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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

So religious violence is not something that occurs in the real world since religion does not have to be practical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? Religion told them that?

 

Why do I have to repeat myself?!?!?!?!?!

 

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.

 

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.

 

I don't see where it changes anything. Still sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

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.

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.

Er... the truth to the questions you posed? :shrug:

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.

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)?

Still irrelevant to the discussion at hand. :shrug:

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.

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??

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.

 

I keep waiting for the punch line.

 

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:

 

LULZ. The point of this was to capture Mary Magdelan, and kill her. Fail, epic fail.

 

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.

 

Whatthehuh?

 

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.

 

Oh, the True Scotsman fallacy again.

What was that thing about Mary?

 

@lightgigantic --

More evasion. You already know damn well what I'm talking about, stop evading and deliberately obfuscating.

 

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.