Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Arioch]

@BWE1 --

I wouldn't get your hopes up about getting a straight answer from LG or Wynn, they treat directness the same way a vegan, hindu, vampire treats a garlic coated steak(in all fairness though, Wynn is much better in this regard than LG is, probably because her ego is less invested in it), they tend to avoid it like the plague.

 

[lightgigantic]

@BWE1 --

I wouldn't get your hopes up about getting a straight answer from LG or Wynn, they treat directness the same way a vegan, hindu, vampire treats a garlic coated steak(in all fairness though, Wynn is much better in this regard than LG is, probably because her ego is less invested in it), they tend to avoid it like the plague.

just proved you wrong three posts down.
Better luck next time

 

[Arioch]

Lulz.

You do make me laugh LG, thanks for that at least.

 

[Balerion]

Some questions should be replied to with a counterquestion.

Generally, that's an elusive and dishonest tactic employed by a person who can't actually answer the first question. Especially when the question returned is a non-sequitur.

Answer the question, Wynn.

 

[BWE1]

Not on my account. Afaiac, you already answered it fine. I understand your point. It's a framing issue. I am mildly sympathetic towards it in that I have no need to consider the motivation for a crime if I know a person's guilt. It doesn't matter why they do it to me. Just that it is illegal and the penalties are enforced. In the US, Bombing a building is a crime. Killing a woman with a rock is a crime. shooting a person is a crime. Justification is pretty unimportant for me unless there is coercion or mental incapacity or something. The reason someone did it simply doesn't seem important to me.

But it is hard to ignore when Jerry Fallwell says we should kill all the gays in the name of the lord. Or when a muslim says allah akbar before martyring himself in a holy jihad. Or things like that.

 

[Balerion]

I guess the problem with this argument is that religion also forces individuals to refrain from such acts ... even from within the same branches of theism. For instance you can find early colonial christian arguments for slavery ... and you find that the successors who abolish these ideas are also early colonial christians.

While the first part is generally true, the second is not. At least for the reason you provide. There is no command to refrain from slavery in the Bible.

IOW its not as simple as people doing whatever god instructs ... its about people having a host of social/cultural/economic/political reasons for doing something and appealing to the highest social authority (regardless whether it happens to be religious or some atheist spin on communism or eugenics) to justify it.

For one, there is no "atheist spin" on anything. Secondly, there is no socioeconomic trigger to honor kill rape victims. This is an exclusively religious atrocity.

And its also not as simple as suggesting that it is inherently wrong to impose one's ideas on others (since even that suggestion fails by its own standard)

Is anyone saying that stoning a woman for the crime of having a wandering gaze is wrong simply because it is the imposition of someone else's ideals upon a society? Certainly there are better arguments against such a heinous act than that.

Whether such actions are representative of "actual" religion, communism, eugenics or whatever is a slightly different point of discussion.

But that's exactly what we're talking about. That warrant for these actions are found in the texts, and nowhere else. Thus, they are religiously-inspired.

 

[wynn]

But it is hard to ignore when Jerry Fallwell says we should kill all the gays in the name of the lord. Or when a muslim says allah akbar before martyring himself in a holy jihad. Or things like that.

If you believe that those actions are "religious," then I ask you to explain why you think that.

If a statement can be found in a text that by some is considered "religious", does that automatically make that statement (and the actions people justify with it), "religious"?

If someone claims something to be in "God's name", does that indeed make it in God's name?


What exactly is "religious" about the 9/11 attacks?
Can you explain?

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

All irrelevant.

If a religion or religious sect commands violence then that violence is religious in nature. If the violence is to serve a religious purpose or goal(such as killing the enemies of islam or shutting down abortion clinics for explicitly religious reasons) then that violence is religious in nature. If a person believes that their god has told them to commit a violent act(whether it's stoning a woman to death for having the misfortune of being raped or, in the case of mormonism, killing a man's wife and child because they were "leading him away from the faith") then that violence is religious in nature.

It doesn't matter if it really is "in god's name" or not. What matters is that religious beliefs, just like any other positive belief, can inspire violence. We've been over this a thousand times before and your arguments have been shown to be fallacious. Every single one has been rebutted.

 

[wynn]

I guess, then, that just as biologists should be considered authorities on the terminology of physics or sociology,
so atheists should be considered authorities on the terminology of theism ...

 

[Balerion]

If you believe that those actions are "religious," then I ask you to explain why you think that.

You know the answer to that. Because the actions are commanded in holy texts.

If a statement can be found in a text that by some is considered "religious", does that automatically make that statement (and the actions people justify with it), "religious"?

Are you trying to say that the Quran and Bible are not religious texts? You put "religious" in quotes, as if the term is vague or in dispute. Webster assures you, it is not.

