Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[lightgigantic]

@lightgigantic --

I've already given you a perfect example of religiously motivated violence in this very thread.

and I asked whether 9-11 is given the all clear in your books

You know, where that old Eagle Scout blew his roommate away because he was an atheist.

even to put aside of the insanity plea for a moment, then you still have to explain why this isn't a common behavior of similarly inclined theists

But if you want to talk large examples we could start with the classic Spanish Inquisition.

classic?
I take it that is the stereotyped version popularized in the 19th/20th century literature

One of the first books to challenge the classical view was The Spanish Inquisition (1965) by Henry Kamen. Kamen established that the Inquisition was not nearly as cruel or as powerful as commonly believed. The book was very influential and largely responsible for subsequent studies in the 1970s to try to quantify (from archival records) the Inquisition's activities from 1480 to 1834.[108] Those studies showed there was an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism, and a mid-16th century pursuit of Protestants, but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers.[105] There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition#End_of_the_Inquisition

Or how about the RCC's complicity in aiding the Nazi Holocaust?

or the (apparently) christian liberation of the concentration camps?
(many of them would have been catholic too)

At the best I think you might be able to implicate a few heads of the ecclesiastical body (and even then that's a stretch) but it certainly wasn't an advocated theistic doctrine party line of the RCC

That one's a good one. And of course, Hitler's antisemitic ramblings are stolen, word for word in some cases, from some of the "greatest" christian thinkers, thinkers like Martin Luther.

Playing hitlers political ploys as inspired or derived from luther would certainly require an incredible reserve of credibility from you ....

And you're honestly going to sit here and tell me that religion doesn't cause violence?

The problem with your examples is that there are equally religious peers of the said advocates minus the nefarious political agenda that dismiss your suggestions that its all simply derived from religion (much like there are examples of moustached persons minus the political agenda that distinguishes them from hitler or stalin)

 

[spidergoat]

It's so obvious that religion has motivated violence. Atheism has no other beliefs besides there is probably no god, so it is not motivation for violence by definition. And yet certain religions dictate a violence defense of their religion. Bin Laden is a great example. There might have been other reasons for his violence as well, but there was undeniably an essential religious component, in particular the notion that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for serving Islam.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's so obvious that religion has motivated violence. Atheism has no other beliefs besides there is probably no god, so it is not motivation for violence by definition.

So the persecution of theists in communist cambodia, russia and china was not done by "real" atheists?

And yet certain religions dictate a violence defense of their religion. Bin Laden is a great example.

Then I guess you have to also explain why Bin Laden was protested against and even persecuted by his fellow muslims

Or to put it another way, do you think if Bin Laden and the community he was not from were not religious that they would have no cause for taking up conflict like they have?
If not, what do you think is the essential underlying catalyst for them taking to violence?

Personally I would say if they weren't tied up in issues of capitalist/communist wars and stand offs in the afghan region they wouldn't have a cause for violence.

There might have been other reasons for his violence as well, but there was undeniably an essential religious component, in particular the notion that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for serving Islam.

the essential component is obviously not religious since one can find equally (or even more) religious peers of any advocate of religious violence you care to mention (minus the political baggage of course) who do not have recourse to violence.

 

[Arioch]

@lightgigantic --

and I asked whether 9-11 is given the all clear in your books

Putting aside that this is a red herring, no it hasn't been given the all clear in my books. While religion and faith may have been given the all clear by the various governments who have political and cultural reasons to do so, but not by me or many others.

What were the nineteen hijackers instructed to do? They were instructed to strike at an enemy of Allah and were even instructed to be praying at the last second so as to earn their way to heaven through martyrdom. That behavior sounds pretty religiously motivated to me.

