Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

How so?
If I define Squark as a square circle, does it exist?
Defining it does not make it real, does not mean it exists.

Depending on a specific ontological and epistemological outlook, it could.

A "squark" exists: it exists in that you wrote down the word and defined the term. This is (part of) how it exists. It may not exist in the sense that common-sense realism understands it, but it exists in other ways.

You are thus being inconsistent - stating "possibility" on one hand yet claiming existence on the other.

Indeed, I haven't prefaced every single sentence and every single paragraph with Ifs and other conditionals, but I stated those conditionals several times, and otherwise pointed at them.

You are being unnecessarily uncharitable. I yet have to see a book or paper on a hypothesis where each and every single sentence and each and every single paragraph is introduced with the conditionals expressing that all that is said there is merely a hypothesis.

And I still find your definition of religion as only being applicable IF God exists to be inane.

It's only relevant if God exists.

What are we supposed to call Christianity, for example, IF God does not exist? Is a new word supposed to be devised?

Why not just call it "Christianity"?

The secular notion of "religion" is an anthropological, sociological etc. construct; even though upon scrutiny, those phenomena listed as "(world) religions" have different goals, and usually, do not consider eachother as equal competitors for the Truth.

The anthropological, sociological etc. construct of "religion" introduces a relativism (ie. that they are all equal competitors for the Truth, or something to that effect) that none of the phenomena called "religions" actually subscribe to. That construct is artificially imposed on them.

For example, Islam doesn't consider Christianity to be a religion in its own right, it doesn't consider it to be an equal competitor in man's quest for the Truth and God.

If we study the phenomena commonly known as "religions," and none of them subscribes to that culturological etc. relativism - then how reasonable is it to continue to insist in that relativism as far as the phenomena commonly known as "religions" are concerned?

It is suitable to have an understanding of religion that transcends the particularities of the individual phenomena commonly known as "religions."

If you hold that we can't/don't know, then you are led to a definition of religion that must remove itself from the actuality of God's existence, and be defined upon the practices and beliefs of those within the religion.

Which is what secular definitions of religion do.
I believe I have proved, and amply, that I understand the notion of a secular understanding of "religion" very well.

 

[wynn]

now
do you agree that they were actually putting in to practice, certain tenets of the christian religion that led them to the predicament they found themselves in?

It's not that simple. One of the tenets of Christianity is to Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's, and render unto God what is God's - as citizens of a secular state, they are obligated by the secular law, and as Christians, they are obligated to obey the secular law in secular matters (which are whatever the secular law defines them to be - such as specific parental responsibilities).

This is a well-known area of questions and problems in Christianity, they discuss it, and from what I have seen, there seem to be no easy answers to such dilemmas.

you do seem to have difficulties in comprehending scripture and its application

Properly comprehending scripture and applying its instructions is, in "religious settings," generally considered as something that requires a lot of wisdom.

Scriptural instructions are not a simple list of instructions that one could properly act on even with one's eyes closed.

so lets try an easier example.....could one assume that the ten commandments inspires christians to lead a moral life?

From what I understood, Christianity isn't about being moral per se, but to follow God's commandments. These are two different motivations, and often, they may have externally the same results, but they are still different motivations.

again, divine healing is extrapolated from biblical scripture. specific texts are cited as the basis for a practice by certain churches of the christian faith.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible told police and a city social worker shortly after Kent died on Jan. 24, 2009, that they had prayed for his recovery for about 10 days rather than seek medical help because of their religious beliefs.​

in this instance, the schiables seem fairly religious to me if that account is accurate and i really find no reason to doubt that bit of testimony

I don't know if God was pleased with their actions or not.

I do believe in prayer, and I believe that one ought to pray to become aligned with God's will:
"Dear Lord, please engage me in Your service."


Turning to God with the request "God, do this for me" or something to the effect of "God, I am going to do this in Your name, as a service to You, and You better be happy with it"
is not in the spirit of service to God.

sounds like a personal peccadillo to me.

A "personal peccadillo"?

Can you not relate to the attitude I sketched out?

we must have some common ground for the purposes of this discussion

This may be an impossibility, though. At least as far as the theistic/atheistic discussion is concerned.

...that indicates we can assign that form of prayer as central to the christian faith while your beliefs in this matter is very much an outlier.

