Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

Then you are drawing parallels between the existence of capital punishment in Western society and the implied existence of religious 'correction' which, I add, includes capital punishment. Hence, religiously motivated violence exists.



I did not say that it was. This is your supposition. But you do seem to implicitly understand that it is a motivation; hence, religiously-motivated violence exists.

Religion shares those elements. However, it exists as a separate philosophy from greed. Unless all religion is merely greed?

Like I said:
The content of a stone or axe does not enjoin others to use it for violence, or to commit violence. It imparts no lessons, unless such lessons are inscribed upon it. It has no narrative. Religious books do have a narrative, and those who enjoin others to follow that narrative. If axes had the same, one could say that the existence of such axes motivated violence.

But, according to your postulates above, one is as free to follow greed as one is religion. If your argument is that religion forces no one to act on its violent writings, then the same can be said of the much more nebulous greed.

You are still arguing from the position that religion equals politics.
We've been over that.

 

[GeoffP]

You are still arguing from the position that religion equals politics.

Nope. Unless you think that the Eucharist, Christmas and excommunication are, similarly, 'politics'.

 

[spidergoat]

You seem to be missing my point.

Or you really believe that people are per default incapable of discernment and should be presumed to be per default incapable of discernment.

Of course people are capable of it, but not if they give it up when they accept that faith in some text is a moral value.

Do you realize that you are implicitly arguing that religious scriptures have such immense power that when a person hears or reads a verse, they lose all power of discernment and cannot but act on their first impression of the verse?
You are arguing for a magical power of scriptures!

They have the power over individuals when they believe in it. People give up their ability to reason willingly. Again, that's the problem of religion in a nutshell.

 

[GeoffP]

Discerning the facts

You seem to be missing my point.

Or you really believe that people are per default incapable of discernment and should be presumed to be per default incapable of discernment.

Discernment between committing and not committing religious violence that might be advocated in selfsame scriptures, perhaps?

Do you realize that you are implicitly arguing that religious scriptures have such immense power that when a person hears or reads a verse, they lose all power of discernment and cannot but act on their first impression of the verse?
You are arguing for a magical power of scriptures!

No, he's not even remotely suggesting that. But let's carry forward with your argument. You're saying that no one has to follow Scriptural commandments: since religious verse is not magical, and cannot make a person lose all power of discernment.

But discernment not to do - what? Well, in this instance, the discernment not to commit religious violence. And there it is: many religions do contain either traditional or liturgical incitements to violence. You're correct in that it's up to the individual believer to engage in such violence or not to do so, but your argument above that verse cannot make one "lose all power of discernment and cannot but act on their first impression of the verse" means that such violence does, indeed exist in religion. It is that impression - violence - on which they must not act.

Hence, religiously-motivated violence exists.

I think this is the fourth or fifth time I've done that now. Are you going to notice, or evade? I'd like very specific responses to these points, not distraction.

 

[spidergoat]

If people are to survive in this world on their own, ie. able to get a job, maintain a place to live, cook, get along with people etc., they need sufficient training, preferrably from early on.

I think positive reinforcement is far superior. Unless you enjoy dominating your children with fear and then accept that the product of such personal interaction is a domineering and violent approach to life.

 

[wynn]

Where does the Law lay down what is considered motivation or not?
One of the keys to establishing guilt in Law is to establish MOTIVE.
And what motivates someone is subjective to that person.
If the prosecutor can show that one of the items on your list is sufficient motivation for that person to have killed - then yes, the Law would take it.

And the Law evaluates different motives differently, assigning different punishments for each.

Sayeth the person who previously argued that if religion was a motivator then everyone would be motivated in the same way?

If you believe that a stone can motivate you to throw it at someone, then, yes, you believe in objective motivation.

Do you know how everyone works, what drives everyone? You seem to think you do, as you seem to want to negate their own claims that they were motivated by religion.

For something or someone to motivate anyone to do something, it, obviously, has to have the capacity to motivate.

Unless you ascribe some magical or divine status to stones, axes and scriptures, you'll have difficulty showing how they can motivate.

Greed and anger, certainly, at a core emotional level. But not everything is given to us at such levels, but packaged in complex forms - such as entertainment, education, society, religion etc.
If any one of those creates feelings of anger or greed etc then even you would have to admit that they (the complex forms) motivate.

An analysis of a phenomenon is useful if we can discern the elementary factors in it. Greed, anger and delusion are such elementary factors.

I am not sure delusion is such a core factor - at least not from the medical usage, which merely means accepting something as truth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Even given your definition of delusion, it is the prime candidate to be a core factor for misguided action.

 

[wynn]

I think positive reinforcement is far superior.

"Positive reinforcement" is still a form of training.

 

[wynn]

Nope. Unless you think that the Eucharist, Christmas and excommunication are, similarly, 'politics'.

The discussion of these as it tends to take place at forums like this, are certainly just politics.

 

[wynn]

They have the power over individuals when they believe in it. People give up their ability to reason willingly.

What??

How is it possible to willingly give up the ability to reason? Show.

Again, that's the problem of religion in a nutshell.

No, it's the problem of human ignorance.

 

[spidergoat]

You are basically saying that religious people are ignorant. I agree. They accept that the Bible is the word of God, on faith, and they follow it even if their personal reasoning tells them otherwise. They actually think this is a virtue.

 

[wynn]

Discernment between committing and not committing religious violence that might be advocated in selfsame scriptures, perhaps?

No, he's not even remotely suggesting that. But let's carry forward with your argument. You're saying that no one has to follow Scriptural commandments: since religious verse is not magical, and cannot make a person lose all power of discernment.

But discernment not to do - what? Well, in this instance, the discernment not to commit religious violence. And there it is: many religions do contain either traditional or liturgical incitements to violence. You're correct in that it's up to the individual believer to engage in such violence or not to do so, but your argument above that verse cannot make one "lose all power of discernment and cannot but act on their first impression of the verse" means that such violence does, indeed exist in religion. It is that impression - violence - on which they must not act.

Hence, religiously-motivated violence exists.

I think this is the fourth or fifth time I've done that now. Are you going to notice, or evade? I'd like very specific responses to these points, not distraction.

Again:

You seem to be putting forward the idea that no discernment is possible, and that people
are bound
by their immediate (often very emotional) reactions
and an uncritical
and non-systematic application
of the advice they hear.


As if this would be the situation: A person opens a book of scripture at a random page, closes their eyes and points their finger to a spot on the page, then opens their eyes and reads the verse and thinks "This is what I must believe and do." Without reading anything else.

Indeed, some people are like that and some people think that members of religions are like that, but this does not mean that such superstitious action is the ideal of religiousness or even just representative of it.

But discernment not to do - what?

Discernment to properly understand any instructions given. Such as reading the context of a verse, asking for clarification etc.
As opposed to acting like a superstitious headless chicken!

Well, in this instance, the discernment not to commit religious violence. And there it is: many religions do contain either traditional or liturgical incitements to violence.

Scriptures contain many instructions. One of them is to love everyone.

You're correct in that it's up to the individual believer to engage in such violence or not to do so, but your argument above that verse cannot make one "lose all power of discernment and cannot but act on their first impression of the verse" means that such violence does, indeed exist in religion.

You misread.

 

[wynn]

You are basically saying that religious people are ignorant. I agree.

No, I did not say that.

And you still owe us to show that it is possible to willingly give up the ability to reason!

They accept that the Bible is the word of God, on faith, and they follow it even if their personal reasoning tells them otherwise. They actually think this is a virtue.

I don't know how it is that a person becomes religious, but I seriously doubt it happens the way you sketch out above.

 

[Sarkus]

If that is so, then, per your idea and support to focus on the person, we have been wasting time and space all along, trying to analyze the possible motivations of the perpetrator!

Trying to claim religion can not be a motivator of violence would be a waste of time, yes.
Unless you are claiming to know everyone's motivation?

So now it is the victim who decides what the motive for the transgression against them was?

I did not say that. My point is that the term "violence" in and of itself does not speak to motivation at all.

 

[spidergoat]

Even when they have a desire for things to be reasonable, they first accept that the Bible is correct, and then look to Christian apologetics to make it seem reasonable.

 

[GeoffP]

The discussion of these as it tends to take place at forums like this, are certainly just politics.

Regrettably, they are not.

Again:

You seem to be putting forward the idea that no discernment is possible, and that people
are bound
by their immediate (often very emotional) reactions
and an uncritical
and non-systematic application
of the advice they hear.

Ah. So instead you wish to make the claim that nothing can be induced, suggested, reinforced or demanded? No influence exists in this world. Can people use discernment to engage in the greed you cited earlier?

But what your comment again shows is that there is such a thing as religious violence and that such an impulse can be resisted. Well heck, I agree.

As if this would be the situation: A person opens a book of scripture at a random page, closes their eyes and points their finger to a spot on the page, then opens their eyes and reads the verse and thinks "This is what I must believe and do." Without reading anything else

.

Ahhh, you wish to switch to context. Very well. Did you have some examples in mind?

Indeed, some people are like that and some people think that members of religions are like that, but this does not mean that such superstitious action is the ideal of religiousness or even just representative of it.

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't be, if it could be reliably separated from 'religion'. In what way am I meant to see their separation?

Scriptures contain many instructions. One of them is to love everyone.

What is the relevance of this point to the OP? That is not religious love.

You misread.

I'm afraid I did not, unless you can spell out how such an event occurred.

An analysis of a phenomenon is useful if we can discern the elementary factors in it. Greed, anger and delusion are such elementary factors.

I see. Religious anger and delusion do not exist?

 

[lightgigantic]

I think positive reinforcement is far superior. Unless you enjoy dominating your children with fear and then accept that the product of such personal interaction is a domineering and violent approach to life.

Power without the capacity to enforce negative consequences is simply a fanciful idea.

Sure, positive reinforcement brings the sharper learning curve, but it is ineffective for all scenarios.

Actually kids tend to gauge adults or others looking after them by seeing how far they can go before the curtain comes down in the form of negative consequences

 

[spidergoat]

You can take their fucking toys away. You don't have to follow Christianity (or Judaism) and beat them.

 

[lightgigantic]

Even when they have a desire for things to be reasonable, they first accept that the Bible is correct, and then look to Christian apologetics to make it seem reasonable.

Doesn't everyone bring "reason" to the party after they have settled down with their "values" at the table?

 

[spidergoat]

Not if you value faith.

 

[lightgigantic]

You can take their fucking toys away. You don't have to follow Christianity (or Judaism) and beat them.

So if I revoke your assets I am not being dominating and fearful?

I don't understand how one can act in the capacity of enforcing negative consequences without being dominating and fearful ....
Actually its the intelligence of someone in such a position of authority to bring the correct level of "volume" to an act in order to deliver results ... being dominating and fearful is simply the natural consequences

Alternatives just seem to be complicated