Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement

[S.A.M.]

I meant more along the lines of pointless suicide bombings. I'm sure the Japanese weren't flying planes into ships for buddha.

Who said anything about the Japanese? And pray what was the point of the LTTE bombings?

Who remembers the numerous times Hitler said he was doing God's work?

And you believe him, of course. I mean, why would anyone doubt Hitler?
He was the epitome of honesty.

Mein Kampf illustrates Hitler's views on propaganda:


"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)

and

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

and

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

Besides, when you've already killed a million Jews it hardly matters if you get rid of the disabled or gypsies along with them. The Jews were the point, everyone else was just a bonus for Hitler since they weren't Aryan.

You know this for a fact of course? Some links, evidence?

Is that sarcasm? Jihad means religious war. You know...synonymous with crusade.

You need an education. Jihad means struggle.

Wow, that's a daunting amount of non sequiturs. You listed acts of war. That's like saying we're at war with Iraq because the Iraqis are shooting at our soldiers. What are the causes for those things?

The British giving away a piece of land?
The Palestinians driven out of their homes?
Without compensation?

But that was 60 years ago? So they are still fighting for what happened 60 years ago? I bet that other events since then are responsible?

And yes, the longer the US stays in Iraq, the more they'll be shot at. And the longer the war will stretch on.

Think what it would be like if Osama had come to free the US from Bush.
What do you think the Americans would be fighting for? Christianity? Or freedom?

What was that supposed to be? An insult? If so, I'd suggest you stop being a douche long enough to realize your own ignorance.

If it walks like a duck, etc.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SetiAlpha6,

You are very correct, my question clearly is divisive. It divides truth from error, and reality from fantasy, and it reveals the true character of the one who answers it. It helps a person see who they really are underneath it all and helps them discover not only what motivates them but also how that motivation can really impact the world around them. That is, at least, part of the topic of this thread.

The thread is entitled, "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement", and neither you or anyone has proved that statement false.

Does the fact that you are a soldier exempt you from the responsibility of any and all immoral atrocities you might commit.

If the soldier is following orders from his superiors, then he is exempt from the immoral atrocities he commits. The responsibility lies with the people who are authorised to give this command.

You can’t really think that, can you?

It doesn't matter what I think, that is what it is.

Do you think that the prosecution of war crimes is wrong?

No.

Do you approve of the total genocide of a people who are defensless and have surrendered?

No.

The examples I selected simply provide evidence of how one particularly evil nation (Israel) controlled its people by claiming that God directly justified its own wars.

But that is not 'religion'. If I go out and slaughter tens of people and said I was conducting a scientific experiment to see if there was such a thing as a murder gene, would you accept that science was the cause of my action, the reason, or that science had nothing to do with it.

Jan.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

SetiAlpha6,
The thread is entitled, "Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement", and neither you or anyone has proved that statement false.
Jan.

Hi Jan,

I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others, but moving on...

What kind, or form, of proof would you accept? What would evidence of "religion causes violence" look like to you? Hypothetically, of course, what would a reasonable argument for this be?

(P.S. Have you ever read "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"?)

Best Wishes,

Seti

 

[Plunkies]

Who said anything about the Japanese? And pray what was the point of the LTTE bombings?

They're trying to get seperate from their government. They usually use suicide bombers to kill specific people, not take out busloads of innocents.

And you believe him, of course. I mean, why would anyone doubt Hitler?
He was the epitome of honesty.

Yeah you say that and then go on to quote Hitler. No incongruity there...

Your first quote seems to be completely irrelevent to the argument so I'll skip it unless you can explain your point....

As for your other quotes...

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....”

and

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)"

You need sources. I can't find either in Mein Kampf.


Anyway I suppose it's my turn now. I'd first like to point out that Hitler pointed to Christians systematically eliminating the pagans as a good example of what he thought should be done to the Jews. So whether he was Christian or not, he got many of his violent and destructive ideas from Christianity itself along with his prejudices.

"The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.

-Adolf Hitler speaking about Dr. Karl Lueger of the Christian Social Party (Mein Kampf)"


"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"


"We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.

-Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938."


"God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work....

Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me....

Therefore, it is all the more necessary on this twelfth anniversary of the rise to power to strengthen the heart more than ever before and to steel ourselves in the holy determination to wield the sword, no-matter where and under what circumstances, until final victory crowns our efforts....

In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance....

