Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[lightgigantic]

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?

I think we have already been over this - you seem to cite passages that are not intrinsic and are obviously in the context of social justice/ defense (more often than not , in environments bereft of jails etc)

Not even Satanism?

Even then the violence is more of being excessively egotistic

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no distinction between them in Islam, so that's a nonsensical statement.

Nonsense

You even gave us a news article earlier about muslims protesting the very idea

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Nonsense

You even gave us a news article earlier about muslims protesting the very idea

True. Islam happens to be the official religion of several nations, so it may seem like theres no distinction, but there is no doctrine in Islam that necessarily eliminates that distinction.

 

[Sarkus]

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

Which is sort of irrelevant with regard their atheism... but if you want to discuss those beliefs that they may or may not have (for there is no single belief that they all share) that leads to them being atheist then you'll need to be specific with regard the sub-category of atheists you mean.
But I still fail to see what that has to do with religiously motivated violence?

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

But it is not the atheism per se that motivates... it is whatever philosophies that the person might have that leads to atheism that might also motivate violence. You are still failing to separate the atheism from their philosophies, as if "atheism" is a catch-all.

Also bear in mind that this is about religiously motivated violence - not violence motivated specifically by the singular beliefs of theism or atheism. If you wish to argue that atheists have a religion, then feel free to raise that line. But otherwise please refrain from further strawmen.

and that is precisely why its problematic to suggest religiously motivated violence

Non sequitur, I'm afraid.
You seem to be equating religion to theism, and thus due to your inability to separate atheism from whatever philosophies a person may have, you suggest that this makes it problematic to suggest religiously moivated violence??? :shrug:

I guess to answer this one would have to look at how does "yes" to god translate as politics

Should it? There is no more a political agenda in each of "yes" or "no". But "yes" does not equate to religion. "Yes" equates to theism.
I do hope you're aware of the distinction??

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.

Sure - but since you were the one who brought in the distinction of explicit vs implicit, and have been made aware of the distinction, why should we pander to your switch to merely using the more general term when you specifically mean a narrower group?
The more often you are precise about which group you refer to, the more likely it is you will use it correctly in future.

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

You are not understanding explicit atheism. It is the RESULT of values, not the cause. You are trying to make it a cause.
In some cases it might lead on to militantism and anti-theism, but otherwise it is the RESULT of underlying philosophies that a person may have.
Yet it remains, in and of itself, a singular position on a single question: Lack of belief in the existence of God, even for explicit atheists. The only difference is that they have been asked the question.
If you want to address those underlying philosophies - do so but be specific about which one - as not all atheists share philosophies, and not all people with those philosophies need be explicit atheists.

Your claim of me not understanding the problem is nothing but you continuing to equate atheism to those underlying philosophies, which in itself is nothing but a huge strawman argument given that the debate is with regard RELIGIOUSLY motivated violenece... not atheism, not even theism per se.

If you can't explain how you, as representative of a category, can exist bereft of issues of values its certainly not irrelevant

It is irrelevant and remains an ad hominem.
If you want to ask a question such as "How does an atheist exist bereft of issues of values?" then do so (and I will happily point out that it is not pertinent to the debate and merely another strawman, given that atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies). But at present you have not even asked, but instead aimed an argument at me rather than the posts I have made - and that is an ad hominem.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Socratic Spelunker,

Was not 911 religiously motivated?

It was motivated just as much by politics as religion.

What was the religious motivation?


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Haven't seen any evidence for the political motivation yet, and I asked a while back.

 

[spidergoat]

Even then the violence is more of being excessively egotistic

What does that mean?

 

[GeoffP]

It won't matter.

Moderators, close this thread. It has gone the way of all flesh.

 

[gmilam]

You are not understanding explicit atheism. It is the RESULT of values, not the cause. You are trying to make it a cause.

This is due to the mistaken belief many theists have that religion is the source of values.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It won't matter.

Moderators, close this thread. It has gone the way of all flesh.

Don't be so impatient, it needs to be this long to get unsubstantiated cliches
out of the way, so that discussion can actually begin.


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Then the discussion will surely be extraordinarily good, because it's been heavily cliches from some of the posters, Jan.

 

[wynn]

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.

If we go by this subjectivity principle, then anything goes, and you and those on your side have no point!

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.

Oh? If others say that my understanding is invalid, then this is okay; but if I say that their understanding is invalid, then this is not okay?
Really?

Just because you don't think it is religiously motivated does not mean that it is the same for others.

So?

In short, you are trying to be politically correct.

Lol.
The idea that there is no religiously motivated violence is as politically incorrect as it goes.

So why would anyone say that he was not motivated by his religious beliefs?

Because they are applying critical thinking, and don't just go for whatever mainstream media tells them.

 

[wynn]

Even then the violence is more of being excessively egotistic

What does that mean?

Example:
A child gets a box of cookies and refuses to share them with his friends. This is egotism.
Excessive egotism is when the child even yells at the other children and even beats them.

 

[wynn]

It is irrelevant and remains an ad hominem.
If you want to ask a question such as "How does an atheist exist bereft of issues of values?" then do so (and I will happily point out that it is not pertinent to the debate and merely another strawman, given that atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies). But at present you have not even asked, but instead aimed an argument at me rather than the posts I have made - and that is an ad hominem.

Your whole input here (and elsewhere) is essentially, and ad hominem, more precisely you are arguing from your own personal bias.


