[Nequam]

D Man;271526 said:

Not that much.

"All things being equal, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but for a good person to do evil requires religion"

Stephen Wienberg.

No matter what the proportions of the group, there are religions that have teachings that are conducive to and members willing to carry out vile acts. Not so with atheism. While any given atheist can be a lunatic murdering bomb planting nut job, its not because Atheism made them do it.

That is, all too often, the case with religions.

As Goas basically said, I think those people who do things like that use religion to justify what they did. It didn't actually say they should do it. However, I think that is a good quote. Because to me, it show how often people abuse their own religion. Which is totally un-cool because it puts a lot of lame on a lot of people who really don't deserve any of that. Because for every nut-job that does an 'evil' act because he said that it was his religion, there are twenty more men helping someone else for that same religion.
Plus, you really shouldn't clump every religion together and say that they just cause problems. It is just dumb. I don't clump athists together and say they are all bitter, haughty, assholes who hate religion and religous people. Because they aren't, sure there my be a couple out there, but it isnt fair to say they are all the same because they label themselves the same way.

As someone said earlier, atheist people can get shunned out of society (maybe not as a whole, but there are a lot of mini-societies) which isn't right. To me it's the same as saying a homosexual person shouldn't be able to do something just because of what they are, or same with a race, etc. etc. It's not religion in itself but people. Generally, it seems, we don't like what is different from us.

[D Man]

Goas:

The abuse of the teachings of a religion for political or military purposes wouldnt be possible if the appropriate incitments to violence and hatred of differing beliefs were not present in the teachings.

Nor would it be possible for your neo-con men behind the curtain to send timmy and mohamed on their crusades if the religions didnt, to some degree (variable from person to person no doubt), counter the basic empathy for one person to another in favour of theism-based suspision and hate of the ememy.

It would also not be possible if the religions werent inherently dogmatic and inhibitative of allowing person to develop their own thoughts and feelings on a subject. They force a person to recieve dogma, and to become receptive to dogma. That dogma can easily be militaristic or socially restrictive in nature. (And clearly often is just look at the societies of, say, the US Vs Denmark)

Theres no doubt that religious doctrines are interpreted in the light of the moral zietgiest of the time and place, right down to the level of the individual and the way they interpret their religious text in light of other teachings they've recieved in life.

But the facility to incite to violence or hatred within some religions (christianity and islam in particular) is extremely easy to find, and easy to use to tip someone into militant and murderous action or a state into oppressive restriction of its peoples ways of life. Its also easy for otherwise sincere people to be swayed by a literal and complete interpretation of the texts without the imputus to do so from an authority.

Neq, that should answer your points to a degree as well, but to make it explicit (since inference wasnt enough for you to pick it up last time; well done goas for doing so though): I'm not blaming all religions.

"there are religions that have teachings that are conducive to and members willing to carry out vile acts"

Implicit in this is the opposite. I'm not 'just dumb' enough to clump all religions together in this particular regard. Some are very obviously peacefull, and while I think they're often deluded and blinkered in their views of the natural world, they conduct themselves well as people (like we all try to) and thats far more important, so I wish them all the best.

[Nequam]

It's hard to defend something like religion and atheism when there are so many different kind of people and religions. From me, my religion has brought me so much joy, security, and just an all around state of well-being that when I see something like a crazy guy blowing up an abortion clinic on the news I simply don't understand. Our religions might have been very similar, yet it seems he got everything all screwy. But I don't think that it is all his religions fault, it was him, and how he took his religous teachings. I would never try to shut out whatever religion he was in because I know that it brought so much more to a much larger number of people. I just hope that others can see how wrong it is.
There will always be people fighting other people for something. It's a sad thing but true. If not religion then something else. (I just reminded myself of South Park..oh boy, good times, good times.) There are so many crimes in the world, and I'm not about to sit here and actually be ignorant enough to say none of it is because of religous reasons. I just think that in whole sceme of things, the world is better off with than without them.
Well...that's a bold thing to say. Considering how many religions there are. Who knows, maybe some religion out in some place says that all girl babies have to be killed, or else alien-gods will destoy the world in 2020...?

[Cold Iron]

D Man;271559 said:

Goas:

The abuse of the teachings of a religion for political or military purposes wouldnt be possible if the appropriate incitments to violence and hatred of differing beliefs were not present in the teachings.

Fine, but accepting this does not mean the politically motivated violence would not have occurred, it would merely have had to use some other manifestation of fear and oppression to incite it.

D Man;271559 said:

Nor would it be possible for your neo-con men behind the curtain to send timmy and mohamed on their crusades if the religions didnt, to some degree (variable from person to person no doubt), counter the basic empathy for one person to another in favour of theism-based suspision and hate of the ememy.

Again, it may not have been possible to con Timmy and Mohamed, the religious guys, but John and Ahmed, the starving atheist racist farmers could still be conned into the violence through promises of wealth and punishment of the wealthy.

D Man;271559 said:

It would also not be possible if the religions werent inherently dogmatic and inhibitative of allowing person to develop their own thoughts and feelings on a subject. They force a person to recieve dogma, and to become receptive to dogma. That dogma can easily be militaristic or socially restrictive in nature. (And clearly often is just look at the societies of, say, the US Vs Denmark)

Religion is not a creative force, it is merely a reflection of ourselves. Nor is it an active force.

D Man;271559 said:

Theres no doubt that religious doctrines are interpreted in the light of the moral zietgiest of the time and place, right down to the level of the individual and the way they interpret their religious text in light of other teachings they've recieved in life.

I think you mean zeitgeist - it's German, and literally means "time ghost" if you're interested.

D Man;271559 said:

But the facility to incite to violence or hatred within some religions (christianity and islam in particular) is extremely easy to find, and easy to use to tip someone into militant and murderous action or a state into oppressive restriction of its peoples ways of life. Its also easy for otherwise sincere people to be swayed by a literal and complete interpretation of the texts without the imputus to do so from an authority.

Is it? Do you have evidence of this or is it just your opinion?

D Man;271559 said:

Neq, that should answer your points to a degree as well, but to make it explicit (since inference wasnt enough for you to pick it up last time; well done goas for doing so though): I'm not blaming all religions.

"there are religions that have teachings that are conducive to and members willing to carry out vile acts"

Implicit in this is the opposite. I'm not 'just dumb' enough to clump all religions together in this particular regard. Some are very obviously peacefull, and while I think they're often deluded and blinkered in their views of the natural world, they conduct themselves well as people (like we all try to) and thats far more important, so I wish them all the best.

My point is simply this: religion does not act on it's own. You cannot blame religion for something because it didn't do it. We did.

[D Man]

Neq, cool, go in peace. But judging a religion by one isolated viewpoint without taking into account all that is done in the religions name is a very incomplete assesment of the religion. You can rationalise with "They arent true ______s", (not that you did, but it does happen, a lot), but thats and similar dismissive statements and refusals to consider the religious (by this I mean scriptural mainly, and dogmatic partly) dimension to morally repugnant acts carried out by people under the same banner as you is just sticking your head in the sand and taking cherry-picked view about something that you've chosen to be a huge part in your life, IMO.

You have to wonder why Buddhists and Janists dont bomb abortion clinics???

Seriously. Whats the difference?

Cold Iron:

Your first two are speculation. Also, they are evasion. The point is not that a political goal will be reached by any means available. I dont think thats true. It depends on the amenability of the population to that goal, given their beliefs, morals and perceptions of others.

My point is that many religions have abundant calls to arms and prejudices against groups of people and schools of thought.

Whether these are manipulated by an authority or acted on by an individual is irrelevant. Read that again. Imprint it. I dont care how the violent and hate mongering parts of a religion are used, I care that they are obvisouly such powerfull potential motivators or facilitators to do harm of some form to others.

Can you really with your hand on your heart tell me that you think the 9/11 attacks would have happened if the middle east was a bunch of secular states and osama bin laden was an agnostic? Or amish, even.

Really?

Religion is a creative force and its a HUGE motivator to action. That statement is pure falacy. You think that religious people just sit around conemplating their gods? Lets see now, what does religion make people do?

Go to temple
Stand on street corners, preaching
Preach door to door
Write books
Attempt to pass, and sometimes succeed in passing, laws
Affect voting tendencies
Run missions.
Humanitarian aid
Run charities
Influence personal conduct of all sorts
Inhibit use of contraceptives (with the obvious consequences)
Start wars
Defend, unreasonably, territory
Set yourself on fire
Blow someone else up

C'MON!!!

Not an active force???

I doubt theres a religious person on this earth that would agree with you.

I know what zeitgiest means, thanks. But if youre gonna point-score by correctingl my spelling mistakes we'll be here a long time and you'll get really bored. I make a lot of them.

Next. You want evidence. OK. Isreal. Iran. U.S. Populations that are, to varying degrees, swayed and motivated by religious ideas. Do you dispute this?

And finally, saying "religion didnt do it, we did is frankly vapid and unhelpfull. We did......everything. Lets be a little more specific. What are the causal factors in the actions of a person? You seem to think that religious belief isnt one of them; that they are held as some sort of airy-fairy intellectual consideration while people go about their lives in complete independance of their doctrines like so much philosphical musing, and whatever happens would have happened without them. Not so.

Any idea is a motivator to action for others. Religion possibly most of all. Would someone do what they do what they do without being exposed to the ideas in their lives? No. Religion is no different.

[Cold Iron]

D Man;271610 said:

Your first two are speculation. Also, they are evasion. The point is not that a political goal will be reached by any means available. I dont think thats true. It depends on the amenability of the population to that goal, given their beliefs, morals and perceptions of others.

My point is that many religions have abundant calls to arms and prejudices against groups of people and schools of thought.

Whether these are manipulated by an authority or acted on by an individual is irrelevant. Read that again. Imprint it. I dont care how the violent and hate mongering parts of a religion are used, I care that they are obvisouly such powerfull potential motivators or facilitators to do harm of some form to others.

Can you really with your hand on your heart tell me that you think the 9/11 attacks would have happened if the middle east was a bunch of secular states and osama bin laden was an agnostic? Or amish, even.

Really?

I do not attribute the religion of the 9/11 attackers as a cause of their attack. I attribute it as a factor only in so far as it is a cultural aspect of the time and place in which they lived. Even were they to have been recorded saying "I go to do this for my god and my religion" on tape before they did it, I would still not say religion was the cause or even a cause.

If the 9/11 attackers think they did it for god, does this mean that god is actually responsible? An atheist such as yourself would say "of course not, god is not real, it was the man who did it, not god". To then turn around and say "it was the religion who did it, not the man" is to contradict your own logic.

People are different. Some cultures are more violent than others, and this is reflected in their religion. Violence is easily attributed to conflicts over resources. Monkey populations have shown this. The observation that the religion of a culture that has developed in isolation, with plentiful resources is less violent than that of one that has developed in an area with constant conflicts over food and water is completely uninsightful and certainly not indicative of some kind of inherent violence of a population, culture or religion. The observation that it was Muslims who committed the 9/11 atrocities is equally uninsightful as there is nothing inherent in the acts that is possible to directly attribute to the Islamic faith or even religion in general. The violent nature of certain religions is due to the conditions in which they developed and the basic human requirements of the populations in which they developed.

