Agnostic.com

11 13

What despicable people these are. The one certain thing we can state is that they are not an atheist group.
Sad how the rival pursuit of mythologies (that preach peace) leads to violence

[bbc.com]

Petter 8 Apr 21

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

It may be more political than religious. The Tamils have been marginalised for years and were some of the first to use suicide bombing as a terrorist weapon

But the Tamils would attack government targets (and hotels), not another minority group, surely?

@Petter The govt. supposedly eliminated the Tamil Tigers years ago but they could be making a comeback. It could be Buddhist terrorists which would be very sad as I have always considered them to be peaceful but as can be seen in Myanmar with the treatment of the Rohinga people they are becoming more militant.
Whoever it was it was still terrorism

2

This is so sad for the people of Sri Lanka. And, hurts the hearts of all people who value life!

3

Whether it is religiously motivated or not will seem irrelevant when the truth comes out...which is pure hatred committed in the name of their god. But the buttom line is pure hate.

...hate of the ‘other.’

5

I am not particularly bothered by any of this.
I'm certainly not surprised by it, that's for sure.

Humans have been killing one another, often for the stupidest of "reasons", since we started walking upright.
We are not all that civilized, and we are not all that evolved.

What surprises me is the pervasive expectation that we are.

3

Senseless killing for Senseless beliefs..

As logical as Santa Claus versus the tooth fairy in fact.

...they have always been ‘willing to die for their beliefs!’ And, that can be found today!

6

Isn’t that interesting indeed! I sometimes, think about the Civil War, here in the US and how the South had so many religions people and little else, because there was no public education. Families were against families...and they died by the thousands. I only know about the South’s religious affiliations...I haven’t given much thought or attention to the North and where religion fit in there. All I know is they fought to the death, and religion had to play a major part. And, let’s not forget people came to this country to escape religious persecution, only to choose up sides over religion in the early days and later on! Just maybe these people wanted religious practice to go only their way and it appears that never works...even in modern times!

How very true.

I am shamefully ignorant of the causes of this US civil war. All I understand is that its central tenet was the abolition of slavery but I am sure it I must be deeper than that

@Geoffrey51 the southern states also wanted to secede from the Union. U S historians would remember more...my experience is with mostly the Appalachian area, and all they had intellectually was that good ‘old time religion.’ And this would be mostly taught with self-appointed preachers, and then there were the camp-meetings where people came to hear a preacher! My grandfather preacher was that kind of preacher and they believed in a literal interruption of the Bible, (and he would not be too far from the Civil War). For the war... they had god on their side...which seems to be true, for all sides!

Apu tries to explain the Civil War:

@brentan ha ha ha...this brought to mind people in the Appalachian area...they were skinny like a fence post and dirt poor! Most were sharecroppers with barely enough food to live. I should have written about the area as I saw it...I do not romanticize stuff! Like things I read in the past! I guess they would be trying to preserve some pride of the people, but if so it did not work from my point of view.

3

I just saw Brad Garrett on GMA announce it as a war against the religous.....what does that mean? That made it sound like Non-religous people did it?

Good Golly Miss Molly, the War on Christmas continues, still aided and abetted by the silly MSM

twill Level 7 Apr 21, 2019

That's because in his blinkered view non-Christians are non-religious.

4

Just another few murders away from Paradise.

5

The news item , says no group has claimed responsibility , so at this point , we really can't blame it on a religious group , any more than they can blame it on an atheist group . They also blew up hotels .

True, but....

5

Sorry, but no. We CAN'T say this was not an atheist group. We know nothing about who did this atm. The time to condemn or absolve any group is AFTER we know who did this.

Dietl Level 7 Apr 21, 2019

True...but it is so unlikely to be an atheist group, that even I (who never ever places a bet on anything), would wager my life on it NOT being an atheist group. I don’t even know if there are such things as atheist terrorist groups.... maybe you know something that I don’t. Are there any?

@Marionville We can make speculations based on what conflicts are prevalent in the country but Sri Lanka has a population of 21 million people. We can't and shouldn't use words like 'certain' to spin a narrative. Yes, based on previous terror attacks it was most likely religiously motivated but there were probably only relatively few people involved in the attacks. We can't rule out anything until we actually know the facts.

@Dietl I agree... it isn’t my post. I was just pointing out that @Petter is probably correct in his assumption that it was not an atheist group...no it’s not a certainty....but highly unlikely. If you disagree that it’s highly unlikely, then you must therefore believe that it is likely. We both know that that is patently ridiculous!

@Marionville Talking about likeliness is fine and I agree that it was probably not an atheist group. But I think using single instances of violence to make a point is probematic. We have statistics for that.

@Dietl You are preaching to the converted...nobody here is disagreeing with you. We think if there was no religion, there would be no religious enmity towards other beliefs. If we were all atheists, we may still have wars and disagreements...that is the human condition, however, by removing religion from the equation there would be considerably less to disagree about. This is not a single incidence, sadly, there is a pattern of Christian worshippers being targeted by Muslin groups....just as there is a pattern of Jewish and Islamic places of worship being targeted by right-wing (Christian?) groups, and in Sri Lanka itself there has been a continuing campaign by the Buddhist majority against the Muslim community. What is common in all of these attacks is a hatred towards the religious practice of others. Eliminate religion and you eliminate the problem.

@Marionville Spot on!

10

Horrific! I expect it was Muslim terrorists, although it isn’t a Muslim country,..it’s Buddhist. The Sinhala Buddhist majority has been targeting mosques and Muslim businesses in a campaign against them. The civil war which raged for decades pitted the Hindu Tamils against the Sinhala government and countless thousands died. There is a small percentage of Hindus and Muslims, and an even smaller percentage of Christians in Sri Lanka’s population. Another tragic loss of life due to religious fervour and hatred....religion is truly the greatest scourge on the planet!

The Dutch East Indies brought Muslim mercenaries from Java. They were supposed to go back but didn't!

@FrayedBear Married the local women and stayed on....a story as old as time.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:334990
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.