In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing. No people can do more than that everybody who can fight, fights, and that everybody who can work, works, and that they all sacrifice in common, filled with but one thought: to safeguard freedom and national honor and thus the future of life.

-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address, 30 Jan. 1945"


You're fighting a losing battle here. There are literally hundreds of quotes where Hitler clearly expresses his beliefs. For every single quote you can find that might hint at his distaste for other organized religions I can give you twenty quotes that clearly state his own beliefs.

You know this for a fact of course? Some links, evidence?

You actually want evidence that the Jews were Hitler's main target? Do you seek only to waste my time? Go look at the death tolls, they speak for themselves.

You need an education. Jihad means struggle.

Yeah I jihaded to get to my car because the snow was so high.

From the freakin dictionary....

"ji‧had  /dʒɪˈhɑd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ji-hahd] -noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle."

The British giving away a piece of land?
The Palestinians driven out of their homes?
Without compensation?

Again, these are things that happened during their struggle. It all leads back to religious differences. I'm amazed at the points you're arguing, you seem to be on the wrong side of all of them. It's actually pretty entertaining to watch.

But that was 60 years ago? So they are still fighting for what happened 60 years ago? I bet that other events since then are responsible?

Indeed. The Christians and Muslims fought for hundreds of years and it still goes on today. Length of time doesn't matter when it comes to fighting for religious beliefs.

And yes, the longer the US stays in Iraq, the more they'll be shot at. And the longer the war will stretch on.

Yes but the soldiers being shot at were not the cause of the war. How can you not understand that?

Think what it would be like if Osama had come to free the US from Bush.
What do you think the Americans would be fighting for? Christianity? Or freedom?

I don't understand your hypothetical. You're saying Osama would fly planes into buildings killing innocent people for the purpose of freeing us from our president? How exactly would former accomplish or even assist in the latter?

If it walks like a duck, etc.

Hrm, so it was actually an insult? Here's a hint, if your statement is so vague and general that it could be refering to anything, it's not really a good insult. I'm going to opt to just call you an idiot, short and to the point.

 

[S.A.M.]

They're trying to get seperate from their government. They usually use suicide bombers to kill specific people, not take out busloads of innocents.

You mean they attack the people they consider responsible for their problems.

Yeah you say that and then go on to quote Hitler. No incongruity there...

Your first quote seems to be completely irrelevent to the argument so I'll skip it unless you can explain your point....

Oh so you see no connection between his pre-1935 and post-1935 speeches and what he says about targeted propaganda?

As for your other quotes...blah blah blah

Try and focus on essentials instead of spamming.

Hitler changed his stance on religion around 1935 when he realised Christianity may pose a problem to Nazism.

You're fighting a losing battle here. There are literally hundreds of quotes where Hitler clearly expresses his beliefs. For every single quote you can find that might hint at his distaste for other organized religions I can give you twenty quotes that clearly state his own beliefs.

Read some more history.

You actually want evidence that the Jews were Hitler's main target? Do you seek only to waste my time? Go look at the death tolls, they speak for themselves.

He was a racist. So were a lot of Europeans. The Jews had been trying for a long time to get a separate state due to the rampant racism they were subjected to.

The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, or Aliyah started in 1881 as Jews fled persecution, or followed the Socialist Zionist ideas of Moses Hess and others of "redemption of the soil." Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.

Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), an Austrian Jew, founded the Zionist movement. In 1896, he published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), in which he called for the establishment of a national Jewish state. The following year he helped convene the first World Zionist Congress.

The establishment of Zionism led to the Second Aliyah (1904–1914) with the influx of around 40,000 Jews. In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration that "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain.

Jewish immigration resumed in third (1919–1923) and fourth (1924–1929) waves after World War I. A massacre of Jews by Arabs in 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron.

The rise of Nazism in 1933 led to a fifth wave of Aliyah. The Jews in the region increased from 11% of the population in 1922 to 30% by 1940[citation needed]. 28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews[citation needed]. The southern half of the country is the barren and mostly empty Negev desert. The subsequent Holocaust in Europe led to additional immigration from other parts of Europe. By the end of World War II, the number of Jews in Palestine was approximately 600,000.

True to form, he also hated homosexuals, blacks, Gypsies and whoever did not fit his Aryan mould. An absolute racist who found several like minded individuals to get with his ethnic cleansing.

Yeah I jihaded to get to my car because the snow was so high.

Cute, but not accurate.

From the freakin dictionary....

"ji‧had  /dʒɪˈhɑd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ji-hahd] -noun
1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle."

