[Cold Iron]

Also may I point out briefly again that this study did not show that theists are more violent than atheists. It showed that both theists and atheists become more violent after violent influence. I did not cherry pick this and i do not hate to be wrong. This is the finding of the study. You are twisting it to fit your agenda, not me.

ETA: Also, the cultural differences between the atheists and theists in this study are far from isolated. You know what I mean.

[D Man]

Cold Iron;273280 said:

Also may I point out briefly again that this study did not show that theists are more violent than atheists. It showed that both theists and atheists become more violent after violent influence. I did not cherry pick this and i do not hate to be wrong. This is the finding of the study. You are twisting it to fit your agenda, not me.

ETA: Also, the cultural differences between the atheists and theists in this study are far from isolated. You know what I mean.

Yeah, you did.

For a start the study had a handfull of findings. I qualititavely summarised them with three seperate findings, and you're only reading one of them.

The other two are in contradiction with your stance, and all of them are in complete agreement with mine.

And youre backtracking now anyway. It was only a day or so ago you were saying that religion didnt cause anything. Now youre admiting a feedback influence, but its on everybody. You'll get it right soon enough.

Read the study again, and try not to ignore the parts that dont agree with you.

[D Man]

D Man;271453 said:

I also dont see athiests flying planes into buildings, blowing up abortion clinics, trying to control marraige and interfering in peoples sex lives, teaching myths as fact in schools, helping spread AIDs by forbidding condoms, fighting wars over whos non-god has the biggest dick or destroying cultural monuments out of spite.

Lets not forget all the other things I said I dont see atheists doing, now that you've totally lost this argument (and therefore have the opportunity to be wrong and learn).

Regressing half a millenium, foir example.

http://www.malazanem...read.php?t=9771

Their myths were made up in the bronze age and by God they're trying to get back there as fast as possible.

[Cold Iron]

D Man;273503 said:

Yeah, you did.

No.

D Man;273503 said:

For a start the study had a handfull of findings. I qualititavely summarised them with three seperate findings, and you're only reading one of them.

Actually I ignored the ones that weren't properly substantiated.

D Man said:

The religious test group were more aggressive irrespective of source

Allow me to paraphrase this finding: "The American test group were more aggressive than the Dutch." That's what I was referring to with this:

Cold Iron said:

Also, the cultural differences between the atheists and theists in this study are far from isolated. You know what I mean.

This study made no effort to isolate or offset other differences between the test groups.

D Man said:

The religious test group showed a greater increase in aggression between the scroll and the bible verse

The group with the greater initial aggression also showed a greater increase in aggression? Again, this is not sufficiently associated with the religion of the subjects.

D Man said:

The secular-dominant group also showed an increase in aggression with the bible verse over the scroll, but it was less apparent.

And this was the one that agrees with me. Note that I ignored the "less apparent" part because of my argument to the second finding above.

Also, even if they had successfully isolated and offset all other differences, they have not showed a conclusive cause only a conclusive connection.

D Man said:

And youre backtracking now anyway. It was only a day or so ago you were saying that religion didnt cause anything. Now youre admiting a feedback influence, but its on everybody. You'll get it right soon enough.

Read the study again, and try not to ignore the parts that dont agree with you.

I'm not backtracking. I'm still saying religion doesn't cause anything. Influence is not the same as cause. Perhaps you should spend more time considering what I've said and less time considering just how condescending to make your response.

Also, the evolution debate is not the same as the violence debate.

[D Man]

Clearly you didnt understand the data.

Do I have to quote myself? I've said it all already. Read the paper again.

- The default level of aggression in both exposures to the 'scroll' was very similar (look at the graph). In fact it was a little less in the religious group. (I was going off the innacurate article when I said they were more aggressive. It seems you havent read the paper)

- The test was conducted in a way that zeros the aggression of the group by presenting the 'scroll': non religious text, and ,easuring aggression response. SO your pathetic racist little cop-out of it being because one group was american, is also wrong.

- The mostly religious group was considerably more aggressive after the god-sactioned violence.

- why am I even typing tis out again, you cant fucking read or take in what you dont want to.

[D Man]

I dont know why I'm bothering (the truth matters to me, I suppose) but heres the condensed visual version of the data again.



Now you can wax theoretical all day about how man is violent to begin with and the violent content in religion comes from us to begin with, but the conclusion of this study is very clear.

It is NOT that violent material makes everyone more violent.

Its that selected violent readings of the suitable religious text make religious poeple more violent. Theres a marginal effect on others, too.

The only reason the 'selected' is in there is because that was the scope of the test. It was a selected reading and proved that that reading increased the aggression of religious readers considerably more than non-religious readers when they belived it was Gods will to be aggressive. It had little effect on either when they thought that it wasnt gods will.

So, CI, religion doesnt cause anything, huh?

I suppose the Holy Temple and temple mount in jeruselem are so fiercely guarded and the object of so many deaths because of the achitecture?

I suppose suicide bombers would line up in droves if they thought they would go to hell for it, rather than heaven

I suppose there would be just as high a population growth and spread of AIDs in Africa if condom use was encouraged by the vatican

I suppose al queda would send polite letters and diplomatic missions after reading the parts of the koran that encourage slaughter of infidels and enemies of islam, and deciding to ignore the influence.

Its just influence after all. It doesnt make people change how they act or view things, it doesnt cause anything.

[Cold Iron]

D Man;277748 said:

- why am I even typing tis out again, you cant fucking read or take in what you dont want to.

Calm yourself dowm man, you've just demonstrated that you failed to read the study yourself.

Two tests were carried out, the first with american students, the second with dutch students. The graph you've twice posted is from the second test.

Actually you did an even worse job of presenting the findings of the study than the article. Now that I've bothered to read it, I agree with it. But not you. Specifically:

Quote

exposure to violent media causes people to
behave more aggressively if they identify with the violent
characters than if they do not

and

Quote

violence perceived as justified produces more aggression than
does unjustified violence

and

Quote

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.

Are all fine. However, I would again not agree that religion is the cause of "prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent retribution toward unbelievers". Men who do this, do it for a reason entirely separate from the usual justification for seeking out spiritual guidance. They approach scripture with an underlying anger. This anger was not put there by religion and thus religion is not the cause. They could as easily have engaged in prolonged, selective listening of the first 3 sepultura records, focusing on violent retribution toward happy puppies.

You seem to be focused on terrorism and al qaeda as justification for your opinion so I will limit my response to that issue. As an atheist I'm sure you can agree with the sentiment that God doesn't tell people to do anything. Nor does anyone simply decide to kill the closest unbeliever after they've read a verse of a holy book instructing them to do so. If you believe that terrorist attacks like 9/11 would not have happened without a religious influence you are ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The koran may tell muslims to punish their enemies, but it does not tell them who their enemies are. They decide that for themselves. There are dozens of countries and billions of people between Arabia and America, if the 9/11 attackers were simply out to smite the closest non-believer in order to get to heaven they could have killed anyone. There is a political situation going on here, and to ignore it in favour of trumping up some religious debate is a fucking smoke screen, the purpse of which you have completely missed. Not only are you blindly following those who decided to divert the public's attention away from the real issues, you are helping them.

I advise you to confront whatever personal issue you have with religion and resolve it because comments like this:

D Man said:

I suppose suicide bombers would line up in droves if they thought they would go to hell for it, rather than heaven

make the men who profit off your ignorance smile. We need people with brains (and you do have a smattering, along with a huge slice of attitude) on the side of moderation. Your railing at the religious is simply adding to the furor. The last thing we need is another fucking army of fundamentalists.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

D Man;273508 said:

Lets not forget all the other things I said I dont see atheists doing, now that you've totally lost this argument (and therefore have the opportunity to be wrong and learn).

Again, let's be fair. Atheists commit all sorts of violent acts; they just don't do so with a God-given motivation (among others, of course). Indeed, we've excluded faith-based violence for atheists by the very definition of the term; that hardly excludes violence, however. As I've said before, I don't think that you're making a valid argument with the above-mentioned acts. You're saying something true--or at least partially true--but are fudging its relations to the facts.

[D Man]

CI, youre intellectual dishonesty is frankly jaw-dropping. I read and acknowledged the sections you reference. No one is saying that religion is the only cause of violence. Its idiotic to think that there arent more fundamental reasons for violence in general.

