Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Sarkus]

Practitioners of religions aren't necessarily perfect, and can fall for anachronisms, decontextualizations and similar. People make mistakes.

It takes a lot of wisdom and experience to be able to apply any principle, religious or not, into daily life anyway.

Yet it is rather convenient for the one trying to justify adherence to an ancient text when one can cherry-pick which bits are to be considered literal and others metaphorical, or to be updated.

Let's take the example of stoning unbelievers:

The principle is that one should refrain from closely associating with those who do not hold the same beliefs and practices as oneself.

You genuinely believe what you write here - that we "should refrain" from such associations???
Do all your friends hold the same beliefs (or lack thereof) as you? Do your family?
Mine certainly don't.

Most people, eventually possibly everyone, religious or not, theist or not, lives by this principle or believes it to be a good guiding principle.

I find this position to be rather naive.
I have never met anyone other than those I would call narrow-minded who would adhere to such a principle.
While it may end up that people group with like-minded people, it is not a principle that they set out with, but one that possibly emerges more frequently than not.
But don't confuse an effect with the guiding principle.

So apologies, but I genuinely can not take what else you wrote in that post as serious.

 

[lightgigantic]

I would call it following the rules of the religion, and not simply concentrate of killing. It's perfectly reasonable and of sound moral character to question the appropriateness of such a course.

On the contrary, if one cannot distinguish between a principle and detail it tends to throw any framework of rules and regs out the window (regardless whether they are attributed to religion or stamp collecting)

Indeed, it's only following your religion after all. :shrug:

The so-called "moderates" certainly disagree

Atheists.

So muslims that don't act like this are atheists?
How the hell does that work?

 

[wynn]

Yet it is rather convenient for the one trying to justify adherence to an ancient text when one can cherry-pick which bits are to be considered literal and others metaphorical, or to be updated.

Except perhaps for infants who are unable to cherry-pick like that, and people in mental institutions whose mind are not stable enough, everyone cherry-picks.
It's not limited to religion.

You genuinely believe what you write here - that we "should refrain" from such associations???

Yes. So do many other people.
"Don't hang with the wrong crowd," "Choose your friends wisely," "Maintain good interpersonal boundaries," "There is no companionship with fools," "Don't stay where you are not appreciated" etc. are bits of folk wisdom that support the idea that one needs to choose carefully whom and how one associates with, especially when it comes to close association.

Do all your friends hold the same beliefs (or lack thereof) as you? Do your family?
Mine certainly don't.

For the most part, one cannot choose one's family. My family certainly don't hold the same beliefs and practices as I do, and I don't feel close to them.
Friends I choose by how much we have in common.

I find this position to be rather naive.
I have never met anyone other than those I would call narrow-minded who would adhere to such a principle.
While it may end up that people group with like-minded people, it is not a principle that they set out with, but one that possibly emerges more frequently than not.
But don't confuse an effect with the guiding principle.

So apologies, but I genuinely can not take what else you wrote in that post as serious.

Look into pretty much any self-help book, from popular psychology to serious academic ones, new and old, and they make the same point: choose wisely whom you associate with and how.


I am quite sure that you yourself do not associate closely with just anyone, in just any way.

 

[GeoffP]

If you believe it comes from God, then you're not an atheist.

And? Still religious violence.

I think we're done here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

This is the purpose of the principle that one should refrain from closely associating with those who do not hold the same beliefs and practices as oneself or the group one belongs to.

That would naturally follow on, but it is not for that purpose IMO.
I think the purpose is to keep the denomic influences out, at least for the people who were God-conscious at that time.

One refrains from associating with particular people because of the negative influence they have on one (or one's loved ones).

What kind of influence?


jaln.

 

[Sarkus]

Except perhaps for infants who are unable to cherry-pick like that, and people in mental institutions whose mind are not stable enough, everyone cherry-picks.

Sure, to some degree, but when considering something so fundamental as religion, one's cherry-picking immediately raises issues of bias and subjectivity: what they cherry-pick comes from them and other influences rather than the underlying scripture. Ultimately it seems to weaken any stance taken based on the scripture if one cherry-picks what and how aspects are applied. If you're going to apply changes to one and go for a "spirit of the law" approach, then surely you do so for all aspects.

"Don't hang with the wrong crowd," "Choose your friends wisely," "Maintain good interpersonal boundaries," "There is no companionship with fools," "Don't stay where you are not appreciated" etc. are bits of folk wisdom that support the idea that one needs to choose carefully whom and how one associates with, especially when it comes to close association.

There's a clear difference from "choosing your friends wisely" (which is where you are now placing your flag) and "refrain from association".

For the most part, one cannot choose one's family. My family certainly don't hold the same beliefs and practices as I do, and I don't feel close to them.

But do you actively refrain from their association?

Friends I choose by how much we have in common.

Really? Rather than how pleasant and stimulating they are to be around? Interesting.
Do you perhaps get a CV from all possible "friends" and refrain from association with anyone you don't share views with?

Look into pretty much any self-help book, from popular psychology to serious academic ones, new and old, and they make the same point: choose wisely whom you associate with and how.

Sure, but where does it say that such people have to share the same beliefs and practices? Do they claim anywhere that you should "refrain from association" with those that don't?
Choosing friends wisely is fair enough, but that's a far cry indeed from them needing to have the same beliefs and practices.

