War and Religion: A Reason for Bigotry? (READ FIRST POST)

[TheFightingPikachu]

Some people believe religion is an exceedingly common cause of war.

That's highly debatable.

When I took a look at the Atheism Club today, I found that Mister Zero doesn't think it is over-the-top to accuse religious people, of killing each other constantly.

However, some people do not accept this. Some people cling to religion, even though it's been replaced in the realm of explanation by science and in the realm of morality by the Enlightenment and secular humanism. Serving no rational purpose, its heavy, bloated corpse lies on top of humanity, rotting, weighing us down, keeping us from progressing, and constantly threatening to bring on our permanent end.

(He says something almost the same in a fictional scenario about two "religions" about Santa Claus.)

In any case, since Islam is not constantly threatening to destroy us (and even less is religion in general always threatening), I am quite sure this is over-the-top.

While I believe there is a valid point to discussions about Islamic terrorism, this doesn't justify the conclusions Mister Zero offers. Even though I think it is something of an exaggeration to say, "Islam is a religion of peace," I am unwilling to say that all or even most Muslims are terrorists. It is simply untrue to characterize most Muslims as dangerous and violent. Furthermore, that still does not prove that religion in general has been a common cause of wars throughout history.


Other people often cite the Crusades, but those started many years after Jesus lived. And there were more causes for the Crusades than simple religious differences. (For one thing, some Muslims apparently controlled trade routes, which everybody wanted.)


Consider that the first major topic for discussion: How many times throughout history has religion been a major factor in causing or leading to war? I would say the number of times is not nearly so great as many people maintain. There have been many, many wars which had no noticeable religious factor. Last time I started such a debate, very few examples were brought forward. Examples must be presented, and I'm more than willing to give people the opportunity to do so.


Mister Zero included a new argument, which I think provides a second topic for discussion, especially since I've never heard it before. Let me show you the relevant section of his post, with emphasis added:

And, of course, Iran won't hesitate to use nuclear weaponry. MAD won't stop them. MAD only stops people who are afraid of death. Do you think a theocracy cares about death? The destruction of the world is, you have to remember, the central goal of not only radical Islam, but all abrahamic religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all of them speak of the end of days, all of them are looking forward to it. And you can't say that they don't. Every Christian looks forward to the second coming of Christ. Every Jew looks forward to the coming of the Messiah. And every Muslim looks forward to Qiyama. There is no getting around that. At the very core of religion is a longing for death. They see the living world as nothing more than a waiting room. This idea, to me, is a vile one, insulting the integrity of life itself, which is the most important "gift" (for lack of a better word) that we have.

It is possible that numerous Muslims believe they will conquer the world at the end. But this is not found among all adherents of Abrahamic faith. Quite a number of Christians don't even believe the end will involve Jesus literally returning, much less doing literal battle. I am absolutely certain that different branches of Judaism have different views of the end. Therefore, it is simply inaccurate to say this is a feature of all Abrahamic religions, and it is wildly inaccurate to label this a "goal." Very few Christians or Jews today are stockpiling weapons for the final days.


Finally, the end of his argument contained a very odd statement that gives us a third topic for discussion. I want everyone to examine this closely (emphasis added):

But my hatred of religion is not founded in irrationality. It's founded in a legitimate loathing of those who try to keep our species in the dark, try to keep them from asking why, and a legitimate fear of those who would destroy us all in an attempt to usher in a new world that will not come.

Note that he actually says that he loathes the people who are religious.

Now, I am fine with intense disagreement over beliefs. I can even understand hating certain beliefs, and I might at times say I hate certain beliefs. But I do not believe it is right to hate the people who hold the beliefs, whether they be atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, or even Satanists. That is probably the focal point of this debate: since when do the crimes of some in a group justify hatred of the people in that group? That is simply not rationality but bigotry.




Note:
I encourage you to look at the arguments presented in the OP of my previous debate on this topic.


New Rule:
DO NOT go debate this in the Atheism Club if you are not a member there! I just found out that some non-members have decided to post there, and that is against their club rules. Respect their club rules.

 

[JDavidC]

Well, first off, here's a link to a religious debate on another forum, although its focus is primarily on the god of the Holy Bible, http://forum.duelingnetwork.com/t6520-god. Any post you see by JDC there is me. A lot of arguments I've made can be found towards the end of that thread, and it'd take way too long to repeat them here.

Now, a big problem (regardless of which religion (if any), is 'true') is that people use religion as a tool to press people, control them, and/or destroy their enemies. Another big problem is trying to properly interpret the sacred text of each religion, especially as said texts will be subjected to repeated modification. This is particularly true in the cases where it has to be translated, not to mention cultural differences in different periods of history.

Here's how religion can be used as a tool for manipulation.
1: Claim that a very powerful (possibly omnipotent) being exists.
2: Claim that there is a text that is the word of that deity.
3: Claim that not following that deity's word will lead to extreme, possibly eternal suffering.
4: Claim that following that deity's word will lead to great, possibly eternal rewards.
5: Claim that you know the sacred text very well, and that you are an authority on the deity's teachings.

Here is where it gets malevolent.
Manipulation 1: Instill these claims in people from a young age, rather than letting them think rationally about it. i.e. Heavy-duty indoctrination/brainwashing.
Manipulation 2: Threaten people with claim 3 if they do not do what you want.
Manipulation 3: Tell people that claim 4 applies if they do what you want.

Use said manipulations to wage war on your enemies with brainwashed, fanatically loyal soldiers who will die for your cause. In some cases, it may be possible that all of this is carried out because the people doing the manipulation, have themselves been manipulated into thinking in this way, and that they must convert others to their cause, rather than actually being malevolent.

