New Hypothesis: Atheism the root cause of violence in Fundamental Monotheists

[Michael]

I was mountain biking the other day (I love to cycle - clears the mind). AND just thinking of this or that and I got to thinking: WHY is it that Pakistani Muslims are so violent and intolerant.

Of course, there's something in it that has to do with Islam. But, not all Muslim's become violent. So it's not all Islam. What's going on here? Why are some people so full of anger and rage they willingly kill themselves just to take-out a few heretics with them. I mean, that's some f*cking serious psychological dysfunction there.

That got me to thinking: Who else acts with this much rage? I've met Christians (and was proselytized by one last week, who I promptly pissed off) and of these Xians some are equally as violent (but seemingly held in check - somehow - perhaps it's that the accepted foundation stone of Xianity is generally considered to be "forgiveness"?)


So, then I got to thinking about gay-bashers. I mean, serious homophobes. Studies have found that serious homophobes, the ones that go out and physically harm homosexuals, even to the point of murdering them, are themselves gay. See, being homosexual is based on brain structures that are determined (partly by hormones) before birth. I'm not going to go into the evidence but essentially you can read homosexuality with an fMRI.

Now, being homosexual itself obviously doesn't make one violent. BUT, being born homosexual and being told your whole life that being homosexual is a sin and you're doomed to eternal damnation for thinking homosexual thoughts - THAT does lead some people to become very violent. Probably because they are so concerned about, and not able to deal with, oblivion. These guys, they see a good looking gay man wink at them or toss them a smile, well that turns them on, they get an erection, then blame this sinful-erection on the gay man. It was the gay man who "caused" them to have an erection and they go and bash him (even to the point of murder). So, they put it on the other person, when in actuality they are the gay person. It's their shit they need to deal with.


Simple so far? So, where are we going here?




Could it be that Muslims who are naturally inclined towards atheism ARE the small subset of Muslims who act violent? It seems likely that propensity towards strong-atheism or, its polar opposite, strong-religiosity is genetic. Now, think about atheism. It starts by questioning your belief. IF you are taught your whole life that atheists are evil SOBs - destined for HELL and at the same time you feel your belief is questionable - that could be setting up a disconnect that causes some serious psychosis. This would happen in societies where it's not easily possible to question belief and yet questionable beliefs exist - BINGO: PAKISTAN. Where people have a cultural-legacy of Hinduism and are Indian (we could go into a whole loss of culture thing here but let's not sidetrack). Compare Pakistan with KSA (where there really aren't any other beliefs) and you'll find Islam doesn't bring out no where near the same level of violence.

Hypothesis: Could it be that the Muslims who preach for the death of (and sometimes even themselves go so far as to murder) Sufi and Ahmadiyya - were actually born as atheists?

They naturally want to question their belief (and probably to call bullshit on it). BUT, to do so goes against everything they were raised to believe. I'm not talking a little belief here. We're talking 5 times a day meditation belief (a serious monotheistic meme infection on par with anti-homosexual memes). When they see Sufi and Ahmadiyya Muslims, they recognize that there are other forms of Islam and it is possible to question their belief. But, questioning belief is unacceptable for many Muslims. Hence, they end up hating Sufi and Ahmadiyya Muslims for making them "think" these heretical ideas. Not being able to deal with their own shit they take it out on other people. Thus, atheistic-Muslims are the small subset of Muslim's who perpetrate extreme violence.



Any ideas? Make sense? Comments?
Michael

 

[baftan]

Yes Michael, that's exactly what new age religious people are claiming when you point them the violence or other stupidity committed by their belief system: "This is not our religion, this is the misinterpretation, therefore intervention of none-religious elements; maybe little bit atheism, little bit Satanism or maybe little bit some foreign understanding." Some others who can find more materialistic excuses will blame economic and educational level of these violent and hateful practices and/or ideas. But they will never blame the religion itself, their religion is perfectly innocent and pure; problem is misinterpretation. In your OP title suggested some "atheistic" elements are attacking the pureness of their religion...