Would an attack have happened anyways? Perhaps, but not likely taking the same form. While we find suicide bombers throughout the world, the overwhelming majority of them, at least in the past fifty years or so, have been muslim. Why? Because the metaphysics of martyrdom, which islam explicitly endorses, lend themselves so well to that particular form of terrorism.

even to put aside of the insanity plea for a moment, then you still have to explain why this isn't a common behavior of similarly inclined theists

So the group of christians, including the town's only priest, who ran me out at gunpoint weren't exhibiting the same paranoid, hostile, and pious behavior? Or are you arguing that they weren't "twu christians". This is laughable. We see the same sort of behavior all of the time, or have you forgotten about the WBC? Or the various gay people who have been beaten to death by religious fanatics because of the way they were born. My, how quickly we forget the victims when we seek to protect our religion.

"but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers."

Thanks for proving my point that religion sometimes causes violence, this was most unexpected. Usually you just waste time by not posting any links at all and relying exclusively on logical fallacies.

Of course, how could eight hundred years of institutionalized torture for purely religious crimes be anything other than religiously motivated violence?

or the (apparently) christian liberation of the concentration camps?

What history have you been reading? American history obviously, which explains why you've got it so assbackwards. Most of the concentration camps, indeed much of the fighting period, was done by Anglicans and Soviets most of whom were atheists. So it was, at best, a rescue by mixed religions, but, of course, that's hardly the point now is it?

At the best I think you might be able to implicate a few heads of the ecclesiastical body (and even then that's a stretch) but it certainly wasn't an advocated theistic doctrine party line of the RCC

Oh really? You must have had your head under a rock in history class. Why, then, did all of the German catholic churches open up their records, including genealogical records, to the Nazis without even having to be asked? Why was the official church policy towards the Nazi party and towards Hitler one of support? Why didn't the RCC protest when the extent of the "final solution" was discovered(of course, Hitler's defense of only doing what the church has done for centuries didn't help their case)?

No, they supported him because violence against nonbelievers and those who reject the faith is built into the very text of the bible, their "infallible" holy book. Unless you'd care to prove otherwise, that is. You could finally support your claim that religion doesn't cause violence by producing some evidence for once. You could also explain why no Nazi was ever excommunicated for their actions under Hitler's orders, that would be a nice place to start.

Playing hitlers political ploys as inspired or derived from luther would certainly require an incredible reserve of credibility from you ....

Coming from the man who claims that religion never causes violence, that's pretty rich. If you look you'll find that some of Hitler's antisemitic rhetoric is lifted, word for word, from Martin Luther(who, in turn, lifted it from Paul, especially that "den of serpents" bit). This is hardly surprising, Hitler was born and raised catholic, his education could hardly have glossed over such an important person in christian history. Not only was he born and raised catholic, but he died a catholic too, no excommunication for genocides it seems, that's reserved for abortionists and victims of priestly molestation.

The problem with your examples is that there are equally religious peers of the said advocates minus the nefarious political agenda that dismiss your suggestions that its all simply derived from religion

So religion is wiped clean in your eyes then? Sorry, but that doesn't fit the facts.

Of course different people are going to take different things from religions, that's what happens when your entire worldview is built on the subjective. That's why we have to look for trends, and what we see when we look at the world around us is that religion is a great motivator for violence. Here's a few examples of the current day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1317415.stm
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08030071.htm
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/alrc-news/human-rights-council/hrc16/ALRC-COS-16-21-2011

There's four, do you want more, I know that you do, but not because you're actually trying to argue my point, but because you'll say anything if you think it will prove me wrong and thus, in your mind, prove you right.

So the persecution of theists in communist cambodia, russia and china was not done by "real" atheists?

Not by your logic, no. If we apply your and Wynn's logic to this it was not done for religious reasons and therefore they were not "true atheists". Of course, that's all beside the point.

This sort of persecution came about not because of their atheism but because of their communism, and I know that I don't have to remind you that the two are different things(contrary to what you might have been taught). Come on, how about trying a hard one on me, what's with these softball questions?

Then I guess you have to also explain why Bin Laden was protested against and even persecuted by his fellow muslims

Actually this is irrelevant. I already quoted several suras which command violence and/or hatred against unbelievers, that some people ignore or choose to reinterpret these commands does not mean that they aren't there.

