Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Gustav]

but i do not believe in god and think those that do are somewhat nutty

 

[wynn]

but i do not believe in god and think those that do are somewhat nutty

It all depends on what you mean by "believe in God" and "don't believe in God."

 

[Gustav]

Regardless of whether someone is a psychopath or not, if they are motivated by their personal religious beliefs to do something, be it good or bad, then one could say that that was their personal motivation, their religious motivation.

that is the height of goddamn idiocy

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deception. Psychopaths are highly prone to antisocial behavior and abusive treatment of others, and are disproportionately responsible for violent crime when in a violent emotional state or situation. Though lacking empathy and emotional depth, they often manage to pass themselves off as average individuals by feigning emotions and lying about their past.

everything they read and learn will be filtered to the prism of their disorder.
even the most innocuous of texts could take on a sinister meaning that when acted upon could lead to really depraved conduct.

these are the people whose statements you uncritically take at face value. rather than blame their pathology, the circumstances by which it may have come about, you ludicrously accept...

David Berkowitz: "I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that."

.... that as a valid example of "*religiously* motivated violence". why would one latch on to that shit when there are numerous instances where there are absolutely no other motivations other than religion that can be discerned?

i mean....

The Pennsylvania parents who turned to prayer instead of medicine as their son died of bacteria pneumonia were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment Friday. Herbert and Catherine Schaible could face five to 10 years in prison for the manslaughter charge and 3-1/2 to seven years for endangering the welfare of a child in the 2009 death of their 2-year-old son.

The couple, who have six other children, must await until Feb. 2 to be sentenced by Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Engel Temin. Bail was set at $150,000 pending that hearing, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. During the trial, defense attorneys argued that faith played no part in the parents' decision to forgo medical care for their son, Kent Schaible. They said the couple thought their son was suffering from a severe cold and was not very sick.

According to the Inquirer, the prosecution argued that Kent's death could have been prevented if the couple had sought medical help instead of relying on their beliefs in faith healing. A statement made by Herbert Schaible to homicide detectives was read during the trial, in which he said, "We tried to fight the devil, but in the end the devil won."

Herbert, 42, teaches at a school run by the couple's church, First Century Gospel Church, and Catherine, 41, is a stay-at-home mother. The church states on its website that it does not believe God permits sickness or diseases but instead that anything bad is caused by sin and the devil.​

much better than taking utterances by serial killers at face value, ja?

look at that shit. i dare anyone to ascribe any other cause for the kid's death other that the religious beliefs of the parents

so why bells?
is it because you got shit for brains?
more interested in trolling with disingenuous arguments?
you are walking a fine line here missy
consider that a warning

 

[wynn]

look at that shit. i dare anyone to ascribe any other cause for the kid's death other that the religious beliefs of the parents

To be sure, there are people who are treated for bacteria pneumonia, and timely - and who still die.

Medical treatments have various success rates, but never 100%.
Doctors cannot guarantee a 100% correct diagnosis, nor can they guarantee a 100% effective treatment.
It is simply not possible.

 

[Gustav]

excellent medical factoid
thanks

 

[wynn]

It's certainly a fact to consider, before we board the "If they brought him to the doctor, he would survive" train.

 

[Bells]

that is the height of goddamn idiocy

I don't think you really are in any position to judge.

The individual believes they are motivated by their religious beliefs. If he came out and said he heard voices in his head that motivated him, that would be his motivation. Those voices or his religous beliefs could be caused by his mental illness, but he believes he was motivated by it.

Do you understand now?

these are the people whose statements you uncritically take at face value. rather than blame their pathology, the circumstances by which it may have come about, you ludicrously accept...

Now show me where I blamed their religious beliefs instead of their pathology?

What I have been saying for pages and pages now is that he believes he was motivated by his religious beliefs.

.... that as a valid example of "*religiously* motivated violence". why would one latch on to that shit when there are numerous instances where there are absolutely no other motivations other than religion that can be discerned?

You mean aside from the ridiculous amounts of links I have provided of religiously motivated violence that has had the apologists you are so ardently defending in this thread denying was the case?

My my, you are slipping..

look at that shit. i dare anyone to ascribe any other cause for the kid's death other that the religious beliefs of the parents

I believe someone already did.

That someone also does not believe a priest killing someone during an exorcism or being violent during an exorcism is religiously motivated by their actions. You align yourself with wonderful people.

so why bells?
is it because you got shit for brains?

It would be here that I'd tell you to go and fuck yourself.

more interested in trolling with disingenuous arguments?

