Help
greed motivates evil people. you're missing that one.
none of the things you mentioned makes people do obnoxious things while believing they're saving the world and that they're holy heroes.
also, Gem, don't mess up "communism" with "totalitariam regime", which is what I think you mean there.
I don't...
#121
Gothos 
- Map painting expert
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 5,428
- Joined: 01-January 03
- Location:.pl
Posted 29 March 2008 - 09:57 AM
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
#122
Goaswerfraiejen
- Captain
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 31-October 07
Posted 29 March 2008 - 12:59 PM
Gothos;281463 said:
greed motivates evil people. you're missing that one.
none of the things you mentioned makes people do obnoxious things while believing they're saving the world and that they're holy heroes.
also, Gem, don't mess up "communism" with "totalitariam regime", which is what I think you mean there.
none of the things you mentioned makes people do obnoxious things while believing they're saving the world and that they're holy heroes.
also, Gem, don't mess up "communism" with "totalitariam regime", which is what I think you mean there.
So as soon as I do something bad, I'm an evil person? When I was a child, I went into my grandparents' car and ate a ton of the chocolate they bought without telling them. That was theft. Clearly, that ruined my character forever. I am an evil, evil man.
The other question you'd have to consider is what constitutes an "evil person". Am I evil from the get-go, or do I only become so forever and ever after I commit my first evil act?
The other problem with what you're saying is that you're forgetting to apply it to your comments about religion. If only evil people do evil things, then religion is irrelevant, since only evil people will use religion for evil pretexts. Accordingly, we cannot blame religion, but must blame "evil people".
Personally, I think that your take on things is far too simplistic, and does not reflect reality.
#123
Gem Windcaster
- Bequeathed Overmind
-
- Group: LHTEC
- Posts: 1,844
- Joined: 26-June 06
- Location:Sweden
Posted 29 March 2008 - 01:36 PM
Gothos;281463 said:
greed motivates evil people. you're missing that one.
none of the things you mentioned makes people do obnoxious things while believing they're saving the world and that they're holy heroes.
also, Gem, don't mess up "communism" with "totalitariam regime", which is what I think you mean there.
none of the things you mentioned makes people do obnoxious things while believing they're saving the world and that they're holy heroes.
also, Gem, don't mess up "communism" with "totalitariam regime", which is what I think you mean there.
Really, I mean communism. Because it's a direct parallel to the religion versus violence theory. In according with your theory, communism can make people believe the greater good of the people justifies killing innocent people. Only they don't say they're innocent - only 'enemies of the state'.
Also, I could argue that atheists are responsible for the violence in the wold, because they don't believe in God or any higher principles. (but I don't since I don't believe in that kind of theorizing).
Also, I don't understand what 'holy heroes' or 'saving the world' have got to do with religion. You clearly don't have clue what you're talking about. Are you trying to teach me what beliefs do to a person? That is just preposterous. It's different for everyone. Your perception of religious beliefs seems to be something you read in a fairy tale.
You can't generalize like that - ideas do different things to different people.
In the general definition of religion, I am religious, but I'm not inclined to any sort of violence. In fact, I doubt I could kill to preserve my own life.
Does that make me non-religious? Because according to your theory that's what I am. Also, how are my beliefs creating violence in the world? I'd love to know about that.
Don't throw stones in a house of glass.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
#124
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 29 March 2008 - 05:11 PM
Gem, youre not making a distinction between things that dont prohibit violence and things that encourage it.
Communism, even fascism, dont have commands to mass murder written into their principle documents. Christianity, Judaism and Islam do. They barely have principle documents, in fact. You can trace their history to a handfull of individuals and cite important texts, but you cant point at one book and say that it genuinely, to all fascists, embodies fascism. More important still, these political systems are authored by humans, and their followers know it. Religious texts are believed authored by GOD.
Moreover, they are political systems that are subject tor criticism, modification and change. They meter stck for them can be altered without worry, by anyone that can make a good enough argument. They are subject to reason and verification, in a practical sense, since for the most part people learn from the mistakes of the countries that have used them and failed. Religions are not subject to this kind of criticism. They are the only thing thats widely considered innately beyond it. Its is, in fact, hurtfull and shrill to criticise beliefs about the afterlife and supernatural despots.
With the sacred texts of religions, they are interpretted differently but rarely changed, and then it happened mostly 1500 years ago or in translation. Public alteration of them, by mere people?!?!!?!? Courts and parliments and sennates?!?!?!??!!?? There would be outrage. You can openly change the US constitution and you could release an extended and updated Das Kapital, but you try doing the same with the Word of The Lord, any of them, and see what happens!!
Political systems dont give broad moral instruction, either. They determine the flow of money and the autonomy and rights of citizens, but they dont tell you when to have sex and who with, or that worship of a different god is punishable by death and so on.
Political systems are enforced by law and military. Threat of punnishment and death. Religious systems are enforced by threats and promises of what will happen after you die.
You dont indoctrinate children with political systems. Indeed, if the ease with which an adults can change their minds about them is any indicator, I dont think they imprint very heavily on most adults either. You do indoctrinate kids with the ideas of gods omnipresence and judgment of you after you die. I hope I dont need to explain the impact that what were are taught when very young has on us when we're older.
There, theres a handfull of differences between communism, fascism and religious belief.
Heres another point:
The deaths from nazism were part of a war, the deaths from stalinism were after a revolution. Lots of factors involved, but here are some considerations for you:
Hitler was a catholic. Immaterial, in my opinion, to his political stance. Nothing to do with it. BUT the catholic church refused to speak against anything that he did, and in fact supported him, as far as I know, all the way throught the war.
