Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

dann said:
But what do you mean by "factor"? I would never deny that it is Islam is referred to a lot by the holy warrior. It is! But what some of the atheist extremists misunderstand is the exact role that religion plays. It's not a factor, it's subterfuge. It works much like whatever ideology school shooters (slightly different brands of suicidal mass murderers) invoke as their cause when they go on a rampage. It glorifies their revenge and their self-loathing.
Click to expand...

The religious fundamentalist has many incentives. Some of them are unconscious; other have more or less relevance. But religious exaltation is the main conscious reason for them. You cannot deny that religious exaltation is the fuel that feeds his fanaticism. Maybe you can argue that the Koran has other less aggressive interpretations. Maybe. But it provides the psychological and ideological foundations of religious hate: irrationality, divine community (power and impunity) and absolute rewards. And this is not attached to violence and intolerance by pure chance.

You can analyse what someone says in search for hidden reasons. You cannot forgot what he is really saying.

The atheist has not these incentives. And this is not a trivial difference.
 
David Mo said:
The religious fundamentalist has many incentives. Some of them are unconscious; other have more or less relevance. But religious exaltation is the main conscious reason for them. You cannot deny that religious exaltation is the fuel that feeds his fanaticism. Maybe you can argue that the Koran has other less aggressive interpretations. Maybe. But it provides the psychological and ideological foundations of religious hate: irrationality, divine community (power and impunity) and absolute rewards. And this is not attached to violence and intolerance by pure chance.

You can analyse what someone says in search for hidden reasons. You cannot forgot what he is really saying.

The atheist has not these incentives. And this is not a trivial difference.
Click to expand...
Charles Manson blamed listening to The Beatles Helter Skelter song while on drugs for inciting race war and initiating the Sharon Tate killings. That definitely provided psychological and ideological foundations of hate. So does that mean the lyrics of that song are at least partially to blame for the group's murderous actions? That John and Paul were feeding the rage?

I don't think so.

It's the interpretation that matters. It is how some Christians interpret the Bible, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to KKK-like violence. It is how some Muslims interpret the Koran, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to ISIS-like violence. The common factor is not a specific text, it is the use it is put to.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Charles Manson blamed listening to The Beatles Helter Skelter song while on drugs for inciting race war and initiating the Sharon Tate killings. That definitely provided psychological and ideological foundations of hate. So does that mean the lyrics of that song are at least partially to blame for the group's murderous actions? That John and Paul were feeding the rage?

I don't think so.

It's the interpretation that matters. It is how some Christians interpret the Bible, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to KKK-like violence. It is how some Muslims interpret the Koran, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to ISIS-like violence. The common factor is not a specific text, it is the use it is put to.
Click to expand...

Was Helter Skelter ever held up to be the undisputable word of god, to be given unquestioning obedience?
I don't think your comparison is relevant.
Also statements like "go out and kill the unbelievers wherever you may find them" don't really need an intermediary to interpret them.
 
I just have a minor point of order re the debate about whether or not ISIS are lying about their religious motivation.

Much has been made of the convictions of their fighters and supporters, but they aren't the ones giving the orders or releasing the propaganda.

In fact, the comparison to Tony Blair is remarkably apposite, since he, as the leader, lied about WMDs. All of the soldiers, the press, the UK MPs etc. believed that they were fighting to take WMDs out of the hands of dangerous people who would willingly use them to commit atrocities.

Similarly, ISIS soldiers are being lied to by their leaders. The propaganda is there to recruit and motivate the cannon fodder. If you think for one second that the people who pull the strings really believe it then I feel truly sorry for you.

It's about power and money. That's what it's always about.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
 
Norman Alexander said:
It's the interpretation that matters. It is how some Christians interpret the Bible, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to KKK-like violence. It is how some Muslims interpret the Koran, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to ISIS-like violence. The common factor is not a specific text, it is the use it is put to.
Click to expand...

