Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

This is your definition of religion, and it begs the very question you asked (in an inverse way):
"Violence can't be religious by definition - so please show that there is religious violence".

I really am surprised that you are still bothering with this thread, given that your own definition precludes religious violence.
You should have stopped at "my definition of religion does not permit violence, thus the question is moot".
But instead you merely wish to say to people who provide examples of what they consider to be religiously motivated violence "Sorry, your definition of religion is inadequate and thus you are wrong. There is no religious violence."


So, simply put: those who hold religion to be A will conclude there is religiously motivated violence, as amply exampled.
But those who hold religion to be B will conclude that there is no religiously motivated violence, because by definition there can not be.

I do hope I have succinctly summarised the 66 pages of this thread so far?

Perhaps we should start another thread with the same request as this one, but with the added qualification that only people who consider themselves religious or theists should participate.

That would possibly result in a vastly different discussion than the one in this thread.

I'd much prefer to see people with stances like scifes' to discuss them.

 

[gmilam]

You certainly seem to think you know better than me, given your disdain for me.

Non-sequitor.

Agreeing or disagreeing with someone is not predicated on liking them as a person.

 

[wynn]

Non-sequitor.

Agreeing or disagreeing with someone is not predicated on liking them as a person.

TYVM, Sarkus and I were not born yesterday, nor have we met yesterday.

 

[Sarkus]

You certainly seem to think you know better than me, given your disdain for me.

I only think I know what I think I know. Whether that is "better" than you or not is for you to judge, not me.
And any disdain is not for you but for your definition of religion, and the pointlessness of this thread given the definition you are working with.

"Show me that there is religiously motivated violence... but using a definition of religion that does not allow religiously motivated violence!"

 

[wynn]

I only think I know what I think I know. Whether that is "better" than you or not is for you to judge, not me.

It's no secret that you believe you know better than me.

And any disdain is not for you but for your definition of religion,

Riiight.

and the pointlessness of this thread given the definition you are working with.

"Show me that there is religiously motivated violence... but using a definition of religion that does not allow religiously motivated violence!"

Look, if you atheists hadn't occupied this thread, possibly more theists and other religionists would come in or their contributions would be more prominent.
You'd see a very different discussion then. Perhaps then you'd even come to appreciate my definition of religion.

 

[Sarkus]

It's no secret that you believe you know better than me.

:shrug: If you have issues to raise or rebuttals of my arguments to make then please do post them, but what I think of you or not, or at least what you think I think of you or not, is irrelevant.

Look, if you atheists hadn't occupied this thread, possibly more theists and other religionists would come in or their contributions would be more prominent.
You'd see a very different discussion then. Perhaps then you'd even come to appreciate my definition of religion.

Yet it would still be a case of "Show me that there is religiously motivated violence... but using a definition of religion that does not allow religiously motivated violence!" - irrespective of one's theistic or atheistic stance... it is simple logic.
If I exclude the possibility of something through definition, it is pointless to then ask to be shown it while adhering to that definition.

"Show me that fish do live in the sea... but using a definition of sea that does not allow for fish to live in it!"
And to anyone who provides examples of trawlers netting vast quantities of fish... simple, the example is not adhering to my definition of "sea" and is thus rejected.

Get the idea yet?

 

[gmilam]

It's amazing. We have clowns on one side saying that religion does not require any sort of god - and therefore atheism is a religion. We have jokers on the other side saying for something to be religious it must be pleasing to god.

If people keep redefining words, then it won't belong before I won't know how to order a cup of coffee. [/sarcasm]

 

[michael_taylor]

I posted it here, and referred to it several times.

I've also noted several times that violence is unskillful, and all that is unskillful is due to greed, anger and delusion.

Religious action is skillful.
When there are greed, anger and delusion motivating an action, said action cannot be religious.

- This, at least, is my understanding so far.

I see. Well, then you have your answer:

In cases where the person asking the question "can religion motivate violence" defines "religious" as "not motivating violence", no it is not possible to show religiously motivated violence. Wasn't that obvious from the start? I can't see in what sense the question isn't answered by the assumptions of the question itself.

Your underlying assertion is that what most religious people think of as religion, actually isn't religion at all because their definition doesn't feature a built in disclaimer about the majority of scripture-derived morality ?

Doesn't that just boil down to saying "people who believe the bible aren't religious, only people who follow my interpretation are religious?"

How is that any different to what other real and wannabe religious leaders define religion as? How is the definition any more accurate coming from you? Is it because a god told you directly?

If you're serious about it you should be practising your performance skills and starting a cult, not trolling science nerds.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It's amazing. We have clowns on one side saying that religion does not require any sort of god - and therefore atheism is a religion. We have jokers on the other side saying for something to be religious it must be pleasing to god.

If people keep redefining words, then it won't belong before I won't know how to order a cup of coffee. [/sarcasm]

"Clowns to the left of me..jokers to the right" ? Hah, no kidding.

And I received the remarkable reply that history boils down to conjecture and one of the principal world religions can't prove it's more than secular. So we can't know anything. Similar to science threads where you see the fallacy that theory is mere speculation.

This means that besides no longer being able to order coffee, you will not know for sure if the ice water given to you by default is not really java after all. Which is of dubious benefit, since you won't know for sure what coffee tastes like, or why you ever liked it. Alzheimer's? Is this rhetorical dementia we are witnessing?

 

[Aqueous Id]

"Show me that fish do live in the sea... but using a definition of sea that does not allow for fish to live in it!" And to anyone who provides examples of trawlers netting vast quantities of fish... simple, the example is not adhering to my definition of "sea" and is thus rejected.

Get the idea yet?

Yes I do. And you model it well.

We are not allowed to know anything in this thread, nor to use common definitions for simple universals like God, religion, motive or violence. We are not gifted, thus we are incapable of requisite wisdom and that is why we should sit in the back of the room with our coneheads in the corner.

I think this is how religiously motivated violence gets its foot in the door. See no evil, hear no evil, but fan those flames and speak it 'til the end of days.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Is it because a god told you directly?

If you're serious about it you should be practising your performance skills and starting a cult, not trolling science nerds.

I wouldn't mind being trolled by someone with supernatural gifts, since I've got three wishes I'd like granted.

But yes, you did converge on the same fallacy that geoffp, gmilam, sarkus, spidergoat, bells, probably dywyddyr and fraggle rocker, and maybe two dozen others, have all noticed.

You are correct.

 

[GeoffP]

Look, if you atheists hadn't occupied this thread, possibly more theists and other religionists would come in or their contributions would be more prominent.
You'd see a very different discussion then. Perhaps then you'd even come to appreciate my definition of religion.

What's stopping you here? 50+ pages and no reveal. As a magician, you're a tease.

Perhaps we should start another thread with the same request as this one, but with the added qualification that only people who consider themselves religious or theists should participate.

Well, how would you participate then, wynn?

After all, you are no theist. :shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

Perhaps we should start another thread with the same request as this one, but with the added qualification that only people who consider themselves religious or theists should participate.

That would possibly result in a vastly different discussion than the one in this thread.

I'd much prefer to see people with stances like scifes' to discuss them.

I thought variety was the spice of life.

I would be willing to bug out of such a thread if you would do three donkey kicks on YouTube, and name your thread "Stepford Wives Roundtable".

Heck, I'll even go around promoting it for you.

OK, that was just to poke fun. Look, I was going over your replies, and I think I'm going to reformulate this. Basically, I find that I am unable to successfully convey my ideas - in other words, when I state a fact, you will sometimes reply in such a way that alters the meaning, as if you did not understand, or, in some cases, you do not agree with the implied meaning.

So I will abort. Here I will just summarize what I think went on between us:

1. You said show religiously motivated violence.

2. I said Crusades.

3. A couple of folks, including you, said no, or it's trivialism, it needs more proof

4. I provided some of the historical accounts - the massacre of the Jews at Mainz and the account of Pope Urban II launching the first expedition. I also showed the shrine of the Holy Blood, the gory Bible cover where they were massacring Jews, and I gave several kinds of proof attesting to the religious beliefs expressed in various ways from ritual to enshrinement of ideas.