In russia the zsar was worshipped. He wasnt a polical figure so much as he was semi-divine. Regarded in Ortodoxy as the Popes superior by far. The poeple were, as most large religious groups are, rather accustomed to a centralisation of both authority and worship on this figurehead, regarded as greater than human. Stalin used that, and used it well (in a machiavelian sense) and the totalitarian control deaths in stalinist russia were partly facilitated by the credulous and servile, cowed mindsets of the immediately-previously unquestioningly worshipfull people.
P.S. I think the distinction Gothos is making is that there is a direct link between a part of your nature and greed, hate, so on. Its facile to think that people are really entirely good or bad, and I'm glad Stephen Wienberg (who orginally said that) didint mince his words like Ive had to do, knowing his audience were all too eager to try and pounce on that while knowing that he didnt believe that anyone is completely good or completely evil. Most of the responses to him had the good sense and courtesy to take it as implicit that he knows that and address his real point:
That an aspect of a persons personality that is good may draw them to a religion, or they may have been raised with it, and that person may find wanton, needless acts of violence vile. Shooting someone in the street outside their workplace for no reason, or money, or revenge to this person can seem horrific to them as it does to anyone. But that their belief in the authority of God and the literal truth of scripture can make them do something just as bad for what we would call no or very little reason. For example, the Reverend that shot an abortionist and his assistant. Described by everyone as a good man, no criminal record, no reports of him previously being violent, and so on and so forth. He said that it was Gods will as written in the scriptures, and his old pastor even now believes that he is in heaven. Thus through belief in the authority of god and the literal truth of the bible, a good person brings a little bit of the thirteenth century to now and kills someone because he was compelled to by the reality to him of ideas about a supernatural being and what he wants, and likes and doesnt like.
Thats enough for now. Its tiring writing knowing that if I dont qualify everything to hell and back youre all gonna drop any sense and start thinking that I'm talking about every religion and every religious person and only religion ever being reponsible for anything bad ever.
Communism, even fascism, dont have commands to mass murder written into their principle documents. Christianity, Judaism and Islam do. They barely have principle documents, in fact. You can trace their history to a handfull of individuals and cite important texts, but you cant point at one book and say that it genuinely, to all fascists, embodies fascism. More important still, these political systems are authored by humans, and their followers know it. Religious texts are believed authored by GOD.
Moreover, they are political systems that are subject tor criticism, modification and change. They meter stck for them can be altered without worry, by anyone that can make a good enough argument. They are subject to reason and verification, in a practical sense, since for the most part people learn from the mistakes of the countries that have used them and failed. Religions are not subject to this kind of criticism. They are the only thing thats widely considered innately beyond it. Its is, in fact, hurtfull and shrill to criticise beliefs about the afterlife and supernatural despots.
With the sacred texts of religions, they are interpretted differently but rarely changed, and then it happened mostly 1500 years ago or in translation. Public alteration of them, by mere people?!?!!?!? Courts and parliments and sennates?!?!?!??!!?? There would be outrage. You can openly change the US constitution and you could release an extended and updated Das Kapital, but you try doing the same with the Word of The Lord, any of them, and see what happens!!
Political systems dont give broad moral instruction, either. They determine the flow of money and the autonomy and rights of citizens, but they dont tell you when to have sex and who with, or that worship of a different god is punishable by death and so on.
Political systems are enforced by law and military. Threat of punnishment and death. Religious systems are enforced by threats and promises of what will happen after you die.
You dont indoctrinate children with political systems. Indeed, if the ease with which an adults can change their minds about them is any indicator, I dont think they imprint very heavily on most adults either. You do indoctrinate kids with the ideas of gods omnipresence and judgment of you after you die. I hope I dont need to explain the impact that what were are taught when very young has on us when we're older.
There, theres a handfull of differences between communism, fascism and religious belief.
Heres another point:
The deaths from nazism were part of a war, the deaths from stalinism were after a revolution. Lots of factors involved, but here are some considerations for you:
Hitler was a catholic. Immaterial, in my opinion, to his political stance. Nothing to do with it. BUT the catholic church refused to speak against anything that he did, and in fact supported him, as far as I know, all the way throught the war.
In russia the zsar was worshipped. He wasnt a polical figure so much as he was semi-divine. Regarded in Ortodoxy as the Popes superior by far. The poeple were, as most large religious groups are, rather accustomed to a centralisation of both authority and worship on this figurehead, regarded as greater than human. Stalin used that, and used it well (in a machiavelian sense) and the totalitarian control deaths in stalinist russia were partly facilitated by the credulous and servile, cowed mindsets of the immediately-previously unquestioningly worshipfull people.
P.S. I think the distinction Gothos is making is that there is a direct link between a part of your nature and greed, hate, so on. Its facile to think that people are really entirely good or bad, and I'm glad Stephen Wienberg (who orginally said that) didint mince his words like Ive had to do, knowing his audience were all too eager to try and pounce on that while knowing that he didnt believe that anyone is completely good or completely evil. Most of the responses to him had the good sense and courtesy to take it as implicit that he knows that and address his real point:
That an aspect of a persons personality that is good may draw them to a religion, or they may have been raised with it, and that person may find wanton, needless acts of violence vile. Shooting someone in the street outside their workplace for no reason, or money, or revenge to this person can seem horrific to them as it does to anyone. But that their belief in the authority of God and the literal truth of scripture can make them do something just as bad for what we would call no or very little reason. For example, the Reverend that shot an abortionist and his assistant. Described by everyone as a good man, no criminal record, no reports of him previously being violent, and so on and so forth. He said that it was Gods will as written in the scriptures, and his old pastor even now believes that he is in heaven. Thus through belief in the authority of god and the literal truth of the bible, a good person brings a little bit of the thirteenth century to now and kills someone because he was compelled to by the reality to him of ideas about a supernatural being and what he wants, and likes and doesnt like.
