Are people of moderate religious beliefs responsible for extremists?

[butterbumps!]

Butterbumps....

Wow.... you are walking down the path and are ALMOST there. You are so right about critical thinking! Keep going with that.... Do you not see the fundamental conflict between Faith and Critical Thinking?

but I'm not trying to argue that there is no conflict between these two things.

I'm saying there's a lot of space between someone who falls into a pothole and genuinely believes he's entitled to 2 oxen and a sheep in damages as per some esoteric passage in Exodus because that's what the Bible literally says should happen in cases where a guy falls into his neighbor's yard hole, versus someone who does think critically about their doctrine and faith, choosing which parts work for them, and ultimately deciding that they get some sort of benefit in taking some degree of a leap versus not doing so.

I kind of think religions are answering different sorts of questions anyway. Like the ones that can't be answered through empirical or rational means. I'd hazard the guess that those "why" questions are the ones a lot of people seek out various degrees of religiosity for.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jon,

Sorry, I call bullshit. No... Political and Economic upheaval is everywhere and can certainly take the blame for violent protests... but the kinda nut that straps dynamite to his chest and walks into an elementary school? That wacko thinks he's right with god....

Is it your opinion that religious faith is primarily reaponsible for the world's conflicts?

[Ormond]

Sorry, I call bullshit. No... Political and Economic upheaval is everywhere and can certainly take the blame for violent protests... but the kinda nut that straps dynamite to his chest and walks into an elementary school? That wacko thinks he's right with god....

One of the most extensive suicide bomber terrorist campaigns was that associated with Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, who were not at all a religious organization.

But they are not religious. They're not Islamic. They're a Hindu group. They're a Marxist group. They're actually anti-religious. They are building the concept of martyrdom around a secular idea of individuals essentially altruistically sacrificing for the good of the local community.

Above quote is from:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104391493

[Jon Flow]

Ormond,

Hinduism IS a religion. They are fighting another religion.... Muslimism which is one of the major components of their beef! I'm glad you brought them up though because they are a perfect test case to answer Scott's question.


Scott,

Do I think religion is the cause of the modern world's problems. Yes and No.... It is a little more complicated. I think that most of the woes of our world come from faulty thinking. People dealing from a place of scarcity and division instead of inclusion and cooperation. The Tamil Tigers perfectly exemplify what I mean. Are they fighting solely because of religion? No.... So I would not say it is the root cause of the conflict BUT you take existing strife and then add a way for everyone to quickly divide into shirts and skins? Well you have a recipe for genocide.

[Galactus]

John Flow: You show a complete ignorance of how religions actually work, what their societal role tends to be, and how they develop and spread, and how they're experienced, and the varied and complex ways they're practiced. (Matrim Cauthon is the scholar on the subject, but even a relative novice like me can see that you're not just interested in the subject) And I'm an atheist, for as long as I can remember.

I think it's because people are taking religion at its word.

Which ironically, is a product of a particular religious movement (sola scriptura protestantism) from a particular point in time.

Religions don't neccessarily work that way.

What I think is irrelevant.... Most religions have a component of 'thou shall not kill'. The problem is that two pages later there is a story about a hero who killed in the name of the lord and that wasn't just okay... it was downright cool!

The issue here is that you're assuming there's a coherent narrative, rather than that these are different types of text. The US law code forbids killing in most instances for instance, yet the american military is as we speaking engaging in numerous acts fo violence. Heck, it can be shown in "secular" mythology as well, relatively easily.

I'm just saying that Society is a living organism that is constantly evolving.

Which is itself a kind of reification, and arguably a religious way of thinking.

The civil rights movement would have been better served if it worked on a solely secular-humanist idea. Then, maybe women wouldn't have had to wait so long to vote.

You do know that A) A lot of women's suffrage movements were heavily organized and supported by various churches B) The US civil rights movement was largely organized by religious groups and C) By the time fo the US civil rights movement white women had been able to vote for about 40 years?

(if we go back further, abolitionists tended to have their strongest support among radical christian groups)

No, but Al Qaeda bombers have the same reasons for their beliefs as you have for yours. Their beliefs may be more damaging but they're not less justified.

I've yet to find a decent grounding for moral belief, honestly.

I want everyone to realize one thing. If we were talking sports or having a discussion about ASOIAF how many of you would have linked to articles teaching me how to 'not be a dick' ? I want you all to realize that even though you pose like hey... everything is cool.... Yall got seriously tweaked when someone you don't know came on an expressed his opinion about how religion is silly.

You do know that this is a fantasy board, right? We've literally had flamewars over that kind of books people like. Dicks tend to provoke responses no matter their argument.

[Galactus]

Hinduism IS a religion. They are fighting another religion.... Muslimism which is one of the major components of their beef! I'm glad you brought them up though because they are a perfect test case to answer Scott's questionJon Flow, on 27 Jan 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is not a hindu movement at all. (as mentioned, they're marxists, with secularism on the party-programme) The muslim minority on Sri Lanka is fairly small, and they're not really involved in the conflict.

[Jon Flow]

Galactus,


I already addressed some of those points in the thread this was moved from. I don't disagree that good things have happened in churches, but I stick by my original assertion that good people do good things, regardless of religion.


The idea that society evolves isn't a religion, it is a science.

You are 100 percent right about woman's sufferage... I flip-flopped them. But the idea of my premise was the same. If we had a unified push for the sanctity of all people's rights it might not have been so piecemeal.


I am simply positing anytime a worldview is based on a leap-in-logic, the result is faulty thinking.


I dunno.... I'm newish to the board... But I've only been called a dick when I had the temerity to point out that the concept of having a personal relationship with an omnipotent being is pretty silly,

[Jon Flow]

I got my info on Tamil from a series of articles in time and the wiki stub. I'm no expert so I will defer to you. Lets say that these are straight up secular terrorists. Do you have another example that shows that they aren't the exception that proves the rule?

[maarsen]

Jon,

Is it your opinion that religious faith is primarily reaponsible for the world's conflicts?

Hitler was basically a non religious guy, apart from a belief in astrology and dubious myths. That did not stop him at all from setting a good chunk of the world on fire. Tell me what religion Pol Pot had. There's another non religious mass murderer. I am an atheist but I have never believed that religion is the root of extremism. Extremism is more closely related to narcissism than to any religious belief. Hope this clarifies things, Scot.

[Ormond]

Ormond,

Hinduism IS a religion. They are fighting another religion.... Muslimism which is one of the major components of their beef! I'm glad you brought them up though because they are a perfect test case to answer Scott's question.

Scott,

Do I think religion is the cause of the modern world's problems. Yes and No.... It is a little more complicated. I think that most of the woes of our world come from faulty thinking. People dealing from a place of scarcity and division instead of inclusion and cooperation. The Tamil Tigers perfectly exemplify what I mean. Are they fighting solely because of religion? No.... So I would not say it is the root cause of the conflict BUT you take existing strife and then add a way for everyone to quickly divide into shirts and skins? Well you have a recipe for genocide.

The conflict in Sri Lanka is primarily seen by members of the Tigers as one between those of Tamil ethnicity and those of Sinhalese ethnicity. Most Tamils are Hindu and most Sinhalese are Buddhist, but this is NOT seen by the people fighting it as a contest between religions. (Not to mention, as was already pointed out, that you are completely wrong that Islam had any involvement in Sri Lanka at all,)

Hinduism is also a broader concept than just a "religion", the same as Judaism is. There are many people in the world who identify as Jewish or Hindu ethnically who are also atheists in terms of their personal philosophy. The founder of the Tamil Tigers was actually a Methodist before he became an atheist.

[Galactus]

I already addressed some of those points in the thread this was moved from. I don't disagree that good things have happened in churches, but I stick by my original assertion that good people do good things, regardless of religion.

I don't think whether or not people are "good" have much to do with if they "do good". It's all about structures channeling political activity into useful channels, and churches has been *very* effective at mobilizing popular support (for good or ill)

The idea that society evolves isn't a religion, it is a science.

No, it's pseudoscientific superstition: Historians have a term for it "Whig History". It's fairly pejorative. "Society" is not an "organism" it does not "Evolve". That simile is a perfect example of the error of taking a simile too literally.

You are 100 percent right about woman's sufferage... I flip-flopped them. But the idea of my premise was the same. If we had a unified push for the sanctity of all people's rights it might not have been so piecemeal.

And pigs could fly and lay eggs they'd be birds.

I am simply positing anytime a worldview is based on a leap-in-logic, the result is faulty thinking.

There's no satisfactory way of reasoning to morality from first principles, to go from "is" to "ought" It's one of the most dicey problems of moral philosophy.

I dunno.... I'm newish to the board... But I've only been called a dick when I had the temerity to point out that the concept of having a personal relationship with an omnipotent being is pretty silly,

There are literally religions that would dispute that any single one of those words applies to what they're doing.

[Jon Flow]

Oh no.... Hitler was mentioned. (Mark Maron screams: Lock the gates)



I thought Hitler was way into Christianity... wasn't the Swastika itself originally a Christian Symbol?

Pol Pot... Yes. He was a psycho. Honestly, I will concede that secularism alone isn't the answer. Mostly I feel that religion serves to divide us for no real purpose.

[Ormond]

Oh no.... Hitler was mentioned. (Mark Maron screams: Lock the gates)

I thought Hitler was way into Christianity... wasn't the Swastika itself originally a Christian Symbol?

Pol Pot... Yes. He was a psycho. Honestly, I will concede that secularism alone isn't the answer. Mostly I feel that religion serves to divide us for no real purpose.

No, Hitler was not "way into Christianity" (he was raised as Roman Catholic by his mother but as an adult had more the attitudes of his anticlerical father). And the Swastika was originally a Hindu symbol, not a Christian one:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104391493

[Jon Flow]

Galactus,

I was actually referring to Sociology, the study of Society. Society is a construct... are you conflating the argument 'Religion is real' with the argument 'Religion is false?' I think you might be.


We can argue semantics of philosophy, however the truth is that we don't live in a vacuum. Each of us can look from our own perspective and consider the all known of history and make our own call on if we think religion has been a net plus or a net negative. I think the answer is obvious.

Finally.... Religion is the belief in God or Gods. I am guilty in transposing my own experiences onto that. Without exception... every person I know who believe in one of the big 3 say that religion is about forming a personal relationship with god.

[Galactus]

I thought Hitler was way into Christianity... wasn't the Swastika itself originally a Christian Symbol?

The Swastika is significantly older than christianity. Hitler was denominationally catholic, but not practicing in any sense. (and was more or less snubbed by the Pope)

[Castel]

Which ironically, is a product of a particular religious movement (sola scriptura protestantism) from a particular point in time.

Religions don't neccessarily work that way.

To be fair, they're usually talking about a particular type or set of religions.

[Galactus]

I was actually referring to Sociology, the study of Society. Society is a construct... are you conflating the argument 'Religion is real' with the argument 'Religion is false?' I think you might be.

No decent sociologist would argue that society is an organism, it's not been current an idea since Marx or Weber. (and seems to only really be held by right-wing cranks)

We can argue semantics of philosophy, however the truth is that we don't live in a vacuum. Each of us can look from our own perspective and consider the all known of history and make our own call on if we think religion has been a net plus or a net negative. I think the answer is obvious.

And my answer is "Mu" Because it is a fairly silly question, those kinds of simplistic attempts at judging institutions usually are.

[Jon Flow]

Is it worth pointing out that the Jewish people were singled out in part because of their religion during WWII? It's just another example of how religion is used to divide on phony pre-text.




Galactus,


Are you sure you aren't a blindfolded man groping at parts of an elephant?

[Jon Flow]

Galactus,

On the point of charity structures, The Church of Latter Day Saints charity actually contributes .07 percent of it's donations to charity while the Red Cross that gives 92 percent.

[Theda Baratheon]

Butterbumps....

Wow.... you are walking down the path and are ALMOST there. You are so right about critical thinking! Keep going with that.... Do you not see the fundamental conflict between Faith and Critical Thinking?

good gods im an atheist and you're bloody insufferable