Or to put it another way, do you think if Bin Laden and the community he was not from were not religious that they would have no cause for taking up conflict like they have?

Not in the way that they have, not with the reasons that they've given. Unless you're saying that Bin Laden was lying and he wasn't religious at all, but that would be ridiculous even for you.

Personally I would say if they weren't tied up in issues of capitalist/communist wars and stand offs in the afghan region they wouldn't have a cause for violence.

Ah, so prosperity and solitude are the keys to preventing violence? What a quaint, and ignorant, view of the world. I suggest that you pick up The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom. While his views on evolutionary theory are somewhat biased and naive, he writes quite well when it comes down to this subject. You may want to pick it up and learn a thing or two.

he essential component is obviously not religious since one can find equally (or even more) religious peers of any advocate of religious violence you care to mention

So you've found many fundamentalist muslims who don't advocate or support religious violence? Again, you don't read very much do you?

This, like all of your posts, is absolute tripe on a bike. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that religious belief never causes violence. I've gone out of my way, against my better judgment, to address your non-sequiturs and your red herrings, the least you could do is answer just one of my questions and support your claims.

 

[spidergoat]

So the persecution of theists in communist cambodia, russia and china was not done by "real" atheists?

They were real atheists, but atheism can not be considered the cause of their actions. Atheism never pretends to be a moral or ethical system of organizing a community. Communism, however, has many of the traits of a religion, including faith in it's essential superiority.

Then I guess you have to also explain why Bin Laden was protested against and even persecuted by his fellow muslims

No I don't. You are assuming that there is a legalistic definition of what it means to follow Islam and how it's members are precisely defined. This is a shady attempt to imply that their religious views were somehow not religious because they aren't as popular as other perspectives.

Or to put it another way, do you think if Bin Laden and the community he was not from were not religious that they would have no cause for taking up conflict like they have?
If not, what do you think is the essential underlying catalyst for them taking to violence?

Are you asking why everyone within Islam doesn't act as a unified group? I don't know. Not my problem.

Personally I would say if they weren't tied up in issues of capitalist/communist wars and stand offs in the afghan region they wouldn't have a cause for violence.

So other than recent interference of the west, there was no violence associated with Islam at all? We know that's not true.

the essential component is obviously not religious since one can find equally (or even more) religious peers of any advocate of religious violence you care to mention (minus the political baggage of course) who do not have recourse to violence.

Again, you are treating religion as a monolithic body, where any non-conformity is rejected as not being "really" religious.

You are making a logical fallacy:

"No true Scotsman" is a story used by the philosopher Antony Flew to illustrate a very common fallacious argument, often used by apologists to take advantage of the ambiguity of the definition of a certain key word (or words) in their argument.

The classic story goes something like this:

Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman, despite the fact that he is from Scotland. The fallacy lies in redefining the word "Scotsman" in order to exclude those who put sugar in their porridge.

Similarly, apologists argue that Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad deed is a "true Christian". The lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. For this reason, many self-professed Christians who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group by apologists.

Since the Scotsman fallacy relies on ambiguity in the definition of the word "Scotsman", it is a form of equivocation.​

 

[lightgigantic]

They were real atheists, but atheism can not be considered the cause of their actions. Atheism never pretends to be a moral or ethical system of organizing a community. Communism, however, has many of the traits of a religion, including faith in it's essential superiority.

so atheism + political agenda = violence ... much like (anything) + political agenda = violence ... go figure

No I don't. You are assuming that there is a legalistic definition of what it means to follow Islam and how it's members are precisely defined.

and you don't think they protest against him based on defining islam?

This is a shady attempt to imply that their religious views were somehow not religious because they aren't as popular as other perspectives.

On the contrary yours is a shoddy attempt to take the actions of a radical example of a community as typical of the community.

aka logical fallacy : Sweeping Generalization

The logical fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is a deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb[1] is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.

