Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
It was motivated just as much by politics as religion.
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
It was motivated just as much by politics as religion.
You are an explicit atheist: and you are saying that this has no bearing on what you think, say, and do, nor is it in any way connected to anything you think, say, and do?
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
This has always been my view of it. Even if religion has been the cause of a lot of violence, it doesn't mean its bad. Just as a hammer cant be blamed for hammering in a nail, but the person wielding the hammer is, religion cant be blamed for the violence (unless that religion actively promotes it, which Islam and Christianity do not), but the person wielding it can.
For example, "Islam" is not to blame for 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is.
Even if atheists got their wish and religion never existed, we would just find another reason to kill each other. Its human nature.
Besides, if we eliminated all religion today, then something else would necessarily rise to the #1 cause of global violence. Would we banish that too? Would we just keep banishing things until theres nothing left? A third of the worlds wars are over scarce natural resources. Does that make natural resources evil? There have been wars over differing political ideologies. Is politics evil?
Likewise, an organization cant always be judged by its past. For example, the democratic party historically supported the interests of white, slave-holding southerners and fought hard to perpetuate and expand the practice of slavery in the US. Does that make the modern democratic party racist slave-drivers? No. Is that even something that's relevant in the next election? Should the democratic candidates be worried about addressing this issue? No. Its absurd.
Two things:
First, if you wish to debate the arguments I post, please do so - but whether I am male or female, atheist or theist, old or young, is irrelevant - as it does not change those words. To bring up such a matter is to argue against the person, not their words... and is a logical fallacy (ad hominem).
Second, you are confusing causation with having a shared root.
Much like we are not descended from apes but have a shared ancestor (if you accept evolution), my atheism is not the cause of anything I do, think or say. However, what gives rise to my atheism also gives rise to those things that I do think, say and do.
Atheism is merely a result, along with my lack of belief in magic, fairies etc.
Or would you say my atheism has a bearing on my lack of belief in magic??
Ok so, what's the problem here?
Is violence only motivated by relegion? Or by the human greed and desire to controll and dominate?
Isnt relegion also manupulated (like everything else; example: sports, media, movies, "science" (for example a scientific study that says that white men are more intelligent than black men, yes that was going on in some time in history, and even more, ever heard of the humans zoo in europe before?),etc...)by who we call fanatics to explain their acts and to kill that feeling of guilt inside them and continue practicing their desire to dominate and controll
Is violence only motivated by relegion? Or by the human greed and desire to controll and dominate?
Isnt relegion also manupulated (like everything else; example: sports, media, movies, "science" (for example a scientific study that says that white men are more intelligent than black men, yes that was going on in some time in history, and even more, ever heard of the humans zoo in europe before?),etc...)by who we call fanatics to explain their acts and to kill that feeling of guilt inside them and continue practicing their desire to dominate and controll
Is the argument really about religion being the only motivation for violence?? Didn't think so.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
I dont have a dog in this fight, so feel free to ignore this comment, but ad hominem is different. Ad hominem is your argument is false because you are a bad person. Whats being said here is that who you are influences your worldview and persective, which is true. No one is truly objective.
Unless you are an implicit atheist (which you aren't), your explicit atheism is a stance, your stance.
Referring to you as an "atheist" is simply shorthand for your stance, not an ad hominem.
Perhaps you wish to argue that your atheism is a marker of you in the same manner as the color of eyes is a marker of you, and thus indeed irrelevant to the discussion here.
I think your - explicit - atheism has bearing on many things, including the line of reasoning you present at forums as these.
I would agree with what you say above if you would be an implicit atheist. But per your own admission, you ar an explicit atheist.
There is more to an explicit atheist's atheism than mere lack of belief in God.
It is once a person makes a point of calling themselves atheist, and is thus an explicit atheist, then the explicitness of that suggests the person is having several beliefs at work that are not merely atheistic, but anti-theistic. Anti-theism is, clearly, a stance, not a lack of one.
I think lacking a belief in magic has nothing to do with theism or atheism.
One needn't be a theist to believe in magic, nor does one need to be an atheist to lack a belief in magic.
The question is whether there is anything about religion that would indeed motivate people to do violence.
If, and only if, religion would mean something like
"God is on our side, and on nobody else's, and so we have the right to kill those who don't agree with us" -
then that would be religiously motivated violence.
But religion does not mean that.
All those (theists or atheists) who operate with the notion of "religiously motivated violence" are operating with a substandard definition of religion.
And, thereby, partially by religion. But what value would Bin Laden's actions have had outside the context of religion? What purpose would they have had?
To stop the US from trying to run - and ruin - the whole world.
