passion of knowledge and diversity.

Don't worry Magnolia, I don't say this because I assumed you were implying or saying that all atheists are ignorant pricks. As with religious people... there are good and bad groups (to put it simple).

I just took advantage of your reply in order to state something. ( n . n )

I'm torn.
I hate both Atheists and Muslims.
Atheism and Islam are some of the most toxic of religions.

>>53

"Atheism and Islam are some of the most toxic of religions."


Atheism...



Atheism...

____


>>52 Thank you so much. I can't believe I forgot to say that.

>>44 I agreed with you a 100% until this fail troll showed up. >>53

>>54
You think differently than I do, you must be trolling.

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

Atheism fits more and more into this definition as time goes on.

Islam has been volatile since...it's inception.

These are my opinions on the matter, sorry you don't like them.

>>55 Not only did you take that definition from Wikipedia, but you didn't even bother read further down: A global 2012 poll reports 59% of the world's population as "religious" and 36% as not religious, including 13% who are atheists, with a 9% decrease in religious belief from 2005.

It's not so much that I don't like them... It's just that you're wrong. And every atheist I've ever met laugh at the thought of calling atheism a religion. Here's a quick experiment: 9Gag got atheists from all of the world who mock religion. Try telling any one of them that atheism is a religion, and see what happens: http://9gag.com/gag/azL3grq

>Not only did you take that definition from Wikipedia
I fail to see why this has your panties knotted.

>36% as not religious, including 13% who are atheists
So? Just because they say it's not a religion doesn't really make it not a religion.

>atheist laugh at the thought of calling atheism a religion
Alright. That doesn't make it less so.

>Here's a quick experiment: 9Gag
No thanks. 9gag is for fags.

>Try telling any one of them that atheism is a religion, and see what happens
I'm not trying to prove anything, so I'll pass on that.
I think that atheism, as it is today, is a religion.

Tell me I'm wrong, I don't really give a shit.
But, you've yet to give me a single reason why atheism is not a religion. Your retort has been pretty weak.

Step it up, Maggie.

>>57 1. The very same site that states what their definition of a religion is, also stated that atheism was not a religion.
2. The major of atheists would agree.

I gave you two reasons, bub, pay attention. I just find it ironic that you took a definition of religion from a site, and yet you disagree with the same site not calling atheism a religion. Whatever.

I was willing to be open-minded if you actually gave a coherent counter argument, but I see you couldn't form one.

You just stick with your opinion, and I'll stick with mine, yeah?

bleh majority*

>>58
How does atheism not fit that definition though?
The opinions of the majority don't make something fact.
Your reasons suck, I'm paying attention.

Wait, that's not irony. Is it?

I think my argument is coherent, in formal sure, but still coherent enough.
So again, how does atheism not fit the definition of religion?

Also, please do keep your opinion. I don't want to change anyone's thoughts on the matter. I just want a satisfying answer to my question.

It's was happening in my country.
The support from everyone was really wonderful and so warm..really thanks <3

>>58 Atheism is a system of beliefs people are devoted to wholeheartedly and I would call it a religion. I would also consider science a religion, but I'm sure this doesn't fit with the dictionary definition. Seems weird to me to separate atheism from Christianity when both wholly believe in something and it strongly affects how they live their life.

It comes down to semantics and what you think a religion is. I guess the question is, why do you think it's different? Please don't quote other people saying they think it isn't unless they also explain their reasoning.

>>62
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

the belief in a god or in a group of gods

an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

A particular system of faith and worship

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

You may have noticed I took as many separate definitions from different sites. Including the official Webster Dictionary site, official Oxford Dictionary site, and wikipedia. The closest to saying atheism is a religion, is wikipedia, the last one. Sadly, atheism doesn't relate humanity to an order of existence so that also, doesn't work.

The very word "atheism" takes the prefix a and word theist, and combines them to translate to no religion. How can you claim that something that not only goes against the definition of religion, but has it in it's name that it is not religious, be religious.

Now can we end this?