Put those together, and religions can be used as tools for using other people to carry out atrocities, and to make them think they're doing the right thing, in order to ensure fanatical loyalty.

A problem here is the tendency of some people to generalise the sins of some people in a group, and to claim that ALL people in that group are guilty of the same sins. e.g. Claiming that all religious people use religion as a tool to control others and to get what they want. Such a generalisation is a grievous logical fallacy. Just because X people in a group do something, does not mean that any of the rest of the people in that group engage in the same behaviour. This is a key point to keep in mind to avoid the over-generalisation fallacy. Engaging in such generalisations will inevitably lead to false accusations against some people, and hence bigotry, just because someone happens to be a member of a group where others have engaged in questionable/evil behaviour.

So, what I have outlined above (excluding the link to a different thread), would be a big reason for the bigotry. One thing I find supremely ironic is, that quite a lot people say not to shove religion down other people's throats (which I wholly agree with), but they have no problem shoving their non-religion down other people's throats, which seems to be very hypocritical behaviour (forcing your own beliefs on others, while telling others NOT to do it).

A major problem faced by people today is how to properly go about reading and interpreting the sacred text of a religion, and considering the possible pitfalls they may run into (of which there are many). You may want to see some of my later posts on the thread I linked at the start of this post. Lots of people make the mistake of not engaging in rational thought about what is being said, and they may end up misinterpreting something, or believing in something that was modified in a translation, which was not in the original sacred text. Needless to say, this will lead to a lot of incorrect beliefs, which will also attract bigotry (especially with the over-generalisation thing).

A couple of points I would like to make about the Christian religion and the Holy Bible:
- http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hell-explained-bible-threatenings-explained.html#HELL

This is one of the big ones. Ultimately, a fate such as eternal suffering/destruction for anybody is inconsistent with that of an omnibenevolent deity, even though the possibility exists for the deity to do a whole lot of other things that humans would find despicably evil (although we don't know everything that an omniscient being would, which is a key point to bear in mind, and the fact that an all-powerful being can control what happens to people after death). However, you don't need to be omniscient to figure out eternal punishment is illogical, and no sin can possibly be bad enough to justify infinite punishment. See the 2 links I've posted so far for more details. I believe the whole doctrine of eternal punishment is something that has crept in and severely corrupted the Bible. What makes more sense is that everyone will be punished by at least 1 person for their crimes (that person may or may not be God), and that if the rest of the stuff in Revelation starts playing out, that people who do not repent and try to think about what they're doing wrong, won't be allowed to join those people who repent and try to do the right thing, until they try repenting.

Furthermore, this doctrine of eternal punishment pretty much appears to invalidate the argument for God allowing free will, as long as said doctrine stands and is deemed accurate. The doctrine is fatally contradictory with the nature of God, and cannot have been a part of the original Bible. Therefore, the argument for God allowing free will is not rendered invalid.

Another problem is that the salvation theme gets corrupted. Instead of being saved from eternal suffering, the real theme simply seems to be getting saved from a life where people engage in harmful behaviour to themselves and other (i.e. sinning). This is something that starts here and now, not in the afterlife. Those that decide to go on this path, and try to avoid engaging in such harmful behaviour, will find life gets better in a lot of ways, and that they will get into the kingdom of Heaven at the end of Revelation, while others will still need to be reformed before they are let in. In the meantime, those people will be left outside the kingdom of Heaven and they will have to deal with their situation outside it. Some people might think of this as a prison for those who have yet to be reformed, and such a prison sentence would last until these people are reformed, and help would be given to people who want to give it a try. That's my opinion on what God, in the Bible, would do, based on his description as an omnibenevolent deity. He'll let a lot of people try things their own way, without forcing his beliefs on them, and let them make their own mistakes. He will of course state his own way of living life, and the importance of repentance. You don't see God going around mightily smiting people for not believing in him though today. In most, if not all cases, he does not force his beliefs on others (my basis for this claim is that there's been a considerable absence of definite overt acts of God in recent history). This seems to be a key point to bear in mind.

Another issue is the claim that homosexuality is a sin. http://www.religiondispatches.org/a...le_really_call_homosexuality_an_“abomination”

This is something that did not simply make sense when applied to the world today, so I had to do research into what was said in Hebrew. It would seem that translation issues are causing another severe corruption. In older days, there would be additional health risks, given that medical knowledge back then is nowhere near as advanced as it is now. I can't ignore the fact that some people are born different, and things like disabilites, or anything other than heterosexual is a part of that. Obviously, being heterosexual has the advantages of allowing reproduction, and the parts of the human body involved being used in the way they were designed to be used. People would need to be aware of risks of doing it other ways, and to take appropriate safeguards against such risks.

Another big issue is laws in old societies, particularly in the Old Testament, which are utterly barbaric by today's standards. Trying to get people to switch radically to new laws may be too much, which may explain some strange and barbaric (by today's standards) laws that God put to Moses (not talking about the Ten Commandments, but on law enforcement/punishment). Even in the New Testament, some teachings by Jesus may have been based on how to conform to the laws of those societies, rather than what is ultimately right, because other people will judge those people using their laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Hebrew_Bible has some views on it, and I think it is important not to interpret the Bible too literally all the time, as people on that article seem to suggest. There may well be reasons (possibly one or more of which God may know, for the specific cases mentioned) for having those laws in place at that time, but they would certainly not apply today.

Finally, there is the issue of blind faith. The Bible does not preach this. If you read the 1st link at the top of this post, you will find some stuff I've posted. There are a lot of teachings in the Bible about the importance of knowledge, rather than blind belief. For now, I will give you one of my favourite quotes. Thessalonians 5:21 'Test everything. Hold on to that which is good.'. People need to think critically about what they read, rather than just take it at face value. This is true of any religious text, where there is so much room for misinterpretation (again, see the link at the top of this post).

