Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[gmilam]

You also don't like philosophy. So there is a number of problems in your thinking and expression thereof that you don't notice but others do ...

In your own words...

Have you ever wondered what it is that makes you sure you are right?

We are all responsible for our own actions. You can get on with your life or you can wallow in indecision. Choice is yours.

 

[Bells]

My approach to the question would go something like this;

1) Is violence the result of human thoughts and feelings?
2) Can human thoughts and feelings be influenced by religion?
3) Yes and yes, therefore violence as a result of religion is a possibility.

Even if you wished to sweep all of the horrific parts that infest the main bibles under the carpet, and claim that everything in religions is non-violent and promotes love and peace, apart from being an outright lie, it wouldn't speak against the possibility of religiously founded aggression.

Violence is as complex as people are. You can't go filling people's heads with medieval horror stories and commandments about executing people for bizarre and trivial infractions and then expect them to behave sensibly. Not going to happen.

Very well put Mr Taylor.

And welcome to the forum.

 

[scifes]

Are you talking about violence, or use of force?

hmm, can there be violence without force? or force without violence?

islam forces its adherents not to drink liquor, no violence included, but if they drink, it penalizes them a whipping, that's violence(?)

religion is a parent that believes that "beating" children is a good/liable way of raising/moderating them.

 

[wynn]

hmm, can there be violence without force? or force without violence?

When you move furniture away from walls before repainting, you have to use force, but no violence is necessary.

Oddly enough, many people when they use force also get angry.

islam forces its adherents not to drink liquor, no violence included, but if they drink, it penalizes them a whipping, that's violence(?)

Does Islam force anyone to practice Islam?

religion is a parent that believes that "beating" children is a good/liable way of raising/moderating them.

Really? Do you mean this for all of religion, or only for particular traditions, or only for particular practices within particular traditions in particular circumstances?

Is beating people the first thing they advise, or is it preceded by many other instructions and measures, beating being the last resort?

 

[wynn]

We are all responsible for our own actions. You can get on with your life or you can wallow in indecision. Choice is yours.

Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't automatically mean that you are objectively right.

 

[spidergoat]

Does Islam force anyone to practice Islam?

Yes.

 

[gmilam]

Taking responsibility for your actions doesn't automatically mean that you are objectively right.

That's true. But if I don't have confidence in my own decisions, how can I decide who's decisions I would have confidence in.

Once again, eventually you have to make a choice and move on.

 

[lightgigantic]

My approach to the question would go something like this;

1) Is violence the result of human thoughts and feelings?
2) Can human thoughts and feelings be influenced by religion?
3) Yes and yes, therefore violence as a result of religion is a possibility.

Even if you wished to sweep all of the horrific parts that infest the main bibles under the carpet, and claim that everything in religions is non-violent and promotes love and peace, apart from being an outright lie, it wouldn't speak against the possibility of religiously founded aggression.

Violence is as complex as people are. You can't go filling people's heads with medieval horror stories and commandments about executing people for bizarre and trivial infractions and then expect them to behave sensibly. Not going to happen.

Here's one more

1) Is building replicas of the Eiffel tower out of match sticks the result of human thoughts and feelings?
2) Can human thoughts and feelings be influenced by religion?
3) Yes and yes, therefore building replicas of the Eiffel tower out of match sticks as a result of religion is a possibility.

More info :
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.

 

[Sarkus]

As far as I can see, the minimum criteria for something to be religious, and all three must be fulfilled:

1. that which is done with the intention to serve God,
2. that which is in line with all three: 1. scriptures, 2. the discernment of saintly people and 3. the discernment of a saintly person immediately in the position of instructing the person who commits an action,
3. that which indeed pleases God.

Firstly this definition is unworkable - as it requires God to exist for anything to be considered religious.
Yet religions exist whether God exists or not - and there are even atheistic religions.
After all, the existence of religions are not proof of God's existence.

And how is one to know whether one's actions do indeed please God? Is God to speak to them to confirm? Or is condition 2 sufficient - i.e. that a saintly person tells them.