You may as well blame the goats for not breeding fast enough to feed everyone. Or the viscosity of water for not allowing more accessible water sources. Or the social compulsion of humans to be accepted by those they rely on.

D Man;271610 said:

Religion is a creative force and its a HUGE motivator to action. That statement is pure falacy. You think that religious people just sit around conemplating their gods? Lets see now, what does religion make people do?

Go to temple
Stand on street corners, preaching
Preach door to door
Write books
Attempt to pass, and sometimes succeed in passing, laws
Affect voting tendencies
Run missions.
Humanitarian aid
Run charities
Influence personal conduct of all sorts
Inhibit use of contraceptives (with the obvious consequences)
Start wars
Defend, unreasonably, territory
Set yourself on fire
Blow someone else up

C'MON!!!

Not an active force???

I doubt theres a religious person on this earth that would agree with you.

No. It is atheists who think religious people are (or must be) compelled to do the things that they do, religious people think it is because they choose to. You may attribute this choice to the religion itself, but again, there are deeper forces at play here. I maintain that religion is not an active force. You may as well say that education makes people go to school, or politics makes people pay taxes.

D Man;271610 said:

I know what zeitgiest means, thanks. But if youre gonna point-score by correctingl my spelling mistakes we'll be here a long time and you'll get really bored. I make a lot of them.

I wasn't trying to point-score, I was trying to bring you down a peg and show you that there are others around that might know as much as you do, it's not easy to argue with someone who is convinced of their intellectual superiority. And by the way, you spelled it wrong again

D Man;271610 said:

Next. You want evidence. OK. Isreal. Iran. U.S. Populations that are, to varying degrees, swayed and motivated by religious ideas. Do you dispute this?

Yes. See above.

D Man;271610 said:

And finally, saying "religion didnt do it, we did is frankly vapid and unhelpfull. We did......everything. Lets be a little more specific. What are the causal factors in the actions of a person? You seem to think that religious belief isnt one of them; that they are held as some sort of airy-fairy intellectual consideration while people go about their lives in complete independance of their doctrines like so much philosphical musing, and whatever happens would have happened without them. Not so.

How they are held is not what we are arguing. To be more specific, religion doesn't do anything. Nor is it the causal factor for anything.

D Man;271610 said:

Any idea is a motivator to action for others. Religion possibly most of all. Would someone do what they do what they do without being exposed to the ideas in their lives? No. Religion is no different.

Correct, and as such it is no different from any other cultural construct, like the arts, politics or education.

If all the perpetrators of 9/11 were not only Muslim, but heavy metal fans, would you say music commits atrocities?

[D Man]

CI, youre making a chicken - egg argument that, as I've already said, has some validity in a generalised analysis (religion being created by man and therefore reflacting our nature).

But its out of context of the argument and flawed.

You seem to be trying to say that anyone will do anything they want and find the justifications for it after the fact of their nature, and including religion in this.

Youre contradicting yourself. You cant say both that religious doctrine is a justification for action that already agrees with the person and that religion is not a motivator to action.

And youre argument falls down when you bring it into contact with the real world.

To suggest, as you are, that violent actions are independant of violent influences is absurd. Behaviours are learned, and we all have the capacity to be anything that a human can be, and at any given time who we are is the sum of our experiences within the boundary conditions of our biological nature. We can all be violent, we can all be compasionate. The degree to which we act on any of our impusles and how we do it is a result of our influences, of ideas and of example.

The influence of religious ideas on a persons mind, and therefore actions, is profound. For both good and bad.

Lets take the flipside of the same coin. I know quite a lot of religious people, mainly christians. One of them organised a clean-up operation for Moss Side, a really nasty neighbourhood in Manchester. They bought paint and a tonne of bin bags. They went in there and started doing the place up. I asked him why, and he said "Because we love them as Jesus says we should, and we think that if they have a better environment and an example of charity and caring shown to them, then they can pick that up and hopefully live better lives, perhaps find christ and, y'know, not go to hell". He made no bones about the fact that it was a conversion mission, and that ultimately the tidy-up was a red herring: he wanted to give them the chance to meet christ and save them.

Would that happen if they didnt believe in the salvation of Christ? Huh? Would they have lifted a finger?

In point of fact the crime rates in the area dropped 40% (with none whatsoever bieng commited the next day) and the area has since been overtaken in crime rates by longside (just down the road). I cant speak for the people of moss-sides salvation, but theres no doubt whatsoever that a religious idea motivated an action.

In point of fact a theological idea, metaphysical, supernatural, whatever you want to call it, idea that a group of people believe is real changed their actions in this world.

Would they have done it anyway?

No. They were out there to save souls. Not drop crime rates. Save souls. That was their objective.

And you dont think that religious beliefs make a person do something they otherwise wouldnt?

Now take way down the other end of the scale: how many suicide bombers do you think would go through with it if they werent certain of their heavenly reward? If they thought they would go to hell for what they do, instead of a paradise with nubile virgins?

The only non-religious analogue I can think of is kamakaze pilots, and they were giving their lives for the defense of their nation and by proxy way of life and loved ones. Or rather, under that pretext they were ordered to.

"You may as well say that education makes people go to school, or politics makes people pay taxes"

Consequence and reward systems. Both of them. And very poor analogies, but lets go with it. You have to OR, you dont get a job or you end up in jail, and if you do, you can be successfull and have a better health service.

Rewards and punishments of a pious life vary from religion to religion, but here are a few:

Feeling loved unconditionally by god
Advancing through strata of existence from one life to the next to ulitmately become perfect
Acheiving complete happiness in the afterlife
Eternal torture in hell

The subjective reality of these supernatural carrots and sticks compels people to do very real things.