You insist that we should all operate with your particular definition of atheism. It is specifically your particular definition of atheism, and you want it accepted above all other definitions of atheism.

If we bring in other defintions of atheism, you claim that they are incorrect, irrelevant etc. and irrelevant to the discussion.

This is all about you, you and you, and your definition of atheism.

And then, pretty please with a grain of black pepper on top, you claim we shouldn't make the argument about you, but about atheism. Of course, it has to be about your brand of atheism.

If you would at least admit that you are simply operating with your views of atheism and other terms - okay. But you're not admitting that. Instead, you present it all as if your view would be the objective view!


Presenting one's own view as objectivity as a rhetoric strategy is one thing.
But to consistently present one's own view as if would be objectivity itself, suggests serious intellectual dishonesty.

given that atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies

Show that all people who consider themselves atheists, believe that "atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies."

Surely you have noticed that there are many people who consider themselves atheists, and who believe that their atheism has very much to do with their underlying and other philosophies.

Earlier, you argued that there is nothing that all atheists would have in common - and yet right here, you contradict your earlier stance by presuming here precisely this: that they indeed have in common that "atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies."

 

[Jan Ardena]

Haven't seen any evidence for the political motivation yet, and I asked a while back.

Is this response for post 625?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Unfortunately there is no such standard definition.

If there is no standard definition of religion, then there is also, by definition,
no religiously motivated violence.

 

[Sarkus]

Your whole input here (and elsewhere) is essentially, and ad hominem, more precisely you are arguing from your own personal bias.

Arguing from personal bias is NOT an ad hominem. My position may have bias, but (hopefully, at least) I argue the comments posted, not the person!

You insist that we should all operate with your particular definition of atheism. It is specifically your particular definition of atheism, and you want it accepted above all other definitions of atheism.

It is not my particular definition but the pervading definition and understanding. Just look at Wiki if you want a reasonable understanding of the accepted terms!

If we bring in other defintions of atheism, you claim that they are incorrect, irrelevant etc. and irrelevant to the discussion.

No, I don't claim they are irrelevant - I claim that one must be precise as to which flavour of atheism one refers, as arguments against one flavour may not necessarily hold against others... and if one merely uses the term "atheism" when you mean a more specific flavour then one should understand that you will create confusion and disagreement, when an initial modicum of precision would help.

This is all about you, you and you, and your definition of atheism.

Get over yourself, Wynn. Just look at Wiki, for Pete's sake. You're now doing nothing but sulking and throwing your toys out of the pram. Pathetic.

And then, pretty please with a grain of black pepper on top, you claim we shouldn't make the argument about you, but about atheism. Of course, it has to be about your brand of atheism.

I merely ask you to be more precise. But if you want to define atheism completely differently to the normal, at least state what you want to use, and don't assume that everyone else uses it the same way. Just be precise about which flavours of atheism you are referring to. It's not difficult.

If you would at least admit that you are simply operating with your views of atheism and other terms - okay. But you're not admitting that. Instead, you present it all as if your view would be the objective view!

Whatever.

Presenting one's own view as objectivity as a rhetoric strategy is one thing.
But to consistently present one's own view as if would be objectivity itself, suggests serious intellectual dishonesty.

I don't present it as objectivity itself. If you disagree with the view then ffs provide examples of where there is a better definition. If you use a word that YOU know has a broad meaning then it behooves YOU and others who want to use that term to explain what limits and what flavour you are wanting to discuss. But to just continue to use the general term when you mean a more narrow definition and while knowing that others are using it in its broadest sense just smacks of rank stupidity.

Show that all people who consider themselves atheists, believe that "atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies."

Why? Do you honestly consider atheism to be a core philosophy rather than a result of?

Surely you have noticed that there are many people who consider themselves atheists, and who believe that their atheism has very much to do with their underlying and other philosophies.

Of course it has something to do with them! The same way that any result has something to do with what gives rise to that result!
But for a philosophy to equate to atheism you have to show that ALL atheists share that philosophy, and that there is noone with that philosophy who is NOT an atheist.

Earlier, you argued that there is nothing that all atheists would have in common - and yet right here, you contradict your earlier stance by presuming here precisely this: that they indeed have in common that "atheism is not equitable to the person's underlying philosophies."

This is probably the most inane thing you have said.
They also have in common that they are not theists, they are all human, they are not televisions, not cars, not people who believe in Raksik The Almighty Ruler of Ogg.

I did not say that they had nothing in common - but that they didn't necessarily have any beliefs in common - and I explicitly stated that the one thing that they did have in common, by definition, was a lack of belief in god.

So please - stop with strawmen.

 

[GeoffP]

If there is no standard definition of religion, then there is also, by definition,
no religiously motivated violence.

Incorrect. Numerous religious elements, statutes and verses insist on religious violence. These are religious in origin - unless perhaps you think they were also created by those pesky politicians?

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Jan - The religious motivation was, in part, that Osama's particular brand of Islam had a gripe against the Jews, many of which reside in New York, and their general dislike of "western" culture with all its corruption and blasphemies.

GeoffP - One political motivation was that, in Osama's own words, America was funding and providing weapons to Israel. This money came from tax payers, so Osama did not distinguish between soldiers and civilians, making civilians fair game for attack.

 

[wynn]

Incorrect. Numerous religious elements, statutes and verses insist on religious violence. These are religious in origin - unless perhaps you think they were also created by those pesky politicians?

How can you say that, if you don't have a definition of religion?