This definition also limits religious actions only to those in a position to know whether it pleases God.
However, to Catholic Joe Bloggs in medieval times the Pope's word was everything. If the Pope said it was so, then it was so. No questions. To them it was religious to adhere to the word of the Pope.

So, when Pope Eugenius III called for the Second Crusade, to Joe Bloggs it was quite probably religious motivation that made him bear arms.

Anyhoo - ever heard of St. Bernard of Clairvaux?

He was one of the main promoters of the second crusade in the 12th Century (I refer you to one of his letters here).
He instructed men to violence with the intention to serve God.
He did so with the discernment of saintly people, and presumably it is considered to have pleased God - given that he was later cannonised.

If he motivated them, at the behest of the Pope that called for the Crusade, then how can you claim that they were not being religiously motivated?

 

[scifes]

When you move furniture away from walls before repainting, you have to use force, but no violence is necessary.

Oddly enough, many people when they use force also get angry.

but can force be used with consenting humans without it being violence? and i'm not talking about lifting an injured person either. but forcing or coercing a law or condition upon them.

Does Islam force anyone to practice Islam?

Yes.

nope not really, but it doesn't exactly allow other religions to exist on par with it, which is natural and logical of any monotheism.
it's either islam or submission to it; freedom within confienment. it's all relative :shrug:

Really? Do you mean this for all of religion, or only for particular traditions, or only for particular practices within particular traditions in particular circumstances?

idk really, but isn't religion basically a bunch of particular practices within particular traditions in particular circumstances?
i mean, religion isn't a ring where people go in and bash each other, but a system with rules and a philosophy, of course it needs punishment along with incentive to be a workable system, that's a very simple rule for any organization or social structure, even single celled creatures have enough processing power to feel pain when damaged and its absence when safe, and that's how they function to survive.

Is beating people the first thing they advise, or is it preceded by many other instructions and measures, beating being the last resort?

of course it's the latter, otherwise there wouldn't be the "golden rule" which is shared by all religions.
however, that punishment bit does exist, and that's all i'm saying.
it's an integral part of any cognitive behavioral moderating system, inciting reaction for reaction, it's not something unique of religion.

there is law motivated violence, so what does that say about the law?:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

Here's one more

1) Is building replicas of the Eiffel tower out of match sticks the result of human thoughts and feelings?
2) Can human thoughts and feelings be influenced by religion?
3) Yes and yes, therefore building replicas of the Eiffel tower out of match sticks as a result of religion is a possibility.

That's true.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's true.

Just as much as ...
Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
.. is true

 

[wynn]

then they are dealing with secondary causes or not acknowledging the distinction of primary ones

By using the notion of "secondary causes," do you thereby mean that religion can be a cause of violence in some way?

Can you elaborate?

Do you believe that religion can be a cause for the use of force?

 

[wynn]

That's true. But if I don't have confidence in my own decisions, how can I decide who's decisions I would have confidence in.

Once again, eventually you have to make a choice and move on.

This is a discussion forum, a place where people discuss things.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Firstly this definition is unworkable - as it requires God to exist for anything to be considered religious.

Why would that be unworkable?

I am not interested in atheism; and as far as God is concerned, there is no middle way: there is only theism and atheism.

Yet religions exist whether God exists or not

Assumption.

- and there are even atheistic religions.

When we mean "religion" in an anthropological or culturological sense, yes.
Otherwise - no.

After all, the existence of religions are not proof of God's existence.

Nobody argued it was.

And how is one to know whether one's actions do indeed please God?

The point of the criteria I presented is to include the attitude of proper regard for the intended recipient.

If an action is intended to please the recipient, no claims can be made about whether the action pleased the recipient or not unless the recipient confirms so.

This is a rule of ordinary human interactions. It's not clear why it should be any different when it comes to humans trying to please God.
The only way we can know if we have pleased God is, ultimately, if He Himself makes it clear to us that we have done so.

Is God to speak to them to confirm?

Perhaps.

Or is condition 2 sufficient - i.e. that a saintly person tells them.

Per se, no.

This definition also limits religious actions only to those in a position to know whether it pleases God.

