[Closed] Cologne Mass Sex Attacks

Strange you declined to comment on the massively controversial point that we meet folk who do the same things that we do.

[url= http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/police-issue-report-on-new-years-eve-violence-in-cologne-fotostrecke-133443-6.html ]Der Spiegel photos with comments in English[/url]

It wasn't really worthy of comment, but I think you know that

Nice put down though 😆

No put down junky!
I'm happily married and I don't take drugs as I'm sure you know (or at least suspect)
I found your comment odd in the least.

I've now read the Spiegel reports. The police have 121 complaints but only four suspects in custody. Two North Africans pick pockets and two men of unstated origin who sexually aggressed women.

Jambalaya. Someone claiming to be Syrian took the Micky out of the police saying he could tear up his immigration papers and get new ones the next day. In other words he knew how easy it was to invent a new identity and was prepared to mock the system, which to me suggests he may be a false Syrian immigrant of which there are a lot according to earlier German media reports. The police didn't recover the documents.

I suggest going direct to Der Spiegel and using Babble Fish if you don't speak German - it'll still be closer to the original than the Guardian or Times.

If I'm ever put on trial for a crime, I hope the jury is made up of Singletrack forum members. I know that 1) they will scrutinise the evidence in great detail and 2) they will never agree (meaning I get off scott-free if I'm guilty) 8)

I'm happily married and I don't take drugs as I'm sure you know (or at least suspect)
I found your comment odd in the least.

It wasn't my intention to suggest in any way that you were a drug taking philander and I apologise unreservedly for it being taken that way.
It was not well worded on my part.

Again it depends what you pick. Most of our advancements , IMHO, arise form ignoring the bible teachings and embracing science and enlightenment.

On this point, the Islamic world was making great advances in science and maths, 500 years before the enlightenment.

It wasn't my intention to suggest in any way that you were a drug taking philander and I apologise unreservedly for it being taken that way.

Great to see everyone discussing this in a sensible manner, I was half expecting to see this thread closed by this morning.

I need to have a proper read through the thread - so far I've really liked some of the posts, lot's of good insights for me to think about!

the Islamic world was making great advances in science and maths, 500 years before the enlightenment.

American is a nation built on immigration. Its just BS to say we cannot live side by side in peace

But, in order to do so, didn't they first have to genocide the Native American Indian tribes with war, smallpox, guns & alcohol?

Junkyard

the Islamic world was making great advances in science and maths, 500 years before the enlightenment.

It was but it peaked then and has not moved forward [at the same rate] making it look like it has moved backwards.

Peaked is one way to say it. Smashed back to the stoneage by the mongols and the crusaders (who took much of what they learned back to europe) is another.

But, in order to do so, didn't they first have to genocide the Native American Indian tribes with war, smallpox, guns & alcohol?

Good point well made. I have no counter.EDIT and the post above

that is christian morality for you
Good point well made. I have no counter.EDIT and the post above

Also, I have a lot of friends in the US.

The US currently has a polarized climate of shrieking entitled Social Justice Warriors who blame white people for everything wrong with in their personal lives and reactionary racist bigots with guns and the will to use them.

It's not a great country to highlight as a bastion of multiculturalism, the USA is a great example of plural monoculturalism.

Americans don't seem to like each other very much these days. They fundamentally disagree on so many issues it is hard to see where the common ground is.
Whether the culture war will turn into something bigger is difficult to say. It will definitely affect the presidential polls, although I expect Clinton to win, I think Trump (my namesake) will do far better than many expect.

Some people like to attribute everything bad that is, or has been, done by Westerners to Christianity. I don't deny that bad things have been done by so-called Christians but blaming everything bad on Christian culture whilst at the same time claiming that we are a secular country where hardly anyone is an active Christian is just laughable.
It's like some atheists are desperate to have the moral high ground.
It is almost too obvious to say that there is good and bad amongst Christians, among Muslims, and even amongst atheists.