That's the Western definition: simplistic and incomplete.

Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad or Djehad, (Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause.

The term "jihad" is often simplistically reduced in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as generally "religious war", though "physical" struggle, which encompasses religion, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. (The term 'holy war' was coined by the Christian Crusaders who fought the Muslims for control of the Holy Land.) The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance. A person who engages in any form of jihad can be called a mujahid (in plural: mujahidin) (Arabic: striver, struggler), a term even more often applied to groups who practice armed struggle in the name of Islam by Islamic fundamentalists and non-Muslims. Such a person might engage in fighting as a military struggle for religious reasons, or for example, struggle to memorize the Qur'an. Jihad has a negative connotation and reputation in much of the West, on par with the reaction to the Christian term crusade in much of the Islamic world.

Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[1]

* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.
* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), and political or military propaganda.
* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as military and medical sciences).
* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, or espionage.
* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).
* Jihad of peace refers to the struggle to make peace in the world, everywhere and anywhere.

Again, these are things that happened during their struggle. It all leads back to religious differences. I'm amazed at the points you're arguing, you seem to be on the wrong side of all of them. It's actually pretty entertaining to watch.

No it happened because of the British idea of a solution. Same as Iraq (also created by the British) and Pakistan (ditto).

And yes, it is entertaining.

Indeed. The Christians and Muslims fought for hundreds of years and it still goes on today. Length of time doesn't matter when it comes to fighting for religious beliefs.

It was not always so cut and dried. There were Jews AND Christians among the Ottomans (only the rulers were Muslim). And that holds true even today. There are Christians, Druze ( the famous terrorist being demanded by the Hezbollah, Samir Kuntar, is a Druze), marxists in Lebanon. There are Israeli Arabs (Muslims) in the IDF.

Yes but the soldiers being shot at were not the cause of the war. How can you not understand that?

Do YOU know the cause of the war?
Neither do these people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm

The attitude though is striking (pun intended).

“We don’t do body counts”
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

I don't understand your hypothetical. You're saying Osama would fly planes into buildings killing innocent people for the purpose of freeing us from our president? How exactly would former accomplish or even assist in the latter?

Er, no that was not my hypothetical. I was giving you the example of a leader who wanted to give an alternate ideology to people who were unfamiliar with it because he thinks it is better than theirs. A la Bush and democracy.

Hrm, so it was actually an insult? Here's a hint, if your statement is so vague and general that it could be refering to anything, it's not really a good insult. I'm going to opt to just call you an idiot, short and to the point.

It was an observation. I see I overestimated your abilities. I'll use short easy words in the future.

 

[Plunkies]

You mean they attack the people they consider responsible for their problems.

It's more than obvious how weak your stance is when the same can be applied to a bear defending its cubs from a human passerby. Aside from serial killers pretty much everyone attacks those they blame for thier problems, whether they be religious fanatics or otherwise. The issue is religion usually causing those problems. Religion isn't responsible for all wars and all violence, just a hell of a lot of it.

But fine, sure, your simplified statement is noted. Feel free to get to your point, I'm bored. This back and forth is stupid, just go straight to whatever your goal is, you're obviously dragging this out so just skip to the punchline. I don't enjoy chatting with you nearly as much as you seem to like chatting with me.

Oh so you see no connection between his pre-1935 and post-1935 speeches and what he says about targeted propaganda?

Again, get to your point. As far as I could tell your quote was irrelevant. I ask you to specify why it's relevent and once again you give me vague garbage. You want to imply that Hitler considered all religion as nothing but propaganda but you have no evidence that concludes that and that quote could be refering to anything. He could just as easily be talking about any public policy.

Try and focus on essentials instead of spamming.

Hitler changed his stance on religion around 1935 when he realised Christianity may pose a problem to Nazism.

My last quote was 6 months before he died. Try again.

Read some more history.

Or how bout you just prove your stance instead of being a dick.

He was a racist. So were a lot of Europeans. The Jews had been trying for a long time to get a separate state due to the rampant racism they were subjected to.

Racism caused by?

True to form, he also hated homosexuals, blacks, Gypsies and whoever did not fit his Aryan mould. An absolute racist who found several like minded individuals to get with his ethnic cleansing.

Ok. I said he wanted to kill all non Aryans. I said Jews were his main target. Again I'm left to wonder what exactly your point is....

Cute, but not accurate.

Very accurate. It's the general accepted definition by both English and Arabic speakers.