Yes.

However, to Catholic Joe Bloggs in medieval times the Pope's word was everything. If the Pope said it was so, then it was so. No questions. To them it was religious to adhere to the word of the Pope.

So?

He did so with the discernment of saintly people, and presumably it is considered to have pleased God - given that he was later cannonised.

Do you really believe that a formal procedure like cannonization is proof that God was pleased with Bernard's actions?

If he motivated them, at the behest of the Pope that called for the Crusade, then how can you claim that they were not being religiously motivated?

If you claim that they were religiously motivated and succeeded in pleasing God, you need to prove it. Do you have intelligence from God informing you that He was pleased with the Crusaders?

 

[wynn]

Even if you wished to sweep all of the horrific parts that infest the main bibles under the carpet, and claim that everything in religions is non-violent and promotes love and peace, apart from being an outright lie, it wouldn't speak against the possibility of religiously founded aggression.

There is a fairly common, and rather naive view that religious people should be all lovey-dovey and basically doormats.
This view is common both among people who are affiliated with religious organizations, as well as among those who are not.

It is from this view that the utopian idealism arises that is unable to comprehend that people who are members of religious organizations, are people too and want to survive in this world.

Violence is as complex as people are. You can't go filling people's heads with medieval horror stories and commandments about executing people for bizarre and trivial infractions and then expect them to behave sensibly. Not going to happen.

If you are a committed Westerner, perhaps.


Guardian angel the Western way:

Guardian angel the Tibetan way, the Mahakala:

 

[wynn]

but can force be used with consenting humans without it being violence? and i'm not talking about lifting an injured person either. but forcing or coercing a law or condition upon them.

If they are being coerced, they are not consenting.

nope not really, but it doesn't exactly allow other religions to exist on par with it, which is natural and logical of any monotheism.
it's either islam or submission to it; freedom within confienment. it's all relative

idk really, but isn't religion basically a bunch of particular practices within particular traditions in particular circumstances?

This is a too vague description.

i mean, religion isn't a ring where people go in and bash each other, but a system with rules and a philosophy, of course it needs punishment along with incentive to be a workable system, that's a very simple rule for any organization or social structure, even single celled creatures have enough processing power to feel pain when damaged and its absence when safe, and that's how they function to survive.

The system of punishments and rewards is only one possibility of organization.

however, that punishment bit does exist, and that's all i'm saying.

To be sure, punishment exists in secular society as well.

The question is, rather, whether we consider that punishment just, and on the whole, whether we consider the instance that issued the punishment to be authoritative or not.

there is law motivated violence, so what does that say about the law?

The law can mandate use of force, but violence is not permissible. This is why a police officer who is violent is prosecuted for it.

 

[wynn]

Does Islam force anyone to practice Islam?

Yes.

How?

You will need to explain this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

I like the claim that it is biblically motivated violence.

I didn't say that it was biblically motivated violence.
It's just a case of James R's horns showing.

I guess Jan does not think the Bible and the stories in the Bible are religiously motivated at all.

I'd like you to explain in what way they are, rather than just saying they are.

She might also try to claim that the individual who cast the first stone in this horrendous case has not quite reached the religious level she has.

Now you try and insult me?
Explain the ''religion'' in casting the first stone? Please.

They have levels of religiousness now, did you know that? Being an atheist, I guess it puts me at -10..

Religion is a discipline. You may not like to think so. But it is.
All discipline require conviction, sacrifice, and understanding.
Your idea of religion just being whatever one feels, is not supported by any
scripture.

At what level are you an atheist?
If your child was in a life threatening situation, and all ''rational'' options were
exhausted. Would you ask God to help?

As for Wynn and and LG.. Well.. They'd probably try to claim God killing the first born son's of Egypt is not religiously motivated at all...

We're asking you to show and explain how this act of God's is ''religiously motivated''. Please do, it's been long overdue.

We should also remove religion from everything good and bad, since it is not a motivator at all but is simply nothing at all.