Thats enough for now. Its tiring writing knowing that if I dont qualify everything to hell and back youre all gonna drop any sense and start thinking that I'm talking about every religion and every religious person and only religion ever being reponsible for anything bad ever.
#125
Gem Windcaster
- Bequeathed Overmind
-
- Group: LHTEC
- Posts: 1,844
- Joined: 26-June 06
- Location:Sweden
Posted 29 March 2008 - 06:40 PM
D Man;281658 said:
Gem, youre not making a distinction between things that dont prohibit violence and things that encourage it.
Communism, even fascism, dont have commands to mass murder written into their principle documents. Christianity, Judaism and Islam do. They barely have principle documents, in fact. You can trace their history to a handfull of individuals and cite important texts, but you cant point at one book and say that it genuinely, to all fascists, embodies fascism. More important still, these political systems are authored by humans, and their followers know it. Religious texts are believed authored by GOD.
Communism, even fascism, dont have commands to mass murder written into their principle documents. Christianity, Judaism and Islam do. They barely have principle documents, in fact. You can trace their history to a handfull of individuals and cite important texts, but you cant point at one book and say that it genuinely, to all fascists, embodies fascism. More important still, these political systems are authored by humans, and their followers know it. Religious texts are believed authored by GOD.
And where there are any interpretations like you talk about they are authored by humans. I don't understand why you don't get the similarities. Every religious text, as with political views and other philosophical views, are up for interpretation, and it is the interpretations that we should talk about - not the texts themselves. Most Christians would disagree that the Bible encourages violence (it's the opposite in fact), and it's probably the same with the Koran. It's the political interpretations that make the violence. Why can't you get this?
The differences you talk about - even if there actually were any - is beside the point.
I just don't agree with your view of ideas. And I am not part of the religious beliefs you talk about. I feel strongly disgusted by your theory, and I reserve my right to disagree with you.
As a personal observation, I think you yourself interpret the Bible as fascism because you want it to be so. You can't just ignore the millions of people that read the Bible and don't interpret it as you do.
I am offended because you drag down the Bible in the dirt, and then states that your interpretation is a fact. I know people interpret the Bible different than me - and I accept it. But please, please, don't shove any beliefs down my throat and call them truth.
I know you're not talking about every person or belief - I wish you were, it would be easier to counter and not as offending.
Instead, you drag down a whole religious belief, generalize it, and use only one single interpretation of a text (actually several) and ignore the rest.
I understand you don't think that's what you are doing, but that's exactly what you are doing.
In your world what you are doing is fascism, like it or not.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
#126
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 29 March 2008 - 06:53 PM
God, and his supreme authority as author of this reality, over and above anything observable or human reason is real to them. Thats the difference you arent getting where you say our views differ the most. The rest stems from or is couched in that.
You sem to be dissagreeing that the bible says the bible is the word of god, or the quran allah and so on. This is very true. There were written by men. But thats not what believers believe. They either think that god crafted every scentence or that it was 'revealed' by god to man.
Edit, and as to the rest, I'm just going to ignore anyone that thinks that I'm blanketing the entire content of the texts with this or all the believers with the same literal belief and militiant interpretations. I never have, I never would. I've gone to enough pains to try and dispell the idea that thats what I'm saying. I even tried big font and block capital, one word paragraphs a little while ago, and you STILL think thats what I'm saying. I dont know if thats funny or sad.
You sem to be dissagreeing that the bible says the bible is the word of god, or the quran allah and so on. This is very true. There were written by men. But thats not what believers believe. They either think that god crafted every scentence or that it was 'revealed' by god to man.
Edit, and as to the rest, I'm just going to ignore anyone that thinks that I'm blanketing the entire content of the texts with this or all the believers with the same literal belief and militiant interpretations. I never have, I never would. I've gone to enough pains to try and dispell the idea that thats what I'm saying. I even tried big font and block capital, one word paragraphs a little while ago, and you STILL think thats what I'm saying. I dont know if thats funny or sad.
#128
Gem Windcaster
- Bequeathed Overmind
-
- Group: LHTEC
- Posts: 1,844
- Joined: 26-June 06
- Location:Sweden
Posted 29 March 2008 - 07:45 PM
D Man;281684 said:
God, and his supreme authority as author of this reality, over and above anything observable or human reason is real to them. Thats the difference you arent getting where you say our views differ the most. The rest stems from or is couched in that.
You sem to be dissagreeing that the bible says the bible is the word of god, or the quran allah and so on. This is very true. There were written by men. But thats not what believers believe. They either think that god crafted every scentence or that it was 'revealed' by god to man.
You sem to be dissagreeing that the bible says the bible is the word of god, or the quran allah and so on. This is very true. There were written by men. But thats not what believers believe. They either think that god crafted every scentence or that it was 'revealed' by god to man.
You are misunderstanding me. I believe the Bible to be the word of God. But that doesn't make the Bible fascist (for the sake of argument I'm using this word, but I agree that fascism is really nationalism). It's the interpretation of the Bible that can be fascist. You don't seem to make that distinction. I think this has to do with your perception of what 'inspired by God' mean. And I think your opinion is grounded on the fact that anything that states how anyone should live is fascist. Fair enough. I still disagree.