For instance:

Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
Surgeons cut people with knives.
Surgeons are criminals.

It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions.

Generalizations that are weak generally have more exceptions (the number of exceptions to the generalization need not be a minority of cases) and vice versa.

This fallacy may occur when we confuse generalizations ("some") for categorical statements ("always and everywhere"). It may be encouraged when no qualifying words like "some", "many", "rarely" etc. are used to mark the generalization.

For example:

Germans are Nazis

The premise above could be used in an argument concluding that all Germans or current Germans should be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis. Qualifying the first term:

Some Germans are Nazis

I mean wouldn't you kick up a stink if someone cited Pol Pot as typical of atheists and their contingent issues of violence?

Are you asking why everyone within Islam doesn't act as a unified group? I don't know. Not my problem.

I am asking whether you think persons like Bin Laden would still have cause for violence if they and the communities they come from were bereft of religious dialogue

So other than recent interference of the west, there was no violence associated with Islam at all?

errr ... no ... aside from the recent interference from the west, the whole scenario that propped Bin Laden to fame wouldn't have a foundation to stand on

We know that's not true.

We also know that whatever other radical example you can cite from Islam to depict it as being the platform of violence is also framed by a host of political issues

Again, you are treating religion as a monolithic body, where any non-conformity is rejected as not being "really" religious.

I am saying that if you want to suggest that all one needs is religion in order to succumb to violence, you have to explain why we are only dealing with a handful of angry muslims as opposed to millions

You are making a logical fallacy:

"No true Scotsman" is a story used by the philosopher Antony Flew to illustrate a very common fallacious argument, often used by apologists to take advantage of the ambiguity of the definition of a certain key word (or words) in their argument.

The classic story goes something like this:

Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman, despite the fact that he is from Scotland. The fallacy lies in redefining the word "Scotsman" in order to exclude those who put sugar in their porridge.

Similarly, apologists argue that Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad deed is a "true Christian". The lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. For this reason, many self-professed Christians who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group by apologists.

Since the Scotsman fallacy relies on ambiguity in the definition of the word "Scotsman", it is a form of equivocation.​

No more dubious than your two fold opening speech about how persecution of theists by atheists is done by real atheists yet they are not "pure" because the "real" doctrine of atheism has no ethical components .... (Which, if true, would certainly be astounding since absolutely any value judgement has ethical implications)

 

[wynn]

Oh really? You must have had your head under a rock in history class. Why, then, did all of the German catholic churches open up their records, including genealogical records, to the Nazis without even having to be asked? Why was the official church policy towards the Nazi party and towards Hitler one of support? Why didn't the RCC protest when the extent of the "final solution" was discovered(of course, Hitler's defense of only doing what the church has done for centuries didn't help their case)?

No, they supported him because violence against nonbelievers and those who reject the faith is built into the very text of the bible, their "infallible" holy book. Unless you'd care to prove otherwise, that is. You could finally support your claim that religion doesn't cause violence by producing some evidence for once. You could also explain why no Nazi was ever excommunicated for their actions under Hitler's orders, that would be a nice place to start.

The RCC considers itself to submit to the mundane master in mundane matters.
This is based on a Biblical teaching.

The Church has generally always done so in the past, and did so when the Nazis became the mundane rulers.

 

[wynn]

The mistake is all yours, if you think that I have taken the side that religion is not a motivator for violence.

I want to understand both the arguments for why religion can be understood as a cause for violence, and arguments against.

Yet everything you have written so far says to the contrary.

Then please copy-paste some examples of that from my posts.

This is a rather mundane notion of religiousness, then.

No, it is a notion of what counts as religious motivation, and then the judgement is whether it is a strong motivation or not.

Sure. Can you explain what is religious about that?
Other than that it is written in a book that by some people is considered religious?

What more is needed? Who are we to say what one considers to be religious or not. That they are motivated by what they see as religion is sufficient.

In that case, you appear to hold:

2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.

3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.

4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.


Is someone to be regarded as a nuclear physicist simply because they claim so?

Not at all... it depends upon what their brain, their thought patterns, use and take note of in making their decisions.
If they commit violence because, in either a strong or weak way, they have seen violence committed on television then yes, this would indeed have been a motivation.

Again, despite your words to the contrary, you seem fixated on a single motivator to an action.

No.
I insist though that people have free will, personality, and are not mere machines that could be influenced just like that, as if they were machines.

I'd sooner think that the desire to do this or that was present in the person to begin with, and that watching the film only gave suggestions on how to act on said desire.

I.e. Motivated them to act in a certain way rather than another.

Blaming the actors and makers of films about violence has so far, not absolved those who have actually committed violent acts.

I recall a case where some people committed violent acts. In court they defended themselves claiming they watched "Natural Born Killers" and were influenced by it. The judge and the jury didn't think they were any less guilty.

Which merely means that how one is motivated is subjective,

Why wouldn't the same be true for religion then?

and not objective as you seem to argue they should be. But this does not alter that they are all motivated IF their actions are a response to it (directly or indirectly).
Following your argument to the extreme, anything which doesn't motivate everyone in the same way is demonstrably not a motivating factor??

It is your notion of a person being "Motivated /.../ to act in a certain way rather than another /by watching a film reading a book etc./" that implies this motivational objectivism.

 

[wynn]

Again, you are treating religion as a monolithic body, where any non-conformity is rejected as not being "really" religious.

You are making a logical fallacy:

"No true Scotsman" is a story used by the philosopher Antony Flew to illustrate a very common fallacious argument, often used by apologists to take advantage of the ambiguity of the definition of a certain key word (or words) in their argument.

The classic story goes something like this:

Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman, despite the fact that he is from Scotland. The fallacy lies in redefining the word "Scotsman" in order to exclude those who put sugar in their porridge.

Similarly, apologists argue that Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad deed is a "true Christian". The lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. For this reason, many self-professed Christians who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group by apologists.

Since the Scotsman fallacy relies on ambiguity in the definition of the word "Scotsman", it is a form of equivocation.​

You, on the other hand, are insisting on an absurd concept for what goes for religious: namely that anything anyone claims to be religious, is religious.

 

[Sarkus]

Then please copy-paste some examples of that from my posts.

You mean other than:

As far as I can see, to consider violence to be religiously motivated, we would have to believe that:
...
Personally, I do not believe these statements. But it does seem that many who speak about religiously motivated violence, do believe them, at least implicitly.

plus the implication from subsequent posts (the thread is only 3 pages long, so I have no intention of reposting your comments).

In that case, you appear to hold:

2. The claims of the perpetrators are to be taken at face value and to be held as a standard of religion.

No.

3. Religion is what any person who claims to be religious says religion is.

No.

4. Some religious scriptures instruct the persecution of non-believers. The people who claim to be the heirs of said scriptures, are indeed divinely ordained heirs of said scriptures. Whatever these people do, is sanctioned by the scriptures and God.

No.
Whether one accepts that religion is objective/singular or not, the motivation that one derives from religion IS subjective. This is due to their interpretation, correct or otherwise, of religion - but regardless their motivation IS religion if their decision is, even in some small way, motivated by that interpretation.

I insist though that people have free will, personality, and are not mere machines that could be influenced just like that, as if they were machines.

How is this relevant?? Whether people have "free-will" or not does not answer the question of whether they exercise that free-will one way or the other.
The existence of their free-will does not negate motivation.

Blaming the actors and makers of films about violence has so far, not absolved those who have actually committed violent acts.

Straw man: the issue here is what motivates, not where blame is attached.
We are held responsible for our actions, but what motivates those actions is entirely separate.

Why wouldn't the same be true for religion then?

Eh?? I'm saying it would... that how religion motivates us is subjective. YOU are the one advocating an objective motivation....

