Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Exactly, but it think I also would have highlighted Corruption and blasphemies, since these are based on their religious views.
There is nothing religious in that statement.
Unless the inclusion of the word ''religious'', and one's ''own brand of Islam'', dislike of Jew's and western culture is a religion.
jan.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
ones "own brand of islam" is so religious that Im not even willing to debate it. Their dislike of Jews is religious because it stems from their interpretation of Islamic doctrine, same with their dislike of the west.
Dozens of people have been killed during two days of clashes between Islamist militants and Nigerian security forces in a northeastern town, an army commander said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/24/world/africa/nigeria-violence/index.html?iref=allsearch
:shrug:
So the term "religious" means - pretty much whatever you want it to mean?
Humpty Dumpty!
wynn,
That's about the size of it.
The Spagetti Monster.
The Celestial Teapot.
The Purple Dragon (under the stairs)...
They don't get the difference.
jan.
That's about the size of it.
The Spagetti Monster.
The Celestial Teapot.
The Purple Dragon (under the stairs)...
They don't get the difference.
jan.
Come on LG! The title contains the word ''church'', and the quote
contains ''Islamic Millitants''.
Duh!
jan.
Thank you for clarifying your position - it is so much easier to spot your logical fallacies.
First: You are committing a category error in your arguments involving atheism and religion. Arguments against religion can be applied equally to atheist RELIGIONS as well as theist RELIGIONS. I'm assuming you do understand the difference between theism itself and even a theistic religion? And you are aware of atheist religions, I trust?
But, given that you seem to define Man by the clothes he wears... :shrug:
Second: I have not argued that theism in and of itself is a motivator for violence (which it is not, in my view, any more than atheism can be), and thus your efforts to mirror such claims against atheism are moot - as there are none to mirror. If I ever do claim that "theism motivates violence" then your arguments would be reasonable. But I haven't - therefore your arguments are irrelevant.
Third: I have not argued that religion objectively motivates to violence, so your efforts to say that religion lacks such an objective core value sufficient to motivate violence is, again, moot.
Perhaps, when you stop with the strawmen and other logical fallacies, you will actually understand the core arguments in play and come to the table with something of value?
no need for an atheist religion argument - just provide whatever you want to offer to argue for atheism not being the cause of violence in russia etc and you can transfer it to whatever anyone wants to say about religion doing the same
:shrug:
Then I guessed you missed a few key issues when you came in to comment on my posts (You have read the OP title, right?)
So theists can define their affiliation anyway they want while atheists, which have no affiliation, are rigidly defined along the traits of stalin? How dare you compare sagan to stalin! Just joking, but really, too convenient again, isn't it?
What do you mean? That non theists like me dont understand that there is some difference between differet imaginary things like the pink unicorn, harry potter, santa and god?
If so, enlighten me to the difference, will you please, Jan?
I've got an idea!
Why don't YOU tell us the difference.
jan.
There is none! They are all useful, helpful, fun concepts.
Ahem:
Precisely. Hence: religious. Unless you and Wynn now think that Islam is not religious, Jan?
I've got an idea!
Why don't YOU tell us the difference.
jan.
Wrong.
We're not saying there's a difference. YOU are. So explain it, without veering off into obfuscation.
Atheism is a lack of a single belief. Theism is the holding of that belief. Neither of those positions in and of themselves are the cause of violence.
Religion is a rather different matter. Or do you define religion as the holding of a single belief in the existence of god? :shrug:
So, as explained previously, you are committing a logical fallacy in trying to argue similarity between religion and atheism: not only is it a categorical error but your insistence in continuing is a strawman.
Yes - it is with regard religion - not atheism or even theism per se, but the religions that are based upon interpretations of scriptures.
Yet you continue with setting up strawmen arguments.
The thread is also not about whether violence has non-religious motivators - which it clearly has - but whether it has ever been religiously motivated.
Your only means of trying to claim that there has never been religiously motivated violence is to show how every single person who has committed violence was not, even in some small way, motivated by religion.
Good luck with that.
It's religious politics... politics driven primarily by religion.
Bells
Staff member
I have a side?
You do not think that individuals can find motivation in anything (including their religious beliefs) to commit acts of violence?
Read what I said again. And do it slowly.
Each religious person will view their religious beliefs in a certain way. No one can invalidate that because it is their personal beliefs. How they interpret their religious scripture or belief is personal and some will interpret it differently and yes, some will commit gross acts of violence based on their interpretation. It does not make their motivation any less religious as a result.
So...?
So what is the point of this thread exactly?
That would depend on the political climate.
So his saying his religious beliefs led him to act as he did is invalid in your opinion?
So if someone walks into a church, shoots a doctor who performs abortions and kills him and states that his religious beliefs motivated him to do it, you would say that there is no "religiously motivated violence"?
Some people are motivated by whatever it is they believe in to commit violence. Whether people like it or not.
Oh, all this debating theism is killing me.
I will go punch a kitten and kick a puppy, then maybe I will feel better.
Oh so cute! But I will still do it, because being an atheist somehow makes me do it, right?
But if I were a theist, well:
Religion promoting violence, you were saying?
I will go punch a kitten and kick a puppy, then maybe I will feel better.
Oh so cute! But I will still do it, because being an atheist somehow makes me do it, right?
But if I were a theist, well:
Religion promoting violence, you were saying?
Come on guys, lets not look at it as two opposing camps in battle:
Re Humpty Dumpty - actually, this is the reference, quite popular -
- - -
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”