What I have been saying and what the paper proves is that religion can encourage violence where violence otherwise wouldnt have been. How about its phrased like that for you? Now pull your head out of your arse and look at history (and indeed that study, which you apparently accept 100% but cant see or have ignored 75% of it).

I'll give you an example. Something you have consistently failed to give, btw. Yes, you've talked a lot, but you havent got any evidence except a selective reading of that paper (oh, the irony), and the basic argument of "But its people that do everything", which is so reductionist as to be facile and useless.

The Dome of the Rock. The muslims believe that that particular bit of ground was where mohamed ascended to heaven, accompanied by the angel gabriel. The Jews believe that site is the Holy of Holies, where constantines mother once built a church. There have been murders over this small, barren, tactically worthless, resourceless piece of land because one believes the other has no right to it for spiritual reasons.

In 1992 when ariel sharon went there under a banner of peace, extremist muslims responded violently and a sparked a conflict killing 4000 people.

Would it be the same way were it Kent Hovind visiting the natural history museum?

[D Man]

Goaswerfraiejen;277914 said:

Again, let's be fair. Atheists commit all sorts of violent acts; they just don't do so with a God-given motivation (among others, of course). Indeed, we've excluded faith-based violence for atheists by the very definition of the term; that hardly excludes violence, however. As I've said before, I don't think that you're making a valid argument with the above-mentioned acts. You're saying something true--or at least partially true--but are fudging its relations to the facts.

And I've never said that atheists dont do bad things. But they arent compelled to do it by any doctrine of atheism.

[Cold Iron]

D Man;278035 said:

CI, youre intellectual dishonesty is frankly jaw-dropping. I read and acknowledged the sections you reference. No one is saying that religion is the only cause of violence. Its idiotic to think that there arent more fundamental reasons for violence in general.

I know you acknowledged the sections i mentioned, that wasn't what I was referring to. The fact that you failed to mention that the american and dutch groups were not even compared with each other and reached for the less effective rebuttal of my race argument that their initial aggressions were zeroed by the ancient scroll led me to believe you were misrepresenting the study. Also this comment: "The mostly religious group was considerably more aggressive after the god-sactioned violence." is misleading. By mostly religious group you are clearly referring to the american group, but you say this after showing the graph of the dutch group (twice by the time i read the post). Even after reading the study I still thought you were referring to the dutch group with this comment, because by "more aggressive" I assumed you meant more than their non-religious conterparts, not more than themselves. It was my mistake, but what I assumed you were saying was a much stronger argument than the fairly unintuitive observation that you were making.

D Man;278035 said:

What I have been saying and what the paper proves is that religion can encourage violence where violence otherwise wouldnt have been. How about its phrased like that for you? Now pull your head out of your arse and look at history (and indeed that study, which you apparently accept 100% but cant see or have ignored 75% of it).

I'll give you an example. Something you have consistently failed to give, btw. Yes, you've talked a lot, but you havent got any evidence except a selective reading of that paper (oh, the irony), and the basic argument of "But its people that do everything", which is so reductionist as to be facile and useless.

The Dome of the Rock. The muslims believe that that particular bit of ground was where mohamed ascended to heaven, accompanied by the angel gabriel. The Jews believe that site is the Holy of Holies, where constantines mother once built a church. There have been murders over this small, barren, tactically worthless, resourceless piece of land because one believes the other has no right to it for spiritual reasons.

In 1992 when ariel sharon went there under a banner of peace, extremist muslims responded violently and a sparked a conflict killing 4000 people.

Would it be the same way were it Kent Hovind visiting the natural history museum?

Jerusalem was a political and strategic location before it was a religious one. Indeed, it is for these reasons that it became a significant religious location. The fact that it is now politically and strategically significant because of religious does not mean that it is only because of religion.