Fundamentalist implementations of Islam are those that involve the least interpretation. The clue is in the name 'fundamentalist'. ISIS adhere with unparalleled strictness to the literal instructions of the Koran and the Hadith. Where they conflict they pick the most effective for their aims, which is normally the most recent, using abrogation. The more interpretation involved, generally speaking, the less extreme the result. Violence and intolerance cannot come from fundamentalism unless it is already present in the texts. As Sam Harris points out, an extremist Jain will simply go to absurd lengths not to hurt a living thing, because that is the core message of their religion. Islam is based around conquest and it takes a good deal of cherry picking and hrumphing to turn it into a peaceful, personal religion.
 
wollery said:
It's about power and money. That's what it's always about.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Have you read my links? Independent researchers, some of whom have spent years talking to ISIS of all ranks, report the same thing. They are motivated primarily and overwhelmingly by religion, hatred of the non-Muslim and the aim of establishing a caliphate in order to set the scene for the Apocalypse, which will see Jesus (miraculously now a Muslim) return and destroy all non-Muslims and usher in an era of Islamic world dominance. Now you might not like the implications of this, and you may want to speculate on comparisons with, of all people, Tony Blair, but it is established beyond any sensible debate.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Charles Manson blamed listening to The Beatles Helter Skelter song while on drugs for inciting race war and initiating the Sharon Tate killings. That definitely provided psychological and ideological foundations of hate. So does that mean the lyrics of that song are at least partially to blame for the group's murderous actions? That John and Paul were feeding the rage?

I don't think so.

It's the interpretation that matters. It is how some Christians interpret the Bible, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to KKK-like violence. It is how some Muslims interpret the Koran, especially if it is interpreted for them, that leads to ISIS-like violence. The common factor is not a specific text, it is the use it is put to.
Click to expand...

I know. This is the Clockwork Orange syndrome. But there is not anything in "Ludwig van" or "John Lennon" in themselves that incite to crime. You cannot say the same for many passages of the Bible or the Koran that are a clear incitement to hate and violence. It is so that the rate of "lennonist" criminals is not comparable with fundamentalist Muslims. I hope.
Other issues can show that Lennon's incitement to violence is purely incidental. I think that above considerations are sufficient.

I think that religion is a factor of intolerance in itself. But not necessarily direct violence as the fundamentalism is.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Can I just point out that the debate about religion is going much better now it lacks the input of the religious?
Click to expand...

Well certainly the debate about atheism and China appears to be over, lest the faithless would not so desperate to divert the discussion from the actual thread topic.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well certainly the debate about atheism and China appears to be over, lest the faithless would not so desperate to divert the discussion from the actual thread topic.
Click to expand...

There never was a debate. chinese Christians and all Christians advocate and engage in human rights abuse. It's evident and you've done a great job showing that.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well certainly the debate about atheism and China appears to be over, lest the faithless would not so desperate to divert the discussion from the actual thread topic.
Click to expand...

What debate? There was no debate. All we got was you blaming atheism for the chinese actions and ignoring that your beloved pope endorsed that same regime.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, it is. But the idea that you think that this is characteristic of atheism rather than an activity of the totalitarian government of China is even more appalling.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Your broken record monotony is boring.
Click to expand...

lets put a gauge on that.

internet posts are "even more appalling" than actual human rights atrocities

my broken record monotony more boring than what?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Was Helter Skelter ever held up to be the undisputable word of god, to be given unquestioning obedience?
Click to expand...
By Manson, yes they were.

I don't think your comparison is relevant.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Also statements like "go out and kill the unbelievers wherever you may find them" don't really need an intermediary to interpret them.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. Context helps.

SAQ 2: The Cow

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#191
 
Norman Alexander said:
By Manson, yes they were.
Click to expand...

But not by the Beatles, which was kind of my point.


Norman Alexander said:
Yes they do. Context helps.

SAQ 2: The Cow

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#191
Click to expand...

That isn't the Surah I was quoting. I was quoting the Surah of the Sword, which has no such context.
Nice to know the Quran has more of the same, though. Very peaceful. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom