so the argument "we should get rid of religion because religion causes war" effectively becomes "we should get rid of group abstractions because group abstractions cause war" .... which then brings us to the essential role religion plays in diminishing group abstractions ....
best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
so the argument "we should get rid of religion because religion causes war" effectively becomes "we should get rid of group abstractions because group abstractions cause war" .... which then brings us to the essential role religion plays in diminishing group abstractions ....
@lightgigantic --
Yup, you certainly said that. Of course you utterly failed to demonstrate it so it remains nothing more than an unsupported assertion on your part until you fulfill the conditions I highlighted in post #415. You see I'm looking for this stuff called evidence, you know, the stuff you claim to have.
Basically, your statement is BS until you can show me that....say....the Crusades, or the ongoing violence between hindus and buddhists in Sri Lanka(which constantly turn the place into a war zone) are caused by secular, political motivations.
No, I didn't. I asked you a question and then when you answered I mentioned what you'd need to do to support your answer. That is in no way saying that it's "not the case". Deflection much?
I didn't make any statement that needs to be supported. I asked a question and then reminded you of what you'd need to do to support your answer. Again, you're deflecting and it's not going to work.
Yup, you certainly said that. Of course you utterly failed to demonstrate it so it remains nothing more than an unsupported assertion on your part until you fulfill the conditions I highlighted in post #415. You see I'm looking for this stuff called evidence, you know, the stuff you claim to have.
Basically, your statement is BS until you can show me that....say....the Crusades, or the ongoing violence between hindus and buddhists in Sri Lanka(which constantly turn the place into a war zone) are caused by secular, political motivations.
No, I didn't. I asked you a question and then when you answered I mentioned what you'd need to do to support your answer. That is in no way saying that it's "not the case". Deflection much?
I didn't make any statement that needs to be supported. I asked a question and then reminded you of what you'd need to do to support your answer. Again, you're deflecting and it's not going to work.
Sure.
But the concepts of "political" or "economical" do not lend themselves well to understanding the difference between them and the self.
And without understanding this difference, it seems impossible to move on.
"There is me, and then there are my political and economical interests."
- I'm not sure many people find this sentence particularly meaningful. Instead, their notions of selfhood are conflated with their political and economical notions.
Can you present your reasoning as to how religion is the cause of killings, riots etc.?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Ever heard of the middle east? He who hath a ear.
What about the Middle East?
@wynn --
There are any number of religiously motivated spouts of extreme violence going on right now. I mentioned one earlier, the religious violence between the hindus and the buddhists in Sri Lanka. If you need another you could turn to the Holocaust(motivated by christian antisemitism).
The how can be a bit more complicated, but still explainable. When you have two or more mutually exclusive belief systems which make unprovable claims about reality and also make claims about the fate of one's immortal soul, conflict is naturally going to ensue. If you genuinely believed that you had a way to eternal paradise and that other claims of that nature would lead to eternal damnation, would you tolerate their presence while they potentially corrupted your children and damned them to eternal torment? Perhaps you would, but most parents would destroy any such threat to their child.
It's a well documented fact that belief informs actions. If you genuinely belief that crossing against a red light will get you killed(definitely a possibility but not a certainty) you aren't very likely to do it. If you believe that a person who's running up to you while screaming represents a threat to your life then you will respond accordingly(by either running away or fighting). What we believe may seem inconsequential, and sometimes it is, but the more central the belief is to our world view the more it will define our actions.
Does religion always inspire violence? Of course not, it depends on the fundamentals of the religion, what it teaches and what beliefs are necessary to practice it. An outbreak of radical jainism wouldn't be a threat to anyone, in fact that might be the first time in history where more people died of hunger than violence, but that's because the fundamentals of jainism are inherently nonviolent. The same can't be said for the fundamentals of any of the Abrahamic religions or any of the other extant religions.
There are any number of religiously motivated spouts of extreme violence going on right now. I mentioned one earlier, the religious violence between the hindus and the buddhists in Sri Lanka. If you need another you could turn to the Holocaust(motivated by christian antisemitism).
The how can be a bit more complicated, but still explainable. When you have two or more mutually exclusive belief systems which make unprovable claims about reality and also make claims about the fate of one's immortal soul, conflict is naturally going to ensue. If you genuinely believed that you had a way to eternal paradise and that other claims of that nature would lead to eternal damnation, would you tolerate their presence while they potentially corrupted your children and damned them to eternal torment? Perhaps you would, but most parents would destroy any such threat to their child.
It's a well documented fact that belief informs actions. If you genuinely belief that crossing against a red light will get you killed(definitely a possibility but not a certainty) you aren't very likely to do it. If you believe that a person who's running up to you while screaming represents a threat to your life then you will respond accordingly(by either running away or fighting). What we believe may seem inconsequential, and sometimes it is, but the more central the belief is to our world view the more it will define our actions.
