Eternal grovelling or nonexistence?

[OmarKhayyam]

Oh, burning strawmen already? I'll get the marshmallows! :camp:

Another non-denial denial.

 

[Storm]

They believe it because they've been lied to. If they were educated and the lie was clearly pointed out for them, they wouldn't believe it.

You didn't answer the question.

You say that innocent, even virtuous people become suicide bombers because their religious teachers are lying to them. But the teachers aren't lying, they believe it, too, because they were taught the same way. So, according to your logic, the teachers aren't evil, either, just misguided.

My real problem with this isn't the inherent contradiction, though. It's the way you're absolving people of responsibility for their actions.

If they're taught that killing infidels is comparable to stepping on ants, it's not cold-blooded murder but simply housekeeping.

Again, I disagree. Humans have a natural empathy/ compassion for each other that doesn't need to be taught. Suicide bombers, no matter their circumstances, make a choice to suppress this.

But, as I said, my real problem here is that you're giving people a moral pass on murder. That's one hell of a slippery slope. To illustrate my point, imagine a man who was horrifcally abused as a child, and grows up to be a serial killer. By your logic, he can't be held accountable. Nobody has to take any responsibility for their actions, because they're victims of circumstance.

I do not hold to that.

 

[Storm]

Another non-denial denial.

So, when you lie about what I said, and I call you on it, that proves you right? How warped.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You didn't answer the question.

You say that innocent, even virtuous people become suicide bombers because their religious teachers are lying to them. But the teachers aren't lying, they believe it, too, because they were taught the same way. So, according to your logic, the teachers aren't evil, either, just misguided.

Not necessarily. I think oftentimes the leaders are consciously deceiving their followers.

My real problem with this isn't the inherent contradiction, though. It's the way you're absolving people of responsibility for their actions. ...

But, as I said, my real problem here is that you're giving people a moral pass on murder. That's one hell of a slippery slope.

I'm placing the responsibility on the leaders. If the leaders were stopped, the problem would end.

Again, I disagree. Humans have a natural empathy/ compassion for each other that doesn't need to be taught. Suicide bombers, no matter their circumstances, make a choice to suppress this.

Their teachers made the choice and suppressed it for them by teaching them that infidels are subhuman.

To illustrate my point, imagine a man who was horrifcally abused as a child, and grows up to be a serial killer. By your logic, he can't be held accountable. Nobody has to take any responsibility for their actions, because they're victims of circumstance.

I do not hold to that.

Serial killers are often psychopathic; they know they're doing evil and they derive pleasure from it. The suicide bomber believes he's doing the work of God and thinks his actions are moral. It's an entirely separate issue.

 

[Storm]

Not necessarily. I think oftentimes the leaders are consciously deceiving their followers.

Why?

I'm placing the responsibility on the leaders. If the leaders were stopped, the problem would end.

Likewise, if the followers were stopped, the problem would end.

Their teachers made the choice and suppressed it for them by teaching them that infidels are subhuman.

Nobody can make your choices for you.

Serial killers are often psychopathic; they know they're doing evil and they derive pleasure from it. The suicide bomber believes he's doing the work of God and thinks his actions are moral. It's an entirely separate issue.

I disagree, but don't care enough to argue the specific example, so here's another: people who suffer abuse as children often grow up to be abusers themselves. Are they responsible for their actions, or not?

 

[Andal]

i am a monotheist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I know this topic was addressed to them but the conversation seems very interesting. The initial question posed doesn't really apply in my religion. the link though between terrorism and God is fascinating. I don't believe anyone is inherently evil although people can commit absolutely horrific atrocities

Saying that religious terrorists don't know any better is not quite true. Often times they are not raised in extremist families but instead learn this stuff either at a madrasa or in some "club" so they often do have the opportunity to see different understandings of religious practice. also for every verse in the Qur'an and Bible about kiling infidels and sinners there are opposite verses about making peace with them and being loving. These terrorist often know their scriptures inside and out, therefore knowledgeable about such teachings.

with that said I do believe there is a level of brainwashing that happens because how else are you going to convince someone to strap c4 to their chest.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Why?

Well for one it works. They can accomplish their political agenda by using religion as an excuse.

Likewise, if the followers were stopped, the problem would end.

Followers are a dime a dozen. The leaders are the priority.

Nobody can make your choices for you.

They can by deceiving you from a very young age, and by keeping you in ignorance.

I disagree, but don't care enough to argue the specific example, so here's another: people who suffer abuse as children often grow up to be abusers themselves. Are they responsible for their actions, or not?

Likewise they probably know what they're doing is wrong, but the emotions from painful memories override their logic. On the other hand, the suicide bomber thinks his actions are moral and ordered by God.

 

[Storm]

Well for one it works. They can accomplish their political agenda by using religion as an excuse.

I think you misunderstood me, apologies for being unclear.

The question wasn't "why would the leaders lie," but "why do you assume the leaders are not themselves decieved?"

Followers are a dime a dozen. The leaders are the priority.

But without the followers to carry out their instructions, the leaders are impotent.

They can by deceiving you from a very young age, and by keeping you in ignorance.

Which brings us back to the problem of absolving people of responsibility for their actions.

Likewise they probably know what they're doing is wrong, but the emotions from painful memories override their logic. On the other hand, the suicide bomber thinks his actions are moral and ordered by God.

