Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

And whether theists are correct or not (that God exists), religion still exists. And it's not an assumption.

Only if you understand "religion" in an athropological, culturological, political sense.

Or are you claiming that if God was one day proven to not exist that Christianity, for example, was never a religion?

It is not possible to prove that God doesn't exist.

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.

Again, only if you understand "religion" in an athropological, culturological, political sense.

So you do not consider Buddhism to be a religion?

It is certainly a "religion" in an athropological, culturological, political sense.

Even in the anthropological etc. sense, Buddhism is quite the exception, as it specifically addresses issues of holding views and realization, which is why it is impossible to classify it similarly as other candidates for religion in the anthropological etc. sense.
Buddhism operates with a categorically different understanding of ontology and also epistemology than most other candidates for 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.

It is a definition of religion that addresses the intent of religion: namely, to transcend run-of-the-mill living - to transcend run-of-the-mill thinking, feeling, speaking and acting.

Violence is part of run-of-the-mill living, so it is per definition anathema to religion.

It is a definition held by people who aim to transcend run-of-the-mill living.

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.

No.

"Religions exist whether God exists or not" is an assumption in the sense that we don't know whether this is the case or not.

So then according to you religious actions are only carried out by those who have a direct contact with God?

Everyone else is merely a religious aspirant; but even those who are in direct contact with God might be able to behave irreligiously, given that they have free will.

Yet you don't believe everyone who claims that God spoke to them?

No.

But Catholics would see cannonisation by the Pope (who is God's spokesperson on Earth) as sufficient evidence, yes.

So?

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.

I said:

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.

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.

I think, rather, that I have pointed to the proper attitude to it. Namely, instead of treating religion as yet another mundane phenomenon, as something to argue or fight about, as something that concerns itself with pointing fingers and assigning blame, I have made an effort to connect it in understanding to the intended recipient.

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???

It is not true that no action was, is or would be religious.
The criteria in my definition may be high, but they are not impossible.


My point is that humans are not the ones to judge whether a particular action is religious or not.
God is.

 

[GeoffP]

It is not true that no action was, is or would be religious.
The criteria in my definition may be high, but they are not impossible.

Oh, really? Because:

My point is that humans are not the ones to judge whether a particular action is religious or not.
God is.

So your criteria are only high, but humans are not the ones to judge whether a particular action is religious. Since we're all humans, the issue therefore cannot be resolved, contradicting your first statement. It would appear that your OP was a pointless attempt at an intellectual trap, leaving aside the difference (which you have attempted to obviate in the last few pages) between 'religious' and 'religiously-motivated violence'.

 

[keith1]

One who exists has proof of existence, be it a hostile witness.

 

[gmilam]

It would appear that your OP was a pointless attempt at an intellectual trap troll, leaving aside the difference (which you have attempted to obviate in the last few pages) between 'religious' and 'religiously-motivated violence'.

Fixed.

 

[Sarkus]

Only if you understand "religion" in an athropological, culturological, political sense.

As opposed to your sense in which case one can not possibly know whether one is being religious or not until such time as God (should God exist) confirms that He is happy with the deed?

It is not possible to prove that God doesn't exist.

Nor the celestial teapot.

It is a definition of religion that addresses the intent of religion: namely, to transcend run-of-the-mill living - to transcend run-of-the-mill thinking, feeling, speaking and acting.

Violence is part of run-of-the-mill living, so it is per definition anathema to religion.

It is a definition held by people who aim to transcend run-of-the-mill living.

Your position here is "I define religion such that it excludes the possibility of religiously motivated violence. I now want you to show me that there *is* religiously motivated violence but to abide by the definition I have provided, regardless that the definition I require you to use does not allow it.
Ah - you can't do it, can you.
Therefore there is no religiously motivated violence."

:shrug:

"Religions exist whether God exists or not" is an assumption in the sense that we don't know whether this is the case or not.

Religions exist because God is a possibility, without the ability to prove one way or the other. It is thus irrelevant whether God exists or not... religions still exist.
Where is the assumption? :shrug:

Everyone else is merely a religious aspirant; but even those who are in direct contact with God might be able to behave irreligiously, given that they have free will.

Yet this has an a priori assumption of God's existence.
What if God does not exist? Is it possible for anyone to be religious in that case?
Afterall, your definition requires God to exist, otherwise "religion" does not exist as you have defined it - God can not confirm something as pleasing if God does not exist.

Yet you state that it is possible for some people to be religious... and thus you must believe that God exists? Yet how do you know God exists to be able to say that it is possible for some people to be religious??



No, Wynn, your definition is unworkable for the reasons given.
Your insistence upon it is nothing more than wordplay: "I define religion such that motivation to violence is impossible... thus religion can not motivate violence."

 

[wynn]

Fixed.

Only for those unable or unwilling to appreciate the range of meanings involved here.

 

[wynn]

As opposed to your sense in which case one can not possibly know whether one is being religious or not until such time as God (should God exist) confirms that He is happy with the deed?

How else?

Your position here is "I define religion such that it excludes the possibility of religiously motivated violence. I now want you to show me that there *is* religiously motivated violence but to abide by the definition I have provided, regardless that the definition I require you to use does not allow it.
Ah - you can't do it, can you.
Therefore there is no religiously motivated violence."

You and others have had every opportunity to provide an understanding of religion that would be superior to mine.

It's a shame that more theists haven't joined, and that this thread took on the nature of a theist vs. atheist exchange.

I am now a lot more interested in the input of theists who believe that religion can motivate violence (like scifes turned out to be).

Religions exist because God is a possibility, without the ability to prove one way or the other.

I think this is merely an assumption.

It points to the idea that religion is man-made.