>>51

While you bring up many valid arguments, there is no proof that Charlie Hebdo outright hated religion altogether, although they did poke fun at it after complaints, that's because there were complaints. As you can see from any satirical magazine or website, many like fighting back against complaints with more satire to poke fun at that.
Along with this, I must stand on the fact that if Christians complained they would have made similar movements against them. It's equal in the fact that they make fun of all religions.
So although they were being heavy assholes, you can't say they hated Islam more than any other religion. It was merely a coincidence caused by the fact that they are more likely to voice their opinion in letter. Correlation/Causation.
Although all your other points are valid. So based on your argument, I must concede and say, that Charlie Hebdo, probably made a bad decision pissing off a large amount of people.

Edit:
Sorry about all the deleted comments, I was organizing my thoughts, but the box is rather small and it's hard to organize them when you can't see all of them. Your really should get a member system so there can be an edit button. Also isn't it possible to delete ANY post? That seems dangerous.

>>64
>The very word "atheism" takes the prefix a and word theist, and combines them to translate to no religion

Theist means a believer in God(s), not a religious person. Atheist would then translate to 'no God'. You are already assuming believing in God is the only way to be religious, which is what I am contending.

Like I said, it is semantics. But, whether you give it a different label or not, they really aren't drastically different in how they function. I said before they both believe in something and more or less mold their life around it. This is why I think distinguishing them is odd.

world with no religion no lies can you guys imagine ?

>>67 You can extend the box on the bottom right corner and you also have RAM and a clipboard. You also need the correct password to delete someone else's posts, which are generated based on IP and stored in a poster's cookies.

I think we can agree he probably foresaw some anger coming from his comics. But, if you can get angry enough to kill someone from a picture, I think that's a problem with you, not the picture.

But religion is the belief in the higher power. Just because an animal eats, drinks, sleeps, breaths, and poops, doesn't mean it is the same as a person. That means that both religion and atheism are a life style. So yes, religion IS the belief in a god. the definitions say they are mostly a belief in a higher power. No, them both being a sort of life style doesn't make them the same thing. A circle is a shape, a square is a shape. Circle =/= quadrilateral

As someone before me noted. Scientists believe in science being supreme, but so do many people, that doesn't make it a religion either.

Your argument is solely based on the idea that molding your life around something makes it similar. But religion isn't about "molding" It's about believing in god. Even if someone completely hates god, pays no attention to him, but has a STRONG belief in him. Would you not consider him religious? Are you going to say no because he doesn't mold his life around it?

In summary, yes they are similar, no they aren't the same.

>>71
You are taking religion = God for granted when this is what I am contesting. So, "religion IS the belief in a god" doesn't really mean more than me saying "religion is belief". The main point I am making is that there is no universal definition of religion everyone follows. I think it makes way more sense to define religion around the intensity of your beliefs rather than the object of them, you don't agree.

You are right, it's pointless to argue definitions. With those arguments, if it can't be solved with one reply, it will probably never end.


Anyway, does someone disagree that you can prevent his comics from reaching you in an easier and more peaceful way than killing his staff? I don't understand the anger to this extent.

The most important aspects of religion is believing in your spiritual self. For the many atheists I've spoken with, they do not believe in a spiritual self (but agnostics apparently do?).

They don't believe that there is a soul or "intangible life energy" within the human body, because then they would ask "Where? Where is it? Where is the proof of it?"

Religion is also based on faith; it's based on belief. In religion you do not need factual evidence, and if you search for them (at least in the case of Christianity), it's actually seen as your faith being very weak.

Atheists only want facts.
I get so dog tired of being questioned on how do I know if there is a God? I do not know, I believe that there is one. You know the expression "leap of faith"? Taking leaps of faith over things things that have no apparent explanation (the parting of the Red Sea and it's dry ground, striking a rock in the desert and water flowing out, the plagues over Egypt and why covering the door in a young lamb's blood prevented your first born son's death, turning water into wine, believing in different stages of the mind and spirit that open up chi pathways that lead to Nirvana, that there is a Heaven and Hell [and Purgatory, for some], etc. ), are (to me) examples of what it means to have faith.

That's why I don't see atheism as religion whatsoever, because not only do they not believe in taking these, frankly, illogical leaps of faith without evidence, they don't even believe in a spiritual self that transcends the body.
They say they know that there is in the God because there has never been proof of one. Some will commonly use deadly natural disasters and wars as proof that God doesn't exist.