While you are mountain biking, put a mask, obviously there is some hazardous chemistry is in the atmosphere around your region that helps allowing some excuse neurons to fire up on behalf of religious violence. And these neurons may be activated under the cover of "finding deeper sociological explanations for religious violence"...

 

[Michael]

baftan,

My apologies for this question but: What are you saying? What I mean to say is, did you read the whole text? I know that the OP was a little long winded, but, meh... it is a new hypothesis and needed a bit of detail.

Just rephrase more clearly please.

Michael

 

[baftan]

baftan,

My apologies for this question but: What are you saying? What I mean to say is, did you read the whole text? I know that the OP was a little long winded, but, meh... it is a new hypothesis and needed a bit of detail.

Just rephrase more clearly please.

Michael

What to rephrase? Your "hypothesis" says nothing other than this:

-Muslim violence might be caused by some atheist thinking/rejection elements creating clashes in the mindset of violent people...

And I say this: This claim is not a new excuse that is already invented by some soft religious people to deny the violent passages in their Qur'an.

 

[Tiassa]

The problem with the restatement

What to rephrase? Your "hypothesis" says nothing other than this:

-Muslim violence might be caused by some atheist thinking/rejection elements creating clashes in the mindset of violent people...

(Boldface accent added)

Violent people?

How did those people become violent in the first place? What is the relationship between certain people being inherently violent and certain of these experiencing neurotic discord between their primal inclination toward rationalism and their religious instruction?

Replace "violent people" with a more useful phrase, and you've identified, well, something. And Michael is onto, well, something, although its significance falls somewhere between unknown and dubious. It's a creative approach, although clinically it would be very difficult to extricate the neuroses that result from the clash between primal self and society from those that arise from the disagreement between rational self and society. The latter is multivalent, to say the least, as the rational self arises most strongly within the context of society.

 

[Michael]

What to rephrase? Your "hypothesis" says nothing other than this:

-Muslim violence might be caused by some atheist thinking/rejection elements creating clashes in the mindset of violent people...

And I say this: This claim is not a new excuse that is already invented by some soft religious people to deny the violent passages in their Qur'an.

Hi baftan, OK, I understand you better. Just to clarify, I'm not a soft religious person (I'm atheist), I'm certainly not denying the existence of justifiable violence as a part of traditional Islamic philosophy (usually said as "defense" of Islam - which can mean ANYTHING) and I'm not trying to make an excuse.

I'm trying to discover why (other than textual-justifications for violence found in the Qur'an - [similar texts exists in the Bible, by the way) a certain demographic of Pakistani Muslims are killing (and preaching for the death of) Sufi and Ahmadiyya Muslims (among others)?

Yes, I agree, the violent passages in the Qur'an are a part of the story (and help to justify violence against other humans) but, they are not the entire story (re: see Bible in our pluralistic society). I'm looking for a more fundamental and individual explanation.

 

[Michael]

Violent people?

How did those people become violent in the first place? What is the relationship between certain people being inherently violent and certain of these experiencing neurotic discord between their primal inclination toward rationalism and their religious instruction?

Replace "violent people" with a more useful phrase, and you've identified, well, something. And Michael is onto, well, something, although its significance falls somewhere between unknown and dubious. It's a creative approach, although clinically it would be very difficult to extricate the neuroses that result from the clash between primal self and society from those that arise from the disagreement between rational self and society. The latter is multivalent, to say the least, as the rational self arises most strongly within the context of society.

Thank you Tiassa

We can expand on these ideas and see if they go anywhere.....

 

[Revolvr]

I think you're partly right. One element in the propensity to hate others may very well lie in one's own insecurity in your own beliefs. That may also be why atheists get so bent out of shape at the idea of prayer in school or any other mention of faith in the public square.

But with Islam there is another element. I have read much of the Koran, and it seems to me that the more one dives into that book, the more one believes what it says, the more likely one will become intolerant and hateful. Because that's exactly what it preaches. The most radical of Muslims are the most fundamental. Those who reject Jihad, (except for the Ahmadi), are the lukewarm Westernized Muslims, who are Muslim in name only by their heritage than by faith in their holy books.

The Ahmadi are a bit unusual as they believe their long awaited Messiah has already come, in the 1800's, so they have another book on top of the Koran that abrogates much of it.

 

[baftan]

Violent people?

When I said "violent people", I meant people who are subject to our discussion under this topic; people who use violence in the name of religion, or people who are acting violently under the effect of religion, or people who perform violent atrocities within the context of religion. OP claims that maybe some confusion (belief vs non-belief) going on in the background of their thinking; just as those who attack gay people can also be secretly gay in their minds.

And Michael, I didn't say you are a soft religious person, I said what you said was already said by them with different words. So you being an Atheist doesn't make a great difference to the end result in terms of finding something else to justify religious cause. We are not talking about some distinctive personalities such as Mother Teresa or Dr. Martin Luther King who are religious but can also think. We are talking about lynch mobs; a social disease, an ideological creature if you like; something not very different than Nazism that can easily generate death machines through mind control.

My understanding says that your quest will not discover anything because of a simple reason: The religious psyche of these people makes it practically impossible for searching out other aspects within their mind. Think about a body that is under the heavy influence of a major league disease; whole body is surrounded by it but there are numerous other smaller scale issues going on at the same time. Would you be able to isolate or clearly see these other problems without sorting out the main disease? Even if you did, even if you pinpoint these other issues, would it be helpful to fight against the major problem that occupied the entire body?

You are saying that maybe Nazis were in doubt about whether or not they were actually superior race. You are saying that maybe slave owners were in doubt whether or not they were master and others were slave. I say that when it comes to religion, the entire existence is at stake; it is more than a mere social or political advantage; it is the deep meaning of life and everything.

This is how religion affects the brain if we are talking about "religious violence". If you don't eliminate the number one reason, you won't be able to say anything about other issues; at least other issues will not make any sense. These people are charged by a religious discourse, actually, the worse thing is this: you can mobilize these people towards anything else using the very same religious discourse, because it is on-board justification mechanism.

You are talking about "understanding individual"... Religion is based on a "social" structure. Isolate one of these "violent people" as an individual from their social surrounding, provide him/her an environment where the provocations from his/her own religious social demands can not reach out his mind, where they cannot gather and ignite one another, where he can listen to his own belief, contradictions, etc. and you will be mostly successful to eliminate the violent behaviour towards others. I say mostly, because some people will continue to act violently because of what Tiassa objected: maybe some other things are going on in his/her brain other than religion. But the point is this: We will hardly realise these other elements without isolating religion out of these people's surrounding first, if not isolating religion from their minds.

I can understand some material changes (better economic conditions, a different type of education and/or surrounding) may decrease the number of violent incidents; but I don't think a presumed mental clash between Atheism and their murder-passionate religious doctrines are causing the violence. If it is the case, what would your solution be: Maximise the religion to finish off the clash and make them less contradictory therefore less violent? Or allow them to express their Atheist doubts (such as gay person coming to terms and being openly gay) and start a "brand new life" maybe.

You tell me...

 

[Cris]

Michael,

Yup I like that hypothesis. To summarize what I think you mean - Many violent Muslims are natural atheists but their culture has unnaturally forced them to think otherwise. And in so doing tearing their intellect to pieces resulting in a violent backlash against atheists who do not submit to the Islamic conditioning or who are from tolerant cultures.

 

[baftan]

Many violent Muslims are natural atheists but their culture has unnaturally forced them to think otherwise.

"Natural atheist"?

What does that mean? How can any human ideology be "natural"? Is it as natural as atoms, or bacteria, or gravity? There is nothing "natural" in human regimes and/or thought elements, they don't grow on trees...

 

[Cris]

baftan,

"Natural atheist"?

What does that mean? How can any human ideology be "natural"? Is it as natural as atoms, or bacteria, or gravity? There is nothing "natural" in human regimes and/or thought elements, they don't grow on trees...