It doesn't seem so to me:


A wonderful model of intercessory prayer is found in Daniel 9. It has all the elements of true intercessory prayer. It is in response to the Word (v. 2); characterized by fervency (v. 3) and self-denial (v. 4); identified unselfishly with God’s people (v. 5); strengthened by confession (v. 5-15); dependent on God’s character (vv. 4, 7, 9, 15); and has as its goal God’s glory (vv. 16-19). Like Daniel, Christians are to come to God on behalf of others in a heartbroken and repentant attitude, recognizing their own unworthiness and with a sense of self-denial. Daniel does not say, “I have a right to demand this out of You, God, because I am one of your special, chosen intercessors.” He says, “I'm a sinner,” and, in effect, “I do not have a right to demand anything.” True intercessory prayer seeks not only to know God’s will and see it fulfilled, but to see it fulfilled whether or not it benefits us and regardless of what it costs us. True intercessory prayer seeks God’s glory, not our own.

 

[wynn]

And what is the object of theistic religions other than to do what they understand to be the "will of God" and believe in what they understand to be the teachings handed down by God?
Please, do tell what more there is to a theistic religion than this?

Some believe there is, but someone with an atheistic or secular outlook cannot understand that.

You're speaking drivel, and your comment is nothing more than an ad hom: "Oh, he's an atheist! What does he know about religion!"

Some ad personams are justified.
There indeed are things that someone with an atheistic outlook is not able to understand.
One's outlook isn't simply something one can put on and take off at will.

This is therefore not my view of religion, but what my experience has told me the vast majority of religious people understand religion to be.

I agree that many people who are members of religious organizations think about religion in roundabout the same way as you sketched out.
The majority of members isn't necessarily also the representation of the ideal of religion.

 

[wynn]

We are not saying you are sanctioning those violent acts because of their religiousness, we are trying to illustrate that such motivation exists.

And I have noted many times that this is indeed so, from a secular perspective.

Meanwhile you change and evade and rewrite your central argument in the most disingenuous way possible, again and again.

Perhaps you just don't understand it?

Getting to close to accepting the falsification of your OP challenge? Change the tune. Someone points out the tune is false? Switch back to the OP and pretend the previous arguments didn't happen. Then when - again - we falsify your premise, it's back to the accusation that we're a-picking on religious folk. And on and on.

Again, you didn't falsify anything.

:shrug:

I've seen a lot of trolling on this forum by posters, mods, admins and assorted fucktard trolls, and I have to say that this is the most heinous example I can possibly bring to mind. I mean, where does it stop? Look, we all get it: you're a theist of great guilt and conviction, and you wish to defend the concept of religious good so passively-fiercely that you stoop to the denial of all motivation and the virtual institution of Brownian behaviour.

Can you understand that I am not a theist??

You seem to operate with rather simplistic notions of "religion" and "theism."

We get it. Gmiliam gets it. Aqueous gets it. Even bloody gustav gets it, and he lives under a fucking bridge. It is not an injunction, mental or moral, against your religion to admit that horrible things have been done in the name of religion, motivated by religious belief, over the centuries. Good and ill may come out of religion, and does. No one is surprised by this. Some people do indeed blanket all belief as ill for those very reasons - well, bully for them then: you cannot change their minds, excepting perhaps as an honest ambassador for your faith, and even then, if they will not do so, so be it. Seeds in stony ground, the freedom of rationalism, sophism, neutrality or even bloody-minded denial: whatso'ere it be, so be it. OK? Let it go, for Christ's sake. It's not worth the denial of basic truths.

So sayeth Geoff.

Perhaps you really just don't understand, but are convinced that you do ... and your reply to not understanding is in the range of ill will toward those you don't understand ...

 

[wynn]

Some of the lampooning you see here is an expression of frustration by folks who are dismayed by those who would advocate to shield acts of religiously motivated violence.

I had hoped that everyone participating in this thread, as well as in Sciforums in general, would be able to easily switch between different conceptions of a phenomenon.

I had thought that everyone here would be able to fluently switch between a secular understanding of religion and a non-secular understanding of religion.

 

[wynn]

I do not accept other arguments that they had other motives. I think it amounts to revisionism to say so. The reality of their world is unaltered by our analysis from these sterile ivory towers.

Charges of revisionism can go both ways.