This also answers what you think is a contradiction in my perspective: that I dont believe any gods, nymphs, spirits, demons or souls exist, and yet I maintain that religion is a motivating force because the religious do.

[D Man]

I'd also like to point out, CI, that your arguments have been purely abstract and thought-experiment and opinion based.

"The easiest person to fool is yourself"

Richard feynman.

You may wanna connect with reality at some point

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Don't take this as a personal attack, D Man; I just strongly disagree the the extremity of your conclusions, and don't think that they're licensed by the premises. I am not trying to convince you of anything, because I know that that only rarely happens on the internet (or anywhere else, for that matter), but I do feel compelled to point out and correct what I feel are errors in reasoning. 'Course, maybe I'm just being arrogant.

D Man;271559 said:

The abuse of the teachings of a religion for political or military purposes wouldnt be possible if the appropriate incitments to violence and hatred of differing beliefs were not present in the teachings.

A few things here:

1.) This is itself not a significant point, but the above statement is circular: essentially, you are saying that if religion could not be abused, it would not be abused. Sure, it's a truism, but it's trivial and not much of an argument. Besides, it's not at all clear that populations cannot be incited to violence despite lacking violent mores. Greed and necessity, for one thing, can do a lot of harm.

2.) I believe that you are confusing the conditions upon which religion thrives for religion's abusability. Religion is and has been a powerful socio-cultural phenomenon predicated upon community and social insecurities. Historically, it has given people a means out of the despair wrought by rank, financial status, mistakes, etc. These are the very same insecurities that are preyed upon by those with political agendas: "Oh, you need food? Sure. That guy over there has a lot of food. He's not like us, though. No, he's hoarding his food and feasting while you starve. That's not right; maybe we should take his food and re-distribute it." Horrible example, but I trust that you get the point. It's easy to trade on human insecurities, and religion is predicated upon remedying a number of those same insecurities. That, however, doesn't mean that we should conflate the two phenomena.

3.) I think that even you will acknowledge that we're talking about marginal readings of scripture and the like; few religions overtly call for their congregations to take up arms against their neighbours because they're different (Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai the first time is certainly a counterexample, but I think it's fair to say that it's in the minority). Even the older, pagan religions based on ritualized violence (I'm thinking especially of the Odin-based religions, whatever the proper term for them is, and the various soldier-cults of the ancient world) weren't predicated upon harming specific others. I don't disagree that the potential for the rationalization of faith-based violence exists in just about every scripture out there; the fact is, however, that pretexts are easy to come by, and hardly limited to religion. We should also recall that most pretexts are marginal by their very nature. Besides, a number of wars in contemporary times have been fought on purely secular pretexts. This, to me, suggests that placing the blame squarely on religion is to ignore the reality of what's been going on, and to find a convenient scapegoat.

Quote

Nor would it be possible for your neo-con men behind the curtain to send timmy and mohamed on their crusades if the religions didnt, to some degree (variable from person to person no doubt), counter the basic empathy for one person to another in favour of theism-based suspision and hate of the ememy.

I'll not pause for long here, because it's already been addressed, but religion is hardly the only motivating factor. If you look at the Crusades, for example, the majority of the Noble class signed up for free land and wealth, not the grace of God. These people brought with them household troops and peasant levies--people on the march not because they feel God's breath on their cheeks, but because they were contractually indebted to their lords and thus obligated to march for his interests. And sure, there were people there because they thought they were doing God's will; the leaders and orchestrators, however, were simply using religion as a convenient means to their ends. This, to me, suggests that the blame lies with them, with greed and avarice, rather than squarely on the shoulders of religion. At worst, we can only fault religion for providing a relatively easy and inspiring pretext.

Quote

It would also not be possible if the religions werent inherently dogmatic and inhibitative of allowing person to develop their own thoughts and feelings on a subject. They force a person to recieve dogma, and to become receptive to dogma. That dogma can easily be militaristic or socially restrictive in nature. (And clearly often is just look at the societies of, say, the US Vs Denmark)

Perhaps. I'm not entirely in agreement, because again I don't think that we can place the blame squarely on religion's shoulders. If we look to theology, for example, we see very little in the way of dogmatism, and instead a great tradition of doubt (which is usually overcome, of course). People are dogmatic because they are incapable of thinking critically, not because religion inherently abolishes their selfhood. Now, to be fair, it is true that in the quest for more converts, a great deal of critical thinking was discouraged, and dogma was institutionalised (think church schools, etc.). This last point is the only reason that I hesitate to completely disagree. What I do completely disagree with, however, is the notion that manipulation would be impossible without religion first laying the ground. There are any number of examples of secular folk being manipulated by and for purely secular reasons and ends.

Quote

But the facility to incite to violence or hatred within some religions (christianity and islam in particular) is extremely easy to find, and easy to use to tip someone into militant and murderous action or a state into oppressive restriction of its peoples ways of life. Its also easy for otherwise sincere people to be swayed by a literal and complete interpretation of the texts without the imputus to do so from an authority.

Honestly, I think that if you look at the world religions historically, you'll find that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are three of the most pacifist religions out there. There is significantly more violence inherent in the ancient warrior-cults, for example, or the Odin-based religion of northern Europe. Now, I'm not saying that there's no violence to be found in them--if you look hard, you can find anything you want--but these religions are not predicated upon violence, and therein lies the significant difference.

Quote

You have to wonder why Buddhists and Janists dont bomb abortion clinics???

Seriously. Whats the difference?