Coming from you, that is a bit rich.

you are walking a fine line here missy
consider that a warning

Or you will what?

Scrape your lice infested backside through the Open Government and Site Feedback forum in yet another mistaken whine? That is how you operate, isn't it, fanboy?

 

[Bells]

It's certainly a fact to consider, before we board the "If they brought him to the doctor, he would survive" train.

Now what motivated to reject medical treatment for the child?

 

[wynn]

Now what motivated to reject medical treatment for the child?

Who knows. I can't read minds.

One thing is on principle true: religious people do not rely on worldly professionals to provide them with happiness or meaning; religious people do not see doctors as ultimate authorities on life, death and health.
Given this, they may at some point refrain from seeking the help of worldly professionals.

 

[wynn]

The individual believes they are motivated by their religious beliefs. If he came out and said he heard voices in his head that motivated him, that would be his motivation. Those voices or his religous beliefs could be caused by his mental illness, but he believes he was motivated by it.

Do you understand now?

So what if he says that?

Are we obligated to believe it?

 

[Aqueous Id]

hence you find people who die for justice, freedom,love, peace, money, property,atheism or any other ideal under the sun you care to mention
:shrug:

If your approach to analysis were correct, we could rewrite all of history according to your laundry list of motives. The GIs who went to Viet Nam were motivated by greed for Vietnamese oil. The American Revolution was motivated by the desire to confiscate the wealth of the crown.

Can you show one artifact any Crusader left behind that demonstrates that he was motivated by anything except religion?

this is all post crusades stuff

The preaching of the First Crusade inspired an outbreak of anti-Jewish violence. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much an enemy as Muslims: they were held responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the distant Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home[citation needed].

It is also likely that the crusaders were motivated by their need for money. The Rhineland communities were relatively wealthy, both due to their isolation, and because they were not restricted as Christians were against moneylending. Many crusaders had to go into debt in order to purchase weaponry and equipment for the expedition; as Western Christianity strictly forbade usury (unlike Orthodox Christianity, which merely regulated it), many crusaders inevitably found themselves indebted to Jewish moneylenders. Having armed themselves by assuming the debt, the crusaders conveniently rationalized the killing of Jews as an extension of their Christian mission

:shrug:

So far you have anecdote. I gave you the chronicler of the massacre at Mainz, who wrote:

Then the enemies of the Lord said to each other: 'look! They have opened up the gate for us. Now let us avenge the blood of 'the hanged one' [Jesus]."​

This was just at the outset of the massacre. In law I believe this is referred to as an "excited utterance" which, at the outset of the crime, establishes the motive, and is an admissible basis for prosecution.

I therefore find the Crusaders at Mainz guilty of crimes against humanity, and based upon the preponderance of evidence that it was religiously motivated, they are additionally found guilty of the hate-based element of the offense.

Sentence: vindicate history here and now.

 

[wynn]

Oh my. Gustav and Bells are engaging in religiously motivated threats of violence on a thread that asks whether religion motivates violence!

Wynn, you wanted 46 pages of proof? Here they are.

I make an effort to be as resistant to other people's negativity as much as possible.

 

[wynn]

It does not, however, make his motivation any less valid to him. If someone says they were motivated by their religious beliefs to commit a crime, it is not for me to say 'well you're wrong! You must be motivated by something else', and then tick off as many boxes as I can because I am selfish and self-serving.

After all, if there is no such thing as religious motivation (bad or good), it would mean that all theists and believers are only motivated by greed and are selfish and self-serving.

Yeah, and it is the height of stupidity, not to mention selfishness and self-serving to seek such an explanation of things according to which everyone is eventually happy and there is no suffering anymore!




Just look at how you understand human action and life in this Universe, and the ideas about them that are implicit from the reasoning you present in your posts:
According to you, the Universe is apparently a grim, chaotic place in which there is constant and often brutal struggle for survival.
Living beings, including humans, are born, grow old, grow ill, and die. They come and they go, they are born and then they vanish forever. They eat, sleep, mate and fight, in various ways, and do other things that help them eat, sleep, mate and fight. They have no aspirations to live a life above and beyond those activities. At most, they try to distract themselves from the daily strife with art, intoxicants, hobbies and sports.
They believe that notions of a life beyond the ordinary survival activities is nothing but cheap and dangerous idealism that ought to be squished in the bud.
They see religion as an enemy, since religion points toward that higher life beyond ordinary survival.



(This is my reply to post 882, too.)

 

[Bells]

Who knows. I can't read minds.