Another's reality may be unaltered by one's analysis of it; but this doesn't mean that one knows what precisely another's reality is. In fact, one quite likely never know what precisely another's reality is.

This is why I prefer to focus on religion as such, apart from specific examples of violence, since we cannot read people's minds nor make sure that we understand what exactly they mean by the words they use, and to instead focus on whether religion has the capacity to motivate violence or not.

For this, we of course need to define "religion," which turns out to be a very complex, multi-layered endeavor.

 

[Sarkus]

A "squark" exists: it exists in that you wrote down the word and defined the term. This is (part of) how it exists. It may not exist in the sense that common-sense realism understands it, but it exists in other ways.

The concept of it may exist, and this is a fairly common-sense realism understanding of it.

Indeed, I haven't prefaced every single sentence and every single paragraph with Ifs and other conditionals, but I stated those conditionals several times, and otherwise pointed at them.

You can point all you want, but if your words are inconsistent you open yourself up to being confusing.

You are being unnecessarily uncharitable. I yet have to see a book or paper on a hypothesis where each and every single sentence and each and every single paragraph is introduced with the conditionals expressing that all that is said there is merely a hypothesis.

They clearly lay out their assumptions at the beginning.
However, in a discussion where no such clarity was at any stage provided, or adhered to, it lends itself to confusion when you say one thing while claiming to point at another.

It's only relevant if God exists.

Not so - religion exists as a concept regardless of whether God exists or not. Your definition says it only exists if God exists.

Why not just call it "Christianity"?

Are you being deliberately evasive?
"Christianity" is a specific example within the set of religions. The term "Christianity" can/will remain as the label of the specific, but the question quite clearly was with regard what the set is called if God does not exist?

...even though upon scrutiny, those phenomena listed as "(world) religions" have different goals, and usually, do not consider eachother as equal competitors for the Truth.

Yet your definition of religion is specifically theistic and excludes non-theistic religions

The anthropological, sociological etc. construct of "religion" introduces a relativism (ie. that they are all equal competitors for the Truth, or something to that effect) that none of the phenomena called "religions" actually subscribe to. That construct is artificially imposed on them.

There is no such relativism applied, other than that which an individual might introduce subjectively to appease political correctness. Most people simply don't know enough about more than their own religion to claim whether they are equal or not.

It is suitable to have an understanding of religion that transcends the particularities of the individual phenomena commonly known as "religions."

And all you can come up with is an understanding that relies on the existence of God for the term to be valid, and only God can know if someone is being religious, and noone else can.
Which, as explained, means you have made "religion" and "religiously" meaningless words.
And in reality all you have done is actually create a new concept for which an entirely different word should be used.
"Religion" has meaning, has understanding - along what you might consider secular terms.
You can not insist on using some half-baked conceptualisation as the meaning for what seems like nothing other than to worm out of conceding that religiously motivated violence exists.

"But I've defined religion to be such that motivation to violence is impossible - therefore one can not have religiously motivated violence"

 

[Sarkus]

I had hoped that everyone participating in this thread, as well as in Sciforums in general, would be able to easily switch between different conceptions of a phenomenon.

I had thought that everyone here would be able to fluently switch between a secular understanding of religion and a non-secular understanding of religion.

It would certainly be easier if the conception being switched to actually had clarity to it, and was more than just making the phenomena impotent, given that it relies for its meaning on the existence of something that you can't demonstrate.
Further, while the practices would remain the same, and you call them "religious" or "religion" if God does exist, you seem unable to give these practices an equivalent group name should God not exist.
Let's call it Unligion, and unligious.

I guess we are forever in a state of quantum uncertainty as to whether such practices are religious or unligious, and whether there exists religions or unligions.

:shrug:

 

[Gustav]

It's not that simple. One of the tenets of Christianity is to Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's, and render unto God what is God's - as citizens of a secular state, they are obligated by the secular law, and as Christians, they are obligated to obey the secular law in secular matters (which are whatever the secular law defines them to be - such as specific parental responsibilities).

nice to see scripture motivating folks
go read how that tenet came about
a shrewd political move by jesus imo

Properly comprehending scripture and applying its instructions is, in "religious settings," generally considered as something that requires a lot of wisdom.

