Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Bells]

That also; in my opinion, such a slant would certainly extend to practices for which there are even peripherally unscriptural reactionary sentiments in opposition to the public good.

Not to mention your former President apparently attacking another country because God told him to do so. I mean at least one General went about saying how the war was actually a war against Satan. One could also cite that as violence that is religiously motivated.

I would also say that the vapid hatred and obsession of other religions, to the point where one becomes obsessed about their opening a place of worship, say a Mosque, and the violent messages that comes from those protests is also religiously motivated. Wouldn't you agree GeoffP?

How about the Christian Serbs who went on a massacre against Muslim Albanians and Bosnians? I would say that was also religiously motivated. Even in America, in your very backyard, so to speak GeoffP, there are Muslims who are too afraid of admitting they are Muslims, because they fear religious persecution in the US.

Religiously motivated violence takes many forms. Westboro Baptist Church's violent words against homosexuals is another such form of violence.

 

[Aqueous Id]

there may be no single belief that all atheists have in common, other than the qualifier "lack of belief in God"

More commonly: disbelief that there is a God.

The deist idea that God creates the Universe and everything in it, sets it into motion and then has nothing further to do with it, ever, is an idea compatible with polytheism or a system of demigods, but not with God (capital G). God, however, is inextricably bound to everything there is. He cannot not care about it, He cannot let it be. He is always involved.

Maybe to you, but not to a Deist, who cites God, capital G, Creator (usu. capital C), who does not interfere with the laws of Nature (usu. capital N).

Further, atheism is a reactionary stance to theism, defined by theism, so atheism is only meaningful in relation to theism, while not on its own.

Or, in common use, atheism can simply mean "non-theist". From an atheist's point of view, modern theism seems a reactionary stance to a wide spectrum of modern ideas.

I conted that theism and atheism are primarily ethical and practical stances:
Theism is a favorable inclination toward God, atheism is an unfavorable inclination toward God.

Or atheism is merely an unfavorable inclination toward theism, leaving God moot, and having no bearing on ethics whatsoever.

Given the common definitions of God (The Creator, Maintainer and Controller of everything, The First Cause, the Summum Bonum) and the common definitions of individual living entities such as humans (fully dependent on God), it would be illogical to take an ontological stance on theism or atheism (such as "I believe / I lack the belief that God exists"). Given the common definitions of God and ourselves, it is pointless to speculate about whether God exists or not and whether we believe one or the other, as such speculation does not apply.

I parse this as: Given A and B, C would be illogical and D is pointless.

Not sure what you mean by "common" in the phrase common definitions of individual living entities such as humans (fully dependent on God)?

If "common" means "common to both theists and atheists" then B would be false, leaving C and D are moot.

If "common" means "common among theists" and C and D only apply to theists, then are you simply explaining to a non-theist why this line of inquiry is wasted on a theist?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Aqueous Id]

A collection of spiritual or theistic beliefs organized under a reasonable auspice of commonality or frequency.

And this would be compatible with the common definition of the Crusades as religious wars. And it is compatible with every other hostility that comes to mind that took root because of a difference in religious ideology, regardless of all the ethnic, cultural and economic factors these folks want to use, to excuse faith-based violence.

 

[kx000]

Sir Thomas Moore was executed for his faith in God.

 

[chimpkin]

And this would be compatible with the common definition of the Crusades as religious wars. And it is compatible with every other hostility that comes to mind that took root because of a difference in religious ideology, regardless of all the ethnic, cultural and economic factors these folks want to use, to excuse faith-based violence.

Basically, having considered...I think the religious reasons are primary...this is why I think it to be so:
Those of us who operate in some sort of ethical framework that restrains us are in the large majority, in all societies.
So...it's not that large numbers of people don't want to take other people's stuff/land/wives/daughters, that's usually a desire rolling around in a number of good people, just repressed.

Religion, as separate from spirituality... I tend to define part of that as having a power structure. A religion will have a human who is considered to be an authority, to whom others answer to. Not its' only feature, but the problem is that large numbers are told what they are good people for doing

So if they are told leveling a village, taking the virgin daughters to wife and killing everyone else makes them good people by the leader, they will.
They need permission to commit violence and still feel righteous and proper.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Sir Thomas Moore was executed for his faith in God.

You are referring to the Catholic saint and martyr, Sir Thomas More, who disapproved of Henry VIII's schism from the Church. He refused to acknowledge Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine and did not show up for Anne Boleyn's coronation. This lead to some trumped up charges for which he was executed.