The need for religion is a consequence of our flawed human nature.
Addressing that issue takes actual thought.
🙂

I agree. I'd also ask the question: where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.
Many athiests use the moral ethical system of Christianity to criticise the religion itself, e.g. how Christians have used religious and political persecution, but surely we wouldn't think persecution was such a bad thing were it not for the ethical system as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount.
And at root Christianity does say that people are sinners, so it can hardly be surprising that as soon as a religion gets mixed up with human beings, things start to go wrong.
("Bonkers Badnewz warning")
But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood - people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.
In conclusion, like it or not, we are the products of post-Enlightenment Christianity.

where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.

So before Christianity came to pagan Europe nobody knew right from wrong??!?!?

Do you have a shred of proof for this assumption?

badnewz - Member
I agree. I'd also ask the question: where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.

Sorry, but attributing moral/ethical values to religion is nonsense.
It's the other way around.

But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood - people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.

So non Christians were incapable of seeing the evil inherent in slavery?

In conclusion, like it or not, we are the products of post-Enlightenment Christianity.

Christianity is the product of humanity.

So before Christianity can't to pagan Europe nobody knew right from wrong??!?!?

I would argue that the natural law meant they had some understanding of a moral law.

Do you have a shred of proof for this assumption?

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics. Child sacrifice was practiced and I think that only became an ethical issue after Christianity, which placed revolutionary emphasis on the value of the individual human being.

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics.

Thank God for burning of heretics, the crusades and systematic sexual abuse! Oh.

But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood - people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.

Christianity was also used to justify the slave trade.

Thank God for burning of heretics, the crusades and systematic sexual abuse! Oh.

Please pay attention. Christianity places emphasis on man's fallen nature - it does not say Christians will be above sin; but Christianity contains within it an ethical system which means it can be reformed over time by Saintly people. The pagan world did not have such an internal ethical system and hence was unable to reform itself.

So did jesus not like black people or did he think that they were exceptionally good workers or what?

@wrecker - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

Although Jesus never said a word about slavery apparently - maybe he was ambivalent about it.

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics.

When Rome converted to Christianity under Constantine the Great in about 325AD, the brutal slavery and Imperial politics continued apace.

When Rome converted to Christianity under Constantine the Great in about 325AD, the brutal slavery and Imperial politics continued apace.

There are certainly major issues with the Donation of Constantine. Some people (mainly Protestants) argue it was a mistake as it polluted the faith with Roman power politics. Others (mainly Catholics - no surprise) argue that it enabled the long term renewal of Europe along progressively less brutal lines.

I'm not sure either way, but the point stands that Christianity emphasises man's fallen nature, so it stands to reason it will become polluted on contact with politics.

Christianity places emphasis on man's fallen nature - it does not say Christians will be above sin; but Christianity contains within it an ethical system which means it can be reformed over time by Saintly people.

Admittedly, it only took 1800 years or so for Christians to stop trading slaves. When do you think the systematic sexual abuse will stop?

Many athiests (sic) use the moral ethical system of Christianity to criticise the religion itself, e.g. how Christians have used religious and political persecution, but surely we wouldn't think persecution was such a bad thing were it not for the ethical system as laid out in the Sermon on The Mount

I was raised agnostic atheist and to date understand my (profoundly negative) feelings towards persecution to arise from such things as empathy, reasoning and sympathy?

Additionally - I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what was alleged to have been said on 'The Mount'.

*Edit*. Ok I googled it. 'Blessed are the persecuted'? What a vile notion.

Grum, that's a really shit story. Canaan gets slavery because his dad saw his grand daddy in the altogether?
I though Noah was a happy old soul, caring for animals and whatnot. He's always kind in the films.

By today's secular and religious standards:

cursing all of an individual's innocent descendents into perpetual slavery because of an inappropriate act by an ancestor is immoral.

Admittedly, it only took 1800 years or so for Christians to stop trading slaves

@ransos, I don't think slavery will ever end, unfortunately, not in this world anyhow.
@malvern It's an interesting one - can there be a morally ethical athiest? The answer is normally yes, of course, most theists would also concede this. But I'm not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.
I'd argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God), and it has benefited from your being raised in a culture where those things were passed along as values.
Socrates is the example many athiests use to argue against this, but aside from him being a remarkable individual, he had also lived in a culture which was beginning to puzzle out an ethical system based on a type of theism (that is Platonism).

