[D Man]

Cold Iron;280622 said:

:Erm: What? The spread of any particular religion is not because the religion decided to be spread, it's because the society spread it. I really think you need to rethink this.

Sorry all for the quadrouple post, but:

I think you need to re-think what he said. Because what you said and what you said he said are not the same.

(Methinks there is a pattern to this )

[Nequam]

D Man;280788 said:

Oh, Neq, by 'nature of religion as a whole' I dont mean by that that its entirely violent. I mean how it functions: an authoritarian system that pnuishes unbelief, rewards belief and tends to be imprinted in subsequent generations as literal truth at a very early age.

Also that relgion as a whole contains moral and behavioural instruction (which is enforced with divine authority and post-death divine justice).

THEN the subsequent parts of the sentence were supposed to deliniate between religions that contain violent instruction and dont (some dont) and then further between those that follow it and dont.

Oh, I see. Okay that makes sense.


And CI, you seem like we are trying to say religion has a brain and a heart. We know it can't think and do things! I have to go to school now, bye.


EDIT: you didn't deserve an insult, I was tired and grouchy.

[Gem Windcaster]

I think you guys need to define what you mean by 'religion'.

Is religion what people believes?
Is religion what people do in the name of their belief?
Is religion the ideas spread by society that states how people should live?
Is religion a scripture or whatever?


You can't agree on anything unless you define what you mean by religion.

For instance, I don't think words alone can create violence, I believe that human beings have complete control of their own choices. People might not be strong enough to realize why they choose as they do - but it is still their choice in the end.

Unless you actually believe a gun takes over the hand that holds it and makes the holder a killer.

[D Man]

Gem Windcaster;281038 said:

I think you guys need to define what you mean by 'religion'.

Is religion what people believes?
Is religion what people do in the name of their belief?
Is religion the ideas spread by society that states how people should live?
Is religion a scripture or whatever?


You can't agree on anything unless you define what you mean by religion.

For instance, I don't think words alone can create violence, I believe that human beings have complete control of their own choices. People might not be strong enough to realize why they choose as they do - but it is still their choice in the end.

Unless you actually believe a gun takes over the hand that holds it and makes the holder a killer.

Skipping the definition of religion for a second and going to the control over actions: its a deeper matter than that. Your actions are a reflection of your beliefs. Words can form and change minds, form and change perspectives on reality and therefore strongly affect how a person behaves.

[Shinrei]

D Man;280467 said:

That the nature of religion as a whole and the content of the scriptures of some of them can encourage or facilitate violence from the believers.

That the extremity of violence they will go to can be (nearly always is, IMO) extremely disproportionate to the original afront.

That the sources of the afronts can be and supernatural in nature. (Thus a belief in a supernatural thing leads to real life deaths).

That no non-believer, i.e. someone who believes no gods or scriptures, has no religion, would ever be compelled to such extremes of violence by virtue of their non-belief.

Edited to correct an accidental double negative.

P.S. I hope its clearer to you now. Welcome to the fun

By #4 you are referring to what you say in a later post "atheism in and of itself does not provide such a motivation", and that paper you found backs up this assertment. Ok, I finally get it now.

I guess the point I am not sure I agree with is your "nature of religion as a whole...can encourage or facilitate violence from the believers". While I agree that specific scripture or teachings can do this, why do you assert "religion as a whole" does this? It seems to me the sticking point for many people is that some religions do not have anything inherently violent in their teachings or scriptures, but some have made them so for personal gain or use violence to protect their particular order (for example, shaolin monks, Tendai Lotus sect, etc).

It almost seems like we need to dive into the nature of human violence and the motivations and innovations that drives violence, and then properly place religion within this construct. Starting with religion without the others makes it more difficult to define IMO.

[D Man]

Shinrei no Shintai;281149 said:

By #4 you are referring to what you say in a later post "atheism in and of itself does not provide such a motivation", and that paper you found backs up this assertment. Ok, I finally get it now.

I guess the point I am not sure I agree with is your "nature of religion as a whole...can encourage or facilitate violence from the believers". While I agree that specific scripture or teachings can do this, why do you assert "religion as a whole" does this? It seems to me the sticking point for many people is that some religions do not have anything inherently violent in their teachings or scriptures, but some have made them so for personal gain or use violence to protect their particular order (for example, shaolin monks, Tendai Lotus sect, etc).