It is a good example of how the Protestants in power were willing to murder a human being to silence him from the mere religious opinion. In this case, the issue was whether any man other than the pope has been ordained by God to interpret laws of the Church.

Also noteworthy is that they were burning Catholics at the stake in England at this time, while the Catholic Spaniards were busily annihilating indigenous Americans for being pagan. And of course there was the Inquisition which was wholesale slaughter by the Catholics for the mere opinion that the accused was at variance with Holy Law. Then of course there witch hunts by the Protestants. In all of these circumstances, torture, drowning and burning at the stake were common.

All in the name of God.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Religion, as separate from spirituality... I tend to define part of that as having a power structure. A religion will have a human who is considered to be an authority, to whom others answer to. Not its' only feature, but the problem is that large numbers are told what they are good people for doing

So if they are told leveling a village, taking the virgin daughters to wife and killing everyone else makes them good people by the leader, they will.
They need permission to commit violence and still feel righteous and proper.

This is certainly true in the notable episodes of history where violence was promoted or tolerated by the Church leaders.

But don't you think - like Nazism - that it takes a groundswell of support, a pre-existing hatred among the common folk - for these violent episodes to succeed? Then all the leader has to do is wind the people up - as Hitler understood and exploited. He is a good example, too, because he studied antisemitism by paying close attention to the beer hall debates. The Jews became the scapegoats for everything wrong with the economic and military disasters in Germany. But at the root of this, was their religion. That was the central difference, and the underlying rationale for the Holocaust.

 

[wynn]

Are you serious? What if those beliefs call for violence against non-believers?

Then they are neither spiritual nor theistic,
but address issues of mundane survival.

Everyone has to deal with issues of mundane survival.

 

[wynn]

Or for those who commit violence against those who perform services they disagree religiously? The anti-abortion movement violence (think bombings and murders) are religiously motivated. Eric Rudolph and James Kopp spring to mind for being motivated by their Christian beliefs when committing their crimes.

Or organisations such as National Liberation Front of Tripura, who commit terrorist acts which are motivated by their religious beliefs. Even Anders Breivik, who bombed the capital and then went on his shooting rampage because he felt Muslims were destroying the Christian ideal of Norway. Then of course there is the LRA, who apparently pray and wear rosary beads when 'going into battle'.

Not to mention your former President apparently attacking another country because God told him to do so. I mean at least one General went about saying how the war was actually a war against Satan. One could also cite that as violence that is religiously motivated.

I would also say that the vapid hatred and obsession of other religions, to the point where one becomes obsessed about their opening a place of worship, say a Mosque, and the violent messages that comes from those protests is also religiously motivated. Wouldn't you agree GeoffP?

How about the Christian Serbs who went on a massacre against Muslim Albanians and Bosnians? I would say that was also religiously motivated. Even in America, in your very backyard, so to speak GeoffP, there are Muslims who are too afraid of admitting they are Muslims, because they fear religious persecution in the US.

Religiously motivated violence takes many forms. Westboro Baptist Church's violent words against homosexuals is another such form of violence.

What was religious about those events you point at?

The analysis of them by popular media outlets?

 

[GeoffP]

Stalk much?

Not to mention your former President apparently attacking another country because God told him to do so. I mean at least one General went about saying how the war was actually a war against Satan. One could also cite that as violence that is religiously motivated.

Indeed, possibly so.

I would also say that the vapid hatred and obsession of other religions, to the point where one becomes obsessed about their opening a place of worship, say a Mosque, and the violent messages that comes from those protests is also religiously motivated. Wouldn't you agree GeoffP?

You seem to be getting a little upset. Was something wrong with that post? Anyway, interesting question: I can certainly think of one such individual with whom I argue on this forum a great deal, who is very obsessive in her hatred of another religion. Would I say that was her expression of religious violence? Would you call her demands for members of a certain religion to abandon their faith as a kind of religious violence? What about her tacit approval of religious violence against women?

So... do you really want to go down this road? Pfft. What am I saying? Of course you do. That's why you're on the stalking again.

How about the Christian Serbs who went on a massacre against Muslim Albanians and Bosnians? I would say that was also religiously motivated. Even in America, in your very backyard, so to speak GeoffP, there are Muslims who are too afraid of admitting they are Muslims, because they fear religious persecution in the US.

Indeed; that sort of thing is more common elsewhere seemingly, but doesn't detract from the seriousness of the issue.