And another thread bites the religious dust.

The events were in Kôln in Germany in 2015 and 2016 and we still don't know if the culprits are in any way religious. We do know they have a bad attitude towards women. That's what I hope the Germans will deal with.

But I'm not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.

.

There is no evidence for god following the facts does not make truth absent only faith does that.

I'd argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God)

can you explain those innate characteristics in relation to what god says to do to homosexuals?

Its really ot helpful to pretend their is no moral code at work here. All cultures have moral codes and they all differ. Obviously the one you have picked is the one you think is best so the debate is pointless.

But I'm not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.

Alternatively, atheists are capable of working our stuff for themselves, and don't need an old book to tell them what to do.

Grum, that's a really shit story. Canaan gets slavery because his dad saw his grand daddy in the altogether?

Ridiculous innit!

Christians trying to claim a monopoly on morality can do one, frankly.

indeed one does not have to have faith in a god to see why murdering is wrong

The fundamental bill of human rights is not a religious document so presumably it has not moral basis to offer anyone any guidance on these sorts of issues

Do I have to keep going over old ground? Verily, verily, I say to you, human rights were created by Christianity in the first place.

can you explain those innate characteristics in relation to what god says to do to homosexuals?

This depends on what your attitude to scripture is. Some christians consider it to be the word of God. I think that is a mistake. Jesus is the word of God, truly understood. And he said nothing about homosexuals.
So there is the possibility that the passages which are commonly read from the NT to argue against homosexuality are wrong and the intolerance is down to the fact that Christians place too much emphasis on the truth being fully understood by fallen human beings (an argument actually made by the writer of the contentious passages, Paul).

What about murdering a little piggy for some bacon? Surely that's OK? We all love a bit of bacon don't we? 😉

Alternatively, atheists are capable of working our stuff for themselves, and don't need an old book to tell them what to do.

Ok rancos, tell me as an atheist, what is truth?

Ok rancos, tell me as an atheist, what is truth?

Oh god.... 🙄

(see what I did there 😉 )

@malvern It's an interesting one - can there be a morally ethical athiest(sic)?

That rather depends upon your agreed definition of those two words (moral + ethical) doesn't it? A bit like the word 'marriage' -ie it seems that some religious folks claim words and concepts simply on account of a long tenancy/affiliation when in fact history/anthropology traces such things as ethics and ritual pairings back to way before Christianity.

Maybe one for another thread.

This depends on what your attitude to scripture is.

Verily, verily, I say to you, human rights were created by Christianity in the first place.

Hell you people of faith really do love the untestable circular arguments.

FWIW the declaration was created globally from those of different faiths and different cultures. I am sure you still wish to claim that god did but hey what can i do as i have only facts at hand and you have faith,

The membership of the Commission was designed to be broadly representative of the global community, served by representatives from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, Republic of China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia.[9] Well-known members of the Commission included Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States (who was the Chairperson), René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, P. C. Chang of the Republic of China,[11] and Hansa Mehta of India.[12] Humphrey provided the initial draft which became the working text of the Commission.

Ok rancos, tell me as an atheist, what is truth?

The word of god, obviously. Now if you'll excuse me, I must get home and work out how much to sell my daughters for.

Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics. Child sacrifice was practiced and I think that only became an ethical issue after Christianity, which placed revolutionary emphasis on the value of the individual human being.

And still you offer absolutely no proof about the morality of pre Christian Europe

Other than some vague notions to prop up youre own religious bias

so apparently atheists dont have morals and if we did its because christians gave us them

My point is atheism has no room for truth, and without a transcendent truth, there is no reason for an ethical system in the first place. The history of morality started with religion.

But I've also pointed out natural law, which suggests people have a sense of conscience in the first place. So no, individual atheists are not necessarily immoral, in the same way that Christians are not all moral. But morality reaches its zenith among religious saints and it reaches the bottom under atheistic states like Stalinist Russia and the Nazis.

Rubbish.