It almost seems like we need to dive into the nature of human violence and the motivations and innovations that drives violence, and then properly place religion within this construct. Starting with religion without the others makes it more difficult to define IMO.

See my clarification when Neq brought up the same thing.

2 people misinterpreted it in precisely the same way....perhaps my language was unclear.

--------------Orinially posted by - Me

Oh, Neq, by 'nature of religion as a whole' I dont mean by that that its entirely violent. I mean how it functions: an authoritarian system that pnuishes unbelief, rewards belief and tends to be imprinted in subsequent generations as literal truth at a very early age.

Also that relgion as a whole contains moral and behavioural instruction (which is enforced with divine authority and post-death divine justice).

THEN the subsequent parts of the sentence were supposed to deliniate between religions that contain violent instruction and dont (some dont) and then further between those that follow it and dont.

[Shinrei]

Well, that authoritarian system of belief/unbelief is not limited to religion then, but I see what you're sayin'.

[D Man]

Shinrei no Shintai;281212 said:

Well, that authoritarian system of belief/unbelief is not limited to religion then, but I see what you're sayin'.

There are plenty of authoritarian systems around, and systems of belief and unbelief.

Only religious ones hinge on believing the reality of a supernatural authority that transcends any earthly one, or human consideration.

Here is a disturbing compilation. Obviously its edited to make a point and I dont stand by it on the whole, and there are many muslims that would disagree with much espoused here *edit: the simple fact that there are 1 billion muslims and yet there have been only a handfull of attacks in its name on the western world attests to this - but I'll let the guys willing to do things like that for religious reasons speak for themselves in the vid* (for the record every muslim I've ever met has been a decent bloke as far as I can tell - never even seen a muslim womans face, but thats another debate )

Disclaimer: this is not intended as evidence for mass condemnation of Islam. Well, it is. My use of it here is not. I use it here to illustrate, put a face on, if you will, the kind of ways that some people take the militant aspects of their faith very literally, and justify it with its divine authority (placing said authority over any other. That shit is real to them

WARNING Its fucking horrific. Really. I dont mean that lightly. I mean horrific in the gravest sense. I'm not posting it for the shock value of the images, and dont mean the images as evidence. Its mainly for the scriptures and the speeches. By proxy its worth remembering that the images are indeed real, and connected with religious violence, however you want to spin, diffuse, redirect or qualify that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53...earch&plindex=2

If a mod pulls this vid, I'd understand entirely. I think its worth seeing, though, if your interested and feel suitably warned.

[Gem Windcaster]

D Man;281064 said:

Skipping the definition of religion for a second and going to the control over actions: its a deeper matter than that. Your actions are a reflection of your beliefs. Words can form and change minds, form and change perspectives on reality and therefore strongly affect how a person behaves.

So you don't believe in personal choice? Good riddance! Who needs choices anyway. Why, we can just all of us blame society/religion/our parents and behave however we like. Lets burn this world to cinders! Hail ignorance.

No, seriously, blaming religion for violence is like blaming communism for Stalin's murders. get a grip.

No idea can force people to be violent against other people. Except if you're insane. People choose to be violent. Unless you want to believe that everyone are maniacs. Well, maybe we all are insane. That explains it.


Edit: For the record, I don't believe Islam is the reason so many Muslims are angry at the west. And there are a lot of reasons some Muslims get violent. One reason could be that their mothers are uneducated and have virtually no influence on their upbringing. There are more reasons ofcourse, and it has virtually nothing to do with the religious part, and much more about politics. Politics mixed with religion is the worst idea humanity ever came up with. Mix ambition with the means to exert control over people and you've got dangerous results. Why? Because people that has chosen ambition and control as their life purpose bloom in this mix.

[D Man]

Gem Windcaster;281243 said:

So you don't believe in personal choice? Good riddance! Who needs choices anyway. Why, we can just all of us blame society/religion/our parents and behave however we like. Lets burn this world to cinders! Hail ignorance.

No, seriously, blaming religion is like blaming communism for Stalin's murders. get a grip.

No idea can force people to be violent against other people. Except if you're insane. People choose to be violent. Unless you want to believe that everyone are maniacs. Well, maybe we all are insane. That explains it.

What is it with all the strawmen round here?

I'm not saying you dont have choice, in the grander, neurological sense. I'm saying that a persons beliefs affect their actions. I dont see whats hard to grasp, or in the least controversial about that.