Atheism is to confirm with evidence, so the use of faith is illogical. I hear sometimes atheists that say science is there God (albeit, I think they say this jokingly). Through science you need observations and experiments until you are satisfied that your hypothesis is either disproven or remains strong. So for instance, many Christians believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that was used to wrap around Jesus Christ's body over 2000 years ago. But carbon dating says that it's not nearly 2000 years old and was woven in the 1300s. But some Christians still hold to their beliefs in the Shroud of Turin and faith in God, and believe that there are some things that science can't explain.

Lastly, when it comes to a moral code, atheists and religious folk usually follow the laws outlined by the country they're in. But there's also a second code, an internal code that everyone follows. Atheists tend to create their own so each one is unique to the individual, but for those of religion, an internal code was already created for them.

So if I had to give a definition for religion I would say it's an organized and cultural structure founded on belief and faith in the unseen and unproved in hopes of bettering the soul through guidelines within their holy script.

Why does it matter what someone else believes, if you think they're wrong, then just believe that to yourself. Live and let live.

>>75 Not exactly sure which part of the discussion you're referring to. Why would people commit an act of violence over an opinion, or why would people debate over the definition of atheism?

>>72

There is a definition of religion though. There are multiple even. NONE OF THEM DESCRIBE WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. It's semantics if you are arguing about a noise being heard in an empty forest, because noise has TWO meanings. One is vibrations, the other is perceived noise. You can't just say this is my definition of religion deal with it.

That's not how languages work in the slightest.

>>64
>The very word "atheism" takes the prefix a and word theist, and combines them to translate to no religion

What, no it doesn't. It translates to no theist. Which means no god. That doesn't mean no religion.

>>71 >But religion is the belief in the higher power
No it's not.

>Just because an animal eats, drinks, sleeps, breaths, and poops, doesn't mean it is the same as a person.

You're losing me...

>That means that both religion and atheism are a life style. So yes, religion IS the belief in a god.

I'm lost.


>they do not believe in a spiritual self
Well this doesn't mean that the spiritual self doesn't exist.

>They say they know that there is in the God because there has never been proof of one.
There is no proof there isn't one either, so they have to believe what they believe on faith.

I do really appreciate you taking the time to write that, Maggie.
But I remain unconvinced.


>>77 >It's semantics if you are arguing about a noise being heard in an empty forest, because noise has TWO meanings. One is vibrations, the other is perceived noise.

o i am laffin

>>67 I never said they hated Muslims and I already addressed in a previous post that they made fun of the Islamic religion more because of complaints...( >>51 & >>27 )

>>78 Why don't you explain to us what do you think religion is and why atheism fits in that definition of religion?

And by the way, if you really seek for a proper understanding of atheism (or areligiousness if you prefer) go read some Nietzsche, Hume, Sartre, John Stuart Mill and Schopenhauer.

Also check up these concepts: nihilism, irrationalism and vitalism (Related to Nietzsche)

I think it will be an interesting experience for you, at least.

And Magnolia, thanks for trying to explain our disposition towards religion. As an atheist I appreaciate it.

>>80
>implications: the post

Why do you think that I haven't read any of these?
Why do you think I'm in the dark? Is it because I disagree with your religion?

>I think it will be an interesting experience for you, at least
o I am laffin Pt. 2


Reasons atheism is a religion:

world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

apostasy=tergiversation

prophets:Nietzsche, Hume, Sartre, John Stuart Mill, Schopenhauer

messiah: Darwin

preachers and evangelists: seeking converts, preaching your gospel

faith: You guys have just as much of it to disbelieve in god than those that have it to believe in god

I hate to ask, but... Did anyone else not understand this^, or was it just me?

It's just... I read this over & over again...

Anon, I think you wrote this in note form. You've actually got to describe what it is you're debating.

Sure you don't have to make long ass posts like mine, but...still... They need to be coherent.

____

>>80 0.0 oh wow! Thanks for the feedback!

>>77
>NONE OF THEM DESCRIBE WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING

Well, they do, though. You seem to also be taking that for granted. Some of them mention faith and belief only, which is true for atheists, and others specifically mention God. There are differences in definitions depending on which source you choose. That's why I am saying there is no universal definition.

Also, language changes over time. People have new definitions for old words that don't follow the dictionary, but eventually they become the norm. What's the point of keeping the dictionary definition if no one uses it? That is exactly how language works.