5. You countered that the proof is inconclusive.

6. I gave a hypothetical trial of Pope Urban II, where he elaborates beyond a reasonable doubt as to their religious motivation. My goal was to get you to agree to a standard of proof.

7. Unfortunately I picked a Nürnberg setting, not expecting a strawman to rise out of it, and you went into some discussion about Nürnberg which was not at all even close to what I was saying. You also opened several points about law and the violent punishments in Iran. You mentioned "human courts" which gave me pause, since I wasn't sure if you were implying non-human courts, and you gave several brief points that seem to convey a personal experience you enjoy which is not available to me, and this was spread into several themes, from truth to true religion, and so on.

8. That gets us to present day - glossing over a lot, just hitting the points that stand out in my mind.

Now I go back to my original statement that the Crusades involved religiously motivated violence. I realize that you oppose this assertion. But there is no tangible means to elicit your definitive rationale, since I am unable to convey my meaning to you in such a way that you can repeat back to me what I said.

So I will leave it at that.

If you do open another thread. I would enjoy hearing ANYTHING from you - and jan aredena, scifes, lightgigantic, zav - and I've missed a few, but they know who they are - that starts off with either the definitions you know you will need, or else maybe a thread that seeks to resolve any ambiguities that exist.

That would be cool. If I have in any way mischaracterized you or any of your positions, feel free to comment. I'm loitering here, wondering what happens next.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You'd see a very different discussion then. Perhaps then you'd even come to appreciate my definition of religion.

What's stopping you here? 50+ pages and no reveal. As a magician, you're a tease.

Is this the stumbling block: I could tell you, but you are incapable of comprehending it. So I will reveal this to you in quantum anti-particles of the reality you just think you inhabit.

Or: My ideas will be jinxed by merely uttering them.

Because if it's not one of these, we're left with some worse conclusions.

 

[GeoffP]

I shudder to think what those might be. I'll pick Door #2, Alex.

Then again, my cult could always use some new blood.

...uh, I mean, members! Could use some new members. Never, uh, mind that blood thing. That was just a Freudian slip. I mean non-Freudian. Is it hot in here?

 

[Aqueous Id]

I shudder to think what those might be. I'll pick Door #2, Alex.

Then again, my cult could always use some new blood.

...uh, I mean, members! Could use some new members. Never, uh, mind that blood thing. That was just a Freudian slip. I mean non-Freudian. Is it hot in here?

See that's when they'll hang you on your words. Just to sink their claws in.. and all behind some sort of (if we can ever define it) religious idea.


Maybe they're witches and warlocks in drag, just jerking our chain.

 

[spidergoat]

...you seem to think that "religion" is whatever any group of people deems "religious.".

Yes, exactly.


re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, exactly.


re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Well, that made too much sense for this thread. I demand it be deleted or garbled forthwith.

 

[wynn]

I see. Well, then you have your answer:

In cases where the person asking the question "can religion motivate violence" defines "religious" as "not motivating violence", no it is not possible to show religiously motivated violence. Wasn't that obvious from the start? I can't see in what sense the question isn't answered by the assumptions of the question itself.

Your underlying assertion is that what most religious people think of as religion, actually isn't religion at all because their definition doesn't feature a built in disclaimer about the majority of scripture-derived morality ?

Doesn't that just boil down to saying "people who believe the bible aren't religious, only people who follow my interpretation are religious?"

How is that any different to what other real and wannabe religious leaders define religion as? How is the definition any more accurate coming from you? Is it because a god told you directly?

If you're serious about it you should be practising your performance skills and starting a cult, not trolling science nerds.

I see Sciforums discussions as a team effort.

When I started this thread, I didn't have all my definitions worked out. I worked them out as discussion progressed.

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Well, how would you participate then, wynn?

There is plenty of threads intended only for theists/religionists in which others are welcomed to further the discussion and ask questions, while not making it into a theist vs. atheist issue.