Quote
Edit, and as to the rest, I'm just going to ignore anyone that thinks that I'm blanketing the entire content of the texts with this or all the believers with the same literal belief and militiant interpretations. I never have, I never would. I've gone to enough pains to try and dispell the idea that thats what I'm saying. I even tried big font and block capital, one word paragraphs a little while ago, and you STILL think thats what I'm saying. I dont know if thats funny or sad.
That being said, I am ready to take your word for it, that you don't mean an idea can create violence in itself - that it needs a human being that interprets that idea and uses it as an excuse to be violent.
Otherwise lets just agree to disagree.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
#129
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 29 March 2008 - 08:05 PM
No, I do make that distinction. I've made it explicit. I've talked about selective reading, with an experiment that proved that if a call to violence was ascribed to God, then it makes believers in God more violent than non-believers. I've talked about taking scriptures literally, implicitly as opposed to the interpretations that you talk about (with circumstantial conditions and caveats and qualifications of 'allegory' and 'metaphore', alongside the semantics and intended audience dance).
There are many, many things that state how people should live. Fascism is just one of them. Youre confusing fascism with the violent enforcing of any idea. Thats not even implicit in fascism (but a consequence of attempting to put it into practice). It is part of many religious teaching. Literalists, well, they take it literally, suprisingly enough. The blanket oppression or prejudice toward any particular easily identifiable group isnt implicit in fascism either, its infered from extreme national sovereignty, but thats another point. I'm not going to correct your lack of distiction between a political system and the consequences of implementing it.
I will point out that youre very wrong in calling me a fascist toward religious people. I would be offended if it werent so untrue. See, some of my friends and quite a bit of my family are religious, and I love them. How the hell can I be implicitly against all religious people? I dont even have to go into statistical arguments, of the sort of 'there are so many muslims, and so many death threats from them for whatever infraction therefore....only X% are taking the violent parts literally or without mitigation from the peacefull messages'. Youre going to have to re-think that evaluation of what I'm saying, because its saying more about you than me
Theres a difference here that I've tried to make clear before and obviously failed. Possibly because it was in passing, not declarative enough. I dunno. I'm not talking about an idea, in a box and isolated, I'm talking about an idea that changes your beliefs about reality that then changes how you act.
Plus I think that an idea cant create violence is silly in and of itself. This is a seperate point, here, not related necessarily to the religion discusion, but ideas in general. "Action is the fruit of thought". I forget who said that, but they were right. Barring compelling sensations (hunger, thirst, lust, fatigue and so on) everything we do is based, somewhere down the line, on an idea. The things with which we do things are based on ideas. Were having a discussion on the internet. The internet was at one point, an idea. Then there was the idea to make real the idea of the internet, then there are the ideas that are informing the actions of posting on this forum. A forum that exists because of the underlying ideas of the internets and its creation, and Stephen Ericsons idea of wrting books, our idea to read them. Before any action, there is thought and ideas. Violence is no exception.
There are many, many things that state how people should live. Fascism is just one of them. Youre confusing fascism with the violent enforcing of any idea. Thats not even implicit in fascism (but a consequence of attempting to put it into practice). It is part of many religious teaching. Literalists, well, they take it literally, suprisingly enough. The blanket oppression or prejudice toward any particular easily identifiable group isnt implicit in fascism either, its infered from extreme national sovereignty, but thats another point. I'm not going to correct your lack of distiction between a political system and the consequences of implementing it.
I will point out that youre very wrong in calling me a fascist toward religious people. I would be offended if it werent so untrue. See, some of my friends and quite a bit of my family are religious, and I love them. How the hell can I be implicitly against all religious people? I dont even have to go into statistical arguments, of the sort of 'there are so many muslims, and so many death threats from them for whatever infraction therefore....only X% are taking the violent parts literally or without mitigation from the peacefull messages'. Youre going to have to re-think that evaluation of what I'm saying, because its saying more about you than me
Theres a difference here that I've tried to make clear before and obviously failed. Possibly because it was in passing, not declarative enough. I dunno. I'm not talking about an idea, in a box and isolated, I'm talking about an idea that changes your beliefs about reality that then changes how you act.
Plus I think that an idea cant create violence is silly in and of itself. This is a seperate point, here, not related necessarily to the religion discusion, but ideas in general. "Action is the fruit of thought". I forget who said that, but they were right. Barring compelling sensations (hunger, thirst, lust, fatigue and so on) everything we do is based, somewhere down the line, on an idea. The things with which we do things are based on ideas. Were having a discussion on the internet. The internet was at one point, an idea. Then there was the idea to make real the idea of the internet, then there are the ideas that are informing the actions of posting on this forum. A forum that exists because of the underlying ideas of the internets and its creation, and Stephen Ericsons idea of wrting books, our idea to read them. Before any action, there is thought and ideas. Violence is no exception.
#130
Shinrei
- charin charin
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 2,601
- Joined: 20-February 03
Posted 29 March 2008 - 09:18 PM
I think what people are bristling at is how you come across as saying that ONLY religion has the power to make normally non-violent people violent. Now, I don't think that's what you're saying at all, but that get's lost rather easily it seems.
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
#131
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 29 March 2008 - 09:48 PM
Shinrei no Shintai;281732 said:
I think what people are bristling at is how you come across as saying that ONLY religion has the power to make normally non-violent people violent. Now, I don't think that's what you're saying at all, but that get's lost rather easily it seems.
Perhaps. And I cheerfully accept the rebuke (and appreciate the implicity advisory note from a different perspective). In my defence: I've been trying like mad to seperate the violence in general, which can occur for many reasons from religiously motivated violence, and further, religious violence from religious belief in general, but its rather difficult to talk about a sub-set or set of interpretations or whatever you want to call it that you absolutely rail agaist, and trying to illustrate a general property of the source material and mechanisms of operation of the thing while seperating it from all the other intperpretations of the thing. Its tempting to blame the readers incomprehension, but its clearly my fault for not sufficiently articulating my main point (that literalist believers via their belief can use scripture to justify horrednous acts, where a non believers dont carry out any equivelent because of their non-belief) while excluding moderate interpretations.
I'm still mystified how anyone could think that I'm saying only religion is violent. I would have thought that to be so obviously wrong that no one would think it to be any sort of claim, and I certainly never meant to make it. If I thought someone had said that, I would ignore or laugh at them. Its rather that religious belief can serve as a greater motivator to violence, innately, in the reading of its messages, than anything else innately does, and for less rationally comprehesible (note, comprehensible, not justified: big difference)) reasons. There are many other means to violence, of course, but not even in the basic tennets of national socialism and communism can you find "Go and kill any non-_________". Not in anything else are the messages justified in the same way either (I've gone on about that at length, so I'm not gonna say it again unless asked for clarification).
Is it clearer to you now?
So again, I'm glad you get my point, whether you agree with it or not (I'm not in the least disgruntled by people not agreeing with me: we'll have a chat and see what happens, but its quite frustrating for everyone to argue with points I never made, or never meant to make), and thanks for telling me 'how I come accross'. (I would very much like it if people responded to the words on the screen in my posts rather than their inferences of tone though
I know its only 10% of communication in person, but still)
#132
Nequam
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 354
- Joined: 04-June 07
Posted 29 March 2008 - 09:52 PM
Quote
I think what people are bristling at is how you come across as saying that ONLY religion has the power to make normally non-violent people violent. Now, I don't think that's what you're saying at all, but that get's lost rather easily it seems.
Yes, and everyone seems to be misunderstanding everyone else or someone didn't say things exactly right. For example this made me a little angry:
Quote
Communism, even fascism, dont have commands to mass murder written into their principle documents. Christianity, Judaism and Islam do.
I have been religous my whole life, my parents and my whole family has too; my Grandfather was even a pastor for a time. In all of our interpretations over the generations we have not once ever, ever been commanded to do anything like commit mass murders. Every text that you may think are commanding violence most likely is not, or at least not how you may be taking it. Even the scripture you posted earlier to me is saying something along the lines of: you should stand up for what you beleive in if it is being threatened to be taken away from you.
In fact, think of all the billions of religous people that belong to either some form of christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now how can you seriously sit there and tell me how anyone in the world would be alive right now if those three religions commanded mass murders?
There are many other things I wanted to put my two cents into but this dissicussion seems to always take a turn for the worse. This thread might technically be derailed since the original topic was why you don't see religous people bashing on atheists, as you do the other way around.
If you were to ask me if I think religion can ispire violence, I would say yes. Because for some people it does. Religion however, is not inheritly violent. There are just too many different types to class it as peaceful either though. But to me, and what I've seen, religion (when it isn't paired up with politics or something) inspires a whole heck of a lot more peace than it does violence. By far.
#133
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 29 March 2008 - 09:52 PM
P.S. Theres no such thing as a 'non-violent' person. Except maybe a couple of branches of buddhism, ironically enough.
For a start, its a potential in us all the time, and even if you find someone that thinks they've never done anything violent and therefore never will (I know one for the latter) you can
A: bend the defintion of violence, as it has been over time.
B: point out that they dont know the future and dont know how they will respond to things the have never experienced.
People can be violent. I'm talking about on of the motivators. Religion is one of them.
For a start, its a potential in us all the time, and even if you find someone that thinks they've never done anything violent and therefore never will (I know one for the latter) you can
A: bend the defintion of violence, as it has been over time.
B: point out that they dont know the future and dont know how they will respond to things the have never experienced.
People can be violent. I'm talking about on of the motivators. Religion is one of them.
#134
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 29 March 2008 - 09:56 PM
Nequam;281754 said:
Yes, and everyone seems to be misunderstanding everyone else or someone didn't say things exactly right. For example this made me a little angry:
I have been religous my whole life, my parents and my whole family has too; my Grandfather was even a pastor for a time. In all of our interpretations over the generations we have not once ever, ever been commanded to do anything like commit mass murders. Every text that you may think are commanding violence most likely is not, or at least not how you may be taking it. Even the scripture you posted earlier to me is saying something along the lines of: you should stand up for what you beleive in if it is being threatened to be taken away from you.
In fact, think of all the billions of religous people that belong to either some form of christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now how can you seriously sit there and tell me how anyone in the world would be alive right now if those three religions commanded mass murders.
There are many other things I wanted to put my two cents into but this dissicussion seems to always take a turn for the worse. This thread might technically be derailed since the original topic was why you don't see religous people bashing on atheists, as you do the other way around.
If you were to ask me if I think religion can ispire violence, I would say yes. Because for some people it does. Religion however, is not inheritly violent. There are just too many different types to class it as peaceful either though. But to me, and what I've seen, religion (when it isn't paired up with politics or something) inspires a whole heck of a lot more peace than it does violence. By far.
