Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[gmilam]

"No true physics professor is without a suitable degree in the physics field."

Is that a fallacy?

I expect better than a strawman argument from you.

So tell me which of these are "true" religious leaders? The Pope? Osama Bin Ladan? Billy Graham? Fred Phelps? The Dali Lama? Martin Luther? Mohammed? The Apostle Paul? The tribal shaman? The Jehovah's Witness who runs the local donut shop? Jimmy Swaggart?

Do they require a degree? Who is authorised to grant it? The local community college? Harvard? Oral Roberts University?

Who establishes the standards? Are there any standards?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Mundane good and bad have nothing directly to do with religion.

So if Jesus say love thy neighbour and you go by his wishes, isn't that religiously motivated.

I think you are trolling wynn.

Oh and Wynn killing people by fire is anything but mundane.

Yes definitely trolling.

 

[wynn]

No thanks - it is rather a key issue in this thread, given that one of the arguments is along the lines that religious beliefs no more motivate violence than do "atheist beliefs". So it is quite key that the person who made this claim at least specify what those "atheist beliefs" are (as in those beliefs they think all atheists have that make them an atheist).

Unless we specify something that all who are rightfully to be considered atheists have in common, it is impossible to talk about atheism and atheists to begin with - there might as well be none.

If you insist, as you have, that there is nothing that all those who consider themselves atheists have in common, then the term "atheist" is void, without any power to denote anything, and cannot and should not be used as an identifier.

IOW, if we wish to talk about atheists, we have to specify what they believe and do that makes them different from those who are not atheists.

If a person identifies themselves as an atheist, it is legitimate to request from them that they state what being an atheist means in terms of belief and practice.

Using a term to identify oneself, whereby that term does not denote anything, is void.

 

[wynn]

Who establishes the standards? Are there any standards?

It is characteristic that all organized religions have standards of qualification.


For example, in order for a person to be a Catholic, the Catholic Church has a set of standards that the person needs to comply with. If they fail to comply with them, that person is not a Catholic.

 

[spidergoat]

Unless we specify something that all who are rightfully to be considered atheists have in common, it is impossible to talk about atheism and atheists to begin with - there might as well be none.

If you insist, as you have, that there is nothing that all those who consider themselves atheists have in common, then the term "atheist" is void, without any power to denote anything, and cannot and should not be used as an identifier.

IOW, if we wish to talk about atheists, we have to specify what they believe and do that makes them different from those who are not atheists.

If a person identifies themselves as an atheist, it is legitimate to request from them that they state what being an atheist means in terms of belief and practice.

Using a term to identify oneself, whereby that term does not denote anything, is void.

The minimum requirement is that they lack a belief in God.

 

[spidergoat]

Not everything that one might read in a book of scripture or hear at church or temple has directly to do with religion.

Most if not all belief systems, theistic or non-theistic, also contain clauses on practical issues of self-preservation: from washing one's hands before eating to keeping a distance from suspicious people to driving out enemies.


Nobody is free from intruders of one kind or another, and everyone has to deal with them somehow, and in fact deals with them somehow.

The US sends its army around the globe to kill those who it considers to be a threat, children at school isolate or bully a classmate who doesn't fit in, your landlord evicts you if you don't pay the rent, you lose your job if you don't do your job properly, a gang of thugs beats you up if you don't pay them respect, a husband divorces a cheating wife, at an online forum, you put on ignore those whom you can't stand, people living in simple circumstances throw stones at intruders, parents disown their lazy children, the state locks up criminals ...-
everyone is subject to people who are intruders, pose a threat, refuse to cooperate, are a waste of one's time and resources, or are in any other way a pain in the neck, and everyone has to deal with them.


It is a strange idea that anyone, religious or not, should tolerate those who are intruders, pose a threat, refuse to cooperate, are a waste of time and resources, or are in any other way a pain in the neck.