Regarding the end of days thing, don't worry TOO much about it, just watch for the signs and see if the prophecies keep coming true (btw, God seemed to intend that fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible is to be used as evidence that God does exist). The end could still be a very long way off, and it's not really worth stockpiling weapons etc. If things go bad, people will react anyway, and hopefully try to save as many lives as possible, but worrying too much about the future is not helpful.

 

[Zevn]

No, it's money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw

Religion, whether any God is real or not, is often an excuse. Not as much the actual cause.

Feel free to exchange "money" for land, oil(commodity), or power.

 

[Malanu]

Mister Zero missed The end of days prophecies from Greek & Norse mythologies as well as the Christian end of days myths. Many religions have an end to their story whether it is Armageddon, Ragnarok or what ever other names it is known by. Humans will justify a war with many reasons, even religion.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

A problem here is the tendency of some people to generalise the sins of some people in a group, and to claim that ALL people in that group are guilty of the same sins. e.g. Claiming that all religious people use religion as a tool to control others and to get what they want. Such a generalisation is a grievous logical fallacy. Just because X people in a group do something, does not mean that any of the rest of the people in that group engage in the same behaviour. This is a key point to keep in mind to avoid the over-generalisation fallacy. Engaging in such generalisations will inevitably lead to false accusations against some people, and hence bigotry, just because someone happens to be a member of a group where others have engaged in questionable/evil behaviour.

I'd say I agree with most of your post, especially the above. (However, I am quite certain that homosexuality is still prohibited to Christians today.) In many cases, people would point out and perhaps even exaggerate the need to avoid stereotyping Muslims as radical.

As a general response to your post, I'd say that it is sad that some people do seem brainwashed, feeling like their beliefs should simply be passed on from their parents and not analyzed. But thankfully, plenty of religious people recognize that lots of religions believe they are going to hell. This means that if they think about it--and many do--they know to consider more than just, "Did this religion threaten me with hell?" Otherwise they'd be changing from on religion to the next as soon as they heard about their view of hell!

Mister Zero missed The end of days prophecies from Greek & Norse mythologies as well as the Christian end of days myths. Many religions have an end to their story whether it is Armageddon, Ragnarok or what ever other names it is known by. Humans will justify a war with many reasons, even religion.

No, he mentioned the end times prophecies in Christian belief. He just overestimated the number of people who believe hey will play any (violent) active role in those final events.

Now, the Norse myths provide an interesting counterpoint to Mister Zero's point about prophetic views. The Norse believed there would be a huge battle at the end. Did they fight others because of disagreements over belief, or because they wanted to prepare for the end? No, it seems they just liked to fight!

The Romans are a similar case: Did they conquer lots of people because their many gods demanded it? No, it looks like they conquered lots of people because...they really liked conquering lots of people.

 

[Hejiru]

I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that a lot of religious extremists (not all!) are not extremists because of the religion, but the other way around. I find it hard to believe that Average Bob was a happy, regular guy until he came across a religious text that told him he should hate such-and-such group. I think in a lot of cases it's a lot more likely that Bob was already a bigot, and the religion was a convenient way to justify his beliefs. Studies have shown that our brains get a natural high when we read things that agree with our point of view. So if a homophobe reads that homosexuality is a sin, he has a great excuse to justify his bigotry. I'm not saying he's actually thinking "hey, I agree with this! I'll use to justify my behavior!" It's all subconscious. He pre-existing prejudice is reinforced by the religious text, not caused by it.

I'm not saying this applies to every religious person who has prejudice. But it certainly explains why a lot of people focus on one section of the bible and ignore the others. For example, Westboro focusing entirely on the Leviticus homosexuality law and totally ignoring Jesus's "love your enemies" teachings, or why homophobe insist that the homosexuality law is still valid, but the shellfish one isn't. If they were truly a believer in what the religion teaches, that wouldn't happen. If they didn't already have a hidden hatred of homosexuals, why would they home in on that one passage out of the thousands of others?

Leviticus also condemns eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from two different fabrics. So if people like Westboro only became homophobes because of what they read in Leviticus, why didn't they also become shellfish-haters because of what they read?

 

[Malanu]

The Romans are a similar case: Did they conquer lots of people because their many gods demanded it? No, it looks like they conquered lots of people because...they really liked conquering lots of people.

The Romans also had close to a dozen gods of war to appease:
Bellona, goddess of war
Honos, god of chivalry, honor and military justice
Lua, goddess to whom soldiers sacrificed captured weapons
Mars, god of war and bloodshed, equivalent to the Greek god Ares
Minerva, goddess of wisdom and war, equivalent to the Greek goddess Athena
Nerio, warrior goddess and personification of valor
Vica Pota, goddess of victory
Victoria, personification of victory, equivalent to the Greek goddess Nike
Virtus, god of bravery and military strength

 

[greatguy]

Religon

Leviticus also condemns eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from two different fabrics. So if people like Westboro only became homophobes because of what they read in Leviticus, why didn't they also become shellfish-haters because of what they read?

In Acts, all animals were proclaimed clean. Shellfish are fine. The issue with the fabrics seems to exist so that no one gets cheated, which could happen if someone thought a shirt was made from expensive material when it was really mixed with another, cheaper, material. There are many rules like that in the law books of the Bible, like not having unequal scales.

Homosexuality is a perversion, yes, but I don't hate homosexuals. Everyone has sinned, so I would be a hypocrite to hate them. I believe God is the only one who can judge them.

About failing to question why, that just isn't true. In the new testament, we are told to question everything.