If religion would truly be a motivator, then there should be some uniformity in how people act after having read scriptures.
Yet we observe that there is variety.

It is your notion of a person being "Motivated /.../ to act in a certain way rather than another /by watching a film reading a book etc./" that implies this motivational objectivism.

WTF??
Again I quote you:

If religion would truly be a motivator, then there should be some uniformity in how people act after having read scriptures.
Yet we observe that there is variety.

You are claiming that because motivation should be in some way be uniform that the variety we see from religion is evidence that it is not a motivator.
How do you manage to think that this is not you claiming that motivation is in some way objective???
So I repeat: WTF??

 

[wynn]

Nope, but that's irrelevant because you totally missed my point. Every single living human that is capable of thought is guilty of contemplating harming another, or even killing them. Indeed most of us think such thoughts on a daily basis. My point was that one of the vows is to kill those who contemplate harming others, but in fulfilling such a vow you would have to take every single human life(except for coma patients, perhaps) on the planet, including your own.

The qualifications necessary are irrelevant, as are the justifications, it's the vow itself that is absurd.

If you think that those qualifications are irrelevant, then ... I guess you're just acting in line with your agenda.

No, my approach isn't number two, it's number four. Wait for the bully to do something stupid and then give him a ride in an ambulance. It's a great choice because I only have to do it once per social groups as opposed to repeating the process with every bully.

In that case, I am not surprised people end up shooting at you ...

So you want to discuss religious topics online and have been selecting or creating threads which either center on the concept of religious violence or have moved on to it and yet you haven't read either of the holy books of the two most popular religions on the planet? Not exactly a good game plan. Seems like you're arguing more for your religion than for religion in general.

I said I wasn't attached to them, not that I haven't read them.

Deuteronomy was originally addressed to all of the Hebrews, it was their law. And it is addressed to all christians later by the way of Jesus' words.

The message of the koran, all of it, is addressed to the believers, all of them.

And a Hebrew is anyone who claims to be a Hebrew, a Christian anyone who claims to be a Christian, a Muslim anyone who claims to be a Muslim, and a nuclear physicist is anyone who claims to be a nuclear physicist. Yes, makes perfect sense.

 

[spidergoat]

so atheism + political agenda = violence ... much like (anything) + political agenda = violence ... go figure

Political agenda alone is enough to justify violence, and churches are not a-political either.

and you don't think they protest against him based on defining islam?

I don't care if they protest. It's irrelevant.

On the contrary yours is a shoddy attempt to take the actions of a radical example of a community as typical of the community.

That's a strawman, I'm not characterizing their actions as typical. But they are religious. Thus the following is incorrect:

aka logical fallacy : Sweeping Generalization

The logical fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is a deductive fallacy occurring in statistical syllogisms (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb[1] is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation.

For instance:

Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
Surgeons cut people with knives.
Surgeons are criminals.

It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions.

Generalizations that are weak generally have more exceptions (the number of exceptions to the generalization need not be a minority of cases) and vice versa.

This fallacy may occur when we confuse generalizations ("some") for categorical statements ("always and everywhere"). It may be encouraged when no qualifying words like "some", "many", "rarely" etc. are used to mark the generalization.

For example:

Germans are Nazis

The premise above could be used in an argument concluding that all Germans or current Germans should be held responsible for the actions of the Nazis. Qualifying the first term:

Some Germans are Nazis

I mean wouldn't you kick up a stink if someone cited Pol Pot as typical of atheists and their contingent issues of violence?

There is a difference, which is that atheism has no ideology, no tenets, no formula for society, it's a philosophical position.

I am asking whether you think persons like Bin Laden would still have cause for violence if they and the communities they come from were bereft of religious dialogue

Of course. I'm not saying religion is the only cause of violence. Another strawman on your part.

errr ... no ... aside from the recent interference from the west, the whole scenario that propped Bin Laden to fame wouldn't have a foundation to stand on

We aren't talking about fame, we are talking about religious violence, which before Bin Laden caused all kinds of violence, from whipping a rape victim to killing Jews.