They may or may not bomb abortion clinics for their faith; if your point, however, is that Buddhists and Jainists are inherently docile and non-violent because of their religion (and, to be fair, Buddhism works a little differently from most other religions), then I think that you're dead wrong. Certainly, I will grant that Buddhism has less faith-based violence in its history than most of the current world religions. Nevertheless, we should not forget the many skirmishes between Tibetan Buddhists and shamanic-type religions in the 8th and 9th centuries, and we certainly can't forget the Kalachakra Tantra, which has been used as a justification for a number of conflicts in Buddhism's history.

Quote

Can you really with your hand on your heart tell me that you think the 9/11 attacks would have happened if the middle east was a bunch of secular states and osama bin laden was an agnostic? Or amish, even.

Yes, because the Middle East has been downtrodden by Western oppression for... well, for centuries now. A lot of people are VERY discontent with their treatment at Western hands, and it has little--if anything--to do with religious acts, and a lot more to do with our exploitative economic policies and cultural imperialism.

I'm honestly very confused as to why you think that the 9/11 bombers attacked the U.S. because of their religion, and I would appreciate a clarification. Not only was this never claimed by them as a motivation, but to say that they attacked you because you're by-and-large Christian and they're Muslim can't even begin to describe the selection of the U.S. from among all of the other Christian countries--nor can it begin to explain the selection of a country, of a people, rather than targetting specific individuals (such as with, for example, the sectarian violence in Iraq). Secular explanations, however, can explain all of these and more, so why not use them instead? As far as I can tell, the only level at which religion played into 9/11 was that the bombers were largely united in their faith and the popular media decided to harp on Islam as the great world-evil, conflating Al Quaeda and Taliban, and so on and so forth.

Besides, don't you realise that they hate your freedom? They don't care about your religion; it's your freedoms they want to destory!

Quote

To suggest, as you are, that violent actions are independant of violent influences is absurd. Behaviours are learned, and we all have the capacity to be anything that a human can be, and at any given time who we are is the sum of our experiences within the boundary conditions of our biological nature. We can all be violent, we can all be compasionate. The degree to which we act on any of our impusles and how we do it is a result of our influences, of ideas and of example.

I think that I speak for Cold Iron when I say that the difficulty that we're having with your recent posts is that you seem to be reducing violent action to violent interpretations of scripture, which in turn gives the impression that these interpretations are more than merely marginal and that violence lies at the core of the religions in question. I don't think that we disagree that there is a potential for violence in religion--there's a potential for violence in just about anything--but we feel that we have to be much more careful when assigning blame. We have to be conscious that these are marginal interpretations that are being used as political pretexts, and so we should be wary of placing the blame squarely or even in large part on religion. The blame more properly lies on those human qualities (such as greed) which induce individuals to exploit the insecurities that religion tries to redress for their own selfish ends.

Quote

Now take way down the other end of the scale: how many suicide bombers do you think would go through with it if they werent certain of their heavenly reward? If they thought they would go to hell for what they do, instead of a paradise with nubile virgins?

I don't know if you're aware, but a number of terrorist organisations append a substantial sum of money to the act of suicide-bombing; something on the order of $25 0000 USD, I believe. In poor countries, that's more than enough to provide for your family for years to come. Of course, the money isn't always paid, but that's not the point; the myth of 72 virgins is seldom--if ever--the only motivating factor. It's also worth pointing out that a huge number of devout Catholics succumb to the deadly sins despite the promise of an eternity in either purgatory or a fiery inferno (depending on which theological side you fall on--not everyone agrees on the existence of Hell).




In sum? I don't necessarily disagree on every point, but I think that you're taking many of these points much further than our premises will allow.

[Cold Iron]

D Man, you seem to be missing my point that concious intent does not necessarily reflect true intent. I'm not saying religion has no impact on people, just that it is not a true causal relationship. When I say that religion is not a creative or active force I mean that it is not independantly creative or active. It does not do anything at all. I'm not making a chicken or egg argument, I'm simply saying that an institution cannot be blamed for it's attributes, it did not choose or encourage them, it was assigned them.

You say that I'm not connected with reality, but you are yourself drawing conclusions that have no basis in reality. There is no causal relationship between the violent verses in the Koran and the violent actions of a Muslim. There is thus no basis to the claim that "Islam is a violent religion" and equally "religions are inherantly violent". It would be equally valid to claim that "ideologies are violent", "thoughts are violent", "people are violent", "life is violent" or "the universe is violent". Saying that there is some connection other than a purely abstract and thought-experiment and opinion based one between the actions of a religious person and their religion is not based in reality.

The problem here is not our disagreement with what constitutes religion or what constitutes violence. It is what validates blame. To me it is incorrect to blame something unless there is a direct causal relationship. Unless one exists, it is futile to rail at some perceived cause. Like the arts, our religions reflect our culture. If a violent person is attracted to violent art is it the art that makes them violent?

If you want to base this in reality then it is a simple matter of observing a direct causal link. Simply cite a study that shows theists are more violent than atheists and I will agree with you. Otherwise, concede that the link between people and religions is not linearly causal and that it was US who put the violence in religion, and thus blaming religion for making us violent is like blaming your car for crashing or blaming internet porn for your wanking problem.

[D Man]

Cold Iron;272174 said:

If you want to base this in reality then it is a simple matter of observing a direct causal link. Simply cite a study that shows theists are more violent than atheists and I will agree with you.

Ok then

http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2007/...re-violent.html

And the original article

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-wgs022307.php

Really, you two almost have good points, but you need to stop day-dreaming so much. Niether of you presented any evidence at any time whatsoever, Goas, you had a tenuous, but over-thought link to real events, but could still only say, essentially "I want you to prove what youre saying" while presenting none for yours.

Edit: and theres plenty more out there. I just did a quick search (knowing fine well it exists, because I've seen other studies than this one).