If someone claims something to be in "God's name", does that indeed make it in God's name?

Anything can be done in anyone's name, and it would be "indeed" in their name. And what is the relevancy of this question?

What exactly is "religious" about the 9/11 attacks?
Can you explain?

It was the slaughtering of infidels as commanded in the Quran.

I know this question will go unanswered, but what the hell are you driving at, Wynn? Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks were not religiously motivated? Are you saying that no violence is ever religious in nature?

 

[BWE1]

I guess, then, that just as biologists should be considered authorities on the terminology of physics or sociology,
so atheists should be considered authorities on the terminology of theism ...

well on that subject I pretty much have to agree. Atheists know their bible a lot better than the fundy's. Statistically speaking anyway.

But I really don't think an angry atheist is going to ever stone his own daughter to death for getting raped. And really, that makes it pretty tough to ignore. But a muslim man sure could. I mean sure, that could just be a random correlation. So could his cries of As Allah commands, so it shall be done as he aims a nice goose egg sized chunk of granite at her left temple. But it is a little suspicious of a coincidence.

 

[BWE1]

“
Originally Posted by BWE1
But it is hard to ignore when Jerry Fallwell says we should kill all the gays in the name of the lord. Or when a muslim says allah akbar before martyring himself in a holy jihad. Or things like that.

If you believe that those actions are "religious," then I ask you to explain why you think that.

Um. Because the people said so? Are you saying that the motive for violence is always subconscious and the killer never realized the true motivation and neither can anyone else? Or are they lying? Because, for real. I don't think anyone is going to think of going into a church service and shooting a random guy in the head because of his profession as a doctor who performs abortions "because, as a desciple of the holy Jesus christ, [the shooter] could not allow [the doctor] to continue his life of evil in God's eyes.

I mean, I grant that it could have been any reason at all that motivated his decision to walk though those door and murder a man in cold blood in front of an audience. But, before this thread, I would have just went ahead agone with the obvious one which he told the police, for convenience' sake I guess. It really didn't occur to me that it was more useful to construct a sociological narrative which started when he was a poor black child and described the formative events which actually motivated him.

.

If a statement can be found in a text that by some is considered "religious", does that automatically make that statement (and the actions people justify with it), "religious"?

Is this one of those "how many lies does someone have to tell before we can call them a liar?" questions?
"

(sometimes it's appropriate to answer a question with another question.)

If someone claims something to be in "God's name", does that indeed make it in God's name?

Well, If I blow out a candle at my mother's funeral and claim it to be in her name, does that indeed make it in God's her name? I'm not sure that I understand why you are calling people you've never met liars already. Are you trying to test the how many lies function?

What exactly is "religious" about the 9/11 attacks?
Can you explain?

Well, the term Jihad for one thing. What does that mean? Smething like "do not stare long at the dead?" Or "Stand your Ground" or "Holy war in the name of motherfuckin allah alayalbitches. "

I looked it up.

Wi,ki says this:

According to the authoritative Dictionary of Islam jihad is defined as: "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad ... enjoined especially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims."[1]

 

[wynn]

You know the answer to that. Because the actions are commanded in holy texts.

Holy texts demand many things, and also specifiy what qualifications one must have in order to act on a particular instructions.

Are you trying to say that the Quran and Bible are not religious texts? You put "religious" in quotes, as if the term is vague or in dispute. Webster assures you, it is not.

Like I said - I guess, then, that just as biologists should be considered authorities on the terminology of physics or sociology,
so atheists should be considered authorities on the terminology of theism ...

Anything can be done in anyone's name, and it would be "indeed" in their name. And what is the relevancy of this question?

So if someone would claim that they committed a crime in your name, you would just accept the blame?

You'd accept as true about yourself anything anyone would claim about you?

If you wouldn't, why should others?

It was the slaughtering of infidels as commanded in the Quran.

Give us a direct quote.

I know this question will go unanswered, but what the hell are you driving at, Wynn? Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks were not religiously motivated? Are you saying that no violence is ever religious in nature?

Surely you are aware that religion is a very broad phenomenon:

- there are many traditions, from many different geographical, chronological, socio-economical circumstances;

- there are many levels of practice and attainment, within each of the traditions;

- different people are on different levels of practice and attainment.


Generally, it seems that the harsher the socio-economic circumstances, the harsher the people will treat eachother. In and of itself, that has nothing to do with religion.

Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks were not religiously motivated? Are you saying that no violence is ever religious in nature?

It's not clear what is religious about that, other than the motivation that some media and political personalities ascribed to the attacks.