One thing is on principle true: religious people do not rely on worldly professionals to provide them with happiness or meaning; religious people do not see doctors as ultimate authorities on life, death and health.
Given this, they may at some point refrain from seeking the help of worldly professionals.

Indeed. Why seek help from a 'worldly' professional for an autistic child when you can get your pastor to beat him to death during an exorcism to rid him of the evil autistic spirits? Makes more sense.

So what if he says that?

Are we obligated to believe it?

Nope. But his motivation is real enough for him to lead him to commit the crime in the first place.

Get it?

Yeah, and it is the height of stupidity, not to mention selfishness and self-serving to seek such an explanation of things according to which everyone is eventually happy and there is no suffering anymore!

I could say the same for denying the blatantly obvious because one has a romantic and selfish and self-serving ideal about what it means to be religious.

Just look at how you understand human action and life in this Universe, and the ideas about them that are implicit from the reasoning you present in your posts:
According to you, the Universe is apparently a grim, chaotic place in which there is constant and often brutal struggle for survival.

It is better to believe that all is pretty and happy and glorious in the eyes of the Lord.. We'll forget about murdering people in the name of one's God, we'll forget that parents send their children to priests to be beaten to death because the priest tells them their children are possessed, we'll forget all of that. Instead, we'll live in happy Wynn land where being delusional is expected.

We'll just forget reality and instead be motivated by your religious desire to believe that there is no chaos around us.

Living beings, including humans, are born, grow old, grow ill, and die. They come and they go, they are born and then they vanish forever. They eat, sleep, mate and fight, in various ways, and do other things that help them eat, sleep, mate and fight. They have no aspirations to live a life above and beyond those activities. At most, they try to distract themselves from the daily strife with art, intoxicants, hobbies and sports.

They also hurt and kill others.

But we'll forget all of that.

We are in Happy Wynn land now.. Where one cannot be motivated by anything to do anything and where one's existence is solely selfish and self-serving.

They believe that notions of a life beyond the ordinary survival activities is nothing but cheap and dangerous idealism that ought to be squished in the bud.
They see religion as an enemy, since religion points toward that higher life beyond ordinary survival.

The very same religions that have committed gross acts of violence in history, where the religious text has one's own god's committing genocide and abuse, and where today, religious leaders turn a blind eye to their flock raping innocent children (then again, their motivation has their God murdering children, so yay for that motivation), not to mention the so called flock who see fit to beat and murder innocent and sometimes medically sick children because of their religious ideology, which tells them that those innocents are possessed by evil spirits. I could of course go on..

According to you Wynn, there can be no religious motivation. Which would mean that all theists are selfish and self serving because they only do good deeds to get to that higher life "beyond ordinary survival".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

But you know what? This thread has brought up something very interesting for me. Your stance, and that of LG's and Jan has been very interesting. The absolute denial that one cannot be motivated by their religious beliefs to commit a crime or to be violent.

The problem with your thinking, lies in what YOU think religion is.
You seem to think religion is what anyone wants it to be, therefore if I say
I am religious, and believe in God, I actually am and do, because I say so.

We are not saying that religious peopld don't commit violence or crime. We are asking you to show that such action is motivated by ''religion''.

After all, since motivation applies both ways, good and bad, if it does not exist for the bad, it cannot really exist for the good. Which means that there is no such thing as religious motivation.

Now you're begining to understand.
You're understanding of religion needs to be revised. Or at least the level
of religion that is being discussed in this thread.

If you can believe the testimony of a psycopathic killer, then why not believe
other testimonies which are more likely to actually true?

Which would mean that when a theist performs an act of charity, or if one's religious teachings promote or require acts of charity, such as Christ's teachings for example, or the central tenet of Islam to be charitable, it is not through religious motivation, nor can it be inspired by one's religious beliefs, if your argument in this thread is to be applied.

You're right, it's NOT through religious motivation, and if one say's it does, it is no longer charity of acts of kindness.
If you're friend admitted they bought you a present because they were told to, would you recieve the present in the same mentallity as if they bought you the present because they wanted to?

The charitable act will always be motivated by something else, such as greed for example, as you claimed yourself earlier in this thread.

Real charity comes from the individual, who has compassion, empathy, which result in kindness and affection. Such acts do not necessarily come from those who claim to be religious or theist. And such acts can come from those who claim to be atheist, theist, or religious.
IOW, it is alot more complex than you and other give it credit.

It therefore stands that theists are entirely selfish and believe in God and do 'good' or perform acts of charity for purely selfish reasons.

You're not really thinking here. What about the ones that don't do it for those reasons? How do you account for that? Or do you think such people do not exist based on your ad-hoc view of religion?

Since one cannot be motivated to commit an act of violence by their religious beliefs and such a motivation to be violent can only stem from something else, such as greed (as you stated yourself), the same rule would apply to theists who can obviously not be motivated by their beliefs in God or by Christ's teachings to do good for others.

Christ's teachings result in the ability to do good for others, without the tainted qualities of material nature. It is extremely difficult in this day and age. Even in Christ's day, it was very hard, as was seen when he was on the cross. Also if we look at somebody like Mother Teresa, she also expressed doubt.

Because your argument in this thread has been tantamount to saying that there can be no religious motivation.

She is asking you to ''show religious motivation for violence''.
Nobody has done this. Pointing to Exodus, and then saying that's the motivation is NOT ''religious motivation'' anymore than learning how to carve up a victim is ''medical motivation''.

IOW, we're not accepting you're ad-hoc, lazy view of religion, simply because it is not correct.

So it does mean that all theists would have to be purely selfish and self-serving. Which would mean that Hitchens was right about Mother Theresa after all.

Hitchens is/was an idiot who knows/knew nothing about real religion.


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

This thread has, regrettably, devolved from a simple proposition, easily provable (and proven, utterly) into the single worst case of deflection, herrings, straw men, abstract equivocation and regression imaginable. If there is indeed a God - and I waver daily - then there are devils in Hell pointing their clawed fingers upward and saying "Look, have you seen what this Wynn chap is doing? Heavy stuff. Someone write this down for our next seminar."

The implications of this thread are manifold: i) the motivation for anything at all cannot be inferred, since no one can believe anything and since an inanimate object or a collection of words cannot motivate anyone to any action - Mein Kampf, for instance. Passing that very absurd point of no-wish-to-return occurred ii) the new herring that perhaps the eevil atheists wish to impose worse sentences on those who have religious motivations to commit violence. Then there was iii) that exorcism merely 'didn't work' in some cases - putting it on par with treatment for medical illness while still avoiding the point that exorcism is therefore definable as 'religious-motivated violence'. And finally iv) the idea that negative motivations are not religious but positive motivations from religion must be. I mean, I could go on.

It is easily the most deplorable trolling ever on the site. Unless someone has a better example? Close the thread. Save our souls.

Edit: In my haste I neglected to add Jan's comment above: "if you can believe a serial killer, why not a more believable testimony?" and so forth. Jan. I can believe a serial killer's stated source of motivation, particularly if said source has such nuances as he or she implies. I can believe a saint's stated source of motivation, particularly if said source has such nuances as he or she implies. I think you are implying an end-run to theism here, which is not the object of the thread.

To be sure, there are people who are treated for bacteria pneumonia, and timely - and who still die.

Medical treatments have various success rates, but never 100%.
Doctors cannot guarantee a 100% correct diagnosis, nor can they guarantee a 100% effective treatment.
It is simply not possible.

So.... it was just a bad reaction to an exorcism?

Who knows. I can't read minds.

One thing is on principle true: religious people do not rely on worldly professionals to provide them with happiness or meaning; religious people do not see doctors as ultimate authorities on life, death and health.
Given this, they may at some point refrain from seeking the help of worldly professionals.

Actually, how are you defining "religious people" here? Are we obliged to call them "religious people" merely on your say-so? How is it that you know their minds and we do not? Are you in contact with the officials of a higher power?

 

[Bells]

Bells,





The problem with your thinking, lies in what YOU think religion is.
You seem to think religion is what anyone wants it to be, therefore if I say
I am religious, and believe in God, I actually am and do, because I say so.

We are not saying that religious peopld don't commit violence or crime. We are asking you to show that such action is motivated by ''religion''.

Which has been shown on numerous occasions in this thread.

A preacher/priest/pastor or other religious leader is apparently not religious in your opinion? How about nuns and priests? Are they religious?

So when a priest and nuns crucify a nun because they believe her to be possessed, they are not motivated by their religion or religious beliefs?

A Romanian nun has died after being bound to a cross, gagged and left alone for three days in a cold room in a convent, Romanian police have said.

Members of the convent in north-east Romania claim Maricica Irina Cornici was possessed and that the crucifixion had been part of an exorcism ritual.

Cornici was found dead on the cross on Wednesday after fellow nuns called an ambulance, according to police.

A priest and four nuns were charged with imprisonment leading to death.

______________________________

Father Daniel who is accused of orchestrating the crime is said to be unrepentant.

"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying.

"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this. Exorcism is a common practice in the heart of the Romanian Orthodox church and my methods are not at all unknown to other priests," Father Daniel added.

[Source]
​

This is not religious to you?

We know the bible goes into quite a bit of detail about possession and exorcism. So that to me is religious. Unless of course you are going to claim that the religious texts are all based on lies?

Now you're begining to understand.
You're understanding of religion needs to be revised. Or at least the level
of religion that is being discussed in this thread.

If you can believe the testimony of a psycopathic killer, then why not believe
other testimonies which are more likely to actually true?

Oh, there are different levels of religion?

My my..

How does one progress through these religion levels exactly?

And here I thought Christ's teachings to be merciful and good to others is used as a motivator to encourage Christians to be good. I guess Jesus lied?

Or is that at the secret cow level of religion?

You're right, it's NOT through religious motivation, and if one say's it does, it is no longer charity of acts of kindness.
If you're friend admitted they bought you a present because they were told to, would you recieve the present in the same mentallity as if they bought you the present because they wanted to?

Which means that Jesus' teachings only serve to, well, serve the selfish. Jesus teaching's about being kind and merciful... the bastard was only currying his place in heaven!

I guess it explains the behaviour of the apologist's in this thread.

Real charity comes from the individual, who has compassion, empathy, which result in kindness and affection. Such acts do not necessarily come from those who claim to be religious or theist. And such acts can come from those who claim to be atheist, theist, or religious.

Well it certainly didn't come from God or Jesus' teachings? Did it? He didn't die on the cross for your sin's. He died for his own selfish and self serving needs!

IOW, it is alot more complex than you and other give it credit.

Of course. The secret cow level of religion again.

You're not really thinking here. What about the ones that don't do it for those reasons? How do you account for that? Or do you think such people do not exist based on your ad-hoc view of religion?

Well there is obviously no such thing as motivation. One cannot state they follow Jesus's teaching's in the bible, because well, he's obviously a self serving bastard.

And apparently, according to you, there are levels of religion, some of which can only be obtained by a select few, such as yourself, where greater understanding of selfishness and being self-serving becomes all clear. I wonder, do you pick up phat lewts along the way?

She is asking you to ''show religious motivation for violence''.
Nobody has done this. Pointing to Exodus, and then saying that's the motivation is NOT ''religious motivation'' anymore than learning how to carve up a victim is ''medical motivation''.

IOW, we're not accepting you're ad-hoc, lazy view of religion, simply because it is not correct.

Nor do I accept your deluded views of religion, where apparently there are different levels of religion and where motivation does not exist at all.

So I guess that makes us even.

Hitchens is/was an idiot who knows/knew nothing about real religion.

Well he obviously hadn't levelled to the secret religion level, like you have. So he can only comment about your selfish and self-serving beliefs instead of being just like you.

 

[gmilam]

It's certainly a fact to consider, before we board the "If they brought him to the doctor, he would survive" train.

It's true, modern medicine may not have saved the child... So it was probably best to do nothing except burn some incense, recite some poetic rhymes and splash a little water on them. :bugeye:

 

[Bells]

It's true, modern medicine may not have saved the child... So it was probably best to do nothing except burn some incense, recite some poetic rhymes and splash a little water on them. :bugeye:

Unless of course you are a schizophrenic Catholic nun, where you may find yourself being starved of food and fluids for a week and a towel jammed into your mouth so that no one can hear you scream as your local parish priest and fellow nuns crucify you.

I mean why bother going to the doctor for something like schizophrenia when an exorcism, some beating and being crucified does the job for you? She was being 'delivered from evil'..

I guess this is at the upper levels of religion that Jan mentioned earlier.. You sort of have to be there to understand that that is not religiously motivated violence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

GeoffP,

This thread has, regrettably, devolved from a simple proposition, easily provable (and proven, utterly) into the single worst case of deflection, herrings, straw men, abstract equivocation and regression imaginable.

Appeal to logical fallacy (is there such a fallacy?) because you can't accept when you're good and beaten.

If there is indeed a God - and I waver daily - then there are devils in Hell pointing their clawed fingers upward and saying "Look, have you seen what this Wynn chap is doing? Heavy stuff. Someone write this down for our next seminar."

Claws? What makes you think devils have clawed fingers?
Or is this more made up stuff?

The implications of this thread are manifold: i) the motivation for anything at all cannot be inferred, since no one can believe anything and since an inanimate object or a collection of words cannot motivate anyone to any action - Mein Kampf, for instance.

When we apply you're logic to the atheists, Stalin, Pot, and other logica, rational, and reasoned, psycotic killers, your tune changes.


jan.