Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More commonly: disbelief that there is a God.

Maybe to you, but not to a Deist, who cites God, capital G, Creator (usu. capital C), who does not interfere with the laws of Nature (usu. capital N).

Or, in common use, atheism can simply mean "non-theist". From an atheist's point of view, modern theism seems a reactionary stance to a wide spectrum of modern ideas.

Or atheism is merely an unfavorable inclination toward theism, leaving God moot, and having no bearing on ethics whatsoever.

I parse this as: Given A and B, C would be illogical and D is pointless.

Not sure what you mean by "common" in the phrase common definitions of individual living entities such as humans (fully dependent on God)?

If "common" means "common to both theists and atheists" then B would be false, leaving C and D are moot.

If "common" means "common among theists" and C and D only apply to theists, then are you simply explaining to a non-theist why this line of inquiry is wasted on a theist?
[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this would be compatible with the common definition of the Crusades as religious wars. And it is compatible with every other hostility that comes to mind that took root because of a difference in religious ideology, regardless of all the ethnic, cultural and economic factors these folks want to use, to excuse faith-based violence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sir Thomas Moore was executed for his faith in God.

 

Basically, having considered...I think the religious reasons are primary...this is why I think it to be so:
Those of us who operate in some sort of ethical framework that restrains us are in the large majority, in all societies.
So...it's not that large numbers of people don't want to take other people's stuff/land/wives/daughters, that's usually a desire rolling around in a number of good people, just repressed.

Religion, as separate from spirituality... I tend to define part of that as having a power structure. A religion will have a human who is considered to be an authority, to whom others answer to. Not its' only feature, but the problem is that large numbers are told what they are good people for doing

So if they are told leveling a village, taking the virgin daughters to wife and killing everyone else makes them good people by the leader, they will.
They need permission to commit violence and still feel righteous and proper.

 

You are referring to the Catholic saint and martyr, Sir Thomas More, who disapproved of Henry VIII's schism from the Church. He refused to acknowledge Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine and did not show up for Anne Boleyn's coronation. This lead to some trumped up charges for which he was executed.

It is a good example of how the Protestants in power were willing to murder a human being to silence him from the mere religious opinion. In this case, the issue was whether any man other than the pope has been ordained by God to interpret laws of the Church.

Also noteworthy is that they were burning Catholics at the stake in England at this time, while the Catholic Spaniards were busily annihilating indigenous Americans for being pagan. And of course there was the Inquisition which was wholesale slaughter by the Catholics for the mere opinion that the accused was at variance with Holy Law. Then of course there witch hunts by the Protestants. In all of these circumstances, torture, drowning and burning at the stake were common.

All in the name of God.

 

This is certainly true in the notable episodes of history where violence was promoted or tolerated by the Church leaders.

But don't you think - like Nazism - that it takes a groundswell of support, a pre-existing hatred among the common folk - for these violent episodes to succeed? Then all the leader has to do is wind the people up - as Hitler understood and exploited. He is a good example, too, because he studied antisemitism by paying close attention to the beer hall debates. The Jews became the scapegoats for everything wrong with the economic and military disasters in Germany. But at the root of this, was their religion. That was the central difference, and the underlying rationale for the Holocaust.

 

Then they are neither spiritual nor theistic,
but address issues of mundane survival.

Everyone has to deal with issues of mundane survival.

 

What was religious about those events you point at?

The analysis of them by popular media outlets?

 

Stalk much?

Indeed, possibly so.

You seem to be getting a little upset. Was something wrong with that post? Anyway, interesting question: I can certainly think of one such individual with whom I argue on this forum a great deal, who is very obsessive in her hatred of another religion. Would I say that was her expression of religious violence? Would you call her demands for members of a certain religion to abandon their faith as a kind of religious violence? What about her tacit approval of religious violence against women?

So... do you really want to go down this road? Pfft. What am I saying? Of course you do. That's why you're on the stalking again.

Indeed; that sort of thing is more common elsewhere seemingly, but doesn't detract from the seriousness of the issue.

 

What survival? Individual survival? Absurd. No one's belly is being filled by attacking a collection of liberals and Christians for holding a peaceful sit-in, or by shooting animists in Africa.

You could implicate the survival of their philosophy, which is then certainly religiously motivated.

 

What the struggle for survival looks like depends on the circumstances of a particular situation.
It can be anything from one person strangling another with his bare hands over some food, or it can be a group of villagers throwing stones at an intruder, or it can be the citizens of a country forcing a minority into ghettos, or it can be an army deployed overseas into a foreign country, ...

Then it is not a spiritual or theistic philosophy they are defending or fighting for.

Why would a spiritual or theistic philosophy (which is, by definition, beyond the mundane) need to be defended and fought for with stones, knives or guns??

 

Yep.

And they would need to do so, for some economic reason? This is veering off into absurdity. In any event, religion would be one factor in selecting the victims of such a persecution. It is not socially arbitrary, unless they actually made random selections of what people to marginalize. They don't.

That is a patently false assertion, on its face.

You'd need to ask its adherents. I, similarly, see no need for such, but I am not them.

 

Moore, a faithful gave his life in the eye of tyrany.

 

You'll need to explain this then.

Then how can you say that my earlier assertion is patently false?

 

To reduce their economic power.

The Fascists, for example, thought that to solve the unemployment problem, women should not have jobs, so that there would be more jobs for men.

Do you mean that the Nazis persecuted the Jews because of their Jewish religion?
Why? Did the Nazis envy the Jews their religiousness?

Still, envy is not a religious emotion.

 

It's very simple:violence committed in the name of a spiritual philosophy is not invalidated by the existence of that spiritual philosophy.

Because it is. Not seeing the need for something does not mean I agree with your assertion.

Well, it is certain from your direction that they did this for no political reason. Not so?

Yes.

Actually, because they hated them for it.

Neither is intellectual disconnect.

 

Temper, temper

I'm just trying to figure out why you had such a visceral reaction to my completing your list of samples of religious violence.

Well, it does make one wonder why you demanded that I leave Catholicism in protest. To what end, that thing?

Well then, why betray your principles?

Please do. I will then also report you for your accusation of the support of religious violence and obsession against myself, which you led off with here. It is a very serious charge and one I find deeply offensive, personally and professionally, not to mention insulting. If you do not retract your statement, I will report you to the administrators of this site. This may seem harsh, but it's what happens when one plays games at putting unsubstantiated opinions into the mouths of others. Sound fair?

How, exactly? By engaging in polite discussion with other people about issues in which I did not invite your commentary? And this after your - what? fourth or fifth utter disavowal of any discussion with me?

And of course, you did not mention it. Why such strong objection to me simply making your list more comprehensive and representative? What purpose does it serve, this pretended outrage of yours?

Please support this statement.

Excellent. Then let us balance, and move on. Can you do that?

 

Yes...but they have to feel a sense of righteousness about doing as they do.
Bad people...people who have no moral code...will do as they do regardless of religion. But there's not enough really amoral people.
Religion gives good people good feelings about....doing evil.
Of course secular leaders can do this too.
But they probably can't do so in a way too far outside the tolerance of the religion...I imagine it has to be in confluence, or portrayable as such