 

[Avenger Angel]

Mister Zero's overexaggeration of "religious vices" pretty much tells me that the dude is just passionately irate against all organized religion and tries to use a lot of fancy words to make it seem like it's far worse than it actually is. It's not that bad. He's just examining the cases of a few extremists and assumes that it's logical to believe that can be applied as a stereotype to other followers of the same religion. It's no different than making an overall assumption that all members of a particular race or culture behave exactly the same, live the same lifestyle, and make the same life decisions.

Common sense makes it clear that's wrong, so really, I wouldn't take what he's saying too seriously or like it's anything close to the truth. He makes it sound like religion directly hinders and disrupts research and development and distracts engineers and scientists from performing their day to day duties. I also like the part where he thinks every religion just can't wait for the apocalypse. That's pretty funny too. I don't know of anyone from any religion that would relish seeing the world end. And frankly, if I did, I sure wouldn't want to hang around them.

Ironically, wars are caused by making the same kind of assumptions that Mister Zero makes: thinking an entire culture's worth of people is out to do him harm and/or possesses something the accuser thinks they don't deserve. The issue here is a psychological one. He, like many others, doesn't have a tolerance for cultural differences, and doesn't honor the choices and freedom people should have. Choice of religion works great when people are willing to tolerate and accept the fact that others will make different choices from theirs. Case in point, base respect on an individual's character and deeds with regards to ethics, morality, and conscience, not on the theological practices they follow or the culture they belong to.

So in that regard, a war can be ignited on the grounds of any aggressive reaction to an action or difference caused by the initiator that conflicts with the responder. That could include anything and could escalate into a war if there is enough aggressive passion for the responder to pursue it. How large that war becomes is simply a measure of how deep that passion is and how firmly the instigator believes in it's purpose. As a result, wars are fought over religion because it is a cultural aspect and belief system that many are passionate about. However, these wars are started and pursued by those with low tolerances for societal differences, and believe the actions and demeanors of a few instigating members of that culture are universally shared and practiced the exact same way throughout the entire organization when this is never the case.

With that said, Mister Zero needs to take a step back, catch his breath, and realize he's making the same kind of mistake war-causing individuals with low cultural difference tolerance make. That's not a good behavior to hold on to.

 

[JDavidC]

Yes, we have to question everything, including the Bible. The New Testament contains Thessalonians, specifically the part I quoted previously. If you have a religion, I believe it is VITALLY important to carefully question the holy book of your religion, and to try to dig deep if something appears wrong or doesn't make sense (with Google, it's easier to find translations, and various sites where arguments are made). There's even an example of Bereans checking out the scriptures and them being praised for investigating it, rather than simply taking it at face value. If something doesn't make sense, then it's very important to do the same thing.

Regarding my thoughts on whether homosexuality is sinful, I will first quote something TheFightingPikachu said in another thread

That was one of the major problems with the Hope Remains website, their about us page says:

When translating from Hebrew and Greek to English, we tend to bypass religious resources, which have been known to alter meanings for doctrinal reasons (not just on this topic). We prefer to rely primarily on secular language sources, whose only "agenda" is proper understanding of the language.

In saying this, they actually imply that every translation which has verses condemning homosexual actions (and even many of the religious Hebrew/Greek resources) had an agenda themselves. That is accusation, not argument. Hope Remains is thus a truly a biased source, refusing to cite sources they claim to have used and instead resorting to accusation.

I decided to investigate this site that you claimed to be biased. Many people may make honest mistakes when translating, and try to interpret it to what they honestly believes it says (that may well be the 'agenda' mentioned), rather than something intentionally malicious. Those other translators may have beliefs in what is right based on those doctrines, and that website does not actually make an accusation of wilfully tampering with the bible. I don't believe your claim that the site is truly biased holds water here. Also, the important thing to investigate is the actual argument being amde, not the person making the argument. I tried taking the following verse from Leviticus 18:22, in Hebrew form, as ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא, and I did a search on the Internet for this phrase.

It seems there was a culture where the woman owns a bed, and only she gets to use it with someone else for engaging in sexual relationships. A man using it with another man would be seen as a big no-no back then, and that is what Leviticus 18:22 seems to be really driving at.

I decied to investigate elsewhere to see if your claim of Hope Remains being biased had any basis. Instead, I found these:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5882544/ (that's for the verse quoted in Hebrew above)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm (the section regarding not going against one's own nature, which also turns up in a page at Hope Remains, regarding Romans 1)

It also supports what I read elsewhere (such as to'evah meaning taboo, rather than abomination), again you may need to check the other thread I posted on the forum at the start of my 1st post here. Also, the parts about going against nature, make sense when they apply to going against the natures of the people involved, and in this context, nature would seem to be in-built sexual orientation (remember, lots of people do not get to choose their sexual orientation, it's part of who they are, this is CRUCIAL to my argument here). Furthermore, it seems to be a specific case of a 'Be yourself' message, rather than someone you are not, and that IS something that will make sense today. Trying to deny who you are is harmful.

Based on the fact that what Hope Remains says corroborates other things I have read, it means I effectively have multiple sources making similar/same claims. Not only that, but when I read their arguments and apply Thessalonians 5:21, it makes a great deal of sense. Therefore, I do not see any evidence to suggest that Hope Remains is a biased website.

I would like to say further, that based on what I have read, and how much sense it makes, that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but in acting in a manner that goes against the sexual orientation of their person, and denying who they are. This sort of teaching actually makes sense, like a lot of teachings in the New Testament, therefore I believe that this is the correct version (by applying Thessalonians 5:21).

 

[7 tyranitars]

Personaly I feel the title of this thread is a bit strange, Yes some wars are caused by religion or use religion as an excuse to gain the support of the masses, but I feel it would be much better if the title would be violence and religion.

