homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Fuck (again) (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Fuck (again)
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.

Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.

Plenty of people on this thread have already provided examples of violence in atheistic states, which you have not addressed. Perhaps I could threaten reactive christianisation in return?

"Religions are a source of bloodshed" is just a cheap shot. My response is that bloodshed is going to happen, the question is how do we mitigate it and make at least some sense of it. As far as I can see, Christianity at least has attempted some answers to that. In a variety of ways and with varying degrees of success, but it has some sort of a plan, and on a very personal level I'm doing my best to implement one. What are you doing?

[ 01. August 2016, 09:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yorick--

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.

That's one possibility. But people could also change their own behavior; and, perhaps, revise or reinterpret their religion. Both religions and people change.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17673 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.

Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.

Plenty of people on this thread have already provided examples of violence in atheistic states, which you have not addressed. .... What are you doing?
I have addressed the counter-argument that atheists are also violent (see the bit where I draw an analogy with cancer and head banging). ‘Religions are a source of bloodshed’ is not a 'cheap shot', Eutychus, it is an impassioned and sincere cry for an honest consideration of the real world issues here. Your oh-so-defensive denial is demeaning even when you are allowed some discount for being hopelessly blindsided by your massively obvious bias.

What am I doing? Well, like you, I’m not being a religiously inspired terrorist, but unlike you I’m also challenging the denial so often shown by peaceful believers of any possible association with these murderers and their various religious faiths.

I understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation, I get that not all religious people are terrorists, and I realise that atheists are sometimes genocidal terrorists too, but none of these things gets rid of the fact that too much violence is perpetrated in the name of religion.

Denying this is arguably part of the problem.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.

But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?

I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2812 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.

But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?

I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...and if only one tenth of one percent of that was perpetrated by people who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently, then there has been far too much violence directly attributable to religion.

But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?

I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?
That gets you to the "inspired by" bit. No-one's arguing with that.

It doesn't get you to the "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently" bit. Which I imagine lots of people would argue with.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2812 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You seem to be making the claim that the people who are inspired to commit violent crimes in the name of religion would commit those crimes anyway, even if they were not inspired by religion. That they would do it in the name of, oh, I don't know, vegetarianism, maybe. Or, or maybe because they were particularly bored that day.

This reminds me of the proof of the existence of god being that nobody can successfully argue against the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You seem to be making the claim that the people who are inspired to commit violent crimes in the name of religion would commit those crimes anyway, even if they were not inspired by religion. That they would do it in the name of, oh, I don't know, vegetarianism, maybe.

Or perhaps patriotism, or racism. Really, just about any ideology can be latched on to. Even vegetarianism/veganism, where it is considered justified to prevent the murder of animals.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2444 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But you’re doing the same thing here as Eutychus and others.

Right. Let’s imagine three people called Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom believes his god has told him to blow up an airport full of infidels, so he does it. The fact that Dick and Harry also shoot and poison other people for their own reasons makes no fucking difference to the fact that Tom did what he did. And if you want to persuade me that Tom would have blown up the same infidels in the same airport if he didn’t believe in any gods, well, good luck, but please don’t tell me the onus is on me to disprove your ridiculous assertion.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A Christian who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning Muslim violence is not sincere. Such a Christian is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.

A Muslim who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning Christian violence is not sincere. Such a Muslim is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.

A religious believer who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning atheist violence is not sincere. Such a religious believer is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.

An atheist who decides to challenge the amount of violence in the world by condemning religious violence is not sincere. Such an atheist is just playing into the us vs them mindset that fuels violence.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".

Not sure if this is an answer that you'd accept, but there have been people who were otherwise peaceful individuals who were radicalised and committed acts of violence.

There was that guy who was a teaching assistant who ended up being involved in the London bombings, for example.

People are inspired by religion to do things that are out of character and which are hard to comprehend otherwise. I can't see how this can be argued against, as the facts show this time after time.

These are not just crazy psychopaths who are looking for something to latch onto, they're - at least sometimes - calm and peaceful individuals who are inspired by religion to commit great acts of violence.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 9834 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why exactly must they be insincere?

(This, to Daft Id).

[ 01. August 2016, 13:51: Message edited by: Yorick ]

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?

Because that is the symbol of resistance to the West. It wasn't always thus, it was pan-Arab nationalism at one point, but Islam has taken over. Have you noticed how some extremely irreligious promiscuous drug-taking alcoholics do the same thing?

But I must say I think it is unlikely that there isn't some violence that would go away if religion vanished, magically in an instant. There is probably also some violence that would appear if religion vanished. Who knows how much?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'll agree with you that some violence is directly attributable to religion when you find me an example of someone who perpetrated an act of violence in the name of religion "who would otherwise not have been inspired to act violently".

Not sure if this is an answer that you'd accept, but there have been people who were otherwise peaceful individuals who were radicalised and committed acts of violence.

There was that guy who was a teaching assistant who ended up being involved in the London bombings, for example.


I think that's fair. And I guess I'm asking a daft question because we will *never know* whether someone who was inspired to kill by a fundamentalist preacher (as seems to be the case, with the example you give) would or would not have been inspired to kill by a fundamentalist Leeds fan or vegetarian or whatever. Or because his wife said she was leaving him. Or because he lost his job. Or because of any number of reasons why people who are described as "nice", "normal" and "happy" by friends and neighbours do awful things. (The friends and neighbours are wrong btw, as they probably were in this case too.)

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2812 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay. I'll do that after you tell me why the cry of 'allah o akbar' is often heard just before some of these completely secular psychopaths blow themselves up in shopping centres?

Because that is the symbol of resistance to the West. It wasn't always thus, it was pan-Arab nationalism at one point, but Islam has taken over. Have you noticed how some extremely irreligious promiscuous drug-taking alcoholics do the same thing?

But I must say I think it is unlikely that there isn't some violence that would go away if religion vanished, magically in an instant. There is probably also some violence that would appear if religion vanished. Who knows how much?

Yes to this. So to make the case for ending religion ending violence, you'd have to be confident in the overall net effect.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2812 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think that's fair. And I guess I'm asking a daft question because we will *never know* whether someone who was inspired to kill by a fundamentalist preacher (as seems to be the case, with the example you give) would or would not have been inspired to kill by a fundamentalist Leeds fan or vegetarian or whatever. Or because his wife said she was leaving him. Or because he lost his job. Or because of any number of reasons why people who are described as "nice", "normal" and "happy" by friends and neighbours do awful things. (The friends and neighbours are wrong btw, as they probably were in this case too.)

Well except that we know this guy was exposed to these other pressures (just like everyone else) during his life and did not resort to violence until he was exposed - apparently - to a certain form of militant Islamic teaching.

I think it is fair to conclude that the Islamic teaching had an impact on turning him to violence that - as far as we can reasonably tell - other pressures in life did not.

[ 01. August 2016, 14:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 9834 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But you’re doing the same thing here as Eutychus and others.

Right. Let’s imagine three people called Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom believes his god has told him to blow up an airport full of infidels, so he does it. The fact that Dick and Harry also shoot and poison other people for their own reasons makes no fucking difference to the fact that Tom did what he did. And if you want to persuade me that Tom would have blown up the same infidels in the same airport if he didn’t believe in any gods, well, good luck, but please don’t tell me the onus is on me to disprove your ridiculous assertion.

No one has argued that religion has not inspired violence. It has, without question. But you seem to want to oversimplify that in order to reach a foregone conclusion—religion is bad, and bad in ways that other ideologies aren't.

I think it's usually more complicated. Is the current terrorist violence religiously motivated or politically motivated? It can be hard to separate the two here—they feed on (and I would say distort) each other. Ditto the crusades and many other examples. And, of course, there are other things in the mix beyond politics and religion.

I have no idea whether Tom would have done what he did if he didn't believe in any gods, or whether something else might have triggered his violence. Nor do you or anyone else. Which is why, as others have suggested, the question can only be considered on a broader scale—if religion were no longer a factor, would violence decline. I see no reason to think so.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2444 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You seem to be making the claim that the people who are inspired to commit violent crimes in the name of religion would commit those crimes anyway, even if they were not inspired by religion. That they would do it in the name of, oh, I don't know, vegetarianism, maybe. Or, or maybe because they were particularly bored that day.