I have been religous my whole life, my parents and my whole family has too; my Grandfather was even a pastor for a time. In all of our interpretations over the generations we have not once ever, ever been commanded to do anything like commit mass murders. Every text that you may think are commanding violence most likely is not, or at least not how you may be taking it. Even the scripture you posted earlier to me is saying something along the lines of: you should stand up for what you beleive in if it is being threatened to be taken away from you.
In fact, think of all the billions of religous people that belong to either some form of christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now how can you seriously sit there and tell me how anyone in the world would be alive right now if those three religions commanded mass murders.
There are many other things I wanted to put my two cents into but this dissicussion seems to always take a turn for the worse. This thread might technically be derailed since the original topic was why you don't see religous people bashing on atheists, as you do the other way around.
If you were to ask me if I think religion can ispire violence, I would say yes. Because for some people it does. Religion however, is not inheritly violent. There are just too many different types to class it as peaceful either though. But to me, and what I've seen, religion (when it isn't paired up with politics or something) inspires a whole heck of a lot more peace than it does violence. By far.
Neq, youre obviously a reasonable guy. So try and read Deuteronomy 13:1-18 from the point of view of an unreasonable biblical literalist. The koran sections as well, remembering that that sort of writing is a much stronger trend in the koran, and that it has minimal mitigation of the sort of the new testament.
I dont want to argue the "correct" interpretation of the passage, or any other. I hope that youre right: that if God wrote or revealed the bible then what you say is what he meant. But it seems that thinking that is a far huge leap from whats actually written there, the words on the page. Its pretty clear. I'm trying to point at its, and others, motivational/justificational capability, with a literal interpretation.
#136
Gem Windcaster
- Bequeathed Overmind
-
- Group: LHTEC
- Posts: 1,844
- Joined: 26-June 06
- Location:Sweden
Posted 29 March 2008 - 10:20 PM
Just for the record, I did not intend to call you a fascist - it just seemed to me you were doing a similar judgement as a fascist would do. I don't actually think you're a fascist.
I'm not confusing anything - but in my eyes you were confusing the actual ideas with forcing them upon people. I still don't understand how you can't see the similarities here. And I don't like how you use 'believer' versus 'non-believer' here - there are no such uniform groups in this context.
I'm not evaluating anything about you except what you are saying, and I disagree with most of what you are saying about how the construct of religion do or don't effect people. Clear enough for you?
I agree that ideas changes beliefs - most of the time ideas can change our perception of reality. And that in turn changes how we act. But then, I believe we choose what we believe in also. And I think we choose our actions that come out of it.
In my opinion, the consequences of your theory is that people somehow lose their ability to choose all of a sudden when they become religious. Or worse, that only some people lose this ability.
I disagree with this. I think all grown ups can choose their own beliefs and actions no matter what.
You are wrong. Because violence is not built on ideas or thought - it is built on survival. If everything was built on thought and ideas - there would be no violence.
And it's not so much the ideas create violence theory that is saddest part here - but rather that you think religion is somehow worse than other ideas.
I'd rather you'd used 'fanatism' instead.
You think religion in itself creates this in people, and I guess you're entitled to that opinion. But don't expect us to agree with you. You can't honestly say that fanatism is worse when it's religious fanatism. And only because you interpret a part of the Bible as violent.
I intend to hold people responsible for their beliefs and actions, no matter what they happened to 'read'.
---
As for the Deuteronomy quote - as I said before, all quotes can be interpreted in any possible way. But I guess the difference between you and me is that you think people become violent after reading the quote - and I believe that people that are violent and using the quote as an excuse already were violent in the first place, and therefore chose to interpret the quote in a violent way. See the difference?
Edit: It could be that violent people are drawn to religious fanatism, and that would give credit to your theory in a way - but I think the distinction is very much needed.
D Man;281713 said:
No, I do make that distinction. I've made it explicit. I've talked about selective reading, with an experiment that proved that if a call to violence was ascribed to God, then it makes believers in God more violent than non-believers. I've talked about taking scriptures literally, implicitly as opposed to the interpretations that you talk about (with circumstantial conditions and caveats and qualifications of 'allegory' and 'metaphore', alongside the semantics and intended audience dance).
There are many, many things that state how people should live. Fascism is just one of them. Youre confusing fascism with the violent enforcing of any idea. Thats not even implicit in fascism (but a consequence of attempting to put it into practice). It is part of many religious teaching. Literalists, well, they take it literally, suprisingly enough. The blanket oppression or prejudice toward any particular easily identifiable group isnt implicit in fascism either, its infered from extreme national sovereignty, but thats another point. I'm not going to correct your lack of distiction between a political system and the consequences of implementing it.
There are many, many things that state how people should live. Fascism is just one of them. Youre confusing fascism with the violent enforcing of any idea. Thats not even implicit in fascism (but a consequence of attempting to put it into practice). It is part of many religious teaching. Literalists, well, they take it literally, suprisingly enough. The blanket oppression or prejudice toward any particular easily identifiable group isnt implicit in fascism either, its infered from extreme national sovereignty, but thats another point. I'm not going to correct your lack of distiction between a political system and the consequences of implementing it.