Does religion always inspire violence? Of course not, it depends on the fundamentals of the religion, what it teaches and what beliefs are necessary to practice it. An outbreak of radical jainism wouldn't be a threat to anyone, in fact that might be the first time in history where more people died of hunger than violence, but that's because the fundamentals of jainism are inherently nonviolent. The same can't be said for the fundamentals of any of the Abrahamic religions or any of the other extant religions.
religions that lie should get rid of themselves as a matter of principle
Its called modern history - secularism certainly hasn't paved the way for peace
IOW removing religious dialogue from state affairs if anything has streamlined the business of conflict since culture is effectively reduced to issues of economic development
as mentioned, I think you would have a hard time establishing that as a dominant factor in the conflict ridden history of Sri Lanka (Google and wiki doesn't provide anything substantial)
feel free to post a link to suggest otherwise ...
My mistake - I thought I was having a conversation with someone who supported the idea that religion causes war. I guess your input here is officially finished then
Last edited:
I'm not sure what that statement has to do with the idea of group abstractions and your notions of religion being an exclusive contributor to conflict
Whats the bet anything you can provide to evidence this claim are occurrences on a village level
Even if we want to accept the nazi's as christian (guffaw) I challenge you to find a portrayal of their anti-semitism on theological grounds (they were more in to establishing them as lesser on racial/geneological grounds ... as well as portraying them as miserly businessmen ruining the industrial merit of Germany)
I mean seriously, can you find a single nazi critique of Jewish religiosity made in the language of christianity?
This has absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust and I also bet it has nothing to do with whatever you can manage to scrape together in regards to hindu/buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka
ditto above
Its simply your imagination
the simply reality is that the beliefs that catalyze the conflict you mention occur on a more base level - namely beliefs about resources and wealth
If that was the case you would expect to see whole populations of violent persons over long periods of time instead of the handful that you cherry pick from a specific era as representative of a particular religion
:shrug:
Last edited:
What is the evidence that those conflicts are religiously motivated (as opposed to politically or economically)?
How do you explain the Biblical passages where God promises land to His chosen people, at the cost of expelling or killing the native population?
E.g.
Genesis 15:18-21
New International Version (NIV)
18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[a] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
@wynn --
Well when one group is killing another group because they're of a different religion, it's pretty safe to say that the conflict is religiously motivated.
@lightgigantic --
More deflection, either put up or shut up. The only thing you've "demonstrated" is that when religions held power there were fewer people for them to kill. Until you demonstrate otherwise I'll say nothing else to you.
Well when one group is killing another group because they're of a different religion, it's pretty safe to say that the conflict is religiously motivated.
@lightgigantic --
More deflection, either put up or shut up. The only thing you've "demonstrated" is that when religions held power there were fewer people for them to kill. Until you demonstrate otherwise I'll say nothing else to you.
You will need to elaborate on this.
I'll help.
----------------
Some ways to understand violence to be motivated by religion:
1. The violence is perpetrated by people who claim to be religious.
2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.
3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.
4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.
5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.
6. People make no mistakes.
- And therefore, any violence committed by a person who claims to be religious, is violence motivated by religion.
----------------
Some ways to understand violence to be motivated by religion:
1. The violence is perpetrated by people who claim to be religious.
2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.
3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.
4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.
5. A person who claims to be religious, has no political or economical interests.
6. People make no mistakes.
- And therefore, any violence committed by a person who claims to be religious, is violence motivated by religion.
Last edited:
@wynn --
When the people perpetrating the violence say that "it's because god told them to" or because the people they're abusing "are godless heathens" or the like, it's religious violence. In other words, if religion were taken out of the picture the violence wouldn't take place as there would be no motivation.
When the people perpetrating the violence say that "it's because god told them to" or because the people they're abusing "are godless heathens" or the like, it's religious violence. In other words, if religion were taken out of the picture the violence wouldn't take place as there would be no motivation.
Some ways to understand how violence is not motivated by religion:
1. Simply claiming to be religious does not make a person religious.
Asserting religious identity does not necessarily equal genuine religious identity.
Every religion has as part of its doctrines warnings about asserting religious identity lightly.
2. There is a gradation of religious advancement within every religion.
From practitioners who are at the beginning levels and who still manifest mainly mundane acting and reasoning, to practitioners who are much less mundane.
3. Religion is what the topmost authorities within a religion claim religion to be.
4. Religious scriptures give various instructions. While any practitioner may attempt to carry them out, not every practitioner is equally competent to carry out those instructions adequately.
5. All people have political and economical interests. It is inevitable that in order to survive, they satisfy those interests somehow.
6. People make mistakes. Sometimes, they even repent for them.
- And therefore, any violence committed by a person who claims to be religious, is not necessarily violence motivated by religion.
1. Simply claiming to be religious does not make a person religious.
Asserting religious identity does not necessarily equal genuine religious identity.
Every religion has as part of its doctrines warnings about asserting religious identity lightly.
2. There is a gradation of religious advancement within every religion.
From practitioners who are at the beginning levels and who still manifest mainly mundane acting and reasoning, to practitioners who are much less mundane.
3. Religion is what the topmost authorities within a religion claim religion to be.
4. Religious scriptures give various instructions. While any practitioner may attempt to carry them out, not every practitioner is equally competent to carry out those instructions adequately.
5. All people have political and economical interests. It is inevitable that in order to survive, they satisfy those interests somehow.
6. People make mistakes. Sometimes, they even repent for them.
- And therefore, any violence committed by a person who claims to be religious, is not necessarily violence motivated by religion.