E.g. If presented with the facts objectively a certain intellect would reject theism, i.e. a tendency for rational thought - a natural atheist.

 

[baftan]

baftan,

E.g. If presented with the facts objectively a certain intellect would reject theism, i.e. a tendency for rational thought - a natural atheist.

How do you explain Dr Martin Luther King? Was he not presented with facts? Or was he unnatural? But this is not our issue anyway...

"Tendency for rational thought" is worse than "natural" claim. You still didn't answer my question: What degree, or what level, or according to which category a human thought element (ideology, grammar, religion and/or "rationality") can be natural?

Please give me an example. Tell me "it's as natural as electromagnetic" or tell me "human thoughts share same categorical au naturele". Before you answer this, it is good to remind you that there is a good reason why natural sciences do not deal with human ideas, but instead they deal with physics, chemistry or biology.

Yes, where does this idea fit in nature?

 

[Emil]

I believe that all men are born "atheist". Only education and society determine what religion to adopt and when.
Few are those who showed him a "God".
Otherwise I can not explain the geographical distribution of different religions.

 

[Emil]

Any ideas? Make sense? Comments?
Michael

I think you must have specialized knowledge in psychology that you can give a correct answer.
In my opinion, the layman, is that most violence is an overreaction to certain complex.
Are less who commit acts of violence with cool blood.

 

[Cris]

baftan,

"Tendency for rational thought" is worse than "natural" claim. You still didn't answer my question: What degree, or what level, or according to which category a human thought element (ideology, grammar, religion and/or "rationality") can be natural?

You are somewhat missing the simple observation of real people here. Some people tend to analytical and calculating and others tend to be emotional and chaotic, and every combination in between. Genetics if you like, independent of environment and conditioning.

But place these genetically inclined rational folks in a heavily religious indoctrinated culture and they are likely to be seriously conflicted, especially if death is the result if they dare say the wrong thing.

 

[Emil]

But place these genetically inclined rational folks in a heavily religious indoctrinated culture and they are likely to be seriously conflicted, especially if death is the result if they dare say the wrong thing.

I think you are right partially.
I 'm born in Romania and lived in communism for 32 years.The result was a revolution, where we fought including the right of everyone to have an opinion or religion.
My problem are not the "happy" believers , my problem are the "angry" believers.
I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[baftan]

baftan,
Genetics if you like, independent of environment and conditioning.

There is no such genetics independent of environment and conditioning. This is an unsubstantiated assumption. Therefore;

But place these genetically inclined rational folks in a heavily religious indoctrinated culture and they are likely to be seriously conflicted, especially if death is the result if they dare say the wrong thing.

This makes equally no sense. My quest is simple, what type of natural scientific discipline deals with this "heavily religious indoctrinated culture" thing ?

 

[Emil]

There is no such genetics independent of environment and conditioning. This is an unsubstantiated assumption.

I can not argue because I do not have a theory.
But I have examples,expected a theoretical solution.
In communism, under identical conditions, some have been indoctrinated others do not.

 

[Skeptical]

I must disagree with the hypothesis placed in the OP.

First : the idea that gay bashers are themselves gay? I would need to see good evidence, which was not offered.

Second : the idea that Muslim violence is because the offenders are 'naturally' atheist. I suspect that the evidence for this idea is also zero.

I have read articles on research done into Muslim violence. The idea presented is actually social. It is a known psychological quirk that people who are concerned about something who get together to discuss their mutual concern, will reinforce each other, sometimes to the extent that their concern becomes obsessive and fanatical.

So Muslim suicide nutters can begin with Muslims who are concerned about 'threats' to their faith, who discuss it with like minded people, and have that idea reinforced to the point of fanaticism.

Then a second social factor can enter in. That is group dynamics. People who share a fanatical belief, can become a very tightly bound social group, and group pressure for action becomes enormously powerful. People will kill other people, and even commit suicide (with a bomb maybe) in order to avoid disappointing their peers. If the shared belief is a fanatical religious idea, then death becomes preferable to going against the shared ideal.