Is Religion Inherently Violent?

[Truth200]

Nah. Less than 10% of all wars in human history are a direct result of religion. This is a #factonly.​

Where you come up with this 10% statistic?

 

[Truth200]

People are inherently tribalistic, and tribalism is pretty much always going to encourage violence. Religion encourages tribalism, so you have your answer right there.

Yea, i guess that pretty much explains it right there...

Thread///

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Where you come up with this 10% statistic?

Check the edit and this......

​

 

[No1]

That article makes it sound like the book is probably just a bunch of semantics.

But that said, I think the question of whether religion is inherently violent is much more simple than that IMO. People are inherently tribalistic, and tribalism is pretty much always going to encourage violence. Religion encourages tribalism, so you have your answer right there. Religion is inherently violent in the same way that politics (or anything else that encourages tribalism and conflict) is inherently violent. There's also the fact that religion makes it very, very easy to justify unethical actions. After, if you say god wants you to do something, who can argue with that?

However, it would be pretty silly to think that EVERY war is caused by religion or that there wouldn't be wars without it, I'd almost say that's a Straw Man.

What you just said is what I have always said on this board and atheists and agnostics have attacked me for it. I guess when the messenger is also "authority" people will find ways to be combative. However, our point ignores her objective

No one actually believes that religion is the cause of all major wars in history.

But then for the rest of the talk, Armstrong said,audience members "are insisting that [religion] is the chief cause that is to blame," Armstrong said. In her book, she writes that she has "heard this sentence recited like a mantra by American commentators and psychiatrists, London taxi drivers and Oxford academics." Religion may not have caused all the wars in history, these people say, but it is inherently violent in a way that has undeniably shaped world history for the worse. It's this ambient suspicion that Armstrong seems to be arguing against, rallying textual evidence from thousands of years before Christ through modernity.

Although the book is framed as a polemic response to what is essentially a straw-man question, Armstrong has isolated an interesting quality of contemporary discourse about religion: It's really, really vague. Contemplating whether violence is inherent in religionmight seem like a pastime limited to college debating societies or educated retirees who have a lot of time for book talks (or dilettante journalists, for that matter), but this idea has an intangible and problematic power in Western culture—the focus of Armstrong's study. Even posing the question at the center of Armstrong's book assumes that there's a unified thing called "religion" that has stayed constant over thousands of years of human life.

But, as Armstrong points out in the book, "there is no universal way to define 'religion,'" particularly when it comes to comparing mono- and polytheistic faiths. "In the West we see 'religion' as a coherent system of obligatory beliefs, institutions, and rituals ... whose practice is essentially private and hermetically sealed off from all 'secular' activities," she writes. "But words in other languages that we translate as 'religion' almost invariably refer to something larger, vaguer, and more encompassing." This is an important premise of one of Armstrong's main arguments: It's impossible make a coherent case about the role of religion in warfare and violence throughout history and across the world, simply because religion plays very different roles in different cultures.

Her point is that the usage of the word religion to create a historical narrative and framework is a misnomer in and of itself. I can see where you believe that it might just be semantics but she is trying to dismantle the idea that there are certain elements consistent across religions that makes it legitimate to make a religion versus non-religious perspective as if religion is static. Her point is that religion is as culturally influenced as anything else and that we should not view it as this uniquely dangerous cultural device as we tacitly do.

 

[Shogun]

Humans are inherently violent. Atheists, and theists alike.

 

[the cac mamba]

it isnt responsible for full blown wars, but a staggering amount of day to day ignorance and oppression in the name of...nothing. books that contradict every other book in the religious library

the tangible negative effects of believing in god, far outweigh tangible positives. because there aren't any

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

the tangible negative effects of believing in god, far outweigh tangible positives. because there aren't any

This is demonstrably false. Would you like to see how?

​

 

[ltheghost]

I don't think they are inherently violent. But violent people can and do use it as a means to an end. I think money and lack of land is more dangerous.

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

religion itself isn't violent.,it's the people who are violent..if religion didnt exist people would still commit wars without religion

You're not just a homeless looking gap-tooth Hunk!! Smart man.

 

[blackzeus]

Yes

 

[tru_m.a.c]

But, as Armstrong points out in the book, "there is no universal way to define 'religion,'" particularly when it comes to comparing mono- and polytheistic faiths. "In the West we see 'religion' as a coherent system of obligatory beliefs, institutions, and rituals ... whose practice is essentially private and hermetically sealed off from all 'secular' activities," she writes. "But words in other languages that we translate as 'religion' almost invariably refer to something larger, vaguer, and more encompassing." This is an important premise of one of Armstrong's main arguments: It's impossible make a coherent case about the role of religion in warfare and violence throughout history and across the world, simply because religion plays very different roles in different cultures.

I stopped reading right here. This is the apologist/moderates go to move every.single.time.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Her point is that religion is as culturally influenced as anything else and that we should not view it as this uniquely dangerous cultural device as we tacitly do.

isn't this what we always say, and then cats turn around and say no it was the word of *insert deity*

If religion is merely an extension of human culture, and not divine intervention...........

 

[No1]

isn't this what we always say, and then cats turn around and say no it was the word of *insert deity*

If religion is merely an extension of human culture, and not divine intervention...........

Something being divine does not mean the followers are if we are being fair to religion. But you did not even read the article. to you gettin past your 21 days in isolation tho

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

If religion is merely....

This is why you keep misunderstanding. By attempting to 'simplify' something complex......which was the point of the article......you have mischaracterized what the term actually encompasses.

This is why your critiques ultimately fail and why 'religion' isn't going away.​

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Something being divine does not mean the followers are if we are being fair to religion. But you did not even read the article. to you gettin past your 21 days in isolation tho

you ain't shyt. How's that football team of yours

I don't disagree with her premise that religion isn't inherently violent. I do disagree with her "there is no such thing as religion" spiel because nobody who is religious actually believes that. That's not a spiritual argument. That's an argument that is only used when faith enters the academic realm.

That's essentially the problem I/we have when moderates try to pivot on this point. When they pray/celebrate/proselytize, they don't question what the boundaries of religion are. They don't question the complexities of what constitutes "a" religion. They don't even discuss religion in the general sense. It's always from an inside looking out (my religion vs navigating the world) stance.

IF this weren't the case they would just be deist or humanist. (I'm not saying she's an apologist/moderate, but her argument falls into that category).

I can't stand people that use the "But what is religion really?" card, while knowingly placing their trust in one faith. (again not saying she takes this stance, but her argument will be used by fence hoppers)