Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

wynn said:
That doesn't sound healthy, nor actually doable.

Basically, you're stepping forward and chellenging people, claiming you want to be convinced, while at the same time, you are fiercely fighting back and defending your own position.
It's like pulling the other person toward yourself with one hand, and pushing them away with the other.

If you want to change yourself, or at least allow for change, surely you already have in place ideas about what "betterment" and "improvement" would mean for you, don't you? Why not follow those ideas?
Click to expand...

Those idea are limited by what I know and can think. The biggest and best source of ideas is other people! And yes, pulling with one hand and pushing with the other is exactly what I am doing - so that the better argument prevails over just my opinion or whim. Of course I am stepping up and challenging people to "gives me ideas" and then I make counter claims or demand explaination or evidence for their ideas so that the situation can be fully explored. I do hope your definition of an open mind is not "believe everything". If I take only my ideas of betterment, I may miss better ideas or may follow wrong ones. But of course I must defend my position. Thats the burden of rejoinder - accept or argue. If the conversation has not developed to the point where I can accept or reject some idea, I have to argue or demand convincing - the only alternative is to leave the conversation, which I don't want to do.
 
wynn said:
Simple:

There is all that talk about how religion motivates people to be violent and abusive.

Show that the violence is indeed religiously motivated - and not perhaps politically, economically, a mistake etc.
Click to expand...

Ok. Lets take the general atheist. What is his response to, say, burning the "God delusion [or any symbolic stuff - like spagetti monster puppets]" in sweden, the most atheistic country? Some outrage over religious censorship? Some criticism of encroaching on free speech?

Then we you take the general muslim from, say, Iraq. What is his reaction to burning the Quran? Beheading? Shooting? That's of course, if you are lucky. More likely public stoning or tortue.

Now why is there the difference between the reactions about desacrating something central to a person's beliefs if the difference is not religious?

Also, lets take suicide bombings. The actual love of death and martrydom in Islam is well known. Now, this is, has to be, rooted in their religious belief in the islamic afterlife. Without taking religion into account, politcal, social or economic conditions alone CANNOT explain why well to do, well educated, smart and understanding young people would carry out the 9/11 attacks. Even if they were brainwashed into just an interpretation of the Quran [they weren't - quran clearly tells its followers to kill the kafirs], it is still religion that is at the core of their motivation. Religion is prone to interpretation, and while you may make the case for saying that interpretations of religions not actual religions as they are not how the scripture is intended, that may be ontologically true, but it is not practically true - since the person considered it his religion and his religion is an interpretation of an actual religion. Hence the religion, however good it might be, must take the responsiblity [though not necessarily blame] for any interpretations which it might create. All christians must take responsiblity for evangelicals, because catholic or protestant, they are still all christains; just as jihadist or moderates, they are all muslims.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Hence the religion, however good it might be, must take the responsiblity [though not necessarily blame] for any interpretations which it might create.
Click to expand...

There was a time when I thought so too.

But how exactly do you suggest that this work out in practice?

How would, say, Christians take responsibility for fundamentalist Christians?
 
wynn said:
There was a time when I thought so too.

But how exactly do you suggest that this work out in practice?

How would, say, Christians take responsibility for fundamentalist Christians?
Click to expand...

That is very easy. Whether or that its their fault that there are creationists around, they say - these guys have come to their positon by a faulty interpretation of OUR religion. So we must take steps to patch up the situation.

Once they do that, its really simple - Christians just declare that the bible creation tales are metaphorical stories that God used for giving morals, not history.
 
aaqucnaona said:
That is very easy. Whether or that its their fault that there are creationists around, they say - these guys have come to their positon by a faulty interpretation of OUR religion. So we must take steps to patch up the situation.

Once they do that, its really simple - Christians just declare that the bible creation tales are metaphorical stories that God used for giving morals, not history.
Click to expand...

No, this is not Christians taking responsibility for various interpretations of the Bible; it's Christians subjecting themselves to mainstream atheism.
 
wynn said:
No, this is not Christians taking responsibility for various interpretations of the Bible; it's Christians subjecting themselves to mainstream atheism.
Click to expand...

Why is it atheistic? I propose they say GOD did indeed write those stories, but they are moral stories, not literal or historical ones.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Why is it atheistic? I propose they say GOD did indeed write those stories, but they are moral stories, not literal or historical ones.
Click to expand...

It's not clear how such a reinterpretation would be an act of Christians taking responsibility for various interpretations of the Bible.
 
wynn said:
No, this is not Christians taking responsibility for various interpretations of the Bible; it's Christians subjecting themselves to mainstream atheism.
Click to expand...

Not at all, they do this to make their interpretations compatible with science. They are not attempting to be compatible with non-believers......
 
wynn said:
Western science is effectively atheistic, in case you haven't noticed.
Click to expand...

Is there an eastern brand of science? I hadn't heard. If science is effectively atheistic, maybe atheism is not the demon, just science itself.
 
wynn said:
Western science is effectively atheistic, in case you haven't noticed.
Click to expand...

Wrong, this is just your interpretation of it. Science, if case you haven't noticed, is not in the business of perusing knowledge in the belief or non belief in the plethora of Gods.
 
LIGHTBEING said:
Wrong, this is just your interpretation of it. Science, if case you haven't noticed, is not in the business of perusing knowledge in the belief or non belief in the plethora of Gods.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. Science has much to say about the arguments put forth in favor of a god.
 
All right, I'm going to argue against you guys on this one: whenever you get to some critical logical point in the discussion of evidence for a god, inevitably you can always tap the statement "Well, He's an inscrutable magical being." It's an argument terminator but it's true.
 
Spider -

I can understand that position but again Science is not in that business. The scientific community's discoveries may inadvertently debunk such arguments which is a byproduct of the science itself. Therefore I cannot a do not consider Science or Western science "effectively atheistic"
 
No, it's not atheistic, since that would be taking a position on it. But it's incorrect to say it's not in the business. Everything is it's business.
 
When I say business I mean objective.

As far as I know science's business is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the physical/material world and universe and how things work. It's not in the business of pursuing knowledge of the God Theory. It's ultimately a byproduct of the science itself. Meaning it is not science's primary objective or goal to address such things but it inadvertently does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top