I am quite sure that you yourself do not associate closely with just anyone, in just any way.

I associate with those whose company I find enjoyable and stimulating - I do not choose associations on which beliefs they hold.

 

[spidergoat]

How about sunny, atheist, North Korea? Violence is still being commited due to the influence of atheism.


jan.

Violence is still being commited due to the influence of atheism communism.

 

[spidergoat]

wynn,





I don't think it is as simple as that.
I think it is more a way of keeping the satanic/demonic influence we see more readily today, at bay.

jan.

That's a perfect example of a religious idea that cannot have a peaceful outcome.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's a perfect example of a religious idea that cannot have a peaceful outcome.

Look around you SP, there is no peaceful outcome to be had.
The problem isn't religion, but dominance of the the earth.

''What profiteth a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul''.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Violence is still being commited due to the influence of atheism communism.

And, are the people commiting these atrocities atheist or theist?


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes.

 

[wynn]

What kind of influence?

Such as demonic. Or the impact that losers, no-goods, basket-cases, sleazeballs etc. have on one.

 

[Big Chiller]

Not to an atheist. Your assumption seems to be that religion is true, and that therefore no evil can come from it. I have no reason to think that's so.

When you say religion is true do you mean religion in general, if not then which religion if in general then you're an atheist.

 

[wynn]

Sure, to some degree, but when considering something so fundamental as religion, one's cherry-picking immediately raises issues of bias and subjectivity: what they cherry-pick comes from them and other influences rather than the underlying scripture. Ultimately it seems to weaken any stance taken based on the scripture if one cherry-picks what and how aspects are applied. If you're going to apply changes to one and go for a "spirit of the law" approach, then surely you do so for all aspects.

Nowadays in Western culture, it seems we are prone to think of all statements within a system to be on the same level, and so we assess whether the system is logical by juxtaposing each statement with each other statement.

But not everyone or every culture conceives of systems of statements this way. In some other cultures, they have a hierarchical conception of a system of statements.
In such a conception, only some statements are juxtaposed to others, but not all to all.

I briefly mentioned this in another thread - here and here.

There's a clear difference from "choosing your friends wisely" (which is where you are now placing your flag) and "refrain from association".

One goes hand in hand with the other.
Saying Yes to someone (ie. spending time with them) means saying No to someone else (ie. not spending time with them).

But do you actively refrain from their association?

Sure. I limit my interactions with them to that which is necessary.

Really? Rather than how pleasant and stimulating they are to be around? Interesting.
Do you perhaps get a CV from all possible "friends" and refrain from association with anyone you don't share views with?

Sure, but where does it say that such people have to share the same beliefs and practices? Do they claim anywhere that you should "refrain from association" with those that don't?

Choosing friends wisely is fair enough, but that's a far cry indeed from them needing to have the same beliefs and practices.
I associate with those whose company I find enjoyable and stimulating - I do not choose associations on which beliefs they hold.

It so happens that those who have in roundabout the same beliefs and practices as myself, or such that I aspire to have, are also the ones I find enjoyable and stimulating.

 

[wynn]

That's a perfect example of a religious idea that cannot have a peaceful outcome.

... and you are not selective about whom you associate with because you don't have any friends ...

 

[GeoffP]

When you say religion is true do you mean religion in general, if not then which religion if in general then you're an atheist.

Does that matter?

 

[spidergoat]

And, are the people commiting these atrocities atheist or theist?


jan.

Do they have beards or shave? Do they prefer vodka or beer? My point is they don't do it because of atheism, because atheism has no dogma. Nothing about believing there is no God says that one should do anything about those who do.

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, if one cannot distinguish between a principle and detail it tends to throw any framework of rules and regs out the window (regardless whether they are attributed to religion or stamp collecting)

The details delineate the principle. Thou shall not suffer a witch to live means that there is a thing called witchcraft, commonly associated with pagan or shamanistic practices (which was a common native religion in Europe), and those people are not worthy of life.

The so-called "moderates" certainly disagree

This reveals a severe lack of awareness about the religion they claim to profess.

So muslims that don't act like this are atheists?
How the hell does that work?

Act like what? Muslims believe in spirits and the devil. Their punishments for religious crimes are even more severe than in modern Christianity.

 

[spidergoat]

... and you are not selective about whom you associate with because you don't have any friends ...

Are you implying that I'm so desperate for friends that it makes me non-selective? Or that people who are selective have more friends? Because I think people that are selective have fewer friends than those who aren't. By the way, most of my friends are very religious.

 

[lightgigantic]

The details delineate the principle.

You've got it back to front - the principle dictates teh details.

For instance its not like prisons (the detail of justice enforcement) arose out of a tendency to lock people up in rooms for no apparent reason

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live means that there is a thing called witchcraft, commonly associated with pagan or shamanistic practices (which was a common native religion in Europe), and those people are not worthy of life.

so what happened in europe?
did they run out of witches??

This reveals a severe lack of awareness about the religion they claim to profess.

perhaps if it was a principle of the religion (and not a detail).

Act like what?

wantonly killing people since apparently your opinion is that religion gives the green light for it to be applied top vast swaths of the human population

Muslims believe in spirits and the devil. Their punishments for religious crimes are even more severe than in modern Christianity.

Thats great.

Now you just have to explain why you can only cite localized incidents (contextualized by heavy political issues) within large tracts of land that are uniform in their religious leanings.