Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

If the religion tells them to burn suspected witches, and they did, how is that not religiously motivated violence?
 
Arioch said:
@lightgigantic and wynn --

How about this, why don't you show me that religion inspires good deeds(helping the needy and whatnot). Remember not to make the assumption that people don't make mistakes...lol!
Click to expand...

Most belief systems, including humanistic and atheistic ones, as well as theistic ones, encourage people to do that which is good, wholesome, beneficial.

However, for the purposes of further discussion, you need to specify what you mean by "good deed."

Think, for example, of the humanitarian crisis in Africa to see how problematic some notions of "good deeds" are.
 
spidergoat said:
Correction: any ideology or institution that went before. In other words, one can create one's own religion simply by believing in it.
Click to expand...


I believe a belief is only a belief though a religion is based on a belief the religion is not the belief itself.

Religion doesn't have to be practical.
Click to expand...


So religious violence is not something that occurs in the real world since religion does not have to be practical.
 
Big Chiller said:
So religious violence is not something that occurs in the real world since religion does not have to be practical.
Click to expand...

Religion doesn't have to be practical, but that doesn't exclude beliefs that are practical. It really depends on your goal. If religious violence results in your religion having dominance, then that could be considered practical.
 
Has religion been used in history as a means of conquering, for gaining power and resources if so is that considered religious violence.
 
wynn said:
Really? Religion told them that?
Click to expand...
Yes.

KJV, Exodus 22:18 "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (The religions doctrine tells it's followers to kill people they consider to be witches)

And answer the question I posed in post 58. thank you.
 
wynn said:
The original six points were part of a twofold set, intended to be complimentary, contextualized by additional qualifiers:






If you disagree with the second set, then state your case.
Click to expand...
I don't see where it changes anything. Still sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
 
lightgigantic said:
That's not logically possible unless you can hazard a definition of atheism that in no way touches on issues of existence
(at the very least, the wiki page on atheism fails in that regard)
Click to expand...
How about: Not having a belief in God. Voila. End of story. It makes no claim as to the question of God's existence one way or the other... merely that one does not hold the belief that God exists. This does not mean that they believe that God does not exist.
Because one cannot escape issues of ontology when one is discussing the qualities of existence
Click to expand...
But not all atheists do discuss the quality of existence, and when they do they do not always share the same ontology - thus there is no unique identifying belief. It really is as simple as that.
I don't know what?
Click to expand...
Er... the truth to the questions you posed? :shrug:
If they couldn't be answered there would be no way to distinguish the various grades of atheists (strong, weak, implicit, explicit, practical, theoretical, ontological, epistemological, metaphysical, logical, existential etc) ... or for that matter an atheist from a theist or an agnostic or some combination of them
Click to expand...
They can be answered - but who is to say what is the correct position, or whether if there even is a correct position? So I would think it better to say that they can be guessed at... that one can hold an opinion.
Its got everything to do with it - if you take the explicit out of an explicit atheist you are certainly not left with an atheist
Click to expand...
Why are you shifting the goal-posts to just explicit atheists??? Never heard of implicit atheists (which surely you must have done to try and differentiate them from explicit atheism)?
Actually firstly its a definition of knowledge that says belief plays a vital role
Click to expand...
Still irrelevant to the discussion at hand. :shrug:

You're wearing 10 tracksuits and you are trying to tell me you are naked
Click to expand...
No - I'm saying the clothing is irrelevant to the description of what a Man is. It's irrelevant how many tracksuits I wear, yet you still try to define the Man as tracksuit-wearing.

what are you talking about?
Its the very nature of an ontological system that it does sum up the beliefs of a group!
Click to expand...
But if that group allows for such diversity of ontological positions, no single one of them can be viewed as applicable to the whole. What of this do you fail to understand??

In order to posit a "believe in" one absolutely must in all circumstances 100% of the time without fail have an ontological system.
Click to expand...
And I will ask again - what has this to do with an atheist - other than through your insistence that all atheists have an ontological system - yet you can not say what single ontological system, and thus even a single belief, all atheists have?

So - what belief - single or otherwise - is it that characterises an atheist as an atheist?
 
@wynn --

What the hell are you on about? I already gave you a passage from the bible, and multiple passages from the koran, explicitly calling believers to violence.
 
Arioch said:
@lightgigantic --

Straw man argument. I specified more than enough for the purposes of my question. I specified that religion can not be determined to cause people to act in an altruistic manner. In other words, it can't motivate people to act in ways which benefit others and not themselves.

You know damn well what altruism is. I'll take this exchange you conceding the point.
Click to expand...
the problem is that you haven't really explained what you mean by "benefit" ... and what's worse is that you say that you can but you don't want to
:shrug:
 
Arioch said:
@wynn --

What the hell are you on about? I already gave you a passage from the bible, and multiple passages from the koran, explicitly calling believers to violence.
Click to expand...

Woe to them. Jesus was a passifist, the lamb. The diffrence between the lion and the lamb is the lion is willing to fight back. They are both passifist, but the lion is a lion. Vilonce is not the answer but the Lamb is willing to be slaughterd for his belief that violence is never the answer even living in constant threat. His belief is to never to strike another, even if striken first. The lion will just lie there. If you so much as poke at him you better be fast as a mother.
 
I gave proof that if you are a true believer you will never hit another man, unless he strikes you. And if you are Jesus you wont even strike back, you will only continue going forward.
 
@lightgigantic --

More evasion. You already know damn well what I'm talking about, stop evading and deliberately obfuscating.
 
spidergoat said:
Oh, the True Scotsman fallacy again.

What was that thing about Mary?
Click to expand...

Mary was carrying the seed of Yashua. The Roman Catholic church seeked to kill her. Father Jude and Mother Marry prevented that by taking Rome on a wild goose chase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top