[D Man]

Cold Iron;278194 said:

I know you acknowledged the sections i mentioned, that wasn't what I was referring to. The fact that you failed to mention that the american and dutch groups were not even compared with each other and reached for the less effective rebuttal of my race argument that their initial aggressions were zeroed by the ancient scroll led me to believe you were misrepresenting the study. Also this comment: "The mostly religious group was considerably more aggressive after the god-sactioned violence." is misleading. By mostly religious group you are clearly referring to the american group, but you say this after showing the graph of the dutch group (twice by the time i read the post). Even after reading the study I still thought you were referring to the dutch group with this comment, because by "more aggressive" I assumed you meant more than their non-religious conterparts, not more than themselves. It was my mistake, but what I assumed you were saying was a much stronger argument than the fairly unintuitive observation that you were making.



Jerusalem was a political and strategic location before it was a religious one. Indeed, it is for these reasons that it became a significant religious location. The fact that it is now politically and strategically significant because of religious does not mean that it is only because of religion.

The specific sites of the al aqsa mosque, dome of the mount and temple mount arent, though. Its concievable that the elavated positions of a couple of them afforded defensibility a few thousand years ago, but not now, in the middle of a city. And yet: armed guards a always present and violent conflicts that kill thousands are sparked from the tensions over these sites, because they have a supernatural or religious significance.

You think atheists would kill for any place or building? CERN maybe, thats pretty cool

Next piece of evidence and example of religiously motivated violence for you to try and sweep under the carpet and provide no substantiation for your revinionist stance on:

Cartoons, drawn in denmark of mohamed? I take it Iran cut all trade relations with denmark and the cartoonists were *going to be* murdered because the satire was tired and out of date?

*Edit: were it not for some nice preventative policing*

Edit 2: slip oif the mouse about the trade cut. Not violent, I know. Osama bin laden and Maulana yousef qureshi demanding the cartoonists murders on religious grounds, and I believe it was 2 guys taking them up on it if it werent for those pesky cops more than makes the grade, though

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Once more, I must ask that you forgive any seeming harshness on my part; this is in no way intended as an attack on you, your opinions, or whatever.

D Man;278047 said:

And I've never said that atheists dont do bad things. But they arent compelled to do it by any doctrine of atheism.

I realise that, but I fail to see why this is relevant. Atheism is no more a positive doctrine than amorality; neither asserts anything, they merely deny something. Consequently, to say that "atheists aren't compelled to violence by a doctrine of atheism" means nothing at all, since there is no such thing as a "doctrine of atheism" in the first place (likewise, the amoral person doesn't commit violence because he thinks that not having morals is a good thing--such a formulation is obviously incoherent). Instead, atheists commit violence for reasons that they do believe in--greed, power, lust, politics, social and political reform, etc.

Sure, there are some people who believe in the non-existence of God, just as there are some who believe in not having moral constraints; these people are not atheists (or amoral), however, and to call them that is to grossly misuse language. What do we call them? Beats me, but calling them something else at least keeps our language relatively unambiguous and makes a number of problems disappear.


But much of that is just a digression. Even if I thought that your statement was coherent (which I don't--although, to be fair, I do know what you meant), I simply don't see how it's relevant to the preceding discussion.

[D Man]

Goaswerfraiejen;278340 said:

Once more, I must ask that you forgive any seeming harshness on my part; this is in no way intended as an attack on you, your opinions, or whatever.



I realise that, but I fail to see why this is relevant. Atheism is no more a positive doctrine than amorality; neither asserts anything, they merely deny something. Consequently, to say that "atheists aren't compelled to violence by a doctrine of atheism" means nothing at all, since there is no such thing as a "doctrine of atheism" in the first place (likewise, the amoral person doesn't commit violence because he thinks that not having morals is a good thing--such a formulation is obviously incoherent). Instead, atheists commit violence for reasons that they do believe in--greed, power, lust, politics, social and political reform, etc.

Sure, there are some people who believe in the non-existence of God, just as there are some who believe in not having moral constraints; these people are not atheists (or amoral), however, and to call them that is to grossly misuse language. What do we call them? Beats me, but calling them something else at least keeps our language relatively unambiguous and makes a number of problems disappear.


But much of that is just a digression. Even if I thought that your statement was coherent (which I don't--although, to be fair, I do know what you meant), I simply don't see how it's relevant to the preceding discussion.

You've gone to great lengths to explain a bit of sarcasm. I know theres no atheist doctrine, thats the point.