I think some people require particular triggers for their violence. Some men only rape and kill women who wear certain kinds of clothes, for example, or who have certain kinds of occupations. I don't think I would feel justified in blaming the trigger for this, however.

And to make it even more complicated other circumstances can factor. If someone's violence is triggered by short skirts and late hours, how culpable is the assailant's mates if they goad him on to it, or furnish him with a philosophy that helps him to justify his violence to himself? There is a level of culpability there, of course, and responsibility depending on the extent of enablement involvement.

But again the guilt - if guilt there is - of the trigger in all this is not so clearly defined.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 9930 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think that's fair. And I guess I'm asking a daft question because we will *never know* whether someone who was inspired to kill by a fundamentalist preacher (as seems to be the case, with the example you give) would or would not have been inspired to kill by a fundamentalist Leeds fan or vegetarian or whatever. Or because his wife said she was leaving him. Or because he lost his job. Or because of any number of reasons why people who are described as "nice", "normal" and "happy" by friends and neighbours do awful things. (The friends and neighbours are wrong btw, as they probably were in this case too.)

Well except that we know this guy was exposed to these other pressures (just like everyone else) during his life and did not resort to violence until he was exposed - apparently - to a certain form of militant Islamic teaching.

I think it is fair to conclude that the Islamic teaching had an impact on turning him to violence that - as far as we can reasonably tell - other pressures in life did not.

Agreed, with the proviso that he was only 30. All sorts of things had yet to happen to him. And he could have gone on to be anything, including, of course, a good man. [Frown]

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2812 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But lets hear it from you. If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?

This is a pointless question.
I doubt that’s true, and I think it is dishonest to avoid it so.

Although it may (or not) be the case that there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion about the issues of religion being identified as the source of unacceptable violence, it would certainly seem to be of significant import to religion itself, since if sufficient numbers of people find it culturally unacceptable the result will inevitably be reactive secularisation.

Religion is also a source of non-violence and pacifism. It's certainly keeping me from going postal while reading this thread.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8711 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The part of that question I was objecting to in particular was "how much violence in the name of religion is acceptable", which sounded a bit like one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.

As to the last words of suicidal terrorists, I think the Munich assassin was reported as repeatedly shouting "I am German".

What conclusions do you invite us to draw from that?

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The part of that question I was objecting to in particular was "how much violence in the name of religion is acceptable", which sounded a bit like one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.

As to the last words of suicidal terrorists, I think the Munich assassin was reported as repeatedly shouting "I am German".

What conclusions do you invite us to draw from that?

It's an interesting example, as within my memory, after the war, British people used to say that Germans were inevitably impelled towards violence and I suppose world domination. Nobody really explained how this worked, some kind of German DNA or whatever.

But of course, it has faded, although during the Brexit debates, I heard people say that Germany has ended up dominating Europe by peaceful means!

Well, it illustrates the difference between correlation and causation quite nicely. Back to religion - as far as I can see, nobody can demonstrate a necessary link between religion and violence. Sure, people can assert that there is one - this is inadequate.

[ 01. August 2016, 17:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9525 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Missed the deadline. I know that some atheists object to the use of faith as a motive for violence, as with some Islamists. I mean that faith is seen as an irrational defence. However, this criticism can also be leveled at other ideologies, e.g. patriotism, racism, nationalism.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9525 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Why exactly must they be insincere?

Must is perhaps a bit strong. But it has to be the leading hypothesis.
A Christian or a western secular atheist condemning Muslim violence is less likely to have the effect they supposedly desire - reducing overall violence - than if they condemn non-Muslim Western violence. So if a Christian or a western secularist condemns Muslim violence it looks rather as if what they object to is not the violence but the fact that it's done by Muslims.

Does the belief that religion in general and Islam in particular are intrinsically violent itself cause violence?
It would be naive or complacent or self-righteous to think the belief doesn't. Islamophobia causes violence in its own right, or as part of religiophobia. When a gang of white youths beat up a young Muslim because they think Muslims are terrorists, I think white secularists who talk about the violence of religion should treat themselves as being just as culpable as they think religious believers in general should be.

Everyone should put their own glass house in order before they throw stones.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Let’s imagine three people called Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom believes his god has told him to blow up an airport full of infidels, so he does it. The fact that Dick and Harry also shoot and poison other people for their own reasons makes no fucking difference to the fact that Tom did what he did.

Actually, yes it does. Tom has in common with Dick and Harry the fact that he's killed lots of people. Tom does not have that in common with the vast majority of his co-religionists who haven't killed anybody. Any competent sociologist trying to explain why Tom has killed people would start by seeing what Tom has in common with Harry and Dick who have also killed people; rather than trying to explain it using what Tom has in common with his co-religionists who haven't actually killed people.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well there it is. Correlation does indeed imply causation.

Dafyd, I know it's a tangent, but would there be any chance you could explain how up is instead down? Thanks.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How typical that people spend some time trying to explain stuff to you and you respond with a daft one-liner.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We should know by now that Yorick is the High Priest of proof by assertion. He really should go into party politics.
Posts: 23907 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wait just a minute. The assertions I'm making here are like this:

1. Some people are inspired by religion to do violent things
2. Some other religious people deny that this is a problem of religion
3. This is bad

How is it that I'm the unreasonable one for challenging this here?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because other people are using more words to explain stuff and you keep doing the asserting thing rather than engaging and discussing.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yorick:

You are not so much being unreasonable as being disingenuous. As I said, what I objected to was the latter part of this from you:
quote:
If we can agree that some violence is directly attributable to religion, how much of that violence is acceptable to you?
That's not so much a question as a rhetorical trap.

I've argued violence is part of the human condition. You are going to have a hard time demonstrating that religion incites more violence than absence of religion; there are too many variables.

As to correlation and causation, as usual, there's an xkcd for that.

[ 02. August 2016, 07:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
More words. Are you shitting me?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How on earth do you expect to be engaged with here if not with words [Confused]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You are going to have a hard time demonstrating that religion incites more violence than absence of religion

I'm not trying to demonstrate that. It would of course be impossible, and I agree that a world without religion might be more violent than one with religion, and I agree that religion does not necessarily cause violence, and I understand that atheists can be even more violent than theists, and I appreciate that there are other factors that make people commit violent acts in the name of religion apart from religion itself.

But....

Some people are inspired by religion to kill people.

That is what this thread is about, and it is the way that some religious people deal with this by dishonest sidestepping denial that I am now challenging. There's been quite a lot of it on here, along with plenty of good sensible argument.

When people start pathetic ad hominem arguments about the number of words you're using, it looks very like they know their position is shit.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Are you shitting me?

If only I could flush as well.

[ 02. August 2016, 07:13: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because that same list could be redrawn as:
  1. some people are inspired by a range of different things to commit violence, including religion, patriotism, animal activism;
  2. scapegoating one cause among others is seen as divisive;
  3. these acts of violence are condemned by everyone as bad.
One of the big problems with the Prevent Duty, which covers these types of crimes, is that it's another example of a Government legal duty produced as a knee jerk reaction. Prevent was drawn up with ISIS/Daesh in mind following some terrorist incidents linked to Islamic radicalisation. It does not deal properly with all the current causes of terrorism in the UK, which include:
  • animal activism;
  • far right groups such as the English Defence League (far more common among the young people I work with);
  • residual IRA groups (common in North West London);
  • Islamic radicalisation.
How much of the Leytonstone tube stabbing was ISIS, how much schizophrenia and how much cannabis use? One of the bystanders told him he was no Muslim at the time, so can you really blame that one on religion?

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13483 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Some people are inspired by religion to kill people.

I can't see anybody denying that, um assertion.
quote:
That is what this thread is about, and it is the way that some religious people deal with this by dishonest sidestepping denial that I am now challenging.
However, I can see you throwing out a lot of other insinuations along the way.

If all you're saying is that some religious people try to disown religously-motivated violence by invoking the "No True Scotsman" argument, you're late to the party.

The real debate, to my mind, is about the best way to deal with violence that makes some claim to religious inspiration.

Where I am, this is a very live debate, with on one side those who are arguing that the best way is to eliminate religion altogether, and on the other those who are arguing that the best way is to accommodate religion instead of trying to excise it from the public sphere and marginalise believers of any stripe. I give you no prizes for guessing which side of that debate I am on.

[ETA there is another, more vocal side which simply argues that the "arabo-muslims" (sic) should be got rid of, the implication being that only Christianity should be allowed. That's just as bad, to my mind]

[ 02. August 2016, 07:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Eutychus, for your courteous and measured post.

I'm surprised that there would be any serious discussion about getting rid of religion (as a way of dealing with religiously inspired violence), as that would seem both impossible and probably counterproductive, even to a bigotted and intransigent atheist like me. To my mind,mitvis very much up to religious people to remove the baby from the bathwater before getting rid of it, and they are singularly failing to do this when they try to avoid their absolute responsibility in this by denying it. Non-theists cannot solve theists' problems. Only theists can, even if they do so by failing to handle the situation appropriately and thereby allowing the rise of reactive secularism.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a non-insignificant caucus of Islam trying to do exactly that, and more have been stepping up to the plate to do so in France since last week; link (in French; "we Muslims are ready to shoulder our responsibilities", from July 31).

In my wildest dreams/prayers, I dare to hope that Saint-Etienne de Rouvray will be looked back on as a sort of Enniskillen watershed moment at which Daesh overplayed its hand.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Clarification: by "doing exactly that", I meant of course that there are now Muslims in France attempting to take on responsibility for acts of violence committed in the name of Islam - a new development - and not that they are trying to eliminate religion altogether.

[ 02. August 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16993 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Muslim response to the Leytonstone stabbing:
quote:
Speaking in Leyton today, Imam Imran Patel told gathered media: "He is not a member of the congregation of Leytonstone and his actions only he can answer for himself." The brutal knife attack was "totally unacceptable", Patel said. "Islam does not allow and does not have a place for any acts of violence and terrorism. Leytonstone is a well-integrated and multicultural community. We live in peace and harmony," the imam added.

Patel's sentiments were echoed on social media, where #YouAintNoMuslimBruv is trending. The hashtag is a reference to a phrase shouted by an onlooker as police Tasered the attacker before arresting him.

Using this example as it is in the news following sentencing yesterday.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13483 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Dafyd, I know it's a tangent, but would there be any chance you could explain how up is instead down? Thanks.

Oh dear, did some nasty Christian disagree with you? There you are selflessly explaining to the world how it is, and how the problems of the world are religious people's problems (and not yours). And instead of nodding along and hailing your wisdom the nasty religious people tell you you're wrong. And they even argue against you! They use rational argument! How dare someone come along and disagree with you using rational argument!

I bet that offline you mansplain.

And then you're not used to people disagreeing with your wisdom, and you can't handle it when don't bow to your wisdom online, and you start name-calling and throwing hissy fits.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hahaha. Dafyd, you're embarassing yourself.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7521 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Wait just a minute. The assertions I'm making here are like this:

1. Some people are inspired by religion to do violent things
2. Some other religious people deny that this is a problem of religion
3. This is bad

How is it that I'm the unreasonable one for challenging this here?

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Yorick has always been arguing only 1, 2, and 3.

You started this off by pouncing on something Eutychus said out of context:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
us protestants

There it is, in beautiful 3D panoramic technicolour irony...

... the root of all evil.

That isn't 1 or 2 or 3.
(It's apparently ok to say that about Eutychus; but entirely unreasonable for me to point out that the same could be said about your post.)

And then you wrote:
quote:
This thread is about horrific incidents which would seem to share one basic underlying cause, and which I reckon underlies most violence between human beings. People find it easier to act on violent impulses towards those they see as Other. Any sort of view that identifies differences between people, especially groups, can facilitate this sort of violence.

Religions very frequently claim exclusive and often opposing Truths and this is dangerously catalytic. Inter-group violence only happens because people (whether we be ‘us protestants’ or ‘we of Aryan blood’ or whatever) are hardwired to seeing category differences between each other rather than seeing us all as the same nasty little children of God.

Again, rather more complicated than 1 or 2 or 3.

Anyway, the assertions we're making in response to 1, 2, and 3 are:
A. 1 is way too simplistic.
B. Yes, we say 1 is way too simplistic.
C. If A is true, then B isn't bad.
D. If A is true, then saying 1 may itself make the problems worse rather than better.
E. It seems you have a problem with people arguing A. That is unreasonable.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10313 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools