Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement

[lightgigantic]

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.

Then you would have to examine why all religious adherants in all times and places adopt the same course of action, which would tend to lead to a conclusion described in the opening of the thread

 

[stefan]

Well if religion causes violence why does violence exist in the absence of religion

again with the irrational inane reponse who said it did'nt, we are discussing whether religion is a cause of violence, you dont seem to get it.

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

infantile irrelevant response, we've been through this, stop trying to make religion a marter.

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

just like the direction for the uses of a gun/knife, a gun/knife is applicative, and a gun/knife is the cause of a death, without the gun/knife could the wielder have killed so easily
without the scripture stating kill the infidel etc..
would there have been a religious victim.
religion therefore must be a cause of violence, do you get it yet.

 

[audible]

Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement

wrong.

Frankly, I am very surprised when people say “Religion causes war” (the logical conclusion being that religion should be abandoned for a more peaceful world), particularly in the light of a century of political ideology that has seen perhaps more civilian casualties than any other. The purpose of this thread is to examine the general principles people apply when they make such assumptions.

where is this assumption you talk of, I've never heard of anybody saying, "religion causes war", more often it's stated "religion has been the cause of many a war", in hindsight, in hindsight we all now where we went wrong, dont we.
but it most certainly is not the only cause. there is no assumption, religion has been a direct cause of war, and in regards to violence, it still is.

If one examines the nature of human violence one can see that there is a certain class of human being that is prone to violence

what!, your evidence would be.

and tends to justify it according to the prominent symbols of social authority (It doesn’t matter what the symbol is). Therefore you see that violence has been carried out in the name of freedom, justice, economic development and so many other things as well as religion.

of course, religion is not the only cause of violence, as already stated, by many posters.

If it is advocated that religion should be dismissed due to instances of associated violence the general principle one is advocating is that the symbol associated with violence should automatically be renounced.

I dont know where you got that idea, religion is a way of life, a control in many respects, islam is a case in point, if it was lessened, (not removed) then there would be a decrease in violence and wars, that is obvious.

Interestingly enough, if we uniformly apply that general principle we get a very strange social picture, because even society itself would have to be given up (along with freedom, justice, economic development etc), since violence is commonly associated with issues of society.

how so, and why, I dont see it.
religion is'nt the by all and end all of life.

Obviously it is the case that violence is an attribute of human nature,

yes without a doubt, but people can be influenced to do things the would not normally do, cant they.

In fact one of the special strengths of religion is that the normative value system is very apparent,

it's that same ? value system, that has been the cause of the wars/violence

thus a slackening of religion (or the propagation of improper understanding of religion) tends to pave the way for an influx of violence.

well of course, to many chiefs. (to many different religions, all with different gods, all intolerant to the other)

 

[lightgigantic]

stefan

again with the irrational inane reponse who said it did'nt, we are discussing whether religion is a cause of violence, you dont seem to get it.infantile irrelevant response, we've been through this, stop trying to make religion a marter.

Actually these are logical premises which you choose to ignore and thus say things like ....

just like the direction for the uses of a gun/knife, a gun/knife is applicative, and a gun/knife is the cause of a death, without the gun/knife

and thus I can also say Doctors also use knives - so do short order chefs - knives don't kill people - people kill people

could the wielder have killed so easily
without the scripture stating kill the infidel etc..

Most definitely - for instance haven't persons tried to kill US troops stationed in Vietnam during the 70's - no scriptures there

would there have been a religious victim.
religion therefore must be a cause of violence, do you get it yet

Well

Do you have practical instances of such examples of infidels being killed? Then we can examine the situation and see what the causes are- but before that you might want to look up the dictionary meaning for "cause" and see how it is different from "innvolved"

 

[perplexity]

I've never heard of anybody saying, "religion causes war", more often it's stated "religion has been the cause of many a war", in hindsight, in hindsight we all now where we went wrong, dont we.

That, at aleast, may be tested.

When I try "religion has been the cause of many a war" on google.com it comes up with just one hit.

When I try "religion causes war" it declares about 1,400 hits.

