Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement

[Plunkies]

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

I never said anything about pretending, there's just a REASON they're jerks.

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

Ugh. You just said nothing. My point is, poor areas have a higher crime rate than rich areas right? If you take 1000 poor people and 1000 rich people do you think the ratio of criminals would be the same? No. Something causes them to do what they do.

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

Heh, yeah. The oil. That's it. Couldn't possibly be the thousand and something years of bloody war between the two groups. The Muslims still remember the Crusades like it was yesterday, and the Christians weren't attacking the Muslims because they wanted oil to drive their ancient sand buggies.....

You suggest they get trained up in such practices by their religious institutions?

I say in that environment they're more likey to be pedos. With the restrictions placed on them they're more likely to become pedos. Furthermore, in that environment, it's 10 times easier to be a pedo. And when they're caught the entire thing is likely to be hidden and covered up.

What does that say about doctors who perform abortions then?
(Thanks for the link sam
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=35945

Your link is dead but I tracked it down for you. The article was about one sexually abusive doctor and one pro-life advocate accusing all abortion doctors of being abusive to patients. It's not as though he has a reason to lie or be biased....Ignoring the validity of your article, if abortion doctors are more likely to molest patience than other types of doctors then you'd only be proving my point that these things aren't random at all.

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

Correct. The reason they do these things is because they likely have psychological problems. That was my point. It's possible to profile serial killers. Why? Because it isn't random. Specific types of people are the ones likely to do these things.

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.

How? How is it a copout when religion DOES INFACT CAUSE THE VIOLENCE. Religion greatly facilitated the holocaust. Religion was the motive behind the crusades, the witch-trials, pagans were massacred, the inquisition, the battles between catholics and protestants, the bible was used to justify slavery, the slaughtering of natives, etc etc. And this is just Christianity....

Are these massive, organized acts of violence all random? Is it coincidence that they're all heavily based in religious biases? Do you think these same actions could have been accomplished without the aid of religion? If you say yes, you're lying through your teeth.

 

[lightgigantic]

Plunkies

How? How is it a copout when religion DOES INFACT CAUSE THE VIOLENCE.

Why? ON the stregth of your capslock?

Religion greatly facilitated the holocaust.

It was given greater facillitation by notions of race superiority

Religion was the motive behind the crusades, the witch-trials, pagans were massacred, the inquisition, the battles between catholics and protestants, the bible was used to justify slavery, the slaughtering of natives, etc etc. And this is just Christianity....

If they also all had red hair would red hair also be a cause of violence?

Are these massive, organized acts of violence all random?

No - these acts of violence are organised by persons who utilise the symbols of authority in society - so in religious society you see thatreligion is sometimes times utilised, in societies of different racial demographics, race is sometimes utilised etc etc

Is it coincidence that they're all heavily based in religious biases?

not if its also not a coincidence that the societies they appear in are religious, just as racial violence is not a coincidence in areas that have differing racial demographics, etc etc

Do you think these same actions could have been accomplished without the aid of religion?

Yes - in fact there are stacks of incidents in history where persons have achieved the same goals of "religious crusades" (namely the dominating or mobilizing of large forces in the attempt to dominate, some party considered foreign or an enemy to shared values etc)

If you say yes, you're lying through your teeth.

If you can't see this its because you cannot distinguish between political agendas that tend to coat symbols of authority, religion being one of them - as such your theories for a more peaceful world (if you have any) are all fantastic because you cannot perceive the actual cause of violence in this world - human nature

 

[Plunkies]

Why? ON the stregth of your capslock?

It's just easier than clicking the italics button you douche.

It was given greater facillitation by notions of race superiority

Race superiority facilitated by religious differences.

If they also all had red hair would red hair also be a cause of violence?

If red headed people were killing others in the name of their red hair then yes...I suppose it would.

No - these acts of violence are organised by persons who utilise the symbols of authority in society - so in religious society you see thatreligion is sometimes times utilised, in societies of different racial demographics, race is sometimes utilised etc etc

Yes, religion is utilized in the name of religion. It's not like they're simply using religion to kill off random people who happen to belong to an opposing religious group. They're killing other religious groups BECAUSE of their religion.

not if its also not a coincidence that the societies they appear in are religious, just as racial violence is not a coincidence in areas that have differing racial demographics, etc etc

Religion and racism are causes of violence.