I fear your requirement for linguistic precision may take some of the fun out of communication :angel:

[Cold Iron]

D Man;278264 said:

The specific sites of the al aqsa mosque, dome of the mount and temple mount arent, though. Its concievable that the elavated positions of a couple of them afforded defensibility a few thousand years ago, but not now, in the middle of a city. And yet: armed guards a always present and violent conflicts that kill thousands are sparked from the tensions over these sites, because they have a supernatural or religious significance.

As above, these specific sites have become significant due to their political advantage. A castle is a symbol of the kings power. If you wish to overthrow a king in a political coup, you need to ensure you control the castle, regardless of whether it is still as strategically significant in battle as it once was. Indeed with the advent of balistic missiles, there are no longer any sites of real superior military significance, but this does not mean the political and symbolic significance of places of power are no longer relevant.

Humans can be fiercly protective over their cultural identity, even long after a location or object has lost it's original meaning or significance, this is a result of our social and biological evolution, as indeed is religion, which is why I keep saying that you can't blame violence on religion.

There seems to be a clear connection between religious development and civil development. Indeed, organised religion of some sort may be required for large societies to function. The problems that we are facing today are not new, and have been solved before through the coming together of cultures and religions where possible, or the abolition of one to make way for the other where not. The abolition of religion in general is simply not an option, and not an answer anyway. Cultural and racial differences run deeper than religion and indeed religion is more often the common grounds on which different cultures and races can come together and cooperate.

D Man;278264 said:

You think atheists would kill for any place or building? CERN maybe, thats pretty cool

I think goas addressed this well. You didn't answer him btw other than to say you were being sarcastic. Tounge in cheak it may have been, but i think you do believe this to be a valid point. He pointed out why it is not.

D Man;278264 said:

Next piece of evidence and example of religiously motivated violence for you to try and sweep under the carpet and provide no substantiation for your revinionist stance on:

Cartoons, drawn in denmark of mohamed? I take it Iran cut all trade relations with denmark and the cartoonists were *going to be* murdered because the satire was tired and out of date?

*Edit: were it not for some nice preventative policing*

Edit 2: slip oif the mouse about the trade cut. Not violent, I know. Osama bin laden and Maulana yousef qureshi demanding the cartoonists murders on religious grounds, and I believe it was 2 guys taking them up on it if it werent for those pesky cops more than makes the grade, though

Again, political situation. There are reasons beyond the religion why there is tention between the middle east and the west at the moment. I think you called me a reductionist earlier, but I believe it is your stance that is reducing everything to religion when it is simply not that simple.

[D Man]

Cold Iron;278409 said:

As above, these specific sites have become significant due to their political advantage. A castle is a symbol of the kings power. If you wish to overthrow a king in a political coup, you need to ensure you control the castle, regardless of whether it is still as strategically significant in battle as it once was. Indeed with the advent of balistic missiles, there are no longer any sites of real superior military significance, but this does not mean the political and symbolic significance of places of power are no longer relevant.

Humans can be fiercly protective over their cultural identity, even long after a location or object has lost it's original meaning or significance, this is a result of our social and biological evolution, as indeed is religion, which is why I keep saying that you can't blame violence on religion.

There seems to be a clear connection between religious development and civil development. Indeed, organised religion of some sort may be required for large societies to function. The problems that we are facing today are not new, and have been solved before through the coming together of cultures and religions where possible, or the abolition of one to make way for the other where not. The abolition of religion in general is simply not an option, and not an answer anyway. Cultural and racial differences run deeper than religion and indeed religion is more often the common grounds on which different cultures and races can come together and cooperate.


I think goas addressed this well. You didn't answer him btw other than to say you were being sarcastic. Tounge in cheak it may have been, but i think you do believe this to be a valid point. He pointed out why it is not.



Again, political situation. There are reasons beyond the religion why there is tention between the middle east and the west at the moment. I think you called me a reductionist earlier, but I believe it is your stance that is reducing everything to religion when it is simply not that simple.

You may as well say the big bang did it.

A: Youre still only presenting supposition. Supposition in contradiction with evidence and with none of your own.

B: Youre missing the point with your guesswork about political root causes. The point is that religious peoples can be motivated to violence by religious scripture, and no matter how far back you trace it, in the minds of the foot soldiers, and almost certainly the leaders as well, its a divinely authorised action that transends man-made law or treaty and is rewardable after death.