 

[BWE1]

On that note I totally agree. God doesn't ever seem to command killing unless there's someone needs killing already. Still, and all, the whole suicide martyr thing seems to me to be not motivated perhaps but carried through with, based quite explicitely on a religious belief in heaven.

No? I agree not all. But surely some small amount. I mean there's violence that's motivated by a skateboarded. Why not a religion?

 

[wynn]

But I really don't think an angry atheist is going to ever stone his own daughter to death for getting raped. And really, that makes it pretty tough to ignore. But a muslim man sure could. I mean sure, that could just be a random correlation. So could his cries of As Allah commands, so it shall be done as he aims a nice goose egg sized chunk of granite at her left temple. But it is a little suspicious of a coincidence.

You seem to be operating from the conviction that modern secular society is bereft of cruel punishments for transgressing social norms.

Starting with how easy it is to lose one's job nowadays, or be committed to a mental institution, actual social guidelines and practices show differently.

In a secular society, a person may indeed not get stoned for transgressing social norms, but they are faced with other cruel punishments.

 

[wynn]

well on that subject I pretty much have to agree. Atheists know their bible a lot better than the fundy's. Statistically speaking anyway.

And yet they have so much trouble adequately explaining what "religion" is ...

 

[Yazata]

Hmm. What is the justification for stoning to death girls who break social taboos in many muslim lands? What is the justification for bombing abortion clinics?

They think that their ideology justifies or even commands it.

It's basically the same question and the same answer as we find when we ask:

What was the justification for atheists destroying countless Buddhist monasteries in Mongolia and Tibet, and sending the monks off to death camps?

One group of people do evil acts in the name of their religious faith. Another group of people do evil acts in the name of their atheist faith.

Except that Sciforums' atheist battlers want to argue that while the evil acts performed in the name of religion totally discredit all of religion (hence affirming the superiority of atheism), the evil acts performed in the name of atheism have nothing remotely to do with atheism, because from their perspective (cue organ and angelic choir here) atheism is only the absence of theistic belief and nothing more. So atheism floats like a moral lotus blossom, immune from all criticism or challenge.

Of course from the theistic perspective (cue organ and angelic choir here) God is Good. So evil acts can't come from God, simply by definition. All religious acts must be good acts, or else they can't count as religious acts. So religion floats like a moral lotus blossom, immune from all criticism and challenge.

In my opinion it remains rhetorical bullshit, regardless of which side happens to be playing that hypocritical game.

 

[BWE1]

Well, I tend to agree with that too. But in this case I think the case is really just a basic definition issue and which you choose is perfectly related to how much respect you are likely to offer religious people or maybe religious ideas.

If you take the people at their word who insist they are committing or inciting violence either carrying out god's command or in his name, then you are basically tending toward the literalist camp and making the perfectly rational conclusion that religion has a dark side to it.

If you assume they are either lying or too socially disadvantaged to know that they are lying then awesome. I might assume though that the bank robbers whom grabbed the cash singing "we;re going to Vegas baby" on the way out the door were actually lying though and really took the money to fulfill a promise they made to god and the church.

Because I really couldn't know.

 

[BWE1]

They think that their ideology justifies or even commands it.

It's basically the same question and the same answer as we find when we ask:

What was the justification for atheists destroying countless Buddhist monasteries in Mongolia and Tibet, and sending the monks off to death camps?

One group of people do evil acts in the name of their religious faith. Another group of people do evil acts in the name of their atheist faith.

Except that Sciforums' atheist battlers want to argue that while the evil acts performed in the name of religion totally discredit all of religion (hence affirming the superiority of atheism), the evil acts performed in the name of atheism have nothing remotely to do with atheism, because from their perspective (cue organ and angelic choir here) atheism is only the absence of theistic belief and nothing more. So atheism floats like a moral lotus blossom, immune from all criticism or challenge.

Of course from the theistic perspective (cue organ and angelic choir here) God is Good. So evil acts can't come from God, simply by definition. All religious acts must be good acts, or else they can't count as religious acts. So religion floats like a moral lotus blossom, immune from all criticism and challenge.

In my opinion it remains rhetorical bullshit, regardless of which side happens to be playing that hypocritical game.

Oh. I see. Well. I am not an atheist. so you'll love me. I think belief in truth period is the cause of all of it. And skepticism involves humility or it becomes fundamentalism of any particular belief set.

 

[wynn]

In my opinion it remains rhetorical bullshit, regardless of which side happens to be playing that hypocritical game.

It's difficult to talk about violence and violent motivations. These things are extremely loaded with emotion, and there is a lot of social taboo on these topics.
Most people also don't want to expose themselves too much in public discussion, so there are aspects of violence that never get publicly discussed and resolved, even though on principle, they could.
This way, public discussions on violence are usually defensive and philosophically and ethically crippled.