Scriptural instructions are not a simple list of instructions that one could properly act on even with one's eyes closed.

pointless verbiage and a red herring
getting a doctorate and practicing medicine requires wisdom
a flight manual is not a simple set of instructions

From what I understood, Christianity isn't about being moral per se, but to follow God's commandments. These are two different motivations, and often, they may have externally the same results, but they are still different motivations.

being moral is an obvious consequence of following the commandments

I don't know if God was pleased with their actions or not.

interesting
how does one learn of god's disposition at any given moment anyway?
a burning bush and stone tablets perhaps?

It doesn't seem so to me:


A wonderful model of intercessory prayer is found in Daniel 9. It has all the elements of true intercessory prayer. It is in response to the Word (v. 2); characterized by fervency (v. 3) and self-denial (v. 4); identified unselfishly with God’s people (v. 5); strengthened by confession (v. 5-15); dependent on God’s character (vv. 4, 7, 9, 15); and has as its goal God’s glory (vv. 16-19). Like Daniel, Christians are to come to God on behalf of others in a heartbroken and repentant attitude, recognizing their own unworthiness and with a sense of self-denial. Daniel does not say, “I have a right to demand this out of You, God, because I am one of your special, chosen intercessors.” He says, “I'm a sinner,” and, in effect, “I do not have a right to demand anything.” True intercessory prayer seeks not only to know God’s will and see it fulfilled, but to see it fulfilled whether or not it benefits us and regardless of what it costs us. True intercessory prayer seeks God’s glory, not our own.

what do you know of the schaible's approach to prayer? are you assuming they contemptuously demanded god to fix broken things

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

GeoffP and Gustav, please take your bickering and flaming about matters not pertaining to this thread, out of this thread. If you wish to file a complaint about the behaviour of the other, please use the report button or PM the moderator of this sub-forum directly with your concerns and if the response there fails to satisfy your concerns, you may take it to the appropriate sub-forum. If you persist in derailing this thread with the little flame war you have going at the moment, you will receive infractions for your behaviour.

If you have a complaint about this public warning, please PM James R with your complaint or take it to the appropriate sub-forum.

 

[Gustav]

site feedback is for technical issues, little missy

 

[kx000]

Their violent, and they aren't even good at that, religionist.

 

[Bells]

site feedback is for technical issues, little missy

Site Feedback (1 Viewing)
questions, criticisms, suggestions

Sir..

 

[GeoffP]

And I have noted many times that this is indeed so, from a secular perspective.

Which is the only perspective available, regrettably. Since we can present no action as being religiously motivated without the approval of some saintly individual in communion with a higher power, we can certainly not credit religion with being factual without selfsame communion. Have you got a saint on standby? Speed-dial? Phone-a-friend?

Perhaps you just don't understand it?

Yet, I do. I don't see the value in claiming another doesn't understand your argument merely because they puncture it effectively.

Again, you didn't falsify anything.

I'm sorry, but I did.

:shrug:

Can you understand that I am not a theist??

You seem to operate with rather simplistic notions of "religion" and "theism."

Given your fascination with the subject, I rather doubt it, but I suppose it is possible. But, since you are no theist, you will forgive me if I point out that, without a God to refer guilt on the subject of religiously-motivated violence to, we must defer to the secular definition of religion. Since you are no theist, this should be, similarly, no problem. I think the word you are searching for is "Godly" or "Deific", as in "god-motivated violence" or perhaps "deity-motivated violence". This would be the direct connection that you seek. "Religion" means quite a different thing, by every definition I've ever seen.

Perhaps you really just don't understand, but are convinced that you do ... and your reply to not understanding is in the range of ill will toward those you don't understand ...

It is fortunate that supposition is free. So is

Mod Note

GeoffP and Gustav, please take your bickering and flaming about matters not pertaining to this thread, out of this thread. If you wish to file a complaint about the behaviour of the other, please use the report button or PM the moderator of this sub-forum directly with your concerns and if the response there fails to satisfy your concerns, you may take it to the appropriate sub-forum. If you persist in derailing this thread with the little flame war you have going at the moment, you will receive infractions for your behaviour.

If you have a complaint about this public warning, please PM James R with your complaint or take it to the appropriate sub-forum.

I do digress. Consider me well and truly warned.