You still havent answered most of my questions: for example, would a suicide bomber still do it if he believed the same scripture but throught he would go to hell, not heaven (a special tier of it reserved for martyrs, no less!!!).

Would any non-religious person kill someone (or plot to or try to) for drawing a picture?

Would a non-religious person kill doctors to save embryos?

[Shinrei]

I'll answer your three questions:

1) Maybe. If they so believed in their cause and saw their sacrifice as a worthy one. People do what they see as heroic deeds in war all the time, without necessarily thinking about what rewards/punishes them after death. Japanese soldiers killed themselves rather than surrender out of fierce loyalty or belief in sending a message to their enemies.

2) Not at the same extent of the Muhammed pictures, but if someone drew a picture of themselves raping your sister, you might try to kill them.

3) Even in a world where the concept of gods didn't exist, it isn't that far fetched to imagine that there would be those that believed that the potential for life must be protected at all costs.

[D Man]

Shinrei no Shintai;279738 said:

I'll answer your three questions:

1) Maybe. If they so believed in their cause and saw their sacrifice as a worthy one. People do what they see as heroic deeds in war all the time, without necessarily thinking about what rewards/punishes them after death. Japanese soldiers killed themselves rather than surrender out of fierce loyalty or belief in sending a message to their enemies.

2) Not at the same extent of the Muhammed pictures, but if someone drew a picture of themselves raping your sister, you might try to kill them.

3) Even in a world where the concept of gods didn't exist, it isn't that far fetched to imagine that there would be those that believed that the potential for life must be protected at all costs.

Thanks for answering those questions, but I think your answers are pretty facile.

1) japanese in WWII didnt kill themselves because of fierce loyalty, or at least thats only a consequence of the root motivational factors, psychologically speaking. The situation isnt too far from a religious one: fanatical devotion to a dogmatic system of authority thats personified and presided over by the near-god-like emperor. It has been said that patriotism is akin to religion, and there the only analogues of religious violence can be found. Kamakaze pilots was the comparison/get out I was expecting, and they did what they did because they had no other choice: they didnt have the resources to fight the american navy without that (and as it turns out couldnt with it) so the orders came down, and people conditioned to obey followed them. See a comparison point there?

2) You made a mistake bringing my sister into it Seriously, I have a sister, shes 11. If someone drew a picture of themselves raping her, I would either:

A) discretely hospitalise them. Couple of months tops.

go to the police with it

Depending how rational I was feeling at the time. I most certainly wouldnt kill them. No fucking chance. I cant concieve of an image that would make me do that.

3) Then kill pharmacists. They sell condoms. Kill any man and woman that meet and dont concieve, given the opportunity. If live is so sacred for its own right that it mustnt be prevented then the rights of the not-yet-living outweigh the rights of the living, catholics are right and every opportunity to create new life must be taken no matter the consequences in overpopulation, poverty, and sexually transimitted disease for those already here.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

D Man;279693 said:

You still havent answered most of my questions: for example, would a suicide bomber still do it if he believed the same scripture but throught he would go to hell, not heaven (a special tier of it reserved for martyrs, no less!!!).

Would any non-religious person kill someone (or plot to or try to) for drawing a picture?

Would a non-religious person kill doctors to save embryos?

Your questions are all logically invalid, as I have endeavoured to point out a number of times already. The reason for this is that you're assuming that religion is the only motivation at work--ever. And that's dead wrong. These questions achieve nothing at all.

[D Man]

Goaswerfraiejen;279828 said:

Your questions are all logically invalid, as I have endeavoured to point out a number of times already. The reason for this is that you're assuming that religion is the only motivation at work--ever. And that's dead wrong. These questions achieve nothing at all.

I disagree.

I'm talking about the motivational and compelling factors for the population at large in times of religious hegemony (follow that one through for a while!), and the scale of the individual or small group now (or indeed on larger scales, such as the taliban). Not politcal machinations. (Which I'm not at all convinced are anything but circular: youre going to have a very hard time showing that religious conflicts are purely political in origin and not a feedback from faith-based conflict in the first place. I invite you to do so).