Because most religious violence is caused by single extremist and extremist groups that aren't conected to a government. Sure you can have war on terror, but that isn't just islamic extremism, it that can be extreme left or extreme right. So that won't work. Basicly you can't wage wars on extremist groups like you would on countries.

Now people do getting beaten up or even stoned to death. Get cursed at or shuned for their believes.

I believe violence with roots in religion exist, but it obviously isn't the only one. And especialy in the 'western' countries it doesn't happen as much as it would in the Islamic world.

However it shouldn't be ignored either, as it might not be the only reason of violence it is a reason for people to hate, psychologicaly damage, physicaly damage or even kill others for what they believe or who they are.

 

[ebilly99]

In Acts, all animals were proclaimed clean. Shellfish are fine. The issue with the fabrics seems to exist so that no one gets cheated, which could happen if someone thought a shirt was made from expensive material when it was really mixed with another, cheaper, material. There are many rules like that in the law books of the Bible, like not having unequal scales.

Homosexuality is a perversion, yes, but I don't hate homosexuals. Everyone has sinned, so I would be a hypocrite to hate them. I believe God is the only one who can judge them.

About failing to question why, that just isn't true. In the new testament, we are told to question everything.

The whole clean and unclean was a metaphor for going out to the gentials and the Jewish people. In the new testament you are told to question everything then answer me why is Homosexuality a sin?

As for war and religion there are bigoted people however we are what we are taught. If a person is taught the bible first and then meet people they dislike they will find bible verses to agree with there hatred. Without a all knowing book one has to explain his hatred and that will usally help the anger go away. It is much harder where there god (in there eyes) support them.

 

[Hejiru]

In Acts, all animals were proclaimed clean. Shellfish are fine. The issue with the fabrics seems to exist so that no one gets cheated, which could happen if someone thought a shirt was made from expensive material when it was really mixed with another, cheaper, material. There are many rules like that in the law books of the Bible, like not having unequal scales.

Alright, good point with the shellfish. I had forgotten that.
But your fabric thing is just your attempt at explaining the law away. It's not anywhere in the Bible. Why can you say "this is law is no longer valid because of a reason I came up with" and homosexuals can't? You can justify the breaking of that law, but you don't allow homosexuals the same privilege.

And anyway, this is a debate more suited for the homosexuality thread. I was using homosexuality as an example because it's such a hot issue today. It could just as easily be applied to racists, xenophobes, misogynists, anti-sematists, whatever.

About failing to question why, that just isn't true. In the new testament, we are told to question everything.

I'd like to know where exactly that is. I don't recall ever having read anything like that.

 

[AzukanAsimbu]

I find it a bit strange that non-mods are monitoring the Atheism Club, but I guess it doesn't matter.

I'll start by saying, yes, Mister Zero had a bias against religion. Its completely expected though, being a member of the "Atheism" Club. But rememebr that everyone has a bias. It is physically impossible to not have a bias. And in regard to what he said, I would agree that certain areas are over generalized. But I must point out, in his defense, that inversely, there are many a number of theists who over generalize about Atheists. Each group will have diverse kinds of people, and people, obviously being human, make mistakes. Im sure that everyone here has over generalized in a debate or arguement at some point. So cut him some slack. If you look in the context and not just the bolded areas that The FightingPikachu has laid out for you, you'll see that Mister Zero does present some pretty valid and thought provoking points. If he offended you, well thats something you'll just have to deal with. Dexterity, dexterity. One more note though. Your claim of him being a bigot is a tad exaggerated. Bigotry is a subjective concept.

Personally I think that this debate, as most religiously themed debates on Sppf, progress nowhere, and I think that this thread will progress nowhere.

 

[Avenger Angel]

I find it a bit strange that non-mods are monitoring the Atheism Club, but I guess it doesn't matter.

I'll start by saying, yes, Mister Zero had a bias against religion. Its completely expected though, being a member of the "Atheism" Club. But rememebr that everyone has a bias. It is physically impossible to not have a bias. And in regard to what he said, I would agree that certain areas are over generalized. But I must point out, in his defense, that inversely, there are many a number of theists who over generalize about Atheists. Each group will have diverse kinds of people, and people, obviously being human, make mistakes. Im sure that everyone here has over generalized in a debate or arguement at some point. So cut him some slack. If you look in the context and not just the bolded areas that The FightingPikachu has laid out for you, you'll see that Mister Zero does present some pretty valid and thought provoking points. If he offended you, well thats something you'll just have to deal with. Dexterity, dexterity. One more note though. Your claim of him being a bigot is a tad exaggerated. Bigotry is a subjective concept.

Personally I think that this debate, as most religiously themed debates on Sppf, progress nowhere, and I think that this thread will progress nowhere.

Dodging the problem doesn't solve it.

Bottom line, he made the same fatal flaw that he's protesting against: making generalizations about an entire group rather than examine the actions and behaviors of the offending individuals and those directly responsible for the acts of violence. As a result, it's hard to believe his points are defensible or based on valid reasoning from an objective viewpoint. Secondly, I took a peek in the atheist club to read his passage in its entirety, but I also noticed its members all hailing and praising the same wrongful generalizations that he made with no one there to flag or even point out the pieces you claim are "mistakes." In fact...

That was beautiful. I loved reading that.

Uh oh. Do you really believe that, or do you think there might be something in his passage that is unfounded? Objectively speaking, I can spot quite a few things.

The problem here is that he (and all the points your club seemed to unanimously agree with in its entirety) all wrongfully assumed every single person who belongs to the same religion performs and behaves exactly the same way Mister Zero describes in his essay.

Therefore, I can't really cut him any slack, since, well, I'm not convinced yet he even wants it or even admits what he wrote was a mistake. His signature:

Theists - spreading intolerance and hate since 4000 BC

Implies all theists believe the same thing that mattj said to him in whatever thread he quoted. Given, what mattj said to him wasn't right either and not every theist would believe the same thing mattj said. In addition, Mister Zero bases his points on assumptions, believing that "what if" scenarios are "what truly is" scenarios, and assumes his theories are right before being proven.

I think he, you, and the rest of that club should take a step back, look at the scenario objectively, and then make some considerations. Consider the fact that the offending members and the non-offending members of a religion (or any other group for that matter) only share certain similarities, and even those may have a gray area. Mister Zero's passage implies the members of a religion share ALL similarities and unanimously all act together as one cohesive unit, as though there is no difference of any kind in terms of personality, beliefs, or characteristics from one member of the group to the next. Wrongfully, he applies the actions and fanatical beliefs of extremists, and believes those same aspects and characteristics can be universally applied to everyone in that organization. This, without a doubt, is very wrong.

Second, his passage disregards the perception of how different people regard religion and what it means to each individual person, in which there will definitely, without a doubt, be variance. Subjectively, he drives his assumptions all toward negative bias toward religion to sway all readers into believing his points, even though they're presented erroneously and simply aren't true universally through all of the entities he is focusing on. His interpretations imply only pure negativity comes from religion, and it really only speaks of someone who just hasn't done any research or simply ignores any evidence or statistics that disproves his points.

What I think needs to happen is I think he (and anyone who agrees with his passage) needs to step back, reread it from an objective standpoint, and consider all ends of the argument, not just in the context of a club for atheists and his personal friends. All the areas that imply all members of the religion all follow the suggested statements need to be flagged and reevaluated for authenticity, because it's clear he makes several generalist mistakes among other critical errors. Ask him if he's really questioned an extensive random sampling of members of that religion and surveyed them to see if they all back unanimous similar beliefs and practices with a less than 1% margin of error and has the data and statistical analysis to prove it. That's the only real way to get a proper evaluation of what's true and what's an assumption, and I doubt he's done that level of research. Therefore, it's wrong for him to draw the kind of conclusions he's coming up with, and it's not right for you guys to follow and praise it without questioning how he arrived to these conclusions or what he founded these beliefs on.

Again, I strongly believe this is a matter of a lack of cultural difference intolerance, something that unfortunately is being driven and spread throughout people. And because of a lack of communication, consideration for the other party, and objective reasoning, it's only getting worse.

No, quite the contrary, it's very ugly, and far from anything beautiful.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Dodging the problem doesn't solve it.

Bottom line, he made the same fatal flaw that he's protesting against: making generalizations about an entire group rather than examine the actions and behaviors of the offending individuals and those directly responsible for the acts of violence. As a result, it's hard to believe his points are defensible or based on valid reasoning from an objective viewpoint. Secondly, I took a peek in the atheist club to read his passage in its entirety, but I also noticed its members all hailing and praising the same wrongful generalizations that he made with no one there to flag or even point out the pieces you claim are "mistakes." In fact...

Awesome, that you must not have read what me myself and someone else said about it. So you can leave that 'all'.

I'd like to have a bit of a discussion with you, MasterZero. Now, I can't write long posts like that, but I'm going to try to put my points as clearly as possible.

Let me start off by saying I'm a pretty firm atheist. I don't see any problem in bashing people who tell me I'm going to go to hell, or that homosexual people are going to hell, or that there is any kind of proof for religion. These kind of people are definitely going to hell.

However, there are some people who believe in religion, but manage not to use it in a negative manner. They cut to the root of it, which is basically "Don't be a dick." According to them, there's no need for all the laws and all, and few people are going to hell, but religion helps them strengthen their mind and their morals. I doubt these people are going to cause the end of the world.

:x

<-- I hope it is okay to quote you Rangeet. I agreed with his post because I felt it was unfair to put all religious people one pile. But it seems you (conveniently?) seemed to skip that part. And you countered Zero with a generalisation of us.

It seems you missed a part while you where reading our posts. If you are looking in our club, which I find strange because you are not a member, and probably don't want to be one. Then atleast read everything. Yes I know I made a joke about alchemy, but like I said before what are you even doing in our club? It is an athiesm club, if you don't like it you are probably gonna be offended.

The problem here is that he (and all the points your club seemed to unanimously agree with in its entirety) all wrongfully assumed every single person who belongs to the same religion performs and behaves exactly the same way Mister Zero describes in his essay.

Again nice generalisation about how we all are bigots of religious people.

Therefore, I can't really cut him any slack, since, well, I'm not convinced yet he even wants it or even admits what he wrote was a mistake. His signature:

If you have a problem with his sig talk to him about, or do I need you to remind you that some members of this forum lovely condemn us to hell in their sigs? I do however acknowledge it is a generalisation.

I think he, you, and the rest of that club should take a step back, look at the scenario objectively, and then make some considerations. Consider the fact that the offending members and the non-offending members of a religion (or any other group for that matter) only share certain similarities, and even those may have a gray area. Mister Zero's passage implies the members of a religion share ALL similarities and unanimously all act together as one cohesive unit, as though there is no difference of any kind in terms of personality, beliefs, or characteristics from one member of the group to the next. Wrongfully, he applies the actions and fanatical beliefs of extremists, and believes those same aspects and characteristics can be universally applied to everyone in that organization. This, without a doubt, is very wrong

.

Can you stop with this counter-generalisation, it doesn't make you look like a very good debater. I find it funny how you accuse us of something while you do the same thing.