We also know that whatever other radical example you can cite from Islam to depict it as being the platform of violence is also framed by a host of political issues

I agree, but Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics.

I am saying that if you want to suggest that all one needs is religion in order to succumb to violence, you have to explain why we are only dealing with a handful of angry muslims as opposed to millions

No I don't.

No more dubious than your two fold opening speech about how persecution of theists by atheists is done by real atheists yet they are not "pure" because the "real" doctrine of atheism has no ethical components .... (Which, if true, would certainly be astounding since absolutely any value judgement has ethical implications)

Let me give you another example, the death of Jesus was an example of religious violence. The torture and murder of thousands of Christians at the hands of the Romans was another. In fact the latter is a better example, since Christians were given an option of converting.

Human sacrifice was another example, perhaps a better one since the sacrifice was an integral aspect of the religion.

Need more examples? The biblical phrase spare the rod and spoil the child has led to child abuse as well as several deaths.

 

[spidergoat]

Need more examples?

How about Noah's Flood? That was religiously motivated and killed untold millions, if you believe the story.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

In answer to the OP witch burnings in Africa. Most definitely are religiously motivated.

If you believe that religion can motivate someone to do good, then why can't you believe that religion can motivate someone to do bad under the guise of good or not?

 

[wynn]

What is religious about burning witches?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Arioch,

...the overwhelming majority of them, at least in the past fifty years or so, have been muslim.

Not so fast....

Pape argues that the news reports about suicide terrorism are profoundly misleading. "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions,"


...Pape reports. After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, the political science professor concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.


...Pape points out that the Tamil Tigers, a group that most Americans have never heard of, are responsible for more suicide attacks over the last two decades than any other group. The Tamil Tigers have have been influenced by a Marxist/Leninist ideology which is largely atheistic and disavow any connection with the Hinduism practiced by many of the people the the region of Sri Lanka where they operate. The Tamil Tigers are engaged in a struggle for independence from the central Sri Lankan government.

http://www.godweb.org/suicidebombers.htm

You might wanna check this link out also.

http://www.newscentralasia.net/moreNews.php?nID=590

jan.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

You, on the other hand, are insisting on an absurd concept for what goes for religious: namely that anything anyone claims to be religious, is religious.

Wait, you have another definition that works? Oh wait, of course you don't. Like I said at the start of this thread, what counts as "religious" changes to whatever you need it to. While the Spanish Inquisition was torturing and killing people for purely religious crimes, you claim that it wasn't "religious violence" but political violence because they "weren't motivated by their faith"(something you can't legitimately say because you don't know, we have every reason to suspect that they were), but when a christian blows his roommate away because he thought that he "was the devil"(a very real concept according to the bible) it wasn't because of his religious beliefs, he was just insane. Either pick a definition and stick to it or withdraw from the debate because all you'd be doing is obfuscating matters, just like LG and Jan do.

Let me make it clear, because there are quite a few here who will deliberately twist my words into a straw man argument. I am not arguing that religion always causes violence, or that it is the sole cause of violence, or even that all religion causes violence. Jainism, for example, is almost incapable of motivating people to violence due to it's core teaching that violence against any living thing is unholy(best word I can come up with for it). However religion can, and has at many times, motivate people to worse violence than they would be capable of without it, and I've already given examples from both the koran and the bible as to where the commands for such violence come from and the fact that they're directed at followers in general, and not some elite.

@Jan --

Sure, they might have still attacked people if they lacked their religious belief, but you can be damn sure that they would be less than half as likely to be suicide bombers if they didn't believe in an afterlife. And you certainly wouldn't have scenes where their families dance with joy at the news of their death because they know that their son/s are martyrs in heaven and are preparing the way for them.

