Most Violent & Peaceful Religions

[michael_taylor]

What on earth makes you think that I am a Christian??

You just come across that way. If I explain why I feel sure you'll be (or affect to be) offended again. You can probably imagine for yourself why someone might settle on that as the most likely explanation.

Are you religious? Which one? Is it an existing one or have you made your own? What is the position taken on peace and violence by your religion (or belief system) ?

 

[wynn]

Do you think a religion which teaches that violence is acceptable will make a group more violent than a religion which teaches violence is not acceptable? Do you think the content of a religion has any effect on the follower's behaviour?

Are you claiming that no amount of indoctrination can make a person more aggressive, even if you threaten them with eternal torment for failing to kill who the god says you should kill?

I can't see how that can be denied without seeming to be a liar or a nut.

I already addressed this in a post above yours, in no. 19.

Are you claiming that no amount of indoctrination can make a person more aggressive, even if you threaten them with eternal torment for failing to kill who the god says you should kill?

I am sure such indoctrination can make people more aggressive.
But I doubt this has anything to do with religion. As noted above, the concept of eternal damnation is a later invention, it didn't always exist in Christianity.

Do you think a religion which teaches that violence is acceptable will make a group more violent than a religion which teaches violence is not acceptable?

I think this is simplistic.

Prohibiting / criminalizing any and all use of force is just not realistic, it would be counterproductive to one's own survival.

Every society that has managed to survive has some clause under which use of force is acceptable.
Modern secular states have armed police and military forces too. Use of force is generally deemed acceptable in self-defense.

Do you think the content of a religion has any effect on the follower's behaviour?

I think this is a bit simplistic too.

Within each existing religion, there is a broad range of practices and attitudes available. It's not like being a member of a particular religion would mean that all members behave the exact same way.
It's not like a person would become a robot once they join a religion.
We can readily observe that even within the same family with a long tradition in religiousness, there is much variation between the siblings.

 

[wynn]

Are you religious? Which one? Is it an existing one or have you made your own? What is the position taken on peace and violence by your religion (or belief system) ?

I'm not religious.

I think many critics of religion have unrealistic, idealistic notions of what survival in this world requires, and that thus, they wrongly accuse religious people of something that is actually an inherent part of living in a world where resources are scarce and there is a struggle for survival.

IOW, "peace on earth" is an utopia, already because resources are scarce.

 

[michael_taylor]

I think this is simplistic.

It would be simplistic if I'd said it was the only factor. I didn't. I asked you if it was a factor at all, and you responded by listing other things which are factors and saying that in some cases it's not the main factor.

That wasn't the question, and you know that wasn't the question.

If you don't want to answer it, why not just say you don't want to answer, instead of all of this song and dance with diversion and avoidance.

Within each existing religion, there is a broad range of practices and attitudes available. It's not like being a member of a particular religion would mean that all members behave the exact same way.

Do you believe that means a religion which commands violence can never influence a follower be behave more violently? Do you believe that the content of a religion can not have any impact on a follower's behaviour?

It's perfectly easy to answer. Just say whether you think religion influences behaviour. There's no need to answer several other questions I didn't ask, just the one I did ask. And if you don't want to answer it for whatever reason, just say you don't want to answer it. There's no need to pretend I asked something else. Just be honest about what you think, or if you prefer don't respond at all.

 

[michael_taylor]

I'm not religious.

Then what are you? What is it specifically that makes you unable or unwilling to countenance the possibility of some religions potentially having a negative aspect?

wrongly accuse religious people of something that is actually an inherent part of living in a world where resources are scarce and there is a struggle for survival.

So stoning people to death for trivial infractions, telling people condoms cause aids and mutilating the genitals of children are all necessary for survival are they?

Because to me they don't seem that way. To me they seem more like grotesque mockeries of human behaviour invented by sick maniacs to satisfy their own perverted obsessions. And the most repulsive part is affecting to perform these horrific acts in the name of virtue.

 

[wynn]

It would be simplistic if I'd said it was the only factor. I didn't. I asked you if it was a factor at all, and you responded by listing other things which are factors and saying that in some cases it's not the main factor.

That wasn't the question, and you know that wasn't the question.

If you don't want to answer it, why not just say you don't want to answer, instead of all of this song and dance with diversion and avoidance.



Do you believe that means a religion which commands violence can never influence a follower be behave more violently? Do you believe that the content of a religion can not have any impact on a follower's behaviour?

It's perfectly easy to answer. Just say whether you think religion influences behaviour. There's no need to answer several other questions I didn't ask, just the one I did ask. And if you don't want to answer it for whatever reason, just say you don't want to answer it. There's no need to pretend I asked something else. Just be honest about what you think, or if you prefer don't respond at all.