'The history of morality started with religion'.

Mate, this is the kind of arrogant, ignorant nonsense that makes many people unwilling to engage with those of faith.

You hide your rudeness under the cloak of belief, which you assume gives you the right to insult the rest of us.

My point is atheism has no room for truth

Atheism is the absence of belief in a God, not a philosophical framework.

badnewz - that's just gibberish dressed up as philosophy, sorry.

badnewz has added himself to chewy and jamba in my Chrome ignore list.

I'd argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God)

I'd argue that conciousness is a non adaptive evolutionary by product, but hey ho.

I've read this thread from the start and been angered, offended and bewildered by some of the comments, in particular the assumptions about atheists and agnostics morality.

I can only assume that some of the posters (you know who you are) have their heads shoved so far up their own arses that all the can hear is the echo of their own voice ranting into their colon.

e events were in Kôln in Germany in 2015 and 2016 and we still don't know if the culprits are in any way religious. We do know they have a bad attitude towards women. That's what I hope the Germans will deal with

If it transpores large numbers of those responsible came from, say, Eastern Syria they would have not been atvall used to seeing women out and about celebrating a festival. To them the only such women would by definition be whores.

badnewz has added himself to chewy and jamba in my Chrome ignore list.

have their heads shoved so far up their own arses that all the can hear is the echo of their own voice ranting into their colon.

At least JY claims he doesn't read them even though he replies.

its is exactly what I do #jambyfact

That funtionality doesnt seem to work very well then as you're constantiy replying to my posts. At least JY claims he doesn't read them even though he replies.

It works fine but I come across your BS on my phone.

Are badnewz and jambalaya not the same person under a different log-in?

Don't know about Pagans, but if you go back 40,000 years...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/10/bright-idea-neanderthals-evolution ]Neanderthals could show compassion[/url]

An example for Neanderthals is of a man found in the Shanidar cave in Iraq with one withered arm, deformities in both legs and a crushed skull which probably made him blind in his left eye. We think he survived for between 20 and 35 years, a length of time which shows that there must have been conscious care from the community, most likely undertaken by a group of people.

The long-term care of others is something that we may think of as being a modern human characteristic and for a long time the issue was quite contentious. At Sima de los Huesos in Spain, a Homo heidelbergensis [an ancestor of modern humans] child was found who suffered from lambdoid single suture craniosynostosis, where parts of the skull fuse together. He would have had a strange appearance and probably reduced mental capacity. However, the age of the child at death is estimated at between five and eight years, so this proves he would have been looked after for at least five years of his life by others in the same way as a normal child.

"What a load of shit" as Nan Tate would say, sexual advances on women dresed up and blamed on religion, imigrants, womens dress, colour of the perpetrators etc.

It happened because there where not enough police intrested or staffed to take any action.

[quote=yunki ]Are badnewz and jambalaya not the same person under a different log-in?

not sure ask badnewz if they ever get anything wrong.

not sure ask badnewz if they ever get anything wrong.

I get plenty wrong. I use this forum to test ideas/concepts in the battle of debate. I suppose the anonymity makes me more forthright than I would be in face-to-face conversations.

Anyhow, I'm always careful to keep it civil and know when to pull an "Exit Badnewz pursued by a bear". I understand how people get irritated by the endless God vs atheism debates, and in fairness we've kept a bit of a lid on it recently overall!

And I'd point out yet again (for the umpteenth time) that I was not saying atheists are immoral. I was saying that atheism doesn't have the capacity on its own to produce a system of ethics / a code of morality, because it doesn't have the room for a lawgiver/truth/sense of transcendence.

But it is interesting, given how much abuse there is sent from this forum to the way of theists, at how given to overreaction many of you are. After all, plenty of you are happy to call religious believers bonkers.

Anyhow my time on this thread is up, so it truly is, exit Badnewz pursued by an (outraged-how-dare-you-call-me-immoral) bear.

fear not no one is forced to read the threads and all those comments are are people highlighting their stupidity.

we are all more forthright on here and despite my views I have a number of very close friends who are deeply religious.
One of my best mates i have known since school is an RE teacher. He is a fence sitter on it all but does attend church with his wife and kids.