So perhaps you are right in that there are other motivating factors(though one wonders why we see lot's of suicide bombers from muslim countries and almost none from buddhist countries even though they share the same political and economic problems, but oh well, I suppose that doesn't matter) for the violence itself. But the metaphysics of martyrdom which islam explicitly endorses lend themselves to suicide bombing perfectly. Kill yourself along with a bunch of blasphemers and infidels and get a free ticket to eternal paradise for you and seventy or so people of your choice, that would sound like a good plan to me if I actually believed it.

Oh, and also Jan, the figures in your first link, the ones compiled by D'Souza, are off by about an order of magnitude when compared to just about every other historian, but this is what you should expect from someone with such a large axe to grind. Perhaps next time you could choose a source which isn't known for being so dishonest with his figures.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

What is religious about burning witches?

Burning witches isn't done for any other reason than a religious one, the bibles states "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" that is most definitely motivation.
After all you did ask us to "Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence" And I think burning witches falls under that remit.


Try answering this question this time instead of avoiding it, here it is again "If you believe that religion can motivate someone to do good, then why can't you believe that religion can motivate someone to do bad under the guise of good or not?"

 

[lightgigantic]

Political agenda alone is enough to justify violence,

Incorrect
If one has that alone one can proceed even without weapons

and churches are not a-political either.

hence its the political element that determines conflict and not the religious part

I don't care if they protest. It's irrelevant.

If the protest is based on misrepresentation of religion not only is it relevant but you are also faced with the problem of what you are advocating as a cause of violence playing a vital role in subduing it.

That's a strawman, I'm not characterizing their actions as typical. But they are religious. Thus the following is incorrect:

On the contrary if you are trying to ply a radical individual's religiosity as the contributing force to violence as the grounds for establishing "religion causes violence", you certainly are using them as typical. There are many more millions of similarly religious persons that you are conveniently over looking (or tarring on account of a handful of key examples integral to your argument)

There is a difference, which is that atheism has no ideology, no tenets, no formula for society, it's a philosophical position.

Then I guess that makes atheism a philosophy that has no implications in the "real word"

Of course. I'm not saying religion is the only cause of violence. Another strawman on your part.

I know.
Instead you seem to suggest it is an essential one

We aren't talking about fame, we are talking about religious violence, which before Bin Laden caused all kinds of violence, from whipping a rape victim to killing Jews.

what else do you think he is famous for?
Selling daffodils?

I agree, but Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics.

Given that there are many highly populated islamic countries with secular governments, it appears you are wrong again.

No I don't.

Then I guess you are left with a faulty argument

Let me give you another example, the death of Jesus was an example of religious violence. The torture and murder of thousands of Christians at the hands of the Romans was another. In fact the latter is a better example, since Christians were given an option of converting.

These are also political since it only occurred in a very small time period in the time line of both parties. IOW whatever difficulties ensued that lead to one team persecuting the other, were ressolved

Human sacrifice was another example, perhaps a better one since the sacrifice was an integral aspect of the religion.

Given that such communities are governed by brazen violence in numerous non-religious ways (such as the desire to steal what you have) its hardly a remarkable example.

IOW the length and breadth of such communities seems to be one of violence so its hardly remarkable that religion also wouldn't be similarly dyed.

Need more examples? The biblical phrase spare the rod and spoil the child has led to child abuse as well as several deaths.

Even by the hands of persons who aren't particularly christian too I believe (IOW a rejection of christian doctrine doesn't translate into a rejection of physical punishment against children)

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary if you are trying to ply a radical individual's religiosity as the contributing force to violence as the grounds for establishing "religion causes violence", you certainly are using them as typical.

I'm not saying that religion always causes violence, which is the strawman you are defending. I'm saying that it does and can cause violence.

If the protest is based on misrepresentation of religion not only is it relevant but you are also faced with the problem of what you are advocating as a cause of violence playing a vital role in subduing it.

Just like alcohol is the cure for alcohol withdraw?

To say that a Bin Laden is misrepresenting religion would imply that religion is something other than some shit that someone made up.