 

[GeoffP]

Then they are neither spiritual nor theistic,
but address issues of mundane survival.

Everyone ahs to deal with issues of mundane survival.

What survival? Individual survival? Absurd. No one's belly is being filled by attacking a collection of liberals and Christians for holding a peaceful sit-in, or by shooting animists in Africa.

You could implicate the survival of their philosophy, which is then certainly religiously motivated.

 

[wynn]

What survival? Individual survival? Absurd. No one's belly is being filled by attacking a collection of liberals and Christians for holding a peaceful sit-in, or by shooting animists in Africa.

What the struggle for survival looks like depends on the circumstances of a particular situation.
It can be anything from one person strangling another with his bare hands over some food, or it can be a group of villagers throwing stones at an intruder, or it can be the citizens of a country forcing a minority into ghettos, or it can be an army deployed overseas into a foreign country, ...

You could implicate the survival of their philosophy, which is then certainly religiously motivated.

Then it is not a spiritual or theistic philosophy they are defending or fighting for.

Why would a spiritual or theistic philosophy (which is, by definition, beyond the mundane) need to be defended and fought for with stones, knives or guns??

 

[GeoffP]

And this would be compatible with the common definition of the Crusades as religious wars. And it is compatible with every other hostility that comes to mind that took root because of a difference in religious ideology, regardless of all the ethnic, cultural and economic factors these folks want to use, to excuse faith-based violence.

Yep.

What the struggle for survival looks like depends on the circumstances of a particular situation.
It can be anything from one person strangling another with his bare hands over some food, or it can be a group of villagers throwing stones at an intruder, or it can be the citizens of a country forcing a minority into ghettos, or it can be an army deployed overseas into a foreign country, ...

And they would need to do so, for some economic reason? This is veering off into absurdity. In any event, religion would be one factor in selecting the victims of such a persecution. It is not socially arbitrary, unless they actually made random selections of what people to marginalize. They don't.

Then it is not a spiritual or theistic philosophy they are defending or fighting for.

That is a patently false assertion, on its face.

Why would a spiritual or theistic philosophy (which is, by definition, beyond the mundane) need to be defended and fought for with stones, knives or guns??

You'd need to ask its adherents. I, similarly, see no need for such, but I am not them.

 

[kx000]

Moore, a faithful gave his life in the eye of tyrany.

 

[wynn]

Then it is not a spiritual or theistic philosophy they are defending or fighting for.

That is a patently false assertion, on its face.

You'll need to explain this then.

Why would a spiritual or theistic philosophy (which is, by definition, beyond the mundane) need to be defended and fought for with stones, knives or guns??

You'd need to ask its adherents. I, similarly, see no need for such, but I am not them.

Then how can you say that my earlier assertion is patently false?

 

[wynn]

And they would need to do so, for some economic reason?

To reduce their economic power.

The Fascists, for example, thought that to solve the unemployment problem, women should not have jobs, so that there would be more jobs for men.

In any event, religion would be one factor in selecting the victims of such a persecution.

Do you mean that the Nazis persecuted the Jews because of their Jewish religion?
Why? Did the Nazis envy the Jews their religiousness?

Still, envy is not a religious emotion.

 

[GeoffP]

You'll need to explain this then.

It's very simple:violence committed in the name of a spiritual philosophy is not invalidated by the existence of that spiritual philosophy.

Then how can you say that my earlier assertion is patently false?

Because it is. Not seeing the need for something does not mean I agree with your assertion.

To reduce their economic power.

The Fascists, for example, thought that to solve the unemployment problem, women should not have jobs, so that there would be more jobs for men.

Well, it is certain from your direction that they did this for no political reason. Not so?

Do you mean that the Nazis persecuted the Jews because of their Jewish religion?

Yes.

Why? Did the Nazis envy the Jews their religiousness?

Actually, because they hated them for it.

Still, envy is not a religious emotion.

Neither is intellectual disconnect.

 

[Bells]

You seem to be getting a little upset. Was something wrong with that post? Anyway, interesting question: I can certainly think of one such individual with whom I argue on this forum a great deal, who is very obsessive in her hatred of another religion. Would I say that was her expression of religious violence? Would you call her demands for members of a certain religion to abandon their faith as a kind of religious violence? What about her tacit approval of religious violence against women?

I am actually not upset. Quite mellow to be honest. Drugs do that to a person.:m: But you sound quite upset that I have pointed out Christian violence. Is everything alright GeoffP?