Or, you could so consider, were I not on "ignore", however that might be arranged for a mod. I suppose my abject contrition will go, to you, as a wink to a blind man.

Knowledge91: This is where we see the violence inherent in the system.

 

[Bells]

1 -...of a technical bent hence SITE feedback

2 - archaic and legacy shit pre sfog

----------------------

aaand for shits and giggles...






you have to bow out of modding this thread, bells
you are in too deep

stop being so stubborn

I am more than capable of moderating in a thread that I participated in or participate in Gustav. Do not worry, if I take a single step out of line, my fellow colleagues and my 'boss' will reign fire upon my head and crucify me for it.

And you are free to take your complaints to SFOG or Site Feedback if James R does not respond to your complaint to him in a manner in which you expected or prefered or expected.

I do digress. Consider me well and truly warned.

Or, you could so consider, were I not on "ignore", however that might be arranged for a mod. I suppose my abject contrition will go, to you, as a wink to a blind man.

I may be ignoring you GeoffP, but that does not mean that I am completely unaware of what you say, for moderation purposes of course.

______________________________________________

Since this matter is now settled, please carry on. Minus the flames.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

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

Knock yourself out.
er

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.

Doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, one may use prayer as a last resort (''God...if you are out there, please could you.....''). An atheist may conclude that he has nothing to lose to ask.

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?

Did I?
Where?

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

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

Knock yourself out.

Ok. Here you go. I wrote:

But if a man kills his homosexual neighbour and confesses that he did it because he read in the Bible that homosexuality if an abomination against his god, then I'm inclined to believe that that's why he did it. Why aren't you?

And you replied:

Why would you regard this as ''religiously motivated'' as opposed to Biblically motivated? And if it is Biblically motivated, why would one have to be religious to use it as a reason to kill?

Your reference: post #1014.

Doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, one may use prayer as a last resort (''God...if you are out there, please could you.....''). An atheist may conclude that he has nothing to lose to ask.

Yes, and as Bells said he may equally conclude that he has nothing to lose by calling on Santa Claus or the pixies that might live at the bottom of his garden. Either call is equally likely, I'd say.

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?

Did I?
Where?

In post number #1159. Don't you remember?

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.

Have you changed your mind since then? Is scripture no longer important to your religion?

Or is it that you have a memory problem?

Or perhaps an honesty problem?

What exactly is the issue with your recall of past posts you have made?

 

[wynn]

Not so - religion exists as a concept regardless of whether God exists or not.

Then you are either God Himself, you have complete certainty that God doesn't exist, or complete certainty that God exists.

Are you being deliberately evasive?
"Christianity" is a specific example within the set of religions. The term "Christianity" can/will remain as the label of the specific, but the question quite clearly was with regard what the set is called if God does not exist?

I think that "set" is an artificial abstract.

And all you can come up with is an understanding that relies on the existence of God for the term to be valid, and only God can know if someone is being religious, and noone else can.

Given the definition of God, it makes sense to define religion that way.

You can not insist on using some half-baked conceptualisation as the meaning for what seems like nothing other than to worm out of conceding that religiously motivated violence exists.

"But I've defined religion to be such that motivation to violence is impossible - therefore one can not have religiously motivated violence"

You're not charitable.

 

[wynn]

It would certainly be easier if the conception being switched to actually had clarity to it, and was more than just making the phenomena impotent, given that it relies for its meaning on the existence of something that you can't demonstrate.
Further, while the practices would remain the same, and you call them "religious" or "religion" if God does exist, you seem unable to give these practices an equivalent group name should God not exist.
Let's call it Unligion, and unligious.

I guess we are forever in a state of quantum uncertainty as to whether such practices are religious or unligious, and whether there exists religions or unligions.

Get back to us once you can control the weather and such.

Until then, some humility is in place.

 

[wynn]

pointless verbiage and a red herring

Lol. Not at all.

getting a doctorate and practicing medicine requires wisdom
a flight manual is not a simple set of instructions

Indeed.

interesting
how does one learn of god's disposition at any given moment anyway?

That possibly depends on why you want to know God's disposition.

what do you know of the schaible's approach to prayer? are you assuming they contemptuously demanded god to fix broken things

I am just commneting on a possible attitude that people not rarely have toward prayer.
A good example of that attitude are studies on the effectiveness of prayer that conclude that prayer doesn't really work.