Instead of asking me for more, or not accepting this one (which I doubt you will, CI, of all non-religious people I've bantered with on the internet you are the one that seems to like being proven wrong the least), go do your own search, instead of sitting and thinking, satisfying yourself that you have the answer form just that and that there cant be any contradictory study to be found because you must be right (which is the attitude that you very heavily loaded ultimatum reeked of).

[D Man]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Goaswerfraiejen again.

Oh well. I'll try and remeber. You made good arguments. Reasonable, but wrong. A little external verification couldve fixed that, but well presented points nonetheless.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

D Man;272340 said:

Really, you two almost have good points, but you need to stop day-dreaming so much. Niether of you presented any evidence at any time whatsoever, Goas, you had a tenuous, but over-thought link to real events, but could still only say, essentially "I want you to prove what youre saying" while presenting none for yours.

Actually, I'm saying that your claims go too far and are unlicensed by the premises. Really, I'm not sure what you want me to prove. Here are a few possibilities:

1.) That religion thrives on human insecurities? I don't think this is a very controversial point--you can look at religion's soteriological aspects, for one thing. Or you could look to the communal aspect, the ritualized worship, the giving of an ethical code... If there's anything else that you would prefer as "proof," let me know and I'll find it for you.

2.) That the violence in the three great monotheisms lies in marginal interpretations? Again, I'm not sure what you want as proof--I don't deny that there are a number of openings for violence in all sorts of scripture--what I assert is that just about anything can be twisted to serve one's ends, if one so wishes. I also assert that the majority of these congregations are not being told to kill their neighbours. Tell me what you want as proof, and I'll gladly give it--I just think that this is also a fairly uncontroversial point.

3.) People signing up for the Crusades doing so out of obligation/for food/for wealth as much as for faith, or being motivated by political ends as much as anything? If you want purely academic sources, I can fetch them. Otherwise, suffice it to say that the first crusade was undertaken because Emperor Alexius I of the Byzantines begged Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him against the advancing Muslim hordes. The rest of the crusades were undertaken to retake land conquered by Muslims. We should also recall that along with holiness and forgiveness, crusaders were promised wealth, free land, exemption from taxes, and a get-out-of-jail-free card. Hardly all religious incentives. Factor in the feudal system, and that's a lot of people there for wholly secular reasons. Would you like a source for this information? I've got the book right here beside me.

4.) That the "three great monotheisms" are more peaceful than the majority of historical world religions? I'm not sure what you want as proof. I've already pointed to the innumerable warrior-cults that pervaded Europe until Christianity's definitive establishment in the eleventh century... what else should I be pointing to? It should also be clear to anyone familiar with these religions that they are not predicated upon violence--at least, certainly not in the same way as their prior polytheistic counterparts.

5.) That Buddhists also commit faith-based violence? I've already given historical examples...

6.) That the 9/11 attacks would have happened if things were different? Obviously, that's just speculation, but never was it claimed that you were being attacked because of your religion. Accordingly, I think that the burden of proof here is on you to show why you think that religion was anything more than a common fact tying many of the terrorists.

7.) Suicide-bomber remunerations? You'll have to give me a little while; it was in a Time magazine some time ago. Now, they could well have been wrong about it. Now, I do remember hearing that Iraq paid suicide bombers to strike Israel, and maybe I'm confusing the two. That's possible, I heard these things a while ago. Regardless, the point remains the same: these people aren't killing themselves simply because the Koran says that “Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward” (4:74).

A quick search online yielded the following article, although it should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing that it comes from CBS and from Rumsfeld's mouth: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/...ain505316.shtml



I think that's all the possibilities. Please tell me where you want a source and, if I've asked for it, what might constitute proper "evidence". As far as I can tell, those claims are all either uncontroversial or already substantiated with historical examples that can be verified even on Wikipedia.

[D Man]

Goas, as I say, may of your points are good, and the specificities of reinforcing uncontested (at least by me) sociological and historical aspects wasnt really what I was after:

It was a demonstration of no causal link between what you call, correctly, marginal interpretations and violent behaviour of the religious due to those interpretations.

That still isnt there.

That historical war-centred religions were more violent is not in dispute.

Nor is that most people cherry pick their scripture and rarely choose the parts that will get them killed, in jail or have an army knocking on their door.

Nor is that religion is often used as a pretext for political causes, nor that there are other possible pretexts.

None of these couter the point that violent content of scripture can compel people to violent acts. They simply provide alternative routes to do that, or mitigations of the 'it could be, and once was, worse' kind.

Bottom line: history, current events and now experiment have demonstrated that if a person believes in Zog The Mighty, lord of all and dictator of morals and human action, and Zog tells them to go stick pencils in peoples noses, they get all fired up about it and go do that.

You've brought up valid dilutions of the potential severity of blind obedience to a doctrine, and I welcome those points (where valid, as most of yours are). But you havent seperated religious doctrine from violence commited by the religious.

I'm not opposed to the idea that there is more involved. I do maintain that your scriptures (which you believe are from you God) having calls to arms in them is a crucial aspect.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

D Man;272401 said:

It was a demonstration of no causal link between what you call, correctly, marginal interpretations and violent behaviour of the religious due to those interpretations.

That still isnt there.

That historical war-centred religions were more violent is not in dispute.

Nor is that most people cherry pick their scripture and rarely choose the parts that will get them killed, in jail or have an army knocking on their door.

Nor is that religion is often used as a pretext for political causes, nor that there are other possible pretexts.

None of these couter the point that violent content of scripture can compel people to violent acts. They simply provide alternative routes to do that, or mitigations of the 'it could be, and once was, worse' kind.