Yet this has an a priori assumption of God's existence.

Your stance is apparently an apriori strong atheism.

What if God does not exist? Is it possible for anyone to be religious in that case?
Afterall, your definition requires God to exist, otherwise "religion" does not exist as you have defined it - God can not confirm something as pleasing if God does not exist.

Yet you state that it is possible for some people to be religious... and thus you must believe that God exists? Yet how do you know God exists to be able to say that it is possible for some people to be religious??

There is a certain set of problems that I as a weak agnostic do not have, but which are pertinent for theism from the perspective of weak or strong atheism.

Weak agnosticism demands the affirmation that God may exist, and this affirmation has numerous implications. Some of these implications I have explored in this thread.

 

[Sock puppet path]

How?

You will need to explain this.

It was simplistically explained by a practitioner of islam several posts back

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:

So it creates religiously sanctioned second class citizens/oppresion. It is then no far leap, a perceived insult, attempt to act as an equal until you end here (Warning very graphic violence! must be 18 to click) Don't speak indonesian but there is telltale shouting at the end.

 

[GeoffP]

Fixed.

Well. :shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

How else?

So according to your definition, strong atheists would hold that religion does not exist?

You and others have had every opportunity to provide an understanding of religion that would be superior to mine.

And they have, at least in as much as their definition does not result in a meaningless conclusion that only the object of the religion (God) can determine what is religious while noone can actually question that object.

It's a shame that more theists haven't joined, and that this thread took on the nature of a theist vs. atheist exchange.

No, it hasn't. It has taken on the nature of "those who hold to an absurd definition vs. others".

I am now a lot more interested in the input of theists who believe that religion can motivate violence (like scifes turned out to be).

So you ignore what an atheist says merely because they are atheist, regardless that their atheism might have no bearing on the argument they raise? :shrug:

I think this is merely an assumption.

It points to the idea that religion is man-made.

No, it points to the possibility that religion is man-made.
If God exists, religion might or might not be man-made.
If God does not exist, religion is certainly man-made.
But whether God exists or not, religion still exists.
There is no assumption: religion exists... although your absurd definition means that noone can possibly know if religion exists, as it requires the existence of God to be a truth.

Your stance is apparently an apriori strong atheism.

How so? My stance is consistent in its weak-atheism. Where have I said or implied God does not exist, and where have I ever said or implied that God is more or less than a possibility?

There is a certain set of problems that I as a weak agnostic do not have, but which are pertinent for theism from the perspective of weak or strong atheism.

Weak agnosticism demands the affirmation that God may exist, and this affirmation has numerous implications. Some of these implications I have explored in this thread.

Which answers none of the criticisms raised against your definition of what is religious or not, and how your definition leads to absurdities in the absence of proof in the existence or otherwise of God.
Simply put, you hold that nothing can be considered religious... and the term religious is thus impotent and meaningless.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Simply put, you hold that nothing can be considered religious...

and the term religious is thus impotent and meaningless.

For a strong atheist - yes.
Which is the case strong atheists make anyway.

 

[gmilam]

Well. :shrug:

I agree with you. But you were a little more diplomatic than me.

 

[GeoffP]

For a strong atheist - yes.
Which is the case strong atheists make anyway.

That is possibly the most egregious example of weasel wording and abducted inference I've ever seen. Are you capable of feeling shame?

I agree with you. But you were a little more diplomatic than myself.

I now think perhaps I was in error. Tomfoolery should be dealt with more harshly, maybe.

 

[wynn]

That is possibly the most egregious example of weasel wording and abducted inference I've ever seen. Are you capable of feeling shame?

Do you agree with this definition of religion:

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.

-?

I don't think so.

 

[spidergoat]

Not sure how you determine #3.

 

[GeoffP]

Do you agree with this definition of religion:

Nope, and nor should I, weasel-words. You haven't the faintest clue about #2, and it serves to reduce the argument to an unknowable. You're confusing the metaphysical with the physical.

I don't think so.

I don't give a shit.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not sure how you determine #3.

So what if you're not?
What does that have to do with it?

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

One who exists has proof of existence, be it a hostile witness.

That is the sound of one hand fapping.

So what if you're not?
What does that have to do with it?

jan.

He means to say that it is a proposition of dubious value, relevance and demonstrability. Hence, it is a bunk demand.

 

[Sarkus]

For a strong atheist - yes.
Which is the case strong atheists make anyway.

Not just for a strong atheist.
Any theist who does not hold that they have direct contact with their God would also not be able to say what was religious or not.
They would be relying on someone telling them... and relying on belief that that person does have direct contact, and is telling them the truth.

But given that you seem to think even the Pope is of dubious quality such that Catholics should not necessarily follow his word, or that the Pope cannonising someone is not sufficient evidence for that person to be considered saintly or having been religious... :shrug:


Ultimately your definition does not allow for anyone to be religious, not even theists, unless they have a direct line to their God to confirm that actions are pleasing to God.
And even for those people that claim to have a direct line (for such confirmation purposes) you are relying on them to tell you the objective reality rather than their subjective one... e.g. the voices in their head may just be a symptom of neurological deterioration - and you are still left with issues of how you choose between one such person and another.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

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

I can go back and find the quote if you don't remember what you posted.

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?

You don't seem to get it. Atheists don't believe in God..

Therefore, they do not start praying to God when they are in a tight spot. The old adage of "There are no atheists in fox holes" is simply false - it's a sort of wishful thinking by theists that shows a deep misconception of what atheism is. Atheism isn't denial of gods that exist; it is the conviction that gods do not exist.

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.

But you told me the bible is the basis of your own religion, didn't you? Haven't you been telling us all how important the scripture is?