Quote
I will point out that youre very wrong in calling me a fascist toward religious people. I would be offended if it werent so untrue. See, some of my friends and quite a bit of my family are religious, and I love them. How the hell can I be implicitly against all religious people? I dont even have to go into statistical arguments, of the sort of 'there are so many muslims, and so many death threats from them for whatever infraction therefore....only X% are taking the violent parts literally or without mitigation from the peacefull messages'. Youre going to have to re-think that evaluation of what I'm saying, because its saying more about you than me
Quote
Theres a difference here that I've tried to make clear before and obviously failed. Possibly because it was in passing, not declarative enough. I dunno. I'm not talking about an idea, in a box and isolated, I'm talking about an idea that changes your beliefs about reality that then changes how you act.
I agree that ideas changes beliefs - most of the time ideas can change our perception of reality. And that in turn changes how we act. But then, I believe we choose what we believe in also. And I think we choose our actions that come out of it.
In my opinion, the consequences of your theory is that people somehow lose their ability to choose all of a sudden when they become religious. Or worse, that only some people lose this ability.
I disagree with this. I think all grown ups can choose their own beliefs and actions no matter what.
Quote
Plus I think that an idea cant create violence is silly in and of itself. This is a seperate point, here, not related necessarily to the religion discusion, but ideas in general. "Action is the fruit of thought". I forget who said that, but they were right. Barring compelling sensations (hunger, thirst, lust, fatigue and so on) everything we do is based, somewhere down the line, on an idea. The things with which we do things are based on ideas. Were having a discussion on the internet. The internet was at one point, an idea. Then there was the idea to make real the idea of the internet, then there are the ideas that are informing the actions of posting on this forum. A forum that exists because of the underlying ideas of the internets and its creation, and Stephen Ericsons idea of wrting books, our idea to read them. Before any action, there is thought and ideas. Violence is no exception.
You are wrong. Because violence is not built on ideas or thought - it is built on survival. If everything was built on thought and ideas - there would be no violence.
And it's not so much the ideas create violence theory that is saddest part here - but rather that you think religion is somehow worse than other ideas.
I'd rather you'd used 'fanatism' instead.
You think religion in itself creates this in people, and I guess you're entitled to that opinion. But don't expect us to agree with you. You can't honestly say that fanatism is worse when it's religious fanatism. And only because you interpret a part of the Bible as violent.
I intend to hold people responsible for their beliefs and actions, no matter what they happened to 'read'.
---
As for the Deuteronomy quote - as I said before, all quotes can be interpreted in any possible way. But I guess the difference between you and me is that you think people become violent after reading the quote - and I believe that people that are violent and using the quote as an excuse already were violent in the first place, and therefore chose to interpret the quote in a violent way. See the difference?
Edit: It could be that violent people are drawn to religious fanatism, and that would give credit to your theory in a way - but I think the distinction is very much needed.
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
#137
Mentalist
- Martyr of High House Mafia
-
- Group: High House Mafia
- Posts: 9,752
- Joined: 06-June 07
- Location:'sauga/GTA, City of the Lion
- Interests:Soccer, Chess, swimming, books, misc
- Junior Mafia Mod
Posted 30 March 2008 - 12:19 AM
okay, guys, just joining the debate, read you article, D-man.
I am A psychology student, so I read tons of these. As of right now, I've read the introduction only, but that in itself leads me to question the relevance of findings
They are based on analogous studies with video games + other violent media. It is a generally acknowledged fact that exposure to violent media of any form increases the CHANCES of aggression.
Also, they did not carry out any agression test before the study, so there may well be a number of other factors.
Results fro study 1 (the American students)
all of that is a bunch of statistical mumbo jumbo, MS being mean square, SE standard error, F (degrees of freedom) being the statistical test--al unimportant. important are the parts in bold . p-value is the significance of the test--if it's above .05, the result is not considered significant AT ALL. hence, the justification distinction is moot here, as it is .09. d, representing the effect size of the relationship b/w variables is moderate at best (.40)
results for study 2
these take a lot of space, as the study clearly focused on the group the Netherlands, so I will not quote them here. Suffice it to say, there IS a significant difference between the scroll and bible group, as well as b/w the sanctioned by God/not sanctioned conditions.
in the bible condition, the sanctioned elicited higher agression, with a modrate effect size. in the scroll condition it did not matter.
the general argument being made here, is that if ppl (even non-religious) perceive that the violence sanctioned by authority, is justifiable, and are more likely to commit violence in this condition. This was demonstrated way back when (60s, I believe) by Milgram. The discussion section of the article tells you not to jump to conclusions as is.
followed by the part quote by CI
So, essentially, exposure to violent media, or ideas that violence is justified, increases the likelyhood of potential violence. Very insightful. Now we know that religiopus scripture as "media" is no exception. Note that it's not necessarily the cause, just that it helps.
Still, D man, I fail to see why you single out religion as a single "main factor" in explaining violence. the way I see it, any type of ideology that suggests an "Us vs. them" division b/w humans can be used to lead to war. Nationalism, communism, etc are no exceptions. These things are totally natural.
I am A psychology student, so I read tons of these. As of right now, I've read the introduction only, but that in itself leads me to question the relevance of findings
They are based on analogous studies with video games + other violent media. It is a generally acknowledged fact that exposure to violent media of any form increases the CHANCES of aggression.
Also, they did not carry out any agression test before the study, so there may well be a number of other factors.