Now I didn't felt like quoting and answering everything because I would just be repeating myself, and that is something I dislike. So in short, don't accuse someone of generalisation, while in that same post you do the same thing, if you are offended by the athiest club, then don't look in it. And if you have a problem with Mister Zero, discuss it with him instead of ranting on other people.

 

[Diz~]

This is what I know from personal experience and I seen these kind of people before. People who use religion as an excuse to start a war are a bunch of idiots. They will make it seem righteous and a just cause. I think it idiotic.

The people who are religious and not causing any trouble by violence is not the problem. But the guys who want to strap themselves with explosive just to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah is gonna get shot. Also, the moment they start shooting from their mosque is the moment that their mosque is no longer protected.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

JDavidC: I just want to point out that there are a bunch of pro-gay websites that try to reinterpret these verses. Given the fact that most translations don't agree with their claims, most of these sites, like Hope Remains, resort to conspiracy theories like: "Traditional translations have intentionally distorted these verses because of homophobia." These pro-gay reinterpretations have all been rejected by the vast majority of linguistic scholars, including non-Christian scholars.

Additionally, I should point out that one of the resources listed on the Hope Remains resources page is by John Boswell, who seems to have been one of the first people to write a book suggesting these verses don't condemn homosexual actions. However, he was a Christian, making their claim about using only secular language resources a lie.

And I just want to let you know, there is another thread for homosexuality. If you want to continue debating this point, please do it there.

Personaly I feel the title of this thread is a bit strange, Yes some wars are caused by religion or use religion as an excuse to gain the support of the masses, but I feel it would be much better if the title would be violence and religion.

You might have a point there, but since wars cause so many more deaths, this would undoubtedly provide a more accurate comparison. Also, it is not as though there have been an immense number of Christian terrorists, although it is regrettable that there have been some. Basically, wars are huge, and no Christians acting on their own to, say, blow up a building will cause anything like the loss of life we find in World War II.

I'll start by saying, yes, Mister Zero had a bias against religion. Its completely expected though, being a member of the "Atheism" Club. But rememebr that everyone has a bias. It is physically impossible to not have a bias. And in regard to what he said, I would agree that certain areas are over generalized. But I must point out, in his defense, that inversely, there are many a number of theists who over generalize about Atheists. Each group will have diverse kinds of people, and people, obviously being human, make mistakes. Im sure that everyone here has over generalized in a debate or arguement at some point. So cut him some slack. If you look in the context and not just the bolded areas that The FightingPikachu has laid out for you, you'll see that Mister Zero does present some pretty valid and thought provoking points. If he offended you, well thats something you'll just have to deal with. Dexterity, dexterity. One more note though. Your claim of him being a bigot is a tad exaggerated. Bigotry is a subjective concept.

First of all, I didn't say that I wads offended at his post. I believed it's heavy reliance on religious violence (especially Muslim violence) was inaccurate. When something offends you, you might say "That offends me," but when you disagree, well that's what a debate is for! That is also why I only chose to debate only those points in his post, not the whole thing.

Additionally, a bias is not a valid excuse for this. If I started saying that every religion is guilty of extremists except Christians, people would not let me off the hook for this gross misrepresentation just because I am a Christian.

It is not necessary to "cut him some slack." It is no exaggeration to say he did express loathing of religious people. If I expressed hatred of gays, I would not be cut any slack whatsoever, and you know what? I wouldn't deserve any. Hatred of people is bigotry, something he would have pointed out as wrong if it came from a Christian.

Bottom line, he made the same fatal flaw that he's protesting against: making generalizations about an entire group rather than examine the actions and behaviors of the offending individuals and those directly responsible for the acts of violence. As a result, it's hard to believe his points are defensible or based on valid reasoning from an objective viewpoint. Secondly, I took a peek in the atheist club to read his passage in its entirety, but I also noticed its members all hailing and praising the same wrongful generalizations that he made with no one there to flag or even point out the pieces you claim are "mistakes." In fact...

The problem here is that he (and all the points your club seemed to unanimously agree with in its entirety) all wrongfully assumed every single person who belongs to the same religion performs and behaves exactly the same way Mister Zero describes in his essay.

I would point out that what you said is not quite correct. A number of members did praise his post. However, 7 tyranitars is right, Rangeet did express his disagreement with it. I really liked that post by Rangeet!

In any case, you are basically correct: Mister Zero is guilty of something he would condemn in Christians.

If you have a problem with his sig talk to him about, or do I need you to remind you that some members of this forum lovely condemn us to hell in their sigs? I do however acknowledge it is a generalisation.

If you disagree with a sig, it is fair game for debate. There's no rule anywhere against debating someone's view that just happens to be expressed in a signature.

Can you stop with this counter-generalisation, it doesn't make you look like a very good debater. I find it funny how you accuse us of something while you do the same thing.


Now I didn't felt like quoting and answering everything because I would just be repeating myself, and that is something I dislike. So in short, don't accuse someone of generalisation, while in that same post you do the same thing, if you are offended by the athiest club, then don't look in it. And if you have a problem with Mister Zero, discuss it with him instead of ranting on other people.

First, a debate is a fine place to discuss it. That way it's out in public where everyone can see.

Second, it's not a counter-generalization to point out that Mister Zero did, in fact, lump all religious people into one (rather extreme) group. Since not all religious people are he same, this is an error.

 

[Avenger Angel]

Awesome, that you must not have read what me myself and someone else said about it. So you can leave that 'all'.

<-- I hope it is okay to quote you Rangeet. I agreed with his post because I felt it was unfair to put all religious people one pile. But it seems you (conveniently?) seemed to skip that part. And you countered Zero with a generalisation of us.