--- Ron.

 

[audible]

That, at aleast, may be tested.

When I try "religion has been the cause of many a war" on google.com it comes up with just one hit.

When I try "religion causes war" it declares about 1,400 hits.

--- Ron.

I googled too, but I wrote "religion has caused many wars" and got 12,800,000 hit's lets not play silly games, shall we.
(my x is bigger the your x.)

 

[stefan]

Actually these are logical premises which you choose to ignore and thus say things like ....

you seem to be a complete imbecile, there is no logic in your arguement because you seem to have a mental block on the point, you keep reverting back to the same inane responses. religion is a cause of violence, without a doubt.
your arguement is constantly, there must be another cause, but you have yet to show this allusive other cause, as someone said earlier, religion is the nail.
and what was the reason for the french religious wars of 1562-1629, was it because they did'nt like each others hair styles, or was it which end of the egg to open.

and thus I can also say Doctors also use knives - so do short order chefs - knives don't kill people - people kill people

what is the relevance of this, there are killers out the that do it indiscriminately, but some are incited, to do it, that incitement is as much a weapon as the knife/gun etc..
in the armed forces if your sarg says "open fire" you fire your weapons indiscriminately at the enemy, that is an incitement to violence that order could be verbal or written, it's still an incitement.

Most definitely - for instance haven't persons tried to kill US troops stationed in Vietnam during the 70's - no scriptures there

what is the relevance, this does not mean religion has'nt incited people to violence.

Well
Do you have practical instances of such examples of infidels being killed? Then we can examine the situation and see what the causes are

there is only one cause, throughout history theres been wars and in hindsight they have estabished the cause, why do you insist on trying to counter that.

but before that you might want to look up the dictionary meaning for "cause" and see how it is different from "innvolved"

cause:
incite, induce, instigate, motivate, producer, root, source, begin, create, effect, elicit, engender, evoke, generate, hatch, originate, precipitate, provoke.
cause:
a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect:
to be the cause of; bring about.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cause&q=cause

involved:
implicated, caught, embroiled, enmeshed, entangled, incriminated, participating, tangled.
implicated; in a way likely to cause danger or unpleasantness
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=involved
your point being?

 

[lightgigantic]

Stefan

- I am saying religion is not a cause for violence

- you are saying religion is involved in violence

- these two statements are not contradictory

 

[perplexity]

Hostility is caused by examining other people instead of examining ourselves.

--- Ron.

 

[Sarkus]

...and thus I can also say Doctors also use knives - so do short order chefs - knives don't kill people - people kill people...

Anything can be reduced so inanely....

Cigarettes don't kill - only smoking them does!

Guns don't kill - only using them does!

Religion doesn't cause violence - only those using it as an excuse do!


Religion has been used as a reason for / excuse for violence.
It can thus be called a "cause" of violence.

The fact that the person seeking a reason might have gone elsewhere for his cause does not negate the fact that religion has been used as a "cause".
A "contributory factor", if you will.

If religion is not a cause, then we are not the cause of anything we do - as there is always a preceding cause - and if you want to go down that reductionist route...

... People don't kill people - the cause of their psychological profile does (whether it be genetics, memory, trauma, training etc) - and if it is a genetic disposition to violence then it must be their parents' fault.

Hell, you could probably go all the way back to your epistemologically perceived deity - as the obvious creator of all - creator of religion AND of violence.

And let's have a look at what we mean by "violence"...

UNESCO has come up with the working definition of:
“Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”
Psychological harm... Religion certainly has done this to the vast numbers of brain-washed people within its folds.
It also causes "violence" (again, psychological harm but sometimes physical) against certain groups - homosexuals (e.g. in their unequal rights, and to be deemed perverted) for example.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

- I am saying religion is not a cause for violence

- you are saying religion is involved in violence

- these two statements are not contradictory

 

[perplexity]

Bad workmen blame their tools.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Religion has been used as a reason for / excuse for violence.

I imagine women and chidren has been used as a reason for violence, does this mean they are the cause?

It can thus be called a "cause" of violence.

But how do you know it is the actual cause?