And I'd point out yet again (for the umpteenth time) that I was not saying atheists are immoral. I was saying that atheism doesn't have the capacity on its own to produce a system of ethics / a code of morality.

The British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists (BACP) have a very decent Ethical Framework that doesn't mention God at all.

It appears my aunt didn't make it up...

Here's a thought: Perhaps the Singletrackworld web designers could add a symbol like a bomb to a thread when it degenerates into a theist vs atheist debate.

SlackAlice, please read my posts above, I argued that our current system of (secular) morality came from a historical development which started with theism, especially Christianity.

Anyhow, good night all 8)

DrJ - Member
badnewz has added himself to chewy and jamba in my Chrome ignore list.

Crikey, that serious eh! 😯

Are we the naughty boys now DrJ?

At least Junkyard plays with us ...

It works fine but I come across your BS on my phone.

FFS! Are you so busy as Dr (not sure what sort Dr you are) that you now need to read on your phone? Can't you just wait rather than reading your hand held computer? 🙄

Edit:

badnewz - Member
I get plenty wrong. I use this forum to test ideas/concepts in the battle of debate. I suppose the anonymity makes me more forthright than I would be in face-to-face conversations.

You are brave to test ideas/concepts ...

I use this forum to tell them they are wrong while I am right! 😆

I am no different in reality coz I would still tell them they are wrong and perhaps even more wrong or wrong-er! 😛

I argued that our current system of (secular) morality came from a historical development which started with theism, especially Christianity.

but the paleo-archaeological evidence demonstrates that you're wrong...again.

"What a load of shit" as Nan Tate would say, sexual advances on women dresed up and blamed on religion, imigrants, womens dress, colour of the perpetrators etc.
It happened because there where not enough police intrested or staffed to take any action.

They sexually assaulted a female officer.

It happened because they were horrible ****s.

I very rarely find my self in the presence of the police, sometimes drunk and in the company of lightly clothed women.
And I never groped any of them. But in future if I do I shall blame the lack of a police presence.

Chip, thank you, I was not going to get involved in this one but couldn't resist .
You have just saved me from writing a very long winded post that I would have edited over and over again.
I couldn't have put it better myself.

I argued that our current system of (secular) morality came from a historical development which started with theism, especially Christianity.

[img] [/img]

Not a Gendarme in sight, no women being assaulted or raped, more lightly dressed would be difficult (and require walking to the next beach).

Edit: and given it's Hendaye I suspect almost everyone there is atheist, agnostic or if they consider themselves religious don't practice beyond Christmas mass or the Mosque for family events.

I argued that our current system of (secular) morality came from a historical development which started with theism, especially Christianity.

So how did the Neanderthals manage to develop their morality?

Jesus' great great grandad iirc.

A quick poem............

Odour Cologne

Long and hard they labour
and far and wide they roam
for freedom in a new home,
so they can express ardour
at the New Year in Cologne.

The German politicians are blaming the police for not controlling the situation.

The German police union is saying that the politicians allowed all these folk into Germany unchecked, and that the politicians ran the police numbers down so much that come this major public disorder the police were unable to field enough numbers to deal with the disorder.

I think the German police union are telling the truth.

billyboy - Member

The German police union is saying that the politicians allowed all these folk into Germany unchecked, and that the politicians ran the police numbers down so much that come this major public disorder the police were unable to field enough numbers to deal with the disorder.

Maybe so but when the police decided to announce that it was a quiet night with no major bother, that wasn't because of either of those things. Something's wrong there. And the suggestion that it's all political correctness and they're afraid to suggest foreigners did these things seems to be bollocks too since that doesn't stop them handling and reporting waltzing attacks etc.

This could well finish Merkel. It was not long ago she was peerless but the tensions over the asylum seekers was quite intense even before NYE. In a poll late last year less than 50% of Germans wanted her to stand again for Chancellor.

The deliberate lack of TV coverage by the major German networks for days afterwards is incredibly shocking.

Strengthens Trump's argument though that Something Must Be Done.

Maybe he's right?