Apparently, you want a simple Yes or No answer. And I believe your question is one that cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No.

:shrug:

 

[michael_taylor]

I already addressed this in a post above yours, in no. 19.

Ah. You're using the other definition of "this"; the one that means "not this".

 

[wynn]

Then what are you? What is it specifically that makes you unable or unwilling to countenance the possibility of some religions potentially having a negative aspect?

Critical thinking and the refusal to jump to conclusions forbid me to jump on the bandwagon of popular criticism of religion.

So stoning people to death for trivial infractions,

What counts for "trivial" is relative from one society to another.

telling people condoms cause aids and mutilating the genitals of children are all necessary for survival are they?

What do these practices have to do with religion?

Just because some person who claims to be religious, or about whom others claim that he or she is religious - that alone makes a person religious??

Because to me they don't seem that way. To me they seem more like grotesque mockeries of human behaviour invented by sick maniacs to satisfy their own perverted obsessions. And the most repulsive part is affecting to perform these horrific acts in the name of virtue.

And you maintain many beliefs and practices that some other people believe are "like grotesque mockeries of human behaviour invented by sick maniacs to satisfy their own perverted obsessions" and that "the most repulsive part is affecting to perform these horrific acts in the name of virtue."

 

[michael_taylor]

I believe your question is one that cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No.

You think it's impossible to tell whether the content of a religion has any effect on the behaviour of it's followers? Is that your position?

You don't think Muslims are any more likely to pray towards Mecca than Jews or atheists? You don't think Mormons are more likely to wear magical undergarments than Sikhs or agnostics? You don't think Jews are more likely to occupy land on the Golan heights than followers of Shinto? You don't think Catholic priests are more likely to command Africans at risk of aids to avoid condoms than Buddhists or Protestants?

You believe in those cases or any of the other myriad examples, that when a religion commands something, and it's followers do that thing, it is impossible to say there is even the slightest connection?

Whatever reasons you have for thinking that way, I'm obviously not privy to them, which must be why it sounds like stupidity or madness.

 

[michael_taylor]

...

If you don't want to answer please just say that.

 

[wynn]

If you don't want to answer please just say that.

I am replying. But I do think that you have a simplistic approach to some of the topics you bring up; and it would take a lot to explain all the factors involved.
And you don't seem to have the patience for discussion.
It seems like you are more interested in forming a finite opinon of me, than of the topics under discussion.

 

[michael_taylor]

I am replying. But I do think that you have a simplistic approach to some of the topics you bring up; and it would take a lot to explain all the factors involved.
And you don't seem to have the patience for discussion.
It seems like you are more interested in forming a finite opinon of me, than of the topics under discussion.

I'm interested in getting an answer to the question.

If you believe that it is impossible for the content of a religion to have an effect on behaviour please say so. If you believe that it is possible for the content of a religion to have an effect on behaviour, say that instead.

If you believe there's some reason you shouldn't answer that perfectly simple and obvious question, you're welcome to decline to answer. What I don't welcome is answering various questions I didn't ask and pretending that you answered the one I did ask, so please try to refrain from doing that again.

If you want to "take the fifth" so to speak, you are not obliged to answer at all.

Refusal is preferable to dissembling.

 

[spidergoat]

wynn spent many pages defending his view that no religion in history has ever been the motivation for violence.

 

[Balerion]

I am replying. But I do think that you have a simplistic approach to some of the topics you bring up; and it would take a lot to explain all the factors involved.
And you don't seem to have the patience for discussion.
It seems like you are more interested in forming a finite opinon of me, than of the topics under discussion.

Hey look: wynn is avoiding yet another question. What a shock!

Seriously, at some point the moderators have to do something about this.

 

[aaqucnaona]

wynn spent many pages defending his view that no religion in history has ever been the motivation for violence.

Wynn is a female, just feels weird to see her addressed as "him". :shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

Sorry, I didn't know that. What is Jan?

 

[Changeling]

You can go to any number of Buddhist sites and it seems to be a point of honor that in the last 2,500 years, there have not been any wars or persecutions in the name of Buddhism.

2 3 4 5


Possible counter-examples can be found, but they are pretty rare. Buddhism seems like a relatively peaceful religion, at least compared to the AFs.

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe not in the name of Buddhism, but there were certainly Buddhists who fought wars.

 

[wynn]

Hey look: wynn is avoiding yet another question. What a shock!

Seriously, at some point the moderators have to do something about this.

It's tough being enlightened, innit?


:m:

 

[aaqucnaona]

Sorry, I didn't know that. What is Jan?

She is a female too, as is SAM, Bells and Schez.