Help
D Man;283275 said:
I have a feeling youre going to have a very hard time demonstrating this
You're right, it's hard. I'm working on it. It might take a while.
I don't...
#162
Goaswerfraiejen 
- Captain
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 192
- Joined: 31-October 07
Posted 09 April 2008 - 03:55 AM
I have lost all interest in this thread, but I did pick up on this:
I am glad to see your statements finally clearly reflecting what I was arguing for earlier (i.e. that religion is hardly ever the sole motivation behind any action, especially violent action), because that was not AT ALL clear from the discussion we had earlier. At the time, you continually appeared to be engaging in contradictory statements.
What caught my eye here was the re-statement of the claim that atheism causes less violence than religion (distinguished from theism), in conjunction with the claim (for which I argued earlier) that atheism is not a positive doctrine (i.e. it asserts nothing). I hope that things have cooled a little bit between us, and that this distance will breed cooler reflection, because I would like to point out once more that, although your claim here is not fundamentally wrong, it is not a fair claim because the comparison is being drawn between objects which are different in kind: one is a positive doctrine (religion; again, distinguished from theism) and one is negative (atheism). Religion, because it is bound up in ritual and so on, prescribes laws of conduct, which in turn can be turned to violent prescriptions. Atheism, on the other hand, prescribes nothing at all, and so it would be inappropriate to apply the question to atheism. Do you see what I'm saying?
To be fair all-around, we should instead examine those things which are prescriptive or which are motivators for atheists. And if we do that, we will in fact see that they are qualities shared regardless of devotion (greed, lust, courage, hope, whatever). Otherwise, the things which we compare aren't on the same footing, and we're really just begging the question.
Some religious values lead to violence. Some secular values lead to violence. All we have expressed so far is a meaningless tautology, but unless it is expressed in this fashion, then we run the risk of seeming to favour the one over the other.
-Exits once more.
D Man;282790 said:
Interesting article.
And my fundamental point still stands: we all agree that there are lots of reasons to be violent (I'm still suprised anyone thought that I said relgion is the only cause of violence!), but that atheism, if its a cause of anything at all (which, given that its a body of thought that implicitly contains no reference to a figure or body of authority, and no instruction on how to live or behave, I seriously doubt) is a far inferior cause of violence to religion (and my original point included various forms of oppression and some mythology+dogma based medically oriented harm it causes/allows/says isnt important compared to the soul and the afterlife).
And my fundamental point still stands: we all agree that there are lots of reasons to be violent (I'm still suprised anyone thought that I said relgion is the only cause of violence!), but that atheism, if its a cause of anything at all (which, given that its a body of thought that implicitly contains no reference to a figure or body of authority, and no instruction on how to live or behave, I seriously doubt) is a far inferior cause of violence to religion (and my original point included various forms of oppression and some mythology+dogma based medically oriented harm it causes/allows/says isnt important compared to the soul and the afterlife).
I am glad to see your statements finally clearly reflecting what I was arguing for earlier (i.e. that religion is hardly ever the sole motivation behind any action, especially violent action), because that was not AT ALL clear from the discussion we had earlier. At the time, you continually appeared to be engaging in contradictory statements.
What caught my eye here was the re-statement of the claim that atheism causes less violence than religion (distinguished from theism), in conjunction with the claim (for which I argued earlier) that atheism is not a positive doctrine (i.e. it asserts nothing). I hope that things have cooled a little bit between us, and that this distance will breed cooler reflection, because I would like to point out once more that, although your claim here is not fundamentally wrong, it is not a fair claim because the comparison is being drawn between objects which are different in kind: one is a positive doctrine (religion; again, distinguished from theism) and one is negative (atheism). Religion, because it is bound up in ritual and so on, prescribes laws of conduct, which in turn can be turned to violent prescriptions. Atheism, on the other hand, prescribes nothing at all, and so it would be inappropriate to apply the question to atheism. Do you see what I'm saying?
To be fair all-around, we should instead examine those things which are prescriptive or which are motivators for atheists. And if we do that, we will in fact see that they are qualities shared regardless of devotion (greed, lust, courage, hope, whatever). Otherwise, the things which we compare aren't on the same footing, and we're really just begging the question.
Some religious values lead to violence. Some secular values lead to violence. All we have expressed so far is a meaningless tautology, but unless it is expressed in this fashion, then we run the risk of seeming to favour the one over the other.
-Exits once more.
#163
Cold Iron
- I'll have some lasagna
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 2,026
- Joined: 18-January 06
Posted 09 April 2008 - 03:57 AM
Goaswerfraiejen;286454 said:
I have lost all interest in this thread, but I did pick up on this:
I am glad to see your statements finally clearly reflecting what I was arguing for earlier (i.e. that religion is hardly ever the sole motivation behind any action, especially violent action), because that was not AT ALL clear from the discussion we had earlier. At the time, you continually appeared to be engaging in contradictory statements.
What caught my eye here was the re-statement of the claim that atheism causes less violence than religion (distinguished from theism), in conjunction with the claim (for which I argued earlier) that atheism is not a positive doctrine (i.e. it asserts nothing). I hope that things have cooled a little bit between us, and that this distance will breed cooler reflection, because I would like to point out once more that, although your claim here is not fundamentally wrong, it is not a fair claim because the comparison is being drawn between objects which are different in kind: one is a positive doctrine (religion; again, distinguished from theism) and one is negative (atheism). Religion, because it is bound up in ritual and so on, prescribes laws of conduct, which in turn can be turned to violent prescriptions. Atheism, on the other hand, prescribes nothing at all, and so it would be inappropriate to apply the question to atheism. Do you see what I'm saying?
To be fair all-around, we should instead examine those things which are prescriptive or which are motivators for atheists. And if we do that, we will in fact see that they are qualities shared regardless of devotion (greed, lust, courage, hope, whatever). Otherwise, the things which we compare aren't on the same footing, and we're really just begging the question.
Some religious values lead to violence. Some secular values lead to violence. All we have expressed so far is a meaningless tautology, but unless it is expressed in this fashion, then we run the risk of seeming to favour the one over the other.
-Exits once more.
I am glad to see your statements finally clearly reflecting what I was arguing for earlier (i.e. that religion is hardly ever the sole motivation behind any action, especially violent action), because that was not AT ALL clear from the discussion we had earlier. At the time, you continually appeared to be engaging in contradictory statements.
What caught my eye here was the re-statement of the claim that atheism causes less violence than religion (distinguished from theism), in conjunction with the claim (for which I argued earlier) that atheism is not a positive doctrine (i.e. it asserts nothing). I hope that things have cooled a little bit between us, and that this distance will breed cooler reflection, because I would like to point out once more that, although your claim here is not fundamentally wrong, it is not a fair claim because the comparison is being drawn between objects which are different in kind: one is a positive doctrine (religion; again, distinguished from theism) and one is negative (atheism). Religion, because it is bound up in ritual and so on, prescribes laws of conduct, which in turn can be turned to violent prescriptions. Atheism, on the other hand, prescribes nothing at all, and so it would be inappropriate to apply the question to atheism. Do you see what I'm saying?
To be fair all-around, we should instead examine those things which are prescriptive or which are motivators for atheists. And if we do that, we will in fact see that they are qualities shared regardless of devotion (greed, lust, courage, hope, whatever). Otherwise, the things which we compare aren't on the same footing, and we're really just begging the question.
Some religious values lead to violence. Some secular values lead to violence. All we have expressed so far is a meaningless tautology, but unless it is expressed in this fashion, then we run the risk of seeming to favour the one over the other.
-Exits once more.
I agree, however I'm still working on my argument