>>82 lolololol get on my level and you will be on my level

>It's just... I read this over & over again...
Maybe it's your reading comprehension skills that are in the lack?

>Anon, I think you wrote this in note form
irrelevant

>You've actually got to describe what it is you're debating.
Atheism is a religion. Holy fuck.

>They need to be coherent
it is coherent, I don't understand how you aren't getting it

Also, debating over how I debate as opposed to what I'm debating is a logical fallacy, pretty sure.

My argument is clear, my reasoning for said argument is clear.

When I can't understand what you're saying, it's obviously not a logical fallacy, nor would it make you debating in note form irrelevant.

If your argument is clear, and someone doesn't understand it...perhaps it's not clear? Perhaps you could evolve from your level of immaturity and join the adults? And yes, insulting someone's reading comprehension is immature. Especially when I'm understanding every person except you. Probably because everyone else is writing in sentences.

You never said, but did you comprehend my argument? >>74 Any feedback to give on this?

>>85
I don't have to write in sentences. If that's your grip then it is a logical fallacy, sorry.
I'm not insulting your reading comprehension, I'm only saying it might be why you can't understand me.

I did say. I did compressed, and replied accordingly. Sorry I didn't quote the post.

Also, insulting my maturity?
How am I being immature?

>>86 The authors and concepts were reading recommendations. I wasn't implying you were uncultured as to not know them. I don't think is something to be laughing at.
It was meant as a simple exchange of info...

and yes...

1. world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

Establishing an order of existence is equivalent as establishing a supreme concept (either God or religion or the non belief in God in your theory) from which the human societies revolve around. That is a form of deification. If an atheist does that... well, he's not an atheist in the "pure" sense of the word.

That absolutization denies the relativism which should be inherent to any atheist. Therefore, we could say that any atheist that absolutizes stops being an atheist. The mere act of absolutization is from rationalism, the "nemesis" of irrationalism core of atheism.
Atheism should be relativist.

One thing is how people (atheists) approach atheism, which is why you consider it a form of religion, and the other the thing in itself. Most people say they are atheists but once they say they "believe in friendship, justice... whatever" they are contradicting themselves. If you don't get it, please check Descartes.

2. Prophets

Now... that was hilarious.
Would you say a religious person would defy or find flaws in their prophets? Hahahaha... right. The day I see a Muslim finding faults in Muhammad, a Christian in Jesus (etc)...

Though all the authors I mentioned are key in the denial of the concept of God, debunking it philosophically, they have flaws in their systems. As rationalist philosophers do. What I mean is, how can you call them "prophets" when an atheist wouldn't follow them blindfolded?

3. Messiah

( = . = ) *deep sigh*

4. Preachers and evangelists

Man... I seek no converts. I wouldn't care less what people do with their lives. NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
If someone doesn't stop rabbiting about atheism, without being asked even, then I agree with you that's kind of "preachy" hahaha. You can find weirdos and extremists everywhere...

If you ask me if I'm an atheist and why I'll answer, as well if during a conversation it is needed a clarification of my disposition towards the existence of God I'll say I'm an atheist. Now, that in my country is called EXCHANGING IDEAS.

I don't know about yours

And now someone will appear saying that rationalism (religion) and irrationalism (atheism in its pure sense) are the same and will have insulted centuries of Western Philosophy.

Two 100% opposite concepts.

I'll be like: fuck logic ( - . - )

I feel like a lot of the posts here (Including my own) Have been rather half baked in it's wholeness. After reading through all the posts I have gone to the easiest way to solve a dispute that people believe revolves around semantics.

According to most current definitions of religion (No one really obscure one doesn't count.) The definition of religion doesn't account for atheism being a religion (Unless you are extremely weird and have an obsession with atheism as a whole. Then I guess that could count as a religion, but I digress, most do not have this obsession with atheism).

So by your definition, yes atheism is a religion. I accept that english and languages in general are a divergent form of communication that changes over time.

So, by your definition you're completely right (Even if I don't agree with the definition) By my definition I am completely right. Thus this is a stalemate, I would appreciate it if we got back to the topic at hand.