You didn't answer the question: are the abusers responsible for their own actions, or not?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Quote:​

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...l-grovelling-nonexistence-14.html#post1549797​

""If they've been taught all their lives that killing infidels is good and that God rewards them for it," then they themselves are evil. They have been taught evil, and internalized it. It's like spiritual genetics - evil begets evil."

You can excuse and twist and evade all you want but the good Father is right on.
If you didn't BELIEVE in a god you wouldn't kill in its name.
Belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for religious terrorism.

No belief in a god - no terror in its name. You can't get around that. ​

Look at your first sentence. You are admitting they have been taught that GOD rewards them. They may indeed become or believe in and/or act out Evil. But BEFORE any of that happens they must first believe in a god.

Take out the BELIEF in god and they have no MOTIVE.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think you misunderstood me, apologies for being unclear.

The question wasn't "why would the leaders lie," but "why do you assume the leaders are not themselves decieved?"

Some of them probably are, but for the leaders who don't believe, I think it's just too easy to pass up, so there must be some who use it as deception.

But without the followers to carry out their instructions, the leaders are impotent.

Right but it's much easier to stop one leader than to round up all the followers.

You didn't answer the question: are the abusers responsible for their own actions, or not?

They are, because they know what they're doing is wrong.

 

[Andal]

no belief in god may = no terror in his name, that's logical enough. you don't need god though to have terrorism. there's plenty of racism, violence, hate, etc to go around.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

As for responsibility I DON'T absolve them. I understand (somewhat) why they do what they do. I do not excuse it. And we can hang all by the gonads on the Capital Mall.

However, that line of argument is different from saying that the belief in a god is a necessary condition for religious terrorism. It just IS.

 

[CarlinKnew]

no belief in god may = no terror in his name, that's logical enough. you don't need god though to have terrorism. there's plenty of racism, violence, hate, etc to go around.

I may have posted this already, but Steven Weinberg put it perfectly: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

 

[Tristesse]

Doesn't matter what they say. it only matters what God says. Perhaps you need to find a better cache of Christians with which to associate... Xy is not about condemnation. It's about salvation.

Well, in fact it does matter what they say, because I don't believe there is a god to confront. So they're ideology of belief or torment, is the only one that matters, because I don't think we'll find out in the end, I think the end is the end, so, they're belief is the only one that matters.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

no belief in god may = no terror in his name, that's logical enough. you don't need god though to have terrorism. there's plenty of racism, violence, hate, etc to go around.

Absolutely. No argument. :yes:

We are still primitive violent territorial creatures. Only recently emerged from a daily life and death struggle. We can find ALL kinds of excuses to abuse each other. Religion being only one.

But it IS one. And for religious terror it is necessary.

 

[Breathe]

I may have posted this already, but Steven Weinberg put it perfectly: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

I think that's far too narrow an interpretation.

Religion can make the selfish people willing to share (often still for selfish reasons), or to make people fight. Only when religion becomes incredibly exclusive and "us vs them!", and "they're evil because they believe Y, not X" is it a problem.

We'd still have politics to hate one another, as well as nations, as well as the colour of your skin, your income level, what football/soccer team you support, etc.

ANYTHING can make people fight. Some old friends turned to a punch-up over a disagreement over a video game...

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think that's far too narrow an interpretation.

Religion can make the selfish people willing to share (often still for selfish reasons), or to make people fight. Only when religion becomes incredibly exclusive and "us vs them!", and "they're evil because they believe Y, not X" is it a problem.

Certainly religion may inspire some to do good too.

We'd still have politics to hate one another, as well as nations, as well as the colour of your skin, your income level, what football/soccer team you support, etc.

ANYTHING can make people fight. Some old friends turned to a punch-up over a disagreement over a video game...

I'm not denying any of that. But few causes other than religion would inspire someone to strap a bomb to their chest.

 

[Breathe]

Certainly religion may inspire some to do good too.

I'm not denying any of that. But few causes other than religion would inspire someone to strap a bomb to their chest.

I agree. I personally think people shouldn't take their religion quite so umm... what's the word... seriously? Aggressively? You know what I mean... I think, I hope.

However, there have been people willing to strap bombs on themselves for other things. It's not exclusively religion, it's ideologies as a whole. I believe suicide bombings have happened within the Soviet Union, if I'm not mistaken.

There were suicide bombings in Israel at the Lod Airport in 1972, by Japanese communists. I know, it's not technically strapping a bomb to one's chest, but it just goes to show... ideologies as a whole should be considered evil, if because a few nutcases decide to blow themselves up.

At least religions have the Golden Rule. Sadly not everything does. I, myself, love this rule.

 

[McBell]

Right but it's much easier to stop one leader than to round up all the followers.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
​

Interestingly enough all one needs do to see the error in your logic is to look at the actualities surrounding it.
Yes, what you say sounds good on paper.
However the drug problem in the USA is clear evidence that in practice it fails miserably.
Much like the Abstinence Only idea looks good on paper but fails miserably in practice.

 

[Enoch07]

Evil men use religion to convince innocent men to do evil deeds. Does it make sense now?

Because I am trying to get you to understand what you just posted here. It is Evil men who abuse religion to get what they want. Yet you still want to blame the religion itself. Instead of blaming the actual men who are abusing it.