You see religion as a motivator, and as such you decide there are better motivations than religion, so you are atheist. That seems to be the standard for modern-atheists (mod-aths). But not everybody sees religion as a motivating factor to do good/bad, or to explain to workings of the world.
You are effectively tarring all religious people with the same brush, which is understandable, because you are an atheist, and that's how you see it.

I think the problem is your thinking you are correct in your analasys, and anything that doesn't comply is wrong. A trait that is all to common in institutional religion.

In fact, we could probably claim religiousness does not exist at all and religious groups are really social clubs.

So you don't see different levels of religiosity in people?

But I guess we need those who have reached a higher level of religion to tell everyone in the world what is religious or not.

Come on Bells, you're better than this.

Since apparently they are the only 3 who would think a man stoning someone to death because of a belief that someone is homosexual, in accordance to his religious beliefs and what is written in the Bible, would not be religiously motivated violence.

It says, in the Bible, Thou shalt not kill, Love thy neighbour, follow the commandments, vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, and load of other things along those lines. So why did he focus on that one thing, knowing he would go to jail for a long time (if he wasn't proved insane, then his sentence would be severly diminished ).

In other words this discussion has been tantamount to the 3 of them doing the following...

If you look back in this thread, you'll find that it is your side which has not been listening. The notion that the Bible IS ''religion'', therefore if one uses texts as ideas, or even passions, to carry out violent acts, one is ''religious'', needs to be explained and expanded upon.

You need to explain what it means to be religious, and what is religious motivation (to the exclusion of all other motivations). This idea of one size fit all, is bunk.

That you don't attach any importance to ''religion'', is not my problem. You are here, making a case, so explain yourself.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Why would that be unworkable?

I am not interested in atheism; and as far as God is concerned, there is no middle way: there is only theism and atheism.

And whether theists are correct or not (that God exists), religion still exists. And it's not an assumption.
Or are you claiming that if God was one day proven to not exist that Christianity, for example, was never a religion?
Even atheists acknowledge the existence of religions even though they do not believe in the main tenet of the majority of them (that God exists).
If the atheist is correct, religions still exist.
If the theist is correct, religions still exist.

When we mean "religion" in an anthropological or culturological sense, yes.
Otherwise - no.

So you do not consider Buddhism to be a religion?
You're clinging on to a definition of religion that a priori discounts the possibility of motivation for violence... yet it is not a definition that anyone else holds to.

Nobody argued it was.

You implied it, through considering it an assumption that religions would exist regardless of whether God exists or not. The implication is clear that religions only exist because God exists - thus religion is clear proof of God's existence.

The point of the criteria I presented is to include the attitude of proper regard for the intended recipient.

If an action is intended to please the recipient, no claims can be made about whether the action pleased the recipient or not unless the recipient confirms so.

This is a rule of ordinary human interactions. It's not clear why it should be any different when it comes to humans trying to please God.
The only way we can know if we have pleased God is, ultimately, if He Himself makes it clear to us that we have done so.

So then according to you religious actions are only carried out by those who have a direct contact with God?
And how are you to know they are in direct contact? Oh, yes, they tell you.
Yet you don't believe everyone who claims that God spoke to them?

Do you really believe that a formal procedure like cannonization is proof that God was pleased with Bernard's actions?

Personally: of course not. I do not hold the belief that God even exists.
But Catholics would see cannonisation by the Pope (who is God's spokesperson on Earth) as sufficient evidence, yes.
Further, you set up the criteria: "that which is in line with... the discernment of saintly people and... the discernment of a saintly person immediately in the position of instructing the person who commits an action"
Yet when an example of just that is provided - e.g. motivation to violence by someone who was subsequently made a saint - you renege on your definition.

If you claim that they were religiously motivated and succeeded in pleasing God, you need to prove it. Do you have intelligence from God informing you that He was pleased with the Crusaders?

Wynn, you have argued the definition of "religion" to the point where it becomes impossible to assess whether any action is "religious" or not.
You have thus made the concept irrelevant.

According to you no action would be religious.
Further, no action has ever been religious.

Can you perhaps give an example of a religious act, and how it fulfils your criteria for such???