Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
geeser
Actually I was saying that it is the symbols of authority that are the direct cause - just like if police want to arrest a murderer they arrest the actual cause of murder (the person) and not the apparent cause (the knife) ”

The gavel is the symbol of authority in a courtroom, as is the costume a policeman wears, or the uniform a General wears, so in religious circles, the cross, the crescent Moon, the bible, the qu'ran, the iman, the pope, the dia lama, the archbishop, etc... are the symbols of religious authority.

you blend symbols there - for instance there is a distinction between th e symbol of the cross and the pope - or to take it out of a religious context, if you call the police in an emergency are you satisfied if a courier rocks up on your doorstep with a police uniform in a parcel? Can a gavel bear an influence on court proceedings by its own potency?

Basically your logical flaw is that there is no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if that was the case buy yourself a ball of wool this winter and save yourself some money.

so if these symbols incite/cause people to do violence, are they not the direct cause of the violence, as the people are being used like the knife.( lambs to the slaughter, as they say)

But you haven't established how religion incites this - I mean if you examine the numerous lists of wars on this thread, how many are CAUSED by religion - If a priest blessing a battleship is a cause, isn't the guy washing the pots in the army kitchen also a cause? Should pot washers also be abolished for their complications in crimes against humanity?

 

[geeser]

you blend symbols there - for instance there is a distinction between the symbol of the cross and the pope - or to take it out of a religious context,

just pointing out a few religious symbols, you wanted to play the child and make more of it then there is.
just because you know the whole "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement" arguement is rubbish.

if you call the police in an emergency are you satisfied if a courier rocks up on your doorstep with a police uniform in a parcel? Can a gavel bear an influence on court proceedings by its own potency?

now your really being childish.

Basically your logical flaw is that there is no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if that was the case buy yourself a ball of wool this winter and save yourself some money.

more childishness and with a bit of rudeness thrown in, lol.
no flaw here just clarifing some religious symbols. after all religion is only a set of beliefs, in those symbols, if after reading the bible/qu'ran a man goes out and kills his neighbour, because he worked on sunday, or it stated kill the unbeliever, the believer is only following it's teachings, then that religion/belief is the direct cause of the violence.

thus again stating "religion causes violence" is not a fallacious statement.

 

[lightgigantic]

geeser

- didn't mean to offend you - generally I only sink down to exhibitions of inappropriate humour when the same sentiment comes my way, which it hasn't from your posts as yet - the thing about the woollen jumper and wool and others are actually logical metaphors, and I often encounter people saying that there is no difference between a woolen ball and a woollen jumper, so I just wanted to clear it up, and be clear with my definitions.

Actually I feel you have lost focus on the argument and are trying to bring the subject in debate down to a battle of wills rather than logic and metaphor - I also conceed that you probably took this angle because it appeared that I was aiming for the same mood - one of the problems with net talk is thatthere is a complete absence of non-verbal signifiers so it is very easy to take offence when none was really intended.

If you want to rewrite your response I will respond to it, but this response frankly doesn't inspire me, with nothing but challenges of "childish" and "rubbish"

Don't get me wrong - I strongly disagree with you - but obviously such discussions can only take place in a civil atmosphere

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you blend symbols there - for instance there is a distinction between the symbol of the cross and the pope - or to take it out of a religious context, ”

just pointing out a few religious symbols, you wanted to play the child and make more of it then there is.
just because you know the whole "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement" arguement is rubbish.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you call the police in an emergency are you satisfied if a courier rocks up on your doorstep with a police uniform in a parcel? Can a gavel bear an influence on court proceedings by its own potency? ”

now your really being childish.
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Basically your logical flaw is that there is no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if that was the case buy yourself a ball of wool this winter and save yourself some money. ”

more childishness and with a bit of rudeness thrown in, lol.
no flaw here just clarifing some religious symbols. after all religion is only a set of beliefs, in those symbols, if after reading the bible/qu'ran a man goes out and kills his neighbour, because he worked on sunday, or it stated kill the unbeliever, the believer is only following it's teachings, then that religion/belief is the direct cause of the violence.

thus again stating "religion causes violence" is not a fallacious statement.
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you blend symbols there - for instance there is a distinction between the symbol of the cross and the pope - or to take it out of a religious context, ”

just pointing out a few religious symbols, you wanted to play the child and make more of it then there is.
just because you know the whole "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement" arguement is rubbish.

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you call the police in an emergency are you satisfied if a courier rocks up on your doorstep with a police uniform in a parcel? Can a gavel bear an influence on court proceedings by its own potency? ”

now your really being childish.
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Basically your logical flaw is that there is no difference between a ball of wool and a woolen jumper - if that was the case buy yourself a ball of wool this winter and save yourself some money. ”

more childishness and with a bit of rudeness thrown in, lol.
no flaw here just clarifing some religious symbols. after all religion is only a set of beliefs, in those symbols, if after reading the bible/qu'ran a man goes out and kills his neighbour, because he worked on sunday, or it stated kill the unbeliever, the believer is only following it's teachings, then that religion/belief is the direct cause of the violence.

thus again stating "religion causes violence" is not a fallacious statement.

 

[geeser]

I strongly disagree with you -

ok then.
religion is a firm conviction in a set of beliefs, if after reading the bible/qu'ran a man goes out and kills his neighbour, because the neighbour has worked on sunday, or it stated kill the unbeliever, etc.. the believer is only following it's teachings, then that religion/belief is the direct cause of that violence.

thus again stating "religion causes violence" is not a fallacious statement.

 

[lightgigantic]

ok then.
religion is a firm conviction in a set of beliefs, if after reading the bible/qu'ran a man goes out and kills his neighbour, because the neighbour has worked on sunday, or it stated kill the unbeliever, etc.. the believer is only following it's teachings, then that religion/belief is the direct cause of that violence.

thus again stating "religion causes violence" is not a fallacious statement.

What is the course of action you are advocating - that with the abolishment of religion comes the abolishment of such civil violence?

Besides that, you have to establish how the believer is not being selective in following the teachings to fulfill circumstances favourable to his personal situation - Or you have to establish why it is that out of a community of such religious minded persons, why only one is killing his neighbour in such a fashion and the others are not.

If you do this you will uncover the phemomena that violence is justified by the symbols of authority - hence people kill in the name of justice, in the name of freedom, in the name of race, in the name of economic development, in the name of gender as well as many other symbols including religion - is it practical to relinquish all these symbols?

 

[Paisley Tie]

Practically ALL wars have been fought over religious beliefs of one kind or another

 

[lightgigantic]

Practically ALL wars have been fought over religious beliefs of one kind or another

Practically there's no evidence for such statements

 

[geeser]

What is the course of action you are advocating - that with the abolishment of religion comes the abolishment of such civil violence?

no, there literally thousands of cause's of violence, religion being merely one of them, I'm sorry I dont understand how you can say "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement" there's an old story. For want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost. For want of a horseshoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, a rider was lost. For want of a rider, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the war was lost. This story shows the the connection of events, and how something so trivial can later be proven to be huge.
if a believer interpret's a scripture, and then either harms or kills someone because of his interpretation, if he had'nt read the scripture, or was never a believer would he have harmed or killed, there is no way of knowing for sure, however the scripture must be deemed the catalyst that caused the violence.

 

[lightgigantic]

no, there literally thousands of cause's of violence, religion being merely one of them, I'm sorry I dont understand how you can say "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement" there's an old story. For want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost. For want of a horseshoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, a rider was lost. For want of a rider, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the war was lost. This story shows the the connection of events, and how something so trivial can later be proven to be huge.
if a believer interpret's a scripture, and then either harms or kills someone because of his interpretation, if he had'nt read the scripture, or was never a believer would he have harmed or killed, there is no way of knowing for sure, however the scripture must be deemed the catalyst that caused the violence.

By your analogy, you haven't established that religion is the "nail" - in otherwords you haven't established that religion is the ultimate cause of violence - all you can indicate is that religion is sometimes the guise that violence appears under, just like the war lost under the guise of a battle, but actually the real cause was the nail.
It is not apparent where people kill other people simply because they read it in a scripture, where there are not other factors that come into play that can trigger animosity.

 

[wsionynw]

I agree that religion is not the cause of violence, but it can be a motive (as we see in the actions of Christian and Muslim fanatics). I think the problem from the atheist point of view is of religious intolerance and the violence it can lead to. For atheists it seems the most flimsy excuse to hurt people.
My great grand mother was a deeply religious person, and one of nicest and most generous I have ever met. But, when my uncle died and his family decided upon a humanist burial (bury him in a field and plant a tree), she refused to attend the funeral or speak to his widow because it was not a proper Christian burial. An interesting lesson for her great grand children to learn about religious intolerance.