Ah, I see what you meant now. My apologies for the misinterpretation. Unfortunately, it seems that you have also misinterpreted me.

I most definitely do not deny that there are violent possibilities in the scriptures, and that they can incite people to violence. Where I disagree is with your generalisation that this is always--or almost always--the case, and/or that the blame rests squarely on religion for having these possibilities. The very fact that they are marginal interpretations should suggest that the majority of people do not adhere to them, which in turn suggests that the religion itself, as a whole, probably does not deserve the majority of the blame. Rather, we should be blaming those few radicals with the agenda that abuses scripture to fool some into joining their cause.


There is violent potential everywhere you look, be it in scripture or elsewhere. Take Social Darwinism, for example--a violent distortion of Darwin. Yet nobody blames Darwin or his books for Social Darwinism. Why should we not be as generous towards belief-systems?

Quote

Bottom line: history, current events and now experiment have demonstrated that if a person believes in Zog The Mighty, lord of all and dictator of morals and human action, and Zog tells them to go stick pencils in peoples noses, they get all fired up about it and go do that.

Again, I'd like to add the cautionary note that when Zog commands something drastic, it usually takes more than His word to get it accomplished. Without some other incentive, there is only a very small minority of people willing to die for Zog. I'm not denying that they're out there; I'm just saying that usually, Zog's word isn't enough. Hell, even the Catholic League in the U.S. doesn't get all up-in-arms about art on purely religious grounds; religion is just a pretext for grubby Donahue to get his hands on more money and a larger congregation (which also, coincidentally, equals more money and political clout--which again translates to more money).

Quote

You've brought up valid dilutions of the potential severity of blind obedience to a doctrine, and I welcome those points (where valid, as most of yours are). But you havent seperated religious doctrine from violence commited by the religious.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, and I'd appreciate a clarification, if you wouldn't mind. I don't see why the mere fact that someone is religious implies necessarily that the violence that that person commits is done for religious reasons, or even for religious motives alone. This is what I'm finding tough to swallow. And while we should definitely recognise that religion can present people with a motive for violence, we should also recognise that the same is true for just about anything else, and often more so.

Quote

I'm not opposed to the idea that there is more involved. I do maintain that your scriptures (which you believe are from you God) having calls to arms in them is a crucial aspect.

Just a clarification: for all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a personal God, nor in the Deist God. I do, however, believe in a first-mover, and if that's what we mean by God, then that's fine with me. So long as we're not speaking of a rational being of some kind that waves his hands and crap gets done.

I also don't believe that those who do believe in a personal God do an adequate job of defending their beliefs, by and large, but that's another story.

[D Man]

I think were in basic agreement, goas.

Without going into detail, let me try and state in the simplest terms I can what I've been saying here, without getting sidetracked by defending my points against day-dreaming armchair sociology (yes, that means you, CI) and trying to be as explicit as, well, as I feel like.

I do think, and there is evidence for (both empircal and historical, thats why I think it) that religions with incitments to violence in their text will lead members to violent acts. As a direct cause or as significant facilitator. The Opilatayans can be sitting their all befuddled as to what to do about, say, the land of Xozawan selling weapons to Intiopalai, their mortal enemies, and find legitimacy and motivation in the Book of Zog and attacking Xozawan under a religious banner.

Thing is, the Opilatayans and the Intiopalaians contest is based on dispute over ground that has its only value for religious reasons.

Who am I'm really talking about? I wonder.....

I do not believe, and have not at any point said, that all religious believers are violent if their text contains violence. The thought never crossed my mind, because its fucking absurd. Like I said, I know a lot of religious people, and the only example of a religiously motivated action by one of them that I cited was a good thing by anyones measure. I'm very suprised that anyone thought thats what I said.

And I dont think youre religious: the 'you' in the last part you quoted was the hypothetical 'you' of 'it could be you or I, you know who I mean'. 'They' couldf be dropped in its place with no change to my intended meaning.

I'll be happy to argue with you about the non/existance of a 'prime mover' in another thread

[Cold Iron]

D Man;272340 said:

Ok then

http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2007/...re-violent.html

And the original article

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-wgs022307.php

Really, you two almost have good points, but you need to stop day-dreaming so much. Niether of you presented any evidence at any time whatsoever, Goas, you had a tenuous, but over-thought link to real events, but could still only say, essentially "I want you to prove what youre saying" while presenting none for yours.

Edit: and theres plenty more out there. I just did a quick search (knowing fine well it exists, because I've seen other studies than this one).

Instead of asking me for more, or not accepting this one (which I doubt you will, CI, of all non-religious people I've bantered with on the internet you are the one that seems to like being proven wrong the least), go do your own search, instead of sitting and thinking, satisfying yourself that you have the answer form just that and that there cant be any contradictory study to be found because you must be right (which is the attitude that you very heavily loaded ultimatum reeked of).

I 100% accept this study. However, I believe it proves my point, not yours. I asked you to provide for me a study which shows that theists are more violent than atheists, you provided me with a study that shows that:

Quote

... they (the more secular Vrije Universiteit students) blasted more aggressively when the passage that they read included the sanctioning of the violence by God. This finding held true even for non-believers...

Remember, I am not saying that violent influences do not encourage violent actions. Only that there is no more reason to blame or rail at religion for being a violent influence than any other violent influence. There is a circular relationship between societies and cultural influences, not linear. Violent societies breed violent religions which breed violent societies.

[D Man]

Then youre missing the point of the study:

The violent influence of biblical verses. That the secular people were also affected is immaterial: christians do read them, selcuarists dont.

Which is what I've been saying all along. That the violent influence of religious text increases violent tendancies.

