Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

Then what occurred to end this conflict (since we have Romans and Christians today that are not engaged in the same practice)?

It means that you are not willing to let anything float in the name of atheism so its kind of hypocritical for you to criticize the religious for pursuing the same agenda

Standard response to tentative arguments. Copy/paste is a wonderful tool when the premises of an argument are flexible.

No more than you can say Pol Pot et al aren't acting in accordance with atheist beliefs
:shrug:

IOW critiques combine with issues of literacy to demand categories for what they are talking about.

Doesn't matter whether we are discussing atheists, theists or jelly beans
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

List the atheist beliefs, please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We're going to need to define what a religion is because apparently you're saying whatever Bin Laden was doing was religious whether it represented mainstream Islam or not simply because he claimed it to be Islam:

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

What kind of values did Bin Laden's and his follower's actions have, what kind of usefulness did his beliefs have to mankind in general?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you wouldn't expect a majority muslim country to be knowledgeable about islam?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am sure that the majority muslim countries with secular governments know more about it than both of us ...

The problem is that you are saying islam promotes violence yet we have vast swaths of populated geography to suggest otherwise (with the obvious missing ingredient being a schema of conflicting politics to illustrate what you are trying to flog this dead horse towards)

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Protestantism didn't represent mainstream Christianity at one point. Mormonism doesn't represent mainstream Christianity now. The Shia and Sunni don't agree on how Islam should be practiced.

Religious beliefs don't have to be useful or follow any institution or historical precedent.

 

@lightgigantic --

Not really. Majority christian countries aren't all that knowledgeable about the bible, why should we expect majority muslim countries to differ in that regard?

Besides, you're forgetting that there are majority muslim countries that do have sharia law, islamic law. And according to the ones that do maintain islamic law, there is to be no peace with the enemies of Allah.

And I doubt that the majority of them could pass a religious knowledge test with a higher score than any of the atheists on here.

Nice straw man argument, but that's not what I'm arguing at all. What I'm arguing overall is that religion can, and often does, motivate violence. What I'm arguing specifically at the moment is that islam, with it's dual metaphysical features of a war-like god and martyrdom, is more prone to motivating violent behavior than many other religions are.

Then why aren't the Tibetan buddhists strapping bombs to themselves and obliterating their Chinese oppressors? Here we have conflicting politics, poverty, and truly awful oppression which goes well beyond what the Israelis could ever get away with doing to the Palestinians. According to you we have all of the ingredients necessary for people to blow themselves up in the middle of populated areas, killing innocent people. But that's not happening is it? Why isn't it happening? What's different between them and the Palestinians?

 

Here you go:



I think that's all of them.

Happy to have helped.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

must be due to your differing political view ... fancy that, eh?

And I guess its just a coincidence that the organization that headed the attacks arose out of the espionage/counter-diplomacy of the cold war in the late 80's, eh?

Since it arose out of the conflict in the Afghan region it would be more surprising if they were Tamil Tigers

I can't help but wonder if there is another half to the story that you are omitting ....

I am suggesting that you might have simply been acting like an asshole and that might be the local standard for dealing with such scenarios.

That's funny - all I see is the persecution of persons they consider to be assholes , eg : horse smugglers, foreigners, since the link goes on to say that there really wasn't much opportunity for religious persecution since the population was more or less religiously uniform.

Pffft! Purely Religious?
IOts quite clear that they were acting purely int he national interests of Spain, unless you have some wacky angle to explain horse smuggling as a religious crime.

You are trying to establish Catholicism as supporting nazi germany but you also had Catholics in the allies forces (even 30 years afterwards you had an american president who was a catholic).
Its really a desperate argument
:shrug:

You are simply imaging stuff

The attitude of the Nazi party to the Catholic Church ranged from tolerance to outright aggression in service of their covert plan to near total renunciation.[67] Many Nazis were anti-clerical in both private and public life.[68]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_Religion

as I just said, 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 the political platform that atheism was pursued on is the culprit, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Its entirely relevant that you have persons of the same religious community that are not only at odds with your run down of "essential" prescribed religious tenets but protesting against the very candidates you declare as typical.

Fair enough if you want to argue with me about what constitutes a religious principle but its kind of lame when there are vast swaths of geography that totally negate your caricatured renditions of the religious.

So you don't think the schmozzle of post cold war Afghanistan had any unfettered ends that could have violent consequences?

I wasn't really talking about preventing violence but I think a good starter might be to not have two super powers use your resource laden back yard as playground for armed conflict.
What do you think?

You mean in Indonesia or Bangladesh or Malaysia when I was there?
You don't get out much, do you?

The simple truth is that most people, religious or otherwise, have their needs, interests and concerns governed by family affairs.

Your rants about the religious being blood thirsty fundamentalists is simply a delusional consequence of hyperbolic journalism

Still waiting for you to provide an example that isn't precluded by reams of political intrigue

 

@lightgigantic --

One more straw man argument out of you and I'm reporting you.

 

take your pick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Practical atheism

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[56] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[57]


Theoretical atheism (Broad category for several varieties - see link for more)

Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. Actually the theoretical atheism is mainly an ontology, precisely a physical ontology.

 

@lightgigantic --

1. This is completely irrelevant and is an attempt to shift the burden of proof from yourself to me. I didn't make your claim, it is not on me to prove or disprove it until you support it. You are the sole bearer of the burden of proof for your claim.

2. I already gave you an example(two really) of religiously motivated violence in this very thread.

 

So when it comes to how a muslim should live in accordance with the Koran they should inquire from you?
How quaint ...

not really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png
also for your edification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#Modern_perspectives

Given that an atheist, by definition, fails at the point of practice, its hardly a concern

The problem is that the key examples in your "overall" picture are cherry picked from political hotspots

turn the clock back 60 years and do some research on tibet

 

I don't think you can take a breath in this thread without saying "religion causes violence"
:shrug:

hence the "... that isn't precluded by reams of political intrigue "

 

@lightgigantic --

I already have. How is a christian blowing away his atheist roommate because he was an atheist "political intrigue"?

How is me getting run out of town by an armed mob which included the town's only priest because I'm an atheist "political intrigue"?

They're not, these acts of violence were inspired directly by religious belief.

Now you can't support your argument, I've just shredded it.

 

Hehe...I'm a Pagan apatheist...it figures!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A man was peacefully boiled alive for his faith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Dayala

A quadruple martyrdom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Mati_Das

So, they refused to convert to Islam and were horribly tortured to death. Although...having read further...they were attacking Muslims in the area. But that again...violence inspired by religion?
I have only to prove that it happens, I give examples.
Arioch has already done it neatly anyway.

People are always going to be complicated...The Crusades were partly motivated by religious fervor, partly due to desire to loot on the part of the European powerful, possibly even population pressures... The Native Americans were killed primarily for being on land the white people wanted, but it did not hurt that they were not Christian...

The history of this fellow is quite interesting:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb
(And really makes me hate my absolutely wretched history education...I have never heard of one of the most powerful emperors in history...)
And who exactly started the religious oppression in the first place here?

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/india/p/Aurangzeb-Emperor-Of-Mughal-India.htm

 

@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!

 

As editor of the largest newspaper in West Virginia, I scan hundreds of reports daily and I am amazed by the frequency with which religion causes people to kill each other. It is a nearly universal pattern, undercutting the common assumption that religion makes people kind and tolerant.

- James Haught
:bugeye:

 

I agree with dumb dude,

What planet are you living on?

 

On one where we make an effort not to jump to conclusions.