 

[lightgigantic]

For atheists it seems the most flimsy excuse to hurt people.

Thats because they do not attribute any value to the symbol of authority - just like a person who attributes no value tothe symbol of race perceives racial murder as flimsy etc etc

My great grand mother was a deeply religious person, and one of nicest and most generous I have ever met. But, when my uncle died and his family decided upon a humanist burial (bury him in a field and plant a tree), she refused to attend the funeral or speak to his widow because it was not a proper Christian burial. An interesting lesson for her great grand children to learn about religious intolerance.

Well I would argue that a person who is actually deeply religious understands that once a person has died, it doesn't matter what happens with the body, just like it doesn't really matter what happens to the hire car once you hand it back to the company - but given that most religious people operate out of life ceremonies surrounding birth, marriage and death, I am not surprised that her sentimentality was bruised.
Actually the funeral ceremony is mostly for the benefit of the survivors and not the person who died - maybe there was a clash of issues between values in the family - which is one of the reasons that multi-religious families don't operate too smoothly, much like any multi-valued one will not (regardless of the guise of the symbol of authority that designates the values)

There are many causes of conflict. In his book, The Mediation Process, Christopher Moore outlines the main ones (pp. 64–5):

Value conflicts: caused by parties having different criteria to evaluate ideas, or by different lifestyles, ideologies, or religions.

Relationship conflicts: caused by strong emotions, misperceptions, miscommunications, and regular, negative interactions.

Data conflicts: caused by a lack of information, different interpretations of data, and different views on what is relevant.

Interest conflicts: caused by competition over substantive interests, procedural interests, or psychological interests.

Structural conflicts: caused by destructive patterns of behaviour, unequal control and ownership of resources, unequal power and authority, time constraints, and geographical/environmental factors that hinder cooperation.

 

[geeser]

By your analogy, you haven't established that religion is the "nail" - in otherwords you haven't established that religion is the ultimate cause of violence - all you can indicate is that religion is sometimes the guise that violence appears under, just like the war lost under the guise of a battle, but actually the real cause was the nail.
It is not apparent where people kill other people simply because they read it in a scripture, where there are not other factors that come into play that can trigger animosity.

theres literally thousands of cause's of violence, religion being merely one of them,

religion has not been effecting peoples lives for millennia has it.
religion has not been indoctrinated, into society has it.
we,ve had religious nail guns from the year dot
your just far to blinkered, to see sense.
I've given up you win, your right and everybody else is wrong your the man, Not....

 

[lightgigantic]

religion has not been effecting peoples lives for millennia has it.
religion has not been indoctrinated, into society has it.
we,ve had religious nail guns from the year dot
your just far to blinkered, to see sense.
I've given up you win, your right and everybody else is wrong your the man, Not....

Its not clear what your standpoint is - you seem to be saying that religion is not the cause of violence (Which BTW is the statement in the header) yet it should be treated as if it is the cause????

We can say the above with so many things

justice has not been effecting peoples lives for millennia has it.
justice has not been indoctrinated, into society has it.
we,ve had judicial nail guns from the year dot

like this we could offer so many social symbols of authority - whats your point?

 

[stefan]

if a leader of a group incite's is followers to violence, without causing the violence himself, is he not just as guilty as they. so having said that, if a holy book does the same as it contains the words of it's leader (god), and as we cannot arrest the direct cause (god) then we can only hold his estabishment guilty.
it's the choices of individuals, not merely influences and correlative factors, that are ultimately responsible for human actions.
Osama Bin Laden says that they he is waging holy warfare against the infidel, even if Bin Laden genuinely believes that he is acting according to religious doctrine, it is not the doctrine itself, that causes the violence, but it is the inciter of the said violence, without it would he have acted violently.
religion causing violence, is not a fallacious statement

 

[lightgigantic]

if a leader of a group incite's is followers to violence, without causing the violence himself, is he not just as guilty as they. so having said that, if a holy book does the same as it contains the words of it's leader (god), and as we cannot arrest the direct cause (god) then we can only hold his estabishment guilty.
it's the choices of individuals, not merely influences and correlative factors, that are ultimately responsible for human actions.
Osama Bin Laden says that they he is waging holy warfare against the infidel, even if Bin Laden genuinely believes that he is acting according to religious doctrine, it is not the doctrine itself, that causes the violence, but it is the inciter of the said violence, without it would he have acted violently.
religion causing violence, is not a fallacious statement

I don't suppose you read the opening thread?

If it also shown that some people cause violence in the name of justice, should justice also be removed?
If it is shown that some people cause violence in the name of gender, should gender also be removed?
If it is shown that some people cause violence in the name of freedom, should freedom also be removed?
If it is shown that some people cause violence in the name of economic development should economic development also be removed?
Since it can be shown that some people cause violence in the name of anything, shouldn't everything be removed?

Or is it more correct to say that people cause violence according to their own personal nature or values, and tend to justify that according tothe existing symbols of authority in a society

 

[stefan]

I don't suppose you read the opening thread?

If it also shown that some people cause violence in the name of justice, should justice also be removed?
If it is shown that some people cause violence in the name of gender, should gender also be removed?
If it is shown that some people cause violence in the name of freedom, should freedom also be removed?
If it is shown that some people cause violence in the name of economic development should economic development also be removed?
Since it can be shown that some people cause violence in the name of anything, shouldn't everything be removed?

Or is it more correct to say that people cause violence according to their own personal nature or values, and tend to justify that according tothe existing symbols of authority in a society

what an inanely infantile response, who said anything about removing anything, we are discussing religion, and whether it is a cause of violence, we all know there are many causes of violence, but they are irrelevant.
as I have said religion incites violence therefore, it is just as accountable.
as is any thing, person, or creature, that incites/causes violence.

religion causing violence is not a fallacious statement.

 

[lightgigantic]

what an inanely infantile response, who said anything about removing anything, we are discussing religion, and whether it is a cause of violence, we all know there are many causes of violence, but they are irrelevant.
as I have said religion incites violence therefore, it is just as accountable.
as is any thing, person, or creature, that incites/causes violence.

religion causing violence is not a fallacious statement.

If my response appears inane it is probably because you didn't readthe opening thread

Indicating the variety of relative causes seems to indicate that violence operates out of a superior cause - in other words violence is not intrinsic to religion, anymore thanjustice, freedom, etc etc

Thus religion CAUSES violence is a fallacious statement, because the actual cause can be seen to be found elsewhere

 

[(Q)]

Thus religion CAUSES violence is a fallacious statement, because the actual cause can be seen to be found elsewhere

Unless, of course, the cause IS religion. Religion can also be an indirect cause, in other words, if it wasn't the direct cause, it could still have been averted if not for religion being an indirect cause.

 

[stefan]

If my response appears inane it is probably because you didn't readthe opening thread

I had read the original post, but I dont see how that is relevant, you seem to be missing the point.

Indicating the variety of relative causes seems to indicate that violence operates out of a superior cause - in other words violence is not intrinsic to religion, anymore thanjustice, freedom, etc etc,

another inane response, I never said it was. can you actually read.
I said and I quote "we are discussing religion, and whether it is a cause of violence, we all know there are many causes of violence, but they are irrelevant."
I not trying to prove religion is the only cause for violence, so please try to get that into your head.

Thus religion CAUSES violence is a fallacious statement, because the actual cause can be seen to be found elsewhere

where, when the violence is written in it's holy books, it incites violence in it's very core, therefore it's just as accountable, religion in this instant is the cause.

 

[lightgigantic]

I had read the original post, but I dont see how that is relevant, you seem to be missing the point.another inane response, I never said it was. can you actually read.
I said and I quote "we are discussing religion, and whether it is a cause of violence, we all know there are many causes of violence, but they are irrelevant."
I not trying to prove religion is the only cause for violence, so please try to get that into your head. where, when the violence is written in it's holy books, it incites violence in it's very core, therefore it's just as accountable, religion in this instant is the cause.

Well if religion causes violence why does violence exist in the absence of religion (unless it is not actually the cause)? Hence the statement religion causes violence must be fallacious.

There are also recommendatons in the scriptures saying what one should - does that mean religion also causes people to eat too?

In otherwords directions for the application of an existing phenomena do not make the directions causative. It makes them applicative