I never said, in fact explicitly said the opposite, that secular people were 100% peacfull. I said that they dont kill for secularism, whereas the religious do do violence under the influence of their scripture (and lets make it explicit again that not all reigious people do that, very obviously)

I've also said, clearly, that of course reigion is a creation of man, and therefore can only reflect mans own nature. Its a feedback effect that can clearly be seen to increase a persons conducivity to violent acts and the extremity of the violent act.

You really, really, hate to be wrong, dont you

[D Man]

So that its clear how you cherry picked that article to suite your current point of view, and so that everyone else can read it and see what it actually said:

When God sanctions killing, the people listen
New research published in the March issue of Psychological Science may help elucidate the relationship between religious indoctrination and violence, a topic that has gained renewed notoriety in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. In the article, University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman and his colleagues suggest that scriptural violence sanctioned by God can increase aggression, especially in believers.

The authors set out to examine this interaction by conducting experiments with undergraduates at two religiously contrasting universities: Brigham Young University where 99% of students report believing in God and the Bible and Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam where just 50% report believing in God and 27% believe in the bible.

After reporting their religious affiliation and beliefs, the participants read a parable adapted from a relatively obscure passage in the King James Bible describing the brutal torture and murder of a woman, and her husband’s subsequent revenge on her attackers. Half of the participants were told that the passage came from the Book of Judges in the Old Testament while the other half were told it was an ancient scroll discovered in an archaeological expedition.

In addition to the scriptural distinction, half of the participants from both the bible and the ancient scroll groups read an adjusted version that included the verse:

"The Lord commanded Israel to take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the LORD."

The participants were then placed in pairs and instructed to compete in a simple reaction task. The winner of the task would be able to "blast" his or her partner with noise up to 105 decibels, about the same volume as a fire alarm. The test measures aggression.

As expected, the Brigham Young students were more aggressive (i.e. louder) with their blasts if they had been told that the passage they had previously read was from the bible rather than a scroll. Likewise, participants were more aggressive if they had read the additional verse that depicts God sanctioning violence.

At the more secular Vrije Universiteit, the results were surprisingly similar. Although Vrije students were less likely to be influenced by the source of the material, they blasted more aggressively when the passage that they read included the sanctioning of the violence by God. This finding held true even for non-believers, though to a lesser extent.

The research sheds light on the possible origins of violent religious fundamentalism and falls in line with theories proposed by scholars of religious terrorism, who hypothesize that exposure to violent scriptures may induce extremists to engage in aggressive actions. "To the extent religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent retribution toward unbelievers instead of the overall message of acceptance and understanding," writes Bushman "one might expect to see increased brutality"

------
Edit:

Key results:
The religious test group were more aggressive irrespective of source
The religious test group showed a greater increase in aggression between the scroll and the bible verse
The secular-dominant group also showed an increase in aggression with the bible verse over the scroll, but it was less apparent.

Youre mis-representing the results for your own purposes, or you didnt understand it.

And to perform a little CI-style unverified armchair anthropology and psychology, I would suggest that the source sample of students; academics, would reduce both cases of violent tendancies, and that the coutries of origin of the study means that the bible is still a pretty stong influence in many secular minds, being part of the collective unconscious and likely part of even the non-believers up-bringing.

Edit:

Original paper, 4th one down. Findings are very clear. http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushma...nt_publications



We found compelling evidence that exposure to a scriptural depiction
of violence or to violence authorized by deity can cause
readers to behave more aggressively. In Study 1 (religious sample),
aggressive responses were greater when a violent depiction
was attributed to a scriptural source than when it was attributed to
an ancient scroll and were also greater when the violence was said
to be sanctioned by God than when God was not mentioned. In
Study 2 (nonreligious sample), this latter finding was replicated
among the believers, and to a lesser extent even among the
nonbelievers. In addition, the findings of Study 2 show that the
justification of violence by God increases aggressive behavior
when the words can be attributed to a scriptural source, but not
necessarily when the passage is from a secular source.
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.
This work also supports theories proposed by scholars of
religious terrorism who hypothesize that exposure to violent
scriptures may induce extremists to engage in aggressive actions
(e.g., Juergensmeyer, 2003). It is notable that we obtained evidence
supporting this hypothesis in samples of university students
who were, in our estimation, not typical of the terrorists
who blow up civilians. Even among our participants who were
not religiously devout, exposure to God-sanctioned violence
increased subsequent aggression. That the effect was found in
such a sample may attest to the insidious power of exposure to
literary scriptural violence.

Does this ultimately mean that one should avoid reading religious
canon for fear that the violent episodes contained therein
will cause one to become more aggressive, or that individuals
who read the scriptures will become aggressive? Not necessarily.
Violent stories that teach moral lessons or that are balanced
with descriptions of victims’ suffering or the aggressor’s remorse
can teach important lessons and have legitimate artistic merit
(e.g., Stossel, 1997). Moreover, Nepstad (2004) argued that
‘‘religion has historically played a significant role in curbing
violence, constraining aggression, and promoting reconciliation
and understanding between groups’’ (p. 297), presumably because
the overriding message of the scriptures is one of peace
and love. Taking a single violent episode out of its overall context
(as we did here) can produce a significant increase in
aggression. To the extent that religious extremists engage in
prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent
retribution toward unbelievers instead of the overall message
of acceptance and understanding, one might expect to see
increased brutality. Such an outcome is certainly consistent with
our results: People who believe that God sanctions violence are
more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves.

[Cold Iron]

D Man;272803 said:

You really, really, hate to be wrong, dont you

No. I love it. I wouldn't be arguing if i hated to be wrong. I would have done what that other guy did and said "and that's the last thing i'm going to say on this". And gone off feeling superior.

I will reply further when I have time.