Holy texts demand many things, and also specifiy what qualifications one must have in order to act on a particular instructions.
Okay.
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 ...
I can't tell if this is a failed attempt at sarcasm, or if you mistakenly said "atheists" instead of "theists." Either way, the point fails completely, because it assumes that one must be a believer in order to understand the texts. Clearly one need not be a theist to understand anything about these holy texts (especially the "terminology", whatever that's supposed to mean...)
So if someone would claim that they committed a crime in your name, you would just accept the blame?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it in my name. I think the point you're driving at here is that the atrocities done in God or Allah's name are simply misunderstanding of the texts, but this is demonstrably false. If you had ever read the texts (which I
sincerely doubt you have) you'd see where one would find their divine warrant.
You'd accept as true about yourself anything anyone would claim about you?
Now you're getting sidetracked. Whether or not I would "accept" an act done in my name is irrelevant. But to answer your question (Because I, unlike you, do not duck questions), I would condemn the action if it was not something I agreed with. The problem with trying to put this on me is that there
is warrant for such actions in the various holy texts, so it can't be said that suicide bombers or abortion clinic bombers are somehow misunderstanding the word of their god. It's all in there.
If you wouldn't, why should others?
False dichotomy, as I showed above. In the case of atrocities committed in the name of god, there is warrant found in the books.
Just one? Alright.
2:191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
Is that enough, or do you need more?
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.
No one is arguing that poverty and ignorance don't play a role, but that role is to leave people susceptible to religious influence. Religion replaces education with myth and superstition, and that myth and superstition leads to bigotry, oppression, and violence.
Your list items are red herrings. That different people are religious to varying degrees, and that different religions have (or can have) different traditions, does not mean that the violent traditions of Islam are therefore not religious.
It's not clear what is religious about that, other than the motivation that some media and political personalities ascribed to the attacks.
Oh, so it's a political conspiracy against Islam, propagated by the media?
I mean, you have reached a new low here. Only a blithering idiot would say that there was nothing religious about the 9/11 attacks, and for as low as my opinion is of you, I can't go so far as to think you're a blithering idiot. So I can only assume you're conscious of the religious implications and motivations, and only wish to see how far you can get in the effort to portray them as something else.