Yes - in fact there are stacks of incidents in history where persons have achieved the same goals of "religious crusades" (namely the dominating or mobilizing of large forces in the attempt to dominate, some party considered foreign or an enemy to shared values etc)

I didn't say goals. I know it's possible to kill a bunch of people without religion, it's just extremely difficult and takes away a reason to do so.

You're gonna tell me the inquisition could be done without religion? Who would they be targeting? Who would be funding it? The Pope approved it and you're still going to tell me religion had nothing to do with it? I suppose you'd say religious wars would have taken place without religion? That witch trials would taken place without superstions?

If you can't see this its because you cannot distinguish between political agendas that tend to coat symbols of authority, religion being one of them - as such your theories for a more peaceful world (if you have any) are all fantastic because you cannot perceive the actual cause of violence in this world - human nature

Yes violence is in human nature. And religious differences are a major reason that violence shows itself. Religion gives people an unnecessary reason to persecute each other that can never be solved and opposing sides that can never be proven.

Is it really suprising? Two sides stake everything in their faith, claim it to be the absolute truth but have no way to prove it. The other side challenges their faith and there's no way to settle the debate unless one side is eradicated.

Human nature may be the spark but religion feeds the flames almost every time.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

It's just easier than clicking the italics button you douche.



Race superiority facilitated by religious differences.



If red headed people were killing others in the name of their red hair then yes...I suppose it would.



Yes, religion is utilized in the name of religion. It's not like they're simply using religion to kill off random people who happen to belong to an opposing religious group. They're killing other religious groups BECAUSE of their religion.



Religion and racism are causes of violence.



I didn't say goals. I know it's possible to kill a bunch of people without religion, it's just extremely difficult and takes away a reason to do so.

You're gonna tell me the inquisition could be done without religion? Who would they be targeting? Who would be funding it? The Pope approved it and you're still going to tell me religion had nothing to do with it? I suppose you'd say religious wars would have taken place without religion? That witch trials would taken place without superstions?



Yes violence is in human nature. And religious differences are a major reason that violence shows itself. Religion gives people an unnecessary reason to persecute each other that can never be solved and opposing sides that can never be proven.

Is it really suprising? Two sides stake everything in their faith, claim it to be the absolute truth but have no way to prove it. The other side challenges their faith and there's no way to settle the debate unless one side is eradicated.

Human nature may be the spark but religion feeds the flames almost every time.

AMEN! Plunkies!

Perhaps "lightgigantic" has a purely religious reason for holding his/her view. If that is the case then it is only a matter of faith, or believing what you want in spite of any or all evidence or even history itself. We all can do this with one topic or another. You can show these people example after example but it will not matter in the least. Good try though!

Anyway, you have my respect!

SetiAlpha6

 

[lightgigantic]

Religion and racism are causes of violence.

so is economic development, so is gender, so is justice, so is freedom etc etc - the list just keeps getting bigger and bigger

I didn't say goals. I know it's possible to kill a bunch of people without religion, it's just extremely difficult and takes away a reason to do so.

Stalin was remarkable in the number of people he killed

You're gonna tell me the inquisition could be done without religion? Who would they be targeting? Who would be funding it? The Pope approved it and you're still going to tell me religion had nothing to do with it? I suppose you'd say religious wars would have taken place without religion? That witch trials would taken place without superstions?

Stalin managed to do the same in the absence of religion - in fact in terms of violence you could ague that he was more results orientated than the catholic church

Yes violence is in human nature. And religious differences are a major reason that violence shows itself. Religion gives people an unnecessary reason to persecute each other that can never be solved and opposing sides that can never be proven.

So you can fit so many symbols of authority in this catagory - economic development, race, gender, fredom, justice etc - should these causes of vilence also be turfed out along with religion? Is that your solution for world peace?

Is it really suprising? Two sides stake everything in their faith, claim it to be the absolute truth but have no way to prove it.

So the question is whether this notion of perceiving one's values as the absolute is uniquely intrinsic to religion or does it crop up wherever you find the existence of values?

The other side challenges their faith and there's no way to settle the debate unless one side is eradicated.

same dynamic exists in all natures of conflicts that innvolve value systems

Human nature may be the spark but religion feeds the flames almost every time.

almost every time?
Obviously we are not reading the same history books
Here are several catergroy links for causes of war on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

4.1 Historical theories
4.2 Psychological theories
4.3 Anthropological theories
4.4 Sociological theories
4.5 Malthusian theories
4.6 Evolutionary psychology theories
4.7 Information theories
4.8 Economic theories
4.9 Marxist theories
4.10 Political science theories

maybe you should add Religious theories on 4.11 if you feel sufficiently honoured and academically endowed to submit articles to wikipedia

 

[lightgigantic]

AMEN! Plunkies!