The fact that the person seeking a reason might have gone elsewhere for his cause does not negate the fact that religion has been used as a "cause".
A "contributory factor", if you will.

How do you know?

Jan

 

[wesmorris]

I've come to think that there is no reason for anything, there are only rationalizations. Religion is one of them, and can be said to be the cause of violence, but it's really just a violent motherfucker, using whatever excuse they like in an attempt to justify their existence or something.

Bah I misspeak.

There is a reason for everything. It's that people seek what they value. People value whatever satisfies the imbalance created by their perception in their mind, that which drives them forward. The words or ideas utilized to "justify" whatever it is they do, are just rationalizations to justify their assumptions about how they should act. Bah it's more complicated than that but screw it that's the gist.

 

[Sarkus]

- I am saying religion is not a cause for violence
- you are saying religion is involved in violence
- these two statements are not contradictory

You are saying religion is not a cause for violence.
I am saying religion IS a cause for violence.
These two statements are contradictory.

Take the person who beats up a homosexual because their religion says that such people are evil....

The religion causes the perception of evil... that perception is a cause for violent tendencies to manifest in that person against the homosexual.
Remove religion - remove the perception of evil - remove the violence against the homosexual (unless another cause steps in).

Please tell me where the flaw is in this example?
Afterall, surely one way to tell of a cause to an effect is to remove the cause and see if the effect remains?

 

[Sarkus]

I imagine women and chidren has been used as a reason for violence, does this mean they are the cause?

You can imagine all you want - but some idea of context and evidence would be welcome.

 

[lightgigantic]

You are saying religion is not a cause for violence.
I am saying religion IS a cause for violence.
These two statements are contradictory.

Take the person who beats up a homosexual because their religion says that such people are evil....

The religion causes the perception of evil... that perception is a cause for violent tendencies to manifest in that person against the homosexual.
Remove religion - remove the perception of evil - remove the violence against the homosexual (unless another cause steps in).

Please tell me where the flaw is in this example?
Afterall, surely one way to tell of a cause to an effect is to remove the cause and see if the effect remains?

So before the person picked up the scripture he held a totally unbiased perception of homosexuals , but then low and behold what he discovered one day, and then he sighed, surrendering to the dictates of god, and put aside his dualistic conditioned nature that dtermines personal arbitrary notions of good and bad, and set off to beat the hell out of persons who he assumed were gay with the knowledge that surrender to god is the means to overcome one's conditioned nature

 

[lightgigantic]

You can imagine all you want - but some idea of context and evidence would be welcome.

Seems like you are not trying hard enough

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Frankly, I am very surprised when people say “Religion causes war” (the logical conclusion being that religion should be abandoned for a more peaceful world), particularly in the light of a century of political ideology that has seen perhaps more civilian casualties than any other. The purpose of this thread is to examine the general principles people apply when they make such assumptions.

If one examines the nature of human violence one can see that there is a certain class of human being that is prone to violence and tends to justify it according to the prominent symbols of social authority (It doesn’t matter what the symbol is). Therefore you see that violence has been carried out in the name of freedom, justice, economic development and so many other things as well as religion.

If it is advocated that religion should be dismissed due to instances of associated violence the general principle one is advocating is that the symbol associated with violence should automatically be renounced. Interestingly enough, if we uniformly apply that general principle we get a very strange social picture, because even society itself would have to be given up (along with freedom, justice, economic development etc), since violence is commonly associated with issues of society.

Obviously it is the case that violence is an attribute of human nature, and it requires much more than extinguishing the guise of the symbols it appears under to make the world more peaceful.

In fact one of the special strengths of religion is that the normative value system is very apparent, thus a slackening of religion (or the propagation of improper understanding of religion) tends to pave the way for an influx of violence.

Deuteronomy 3:3-7
3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Deuteronomy 20:16
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Religion is indeed a direct and deliberate cause of war! There are many other examples in the Bible and in the Koran!

Case Closed!

"Move along... these aren't the droids you're looking for..."

 

[wesmorris]

No man, it's not the cause - it's the excuse.