Do you guys think that there is anyway that the dollars will be able to help the French public? Although I doubt we can do much with our limited amount of members, maybe we should try and urge some of our members to speak out against it.

>>89 Like I said in my post above, I'd like the Dollars to
- show their solidarity with the dead journalists' families
- condemn the act of killing others because of their albeit provocative opinion
- stand up for the wrongly accused peaceful majority of Muslims and
- most importantly, promote and improve relations between people of different cultures and confessions/atheism (e.g. by publicise their respect for other people, by enlightening the groups about each other, by organising intercultural/interreligious events etc.).

>>90 >>89
With millions protesting worldwide...you guys don't think anyone from the dollars is? I mean, France just had their largest public gathering ever.
I think what we're doing right here is also productive. Sharing ideas, opinions, world & religious views... Nothing wrong with doing this. Especially on a thread. Especially on a thread on a social site.

And what about people who live in countries where protesting is prohibited? In China, protesting without the government's permission will likely land you in jail. And the only people I have ever seen protesting with the government's permission were paid by the government to protest to begin with...

Well, whatever your opinions, they're running it anyway.

Link: here.

Apparently, they are printing 3 000 000 copies instead of the usual 60 000.

"Tout est pardonné" / "All is forgiven"

Charlie Hebdo's first issue after the attack will be published tomorrow. Here's the front page with a comment by Renald "Luz" Luzier, the Mohammed cartoonist and cover artist:

"I invoked all the talents of the magazine, all those who were not there any more, all those were still there, I said to myself, we must do a drawing that above all makes us laugh, and not one on the emotional charge we are victims of.

"I had the idea of drawing this character of Mohammed, as it’s my character, because he existed, at least in people’s hearts, and in any case he exists when I draw him.

"He is a character that got our offices burned, and a character who at first got us treated as the great white knights of the freedom of the press because the offices had burned down. Then a year later when we redrew the character we were treated as dangerous provocative and irresponsible. So this character led us to be called either white knights or provocateurs, whereas we are above all cartoonists who draw little people like children do.

"The terrorists were once kids, they drew like us, like all kids, then one day they perhaps lost their sense of humour, perhaps their child soul able to see the world from a bit of a distance, because that’s Charlie – being able to draw the world from a small distance. So I drew saying to myself: “I am Charlie”. That was my idea but it wasn’t enough.

"The only idea left was to draw Mohammed, I am Charlie. Then I looked at him, he was crying. Then above, I wrote: 'All is forgiven', and then cried. We had the front page, we had finally found this bloody front page. This was our front page.

"This was not the front page the world wanted us to draw, it was our front page.
This is not the front page that the terrorists want us to draw, as there are no terrorists in it, just a man who cries: it’s Mohammed. I am sorry that we drew him again, but the Mohammed we drew is a Mohammed who is crying above all."

What's your opinion on this cover?

I think it's a good way to show that the people of Charlie Hebdo don't completely blame the Islamic community over something that was the act of a few individuals. I believe that if this escalates further bad things are possible.

In Spain, the newspaper EL PAÍS dedicated its two first pages, full page, to Charlie Hebdo. The Spanish cartoonists paid the deceased homage with their illustrations.
One of them, Forges, actually knew some of Charlie Hebdo's illustrators in person.

I think the front page of Charlie's new issue is compassionate and at the same time touching. Very nice.

>>94 >>95 It's interesting how differently people react to this cover. When I stumbled upon it, I thought that it was very much in line with Charlie Hebdo's usual credo. It's a meaningful gesture towards the terrorists and the general public, both bittersweet and provocative, if you consider that Muslims are not allowed to picture Muhammad at all.

I'm french too,
What happened is horrible but what is even more chocking to me were the reactions of some people saying "they deserved that etc.." + how the different politicians used this tragedy to get more votes in 2017 (Marine Le Pen for instance)...

It is really really sad for our country, and we must not forget that these crimes are nothing compared to all the death caused everyday in Syria and Palestine.

I'm from Switzerland and what I can say is that, here, a lot of people are afraid. Some are even thinking that a third World War will be coming soon.

Some people who dislike the magazine "Charlie Hebdo" even said that the people who kill for something like religion are also the first ones who do not follow their religion for they all preach peace and cohabitation.

^

Almost exactly this >>27 . Glad other people see it.