Results fro study 1 (the American students)
Quote
As
expected, BYU students who were told that the passage was from
the Bible were more aggressive than those who were told the
passage was from an ancient scroll, Ms = 3.44 and 2.48, SEs =
0.53 and 0.26, respectively, F(1, 240) 5 4.47, p < .04, prep >
.892, d = 0.30. Students who read a passage stating that God
sanctioned the violence tended to be more aggressive than those
who read a passage that did not mention God, Ms = 3.40 and
2.47, SEs = 0.43 and 0.31, respectively, F(1, 240) = 2.95, p <
.09, prep > .828, d=0.23. Also, men were more aggressive than
women, M=54.12 and 2.16, SEs50.53 and 0.26, respectively,
F(1, 240) =13.25, p < .0001, prep > .996, d = 0.48.
expected, BYU students who were told that the passage was from
the Bible were more aggressive than those who were told the
passage was from an ancient scroll, Ms = 3.44 and 2.48, SEs =
0.53 and 0.26, respectively, F(1, 240) 5 4.47, p < .04, prep >
.892, d = 0.30. Students who read a passage stating that God
sanctioned the violence tended to be more aggressive than those
who read a passage that did not mention God, Ms = 3.40 and
2.47, SEs = 0.43 and 0.31, respectively, F(1, 240) = 2.95, p <
.09, prep > .828, d=0.23. Also, men were more aggressive than
women, M=54.12 and 2.16, SEs50.53 and 0.26, respectively,
F(1, 240) =13.25, p < .0001, prep > .996, d = 0.48.
all of that is a bunch of statistical mumbo jumbo, MS being mean square, SE standard error, F (degrees of freedom) being the statistical test--al unimportant. important are the parts in bold . p-value is the significance of the test--if it's above .05, the result is not considered significant AT ALL. hence, the justification distinction is moot here, as it is .09. d, representing the effect size of the relationship b/w variables is moderate at best (.40)
results for study 2
these take a lot of space, as the study clearly focused on the group the Netherlands, so I will not quote them here. Suffice it to say, there IS a significant difference between the scroll and bible group, as well as b/w the sanctioned by God/not sanctioned conditions.
in the bible condition, the sanctioned elicited higher agression, with a modrate effect size. in the scroll condition it did not matter.
the general argument being made here, is that if ppl (even non-religious) perceive that the violence sanctioned by authority, is justifiable, and are more likely to commit violence in this condition. This was demonstrated way back when (60s, I believe) by Milgram. The discussion section of the article tells you not to jump to conclusions as is.
Quote
Assuming that a religious, or believing, audience identifies
with scriptural characters more than does a nonreligious or
unbelieving audience, our results further confirm previous research
showing that exposure to violent media causes people to
behave more aggressively if they identify with the violent
characters than if they do not (e.g., Huesmann & Eron, 1986).
Furthermore, to the extent that our manipulation of God either
sanctioning or not sanctioning the violence represents a valid
operationalization of justification, we have further evidence that
violence perceived as justified produces more aggression than
does unjustified violence (Berkowitz, 1993). This work extends
these findings from the visual arts to the literary arts.
with scriptural characters more than does a nonreligious or
unbelieving audience, our results further confirm previous research
showing that exposure to violent media causes people to
behave more aggressively if they identify with the violent
characters than if they do not (e.g., Huesmann & Eron, 1986).
Furthermore, to the extent that our manipulation of God either
sanctioning or not sanctioning the violence represents a valid
operationalization of justification, we have further evidence that
violence perceived as justified produces more aggression than
does unjustified violence (Berkowitz, 1993). This work extends
these findings from the visual arts to the literary arts.
followed by the part quote by CI
So, essentially, exposure to violent media, or ideas that violence is justified, increases the likelyhood of potential violence. Very insightful. Now we know that religiopus scripture as "media" is no exception. Note that it's not necessarily the cause, just that it helps.
Still, D man, I fail to see why you single out religion as a single "main factor" in explaining violence. the way I see it, any type of ideology that suggests an "Us vs. them" division b/w humans can be used to lead to war. Nationalism, communism, etc are no exceptions. These things are totally natural.
The problem with the gene pool is that there's no lifeguard
THE CONTESTtm WINNER--чемпіон самоконтролю
THE CONTESTtm WINNER--чемпіон самоконтролю
Jump Around, on 23 October 2011 - 11:04 AM, said:
And I want to state that Ment has out-weaseled me by far in this game.
#138
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 30 March 2008 - 12:28 AM
kud13;281797 said:
Still, D man, I fail to see why you single out religion as a single "main factor" in explaining violence. the way I see it, any type of ideology that suggests an "Us vs. them" division b/w humans can be used to lead to war. Nationalism, communism, etc are no exceptions. These things are totally natural.
To the rest of your post: thanks for your contribution: that was interesting.
To the quoted section. For fuck sake
#139
Cold Iron
- I'll have some lasagna
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 2,026
- Joined: 18-January 06
Posted 30 March 2008 - 03:18 AM
Well it seems this discussion has left me in it's wake. I don't have a chance to catch up right now but I did want to say that if that video you posted, D Man, is something you feel demonstrates your point then I feel more than a little disappointed that I bothered to waste my time and I will likely take a back seat in this discussion from now on.
#140
D Man
- High Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 26-April 06
Posted 30 March 2008 - 03:35 AM
Cold Iron;281863 said:
Well it seems this discussion has left me in it's wake. I don't have a chance to catch up right now but I did want to say that if that video you posted, D Man, is something you feel demonstrates your point then I feel more than a little disappointed that I bothered to waste my time and I will likely take a back seat in this discussion from now on.
Do you think the quotes werent real, or that the speeches were made by actors? I qualified it to all hell and back because of its use of editing and propogandist nature: apparently youre immune to qualifications of a point though: you take everyone as a literalist. Or just however you want to (see your presentation of your favourite selective reading of the study posted).