I do not hate Catholicism as such. I detest the leadership that keeps doing its best to hide and protect paedophiles and then tries to pass it off as a thing of the times. You accuse me, an atheist, of supporting religious violence against women when I do no such thing... Quite the contrary, I actually do things in real life to help women who are victims of violence.. Infact, it used to be a very large part of my profession.

And I await your links where I apparently support violence against women? It is a very serious charge and one I find deeply offensive, personally and professionally, not to mention insulting. If you do not provide links where I support religious violence against women or retract that statement, I will report you to the administrators of this site.

So... do you really want to go down this road? Pfft. What am I saying? Of course you do. That's why you're on the stalking again.

Don't flatter yourself Geoff. I was responding to your posts. I know you like to think I seek you out, but considering this is the only time in quite a while that I have actually read one of your posts, let alone responded to it... I would have to query if you are hoping that I would stalk you. Are you that bored?

Indeed; that sort of thing is more common elsewhere seemingly, but doesn't detract from the seriousness of the issue.

Hmm... it is true that there are some Muslims who seek to commit horrendous acts in the name of their religion and yes, it in many instances, people have been murdered for their religious beliefs. I never denied that. Does not detract from the simple fact that the majority of the wars lately have been to murder Muslims in large numbers more than anything. From the Balkan wars to the present. Does that mean Muslims are correct to murder and be violent towards other people because they are not Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria and elsewhere? Of coures not. It is deplorable and unforgivable, as violence always will be deplorable and unforgivable.

 

[GeoffP]

Temper, temper

I am actually not upset. Quite mellow to be honest. Drugs do that to a person.:m: But you sound quite upset that I have pointed out Christian violence. Is everything alright GeoffP?

I'm just trying to figure out why you had such a visceral reaction to my completing your list of samples of religious violence.

I do not hate Catholicism as such. I detest the leadership that keeps doing its best to hide and protect paedophiles and then tries to pass it off as a thing of the times.

Well, it does make one wonder why you demanded that I leave Catholicism in protest. To what end, that thing?

You accuse me, an atheist, of supporting religious violence against women when I do no such thing... Quite the contrary, I actually do things in real life to help women who are victims of violence.. Infact, it used to be a very large part of my profession.

Well then, why betray your principles?

And I await your links where I apparently support violence against women? It is a very serious charge and one I find deeply offensive, personally and professionally, not to mention insulting. If you do not provide links where I support religious violence against women or retract that statement, I will report you to the administrators of this site.

Please do. I will then also report you for your accusation of the support of religious violence and obsession against myself, which you led off with here. It is a very serious charge and one I find deeply offensive, personally and professionally, not to mention insulting. If you do not retract your statement, I will report you to the administrators of this site. This may seem harsh, but it's what happens when one plays games at putting unsubstantiated opinions into the mouths of others. Sound fair?

Don't flatter yourself Geoff. I was responding to your posts. I know you like to think I seek you out, but considering this is the only time in quite a while that I have actually read one of your posts, let alone responded to it... I would have to query if you are hoping that I would stalk you.

How, exactly? By engaging in polite discussion with other people about issues in which I did not invite your commentary? And this after your - what? fourth or fifth utter disavowal of any discussion with me?

Hmm... it is true that there are some Muslims who seek to commit horrendous acts in the name of their religion and yes, it in many instances, people have been murdered for their religious beliefs. I never denied that.

And of course, you did not mention it. Why such strong objection to me simply making your list more comprehensive and representative? What purpose does it serve, this pretended outrage of yours?

Does not detract from the simple fact that the majority of the wars lately have been to murder Muslims in large numbers more than anything.

Please support this statement.

From the Balkan wars to the present. Does that mean Muslims are correct to murder and be violent towards other people because they are not Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria and elsewhere? Of coures not. It is deplorable and unforgivable, as violence always will be deplorable and unforgivable.

Excellent. Then let us balance, and move on. Can you do that?

 

[chimpkin]

This is certainly true in the notable episodes of history where violence was promoted or tolerated by the Church leaders.

But don't you think - like Nazism - that it takes a groundswell of support, a pre-existing hatred among the common folk - for these violent episodes to succeed?

Yes...but they have to feel a sense of righteousness about doing as they do.
Bad people...people who have no moral code...will do as they do regardless of religion. But there's not enough really amoral people.
Religion gives good people good feelings about....doing evil.
Of course secular leaders can do this too.
But they probably can't do so in a way too far outside the tolerance of the religion...I imagine it has to be in confluence, or portrayable as such