Perhaps "lightgigantic" has a purely religious reason for holding his/her view. If that is the case then it is only a matter of faith, or believing what you want in spite of any or all evidence or even history itself. We all can do this with one topic or another. You can show these people example after example but it will not matter in the least. Good try though!

Anyway, you have my respect!

SetiAlpha6

Obviously you have the same value system as Plunkies

The value system seems to be based on a lack of familiarity with historical thought

As such, are Plunkies infact a cause of violence?

 

[Plunkies]

so is economic development, so is gender, so is justice, so is freedom etc etc - the list just keeps getting bigger and bigger

Yeah those gender wars are a pain.

Your only decent one is freedom. And replace justice with self-preservation.

Whatever, again I never said religion was the cause of every single war. It is however a major cause of war, one that could be avoided if not for the ignorance it breeds.

Stalin was remarkable in the number of people he killed

Sure. But Stalin wasn't killing people in the name of atheism anymore than non-religious wars are fought in the name of atheism. He wanted power and he didn't want to share that power with any churches or religions. If you wanted to you could argue that religion was again the cause of the deaths of those people, giving another path to persecute them. More accurately you could argue that their deaths were in the name of Stalin's new religion, in which he was the god, like the Pharoahs ruling over egypt who were considered gods themselves.

Stalin managed to do the same in the absence of religion - in fact in terms of violence you could ague that he was more results orientated than the catholic church

Sure. But his goal was to become the new god himself. Stalin's motivation was total power, not the spread of atheists.

"Final proof that Stalin was not acting on atheistic principles could be seen during the opening salvos of the Barbarossa campaign during World War II. Things were not going well for the Russian armies at that point and Stalin, facing a possible revolution on the home front was searching for ways to amass a broad base of support for the war effort. To achieve this, he reinstated the Orthodox Church hierarchy to serve 'Mother Russia.' This shows that Stalin was by no means averse to promoting religion if it suited his purposes to do so. Clearly, Stalin's tyranny was based on the totalitarian premises that he learned from religion: Unquestioning obedience, reverence for a deity-figure (in human form) as well as a pie-in-the-sky utopian vision. His government never tolerated freedom of thought. Stalin's policies were the antithesis of atheist philosophy."

So you can fit so many symbols of authority in this catagory - economic development, race, gender, fredom, justice etc - should these causes of vilence also be turfed out along with religion? Is that your solution for world peace?

My solution for world peace? Did I ever say I had a solution for world peace? I only think religion is unnecessary, outdated, and prone to spreading violence. We'll never eliminate violence and ignorance, but we can eliminate a reason for it.

So the question is whether this notion of perceiving one's values as the absolute is uniquely intrinsic to religion or does it crop up wherever you find the existence of values?

Unique to religion. Values not pinned on an unprovable super being can be discussed rationally, without both sides constantly screaming "But MY god says THIS, you must be wrong! If MY god is wrong then my safe little bubble colapses and EVERYTHING could be wrong! SCARY!"

Much like our discusions here. You will never admit you've been proven wrong no matter how much proof I dump on your head because you're defending your view in the name of your god.

Or take abortion for example. The reasonable people can sit down and discuss exactly when a fetus becomes a human being while the religious resort to firebombing and terrorizing abortion clinics. They ignore the fact that abortion is a necessity and without it you have people dying from back alley coathangers. They are unwilling to compromise or discuss it like normal, intelligent people.

same dynamic exists in all natures of conflicts that innvolve value systems

Without religion, it's usually open to negotiation and compromise.

almost every time?
Obviously we are not reading the same history books
Here are several catergroy links for causes of war on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

4.1 Historical theories
4.2 Psychological theories
4.3 Anthropological theories
4.4 Sociological theories
4.5 Malthusian theories
4.6 Evolutionary psychology theories
4.7 Information theories
4.8 Economic theories
4.9 Marxist theories
4.10 Political science theories

maybe you should add Religious theories on 4.11 if you feel sufficiently honoured and academically endowed to submit articles to wikipedia

Religion is already listed as a cause of war. Those are really just theories on why humans themselves are prone to war. The spark.

If you read your link you'd see religion falls into groups psychological and anthropological. This is their listing for types of war....

Extortionate
Aggressive
Colonial
National liberation
Religious
Dynastic
Trade
Revolutionary

Good try though....

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Here is one more very clear and profound example… …why do I even try?
In the words of Jesus… "I have not come to bring peace"...

Matthew 10: 34-36

34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

 

[lightgigantic]

Here is one more very clear and profound example… …why do I even try?
In the words of Jesus… "I have not come to bring peace"...

Matthew 10: 34-36

34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

Your attempts to quote scripture for a sound understanding are just like someone entering a pharmacy to take whatever pills they fancy to make themselves healthy -

In other words its not sufficient to say "this medicine is bogus. I got it from the pharmacy" just like "this system of knowledge is bogus. I quoted it from the scripture" -

If you came to introduce a value system that innvolves not having sex with other people's wives etc ec in a society that was socialised around having sex with other people's wives etc etc, don't you think there would be a bit of friction?
Do you think a saintly person comes to this world just for the sake of being a human punching bag?

 

[lightgigantic]

Plunkies

Whatever, again I never said religion was the cause of every single war.

Yes you did - on several occasions

....And religious differences are a major reason that violence shows itself.
.....Human nature may be the spark but religion feeds the flames almost every time.

As for the rest of it -

I think you should try and focus on the issues raised rather then sliding into emmotive appeals saturated with abusive terms - if you want to actually test the logical premises of ideas you have to refrain from reducing the environment to a battle of wills (which is a totally useless endeavour on the net) - if you don't, you will find that nobody will respond to your posts in a serious manner, except a person possessed of similar non- serious sentiments.

 

[Plunkies]

Yes you did - on several occasions

No I didn't. Did you read what you quoted?

....And religious differences are a major reason that violence shows itself.
.....Human nature may be the spark but religion feeds the flames almost every time.

As for the rest of it -

I think you should try and focus on the issues raised rather then sliding into emmotive appeals saturated with abusive terms - if you want to actually test the logical premises of ideas you have to refrain from reducing the environment to a battle of wills (which is a totally useless endeavour on the net) - if you don't, you will find that nobody will respond to your posts in a serious manner, except a person possessed of similar non- serious sentiments.

I find it odd that you would decide my posts are too abusive after a post that didn't insult you at all. I hope that's really the cause and not just a convenient excuse for the weakness of your position.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Your attempts to quote scripture for a sound understanding are just like someone entering a pharmacy to take whatever pills they fancy to make themselves healthy -

I guess I am looking at it more along the lines of simply reading the exact prescription that the doctor (in this case Jesus) actually gave his patients to see if it is a prescription for peace or a prescription for violence. I see it as a prescription for violence, plain and simple.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

If you came to introduce a value system that innvolves not having sex with other people's wives etc ec in a society that was socialised around having sex with other people's wives etc etc, don't you think there would be a bit of friction?

Now you’ve got it! A value system (or religion) that runs counter to the current society can indeed cause friction (or violence) just like you are saying here. We are in agreement!

It's time to go home...

 

[lightgigantic]

Now you’ve got it! A value system (or religion) that runs counter to the current society can indeed cause friction (or violence) just like you are saying here. We are in agreement!

It's time to go home...

What is a society without value systems?
What is a value system withhout a symbol of authority?
What is a symbol of authority without a person to wield it?
What is organised violence without a person to wield the symbols of authority?

 

[(Q)]

Obviously we are not reading the same history books
Here are several catergroy links for causes of war on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

4.1 Historical theories
4.2 Psychological theories
4.3 Anthropological theories
4.4 Sociological theories
4.5 Malthusian theories
4.6 Evolutionary psychology theories
4.7 Information theories
4.8 Economic theories
4.9 Marxist theories
4.10 Political science theories

maybe you should add Religious theories on 4.11 if you feel sufficiently honoured and academically endowed to submit articles to wikipedia

LG, from the wikipedia link YOU provided:

"Wars are usually a series of military campaigns between two opposing sides involving a dispute over, amongst others issues, sovereignty, territory, resources, religion, or ideology."

Why did you conveniently leave that out?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, from the wikipedia link YOU provided:

"Wars are usually a series of military campaigns between two opposing sides involving a dispute over, amongst others issues, sovereignty, territory, resources, religion, or ideology."

Why did you conveniently leave that out?

And exactly how does that contradict to what I established in the opening post?