I'm not talking about such practical matters. I'm talking about cases of violence that are specifically motivated by religious teachings and beliefs that would not have otherwise happened.

 

[Sarkus]

Unless we specify something that all who are rightfully to be considered atheists have in common, it is impossible to talk about atheism and atheists to begin with - there might as well be none.

As spidergoat has said, the only thing they have in common is a lack of a particular belief.

If you insist, as you have, that there is nothing that all those who consider themselves atheists have in common....

I have made no such insistence. Not only do you try to "fix" my posts and insert sentences I didn't write, you now try to claim I have insisted that which I have not.
:shrug:

IOW, if we wish to talk about atheists, we have to specify what they believe and do that makes them different from those who are not atheists.

Why should that which unites them be a belief?

If a person identifies themselves as an atheist, it is legitimate to request from them that they state what being an atheist means in terms of belief and practice.

Why? It is a reactionary label in the face of theism. It requires nothing more than having no belief in the existence of God. It doesn't even need a belief in the non-existence of God.

Using a term to identify oneself, whereby that term does not denote anything, is void.

But it does denote something... it denotes the absence of a specific belief that all theists have.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Mary was carrying the seed of Yashua. The Roman Catholic church seeked to kill her. Father Jude and Mother Marry prevented that by taking Rome on a wild goose chase.

Just curious: where does this come from? Some kind of code from the Church of God or some group like that?

You are aware, I'm sure, that the term Katholikos originally referred to general Christianity (esp excluding heretics), and did not have its present (implied) meaning until the Protestant Reformation more than a millenium later.

The titles "Mother" and "Father" - in my mind these don't exist in Christianity in the Roman era. Or do you mean Holy Roman Empire? And by Rome, did you mean the Vatican? Or are you saying Nero was after her? If so: what the-?

I'm just wondering about this, it seems bizarre. usually Catholics are on the chopping block for venerating Mary. There's 2000 years of art dedicated to Mary and a also number of societies, orders and cloisters named after Mary.

When I hear a person say "Yashua" alarms go off in my brain. Was that name ever recorded in Hebrew? I doubt it. I think it only appears as "Iesous".

There seems to be some underlying cynical/skeptical notion of history in what you wrote. If so, why?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Simple:

There is all that talk about how religion motivates people to be violent and abusive.

Show that the violence is indeed religiously motivated - and not perhaps politically, economically, a mistake etc.

The Crusades.

 

[wynn]

As spidergoat has said, the only thing they have in common is a lack of a particular belief.

Those who consider themselves atheists and who hold "I believe God does not exist" are not in your group of atheists then.

I have made no such insistence. Not only do you try to "fix" my posts and insert sentences I didn't write, you now try to claim I have insisted that which I have not.

You have continued to argue the point that there are many kinds of "atheists" and then wanted to know from LG what it is that all these "atheists" have in common.

Why should that which unites them be a belief?

We non-Aboriginals feel awfully united, don't we?

Why? It is a reactionary label in the face of theism. It requires nothing more than having no belief in the existence of God. It doesn't even need a belief in the non-existence of God.

In your exchange with LG, you two have noted that there are many kinds of atheists, and that they do not actually have anything in common.

But it does denote something... it denotes the absence of a specific belief that all theists have.

Then the term "atheist" only makes sense as an adjective, but not as a noun.

 

[wynn]

I'm not talking about such practical matters. I'm talking about cases of violence that are specifically motivated by religious teachings and beliefs that would not have otherwise happened.

You people seem to think that when those who are members of a religion commit some act of violence, they do so out of sheer boredom or viciousness, while simultaneously being politically and economically secure.

 

[spidergoat]

Lets limit our discussion to religious violence, since violence can be done for any number of reasons, even when one is politically and economically secure.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Again, I refer you to my own personal case where I was run out of town for explicitly religious reasons.

 

[kx000]

Arioch, you are a coward. If I was run out of town for such reasons I would walk into the mob and take as many heathens with me as I could.

 

[spidergoat]

You would rather die than just leave town? This happened to talk radio host called Randi Rhodes. She was kicked out of some southern state by the KKK because she is a Jew.

 

[Sarkus]

Those who consider themselves atheists and who hold "I believe God does not exist" are not in your group of atheists then.

Yes they are... if you believe that Mr.X wears a white hat then you most certainly are part of the group that does not believe Mr.X wears a yellow hat.
Those who believe God does not exist are a subset of those who do not hold the belief that God exists.

You have continued to argue the point that there are many kinds of "atheists" and then wanted to know from LG what it is that all these "atheists" have in common.

LG seems to think there is an atheist "belief" - yet is utterly unable to pin down any one "belief" that underpins all atheists.
I argue that any belief an atheist holds is not actually due to them being an atheist but due to whatever other philosophy they hold, whether it be Humanism, Naturalism, Apathism etc. I maintain that the only thing all atheists have in common is their singular rejection of belief in God.

We non-Aboriginals feel awfully united, don't we?

If Aboriginals were the majority and their beliefs pervaded your society, perhaps the analogy would fit better.

In your exchange with LG, you two have noted that there are many kinds of atheists, and that they do not actually have anything in common.

Yes they do - that they do not hold a belief in God.
Then the term "atheist" only makes sense as an adjective, but not as a noun.[/QUOTE]Strictly it is an adjectival noun. Much like referring to people as "the rich", or "the poor".

 

[Arioch]

@Knowledge --

And that would be why I would still be alive and you would be dead. You may call it cowardice but I call it not being willing to die for no reason.

 

[lightgigantic]

Why would it be relevant to core atheism, it has no need for ontology.

Then it has no need 9or even capacity) to establish a stance in regards to any aspects of existence (which would include theism)
IOW one cannot use atheist or any of its derivatives as a noun in philosophical discourse
:shrug:

No you err because you believe core atheism needs belief. It doesn't.

reading the wiki link on belief, what do you think is the distinction between "believe- in" and "believe-that"

Bingo, By Jove I think he's got it.

then I guess that leaves you with the problem of explaining why you have so much to say in regards to atheism
:shrug:

You may wish to use ignorant, I much prefer unaware/without (knowledge of). but either way that is atheisms core position (if you like ignorant/unaware of a god/god, they don't need belief for that. Belief doesn't come into the equation.

Perhaps there is a case for using that to define implicit atheism (which, btw, is IMHO just a political ploy to bolster numbers ... kind of like saying there wasn't a majority english favour to have a british presence in Ireland during the seventies since infants and the like, due to being unaware, didn't put a strong favour on the move)

Or people who have never come across religion, and I'm not trying to equate it, being unaware/without (knowledge of), is the core position.

more Implicit atheism

Well if you believe that the lack of any belief equates to shitting your pants, then you would be correct.

If you believe that one must call upon new born babies to establish the high points of a philosophical approach to a subject, you already do

Because there is no need for a distinction. Belief doesn't come into the equation. You keep erring in this way.

more Hogwash.

Belief certainly does come into the picture when distinguishing between implicit and explicit atheism

No! Of course not, no more than I would acknowledge unicorns, fairies, elves, etc...

Too late.
Since you used them in a noun in a sentence, you are already bringing issues of belief into the discussion.

IOW regardless of your ideas about atheism being implicit, we certainly don't find those characteristics in your person (because you are an explicit atheist ... as well as explicitly disbelieving in unicorns and such)

 

[lightgigantic]

So if Jesus say love thy neighbour and you go by his wishes, isn't that religiously motivated.

If an atheist can be motivated to do similar acts, its completely spurious to question whether a theist can

 

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

More evasion. You already know damn well what I'm talking about, stop evading and deliberately obfuscating.

On the contrary you are simply having a hissy fit because I am pulling you up on your game of loaded questions
:shrug: