Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. BWE1 Rulers are for measuring. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    no it isn't. We always have a reason and it is almost always a bad reason and its rests on a firm belief that our truth is solid enough to justify the behavior. Which is a quick litmus test for if the truth is fucked up.

    Here's an opener from a question to WL Craig which I just read
    :
    obedience is pretty much a cast iron phrase to me. How about you?

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-know-an-actually-infinite-number-of-things
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    Rehashing rebutted arguments are we?

    You ask for examples of holy texts commanding people to kill nonbelievers, but we've already given you many such direct quotes in this thread.

    You state that "holy texts"(an all inclusive label) give restrictions on who is supposed to follow such commandments, however we've already shown you in this thread that the two most used holy texts in the world(the bible and the koran) give no such restrictions.

    You imply that atheists are not qualified to be considered authorities on theistic terminology, however in this thread all we atheists have done is use the terms and definitions that theists have given us, not our own. Furthermore it's been shown time and time again that atheists tend to have a much greater understanding of religion than do theists.

    You imply that violent acts committed in the name of a god are not approved of by said god, however we've shown you multiple multiple times in this thread that many times gods have commanded such violence.

    You imply that socioeconomic forces are sufficient to explain violence, however you've ignored the many instances in this thread where we've shown you that such socioeconomic forces are not sufficient to explain many instances of violence(such as people beating and lynching a boy for the sole reason that he had the "misfortune" to be born gay).

    You also imply that we atheists have "trouble" explaining what religion is, however we've had no such trouble in this thread, reverting as we have to the dictionary as well as several theologians.

    Your arguments, every single one of them without exception, have been shown to be fallacious. Care to try putting forward an argument that isn't fallacious?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Uh....where's this written, exactly?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BWE1 Rulers are for measuring. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    on the page before this page.
     
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Okay.



    I can't tell if this is a failed attempt at sarcasm, or if you mistakenly said "atheists" instead of "theists." Either way, the point fails completely, because it assumes that one must be a believer in order to understand the texts. Clearly one need not be a theist to understand anything about these holy texts (especially the "terminology", whatever that's supposed to mean...)

    Of course not. But that doesn't mean they didn't do it in my name. I think the point you're driving at here is that the atrocities done in God or Allah's name are simply misunderstanding of the texts, but this is demonstrably false. If you had ever read the texts (which I sincerely doubt you have) you'd see where one would find their divine warrant.


    Now you're getting sidetracked. Whether or not I would "accept" an act done in my name is irrelevant. But to answer your question (Because I, unlike you, do not duck questions), I would condemn the action if it was not something I agreed with. The problem with trying to put this on me is that there is warrant for such actions in the various holy texts, so it can't be said that suicide bombers or abortion clinic bombers are somehow misunderstanding the word of their god. It's all in there.

    False dichotomy, as I showed above. In the case of atrocities committed in the name of god, there is warrant found in the books.

    Just one? Alright.

    2:191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

    Is that enough, or do you need more?

    No one is arguing that poverty and ignorance don't play a role, but that role is to leave people susceptible to religious influence. Religion replaces education with myth and superstition, and that myth and superstition leads to bigotry, oppression, and violence.

    Your list items are red herrings. That different people are religious to varying degrees, and that different religions have (or can have) different traditions, does not mean that the violent traditions of Islam are therefore not religious.


    Oh, so it's a political conspiracy against Islam, propagated by the media?

    I mean, you have reached a new low here. Only a blithering idiot would say that there was nothing religious about the 9/11 attacks, and for as low as my opinion is of you, I can't go so far as to think you're a blithering idiot. So I can only assume you're conscious of the religious implications and motivations, and only wish to see how far you can get in the effort to portray them as something else.
     
  9. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    How is martyrdom and murder "for the cause of islam"(their words) not religiously motivated violence?
     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Notice the self-defense nature of this instruction?


    Or another one:

    060.008
    YUSUFALI: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

    PICKTHAL: Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

    SHAKIR: Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    As expected, you're moving the goalposts. All that was asked was to present warrant for violence in the Quran, and I have presented it. Rather than concede this point, you've decided to argue that because it calls for this violence in self-defense that it, what, isn't really violence? Or that it isn't really justification?

    Most atrocities are done under the guise of self-defense. The Holocaust was "self-defense." Racial violence in America is "self-defense" from whichever ethnic minority is being beaten or hanged or gunned down in the street.

    And if one goes far enough to look at the historical context for the passage I quoted, it's purpose is for nothing less than justifying aggression against the Meccans.

    Seroiously, wynn, this is bad. Even for you.
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
  14. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    Another logical fallacy from Wynn. What a bold defiance from an established trend. *Sarcastic applause*
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Translation:

    "Mommy, mommy, mommy, why won't you save me from these nasty theists? Mommy, mommy, mommy, why don't you make things allright?! Mommy, mommy, mommy, I hate you!"

    And the picture to go with it:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    It's not our fault that your arguments are all a bunch of deepfried tampons.
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Wynn, I have done my level best with you, but this is more trouble than it's worth.

    Since the administration apparently needs more evidence of your trolling behavior before they finally grow a pair and put you out on your ass, I'm going to go ahead and do what I should have done before I wasted all those poor, innocent brain cells on your nonsense, and put you on my ignore list.

    I'll leave battling your ignorant BS to the other suckers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I am sick of your childish insistence on interpretations that are sure to hurt yourself and others.

    It's your conviction that it's a dog-eat-dog world and that this is as good as existence gets - it is this conviction that is really troubling you. Not what some book or some people say.
     
  19. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    People in glass houses....

    Remember those times where you tried to shove words in my mouth and were shown to be completely off base(not even in the stadium really)? Well I'm pretty sure that other people like it as little as I do.
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Incorrect


    incorrect

    Incorrect


    I am saying that its the nature of ideas to be forced... even if we are talking about the idea that we shouldn't force an idea



    incorrect (as linked earlier)
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    GeoffP:

    Not to dig up an old issue ... after at least 2 months (or more)? Who do you think you're fooling here?

    What the hell?

    I haven't seen you on the forum for a while now. Either you've been lurking, or you haven't been here, or you haven't said anything I've paid much attention to.

    But then, out of nowhere, you pop up to reopen a months-old issue you had with Bells?

    From where I'm sitting, GeoffP, this looks like stalking.

    You say you walked. So walk. Don't bring us your baggage.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    James, all due respect, but don't throw that crap at me.

    From where I'm sitting, it looks like I was reading over some old arguments, found some shit, and called someone on it. I don't care what it looked like from where you're sitting. Not to mention which: didn't we just re-bury it? Didn't I just write "fine, whatever, done"?

    I'm glad I could bring the plural you together, however.
     

Share This Page