Is Religion Inherently Violent?

[Futuristic Eskimo]

I propose to you that it is three ideas that is at the core of any religion that makes it deadly, faith (i.e. nonsensical systemic believing), absolutism and hubris to insulate the former two.

This kind of becomes a chicken and the egg argument. Is it religion that helps make people stupid or do stupid people believe in ridiculous religions? Hard to call either way. One thing I will say is that the concepts you mention exist independently. Faith, absolutism and hubris are not exclusive to the religious. I happen to think that religions are simply a natural outlet for these mindsets. Thats the reason I believe militant atheism is a waste of time. I think a lot of these people have this idea that if we got rid of religion, progress would continue on completely unimpeded. Nevertheless, if you get rid of these archaic belief systems, something else will fill that void pushing for stagnation in thought.

I have spent enough time here thinking about something I don't care about. Continue on with your discussion brehs

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

'Faith' is already part of the academic realm. Has been from the beginning.​

Its not.

Faith is believe in lieu of evidence.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Strawman, as usual.........

Considering nearly my entire family is Christian as well as most of this country, it's in my best interest to know about it.

​

wow.

a book.

who gives a shyt?

Fact is, if your religion condones violence to any degree...its violent.

You can't keep selectively reading your holy books.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Basically Murdered you nikkas in a thread about religiously motivated violence.

gottdamn... It's been a min since I witnessed a slaughter like this

You dudes stay proclaiming victory to hope that the narrative catches on

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

 

[the cac mamba]

.

You can't keep selectively reading your holy books.

watch them

 

[Blackking]

You dudes stay proclaiming victory to hope that the narrative catches on

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

lol, people made claims..

he presented facts.

So that's the reason i said he did a good job.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

lol, people made claims..

he presented facts.

So that's the reason i said he did a good job.

Doesn't matter if the argument itself is flawed.

You're religious so you'll dance at any opportunity to buss it open for your sky-daddy. I get it...but it doesn't make your arguments any more internally sound.

 

[tmonster]

This kind of becomes a chicken and the egg argument. Is it religion that helps make people stupid or do stupid people believe in ridiculous religions? Hard to call either way. One thing I will say is that the concepts you mention exist independently. Faith, absolutism and hubris are not exclusive to the religious. I happen to think that religions are simply a natural outlet for these mindsets. Thats the reason I believe militant atheism is a waste of time. I think a lot of these people have this idea that if we got rid of religion, progress would continue on completely unimpeded. Nevertheless, if you get rid of these archaic belief systems, something else will fill that void pushing for stagnation in thought.

I have spent enough time here thinking about something I don't care about. Continue on with your discussion brehs

With all due respect and no harm intended, I disagree with this notion, it feels like an almost dismissive oversimplification at this level of the argument.
Given that the notion of a absolutism is sine qua non - and one might even say the raison d'être*- of deities and with logic, being the basis of human thought, requiring objectivity** as the test of causality, It should be evident that the formation of thoughts and ideas that can't withstand the scrutiny of current and available tests of objectivity, that such thoughts must stand outside of logic and be fit into a new b*stardized paradigm of thought, for religion this is commonly referred to as "faith". When stressed, ultimately faith becomes completely antithetic to thought and simply forbids it( and does so with smarm and pride simply astonishing!!!).

Deism comes with absolutism, and human logic demands reason which deism can't provide which leads to b*stardization of thought. The core problem with absolutism is that it is tyrannical as a precept of all thought and supercedes our natural sense of justice and compassion (see the Abrahamic sacrifice for a perfect example of perfect faith exemplified and legitimized by the absolute absolute himself). To the mind of the average non-sociopathic human being there no more powerful legitimizer of absolute behavior (killing, raping, treating another group the way you don't want to be treated) than deities, in fact it is the only legitimizer for abhorrent behavior in times of relative prosperity. Look carefully in the historical record of mass violent behavior and you will find Ares***.

*alpha omega and all
**defined by empiricism and locality-to borrow a physics term- at inception of course
***aka the gods of war

 

[Blackking]

Doesn't matter if the argument itself is flawed.

You're religious so you'll dance at any opportunity to buss it open for your sky-daddy. I get it...but it doesn't make your arguments any more internally sound.

bias doesn't make valid arguments less valid...
if that was the case then you should be banned from religious threads.


smarten up ahki ...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

bias doesn't make valid arguments less valid...
if that was the case then you should be banned from religious threads.


smarten up ahki ...

What are you saying?

Bias DOES make the argument flawed.

We're not talking about opinions here.

We're assessing factual claims..things that can be proven to essential degrees of reliability.

Religious texts have violence within them and condone specific acts of "violence" as defined by social standards and mores.

Thats kinda the end of that argument.

 

[Blackking]

What are you saying?

Bias DOES make the argument flawed.

We're not talking about opinions here.

We're assessing factual claims..things that can be proven to essential degrees of reliability.

Religious texts have violence within them and condone specific acts of "violence" as defined by social standards and mores.

Thats kinda the end of that argument.

lol, you sound like a child.... . Let's sum you up....

"those ancient books have violence in them...... soooooooooo ummmmm that means that all the people who practice that religion are prompted to be violent. "

"Not even a fourth of wars are caused or catalyzed by religion ......... but I swear to God Hawkins that religion is what causes war and most of human suffering.

"My mind will explode if I look at the facts presented because they go against ........(ironically) my dogma and ideology. "

Every social scientist on the planet states that religion is used occasionally for a justification of violence but isn't the cause of most violence.

The creators of nearly every discipline of science and 99% of the great leaders and humanitarians have been spiritual and religious.......... they must have all been dumb asses not worthy to breath the same air as the African American Poster @Napoleon "

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Its not.

Faith is believe in lieu of evidence.

Faith = strong belief or trust in someone or something; loyalty.​

Fact is, if your religion condones violence to any degree...its violent.

Man's nature is violent. Violence will always get a pass. Either through religion or Government.
​

You can't keep selectively reading your holy books.

LOL @ 'your'.....and you are the last one to say anything about 'selectively reading'.



Peace.​

 

[ExodusNirvana]

The answer is simple: it depends on the religion.

All you have to do is ask: Does said religion condone, permit or encourage physical harm against those who do not agree with its tenets or those who disagree with its aims and goals?

If the answer is yes in any way shape or form...I mean in ANY way...then yes, your religion is inherently violent. Why are we tip toeing around this simple idea?

Because deep down inside, most "religious" people know a lot of the shyt in their religious texts are in fact, fukked up, or just plain old bullshyt.

It would be better if dudes would just ADMIT THAT and then say well we want to focus on the GOOD that comes out of these holy texts. But that would rock the boat it many religions wouldn't it? Of course it would because most religions don't leave much room for amendments or change and things of that nature. And when people do suggest change or progressive thought well...you know what happens then

 

[tmonster]

Faith = strong belief or trust in someone or something; loyalty.​

you are sure about this definition?
what is your definition of "belief"?

 

[No1]

The answer is simple: it depends on the religion.

All you have to do is ask: Does said religion condone, permit or encourage physical harm against those who do not agree with its tenets or those who disagree with its aims and goals?

If the answer is yes in any way shape or form...I mean in ANY way...then yes, your religion is inherently violent. Why are we tip toeing around this simple idea?

Because deep down inside, most "religious" people know a lot of the shyt in their religious texts are in fact, fukked up, or just plain old bullshyt.

It would be better if dudes would just ADMIT THAT and then say well we want to focus on the GOOD that comes out of these holy texts. But that would rock the boat it many religions wouldn't it? Of course it would because most religions don't leave much room for amendments or change and things of that nature. And when people do suggest change or progressive thought well...you know what happens then

This reads like you did not read the OP. It directly addresses your claim about violence. As for that everyone else, this is not some thread about the general merits of religion. I can make another thread for that @Napoleon and @tmonster. But I will say it is quite comical to have nothing you make claims about the supposed intellect of someone who is religious in that pedantic faux-objective manner. It is that arrogance that hurts your case. Matter of fact, let me stir the pot with another thread. But stop derailing here.