You believe in free choice. So do I. Extremistist muslims, for example, dont. They believe in complete divine authority. Many christians will not begrudge you your choices, but themselves choose to accept a similar authority. Its an aspect of the beliefs that we have been raised with or learned. Those beliefs then affect our actions.

Edit: You say people choose to be violent. Why? Every choice has a reason or reasons behind it. I'm saying that religious belief can be one of those reasons.

[Nequam]

I think the edit on that last post was the most important part and you hit it right on the buton.
I think some people may be confusing what he is trying to state. He simply is saying that relgion can inspire/cause an idividual to beleive they must do a certain thing. Wether it be violence, charity, or whatever. People still have choices and free will, but their choices are affected by their religous beliefs.

I can understand where everyone in this is coming from, but D Man isn't trying to say the people shouldn't be held responsible for what they choose to do. He isn't trying to put all the blame for violence on religion or society. He is simply saying that religion can give an excuse for, or rather seem to command, violence in certain peoples persectives. ...I think that's what he's basically saying.

...that video btw, wow. Just, wow.

[Gem Windcaster]

D Man;281253 said:

What is it with all the strawmen round here?

I'm not saying you dont have choice, in the grander, neurological sense. I'm saying that a persons beliefs affect their actions. I dont see whats hard to grasp, or in the least controversial about that.

You believe in free choice. So do I. Extremistist muslims, for example, dont. They believe in complete divine authority. Many christians will not begrudge you your choices, but themselves choose to accept a similar authority. Its an aspect of the beliefs that we have been raised with or learned. Those beliefs then affect our actions.

Edit: You say people choose to be violent. Why? Every choice has a reason or reasons behind it. I'm saying that religious belief can be one of those reasons.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. If you're simply stating that ideas can inspire people to make choices, I do indeed agree. But then I don't really understand what the issue is? Religion is not different in nature than any other philosophical idea. Political or otherwise. The reason I object to what you're saying is because I understood it as if you meant that religion is somehow different or set aside from other ideas in society. Remember that there are tons of ideas that gather people and give them goals and purpose.

If what you're saying is simply that ideas inspire, then I shouldn't we discuss all ideas, and not just religion? People use all kinds of excuse to kill, abuse and hate other people. I think it's rather narrow minded to give religion a special cage, so to speak.

It seemed to me your were bashing religion for influencing peoples minds more than other ideas (which I don't think was very far fetched in relation to what you were saying), then I have to object with the arguments in my previous post.

[D Man]

Gem,

No problem, apology accepted, etc. I'm just getting tired of people in this thread arguing with things they think I said, but didnt.

Religion is different to other sets of ideas that alter our views of the world, since its ultimate authority is an infallaible supernatural being and their infalliable authority. They, one and all, use what they say will happen to you after you die (which first they promise you wont, and lets face it, its not a popular prospect, so thats a factor) to compell you to change how you live. Politics and philosophy dont do that. That gives the extreme believers a degree of imunity in their eyes to the laws of wo/man.

This, coupled with (I may as well just be quoting myself for this, but whatever) the preservation in the texts of some of them of bonze age and medieval degrees of punishment and, how shall we say, intercultural dissagrement mediation (i.e. savage. There was no geneva convention in 1000 BC, no concept of war crime, human rights, no institutionalised innocent until proven guilty, no freedom of speech, no rights of liberty of belief or expression and so on and so forth)

Neq has it right: the belief in the uniform divine authority of the literally true text allows these degrees of violence to crop up and be justified when an infraction is percieved. Its a lubricant and facilitator, divine (since they believe in the literal truth of the text) endorsment of savage actions.

That infraction can also be purely religious. i.e. purely based in the mythology of the religion. Given the subjective truth of the reality of their mythology, reactions to offenses to it can be extreme. How else does one explain the death threats that salman rushdie, the poor teacher in Iran that let her class name the teddy muhammed or even the members of black sabbath, have recieved? (note, its mutiple death threats in each case, from muslims and christians in sabbaths case).

I've said this repeatedly and it still hasnt been addressed at all (except erroneously by CI: who egocentrically (I mean that in the psychological sense of ascribing ones own reality to other peoples, rather than in its derogatory relatives sense) says that thats irrelevant because its not objectively real)

[D Man]

Small update on the vid I posted.

This is what it looks like on its home site now.

http://www.liveleak....=7d9_1206624103

You should look at that even if you dont watch the original (its still up on google, last I checked).

Oh, and in one scene in the vid, a hostages head is cut off (you dont see the cutting, but the heads before and after), just after one of the balaclava'd men recites passages from the Quran.

I forget the poor guys name....I do remember that billy connely made a joke about the captors "hurrying up and getting on with it"....but his name eludes me.

[Gem Windcaster]

D Man;281319 said:

Gem,

No problem, apology accepted, etc. I'm just getting tired of people in this thread arguing with things they think I said, but didnt.

Religion is different to other sets of ideas that alter our views of the world, since its ultimate authority is an infallaible supernatural being and their infalliable authority. They, one and all, use what they say will happen to you after you die (which first they promise you wont, and lets face it, its not a popular prospect, so thats a factor) to compell you to change how you live. Politics and philosophy dont do that. That gives the extreme believers a degree of imunity in their eyes to the laws of wo/man.

This, coupled with (I may as well just be quoting myself for this, but whatever) the preservation in the texts of some of them of bonze age and medieval degrees of punishment and, how shall we say, intercultural dissagrement mediation (i.e. savage. There was no geneva convention in 1000 BC, no concept of war crime, human rights, no institutionalised innocent until proven guilty, no freedom of speech, no rights of liberty of belief or expression and so on and so forth)

Neq has it right: the belief in the uniform divine authority of the literally true text allows these degrees of violence to crop up and be justified when an infraction is percieved. Its a lubricant and facilitator, divine (since they believe in the literal truth of the text) endorsment of savage actions.

That infraction can also be purely religious. i.e. purely based in the mythology of the religion. Given the subjective truth of the reality of their mythology, reactions to offenses to it can be extreme. How else does one explain the death threats that salman rushdie, the poor teacher in Iran that let her class name the teddy muhammed or even the members of black sabbath, have recieved? (note, its mutiple death threats in each case, from muslims and christians in sabbaths case).

I've said this repeatedly and it still hasnt been addressed at all (except erroneously by CI: who egocentrically (I mean that in the psychological sense of ascribing ones own reality to other peoples, rather than in its derogatory relatives sense) says that thats irrelevant because its not objectively real)

I'm sorry, but I think that is pure bullshit.

Once again, I have to object. For example, would you consider communism a religion? You theory that religion somehow inherently creates violence is falsified by the fact that other ideas like communism (or Nazism) do exactly what you say religion does, and worse.

Divine authority or not, people sometimes tie themselves to a goal so thoroughly that it actually gets worse than what you call religious goals. And again, the situations you talk about arise when politics or other kind of exertion is involved. The pure religious ideas has nothing to do with violence, actually it's often the opposite.

It seems to me you have to redefine to yourself what politics is.

Not that I am generally a fan of 'religion' for religion's sake. I consider myself a Christian, but I consider all that I do my own choices and I can never 'blame' my beliefs for what I do. In fact I think the whole idea is quite insulting.

Would you 'blame' science as a whole for violence just because a scientist invented an atom bomb? It is exactly what you're doing with religion.

So, I object.

[Gothos]

while good people do good things, and evil people do evil things, that's the way it is, religion is still the only thing that can make good people do evil things.
that's the difference.

mind you, the nazis claimed God's support.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Gothos;281339 said:

while good people do good things, and evil people do evil things, that's the way it is, religion is still the only thing that can make good people do evil things.
that's the difference.

mind you, the nazis claimed God's support.

Thank goodness! Here I thought that greed or hatred might screw me over! Whew! What a load off!

[Gem Windcaster]

Gothos;281339 said:

while good people do good things, and evil people do evil things, that's the way it is, religion is still the only thing that can make good people do evil things.
that's the difference.

mind you, the nazis claimed God's support.

Well, as far as I know, science can make good people do evil stuff, and communism, or why not plain old human nature?

I'm getting pissed off here. And it's not a good feeling. Maybe I should blame religion?

[Shinrei]

Gothos, that's ridiculous. Good people do bad things all the time, and not for religious reasons.

Like I said before, violence is something that maybe needs to be defined more closely to continue this conversation. I'd do it now, but it's after work and I'm beat.

[Optimus Prime]

Greed motivates people to do bad things more than religion...

Materialism brings out the worst in people as well.