It seems you missed a part while you where reading our posts. If you are looking in our club, which I find strange because you are not a member, and probably don't want to be one. Then atleast read everything. Yes I know I made a joke about alchemy, but like I said before what are you even doing in our club? It is an athiesm club, if you don't like it you are probably gonna be offended.

I had to look through your club to read the entire passage due to the fact TheFightingPikachu only quoted certain parts of the passage and not the entire thing. So yes, your club's praises of it was one of the things I saw along the way. The praises implied no disagreement and no rebuttal, meaning a conclusion can be drawn that you shared his same beliefs. If this isn't true, then you made the mistake of insinuating this by your club's praises of his passage and by failing to write out disagreements to his statements. Yes, Rangeet did this to a minor degree, but what about the rest of you?

Also, what I did was not a generalization, but rather draw a conclusion from what I saw. Did you or did you not fully agree with Mister Zero's passage? Judging by the way members praised his post, it seems they did and share all of his feelings highlighted in that post entirely. If you do not in fact agree with them, go through his entire passage again, and clearly state all the points you agree and disagree with. Until you do that, what are the rest of us supposed to believe from reading your agreements and praises of his passage?

As for Rangeet's rebuttal, he only targeted one small aspect of Mister Zero's entire argument. What about the rest of it? Did he agree with the rest of Mister Zero's points? I saw no founding of opinion on the rest of the passage on Rangeet's behalf.

Again nice generalisation about how we all are bigots of religious people.

I never said that. Please, don't put words in my mouth. But when certain members of your club agreed with Mister Zero's statements with no rebuttal against his points, it implied that. Mister Zero, from his demeanor, his passage, and his signature, does come across to me as an aggressive bigot of religious people, since he's willing to value his own beliefs over what is truly fact, and draw incorrect conclusions about individuals solely based on religious affiliations, while at the same time, slandering those religions with his notions. Clearly, this only fuels the problem.

Now, if you say you're not like him and you're not a bigot of religious people, then why are your members agreeing with a generalist passage like what Mister Zero had written? I would think if you were not, you would have adamantly and defiantly called Mister Zero out on it and pointed out his flaws and why his passage was not true in its entirely. Barely any attempt was made there. The accusations Mister Zero made are gravely serious, so yes, I did find it surprising the club demonstrated groupthink by its praising of his passage.

So tell me so the rest of us are well informed of the truth, exactly how much of Mister Zero's passage do you agree with? What do you think is right, and what do you think is a generalist error? Gather up the members of your club, and make an attempt at pointing out and targeting all the points of Mister Zero's passage that you believe are false. Otherwise, what are the rest of us who see your club hailing and praising his passage supposed to believe? What's the conclusion we need to draw from all this?

If you have a problem with his sig talk to him about, or do I need you to remind you that some members of this forum lovely condemn us to hell in their sigs? I do however acknowledge it is a generalisation.

Like I said, what mattj wasn't right and I don't agree with it. Also, show me which members of this forum condemn atheists to hell in their sigs. I haven't seen any yet. But if there are, yes, they would be just as wrong to do that as what Mister Zero has done, and I wouldn't condone and tolerate it either.

Can you stop with this counter-generalisation, it doesn't make you look like a very good debater. I find it funny how you accuse us of something while you do the same thing.

How was that statement generalist? Notice the word "imply." A conclusion from these points needs to be drawn from somewhere. I can't read minds, so I need to draw that conclusion from what is presented before me and found a basis on that. Don't mind me saying, but prejudicial statements like the one Mister Zero stated are incorrect, that is not an opinion, that is an easily provable fact. Second, I stated it was wrong because it is wrong. That was the conclusion that was drawn on the basis of all this.

The main underlying issue here is that Mister Zero demonstrates a problem that results from being intolerant of different cultures and religions, an intolerance that has caused him to proclaim false statements in the presence of other people as a means to get people to believe those same beliefs despite the fact they're clearly wrong. If you think I'm being generalist, okay, but then state all the reasons why you're not in agreement with what Mister Zero wrote and prove to the rest of us you don't in fact share his feelings on the matter. That's really the only means the rest of us can not make the mistake of associating you and your other club's members with what he believes.

Let each of your club's members target every aspect of his passage, and clearly state which points they agree with and which ones they don't so the rest of us can draw the correct conclusion as to how the rest of you feel with regards to the passage he wrote. Because right now, it seems most of the responses I saw 100% agreed with it, so please, if that's not the case, then speak up now. Otherwise, when the conclusion is drawn, the rest of us are left to believe that very little was made in rebuttal against Mister Zero's passage on behalf of the rest of the club because you did completely agree with it. I feel the rest of you need to immediately revoke your praises and state what you don't agree with unless you do in fact agree with all of his points entirely.

 

[TrollsterInc]

Problem is that people will use any excuse for a war, should they spoil for a fight, whether its religion, resources, money, or even 'just because.' Very few wars, by my reckoning, were ever justified; infact, the only one I can really think of was World War 2.

Whilst I am an athiest myself, and whilst I dislike organised religion-for several reasons, none of which are relevant to the topic- I am perfectly OK with other people practicing their beliefs, whether they say they are a Christian, a Muslim, a Jedi or part of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My tolerance stops, however, at people who insist on shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats, and demanding/attempting to force others to accept and believe what they believe. Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to be an ***.

And this primarily is where all the fear and hatred of religion is coming from; the fanatical few who insist they, and only they, know the true path to enlightenment and God, and constantly look down and preach to anyone they see as having less moral fibre or faith than themselves. Some even take this to extremes-such as Muslim extremists, or the Christian Crusades-which only damage the cause of the peaceful, religious majority. I don't know this Mister Zero person, but his statements seem like a stereotypical athiest; hateful of everything because he believes in nothing.