Is Religion Inherently Violent?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

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.

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

 

[Chris.B]

No Islam is....you do a great disservice when you group murdering barbaric Muslims with other religions

 

[tru_m.a.c]

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.​

I don't really care what definition of religion you want to use. At the end of the day doc, you and I both know, you're not hindu. If I can say wit supreme confidence you're not hindu, then I can do the same thing with thousands of other faiths.

I don't know why this always becomes some long drawn out conversation. If you prescribe to a certain faith, defend your faith, not this vague, complex definition of "religion".

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No Islam is....you do a great disservice when you group murdering barbaric Muslims with other religions

 

[Brown_Pride]

of course its not...sort of maybe a religion whose sole purpose is human sacrifice. Outside of that most major religions of the world promote peace even if some of it's followers don't.

At face value religious text attempt to turn their followers away from violence not toward it and the verses that hint or outright call for violence are far outweighed by those that do the exact opposite.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I don't really care what definition of religion you want to use.

If that's the case, you really can't discuss it. So why should I entertain ANYTHING you have to say on the subject?​

 

[Type Username Here]

I don't really care what definition of religion you want to use. At the end of the day doc, you and I both know, you're not hindu. If I can say wit supreme confidence you're not hindu, then I can do the same thing with thousands of other faiths.

I don't know why this always becomes some long drawn out conversation. If you prescribe to a certain faith, defend your faith, not this vague, complex definition of "religion".

It has always been my main argument against him. He's a Christian. He only argues for religion as a Christian standpoint. His defense of religion and theology begins and ends with Christianity, always has and always will.

 

[Type Username Here]

The thing is, people are animals. We can do good, and we can do bad. The religions we create are manifestations of that. Religion is a subset of philosophy, always has been. Philosophy as we know, covers a lot of topics, and some of it can lead to violence in an attempt to install ideologies or to maintain them.

My point? The most important context you can apply to religion is that it is all man-made. It has absolutely no supernatural element to it besides the imagination of man. But if we bring up this context, we get met with hostility from religious people. They want to default to an excuse of "human behavior" in order to exclude religious influence in their actions when those actions happen to be immoral, and default to a position of supernatural when it happens to be good.

Also, a lot of these texts are absolutely explicit in this man-made created god advocating genocide and violence, including the murder of children. Again, if we apply the context that is was written by men, it becomes very clear why this god advocates such things. But that's not what is happening is it? We are told to ignore the bad and hold that same version of god in high esteem. Then we condemn certain people for being bad representatives of the faith when they take those certain parts to heart.

Trying to have it both ways in the argument is dishonest, isn't it?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

It has always been my main argument against him. He's a Christian. His defense of religion and theology begins and ends with Christianity, always has and always will.

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.

​

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

No Islam is....you do a great disservice when you group murdering barbaric Muslims with other religions

Mr abu bakr really put work on your grandpops and grandma..

 

[HideoKojima]

people are inherently violent, humans are 1 of 3 animals that form armies and go to war.

 

[tmonster]

Religion is a man-made concept. Whatever meaning or justification people attempt to extract from it is already within themselves. It's a bunch of nonsense, but it isn't inherently anything at all.

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

 

[Blackking]

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

lol,

not only are there positives.... most of the positives are intangible.

your statement is just crazy.

 

[Blackking]

@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

 

[the cac mamba]

lol,

not only are there positives.... most of the positives are intangible.

your statement is just crazy.

exactly my point

you can talk to the sky and think thats why you got over the flu, that doesnt make it real . but yet none of these idiots would blame the same god when their kid dies from it