Bin Laden's plan was to get the US into a prolonged, expensive war and exhaust them, get them to lose their reputation in the eyes of other countries, and thus make them desist from abusing the whole world.
It is the same kind of strategy that the Partisans have successfully used in WWII against the Nazis and Fascists. The Partisans had far fewer men, weaker weapons, but nevertheless managed, by way of strategy of fighting in forests, towns and in the mountains, to cause significant losses to the enemy armies.
An ad hominem is merely arguing the person, not their words. There can often be a difference between the arguments one posts and their actual position IRL... so it is important to argue the words they post, not the person.
Argung the person, by saying such as "well, you're an atheist therefore X" is an ad hominem when me being an atheist is irrelevant to the words I may post.
No, I wish to argue that my position IRL is irrelevant to the discussion here. Argue the post, not the person.
Any argument from LG, or you, or anyone else, that addresses me rather than the posts I make are ad hominems. They may not be insulting, but they are logical fallacies.
No - my explicit atheism is a result of lines of reasoning / thoughts etc.
Do you think us being human has a bearing on the life-forms that we evolved from? Or is it that those life-forms and the changing environments has a bearing on us being who we are (human)?
Not as far as their atheism is concerned. They lack belief in God... they are atheist... anything else is additional, that may or may not have resulted from the same things that resulted in their atheism.
Sure, one could add to their atheism and be anti-theistic... but note how you have had to add to the term atheism to explain such a position. The same way that you have to add a term to separate "explicit" from "implicit" atheists, or "weak" from "strong" atheists etc... suggesting that there is more to those individual positions than just their core atheism.
And not all explicit atheists are anti-theistic, and to think so would be a fallacy of generalisation. For example, I'm not anti-theistic per se. I understand how some people can be led to theism, can rely upon theism, how theism can support them and give them what they need for a happier life, for example. I might not agree with it, and I may question why people are theistic, and question why they believe what they believe. But that is far from being anti-theistic.
It's why "magic" is merely an analogy. Please try to see analogies for what they are, rather than literal.
A reasonable interpretation of the question, I'd agree.
And I disagree with this, specifically that this is the only way that religion might motivate.
Unless, of course, you happen to have a definition of religion that is universally accepted, and can also demonstrate that this can not possibly lead to motivate violence?
Well, if you define religion to discount any possibility of motivating violence then you beg the question then you might be right.
Unfortunately there is no such standard definition.
"Hey, I know how to win this argument: I define religion as being that which is impossible to motivate violence! Therefore there can, by definition, be no religiously motivated violence! QED!"
:shrug:
If that's your tack then good luck.
And which demigod would that be?
How? Could you provide evidence of this attitude, please?
Doesn't explain his motivations. Why would he want to do those things?
I am saying that all explicit atheists have beliefs that compound the notion of god being irrelevant/non-existent/a subject for the delusional etc
I am saying that if one insists on religion having necessary political implications (eg violence) one can't escape tarring atheism in the same manner
and that is precisely why its problematic to suggest religiously motivated violence
ditto for the religious
I guess to answer this one would have to look at how does "yes" to god translate as politics
It should be obvious that a discussion of politics and atheism doesn't involve implicit atheists ... much like a discussion of politics doesn't involve a discussion of new born babies.
Explicit atheism (regardless whether they are strong or weak) involves values.
IOW if you are trying to argue that atheism is "beyond issues of belief" because its not a necessary requirement to broadly define atheism (to including implicit atheists) you are simply not understanding the problem
If you can't explain how you, as representative of a category, can exist bereft of issues of values its certainly not irrelevant
LG, you obviously have a few limited religions in mind. Do you really believe, out of all the religions that exist, that none of them encourage any kind of violence as part of their ideology? Not even Satanism?
There is no distinction between them in Islam, so that's a nonsensical statement.
Bells
Staff member
By your interpretation of it. But another may not hold a similar view about religion in general or their own personal religion or religious belief.
And that is the distinction you lack. You are applying it as a general rule. But you cannot do that since each individual will interpret their religion in ways that may contradict your view of 'religion'. While religion does not mean ""God is on our side, and on nobody else's, and so we have the right to kill those who don't agree with us" to you, it may not mean that to others.
What you are saying is that their religious belief or how they view their religion and belief is invalid because you don't view it that way. Does not work that way Wynn.
You mean they are operating with a "substandard definition of religion" as you see it. I am sure if you had questioned Bin Ladin, he would tell you his religious beliefs and his applying it to his own personal crusade was valid to him and his followers and supporters. Just because you don't think it is religiously motivated does not mean that it is the same for others.
In short, you are trying to be politically correct.
People like Eric Rudolph cited his religious motivation for his terrorist attacks in the US. So why would anyone say that he was not motivated by his religious beliefs?