That's the Western definition: simplistic and incomplete.

I know what Jihad COULD mean. What it USED to mean. What it ONCE meant. But those are all irrelevant. When a terrorist says a Jihad on America he's not talking about an inward spiritual struggle. How long are you going to continue to blather and say absolutely nothing? What is the purpose of arguing semantics over the word "Jihad". You're the only idiot sitting here trying to convince people that Jihad isn't a Muslim holy war, no one reading these posts is actually agreeing with your ridiculous stance.

Let me use an analogy to make this even clearer for you. When people say "gay" today do they usually mean "happy"? No. They mean homosexual. That's how the word is used now. Sure at one time it meant happy, and it could have been used that way, but it's no longer used in that sense very often and for good reason. If I called you gay right now would you decide I was calling you cheerful fellow?

No it happened because of the British idea of a solution. Same as Iraq (also created by the British) and Pakistan (ditto).

Wow you're just going to keep going with this crap aren't you?

And yes, it is entertaining.

Not anymore. Your stupidity has gone from funny to irritating.

It was not always so cut and dried. There were Jews AND Christians among the Ottomans (only the rulers were Muslim). And that holds true even today. There are Christians, Druze ( the famous terrorist being demanded by the Hezbollah, Samir Kuntar, is a Druze), marxists in Lebanon. There are Israeli Arabs (Muslims) in the IDF.

Wow not everything's so cut and dried huh? Thanks for the news flash. I never said Jesus and Mohammad were leading their armies against each other on horse back. Throw a few more meaningless cliches at me I'm not quite bored enough with you yet.

Do YOU know the cause of the war?

People mindlessly supporting their government due to the need for revenge from a religious attack?

Er, no that was not my hypothetical. I was giving you the example of a leader who wanted to give an alternate ideology to people who were unfamiliar with it because he thinks it is better than theirs. A la Bush and democracy.

No. You confuse sound bites with actual reasons. We never went to war with Iraq because we wanted to free their people. The war was supported because Bush painted Iraq as a country that was an immenent threat to the security of the U.S., ralied by the need for revenge and the war on terror. You remember that whole WMD's thing right? Freeing their people was just a happy spin to put on it, and removing Saddam was a welcomed bonus.

Why Bush himself really wanted the war is only known by him. He obviously wouldn't tell us so it's impossible to know. We can only know why he was supported and what put everything in motion.

It was an observation. I see I overestimated your abilities. I'll use short easy words in the future.

My ability to do what? Decifer your awful, cyptic, unintelligible excuse for an insult? Nothing you say seems to be direct at all. You seem to take the longest route to get to any point. I mean how hard is it to call someone stupid? You really suck at this....

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi Jan,

I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others, but moving on...

What kind, or form, of proof would you accept? What would evidence of "religion causes violence" look like to you? Hypothetically, of course, what would a reasonable argument for this be?

(P.S. Have you ever read "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"?)

Best Wishes,

Seti

Religion cannot cause violence any more than science or evolution can. People who say that religion causes violence, have a vested interest in that statement.

No I haven't read that book, how does it justify your claim that religion causes violence?

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

Jan, if a person is killed for trying to convert people (which I am sure has happened at LEAST once or twice) then they have obeyed a direct instruction within the Bible. To me, that sounds like a cause.

 

[wesmorris]

Jan, if a person is killed for trying to convert people (which I am sure has happened at LEAST once or twice) then they have obeyed a direct instruction within the Bible. To me, that sounds like a cause.

Isn't "obeying a direct instruction" just an excuse?

Did they HAVE to kill the person to survive? If so, why? If not, why not? People kill for all different types of rationalizations, some more valid than others I'm sure dependent upon whom you ask for validation. Regardless, IMO - it's still just a rationalization.

If for instance however, I sensed I was about to be killed by something or someone, and killed to avoid it - I would say it was a very useful rationalization - at least to me.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Religion cannot cause violence any more than science or evolution can. People who say that religion causes violence, have a vested interest in that statement.Jan.

How do you justify your claim, Jan?
My "vested" interest is only that I want the violence to stop!

No I haven't read that book, how does it justify your claim that religion causes violence?Jan.

It does not matter, does it!

Seti

 

[Jan Ardena]

How do you justify your claim, Jan?

No real religion advocates that type of behaviour, they all instruct its adherents- thou shalt not kill.

My "vested" interest is only that I want the violence to stop!

So what makes you think religion is the cause of violence?

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

No real religion advocates that type of behaviour, they all instruct its adherents- thou shalt not kill.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

So what makes you think religion is the cause of violence?

The actions of the followers themselves besides violence incited in scripture.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, if a person is killed for trying to convert people (which I am sure has happened at LEAST once or twice) then they have obeyed a direct instruction within the Bible. To me, that sounds like a cause.

That's like saying; if a scientist is killed for trying to explain the theory of relativity to people, then science is the cause of his death.

Jan.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

No real religion advocates that type of behaviour, they all instruct its adherents- thou shalt not kill.



So what makes you think religion is the cause of violence?

Jan.

What then is the cause of violence, Jan?

Seti

 

[Jan Ardena]

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm



The actions of the followers themselves besides violence incited in scripture.

Its funny how they missed this part, Thou shalt not kill. 20:13
This was one of the commandments given to Moses to instruct the people. That's what religion is. I fail to see how any practioner of this particular religion could contradict this command, while remaining true to his religion.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What then is the cause of violence, Jan?

Seti

In a society where greed, lust, envy and ignorance is prevelant, you are bound to encounter violence, offensly and defensively. I would say violence is a symtom of this.

Jan.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

In a society where greed, lust, envy and ignorance is prevelant, you are bound to encounter violence, offensly and defensively. I would say violence is a symtom of this.

Jan.

Can you prove this? Do you have any examples, any evidence?

 

[KennyJC]

That's like saying; if a scientist is killed for trying to explain the theory of relativity to people, then science is the cause of his death.

I don't know about being a cause, but it would certainly mean it is an motivator to violence. Although violence isn't synonymous with science as it is with religion.

Its funny how they missed this part, Thou shalt not kill. 20:13
This was one of the commandments given to Moses to instruct the people. That's what religion is. I fail to see how any practioner of this particular religion could contradict this command, while remaining true to his religion.

They don't need to contradict the command. If the Bible is bona-fide like you say, then you can kill where it allows you to kill, so long as you don't kill for any other reasons. Either thou shall not kill is paramount, and ignore other things the Bible says to the contrary... which makes much of the Bible redundant. Or thou shall not kill, except for situations like the Bible presents.

 

[Plunkies]

In a society where greed, lust, envy and ignorance is prevelant, you are bound to encounter violence, offensly and defensively. I would say violence is a symtom of this.

Jan.

You can't just say people are jerks. There's always a reason or cause behind our actions. People in poverty don't rob each other because humans are inherently evil. Muslims don't want to kill us all out of sheer coincidence. Priests don't molest children because a certain percentage of people are pedophiles. Serial killers don't go on killing sprees because they're bored and need something to do. It's a total copout to say that people are just mean and this stuff just randomly occurs.

 

[lightgigantic]

Plunkies

You can't just say people are jerks. There's always a reason or cause behind our actions

.

I guess there is always the option of a person pretending to be a jerk and being very good at it, but generally the case is that if one acts like a jerk its because they are a jerk

People in poverty don't rob each other because humans are inherently evil.

I guess it depends on how you define poverty, which requires an analysis of perceived need distinct from required need

Muslims don't want to kill us all out of sheer coincidence.

I guess what initiated the coincidence was the direct deployment of american forces in their country for manipulating the distribution of their national resources, namely oil.
One could argue that the fact that they happen to be muslim is a coincidence

Priests don't molest children because a certain percentage of people are pedophiles

.
You suggest they get trained up in such practices by their religious institutions?
What does that say about doctors who perform abortions then?
(Thanks for the link sam
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=35945

“ In his chapter on the subject, Crutcher refers to documented accounts of 34 sexually abusive abortion doctors, about one-third of the cases that his organization, Life Dynamics of Denton, Texas, has on file.

But Crutcher believes he is in possession of just a tiny fraction of instances, noting studies indicate only about 15 percent of rapes are reported. Moreover, in the case of abortion-related rape, women have even more reason to remain silent. To speak up, they would have to reveal they are sexually active, they became pregnant and they had an abortion, Crutcher notes.

Serial killers don't go on killing sprees because they're bored and need something to do

On the contrary analysing the perceived "needs" of such misanthropic persons is a popular subject of psychological investigation.

It's a total copout to say that people are just mean and this stuff just randomly occurs.

Who said randomly?
If a person is a jerk, they act like a jerk, regardless of their stance on the validity of theism.
Saying religion causes violence is a random cop out.